Re : Re : Republicans favour hike in H-1B visas

"Kamal R. Pra" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:<181e352f.0409190443.21da45f6@post
ing.google.com>...
> test01a@ziplip.com (test) wrote in message news:<cd5be037.0409180603.18074
21d@posting.google.com>... 
> Yes -I can. When manpower is expensive and hard to find, they have to
> rely on foreign workers. The worker might be capable but his country
> may not have track record of executing critical work. So they prefer
> to get the manpower on L1 to the US -than get it done overseas.

In this example (sounds like 1999), it seems the choice is more
expensive US workers--paying them enough perhaps to even switch
careers from other professions--or bringing in an L1.

Doesn't seem like the overseas option is seriously being considered if
they are worried about the country's "track record of executing
critical work."

What you provided was an example of a job that I would say is "stuck
in the US"--there is a valid reason for not going overseas.  And as
you mentioned, H1's, L1's and Americans all compete for these same
jobs--the ones that are NOT going overseas.

test01a@ziplip.com (test) wrote in message news:<cd5be037.0409191339.6729d05c@posting.googl
e.com>...
> "Kamal R. Pra" <kamalp@acm.org> wrote in message news:<181e352f.0409190
443.21da45f6@posting.google.com>... 
>
> In this example (sounds like 1999), it seems the choice is more
> expensive US workers--paying them enough perhaps to even switch
> careers from other professions--or bringing in an L1.
>

It didn't have to be in 1999 and the choice was between an H1/L1 and
the same guy overseas. You asked if anybody in his right senses would
pay 80-100K when the same guy is willing to work for 12-20K in India.
I am saying "yes" to that question with the above example.

> Doesn't seem like the overseas option is seriously being considered if
> they are worried about the country's "track record of executing
> critical work."
>
> What you provided was an example of a job that I would say is "stuck
> in the US"--there is a valid reason for not going overseas.  And as
> you mentioned, H1's, L1's and Americans all compete for these same
> jobs--the ones that are NOT going overseas.

There are very few jobs that are stuck to a location -but the bulk of
those that are stuck anywhere are stuck to the capital to employ those
personnel. If companies are willing to allocate investment to an
Indian office for doing a project, automatically the work gets
transferred to India. Most of the work being done in the US doesn't
involve customer interaction -and the bulk of programmers working for
offshore offices are not upto the mark in dealing with customers even
if such jobs were moved to India. Your notion of getting stuck needs a
re-apprisal.

BTW -re WashTech, I don't disagree with their cause to reduce
unemployment in the US -but frankly not a single US registered corp is
under any legal or moral obligation to employ americans for the sake
of coomunity welfare. The only reason they do employ people is because
they get a return on their investment. Anyday they say that customers
and employees (besides shareholders) are they key concern-they are
just talking from both sides of their mouth, trying to win hearts on
the basis of the fact that they employ so many americans.

regards
-kamal

kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Pra) wrote in message news:<181e352f.0409250124.6ba2b63a@postin
g.google.com>...
> test01a@ziplip.com (test) wrote in message news:<cd5be037.0409191339.6729d
05c@posting.google.com>... 
>
> It didn't have to be in 1999 and the choice was between an H1/L1 and
> the same guy overseas. You asked if anybody in his right senses would
> pay 80-100K when the same guy is willing to work for 12-20K in India.
> I am saying "yes" to that question with the above example.
> 
>
> There are very few jobs that are stuck to a location -but the bulk of
> those that are stuck anywhere are stuck to the capital to employ those
> personnel.

Not really.  In the last few years I have worked for:

1.  Marketing people.  Not going overseas--these calls can't be
delivered with an Indian accent.  And when these marketing people hire
a programmer, they prefer one who is in their office and can discuss
the project with them face to face.  Note I said "hire a (as in one)
programmer."  Not a big enough project to be outsourced.  So the
programming job is stuck whereever the marketing guy is stuck--and the
marketing guy is stuck in the US.

2.  Defense contractors.  Needless to say--this is stuck in the US.

3.  On a subcontract for a big-five consulting firm.  This was a
"business continuity" project--not a programing project.  Programming
work was done--that's why they hired me--but the other consultants
were not programmers.  The client was a US-based company.  Once again,
this job is "stuck" whereever the non-technical people who hired me
placed, and they happened to be working for a US-based client.

4.  At a brokerage.  The brokerage must maintain a US-based office to
get investors.  Many projects can be completed by one or two
programmers; outsourcing these projects simply wouldn't be profitable.


