SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the so-highly-skilled-we-need-second-jobs dept.
The Obama administration announced plans to permit the spouses of certain, "highly-skilled" H1B visa holders the right to work too. The backlog of green-card applications for H1B holders can be as much as 11 years. If the goal is to attract and keep more high-quality talent within the USA (rather than H1B off-shoring), it seems like streamlining the "green card" permanent residence process would be more effective. Making the H1B visa a mandatory path to a green card within a very short period, such as 2 years might be a much better way to encourage highly talented individuals to stay in the country compared to requiring more than a decade of uncertainty.
Some claim that this will actually have the perverse effect of enabling IT salaries to fall even further. The New York Times article notes there are representatives who question the wisdom of the proposal and that there is a 60-day comment window.
(Score: 1) by albert on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:16PM
We earn more than the median. That is a pretty strong indicator of a shortage. The economy would do better if most people able to reliably earn significantly above the median were allowed in.
I'm not saying it would be good for me personally, but yes it would be good for the country.
Even better for the economy, but impossible due to offensiveness, would be to get people far below the median to go somewhere else. We have an oversupply of such people.
There is a truth, even if we don't like it very much.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheGratefulNet on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:21PM
if 'we' means 'the 1%' then yes, they are EXTREMELY overpaid. banksters, lawyers, ceo's - all worth much less than they get paid.
workers, otoh, have had shrinking incomes ove the last 10 years or more. I'm actually backwards compared to where I was just 10 or 15 yrs ago! my savings is mostly hand to mouth with very little saved each month. I cannot change the cost of rent, food, gas, insurance (health included), etc.
the real problem is the collusion of all the corp's getting together and doing ALL THEY CAN to lower wages, put people out of work and rehire them as contractors (with NO benefits) and still ask them to work far more than most of the rest of the world works, hours per week wise.
no, americans are not overpaid. we're underpaid. not by accident, either.
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:26PM
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday May 07 2014, @07:52PM
The median worker has actually gained, over the last 35 years, approximately nothing in terms of income. The median American has had negative income for about 25 years, and now has a negative net worth. But for some reason, this situation only became a "crisis" when it started affecting rich people in 2008.
The Reagan-era argument that "a rising tide lifts all boats" is demonstrably hogwash.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday May 08 2014, @12:30AM
> The Reagan-era argument that "a rising tide lifts all boats" is demonstrably hogwash.
More like a tidal wave crushes all boats except the yachts out in deep water.
(Score: 2) by snick on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:23PM
You do realize that the result would be to drive the median down, resulting in importing lower paid workers, which would drive the median down, resulting in importing lower paid workers ...
Yeah, I know. Feature, not bug.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @11:23PM
If we add people above our median, the median goes up. If we eliminate people below our median, the median goes up.
The only way the median could go down would be if things happened too suddenly and severely, shocking the economy into collapse. Well, OK then, don't be so sudden or severe.
If "importing lower paid workers" means people below the median, then just NO. That is the opposite of the idea. If you mean to bring in people at $123456 per year to replace those earning $543210 per year, then yeah that would be fine. It's an excellent idea in fact, because $123456 is still way above the median. We need more of pretty much anybody earning above the median.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:28PM
It is not good for the country. That is if you consider more than just the ultra wealthy.
(Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Wednesday May 07 2014, @06:34PM
If by "we" you mean technical workers like engineers, have you forgotten the high barrier-to-entry posed by the necessary education and training? Why do you think people with advanced degrees should work for the same salaries as people with high school diplomas?
(Score: 1) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday May 07 2014, @08:55PM
Who is "we"?
You do realize the buying power of "median income" varies from place to place, right? The median income in the USA is 44k/yr*. In many places 44k is nearly hand to mouth. If you live in a major metropolitan area or suburb you better be making 80k/yr or more to afford a house. If you want to afford a house and support a family you better be earning around 100k/yr. If you rent you need 50k/yr just to live a decent life with a few, small luxuries (going out for a weekend, vacations, trips, gadgets, etc.).
In my neck of the woods (Queens, NYC) the comfort zone for a single person renting an apartment starts at 50k/yr (gross). It used to be you wanted your rent to be one weeks pay. Now its around 2 weeks pay at 50k (after taxes) for a cheaper apartment. The second two weeks go toward everything else including utilities, auto and food. You can start to save at that point but not much. If you want to be real comfortable you want to be earning 60k+/yr. Average rent is 1200 to 1600 for a small two bedroom depending on the area and apartment size. Apartments in fancy areas like Williamsburg and Park Slope fetch well over 2000/month, in some cases as high as 4000/month. Many people do the roommate thing, it cuts rent in half and allows one to save more. The high cost of living is why many people stay single or wait until their early/mid 30's to start families.
Sure there are places where 800/month will rent you a whole house. But those are small towns and suburbs in areas where you are less likely to find a decent paying job.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_ the_United_States [wikipedia.org]