The worst fears of H-1B critics has been confirmed:
 A new study published today by Dr. Norman Matloff - professor of computer science at the University of California - Davis, unmasks that Cisco and Microsoft are NOT using the H-1B visa program to hire the best and brightest. |
Cisco and Microsoft say that continued U.S. leadership in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) hinges on their ability to import the world’s best engineers and scientists.
Dr. Norman Matloff presents new data analysis showing that the vast majority of the foreign workers at Cisco and Microsoft are people of just ordinary talent, doing ordinary work.
They are not the innovators that Cisco and Microsoft portray them to be.
Cisco and Microsoft claim that the U.S. lead in tech depends on hiring innovators from abroad.
The analysis demonstrates that the foreign workers are in fact generally not outstanding talents, thus casting serious doubt on the claim that innovators are being hired.
Most foreign tech workers are in fact not the best and the brightest.
This is true both overall and in the key tech occupations, and most importantly, in Cisco and Microsoft who are the firms most stridently demanding that Congress admit more foreign workers.
Expansion of the guest worker programs — both H-1B visas and green cards — is unwarranted.
Read the entire:
Do YOU believe as yours truly that Cisco and Microsoft owe a very big apology to American citizens for their scandalous deception?
Brad Reese cofounded BradReese.Com Cisco Refurbished, which enables affordable networks globally by assuring customer satisfaction with guaranteed one year warranties on both Cisco Repair as well as Refurbished Cisco.
Don't be shy, contact Brad Reese online or call him Toll Free:
866-864-0506
International callers may wish to call Brad by dialing:
850-364-4115
The Leader in Network Knowledge
Lang Tibbils, where are you?
Hey Lang, where's your snappy response to this data? Kinda makes your other posts on this site ring a little hollow, does it not? Have you now been exposed for the corporate propagandist you are? Indeed.
And Brad, to answer your last question, yes, not only does Cisco owe ALL OF US a large apology, I feel they also should be held in contempt of congress for their obviously false testimony on teh need for H1-B limit increases.
Cisco, shame on you.
jk
Premature
Wow Jim...as a first time contributor to this discussion to call me out a mere 20-minutes after the post went up seems a bit premature, but I will leave my personal emotion out of the discussion and simply highlight for the readers the comment I posted around 3PM roughly 2-hours after Brad posted to the UC Davis study.
Like any good debate there are studies that confirm we have a talent shortage and studies that refute a talent shortage. The readers will have to decide which side of the discussion they will support, but let me point out a couple of things with regards to this most recent study.
1)Why can’t the best and brightest be employed at entry level positions? I believe there is something to be said about an employees potential, especially should they have an expertise in an emerging area. I’d also suggest that innovation comes from all levels.
2)I’d further submit that there is a big difference between salary and compensation. A person’s salary is one component of their compensation. Therefore, using salary as the basis to determine level of experience fails to factor in bonuses or stock options, which in high tech can be significant components of a person’s total compensation.
3)Finally I’d offer this Wall St. Journal blog entry (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/08/us-shuts-window-for-h1b-applications/entry) that highlights for the first time this year both the 65,000 visas for skilled workers as well as the 20,000 H-1B visas for foreign-born graduates of U.S. universities with master’s and doctoral degrees filled in days. This showcases a trend that the demand for highly educated H-1B visa applicants is rapidly growing.
In closing, I would point out yet again that Network World’s annual salary survey showed what it dubbed downright impressive — 11.6% increase in IT salaries. If the basic principles of supply and demand are at work this study confirms that demand is outpacing supply. If the basic principles of employee compensation are at work this study confirms that innovation continues and employers are doing what they can to make sure they keep the best and brightest employed...I know Cisco is.
What a load of crap. The
What a load of crap. The basic premise of his study is wrong: "Here I present a much more direct analysis, making use of a simple but powerful idea: If the foreign workers are indeed outstanding talents, they would be paid accordingly. ". Where has he justified that this "simple" (simplistic would be a better description) idea is a "powerful" one?
Salaries are determined by a host of factors not the least of which is the global economy. A genius in a less developed country might be happy to make 1.01 times the average wage in the US since it is many times what he could earn back home. Does that mean that by accepting a salary (which is still more than the median) he is not an innovator anymore.
If the premise is flawed, the so-called analysis is null and void. Anyone can stipulate some basically wrong hypothesis and then proceed to build up some grandiose case on it.
Do note that Cisco and Microsoft pay innovators far more than their home country's median wages when they are part of an off-shore operation. So all that the H1-B cap achieves is moving jobs off-shore. Now that is a sure way of raise median wages here in the US, if the analysis were to be believed.
Either way, Cisco lied.
Your "debunking" of this study actually proves the point Brad Reese has been making lo these many months: That Cisco and Micrsoft are gaming the H1B system to give American jobs to lower paid foreigners.
So, if it's as you say and the study's premise is incorrect, then in fact Cisco/MS are lying when they say they are not using H1B visas simply to lower their payrolls (at the expense of equally qualified Americans).
Or the study's premise is correct, then in fact Cisco/MS are lying about using H1-Bs to augment what they say is a shortage of American talent.
Which is it? I don't care. Either way they are lying to us and our government. Kudos to Brad Reese for shining ever more light onto this cesspool.
Well, Jim, unlike you, I
Well, Jim, unlike you, I (the original poster to whom you replied) didn't set out with an agenda to prove MS & Cisco were lying or that they weren't. You can go re-read my post and see if my comment even mentioned that.