> If companies are willing to allocate investment to an
> Indian office for doing a project, automatically the work gets
> transferred to India. Most of the work being done in the US doesn't
> involve customer interaction -and the bulk of programmers working for
> offshore offices are not upto the mark in dealing with customers even
> if such jobs were moved to India. Your notion of getting stuck needs a
> re-apprisal.
>
>  BTW -re WashTech, I don't disagree with their cause to reduce
> unemployment in the US -but frankly not a single US registered corp is
> under any legal or moral obligation to employ americans for the sake
> of coomunity welfare. The only reason they do employ people is because
> they get a return on their investment. Anyday they say that customers
> and employees (besides shareholders) are they key concern-they are
> just talking from both sides of their mouth, trying to win hearts on
> the basis of the fact that they employ so many americans.

Washtech is a lobbying organization, just like the ITAA.  Nothing the
ITAA says is true or unbiased--and Washtech isn't exactly a source of
unbiased economic reasoning either.

I never claimed that Washtech was pumping out economically valid
arguments 100% of the time.  I only claimed that the end result of
their news releases--fewer H1-B's, is likely to be benficial to
American programmers.

IBM doesn't care if the ITAA lies to get it's goals accomplished.
Unfortunately, because Congressmen and the American public are
stupid--lies and oversimplification work much better than valid
economic arguments.  The H1-B law was passed due to lying and
oversimplification.

I don't expect Washtech to explain whether H1-B's are substitues for
Americans or overseas workers, like I explined earlier  (they are
substitutes for American workers because they are more LIKE American
workers than overseas ones.)  It takes too long to make this type of
arguement, and most poeple don't understand it the first time.

Instead I expect Washtech to babble about CEO pay and all sorts of
irrelevant stuff that makes corporations look evil and to make plenty
of economically unsound arguements.  That's fine with me--they're
lobbyists, not economists.  As long as they get the goal
accomplished--fewer H-1B's, I'm happy.




>
> regards
> -kamal

test01a@ziplip.com (test) wrote in message news:<cd5be037.0409262052.55312f7
8@posting.google.com>...
[snip]
> Not really.  In the last few years I have worked for:
>
> 1.  Marketing people.  Not going overseas--these calls can't be
> delivered with an Indian accent.  And when these marketing people hire
> a programmer, they prefer one who is in their office and can discuss
> the project with them face to face.  Note I said "hire a (as in one)
> programmer."  Not a big enough project to be outsourced.  So the
> programming job is stuck whereever the marketing guy is stuck--and the
> marketing guy is stuck in the US.
>
I know a couple of mktg engineers of Indian origin (but with american
accents -and there are variations to the type of accent, southern one
being the hardest to master).

> 2.  Defense contractors.  Needless to say--this is stuck in the US.
>
yes -and besides that other govt contracts are off-limits to non-US
citizens.

> 3.  On a subcontract for a big-five consulting firm.  This was a
> "business continuity" project--not a programing project.  Programming
> work was done--that's why they hired me--but the other consultants
> were not programmers.  The client was a US-based company.  Once again,
> this job is "stuck" whereever the non-technical people who hired me
> placed, and they happened to be working for a US-based client.
>
Well -it depends on how the big-5 consulting co is handling the
continuity work. I was working for one of the big 5 companies (IBM)
and was involved in support of thier code -which included fixing bugs
as well as adding features the customer would pay for. One client I
added code for -was in Belgium and just about every fix that was added
in Blore was for a foreign customer. [That is not to say that IBM
doesn't sell computers in India -but we just didnt get the requests in
the timeframe I worked there].


> 4.  At a brokerage.  The brokerage must maintain a US-based office to
> get investors.  Many projects can be completed by one or two
> programmers; outsourcing these projects simply wouldn't be profitable.
>
yes they do have a US office to cater to clients -but if you didn't
know, Fidelity investments is hiring big time in India.
The requirement (if it exists) is for a US office to handle
investments, not to get s/w written by US-based programmers.

[snip]
>
> Washtech is a lobbying organization, just like the ITAA.  Nothing the
> ITAA says is true or unbiased--and Washtech isn't exactly a source of
> unbiased economic reasoning either.
>
lobbying is a different cup of tea -and I cannot comment on that.

> I never claimed that Washtech was pumping out economically valid
> arguments 100% of the time.  I only claimed that the end result of
> their news releases--fewer H1-B's, is likely to be benficial to
> American programmers.
>
> IBM doesn't care if the ITAA lies to get it's goals accomplished.

Depends on whether they are funding it or not. If it is an industry
mouthpiece, it has to get funds from its members. And companies owe it
to their shareholders to ensure donations are not mis-used.

> Unfortunately, because Congressmen and the American public are
> stupid--lies and oversimplification work much better than valid
> economic arguments.  The H1-B law was passed due to lying and
> oversimplification.
>
The law came into being as an innocous thing -but morphed into
something different depending on requirements/funding from the
industry.

> I don't expect Washtech to explain whether H1-B's are substitues for
> Americans or overseas workers, like I explined earlier  (they are
> substitutes for American workers because they are more LIKE American
> workers than overseas ones.)  It takes too long to make this type of
> arguement, and most poeple don't understand it the first time.
>
yes -esp if they are saying this on tv.

