Bill Gates urges Congress to increase H-1B
Bill Gates urges Congress to increase H-1B
Date: Monday, February 26, 2007 3:29 PM
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1647 -- 2/26/2007 >>>>>
The campaign to increase H-1B as well as other employment based visas has
begun. Bill Gates joins the fray by publishing an op-ed in the Washington
Post. Gates urges Congress but it sounds more like an order.
I urge them [Congress] to support changes to the H-1B
visa program that allow American businesses to hire
foreign-born scientists and engineers when they can't
find the homegrown talent they need.
Watch out for this claim by Bill Gates because you can expect it to be
quoted everywhere:
This program has strong wage protections for U.S. workers:
Like other companies, Microsoft pays H-1B and U.S. employees
the same high levels -- levels that exceed the government's
prevailing wage.
Gates' claims that Microsoft pays H-1Bs and US employees the same salaries.
THAT IS PART OF THE PROBLEM! As long as he can continue to import H-1Bs, he
can continue to force his U.S. employees to accept the same low salaries as
the H-1Bs who are desperate to take whatever job they can get. Don't expect
Gates' to change his rhetoric about high salaries until PhDs are earning
minimum wage, and he has several billion more dollars in the bank!
As all of you should know by now, Sen. Kennedy is leading the push for
"compreshensive immigration reform" that will include large increases in
the number of H-1B visas. Kennedy and Rep. Zoe Lofgren were asked the big
question recently:
Q: Should foreign worker H-1B visas be capped? Changed?
Lofgren: Whatever we do on H-1Bs we're going to make sure that
it does not adversely affect American workers. I think there
is a weakness in the current program, and I want to make sure we
address it. On the other hand, there are some very talented
Americans who were born in other countries who have grown the
economy. Take Sergey Brin and Google. I'm glad that Google is in
Mountain View instead of Russia.
Kennedy: H-1B visas offer American businesses vital access to
talented and highly skilled workers throughout the world. As in
any labor program, we have to carefully manage the flow of
nonimmigrant labor so that it complements rather than competes
with the American work force.
CNBC just put a video online called the "H-1B Visa Shortage".
http://www.cnbc.com/id/17347835
Robert Hoffman, Oracle's vice president, talks about how sad it is that
H-1Bs are having a tough time bringing their families to the U.S. to
permanently live here. It's sort of funny listening to a corporate
executive shill for H-1B and green cards for reasons of compassion. Later
in the video he shows his true colors when he says that Congress should
pass the Skil Bill.
Laura Reiff is an immigration attorney for the Essential Workers Coalition.
She says that we don't have enough visas for people with less than a
bachelor's degree, and we don't have enough visas for advanced degree
holders. I think what she is trying to say is that we need visas for every
type of job that Americans now hold. This truly is a declaration of war on
American workers.
The last article is a refutation of Bill Gates' claim. Unlike the WP, OCR,
and CNBC, which are mainstream and have large audiences, this article will
unfortunately not be heard by most of the public. The mainstream media, our
politicians, and the corporate lobbyists are speaking with one voice on
H-1B and they have the bully pulpit.
I doubt that we have much time to head off this new lobbying effort but so
far it seems as though most Americans are either ignorant or ambivalent
about the coming storm in Congress. That's too bad because if Congress does
what Bill Gates is demanding high-paid Americans will have to get motivated
to stop this madness while they are standing in a soup line.
You might want to try your hand at a letter to the editor of the WP. Good
luck and let me know if you get it published:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/20/AR2007022000709.html
Material Used for this Newsletter
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301697.html
How to Keep America Competitive
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/abox/article_1583663.php
U.S. legislators discuss what a successful immigration bill needs.
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8924.html
Bill Gates makes the (bogus) case for more (cheap) foreign labor
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/23/AR2007022301697.html
How to Keep America Competitive
By Bill Gates
Sunday, February 25, 2007; B07
For centuries people assumed that economic growth resulted from the
interplay between capital and labor. Today we know that these elements are
outweighed by a single critical factor: innovation.
Innovation is the source of U.S. economic leadership and the foundation for
our competitiveness in the global economy. Government investment in
research, strong intellectual property laws and efficient capital markets
are among the reasons that America has for decades been best at
transforming new ideas into successful businesses.
The most important factor is our workforce. Scientists and engineers
trained in U.S. universities -- the world's best -- have pioneered key
technologies such as the microprocessor, creating industries and generating
millions of high-paying jobs.
But our status as the world's center for new ideas cannot be taken for
granted. Other governments are waking up to the vital role innovation plays
in competitiveness.
