Senator To Microsoft: What Was That You Said About Wanting More H-1B Workers?

http://www.alleyinsider.com/2009/1/senator-to-microsoft-what-was-that-you-said-about-wanting-more-h-1b-workers-msft

by ekrangel • 17 years ago

47 115 17 years ago

jonas_b• 17 years ago

The Senator may not realise it, but much of the productivity growth in the US has come from technological breakthroughs of first or second generation immigrants. Short-sighted populism is what I would call this.

clintjhill2• 17 years ago

Any data or examples to back this up?

FraaJad• 17 years ago

... 47 percent of venture-backed startups have immigrant founders...

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4176/is_20070105/ai_...

jimbokun3• 17 years ago

So what?

Why should an American worker give a damn about productivity? We just experienced a decade with robust productivity growth along with steadily declining standards of living. Improvements to productivity have almost exclusively benefited people who are already wealthy over the past 10 years. This may be slightly hyperbolic, but certainly not by much.

There are opinions being expressed here that American workers have a sense of entitlement, wanting to maintain their current standard of living. Well, what about American capital? Why do they feel a sense of entitlement to make their capital even more valuable via access to ever cheaper labor? Why do they feel a sense of entitlement to keep the standard of living their capital gives them, instead of having it taxed and distributed to others?

Ideologies are not ends unto themselves. The American people believe that driving down the cost of labor is not serving their interests now, and are not compelled by arguments that they should sacrifice their interests in homage to pure libertarianism. If those who think that the median citizen will benefit from increased immigration, make that argument in terms that addresses that citizen's self interest. That is how debate in a democracy is supposed to work.

Xichekolas3• 17 years ago

> We just experienced a decade with robust productivity growth along with steadily declining standards of living.

This sentiment always confuses me. Granted, my experience is limited (memory only serves me for about the last 15 years), but it seems like things are getting better all the time. More people have more televisions, air conditioners, dishwashers, etc than ever before. Life expectancy is steadily increasing, food supply has become more or less a non-issue, etc. In what material dimension are we noteably worse off now than we were 20 years ago? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm honestly curious. The only thing that remotely comes to mind is the cost of higher education, which has been increasing in cost faster than wages grow.

> If those who think that the median citizen will benefit from increased immigration, make that argument in terms that addresses that citizen's self interest.

Just because incomes have "stagnated" (which also seems to depend on how you slice and dice the numbers), doesn't mean standard of living has gone down. The constantly decreasing prices of material goods plays just as much of a factor. My wages could be cut in half and I could still afford the same amount of TV screen as two years ago. Granted, not everything gets cheaper at the rate consumer electronics do, but cheap immigrant labor has a huge effect on the prices of stuff you buy all the time, which benefits you as well.

davidw7• 17 years ago

We should protect people, not jobs. Basic health care for everyone, retraining opportunities, improve education, stuff like that, rather than trying to keep hard working people out.

coryrc2• 17 years ago

Interesting. Who invented the transistor? the integrated circuit? Who created UNIX? Visicalc? MS Windows? ARPANET?

Maybe he thinks this issue affects the dearth of high-tech startups in Iowa. Maybe he cares about more Americans than just those living in his state. Sure, it's probably just vote pandering, but that isn't the only possibility.

Dilpil4• 17 years ago

"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times."

That senator, is where you are wrong. America is not a fraternity. Microsoft is not a public works program. Microsoft is a private corporation. Once upon a time, republicans understood the difference.

Conservatism is dead, long live conservatism.

axiom• 17 years ago

Long live libertarianism. Conservatism was only ever about small government by accident - they were just for mindlessly preserving the status quo. Which is why they lost.

mattmaroon2• 17 years ago

They lost? They may have recently lost a battle, but overall have been winning the war since 1980.

dantheman• 17 years ago

Conservatism, was originally about allowing each state to continue as they were when forming a federal government -- it's about what the states meant the constitution to mean when they designed the government. So it should be a small federal government/states rights perspective; and these states can do anything that they want as long as their state constitution allows it.

jmatt3• 17 years ago

I think this Rush Limbaugh quote does a good job summarizing modern day conservatism:

We believe in individual liberty, limited government, capitalism, the rule of law, faith, a color-blind society and national security. We support school choice, enterprise zones, tax cuts, welfare reform, faith-based initiatives, political speech, homeowner rights and the war on terrorism. And at our core we embrace and celebrate the most magnificent governing document ever ratified by any nation--the U.S. Constitution. Along with the Declaration of Independence, which recognizes our God-given natural right to be free, it is the foundation on which our government is built and has enabled us to flourish as a people.^

I think ideally that is what conservatives want to stand for, though in practice it may be quite different.

^ http://www.opinionjournal.com/ac/?id=110007417

DanielBMarkham• 17 years ago

As a libertarian, I think you've misread conservatives.