> Instead I expect Washtech to babble about CEO pay and all sorts of
> irrelevant stuff that makes corporations look evil and to make plenty
> of economically unsound arguements.  That's fine with me--they're
> lobbyists, not economists.  As long as they get the goal
> accomplished--fewer H-1B's, I'm happy.
>
you have a friend in Warren Buffett. He doesn't believe CEOs deserve
their fat paychecks. But that is tangential to H1-b/offshoring.

regards
-kamal


>
>
> 

kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Pra) wrote in message news:<181e352f.0409270803.1f78e3d@posting
.google.com>...
> test01a@ziplip.com (test) wrote in message news:<cd5be037.0409262052.55312
f78@posting.google.com>...
> [snip]

Your original statement was that "there are very few jobs that are
stuck to a location," so that explains the examples I gave...
 
> I know a couple of mktg engineers of Indian origin (but with american
> accents -and there are variations to the type of accent, southern one
> being the hardest to master).

Sure, but OTHER marketing people, such as the ones I worked for, can't
have any accent at all.  The were selling insurance to rich
people--who tended to be older and perhaps even prejudiced.  I don't
think they would like having their customer service calls handled in
India--at least not for the amount of business they were giving us.
These marketing jobs were definitely stuck in the US--and therefore,
so was the programming job of designing a small sales app for these
marketing people.

I don't have to prove to you that all jobs are stuck in the US to
prove your earlier statement false.  I only have to show you that some
are.  These ones were stuck in the US.


> 
> yes -and besides that other govt contracts are off-limits to non-US
> citizens.
> 
> Well -it depends on how the big-5 consulting co is handling the
> continuity work. I was working for one of the big 5 companies (IBM)

IBM isn't a big five firm--right now the big five are Accenture, PWC,
Bearing Point, E&Y, and Deloitte & Touche.

IBM is bigger than all of the "big five" but it's not considered
primarily a consulting firm...

> and was involved in support of thier code -which included fixing bugs
> as well as adding features the customer would pay for. One client I
> added code for -was in Belgium and just about every fix that was added
> in Blore was for a foreign customer. [That is not to say that IBM
> doesn't sell computers in India -but we just didnt get the requests in
> the timeframe I worked there].

All of the big five outsource work.  They also do work onsite at
client locations.

The job I had was writing applications to support the consultants
working onsite.  The needed someone to be down the hall who they could
speak to and design a custom app for their needs.

>
> 
> yes they do have a US office to cater to clients -but if you didn't
> know, Fidelity investments is hiring big time in India.
> The requirement (if it exists) is for a US office to handle
> investments, not to get s/w written by US-based programmers.

Not really.  The requirement is to get the job done.  It doesn't
suprise me that Fedelity is hiring in India.

HOWEVER, they are also hiring in the US--and no, I don't work for
them.

About the project I worked on for the brokerage I'm at right now--I've
been there about 3 months and I've billed them around $25,000.  The
program is already working--meaning that hundreds of people within the
company are using it and they want to expand the project to meet the
needs of additional users.

It would have cost $25,000 to get a business analyst from some
outsourcing firm to draw up a spec for this project before it could
have been sent overseas.  And I'm assuming that the programming work
wouldn't have been free--even in India.  So hiring me cost LESS than
it would cost to outsource a small project of this size.

You can't get away from the specification cost--sitting down with
users and deciding what needs to be written.  For small projects this
is most of the total cost--the actual coding work is inconsequential,
whether it is done here or overseas.

>
> [snip] 
> lobbying is a different cup of tea -and I cannot comment on that.
> 
>
> Depends on whether they are funding it or not. If it is an industry
> mouthpiece, it has to get funds from its members. And companies owe it
> to their shareholders to ensure donations are not mis-used.

Well, ironically, lying to Congress to get laws passed would be
considered a PROPER use of the shareholders money.  As long as the end
result is profitable, the shareholder's money was used
properly...that's why IBM does't care if the ITAA lies.

> 
> The law came into being as an innocous thing -but morphed into
> something different depending on requirements/funding from the
> industry.

No, the H1-B law started out as market tampering from day one.  There
wasn't a single day in it's existence that it pretended to be a fair
visa law that doesn't specifically mention occupations.

> 
> yes -esp if they are saying this on tv.
> 
> you have a friend in Warren Buffett. He doesn't believe CEOs deserve
> their fat paychecks. But that is tangential to H1-b/offshoring.

I agree with both of these statements--CEO's are overpaid, and it is
irrelevent to H1-B.  However, labor unions use high executive pay as a
way of making the management of these companies look evil, and then
accuse them of hiring cheap labor because they are greedy.  It's an
emotional arguement, not an economically valid one.

