Posted on 11/01/2002 8:18:12 PM PST by FormerLurker
It is a well known fact that there are scores of computer professionals who have been laid off and are out of work in this country. Those positions include software engineers, network engineers, and electrical engineers. Those who have lost their jobs in the past 24 months know what I am talking about.
We all know WHY we've been laid off. It is because indentured servants from other lands have overrun our country with the help of Congress due to the false premise of a labor shortage by IT industry lobbyists.
Here we have an opportunity to "layoff" those who were responsible for OUR layoffs.
Below is a link that provides information as to what your Senator and Congressman have voted for in relation to this problem;
Additionally, if you'd like to know which companies in your area hire H1B workers to replace Americans, click on the following link..
why pay $8000 more for an american citizen if an immigrant can do it almost as well?
Yes, I have provided valid motives. You appear to want more. Ok, let's talk about the following Indian company.
9 Indian (Immigrant) Women File $100 million suit against sex trade (Oakland, CA)
You see, Press Trust of India was bringing in young women (girls actually) to use as sex slaves. Obviously there is no H1-B category for a sex slave. SO, they had to get their visas from SOMEWHERE. If you look, Press Trust of India doesn't have ANY applications in the LCA database. Gee, I wonder where they might have found a few extra visas hanging around?
Perhaps it is the "duplicate" visas that we've seen in the LCA database. The ones where a company who says they have 300 engineers yet files applications for over 3000. Companies such as ABCOM that apparently dabbles in all sorts of things, and has MANY applications for all over the country yet many of those applications appear to be "duplicates".
I wonder how much a H1-B "programmer/analyst" visa would be worth? How wonder if any of these young women were classified as "programmer/analyst" when they entered this country. Sort of gives the term, "Americans get screwed by H1B programmers", a whole new meaning...
I don't know about "Okham's" Razor, but I DO know a bit about Occam's Razor
And according to THAT razor, you look at the simplest and most straightforward explanation as the most likely answer. The simplest answer is that the data is valid and that it reflects the LCA applications correctly.
It is you that is stretching to find "answers" as to why the data shows what it does...
Only in your mind, as you have to counter with REALLY wild excuses as to why the data doesn't look the way you want it to..
First it was "user error" (always a developer favorite) and I wasn't using it right.
You should go back and read what you wrote. You said that there's a problem because the database contains companies that no longer exist. Well gee, what are they supposed to do, erase DOL historical data simply because it's old? That data is valid, and you need to be intelligent enough to know what to do with it. If you want to see how many visa applications were filed in 2001, that's what you look for. If you want to see ALL of the applications ever filed, you leave the date field blank. And of course you'll see some companies that no longer exist for that type of search.
So I looked at it for you and you focused on one company with the explanation "they're invading".
Excuse me? Where have I ever said that? Don't put words in my mouth discostu. It's sort of dishonest actually.
After it's shown that DCM clearly wasn't invading you settled into "it's fraud".
Again, I've never said anywhere that DCM was "invading". You don't present your case too well here, and are reaching for straws. I DID say that there's a possibility that the DOL data might be flawed, but I ALSO said that the data might be valid. And I DID say that the GAO had uncovered massive fraud in relation to immigration issues, so FRAUD is a VERY real possibility.
After finally being reminded it's a multicompany issue enough times you couldn't ignore it you went to "it's massive fraud".
I believe the word in the GAO report was rampant. In case you need to be reminded of the content of that report, I'll post a bit of it here...
From Immigration fraud 'out of control'
The General Accounting Office has concluded that immigration fraud is rampant, even helping to open the door for terrorism, and that the Immigration and Naturalization Service has no idea how to get it under control.
In a report released Feb. 15, GAO concluded that immigration benefit fraud is "pervasive and significant and will increase as smugglers and other criminal enterprises use fraud as another means of bringing illegal aliens, including criminal aliens, into the country."
So there we have it. It happens, and Occam's Razor SHARPLY points to that being the case.
Finally forced to come up with a reason for the fraud you punt with "it's terrorism".
