Posted on 10/29/2005 7:25:40 AM PDT by vrwc0915
It appears there is hard evidence to prove that employers are using the H-1B visa program to hire cheap labor; that is, to pay lower wages than the national average for programming jobs.
According to “The Bottom of the Pay Scale: Wages for H-1B Computer Programmers — F.Y. 2004,” a report by Programmers Guild board member John Miano, non-U.S. citizens working in the United States on an H-1B visa are paid “significantly less than their American counterparts.” How much less? “On average, applications for H-1B workers in computer occupations were for wages $13,000 less than Americans in the same occupation and state.”
Miano based his report on OES (Occupational Employment Statistics) data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics which estimates wages for the entire country by state and metropolitan area. The report’s H-1B wage data came from the U.S. Department of Labor’s H-1B disclosure Web site.
Miano went out of his way to be balanced, and whenever possible he gave the benefit of the doubt to the employer. For example, he used OES data from 2003 because this is the wage information that would have been available to the employers when filing an LCA (labor condition application).
Miano had some difficulty matching OES job codes with LCA job titles, which employers typically create. Where both the OES and the LCA listed a job as “programmer/analyst,” Miano took the conservative approach of assuming that the LCA was describing a programmer, a job title that typically earns a lower wage than a systems analyst.
Nonetheless, Miano’s report shows that wages paid to H-1B workers in computer programming occupations had a mean salary of $52,312, while the OES mean was $67,700; a difference of $15,388. The report also lists the OES median salary as $65,003, or $12,691 higher than the H-1B median.
When you look at computer job titles by state, California has one of the biggest differentials between OES salaries and H-1B salaries. The average salary for a programmer in California is $73,960, according to the OES. The average salary paid to an H-1B visa worker for the same job is $53,387; a difference of $20,573.
Here are some other interesting national wage comparisons: The mean salary of an H-1B computer scientist is $78,169, versus $90,146 according to the OES. For an H-1B network analyst, the mean salary is $55,358, versus the OES mean salary of $64,799. And for the title “system administrator,” there was a $17,478 difference in salary between the H-1B mean and the OES mean.
H-1B visa workers were also concentrated at the bottom end of the wage scale, with the majority of H-1B visa workers in the 10-24 percentile range. “That means the largest concentration of H-1B workers make less than [the] highest 75 percent of the U.S. wage earners,” the report notes.
While it would be difficult to prove that any one particular employer is hiring foreign workers to pay less, the statistics show us that, for whatever reason, this is exactly what is happening on a nationwide basis. Miano says lobbyists will admit that a small number of companies are abusing the H-1B program, but what he has found in this research is that almost everyone is abusing it.
“Abuse is by far more common than legitimate use,” he says.
No, they are not: they are free to leave but not get jobs oversees. Americans need permits to work in the EU.
Moreover, it's not the mobility of Americans we were discussing, were we? A foreigner (non-citizen) is NOT free to come to this country (even as a tourist in the case of many countries) and work here. The lack of American citizenship is a barrier to his/her entry into our labor force.
So I think your original comment is correct.
Perhaps that is the way it is supposed to work - but in reality that is not how it is being used. If you look at the h-1b database you will find that many companies hire thousands of H-1B workers and often times they layoff the American worker. Many cities and towns have been inundated with foreign workers and our population has grown beyond the infrastructure capacity of most towns. I think your view on what the H-1B program is and how it is being used is not reflective of what is really going on. My point is that our government has no business changing the immigration policies of this country for the benefit of a corporation especially when the laws surrounding it are not enforced or even modestly monitored.
I look at our government as a body that represents the citizens of this country. So because we are talking about a governments program (the H-1B program) I think it is rational to discuss it in terms of the citizens of this country. The lack of American citizenship as it relates to the issue of labor shortages is not a barrier that is of any concern to the American citizen. So why is it that our government should be making laws that have no benefit for the citizens for whom they represent. Since when is our government supposed to be addressing the issues of foreigners?
The "market participants" ie the hiring managers were willing to pay 150k. Either they had a ligitimate use for the skill hired and were willing to pay the current market rate OR they had no idea what the market rate was.
