> By this metric, we can see that the states where it’s easiest to find housing include Utah (2.83 units per capita), California (2.75), Hawaii (2.57), and Texas (2.57). Overall, in the United States, there are approximately 2.35 housing units available per capita.
I just read the article. I think the article makes a grave error. It is not 2.37 houses per person, which would be absurd. Instead it is 2.37 persons per available house. So instead of being 2nd easiest to find housing, California is 2nd most difficult. This is also borne out by the new construction rates in California, which has faced huge population growth but below national average house construction.
> Programs like Head Start in the US have measurable positive impact:
Something can have an unjustified basis, but have a measurable positive impact. Just because the unjustified basis of race was correlated with income. But using the justified basis of income and wealth will not only lead to even more measurable positive impact, it will also be fair.
> It USED to be a very valid disadvantage across the board to have a minority race or skin color
I completely agree that this used to be the case. I might even argue that it is still true to an extent. I will also agree that we should still address it. My problem is when addressing it involves discriminating against asian Americans like me. The people who want to discriminate against asian Americans are just using "historical disadvantage" as an excuse, their actions are political/ideological.
The thing that made the least sense about Harvard's case was that Asians had a harder time getting in than white students. I could see the argument for other minorities being given a leg up over Asian students, but white students? That made no sense.
And the people who want to discriminate against Black Americans are just using "discriminating against Asian Americans" as an excuse, their actions are also political and ideological.
Umm, NYC is 30% white (so, 70% non-white). If among those who left were 64% non-white (or 36% white), if anything, whites are disproportionately being pushed out.
Although I would not say there was any group who is a majority in NYC.
> First, people on H1B already have to prove they are being paid above the average market.
Why should a software dev in SF being paid 150k$ be considered as good a candidate compared to one being paid 400k$? Why do you call it a "high-skilled" visa, and then argue for the bar to be "average"
> Second, not all industry has high profit margins like software
If they cannot pay enough, maybe they should not be hiring international workers citing a shortage.
> Third, if H1B is given based purely on salary, then company won't bother with H1B anymore.
So, is there no shortage of tech workers? Certainly international MIT PhDs will still be in demand?
Because it is not high skilled? That is EB visa? The fact that it is paid at least the average wage for the occupation means you need more proof to claim there is wage repression?
Please read what I wrote. They are required by law to pay above average salary for the occupation they are hiring. Not all industry has the profitability of big tech. Unless you are arguing a software dev job is somehow more skilled than a semiconductor engineer or a biopharma scientist, you have no argument here.
And which visa they are going to be hired for? EB visa? Which take 2-3 years to vet? Which company will wait a year to fill a position instead of just scaling down? If you take down the H1B, there will be shortages and reduced productivity. If you need proof, just check how many of your coworkers are on H1B.
EB are immigraiton visas, that is green card visas. Unless you imagine that people just file EB visas to come work in the USA. Clearly you have zero idea of what work visas people get.
Also, just do a google search, "high-skilled professional visas" without doubt refer to H1B
> Unless you are arguing a software dev job is somehow more skilled than a semiconductor engineer or a biopharma scientist, you have no argument here.
Maybe they should be paid better. Also, I argue that being a nanny or a janitor requires skill too, much more in fact than writing a dumb CRUD app. If software industry having high margins is the problem, maybe that is a separate problem solved with anti trust actions.
> And which visa they are going to be hired for? EB visa? Which take 2-3 years to vet? Which company will wait a year to fill a position instead of just scaling down? If you take down the H1B, there will be shortages and reduced productivity. If you need proof, just check how many of your coworkers are on H1B.
As someone on H1B seeing rampant "fraud" and a mere 14% approval rate, seeing friends with PhDs not getting lotteries while people with fake job offers by "consultancies" get it, I am not asking to end the H1B. I am asking it to be actually for "high skilled" labor.