Did you forget already that you asked why they might possibly want more visas then they have jobs? I stated that these extra visas could be utilized to allow illegal immigratnts into this country. Those visas can be bought and sold, and thus anyone who wants one and has the money can get one, including terrorists.
Additionally, if you had bothered yourself with reading the GAO report, it is THEY who mention that troubling fact.
Having been laughed at you've now gone to "it's sex slave trade".
Oh, so I suppose those young girls applied for visas as sex slaves? Boy you are dense.
And yet you insist that my explanation that "it's a crappy government database run by a crappy government agency well documented to be run by morons" is "stretching".
Have you found ANY of your now infamous "duplicate" records in relation to ANY NON-FOREIGN company? Not even one? Gee, I wonder why that is.
You aren't only stretching, your dancing, skipping on one foot, and juggling eggs.
Riiiiiiiiggggghhhhht. You're the one now insisting that technology companies are importing hundreds of thousands of sex slaves under the cover of H1B programmer/ analysts and I'M stretching for an explanation.
I'm saying that unscrupulous foreign companies have been set up here not SOLELY to provide "consulting" services, but to obtain work visas that can later be sold for profit. Those visas can then be utilized for all sorts of nefarious activities including prostitution. Of course, "extra" visa could easily be used for ANY type of illegal immigrant. And of course terrorists would love to have a visa as a "programmer analyst" in order to appear legit. It's definitely not a stretch, in fact, it is a VERY real possibility.
So have you had your shame gland surgically removed or did it just atrophe and fall out naturally?
Are you always so blind, or is it that you see and just can't understand what you saw? Is it that you have a stake in this? Or is it that you simply can't admit to yourself that denial isn't just a river in Egypt?
Er, you might want to retract that statement..
ANGELICA'S RECORD DISTRIBUTOR
Here's a link to THEIR website, not the one that you posted..
For one, it isn't clear if this IS a US corporation. It is a distributor of Spanish CD's that has locations in Phoenix, AZ, Arlington, TX, and Denver, CO. There is NO English on their website at all except for the name of the company.
There isn't any company info, so it is not clear where the company is actually based or who their parent company might be if any. I wouldn't say that it is a sure bet that this is a US company OR corporation. It IS clear that they've filed applications for two programmer/analysts and for two workers with the classification of "Occupations In Systems Analysis And Programming". It is quite possible that those are legitimate positions, and it is possible that the reason there are 2 identical records for each position is that they simply filed a separate application for each worker. Then again, it is ALSO possible that they only had 2 positions open and that they obtained the other 2 in order to make a little extra cash by selling them on the black market.
The above company does NOT prove your case.
Next, we have APAR INFOTECH CORPORATION
You didn't look over the website you linked obviously. Take a look at the link below..
From the link above, we find that the company was founded and incorporated in Singapore fueled by a "recruiment effort" in India.
It later set up shop in the US and expanded globally. I wouldn't call this a US company. It might now be headquartered in the US, but it wasn't founded in the US and was set up so as to provide Indian workers to any country that wanted them. Gee, this is getting REALLY interesting.
Finally, we have ARCSIGHT INC
Sure enough, it IS a US corporation. And sure enough there ARE records with the same start date. HOWEVER, if you look at the applications they filed for the TEMPE office, they have one application for 1 SOFTWARE ENGINEER each on the same date and TWO applications for 5 SOFTWARE ENGINEERS with the same date as the other applications. It becomes readily apparent that if they filed even ONE application with only ONE worker and ONE application with FIVE workers all with the same start date, that it is IS common practice to file separate applications with the same start date for the same location, salary, and job title.
You've just proven that your "bad data" theory is a "bad" assumption.
One WOULD wonder why ARCSIGHT is hiring all of those H1-B workers in Sunnyvale and Tempe when there are so many engineers with those skills who can't find work. Are they saying that they couldn't find any software engineers with the necessary skills in Silicon Valley or Tempe, AZ? Right.
And as far as DCM goes, they DID lie and call their positions "programmer analyst" where the work they describe on their site relates to software engineering. They DID file applications for 30 "programmer analyst" not only for their Austin development center but for each and every one of their sales offices thought the US. And they DID file 104 LCA applications resulting in over 3000 H1-B visas where they claim a workforce of 300.