Frankly we should all be proud of any kid, with nothing more than a high school diploma, that can negotiate such a salary. If the hiring manager was snowballed by such an individual then he would in fact be a dipshit.
No. It's the undeniable reasonable interpretation of your previous policy positions. You only belatedly shifted gears when you realized that your position was untenable. You feel badly about importing Chinese "brainpower". You should. They are invariably totally unregenerate foaming-at-the-mouth communist propaganda stooges...evidently fresh out of the PLA: Here's an example of one at the University of Minnesota...How Communist China Entered the Korean War.
Furthermore, there is a growing bipartisan consensus that the industrial economic boosting of China is in fact dangerous to our national security. The connection is undeniable. Note the 2005 Annual Report of the U.S.China Economic and Security Review Commission released yesterday. Here is Roger Robinson's overview in their press release:
Statement of Vice Chairman Roger W. Robinson, Jr.
Release of 2005 Annual Report to Congress of the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
Press Conference to Announce USCC 2005 Annual Report
November 9, 2005
Good morning,
***
There is another barrier that is apparently pretty porous. Intellectual property enforcement. How many TRILLIONS of dollars have been lost to the Western economies (particularly the U.S., the primary target of Chinese exports) by the intellectual property scoff-laws of the Communist and Asian countries? It is literally incalculable. One thing is for sure...if the Chinese were paying the patent and copyright royalties they truly owed, there would be a hell of a dent made in the annual trade deficit. And how many times have we been told by the apologists for China that they were adopting the Western protections? That they would become real members of the WTO, and not an over-sized parasitical leech?
Testimony, Jason Berman, RIAA/IFPI, U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission
February 4, 2005
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss the long-standing issue of how to assess China's intellectual property regime and, most importantly, its current enforcement policy, and to explore possible strategies for positively impacting both China's WTO compliance and its bilateral obligations with the United States.
If I had to characterize the last decade in terms of these issues, the first point I would make is that while there has been significant progress in dealing with the production for export, that local enforcement issues have remained relatively constant. There has been some progress, most notably improvement in the legal structure itself, but this has done little to expand the commercial opportunities for US record companies in China . Enforcement remains a serious problem and, as a result, China continues to be a marketplace dominated by pirated recordings despite a sporadic increase in the number of raids undertaken and the hundreds of millions of discs seized. Secondly, there continues to be a number of market access barriers that prevent timely entry for many U.S. and other foreign recordings-again, despite an increase in the number of titles that are officially sanctioned for release.
I will return to my conclusions in greater detail but I want to address directly the questions raised by the Commission's letter of invitation.
What is the overall assessment of compliance with WTO's IPR rules? What, if any, changes have occurred over the past year and what are the prospects for the future?
There has been some improvement, particularly with long-awaited issuance of the new Judicial Interpretations governing criminal actions, but a definite verdict over whether this will have meaningful results will have to await actual implementation-the real litmus test is effective enforcement and it is one China has historically failed to meet.
As you know, the TRIPS Agreement is basically divided into two parts: the substantive standards (e.g. what rules must be in a copyright law) and effective enforcement. For the most part, China is now in compliance with the standards test. However, it is not in compliance on a number of counts in regard to effective enforcement.
For example, the enforcement section of TRIPS sets out a general set of obligations, beginning with the following from Article 41: "members shall ensure that enforcement prodecures…are available under their law so as to permit effective actions against any infringement" covered by this Agreement, including expeditious remedies which constitute a deterrent to further infringements." China's failure, in terms of effective enforcement, centers on its historic and continued reluctance to apply the necessary measures to deter piracy. Simply put, episodic raids and seizures, no matter how successful, will not result in any notable declines in pirate production. Pirates, without facing serious penalties, will simply view raids and seizures as a cost of doing business-and piracy is a very profitable business.
Another and related example, is China's failure to comply with Article 61, which specifically requires criminal penalties "in cases of willful trademark, counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale." As I noted earlier, China has enacted the necessary laws-the appropriate remedies are on the books. Yet, with very, very rare exceptions, there have been extremely few prosecutions and convictions for copyright piracy. China has persisted in defining "commercial scale" in such a way as to make it highly unlikely any pirate with common sense will be caught in its net as a punishable criminal offense. Even with the recent Judicial Interpretations, the thresholds for a criminal prosecution are likely to continue to prove difficult to meet. Thresholds may be an appropriate test in determining the level of punishment, but they are inappropriate test in determining whether a criminal offense has been committed.