I argue a bachelor degree isn't high skilled. It is merely "skilled" nowadays, especially in the occupations we are discussing. Here is H1B requirements from USCIS:
For you to qualify to perform services in a specialty occupation you must meet one of the following criteria:
Hold a U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university
Hold a foreign degree that is the equivalent to a U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree required by the specialty occupation from an accredited college or university
But I understand if you call a janitor a "skilled" job then a bachelor degree is indeed "high skilled" from your point of view. Regardless, I do not think anywhere is hiring H1B to do janitor work. An engineer or a scientist with just a bachelor degree is never "high skilled" in my field of work.
>Maybe they should be paid better.
The reasons a semiconductor engineer or a biotech scientist don't get paid higher has nothing to do with how big the company they are in. The nature of software means it is inherently more profitable (low manufacturing cost, less legal regulations, more location flexibility, etc). Those result in the workers get paid more of the profit share. A biotech company with 200M funding and 5 years is barely enough to test 1 pharma product just to have the FDA deny it in the 6th year. You can get 5 guys in a garage to churn out a multimillion dollar software product in 6 months. It is not comparable.
My whole argument is this: Granting visa based on salary is a bad take and unfairly prioritize one type of industry over everything else.
While that can obviously happen, here are a few more thoughts
1. Most grad students are also Indians, and the OPT (->STEM) -> H1B is a common path to employment based visas. And US universities are not unreasonably favoring Indians.
2. A lot of Indians are stuck in H1B status, because of the discriminatory and racist country cap. People stuck in H1B for 10+ years as of now, and potentially multi-decades wait in the future, while other countries get green card right away.
3. India does have many good schools, a focus on engineering, a huge population, and not so many good local opportunities.
And at the end of it all, instead of blaming all Indians (do I represent my country when I attempt to immigrate, or am I an individual trying to not live in that damn country?), maybe USA should actually value high skill labor. Handing off a high skilled labor visa by lottery is a joke, instead it should be called a high-luck visa.
What's funny is nobody said India, and here you go talking about India.
I don't know why you deny Indian racial discrimination. There's a huge problem with Indian's discriminating. Not only discrimination against non-Indians, discrimination based on caste/skin color of other Indians.
It's a huge problem. I've seen it run rampant in every single IT Department or tech firm I've worked at which leverage offshore & H-1B employees.
I am Indian, and Indians often get attacked for 70% H1b going to India. I am tired of it. I do not represent the Indian govt when I try to find job in USA.
Wait if 70% of H1Bs go to Indians, isn’t it even more suspicious that the team i’m talking about in America couldn’t find one Indian or American to hire?
Not really. It tries to measure "impact" and while direct measures like number of CLs can potentially go into that, this is definitely not the rule.
Then again, Google is best thought of as a collection of semi-independent companies loosely bound by culture. Individual managers have a lot of leeway in how they operate, and VPs and Directors have tons of control on how they run their organization, including measuring performance. There are good teams and there are not so good ones.
Calling it fraud is stupid. They deliberately reduced the work that is required, allowing people to file applications easily and cheaply. They deliberately allow people to file multiple applications, that I have not seen a single legitimate employee file. This is all deliberate, not a loophole or fraud.
Also, it is stupid to call H1B a high-skilled visa when you hand it out via lotteries. I wonder if people consider winning powerball as a skill?
But to answer your question, many people filed 10-20 applications each through fake companies to get H1B. The H1b acceptance rate was down to 13% and more than half the applications were filed by people with multiple applications.
Is submitting multiple applications illegal? I'd have to imagine that you would get caught for doing this once they see the same person in the system, especially if they approve the same person multiple times.
History also definitely shows that nepotistic or race-centered systems really did not work out fine. In fact the malinged systems made by rich white people were nepotistic and race-centered.
What history does show us is that systems that reward effort, and not just someone's heritage are the ones that have led to best outcomes.
I just read the article. I think the article makes a grave error. It is not 2.37 houses per person, which would be absurd. Instead it is 2.37 persons per available house. So instead of being 2nd easiest to find housing, California is 2nd most difficult. This is also borne out by the new construction rates in California, which has faced huge population growth but below national average house construction.