Nice to know that you had a good hearty chuckle before your pet theory was proven absolute garbage in my last post to you...
Well here we go:
FL 178 (response to 174) - I doubt you were setting the search criteria properly though, as NONE of the searches that I've performed had any of the characteristics you describe.
That's right, after you couldn't understand that historical data might contain records related to companies that no longer exist, I thought that you might be computer illiterate. I was busy elsewhere and didn't feel that I should have to hold your hand, so I told you to try something else at the time..
Clearly RIGHT THERE in 178 you're saying that the duplicates I found, which included the first mentioning of DCM were the result of user error.
You speak of "reading comprehension"? Go back and read the paragraph that you labeled as (FL 178). Show me WHERE I said the duplicates were the result of user error. I said that I hadn't noticed those problems myself with the searches I've performed, and that I doubted you had the search criteria set correctly. You DID have a problem understanding that you shouldn't look for old records if you don't want to see records of companies that are no longer in business. As I said, I didn't feel like bothering with it at the time. I DO have other things to do in case you thought I didn't.
As for the invasion well:
FL 183 - My God. For that company alone, there's 104 applications with 30 workers each,
OK maybe you didn't say invasion, but "My God" isn't a phrase most people around here use lightly, then you point out the shear number of their applicants.
You're joking right? So an expression of shock is now an announcement of an invasion? Your mind works in ways I simply don't understand apparently...
And yes, 3024 visas are a lot of visas. Every other company I've seen listed had scatterings of 1, 5, 10, and a couple with 20 or even 60, but I had NOT seen any that had 104 applications with 30 workers each.
An expression of shock or surprise doesn't equate to "we are being invaded".
Sounds like invasion talk to me.
You've probably watched too many X-Files episodes...
See FL you've got nothing, you're scrambling for a purchase trying to defend the integrity of the data on one hand yet attacking the ineptness of the agency that produced the data on the other.
Er, run that by me again? You're saying that I'm attacking the ineptness of the Department of Labor? Where'd I say that? I said that if there IS a problem with the data, it is the Department of Labor's problem, as it is THEIR data.
You can't have it both ways. If the DOL is so incompitent that there's rampant H1B fraud going undetected then there's the clear probability that the very data they have is FUBAR.
Well, who's saying that it's undetected. It's been said that the laws haven't been enforced, but I don't recall saying that these matters went undetected. I DO remember saying that the people who filed the applications never thought the data would see the light of day in that they didn't think it would be made PUBLIC, but I didn't say the discrepencies went undetected.
If the data is perfect then how is there so much H1B fraud?
Willful non-enforcement rings a bell. You DID read the GAO article right?
Of course ou've got more contradictions than that. You're reason for obsessing on this "issue" is that the H1Bs are taking away American jobs in droves, but now there's these massive amounts of suspicious data which you're saying are either terrorists or sex slaves.
Are you saying that those who flew those planes into the World Trade Center weren't here on a visa? Or that one of the "Beltway Snipers" wasn't on a visa? Or those here in Al'Queda cells aren't here on visas?
And finally, are you saying that those little girls forced to perform sexually for this sick freak from India and his sons, that THEY weren't here on a visa?
You obviously have some SERIOUS denial issues it appears..
Well exactly which American jobs are being stolen by terrorists and sex slaves?
So you've never heard of the sex trade? Boy, I could post some stuff if you'd like that'd raise a few hairs on the back of your neck. If you REALLY want to expand this topic, perhaps we SHOULD get into that facet...
If you're right on that allegation you're wrong about them doing major damage to our job market. Can't have it both ways. You've contradicted yourself, your explanations are killing each other, it's like a Democratic primary.
It's at a point where sure they can use H1-b workers as they please, whether it be in a legitimate position while replacing an American worker, or it be a position as a prostitute in some sleazy cat house in CA and elsewhere. It ALSO provides the opportunity for terrorists to enter this country unchallenged and unnoticed.
Nice to know that you had a good hearty chuckle before your pet theory was proven absolute garbage in my last post to you...