Moreover, China requires that its criminal code remedies are only available in those instances where the pirate is making a profit. Ironic, isn't it, that the concern is the pirate's profitability and not the fate of the legitimate business. In addition, the profit test is actually more difficult to meet than the commercial scale requirement. For example, someone intentionally posting online a single copy of a copyrighted recording, without authorization, will cause serious economic harm on a commercial scale if that recording is downloaded over and over again. It would not, however, meet the for profit test.
At the April, 2004, meeting of the U.S. -China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), made several commitments to improve IPR enforcement. What are the concrete results to date?
First and foremost, China committed to significantly reduce the level of piracy. Again, the commitment was to significantly reduce piracy. To date, that has not happened.
While there has been some reduction in the overall level of piracy, it is far from a significant reduction. The legitimate market, while it has improved in the last year, is still under siege. Piracy is down from an astounding 90% to about 85%--progress, yes, but a significant reduction, no.
One important aspect of this is that China committed to revise the judicial interpretation governing application of its criminal code so that criminal prosecutions would occur for copyright piracy. It is true that this promise, at least in theory, has been fulfilled. Whether the thresholds are sufficiently low to prove effective and how they will be implemented in criminal prosecutions is still an open question.
Other JCCT commitments included:
To increase penalties for IPR violations by taking the following actions by the end of the year:
increase the scope of IPR violations subject to criminal investigation and criminal penalties;
apply criminal sanctions to the import, export, storage and distribution of pirate product;
apply criminal sanctions to online piracy;
Some of these were addressed by the recently published "Judicial Interpretations." The Interpretations have a number of useful elements and if China has the political will to apply them conscientiously and strictly, then China might be able to meet these commitments. Given China's history, a healthy dose of skepticism is merited until things actually change. While it is very likely that Vice Premier Wu Yi, who is responsible for IPR and led the Chinese JCCT delegation, is serious about bringing about a reduction in piracy, the police still seem to regard IPR violations as not really a criminal activity that merits their attention in a serious way.
Conduct a major crackdown on pirates to demonstrate China's intentions by mounting a nationwide enforcement campaign to stop the production of pirate Product and punish violators.
It is clear that a one year campaign was launched last September and that this effort has resulted in noticeable increases in the number of raids and product seizures. However, the usual remedies are being applied-product is seized and modest administrative fines are levied. This is not effective enforcement and it will not result in a significant reduction in piracy.
Improve the protection of electronic date by ratifying the WIPO Internet Treaties as quickly as possible. To date, while there have been some promising public announcements about China's intention to ratify the Treaties, there has been no demonstrable progress on this, and this legal issue must be viewed against a background that has witnessed a proliferation of sites offering unauthorized recordings.
Increase customs enforcement actions against imports and exports of pirate products and provide easier remedies for rights holders to secure effective enforcement at the border. Again, there is no indication that is underway.
What should the U.S. be doing to ensure compliance? Has technical assistance been provided? Is there a particular problem area that could be the subject of a WTO dispute case?
Who should the U.S. be cooperating with in terms of trading partners?To ensure compliance the U.S. Government is conducting a Special 301 "out-of-cycle review" at this time. The results of this review are expected in mid March. Options available to the U.S. include initiating a WTO dispute case; placing China on one of the Special 301 lists (priority foreign country, priority watch list, watch list); impose some form of trade sanction that is consistent with our WTO obligations. These options are not mutually exclusive.
The U.S. and its IPR industries have been providing a considerable amount of technical assistance. The international recording industry, for example, has been conducting extensive training of Chinese judges. The U.S. Government has also been training police, prosecutors, and judges and this is likely to increase in 2005. On a related point, our own ability as an industry to assist in the process of fighting piracy is severely restricted in most provinces in China-in contrast to other countries where our investigative resources are welcomed. It is only very recently, for example, that in some jurisdictions the local enforcement authorities have permitted IFPI anti-piracy personnel to accompany them on raids.