This is not to say that the growing economic importance of countries such
as China and India is bad. On the contrary, the world benefits as more
people acquire the skills needed to foster innovation. But if we are to
remain competitive, we need a workforce that consists of the world's
brightest minds.
Two steps are critical. First, we must demand strong schools so that young
Americans enter the workforce with the math, science and problem-solving
skills they need to succeed in the knowledge economy. We must also make it
easier for foreign-born scientists and engineers to work for U.S.
companies.
Education has always been the gateway to a better life in this country, and
our primary and secondary schools were long considered the world's best.
But on an international math test in 2003, U.S. high school students ranked
24th out of 29 industrialized nations surveyed.
Our schools can do better. Last year, I visited High Tech High in San
Diego; it's an amazing school where educators have augmented traditional
teaching methods with a rigorous, project-centered curriculum. Students
there know they're expected to go on to college. This combination is
working: 100 percent of High Tech High graduates are accepted into college,
and 29 percent major in math or science. Contrast that with the national
average of 17 percent.
To remain competitive in the global economy, we must build on the success
of such schools and commit to an ambitious national agenda for education.
Government and businesses can both play a role. Companies must advocate for
strong education policies and work with schools to foster interest in
science and mathematics and to provide an education that is relevant to the
needs of business. Government must work with educators to reform schools
and improve educational excellence.
American competitiveness also requires immigration reforms that reflect the
importance of highly skilled foreign-born employees. Demand for specialized
technical skills has long exceeded the supply of native-born workers with
advanced degrees, and scientists and engineers from other countries fill
this gap.
This issue has reached a crisis point. Computer science employment is
growing by nearly 100,000 jobs annually. But at the same time studies show
that there is a dramatic decline in the number of students graduating with
computer science degrees.
The United States provides 65,000 temporary H-1B visas each year to make up
this shortfall -- not nearly enough to fill open technical positions.
Permanent residency regulations compound this problem. Temporary employees
wait five years or longer for a green card. During that time they can't
change jobs, which limits their opportunities to contribute to their
employer's success and overall economic growth.
Last year, reform on this issue stalled as Congress struggled to address
border security and undocumented immigration. As lawmakers grapple with
those important issues once again, I urge them to support changes to the
H-1B visa program that allow American businesses to hire foreign-born
scientists and engineers when they can't find the homegrown talent they
need. This program has strong wage protections for U.S. workers: Like other
companies, Microsoft pays H-1B and U.S. employees the same high levels --
levels that exceed the government's prevailing wage.
Reforming the green card program to make it easier to retain highly skilled
professionals is also necessary. These employees are vital to U.S.
competitiveness, and we should welcome their contribution to U.S. economic
growth.
We should also encourage foreign students to stay here after they graduate.
Half of this country's doctoral candidates in computer science come from
abroad. It's not in our national interest to educate them here but send
them home when they've completed their studies.
During the past 30 years, U.S. innovation has been the catalyst for the
digital information revolution. If the United States is to remain a global
economic leader, we must foster an environment that enables a new
generation to dream up innovations, regardless of where they were born.
Talent in this country is not the problem -- the issue is political will.
The writer is chairman of Microsoft Corp. and co-chairman of the Bill and
Melinda Gates Foundation. His wife is a director of The Washington Post Co.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.ocregister.com/ocregister/news/nationworld/abox/article_1583663.php
MORE PHOTOS
SEN. EDWARD KENNEDY
Age: 74
Residence: Hyannisport, Mass.
Education: J.D., University of Virginia Law School; B.A., government,
Harvard University
Experience: U.S. senator, 1962-present. Chairman of the Health, Education,
Labor and Pensions Committee. Candidate, Democratic presidential
nomination, 1980. Assistant district attorney, Suffolk County, Mass.,
1961-62. Private, U.S. Army, 1951-53.
Family: Wife, Victoria Reggie; three children; two stepchildren
REP. ZOE LOFGREN
Age: 59
Residence: San Jose
Education: J.D., University of Santa Clara School of Law; B.A., political
science, Stanford University
Experience: Member, House of Representatives, 1994-present; member, Santa
Clara Board of Supervisors, 1981-1994; congressional aide, 1970-1978;
professor of immigration law, University of Santa Clara School of Law,
1981-1994
Family: Husband, John Marshall Collins; two children
Sunday, February 18, 2007
Navigating passage
U.S. legislators discuss what a successful immigration bill needs.
By DENA BUNIS
The Orange County Register
WASHINGTON The debate about how to reform the nation's immigration
system will soon heat up again on both sides of the Capitol.