Well here we go:
FL 178 (response to 174) - I doubt you were setting the search criteria properly though, as NONE of the searches that I've performed had any of the characteristics you describe.
That's right, after you couldn't understand that historical data might contain records related to companies that no longer exist, I thought that you might be computer illiterate. I was busy elsewhere and didn't feel that I should have to hold your hand, so I told you to try something else at the time..
Clearly RIGHT THERE in 178 you're saying that the duplicates I found, which included the first mentioning of DCM were the result of user error.
You speak of "reading comprehension"? Go back and read the paragraph that you labeled as (FL 178). Show me WHERE I said the duplicates were the result of user error. I said that I hadn't noticed those problems myself with the searches I've performed, and that I doubted you had the search criteria set correctly. You DID have a problem understanding that you shouldn't look for old records if you don't want to see records of companies that are no longer in business. As I said, I didn't feel like bothering with it at the time. I DO have other things to do in case you thought I didn't.
As for the invasion well:
FL 183 - My God. For that company alone, there's 104 applications with 30 workers each,
OK maybe you didn't say invasion, but "My God" isn't a phrase most people around here use lightly, then you point out the shear number of their applicants.
You're joking right? So an expression of shock is now an announcement of an invasion? Your mind works in ways I simply don't understand apparently...
And yes, 3024 visas are a lot of visas. Every other company I've seen listed had scatterings of 1, 5, 10, and a couple with 20 or even 60, but I had NOT seen any that had 104 applications with 30 workers each.
An expression of shock or surprise doesn't equate to "we are being invaded".
Sounds like invasion talk to me.
You've probably watched too many X-Files episodes...
See FL you've got nothing, you're scrambling for a purchase trying to defend the integrity of the data on one hand yet attacking the ineptness of the agency that produced the data on the other.
Er, run that by me again? You're saying that I'm attacking the ineptness of the Department of Labor? Where'd I say that? I said that if there IS a problem with the data, it is the Department of Labor's problem, as it is THEIR data.
You can't have it both ways. If the DOL is so incompitent that there's rampant H1B fraud going undetected then there's the clear probability that the very data they have is FUBAR.
Well, who's saying that it's undetected. It's been said that the laws haven't been enforced, but I don't recall saying that these matters went undetected. I DO remember saying that the people who filed the applications never thought the data would see the light of day in that they didn't think it would be made PUBLIC, but I didn't say the discrepencies went undetected.
If the data is perfect then how is there so much H1B fraud?
Willful non-enforcement rings a bell. You DID read the GAO article right?
Of course ou've got more contradictions than that. You're reason for obsessing on this "issue" is that the H1Bs are taking away American jobs in droves, but now there's these massive amounts of suspicious data which you're saying are either terrorists or sex slaves.
Are you saying that those who flew those planes into the World Trade Center weren't here on a visa? Or that one of the "Beltway Snipers" wasn't on a visa? Or those here in Al'Queda cells aren't here on visas?
And finally, are you saying that those little girls forced to perform sexually for this sick freak from India and his sons, that THEY weren't here on a visa?
You obviously have some SERIOUS denial issues it appears..
Well exactly which American jobs are being stolen by terrorists and sex slaves?
So you've never heard of the sex trade? Boy, I could post some stuff if you'd like that'd raise a few hairs on the back of your neck. If you REALLY want to expand this topic, perhaps we SHOULD get into that facet...
If you're right on that allegation you're wrong about them doing major damage to our job market. Can't have it both ways. You've contradicted yourself, your explanations are killing each other, it's like a Democratic primary.
It's at a point where sure they can use H1-b workers as they please, whether it be in a legitimate position while replacing an American worker, or it be a position as a prostitute in some sleazy cat house in CA and elsewhere. It ALSO provides the opportunity for terrorists to enter this country unchallenged and unnoticed.
It's nice to see that you've realized the error of your ways and decided to quit defending the indefenseable. It is rather unfortunate however that you have to make a snide childish remark rather than acting like a real man and admitting you're wrong. This is too important a topic to allow someone like you to discredit the validity of the issues and the integrety of the data available to us. I wouldn't find it manly of me to walk away knowing that this issue is of vital importance to our Nation and our future.
