13
America's loss is world's gain?
A new research paper suggests immigrants are leaving the US to return to their home countries -- mainly because of the job market rather than restrictive immigration policies. The Kauffman Foundation funded the research, and you can download the report here. One of the researchers also has an article in today's Businessweek. He argues that "we may not need all these workers during the deepening recession. But we will need them to help us recover from it."
Vivek Wadhwa says the immigrants who've left are unlikely to return. They are finding decent opportunities in their home countries. They miss their family and friends. And the quality of life in places like India and China is improving.
Wadhwa trots out the usual argument that "skilled" immigrants started companies like Google and Yahoo and make up a significant chunk of the hi-tech labor force. He says we will need that know-how to rebuild the US economy. That may be true, but I wonder how many Americans are thinking that way, given the economic climate.
What do you think? Is it a good thing that fewer skilled immigrants are in the job market, or is losing them going to put us at a competitive disadvantage in the recovery?
Pages
America has issues with skilled workers? The country should be completely ashamed of herself! Here is an example, a couple of my colleagues and I got laid off mostly because of the economic situation. Now do not get me wrong, the whole world got a shocker but unlike America that decided to sit on her butt arms folded, Europe and Asia decided to move on and let new life begin. I have 3 job offers in Europe and none in the United States! Can you imagine where a skilled worker (I have a Master's Degree) would feel useful or useless? It is time to wake up and re-start our future! I am a true American but disappointed in the fact that her own citizens are discarded, thrown away because the country is going through a major political glitch! May GOD help this country because she is a light years away from recovery at this point!
I am an immigrant in the USA. And I plan to leave the country in less than 2 months. I do have a PhD degree and both me and my wife have good salaries in big US companies. But after 14 years here, I would like to try the old Europe for a change. Will come back only if they kick us out of there :-). But many of my countrymen indeed leave the US to go back.
1) If the person in question can not do the work, then they will not be hired. If two people are equally bright and capable, then the employer has fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders to go with the lower cost option - as far as cost can be calculated.
2) Few companies hire people (foreign or domestic) into jobs other than "entry level". By definition, if someone is new to a company they are just entering, and are "entry level".
2 - again) Show us your data. My data is that if the cost were so high, then companies would not do it because it would not make business sense.
<a href="http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/03/2219256">Slashdot</a> has good comments on this same topic.
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/03/03/2219256
I work in IT. I have been through 'right-sizing' efforts at two different fortune 50 companies every 6 months for the last 7 years. At first I was disgruntled and dismayed. I probably sounded like Daniel. Then, over time, I realized what is real: Outsourcing, off-shoring, and H1-B visas are good for the economy. When a consumer goes to the store to make a purchase they make that choice based on value and price. Brand loyalty is way down the line on the decision tree; maybe a tie breaker. If Brand A is cheaper than Brand B and the quality is similar (not even the same), then the cheaper brand is purchased.
Examine your own purchases and you will realize I am correct.
The cost of a product is the sum of all costs to make that product plus some profit. The largest cost for most products is the labor. To win the sale for each consumer, each manufacturer has to control costs. If one manufacturer has a soft heart and tries to keep overpriced employees when lower cost alternatives are available to do the *the same work* then the will lose in the market place. Their competitors will inevitably use the cheaper labor. Their board of directors and share holders will move their investments to the company with better cost controls. Over time, the "nice" company that keeps high priced labor will go out of business, and all of the employees are out of jobs.
Look at GM for an example of a company that can't control labor costs. Would you like to work for GM and be 'secure' in a nice union job that will not be outsourced? Or would you rather work for Toyota where there are few union jobs?
Also, per the article's intent, when American companies use immigrant workers they are typically taking the best and brightest from around the world and putting them to work at making American firms the most productive and innovative companies in the world. Do you get upset when the NBA or MLB takes superstar players from other countries? I hope not. If an American point guard was really the best choice, or if an American pitcher had the fastball/change-up to compete and win, then those American players would be on the field. Sports teams play to win, and they take the best talent they can get - regardless of country of origin. So do ALL American companies. Get used to it. Suck it up. Go, compete, and win.
... and if the first thought out of your head is "I can't" because of your cost, your talents, or whatever, then I suggest you make a change fast. The little train that could did not get up the hill with "I can't".
Ben
Come back to the truth.
1)They are not better and brighter than the people we have here, just cheaper
2)H1b is supposed to be for the brightest but the truth is that it is mostly entry-level.
2)The cost appears cheaper for H1-b but the cost is high, high for the American worker, high for slave labor, high for the underpaid, High for the American citizen whose vote doesnt get represented because the multinationals are getting the ears of the elected officials.
I once held a position in which one of my many duties was processing H1B visas and helping the foreign worker acclimate to American culture. The above pretexts for hiring foreign labor are indeed paper-thin, Ben, and you should not get upset when people see through them. Using foreign workers does not improve the bottom line. Foreigners are used for one or more of the following reasons:
1. They have highly specialized skills that are rare, not only here, but anywhere.
2. They are more likely to enjoy their work life. Since they are travelling, it's as though they are on a working vacation and their attitudes show it. The converse is that domestic workers are more likely to make demands of their employers.
3. H1B visas are temporary, and can be revoked at any time. Furthermore, since they are dependent on employer sponsorship, they cannot easily quit and take a position with a (competing) employer. Again, this means they have a weaker hand to play against executives.
4. A corollary of #3 is that since they are temporary, the workers are likely to put up with more, figuring, well, it's only temporary, whereas a domestic worker would despair if work conditions were not perceived to be good.
5. Foreign workers lend an atmosphere of international cooperation and cultural horizon broadening. Working in such an atmosphere increases creative output because differing cultural approaches to problem solving expands one's imagination. The friendships that arise amongst foreign and domestic workers benefit both and usually continue past the visa's expiration, and sometimes lead to Americans visiting and working in the foreigners' home countries. And those potlucks we had were really fun!
But as far as costs were concerned, bring in foreign help has its own costs. Not the least of which is the additional time and money spent processing the paper work, welcoming them at the airport, assisting them with learning English, getting around and obtaining housing. In my case, we did not pay them less money, as that would have been unfair. On the other hand, American workers were seen as having received an inferior education and there were additional costs associated with that to bring them up to speed. The ideal candidates were UK workers.
If America wants to become competitive again, she will have to stop worshiping money and start treasuring her people. Most Americans see the primary job of the government as one of "defense." So there is an insanely huge military that siphons off billions of dollars and returns a tiny bit of that back in a few commodities, like crude oil. Meanwhile, safe investments like education and health care are neglected. It's a bit like having to be extra careful while painting your house so you don't disturb the dry rot.
Daniel,
please stop ranting. I've worked with engineers from other countries here on H1-b visas. They rent houses, buy groceries pay taxes, etc. I find outsourcing this way much better than what I see happening more and more - sending the work out of country. A former employer has opened a branch in Asia to not only take advantage of the huge engineering workforce, but also to reduce the overhead in salaries, but in rent, benefits, etc. Hardly any of the money from the projects sent to the "branch" come back to the US.
My Solution? We need to invest in ourselves AGAIN. Time was when we saw educating engineers and scientists as an issue of national security. This produced a workforce capable of achieving great new things - we need to re-center our efforts on the workers of tomorrow. Fund them with low-cost education, encourage them by increasing the stature of the educated. Remember when you called someone on the phone and addressed them as mr/ms, when teachers were more than just daycare staff? We need to put some "old" ideas back into vouge.
Pages