With the Democratic takeover of Congress, two lawmakers long active in this
issue will lead the House and Senate immigration subcommittees where policy
decisions start. At his news conference Wednesday, President Bush
reiterated his support for a comprehensive fix and said he believed this
was an issue he could work on with the new majority.
Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, leads the House panel, and Sen. Edward
Kennedy, D-Mass., heads the Senate subcommittee.
Lofgren recently sat down with The Orange County Register to talk about her
plans for immigration. Kennedy declined an interview but answered by e-mail
the questions posed to Lofgren.
Here are excerpts.
Q: What is your main goal as chair of the subcommittee?
Lofgren: Craft and guide to passage a comprehensive bipartisan, practical
immigration reform bill.
Kennedy: We all agree that America's immigration system is broken. Millions
of families wait for years to be reunited with their loved ones. Tens of
thousands of employers are unable to obtain immigrant visas for the workers
they depend on. The result is a growing crisis of illegal immigration.
There's an urgent need for legislation and policies to fix the broken
system.
Q: What will it take to get that done?
Lofgren: We're going to start right away and build on the work we did last
year. The House passed the Sensenbrenner bill (an enforcement-only measure
by Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis.), but most House members really never
had the full issue before them. There's an educational effort that will
have to happen here in the House and some reaching out to some people who
think they disagree, and find common ground with them.
Kennedy: Right now, we have the elements in place to enact the reforms the
American people have been calling for. The president and the House of
Representatives are genuine partners in this debate. I am confident we can
pass a tough but fair immigration plan that protects our borders, upholds
our values, strengthens our laws and ensures our prosperity.
Q: Why has getting a comprehensive bill been so difficult?
Lofgren: People have strong views on this subject. I think that the section
of the Republican caucus that Mr. (Tom) Tancredo (R-Colo.) seems to speak
for seems very adamant about their opposition to immigration, and I don't
expect that he and I are likely to find common ground. That doesn't mean we
can't find common ground with others on the other side of the aisle. I
think also that it was an issue that some thought could be used to
political advantage, and there was a lot of angry rhetoric that made it
more difficult to reach agreement. What I've been talking to some of my
colleagues about is if we just stop yelling about this and just
methodically work our way through the outstanding issues, we'd probably get
a lot further.
Kennedy: On the issue of immigration, emotions run high, and divisiveness
gets in the way of progress.
Q: The conventional wisdom is that the Senate will act on a comprehensive
bill first. Is that so? Will something get to Bush's desk this year?
Lofgren: They probably will. We want to act promptly, and we also want to
be inclusive. But we have some work to do. They did a lot of that already,
and there's some things that we didn't have a chance to do last Congress.
(Q: So you think it will get to the president this year?) Yes. I'm an
optimist so I hope we will.
Kennedy: Yes, we can. (Sen.) John McCain (R-Ariz.) and I are working
together to put forward a solid bill that will pass both the House and the
Senate this year. The Senate spent weeks on our bill last year, so it makes
sense for the Senate to take the lead. But our colleagues in the House are
just as determined to pass a good bill, and we're working closely together.
Q: Is there one element of a comprehensive bill that's the most difficult?
Lofgren: I don't know yet. We've got disparate elements of American society
pulling in different directions. People worry, and they have a right to say
we don't want to do 1986 (amnesty) all over again. I don't either. I want
something that is workable and lasting, which means we have to have a
system that accommodates our current problem but will also work for the
orderly movement of people across our borders and enforcement of our laws
in the future.
Kennedy: The legalization provisions have been a source of controversy from
the start, but they shouldn't be. It's wrong for opponents to call it
amnesty.
Q: A plan that legalizes many of the 12 million illegal immigrants here.
Isn't that amnesty?
Lofgren: The question is what kind of punishment. You don't have the death
penalty for trespass. What kind of sanction is appropriate? Is it fines? Is
it some other things? The word "amnesty" has some people very agitated, but
I'm trying to listen to what that means to people in the House. What level
of sanction will make people feel that there's justice? That's what we're
trying to find out.
Kennedy: Not at all. Amnesty means a free pass. Our plan is tough but fair.
Illegal immigrants already here can earn citizenship by working hard for
years, paying a big penalty, passing all background checks, learning
English and civics, and then going to the back of the line. They should be
able to obtain a temporary visa that could lead to permanent residency,
over time.
Q: Some say we don't need to deport the 12 million that if we enforce
the rules, the jobs won't be there, and they'll go home. Do you agree?
Lofgren: I don't think most observers believe that that's the case. I think
I count myself among them. We should have better workplace enforcement, and
that's going to be an element of the comprehensive bill. But you also need
a system that works.