The economically valid arguement would be that programmers and other
occupations deserve equal treatment, and that the H1-B law denies
programemrs equal treatment by mentioning them specifically.  The
emotional arguement, however, plays better in the news.

>
> regards
> -kamal
>
> 

test01a@ziplip.com (test) wrote in message news:<cd5be037.0409271803.1773fad9@posting.googl
e.com>...
> kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Pra) wrote in message news:<181e352f.040927080
3.1f78e3d@posting.google.com>... 
>
> Your original statement was that "there are very few jobs that are
> stuck to a location," so that explains the examples I gave...
>
ok.

[snip]
>
> I don't have to prove to you that all jobs are stuck in the US to
> prove your earlier statement false.  I only have to show you that some
> are.  These ones were stuck in the US.
>
agreed -some joba are certainly stuck in the US, and in non-english
speaking countries -an even greater no. are due to locale issues. But
what I was getting at is that the bulk of jobs aren't. 90% of the
US-based jobs can be exported but aren't for reasons besides being
stuck to the location.

> 
>
> IBM isn't a big five firm--right now the big five are Accenture, PWC,
> Bearing Point, E&Y, and Deloitte & Touche.
>
IBM acquired the consulting division of Pricewaterhouse coopers about
1-2 yrs back.

> IBM is bigger than all of the "big five" but it's not considered
> primarily a consulting firm...
>
IBM global services very much is.
 
>
> All of the big five outsource work.  They also do work onsite at
> client locations.
>
which conradicts your earlier statement that business continuity
cannot be outsourced. I gave you an example wherein the mktg was
doneonsite and work offshore.

> The job I had was writing applications to support the consultants
> working onsite.  The needed someone to be down the hall who they could
> speak to and design a custom app for their needs.
> 
>
> Not really.  The requirement is to get the job done.  It doesn't
> suprise me that Fedelity is hiring in India.
>
> HOWEVER, they are also hiring in the US--and no, I don't work for
> them.
>
> About the project I worked on for the brokerage I'm at right now--I've
> been there about 3 months and I've billed them around $25,000.  The
> program is already working--meaning that hundreds of people within the
> company are using it and they want to expand the project to meet the
> needs of additional users.
>
> It would have cost $25,000 to get a business analyst from some
> outsourcing firm to draw up a spec for this project before it could
> have been sent overseas.  And I'm assuming that the programming work
> wouldn't have been free--even in India.  So hiring me cost LESS than
> it would cost to outsource a small project of this size.
>
> You can't get away from the specification cost--sitting down with
> users and deciding what needs to be written.  For small projects this
> is most of the total cost--the actual coding work is inconsequential,
> whether it is done here or overseas.
>
fine. how did you arrive at the billing? is it perhour or project
based? what are the metrics?
 
>
> Well, ironically, lying to Congress to get laws passed would be
> considered a PROPER use of the shareholders money.  As long as the end
> result is profitable, the shareholder's money was used
> properly...that's why IBM does't care if the ITAA lies.
>
industry need not have anything in common with national interest.
halliburton has seen its stock rise as US deficit soared.
 
>
> No, the H1-B law started out as market tampering from day one.  There
> wasn't a single day in it's existence that it pretended to be a fair
> visa law that doesn't specifically mention occupations.
>
fine. what are its origins?
[snip]

regards
-kamal

kamalp@acm.org (Kamal R. Pra) wrote in message news:<181e352f.0409280516.4ed7263d@postin
g.google.com>...
> test01a@ziplip.com (test) wrote in message news:<cd5be037.0409271803.1773f
ad9@posting.google.com>... 
> ok.
>
> [snip] 
> agreed -some joba are certainly stuck in the US, and in non-english
> speaking countries -an even greater no. are due to locale issues. But
> what I was getting at is that the bulk of jobs aren't. 90% of the
> US-based jobs can be exported but aren't for reasons besides being
> stuck to the location.
> 
> IBM acquired the consulting division of Pricewaterhouse coopers about
> 1-2 yrs back.
> 
> IBM global services very much is.
> 
> which conradicts your earlier statement that business continuity
> cannot be outsourced.


I never made that statement.  I said I was working on a business
continuity project--and this project couldn't have been outsourced
economically because it was small and requried face-to-face contact
with non-technical consultants.  The reasons it couldn't be outsourced
were:

1.  It was a small project (<$60,000 in billing)
2.  It had frequently changing specs
3.  It required face-to-face contact

The fact it was a business continuity project had no impact on whether
the work would be performed here or elsewhere.

>I gave you an example wherein the mktg was
> doneonsite and work offshore.
> 
> fine. how did you arrive at the billing? is it perhour or project
> based? what are the metrics?
> 
> industry need not have anything in common with national interest.
> halliburton has seen its stock rise as US deficit soared.
> 
> fine. what are its origins?
> [snip]
>
> regards
> -kamal