FTR, additional discussion of Norman Matloff’s shaky statistics and gross over-generalizations can be found at
http://www.leconsulting.com/arthurhu/index/matloff.htm
This article echoes the sentiments that ruadh and I put forward – that Matloff habitually fails to adjust for education levels, experience levels, onerous immigration regulations and the like.
Semantics, semantics, semantics. Bottom line is he bases his claim that the shortage is “manufactured” on his belief that firms wouldn’t hire only people who already have these skills if there were really a shortage of workers. And that is not evidence, that is opinion.
I actually misread this part of your original post (sorry, as I said it was 1.00 a.m.) to say “x% of employers are not paying even the prevailing wage [low as Matloff claims that is]”. GAL 2-98 imposed new penalties on employers who don’t pay prevailing wage. I’ll have to take another look at that 1996 DOL study before commenting on the claim that x% weren’t paying what they promised on the LCA.
What’s Matloff’s source for this statistic? I can only recall one of the H-1Bs I dealt with making below $50,000 a year.
Yes, I read it. It lists one person’s opinion that he didn’t get a job because an H-1B holder was willing to take it for less. The vast majority of people expressing these opinions are still natural born US citizens - I’ve yet to see any great outcry on the subject from green card holders and the naturalized. Of course, you can always find one or two people to back up any opinion you want.
'Course this guy also goes on to complain that he had to settle for a job at “only” $60,000. Now I thought the whole point of this diatribe was that H-1Bs are underpaid compared to US citizens, so where does this citizen’s (alleged) underpayment fit into that argument?
(BTW, Matloff says this quote is taken from the San Jose Mercury News. There is no record of this article in the SJMN’s online archives.)
As for 9.2.8, that’s back to age discrimination, which I already said was a different subject for discussion.
I’m quite familiar with his background, thank you very much, and I made no such suggestion, and please don’t put words in my mouth.
In Matloff’s view it isn’t simply that the H-1Bs are depressing US wages, or putting US citizens out of work, he just wants to reduce immigration - full stop. “In all categories, for all nationalities, at all socioeconomic levels”. The evidence he presents therefore must not be viewed as coming from an objective source, and should be taken with the appropriate amount of caution. I’m sure if I posted data from, I dunno, the Let 'Em All In Coalition you’d have the same response to it.
In your opinion, what would disprove the need for technical immigration?
Secondly, do you have any experience working as a computer programmer? If not, then how do you know that the most important thing is not knowledge in the language of the minute, but rather general programming talent? (I have personal experience in the industry and work as a software developer, and I have seen first hand professionals becoming proficient in a new language without any previous experience.)
All of your criticisms so far seem to follow along that pattern - there is no shortage of programmers, but there is a shortage of programmers that have experience in Language X, Y, Z, P, Q.
So you honestly feel that it is necessary to import a new worker instead of allowing an experienced programmer to learn a new language on the job?
What do you think of Jim McCarthy’s, a software development manager at Microsoft, statement:
Whatever Mr McCarthy’s opinion, Microsoft still has a shitload of H-1B workers.
Well, he also bases his claim on other data, such as the low rate for offers to interviewees. How do you reconcile the offer rates (which range from 5% to 50%) in Section 4.1 with claims of a shortage so great it is necessary to import technical workers? (As he notes, these are the offer rates to those who have been selected for interviews, thus presumably have these supposedly crucial narrow skill sets.)
If there is such a shortage, why aren’t the offer rates significantly higher?
I don’t see why you’re making the assumption that the fact these applicants are even granted an interview demonstrates that they’re qualified for the job. It seems perfectly reasonable to me that a company desperate for workers will interview as many people as possible, even if their paper qualifications aren’t quite right, but then still decide they don’t want to commit to hiring any of those underqualified people. I’m just speculating of course. But so is Matloff, really.
More rigorous statistics than what Matloff cited, for one thing. Besides, you’re dodging the issue. Matloff claimed that these incidences of fraud disproved the need for additional high-tech manpower. Common sense dictates that that fraud will always exist, and that its existence is inconclusive evidence.
First of all, I have over a decade of experience as a programmer AND a university instructor.
Second, I never claimed that general programming talent is THE most important thing, so please don’t put words in my mouth. Knowledge and general talent are BOTH important, which is EXACTLY why I question Matloff’s simplistic analysis.
First of all, I never said that there is no shortage of programmers. I simply granted that point for the sake of argument.
Second, my claims were more general than that. I said that even if a shortage exists, programming jobs often require fairly specialized skills. This is not the same as saying “there is a shortage of programmers that have experience in Language X, Y, Z, P, Q,” so please don’t put words in my mouth.
Sometimes, yes. Sometimes, no. Like Matloff, you are grossly oversimplifying.
That’s his opinion. Other managers disagree.