In regard to a possible WTO dispute case, I would refer back to the issue of deterrent penalties-a WTO requirement. Currently, China does not provide deterrent penalties, not because it requires legislative changes to its legal system but because it seems to lack the political will to do so.
We should be reaching out to the European Commission and to Japan, where there seems to have been has recently a renewed interest in fighting piracy. In truth, the U.S. has attempted to involve both in its efforts to seek improvements in China's IPR regime-mostly to no avail when it has become clear that some form of pressure is what it takes to prompt China to respond affirmatively. However, I would not abandon the effort, particularly in regard to any potential WTO actions. Both the EU and Japan were invited to and participated in this year's Roundtable in Beijing. It is interesting to note that the EU representative pointed out that 67% of the counterfeit good stopped at the borders were from China.
In December, at the EU-China Summit, a Customs Cooperation agreement was signed and it also appears as if copyright enforcement was raised by the EU as an issue to be addressed. In January of this year, the EU and Japan held a joint meeting on The Information Society and, again, IPR and its enforcement was a major issue in regard to China.
Market Access Restrictions
Before I close, there is a very important related topic that I would like to address. This is China's refusal to permit U.S. record companies to participate fully in the Chinese economy. This is what we call denial of "market access."
U.S. record companies' possess great expertise the world over in developing and recording new artists, and distributing, promoting, and advertising their recordings so that the public is aware of them. U.S. record companies must be permitted to undertake the full range of the services they are skilled at providing. Today China severely limits the ability of American record companies to engage in developing, recording and distributing the music of Chinese performers, and in fully participating in developing the Chinese marketplace..
This is done in a number of ways:
Censorship:
(1) Chinese government censors are required to review the content of foreign-produced sound recordings before their release, but domestically-produced Chinese sound recordings are NOT censored. Of course, pirated product is not censored either. China should terminate this discriminatory process between imported and domestically-produced product.
(2) Censorship offices are understaffed, causing long delays in approving new recordings. In recent months, we have seen some improvement and a new recording takes an average of two weeks to be approved which still gives the pirates a crucial headstart. The best result would be for censorship to be industry-administered, as in other countries. If this is not possible, steps must be taken to expedite the process so that legitimate music can be promptly marketed, preventing pirates from getting there first.
Producing and publishing sound recordings in China:
U.S. record companies are skilled at and desirous of developing, creating, producing, distributing and promoting sound recordings by Chinese artists, for the Chinese market and for export from China. However, onerous Chinese restrictions prevent this from occurring. For example, for a sound recording to be brought to market, it must be released through an approved "publishing" company. Currently only state-owned firms are approved to publish sound recordings. China should end this discrimination and approve foreign-owned record publishing companies.
Further, production companies (even wholly-owned Chinese ones) may not engage in replicating, distributing or retailing sound recordings. This needlessly cripples the process of producing and marketing legitimate product in an integrated manner. China should permit the integrated publishing, production and marketing of sound recordings and allow such companies to have foreign investors.
U.S. record companies may market non-Chinese sound recordings only by (1) licensing a Chinese company to produce the recordings in China or (2) importing finished sound recording carriers (CDs) through the China National Publications Import and Export Control (CNPIEC). China should permit U.S. companies to produce, publish and market their own recordings in China and to import directly finished products.
Distributing sound recordings:
Foreign sound recording companies may own no more than 49% of a joint venture with a Chinese company. However, the recently concluded "Closer Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) between China and Hong Kong permits Hong Kong companies to own up to 70% of joint ventures with Chinese companies engaged in distributing audiovisual products. China should grant at least MFN status to U.S. record producers per the terms of the CEPA.
You got a link for that report? I want to post it in a few places where key decisionmakers will see it.
Thanks!
Let's just refute a small point from your gold bug source.
BUT, you also know that as of year end 2004, the actual homeownership rate in the US stood at a record 69.2%. In other words, just less than 31% of the US population was actually renting as opposed to owning residential property. So, when the CPI calculation is being made, 23.4% of the entire CPI number is picking up the "housing cost inflation" experience of only 31% of the total US population. The housing cost inflation experience of the other 69% is largely being ignored. C'mon, does this make sense?