You've got no points, never did, never will, you're contradicting yourself, you're quibling on the "difference" between programmer/analyst and software engineer, you're classifying H1B as a terrorist/ prostitution ring, you're off in some desperate never never land.
In case you're computer industry illiterate, let me fill you in on the difference here. A programmer/analyst works on business systems. He could very well work with web based development as many of them are commerce related. A programmer/analyst utilizes a high level language such as Visual Basic and hardly ever needs to worry about the internals of the operating system nor the intricacies of the network protocol stack nor of anything to do with hardware.
A software engineer on the other hand deals with those intricacies listed above, PLUS is responsible for the design, associated documentation, and the test plans for any software that he writes.
The work performed at DCM involves device drivers. A device driver is software that interacts with the hardware and the operating system. It runs in kernel mode which is a vastly different environment than what takes place at the upper levels of the operating system. A device driver configures and controls hardware devices in a computer and routes data and control events between different layers of the OS.
DCM also develops embedded systems. An embedded system is typically a system that is used in such applications that require real-time execution and utilizes a real time operating system such as VxWorks. Such systems are used in telecommunications for voice and data routing and switching.
So what is clear to me at least is that the positions at DCM are software engineering positions. And to misrepresent them as "programmer analyst" positions is dishonest in light of the fact that programmer analysts make less money than software engineers, so the employer is paying them below what they should normally get for those positions.
Give up.
You've got to be delusional, as there is no reason whatsoever for me to do so..
You say I said something I didn't say. Just because I didn't jump when you wanted me to doesn't mean anything other than I didn't feel like jumping. YOU are the one being dishonest here if you are TRULY trying to say otherwise. Did I say, gee, I think you are seeing duplicates because you're using the database incorrectly? I didn't say that, but I suppose you COULD take it that way if you're prone to jumping to conclusions, which you obviously are...
If you're just going to play DU games of creative editing and outright LIES go do that crap over there where it belongs.
Ah, now the true colors shine through. You're just another shill. Just like so many others before you, when all else fails and there is no defensible position, you resort to DU smears and insults. Surprisingly, you haven't started throwing out the anti-American liberal smears yet, is that coming up next? Perhaps a little sprinkling of "tinfoil" comments? It's a rather old trick, and there are MANY examples of it here on FR...
If there are any lies being thrown about here, they are coming from YOUR keyboard. Take your meds and have a nice day.
It doesn't make sense for these to be unique applications, they are 100% identical across the board. I think whatever method they're using to cull out this information is duplicating entries, there are too many of the 100% identical duplicates for any other explanation. If it was one or two companies I could write it off as bad paperwork habits, but every search I do in any city going for any time frame gives me at least 1 of these per page. That's gotta be a bad data procedure on their part. Also if you hilight text you'll find there are invisible characters all over the place, when you include that these become unique entires, I think they have something to do with why these dups are showing up. Now I'm a nice guy so I'll assume sloppy code not deliberate falsification of data, but either way the site isn't presenting an accurate picture.
Not ONCE in there do I mention dead companies. That's the post you were replying to when you said I wasn't using it right. Clearly you were saying the DUPLICATES, which was the ENTIRE subject of the post, were the result of user error. If you're such a bald faced LIAR that you'll now claim you were referring to an entirely different subject do us all a favor and get the hell off FR. We don't need LIARS around here, and until you can admit the TRUTH you are a LIAR across the boaard 100% nothing you say should EVER be believed by ANYONE.
Liar.
BUT, when you have the gall to launch absurd accusations and lies about me, then I have no choice but to respond accordingly. You childishly nitpick the VERY minor issue of whether or not I had told you at some point that you may not have been using the selection screen correctly, yet you ignore the EXTREMELY relavent fact that you WERE completely wrong about your ridiculous "bad data" theory. You resort to smears and name calling in an effort to discredit the facts concerning this issue. So if you want a complete rehash of what was said and who said what, so be it. Apparently, this is what you want. You may soon realize that it wasn't the best course of action for you to pursue. I'll address this issue post by post, and comment on each matter at hand.