Conservatives believe in induction: that things that work the same way over time have a tendency to continue working the same way. That humans are basically good people but flawed. Liberals believe in experimentation: that the human spirit is basically flawed but can be perfected through the right combination of experimentation.

Burke is usually claimed as the first conservative. He was mostly a shill for the ruling class in Great Britain, but, to the dismay of his adversaries, turned out to be right in a large number of his predictions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Burke)

Both terms have varied so much over the last 30 years as to almost be meaningless, however. JFK? He was for big tax cuts to spur the economy. Nixon? Froze prices. Politicians (and parties) that were "supposed" to be either conservative or liberal basically abandoned their principles whenever they thought they could get votes.

People emotionally attach to the party, and then bandy about "liberal" and "conservative" as labels to shut conversation down. It has little to do with the actual philosophies of conservatism or liberalism (either classic liberalism or modern liberalism)

(Sorry. Political junkie here. Couldn't resist providing the information)

And long live libertarianism!

falsestprophet2• 17 years ago

"That senator, is where you are wrong." (Okay, calm down Keith Olberman.)

No, the United States is not a fraternity; I think a better metaphor is that it is the biggest baddest street gang there is. It should be no surprise that we are inclined to look after our own first.

I agree that Microsoft has no obligation other than following the rules and paying its protection money.

But America has an obligation to protect American workers ("by the people and for the people" remember?) "by putting them first during these difficult economic times".

So, they should change immigration law. And populist talk like this is often the first step towards that end.

In the end, I don't think it is meaningful to label this idea conservatism or liberalism. It is simply political pragmatism.

newt03114• 17 years ago

"But America has an obligation to protect American workers"

Classic make-work fallacy. American interests are best served when corporations (Microsoft in this case) are as efficient as possible. If that means immigrant workers, then so be it. If MS (and other corps) are forced to hire less-qualified or more expensive American workers then the cost of these measures is paid by their customers who are ... Americans and in lost market share which results in a cost to MS' investors who are ... Americans. The difference is that the plight of the unemployed programmers is obvious and easy to see while the plight of the customer and investors is obscured but that does not change the loss that they experience.

rbanffy3• 17 years ago

"And populist talk like this is often the first step towards that end."

As usual, it will backfire in the most predictable way: Microsoft will close offices in the US and invest in hiring skilled people for its foreign offices. And so will all major US corporations that feel the heat from this kind of misguided discourse.

It's that simple.

known2• 17 years ago

I think Patriotism is Oxymoron in Globalized World.

tptacek5• 17 years ago

Way to ignore the slippery slope. Microsoft isn't a public works program. Also, all the Stratocasters should be manufactured in Mexico. And hey, why shouldn't our garments by manufactured in the Marianas Islands by women living in caged compounds?

yummyfajitas3• 17 years ago

I don't see how "people of other nationalities should be allowed to freely compete with Americans" in any way leads to "slavery should be permitted".

(I'm assuming you mean to imply that the caged compounds keep women in rather than keep pirates out.)

coryrc2• 17 years ago

Microsoft is a chartered corporation under the United States of America. If they are not serving the interests of the people of the USA, then I see no reason why they should not be punished in some way.

Dilpil4• 17 years ago

Serving the interests of the people is not a binary phenomenon. Microsoft still employs 1000s and produces popular consumer products. Just how much do they need to do to serve the interests of the USA? Shouldn't their taxes take care of that?

nazgulnarsil• 17 years ago

I wish to restart the conservative party. no religious crazies allowed. I just need the backing of a few billionaires and Ron Paul's help.

weegee• 17 years ago

yeah, fire the workers making more money, and keep the cheap foreign labor, it's the American Way!!!

vaksel• 17 years ago

why does this guy care? He is a senator from Iowa...are there any "high tech" jobs in Iowa that would get affected by the H1-B program?

H1-B program is very important to this country. It keeps us ahead of the curve by draining the talent worldwide and adding it to United States brain capital.

Dilpil4• 17 years ago

He cares because he represents a large group of people who believe in American superiority. Their worldview dictates that Americans are superior, and have 'dibs' on the products of the global economy. To suggest to them that there exist foreigners who are smarter and more skilled than Americans- even if only a small number of Americans, and even if only at a specific task- is quite offensive.

jimbokun3• 17 years ago

I think that political necessity demands that American politicians claim the superiority of the American worker. But I do not think that the American worker believes that at all, quite the opposite. The American worker believes that there are a lot of people in other parts of the world just as educated and just as intelligent, willing to do their job for much less money, and wants the government to protect them from this reality.

potatolicious6• 17 years ago

I say we don't go far enough with the H-1B program. Many people I know are uneasy and unwilling to sign their lives away to a single company, to do with at their whim, for a chance to maybe become a legitimate US resident in a decade.