The BLS definition: The Consumer Price Index (CPI) is a measure of the average change over time in the prices paid by urban consumers for a market basket of consumer goods and services.
How is the CPI market basket determined?
The CPI market basket is developed from detailed expenditure information provided by families and individuals on what they actually bought.
So, seeing as 69.2% is the American homeownership rate, 69.2% of American household are not directly impacted by a rise in the value of their home. The value could double overnight but mortgage payments would not change. Because this 69.2% of the population has already bought an increase in price does not impact them. Only new, first time buyers or buyers of new construction are impacted by these price increases.
So, what % of the population buys a house for the first time each year? 0.5%? 1.0%? So, does it make more sense to calculate CPI based on the 31% of the population who rents or on the 1.0% (maybe) who buys for the first time?
Thanks for the ping!
My stance has not changed since I last posted that which is linked to above. I still think that you are imbalanced - and not just philosophically. If this bothers you then perhaps you can go whine to the moderator again.
Whine yourself. You can't stand debate. Pickled in your own bile.
Same argument can be made for food, Todd. You bought food last month, hence you don't need anymore the rest of the year....right?
Not even close. How many houses did you buy this year? How many trips to the grocery store did you make?
Coming right up.
The Executive Summary is at this link.
The general web site is at www.uscc.gov
Your frequency rate is not going to impact the argument. Everyone within a market, active, or inactive, is conscious of price pressures.
It's not frequency but % of needs purchased. If you bought 100% of your housing (or food) needs 10 years ago, increased prices in the last 10 years won't impact you. Are you saying you buy groceries at the same frequency as you buy houses?
Everyone within a market, active, or inactive, is conscious of price pressures.
Please explain how this impacts CPI. Less than 3000 words if you can. Thanks.
Numerous ways it affects inflation (which is no longer measured by the CPI anyways) and is manifested. From hoarding "investing" to "bubble" psychology.
Any rate, getting back to your argument on frequency or as you try to frame it, %, you make a hypothetical claim of what, 1% transition among "first time" home buyers...as if they are the only ones? You have to square your number then with even the lame CPI assumption which does seem to weight the housing sector vastly higher as a component of the cost of living.
You're confused again. You said:
"Everyone within a market, active, or inactive, is conscious of price pressures"
How is an "inactive" market participant hurt by a rise in the price of the good he is "inactive" in?
Any rate, getting back to your argument on frequency or as you try to frame it, %, you make a hypothetical claim of what, 1% transition among "first time" home buyers...as if they are the only ones?
Please explain how non first-time/ new construction buyers are impacted by higher housing prices. Explain how my argument is less accurate than your data dump.
You have to square your number then with even the lame CPI assumption which does seem to weight the housing sector vastly higher as a component of the cost of living.
Vastly higher than what?
The lack of American citizenship as it relates to the issue of labor shortages is not a barrier that is of any concern to the American citizen. So why is it that our government should be... Regarding: making laws that have no benefit for the citizens for whom they represent. Since when is our government supposed to be addressing the issues of foreigners?
As I mentioned earlier, benefits from employing the best talent are accruing to the citizens of THIS country. The best foreign-born minds that serve on faculties of OUR universities educates and mentor thousand of OUR youth --- each of them, that is. The atomic bomb that allowed us to save hundreds of thousands of American lives and subsequently defended us against Russia was built almost entirely by foreigners. It was also a foreigner, Albert Einstein, that convinces the president to build it. I can give a myriad of examples.
The problem is, you know those examples, too, but chose to disregard them entirely in your evaluation of the program. In any of your posts or thoughts, have you ever even acknowledged the all this talent you see in the classrooms, on TV, on the R&D departments of corporations, musicians, all those Canadian comedians and actors --- all these people that bring us countless benefits work here because they receive a permit (a visa, H1-B or another) to do so?
Since the presence of such benefits is incontrovertible and you not only do not give them proper weight but discard them entirely, your evaluation of the H1-B program is faulty. And you are not alone: I have never seen a discussion on FR that would not concentrate entirely on the negatives and abuses. Upon comparison of benefits and costs one can come up with an opinion, but to omit benefits entirely is simply wrong. That's all I tried to point out originally. Questions what should cannot be answered before one learns what is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.