To begin, let me just say your analytical skills are non-existant, and you jump to conclusions that fit your pet theory for little or no reason. You see something that you don't understand, and you instantly conclude that the database has invalid data.
You initially complained about the fact that there were companies that no longer existed in the database. Well, those companies DID in fact exist when they filed their H1-B visa applications. Let me refresh your memory on that exchange.
From post #166
To: FormerLurker
Hey that's real cool how this thing doesn't weed out for companies that don't exist anymore, sure helps make the problem look huge. Also interesting how it includes every single application by a company, even the renewals, to fluff the numbers.
I like the one you posted a couple of weeks ago that gave state by state numbers. Much more useful.
166 posted on 11/04/2002 2:03 PM PST by discostu
Looking back at this post, it becomes plainly obvious that you have no concept of what a database is. You think that simply because a database contains historical data, that there must be some sort of conspiracy to "fluff" the numbers. Databases are SUPPOSED to contain historical data, and if you can't understand that, you have no business arguing with me about anything. By definition, data that is stored in a database is historical. By applying selection criteria against that data when performing queries, only that data that fits the criteria is returned. Of course you need to filter out that which you aren't interested in, and if you don't you obviously aren't going to see a valid dataset. For instance, if you wanted to count the number of people that lived on a certain street, you would perform a query for all people on that street and sum the result. If you didn't filter out those who DIDN'T live on that street, you'd get an invalid result.
So, you apparently couldn't understand the concept that when you looked for records without specifying a date, the query would return records for ALL dates. And since the data contains records from prior years, there are of course records relating to companies that are no longer in business.
Thus, I posted a response to your post 166.
From post #168
To: discostu
Hey that's real cool how this thing doesn't weed out for companies that don't exist anymore, sure helps make the problem look huge.
I didn't see any companies that didn't exist when I used it for my area. I searched on applications for 2001, and the max limit of 500 applications was returned. A significant number of those applications had anywhere from 5 to 20 workers on them..
168 posted on 11/04/2002 2:10 PM PST by FormerLurker
Realistically, I should have told you that you didn't know what you were talking about and to simply go away, but I was trying to be civil.
Next, we have your post 169. There you continue with your concerns about "stale" records.
From post 169
To: FormerLurker
If you search on Tucson you'll find Integra Technologies International, which went bye-bye Thanksgiving week 1998 (well they laid off all but 2 employees, who were working paying support contracts, and they got sold with the contracts in early '99). Actually it got bought by Ikon Office Solutions in 1996 (but they never could decide what the name of the company was supposed to be after the buy), who did a great job of finishing running the company into the ground then put gave it the Ol' Yeller in '98. For the life of me I can't remember the name of the New York company Itegra merged with that's how we (that's where I started, but I saw the handwriting on the wall and was actually in the process of stealing employees when the axe fell) got the H1Bs in the first place. But I'm betting that company shows up on the list too.
169 posted on 11/04/2002 2:25 PM PST by discostu
So you "bet" that a particular company shows in up in a database that contains records of companies that submitted H1-B applications, as if there was something incredulous about that. The database is SUPPOSED to contain ALL records of H1-B applications submitted, not just those that relate to companies that are still in business. Again, you seem to be challenged with that concept.
I responded to you in post #170
To: discostu
As I said, you need to look at the application dates. You still see enourmous numbers for recent years.
170 posted on 11/04/2002 2:41 PM PST by FormerLurker
So here I told you that you should use the date criteria in your query. Of course, you should have already known that you should do a query by date if you only wanted to see the records that relate to recent applications, but obviously you didn't.
Then we have your response in post 171
To: FormerLurker
But the way they make the listing it makes things look worse. Over and over in there you'll see the same company with numerous identical listings, probably they're the same thing getting counted twice. As I said when looking at one of your own links ( http://www.nomoreh1b.com/h1-bCostPerState.aspx ) it clear this is only a problem is certain states, oddly enough all Democrat strongholds. And even in those states the depth of the problem is arguable because we have no corolative data between H1B's field of work and the unemployment numbers within those fields. There's a lot of assumptions built into saying H1Bs are responsible for the unemployment numbers, especially given the consentration of H1Bs in tech and the dot-com meltdown (which had its roots in bad business "plans").