Additionally, not all technologies are “software development technologies.” As I said, you and Matloff and oversimplifying tremendously. For example, there is a great demand for programmers who understand electronic design – even if they don’t actually have to develop hardware. Even among software technologies, many of them don’t change yearly. Object-oriented design principles, for example, have been around for over a decade – yet I’ve often heard managers complain that good object-orientation skills are in short supply.
That’s an unwarranted conclusion. One could just as easily argue that the companies are casting their nets far and wide BECAUSE they’re desperate – hoping that they’ll find someone who will somehow suffice. After much searching, they may even settle on someone who doesn’t quite make the cut – leaving other underqualified applicants in the lurch. Being interviewed doesn’t automatically mean that the person has the “crucial narrow skill set.”
I’ve seen this happen before, at two of the companies I’ve worked for. If they can’t find someone who’s just right, they may have to interview dozens of applicants before they find someone who’s “close enough.”
POINT #1: Section 7.2 does not support that claim. It merely asserts that managers should hire based on aptitude rather than existing skills. This is BY NO MEANS the same as saying that companies are deliberately shunning older workers, and it’s disingenuous to twist its words that way.
POINT #2: Once again, Matloff and Kyuzo are making absurd generalizations. Sometimes the selections are based on cost, and sometimes, they are based on skill sets. Common sense dictates that either approach may be warranted, depending on the situation.
POINT #3: Even if we grant Matloff’s dubious claim, that’s STILL not an example of ageism. The companies aren’t discriminating based on age, they’re discriminating based on cost. Of course, it’s more convenient to call it “ageism,” since that gives Matloff’s claim more emotional punch. It also makes it easier to blame innocent foreigners for this unfortunate situation.
POINT #4: Even if Matloff were correct, this would only be a point against the current H-1B regulations, which apply exclusively to temporary workers. It still wouldn’t demonstrate his claim that there’s no lack of technical manpower. Apparently, Matloff has this glaring habit of focusing on tangential issues, even when they don’t support his main point.
Consider how his arguments focus exclusively on debunking the claims of a computer programmer shortage, for example. For the sake of argument, let’s suppose that he’s correct. Should we believe that if there’s no lack of computer programmers, then there’s no shortage of technical manpower in all categories? That this merits putting a full stop to immigration in general? Obviously not.
I sincerely apologize for my misstatement. I should have stated it the opposite way, as my claim is that general programming talent is the most important thing. I noticed many cases in the website you provided that mocks Matloff for his claim in this matter, instead placing the most importance on “marketable skills.” Clearly, we disagree on this matter.
Would it be possible for you to explain to me why you find Matloff’s statistics so questionable?
The reason is that the vast majority of H-1B’s are programmers. I will freely grant you that there may be a shortage of other technical workers.
Why would this be? Isn’t it true that Computer Science enrollments have increased greatly in recent years? As a university professor(presuming you work in the U.S.), what are you failing to do to prepare American students to fill these positions? How is it that an H-1B fresh out of school has skills that an American student fresh out of school does not have? Since H-1Bs are for temporary help and most are fresh out of school, shouldn’t we expect the amount “required” by industry to begin to reduce as the amount of computer science graduates increases? On the contrary, the cap on H-1Bs is routinely reached before the end of the year, and the cap has just been increased yet again.
What solution do you propose for the long term to equip students and workers with these supposedly necessary cutting edge skills, since producing more computer science graduates does not appear to be working?
Companies claim that these older programmers do not have the required experience and refuse to hire for that reason. This section refutes the importance of specific language experience.
If the selections are based on cost, that does not indicate a shortage of programmers, just a shortage at the right cost.
It is clear we disagree about required skill sets. My opinion is that this focus on specific skills is not as necessary as any glance at the job classifieds would indicate it is.
If older workers cost more, and they discriminate based on cost, what effect does that have on the employment of older workers?
The point is that the H-1B program is being abused, and is not being used as help for a “temporary shortage” of workers with specific skill sets.
As Matloff points out:
Ruadh and I have already posted several reasons why we find them to be dubious.
Well, we can agree on that. However, ruadh has quoted Matloff as stating that immigration must be halted at all levels, for all nationalities, in all socioeconomic situations. I agree with ruadh that this means we should view his “statistics” with a great measure of caution.
I am baffled by your question. My statement was simply that most H-1B’s are new graduates. This does not mean that American professors are failing to train American students. By no means is this a logical inference.
If there’s a lack of manpower, it could be that not enough American youths are enrolling in technical fields – or that not enough of them are making the grade.
Long term solutions would include increased promotion of technical field and revisions to the educational system and industry training programs. HOWEVER, that’s all beside the point. The present discussion is about whether there is a genuine shortage of technical manpower. Discussing long-term solutions is important, but they can neither prove nor disprove the topic at hand.
No, Section 7.2 merely presents the alternate viewpoint of some people in industry. As ruadh said, that’s opinion, not evidence.
Not necessarily. It only means that the company in question can’t afford the high-end programmers. It doesn’t necessarily reflect the industry at large.