All I was saying is that the "analysis" is based on a flawed premise, so it does not add any value one way or the other. Your argument may be correct to begin with, but it certainly should not be bolstered by this analysis - that is my point. Brad Reese linking it to it with a provactive heading does not make it any more authoritative either -- starting his article with "H1-B Scandal: " doesn't look like a presentation of the facts or shining the light to me, it sounds like an opinion, which of course he is entitled to.
But it would be more valuable if he (or you) stood up for why you think the study is worth something if you are using it to promote your view. You might convince someone like me who is willing to listen to a valid argument and agree with your position, but referencing a study to call for an apology only to say "I don't care [about the premise of the study being correct or not]. Either way they are lying to us and our government." doesn't quite sound like the voice of reason.
The study is making a conclusion (invalid in my opinion) that H1-Bs do not result in more innovative employees being hired -- a secondary result which they don't dwell on seems to be that the salaries are still higher or the same as the median. The only way you could agree with my case that the study is flawed, even hypothetically as you did above, is to agree that there might be innovators while the salary is still about the same as the median. How you go from this to "at the expense of equally qualified Americans" takes a big leap of faith. If the study is flawed that means that the median included equally qualified Americans to begin with. The whole point of my disagreement with the study is that salary does not determine innovation - if you agreed with that position, and the median salary included talented people too, how do you reach the conclusion that it is at the expense of equally qualified Americans.
And you haven't even addressed that if that's ALL what companies were interested in, they could do even better by hiring off-shore and then its about competing in the global economy.
Believe it or not, I am open-minded about this but I do not see anything that convinces me so far about your argument. In fact, Lang's argument seems to be making more sense: innovation does come from all levels - measuring innovation by salary is like measuring people's contribution to mankind by their net worth.
A good point
Hi anonymous, why anonymous when you have a good opinion? Anyway, yes the analysis is based on A premise, is it flawed or not is a matter of argument (never agreed in my life time - heh!)
But your points about salary may be (might have been?) correct, I did come to US 27+ years ago from Europe, cut half (or more) of my salary(!) but got a very interesting job they really couldn't find a person, computer simulation wasn't (isn't?) high on list of skills people had (have?). I escaped a very well paying but very demanding (for family life) consulting job and was happy a long time.
The problem is, I know personally some coming over and trust me, they are very skilled. Now, I also know some who are just to replace better paid people in companies (good for them), so it's not so easy. Personally I think it is both ways, companies try to save/make money but also looking talents. Doesn't help the argument - does it?
Point taken
There you go spoiling a perfectly good troll with information. =)
Seriously though, I have no agenda against Cisco (MS, not so much). I think you raise a valid point but it kinda shoots past what I was going for. I'm not arguing one way or another on H1B visas per se, nor do I have any idea of the level of innovation that visa holders may or may not bring to the party. In fact, my personal experience with H1B workers has been overwhelmingly positive. What I do have a problem with, however, is the apparent manipulation of the H1B program by companies such as Cisco and MS. Again, this may or may not be the norm, but my personal experience is that some, less honorable companies use the visa program for purely bottom-line reasons. Cisco's machinations of late carry that familiar aroma.
Indeed, the ratio of the
Indeed, the ratio of the worker's salary to the prevailing salary stated by the employer is a very weak measure of talent. Yes, a genius from a less developed country would be happy to earn just above the average salary because that's many times what he'd make at home. That happens ALL the time. Furthermore, an average talent from Germany or the UK would require quite a higher salary than the average to relocate because he has many choices at home, in fact, usually many more than the genius from the 3rd world.
I really don't see any value to UCD's analysis.
Potential, Compensation and Trend
Like any good debate there are studies that confirm we have a talent shortage and studies that refute a talent shortage. The readers will have to decide which side of the discussion they will support, but let me point out a couple of things with regards to this most recent study.
1)Why can’t the best and brightest be employed at entry level positions? I believe there is something to be said about an employees potential, especially should they have an expertise in an emerging area. I’d also suggest that innovation comes from all levels.
2)I’d further submit that there is a big difference between salary and compensation. A person’s salary is one component of their compensation. Therefore, using salary as the basis to determine level of experience fails to factor in bonuses or stock options, which in high tech can be significant components of a person’s total compensation.
3)Finally I’d offer this Wall St. Journal blog entry (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/04/08/us-shuts-window-for-h1b-applications/entry) that highlights for the first time this year both the 65,000 visas for skilled workers as well as the 20,000 H-1B visas for foreign-born graduates of U.S. universities with master’s and doctoral degrees filled in days. This showcases a trend that the demand for highly educated H-1B visa applicants is rapidly growing.
In closing, I would point out yet again that Network World’s annual salary survey showed what it dubbed downright impressive — 11.6% increase in IT salaries. If the basic principles of supply and demand are at work this study confirms that demand is outpacing supply. If the basic principles of employee compensation are at work this study confirms that innovation continues and employers are doing what they can to make sure they keep the best and brightest employed...I know Cisco is.
And the trend is.....
"...[WSJ blog] that highlights for the first time this year both the 65,000 visas for skilled workers as well as the 20,000 H-1B visas for foreign-born graduates of U.S. universities with master’s and doctoral degrees filled in days. This showcases a trend that big corporations are working harder than ever to lower their salary costs at the expense of otherwise qualified Americans and the tax base those salaries support."
There, fixed that for ya.
jk