171 posted on 11/04/2002 3:05 PM PST by discostu
You juggle the discussion between unemployment, the validity of the database, and your opinion of who caused the problem. You ramble about dot coms and business plans. It is here you begin to notice that which you later incorrectly refer to as "duplicate" records. We know now that those records are in fact valid, but at this point you raised the question. So we have the first mention of possible "identical" records at this point. You appear to lament that this database is supposed to relate H1-B visa applications with unemployment figures by state. The database is simply a collection of H1-B visa applications supplied by the Department of Labor and is not tied to any other database.
Next we have post 172...
To: discostu
But the way they make the listing it makes things look worse. Over and over in there you'll see the same company with numerous identical listings, probably they're the same thing getting counted twice.
Wrong. The multiple listings are separate H1-B applications which can contain multiple workers per application. Each unique listing is a unique applicaion. Nothing mysterious or magical about it.
172 posted on 11/04/2002 3:37 PM PST by FormerLurker
Here I correctly informed you that you were mistaken in your theory that there are records being "counted" twice. The records are not counted, they simply exist in the database. Each record represents a separate H1-B application, and those records were entered by the Department of Labor into their database.
Now here we have your infamous post 174.
To: FormerLurker
Are they? Seems odd to me that companies would have multiple identical H1B applications filed on the same day. See I go there and I see 4 listings for DCM ASIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED, all for programmer analysts all making $60,000/yr all starting on 2/15/01 all set to expire 2/14/04, all for 30 H1Bs; further down the page I see one for INFOSYS TECHNOLOGIES LTD for 100 employees so I know that 30s not the max for a single filing, don't know if you could file for 120 but I know you could file for 100 on one and 20 on another; further down still I see 3 listings for UBICS INC. all 100% identical again for 50 employees each.
It doesn't make sense for these to be unique applications, they are 100% identical across the board. I think whatever method they're using to cull out this information is duplicating entries, there are too many of the 100% identical duplicates for any other explanation. If it was one or two companies I could write it off as bad paperwork habits, but every search I do in any city going for any time frame gives me at least 1 of these per page. That's gotta be a bad data procedure on their part. Also if you hilight text you'll find there are invisible characters all over the place, when you include that these become unique entires, I think they have something to do with why these dups are showing up. Now I'm a nice guy so I'll assume sloppy code not deliberate falsification of data, but either way the site isn't presenting an accurate picture.
174 posted on 11/04/2002 5:09 PM PST by discostu
I was WAY more forgiving of your allegations back then than I should have been. You make SERIOUS allegations in relation to this body of data, and obviously did NOT read the FAQ or bother yourself with any meaningful thought in relation to what you were seeing. Let's pick this post apart item by item..
First of all, you again question the fact that there are mulitple records with seemingly identical data. It is now clear that it is standard practice to submit multiple applications with identical start dates and job title. It wasn't clear at the time, so we went on to discuss in later posts the reasons why we might be seeing this particular phenomenon.
HOWEVER, you shamelessly and recklessly raise allegations that this is "bad data", that there is "sloppy code", and that it might even be DELIBERATE FALSIFICATION OF DATA. From one who doesn't understand what a database is or how to use it effectively, I find that to be not only a wild and reckless statement, but patently dishonest.
If you don't know what WHY you're seeing something that doesn't make sense to you, it's ok to raise a question. But instead of asking WHY you were seeing what you were seeing, you come to the conclusion that "the site isn't presenting an accurate picture". Who are YOU to make that statement and arrive at that conclusion?
Let's look at exactly how you arrived at your "esteemed" conclusions;
If it was one or two companies I could write it off as bad paperwork habits, but every search I do in any city going for any time frame gives me at least 1 of these per page. That's gotta be a bad data procedure on their part.
That is highly questionable. Some might call it a lie, but I'll just say that it's questionable. I highly doubt that you did enough queries to get a meaningful sample in order to honestly make that statement. Of course we see seemingly identical records here and there, and we now know that it is common practice to submit applications in that manner. But there are MANY records that AREN'T identical for most any given company, and to state that every query returns at least one "duplicate" is a bit of a stretch. Maybe you just got lucky, who knows..