Moreover, in that context, I was refuting the claim that the older workers are necessarily being shunned because of cost. As I said, sometimes they are, sometimes they aren’t, and it would be disingenuous to claim otherwise.
Once again though, remember the context of this claim. We were talking about the companies’ motives in bypassing older employees – not whether their decisions were prudent. Even if you disagree regarding the need for skill sets, its intellectually reckless to insist that they were motivated by anything else.
I’m not saying that older workers can’t be disenfranchised. However, this doesn’t mean that they’re being discriminated against based specifically on their age, and its dishonest of them to claim otherwise.
In some cases, they are genuinely victims (see Intel). However, if a company is merely discriminating based on cost, then that doesn’t automatically translate to age discrimination. Sometimes, the older employees will be shut out, but the same could be said of younger employees who demand unreasonably high salaries.
Which still doesn’t mean that the labor shortage is not genuine. It only means that such abuse needs to be prevented (knowing, of course, that abuse can never be eliminated outright). I am deeply disappointed that Matloff must resort to such outrageous leaps of logic.
In fact, Clinton recently passed some legislation that’s designed to prevent such abuse, by preventing employers from exploiting their H-1B workers. Matloff’s article, FTR, was written more than two years before these laws were passed. I fully expect that his dubious statistics will becom even more obsolete.
Isn’t it obvious? Not all students are alike. Sometimes the American student will be more capable, while sometimes, it’s the foreigner who’ll be more skilled.
Everyday experience bears this out.
Only if the demand does not increase accordingly, and if the proportionate quality of the graduates does not degrade.
Besides, the number of computer science enrollees actually decreased a few years ago. Only recently did it return with a modest upswing.
If anything, that supports the widespread claim that demand for technical manpower is increasing.
A scene down at the immigration office:
“Ok, Programmers… Over there with the tired!”
“Engineers, you go line up with the poor.”
“Web Designers, you go stand with the huddled masses.”
“Now ALL of you, get out of our country!”
Y’all should send back the Statue of Liberty.
It’s worth considering if the problem itself isn’t already becoming obsolete. There is already a substantial trend in some industries toward hiring foreign technical staff while leaving them in their own countries, avoiding immigration problems altogether. I myself am working more closely all the time with a branch office (actually a partnership legally, due to local requirements and nationalism) we’ve set up in India, and we have other such operations started or getting started in Poland and Turkey, with others coming up. A further benefit is that people who can stay home and still get paid hugely by local salaries are more likely to stick with us long enough to get really useful than the imported migrant labor that this thread has been mainly about. We already get a lot of hardware made in “developing countries” for partly-political but mostly-economic reasons, so this is the next natural step.
Note the significant difference in wage levels in those countries - we can hire 4 Indians for the cost of 1 American, and the usefulness to the company of each Indian is clearly more than .25A . True, it can be harder to get things communicated via e-mail and teleconferencing than by just going down the hall, and it can be frustrating to be forced to be more of a program coordinator than engineer at times, but the reasons are inarguable. I really think this kind of operation will be the future model, at least for larger firms.
Sam, my admittedly-limited understanding of Canadian immigration law is that it’s even more difficult for a foreigner to get a job there than in the US - it’s effectively impossible unless the Canadian firm can prove they can’t find a Canadian to do the job at any price, and the certification must be periodically renewed.
Can you elaborate on that for our enlightenment, and on why you feel qualified to make remarks such as your last one?
That’s true, and I think this approach has undeniable advantages.
At the same time though, this approach would often require creating facilities in foreign countries. This could reduce the number of jobs available to U.S. citizens. That’s of concern to many U.S. workers who might otherwise complain about high-tech immigration.
FWIW, I would like to believe Matloff is wrong about H-1Bs being used to replace more expensive workers, and that the industry does not discriminate directly or indirectly against older workers, as I, and every other young programmer, will be an old programmer soon enough. I just haven’t been convinced of that.
So how far do you think the trend will go? Is technical work going to follow the same path as manufacturing and other factory type jobs, meaning massive job cuts in the United States?
In that case, should American students stop pursuing technical education, if the jobs it will prepare them for will be outsourced?
Technical work is inextricably bound up with manufacturing work, so I don’t fully understand your concern. Yes, they’re both much more global than ever before, and technology itself has enabled that.
I don’t think you can look at US unemployment figures over recent years and say that “massive job cuts” have really hurt us - in many cases, exporting of mature industries has actually freed intellectual capital to work on growth industries here. Sure, the match isn’t always perfect, and some technical people who haven’t kept themselves up to date fall back temporarily, but that’s not the fault of the Indian guy across town.
The key is to keep that trend up, of course. I tend to fall back on history and observe that the country was built by, and has maintained its world economic leadership by, immigrants coming here to work hard and build a better life. With every wave of immigrants, there have been the same complaints about them taking the jobs of honest Americans, but did they really? Aren’t we better off overall? I don’t see what’s fundamentally worse about those immigrants now being Indian programmers instead of Irish bricklayers or Chinese railroad builders, do you?