The problem is that, once you are in the US on a H-1B your life is in the hands of your employer. This is ripe for employee abuse (and one of the major contributors to wage depression in immigrant labor).

What the US really needs is a legitimized skilled labor immigration program. Something whose job is actually to steal talent from abroad and add it to America, instead of this "job shortage" excuse and subverting a different system to accomplish the same ends. If you can bring people into the country and give them employment mobility (the same way my parents came into Canada), the US would be far better off, and wage depression due to immigration would be reduced.

[edit] As a more concrete issue: here in Canada we have significant problems with skilled immigrants coming and not being able to find jobs, and thus being a drain on our social systems. This can easily avoided if certain classes (i.e. anyone not exceptionally talented) would need an employer sponsor to apply for immigration. You would need to secure a job before entering the US, but once you're in you are mobile.

Xichekolas3• 17 years ago

While I'm generally all for the change you propose, you have to be realistic and realize this could be abused.

I could set up a company that would, in exchange for buying $3000 of my plastic toys, hire someone and let them resign a month later. I can even let them do the month's work from their new home in the US. Then they can go off and do as they please.

Granted this is just an enforcement issue, and enforcement is part of whatever system we have, but I think you could save a lot of effort by just instituting some kind of entrance exam system to certify them as a 'knowledge worker'. (At which point they can enter and leave freely, with full job mobility.)

As an added bonus, you could administer this exam to citizens as well as a form of professional certification, which would probably be more useful to employers than the existing degree system.

Prrometheus• 17 years ago

>"Microsoft has a moral obligation to protect these American workers by putting them first during these difficult economic times."

One loses track of all the moral obligations of corporations these days. While trying to meet them all, it can be hard to find the time to make a good product and earn money.

rbanffy3• 17 years ago

"it can be hard to find the time to make a good product"

So that explain their last decade!

awt• 17 years ago

What I don't understand is why he wouldn't want Microsoft to be able to hire the best people for the job?

potatolicious6• 17 years ago

It's because of the "they're stealing our jerbs!" mentality that I see on a lot of other websites (who shall remain unnamed, the worst of which is named after punctuation)...

"But there's tons of unemployed home-grown talent here!" I hear many people say. I argue otherwise. I have met these vaunted whiners who claim to possess all the skills they need to work at MS and beyond, and I can safely say that the vast majority wouldn't make the cut. Most are mindless script monkeys who couldn't hack their way out of a wet paper bag.

I have yet to see a major US corporation favor immigrants in their hiring. In fact, almost every single American company I've had dealings with pay immigrant labor the same salary as their American counterparts. With all the extra legal hassle and costs this actually makes immigration more expensive for the employer.

The talent shortage in the US tech sector is real, and instead of bemoaning the loss of jobs to immigrants, maybe American colleges should look at why they're producing so many people who don't make the cut. And perhaps these people who feel their jobs have been "stolen" should do some introspection and figure out just how hard these other guys are working compared to themselves.

clintjhill2• 17 years ago

Most of the immigrant workers I work with also got their education in the U.S.

tokenadult• 17 years ago

It's American K-12 education that isn't up to world standards. That means the American secondary school graduates entering tough college programs have more catching up to do than the (much more stringently selected) international undergraduates at American colleges. See the book Knowing and Teaching Elementary Mathematics

http://www.amazon.com/Knowing-Teaching-Elementary-Mathematic...

(or its review by mathematician Richard Askey)

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/fall99/ame...

for example of ways American primary education could do better.

einarvollset2• 17 years ago

Nobody ever wins votes by championing the cause of immigrants. As usual though, it seems like immigration bashing is high up on the todo list of politicians where hardly any immigrants live, particularly when the economic shit hits the fan.

eru2• 17 years ago

> where hardly any immigrants live

Applies in Germany, too.

eru2• 17 years ago

I.e. the inverse correlation between immigritant population density and dislike for immigrants.

sgman• 17 years ago

Give every Masters/PHD student a green card with their diploma. Then let them find a job, start a business, whatever. Else it's only a matter of time before they move a a country that gives them this freedom.

critic• 17 years ago

MS are not the ones who f*ed up the economy or failed to provide the oversight.

ojbyrne• 17 years ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoot-Hawley_Tariff_Act

Every politician in every country right now is trying to raise barriers, buy at home first, preserve jobs for Americans/Canadians/Chinese/... . It's even more the wrong thing to do now than it was in 1930, because trade is so much more than it was in 1930, and should be resisted over and over and over again.

known2• 17 years ago

Globalization will only succeed when wage slavery (in Agriculture, Manufacturing & Services) is prevented in the developing nations.

Senator To Microsoft: What Was That You Said About Wanting More H-1B Workers?

Related Stories