But to say that it HAS to be a "bad data procedure on their part" is more than just a bit of a stretch, it is a rash and faulty assumption. You might have said we need to determine WHY we are seeing what we are seeing, but you instantly come to the conclusion that there HAS to be a "bad data procedure on their part". You'd never make a good engineer, that's for sure. You'd be saying it HAS to be this, and it HAS to be that, when in fact it is something entirely different. You need to look at what it MIGHT be. If you said there is a POSSIBILITY that there is a problem with one of their "data procedures", then that would have been a valid and logical statement. You did not have anywhere near enough information at this point to state that it HAD to be anything.
Also if you hilight text you'll find there are invisible characters all over the place, when you include that these become unique entires, I think they have something to do with why these dups are showing up.
If you had bothered reading the LCA Database FAQs, you would have seen the following explanation..
Why is the Database so Difficult to Copy or Print?
It's no accident that the data is tough to copy or print because it's designed that way. Some limitations include disabled right clicks, disabled menu bar, insertion of random characters into the background, and colors to make it difficult to print large amounts of data. This won't be a barrier for people copying small amounts of data because these things can be cleaned with minimal effort. For most purposes people don't need more than a page or two of data to prove their point. People who want to copy large datasets should contact the webmaster to see how to pay for large reports.
In the future ZaZona.com would like to allow complete and unrestricted use of this data. For this to happen an organization that would be willing to help with the costs of running this database needs to come forth. Recently several labor friendly organizations that oppose H-1B have been contacted about sponsoring the database or even hosting it on their site but they have not yet agreed to help. Users will just have to live with the limitations that have been imposed until these technical and financial problems are solved.
So those "funny characters" have NOTHING to do with what you noticed as far as identical records, and have more to do with your lack of effort to read the FAQ.
Now I'm a nice guy so I'll assume sloppy code not deliberate falsification of data, but either way the site isn't presenting an accurate picture.
It's nice that you think so well of yourself, but I don't share your self image. You conclude that since you don't understand what you are seeing, it must be the fault of "sloppy code" if not the "deliberate falsification of data". You were so off base it is pathetic, you had nowhere enough information to make a qualified statement concerning the validity of the data, yet you declare that the website "isn't presenting an accurate picture". The picture that presents itself might not be something you'd like people to see, but it is there for all to see nonetheless. Your desperate attempts to discredit this information is beyond pathetic.
Now we have my response, post 178
To: discostu
The website is down right now, so I can't verify what you said. I doubt you were setting the search criteria properly though, as NONE of the searches that I've performed had any of the characteristics you describe. I'll check back later and see what I can find about the specific case you mention.
178 posted on 11/04/2002 5:49 PM PST by FormerLurker
So THERE YOU GO. The damn website was down, and YOU'RE making a big issue over the fact that I suggested you weren't setting the criteria correctly. This is what you call PROOF that I was "lying" to you, and that I am a LIAR for saying that I didn't tell you that it was a user error related problem. Hey shucks, if you want to say that at one point I suggested that it might be a user error problem, if that would REALLY trip your trigger, have at it. But to salivate and rant over the fact that I might have told you that your search criteria might be incorrect when the website was inaccessible and I had no way of verifying demonstrates some degree of insanity on your part. THAT IS the crux of your argument now that you have nothing left in your bag of tricks.
I even TOLD you I'd look into it when the site came back up. And I DID look into later, and we DID relentlessly discuss the issues and possibilities. In the end, you were WRONG, the data IS valid, and that IS the way it is. No matter how much you cry, pout, hold your breath and stomp your feet, the facts remain the same. And no matter HOW much you attempt to smear me and falsely accuse me, I'll come back and demonstrate that you are a very disturbed individual who shouldn't post on subjects that he has very little knowledge about.
Not it's MY turn to arrive at some conclusions here. I'd say that I have enough data to work from in order to correctly arrive at my conclusions. You HAVE to have some sort of stake in this issue. You HAVE to be one of the following;
You are a pathetic little man. Now go away and stay away...
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.