Kennedy: The primary cause is not too little enforcement, but too few
visas. Employers insist on hiring immigrants to meet their labor needs.
Family reunification is an essential goal as well. Our immigration system
is broken because the American economy demands low-skilled workers, but our
current immigration system doesn't grant enough visas to meet the demand.
Enforcement alone cannot address these fundamental imbalances.
Q: Should the Real ID Act, which bans illegal immigrants from getting
driver's licenses, be repealed?
Lofgren: I don't know. It's a huge unfunded mandate. We're not going to
take that up as part of this bill. We need to take a look at certainly the
costs to states and localities.
Kennedy: I had many concerns about the act. The provisions were highly
controversial, harmful and unnecessary. We need to revisit that piece of
legislation and correct its harmful effects. The threat of terrorism hasn't
ended, so we must do all we can to enact genuine measures to stop
terrorists before they act and to see that law-enforcement officials have
the full support they need. The provisions of the Real ID Act do not
improve these efforts. They don't make us safer or prevent terrorism. What
they are is an invitation to gross abuses and a false solution to national
and border security
Q: Should foreign worker H-1B visas be capped? Changed?
Lofgren: Whatever we do on H-1Bs we're going to make sure that it does not
adversely affect American workers. I think there is a weakness in the
current program, and I want to make sure we address it. On the other hand,
there are some very talented Americans who were born in other countries who
have grown the economy. Take Sergey Brin and Google. I'm glad that Google
is in Mountain View instead of Russia.
Kennedy: H-1B visas offer American businesses vital access to talented and
highly skilled workers throughout the world. As in any labor program, we
have to carefully manage the flow of nonimmigrant labor so that it
complements rather than competes with the American work force.
Contact the writer: 202-628-6381 or dbunis@ocregister.com
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20070226-8924.html
Bill Gates makes the (bogus) case for more (cheap) foreign labor
2/26/2007 1:31:00 PM, by Jon Stokes
In an op-ed in yesterday's Washington Post, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates
argues yet again in favor of raising the cap on H1-B foreign worker visas
from its present number of 65,000. Gates' basic argument boils down to
this: fewer students at American universities are opting for computer
science degrees, which means that we need to raise the H1-B cap so that the
software industry can import more foreign labor to fill those jobs that
Americans -- for whatever reason -- don't seem to be equipped for.
Of course, the fact that the importation of cheap foreign labor into the
software industry job market hampers American programmers' ability to
compete and leads to depressed wages overall is never mentioned by Gates as
a major reason why a computer science degree just isn't that attractive any
more to Americans. Who wants to spend four or five years getting a CS
degree, only to be priced out of the job market by foreign programmers who
are willing to work for less in exchange for a green card?
But Bill Gates would vigorously dispute my assertion that Microsoft pays
its H1-B workers any less than they pay American workers to do the same
programming job, and indeed a big part of Gates' case for raising the cap
is built on his claim that H1-B workers are paid the same salaries as
American workers. Unfortunately for Gates, that particular claim, which he
himself has made in the Washington Post before, is falsifiable.
Gates' H1-B flap
In March of last year, Washington Post columnist David Broder interviewed
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates on Microsoft's efforts to persuade Congress
to raise the cap on the number of H1-B visas that the government grants to
foreign workers. Like many large companies in the tech industry, Microsoft
would like to be able to hire more workers through the H1-B program,
ostensibly because of a grave shortage of technical talent here at home.
In the interview, Broder reports that Gates made the following claim about
the salaries of Microsoft's H1-B hires: "As Gates said, these [H1-B
workers] are highly paid, highly qualified individuals. Salaries for these
jobs at Microsoft start at about $100,000 a year."
This indirect quote, and the column from which it's drawn, went largely
unnoticed until earlier this month, when a cross-post about the column
appeared at the popular progressive blogs MyDD and DailyKos before being
picked up in this blog entry at Networkworld. The post, written by Robert
Oak, the anti-outsourcing activist behind NoSlaves.com, attempted to refute
Gates' apparent claim that H1-B salaries at Microsoft really do start at
"about $100,000 a year." The argument that Oak went on to make is that
Gates flat-out lied to Broder about the salaries that Microsoft pays H1-B
workers in an attempt to cover up the alleged fact that Microsoft is
backing higher H1-B caps solely so that the company can import more cheap
foreign labor. There is no shortage of American computer talent, argue Oak
and other outsourcing and H1-B opponents -- American companies like Intel
and Microsoft just want to hire foreigners because they can pay them less.
Let's take a closer look at what Oak argued, and at Microsoft's response to
Ars regarding questions about Gates' comments.
A closer look at Microsoft's H1-B salaries
Oak began his refutation of Gates' claim with the assumption that
Microsoft's foreign worker hiring practices are just like those in the rest
of the software industry, i.e., a tech company makes a non-citizen a job
offer under the H1-B program, and the company also promises to sponsor the
new hire for a green card if he or she takes the job. The H1-B program,
then, is pitched to foreign workers as a path to a much-coveted green card,
and to the permanent-resident status that a green card confers.
Whenever Microsoft submits a green card application on behalf of a worker,
the company is required by law to publish that worker's salary. So a
colleague of Oak's, Dr. Ron Hira, did an analysis of Microsoft's published
green card data in Excel. Hira found that only 3.3 percent of the company's
green card applicants were being paid $100,000/year or higher at the time
their applications were submitted to the program. The rest earned below
$100,000/year, with a substantial number of them earning significantly
below that number.
Oaks contends that this analysis of Microsoft's green card data proves that
Gates lied to Broder about the company's H1-B salaries, in order to
perpetuate the myth of an American tech talent shortage and to mask the
real reason why Microsoft wants to be able to hire more H1-Bs.
So did Gates lie to Broder?
For Gates to be a liar, then two conditions would have to be met.
Broder's indirect quote would have to faithfully reflect a claim made by
Gates. In other words, we have to believe that David Broder didn't somehow
make up this salary claim and then attribute it to Gates.
Oaks' initial assumption that most or all of Microsoft's green card
applicants are currently working for the company through the H1-B program
would have to be correct.
Regarding condition #1 above, I asked Microsoft if the company would vouch
for the accuracy of Broder's characterization of Gates' comments. A
Microsoft spokesperson replied with the following statement:
The need to attract and retain talent is vital. The positions we seek to
fill are for those with the highest levels of skill available and for which
there are no U.S. candidates. Competition for that talent is global and
intense. As we highlighted in a letter to Congress last year, "The H-1B
program has strong wage requirements and other protections for U.S.
workers. Moreover, Microsoft compensates its H-1B workers at the same high
levels as U.S. workers, and at levels substantially above the government
set "prevailing wages" for each occupation (although some critics have
confused the 'prevailing wage' level for what Microsoft actually pays its
employees), for example:
Software Development Engineers averaged over $109,000 in total direct
compensation in 2005.
Program Managers averaged over $110,000 in total direct compensation in
2005."
This isn't exactly an iron-clad statement from Microsoft that the company
pays its H1-B hires $100,000/year or more, but it does reiterate the
company's standard claim that it pays its H1-B workers more than the
prevailing wage for each position. I'll take it as a de facto confirmation
of the substance of Gates' reported remarks, even if it doesn't explicitly
affirm their specifics.
I also asked Microsoft about point #2. Specifically, I asked what
percentage of Microsoft's green card applicants were enrolled in the H1-B
program at the time that they applied for a green card. The company got
back to me with the following response:
We hire H1-Bs with a view to making them permanent U.S. residents (i.e.,
getting them green cards) but Federal Government processing delays and the
overall lack of green card availability for high skilled workers means that
we're only able to turn-over about 20% of our H1B hires into green card
holders annually -- this backlog has created opportunities for foreign
competition to lure talent away from Microsoft and other U.S. companies
because our immigration system makes it impossible for these high skilled
individuals and their families to stay in the U.S..
This statement makes it pretty clear that Microsoft has a typical view of
the H1-B as a path to a green card, which means the vast majority (if not
all) of Microsoft's green card applicants -- only 3.3 percent of whom make
more than $100,000/year -- are working for the company on an H1-B visa. So
it looks like Gates "misspoke himself," to use a favorite Beltway
euphemism, when he told Broder that Microsoft's H1-B workers start at
$100,000 a year.
Postscript: Criticisms of the H1-B program
One major criticism of the H1-B program has been that it's a source of
cheap labor for the tech industry. Some companies would rather hire an H1-B
worker who'll work for a lower salary in exchange for the promise of a
green card than hire an American worker at the prevailing wage. My own past
reporting on the impact of the H1-B program put the problem as follows:
Importing foreign labor via the H1B visa program is a fantastic way to
boost American competitiveness if there's a real shortage of expertise in
the American labor market. If there isn't a real shortage, then it's
strictly a way for American companies to bring in cheap labor at lower
wages by dangling the promise of a green card in front of potential hires.
This kind of activity exerts a downward pressure on wages across the entire
field and ultimately prices American labor out of the market.
In the rest of that post, I develop the above argument in more detail, and
provide an example of what I'm talking about. So if you want to learn more,
then that post is a good place to start.
Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window
Back to archives