H1B and outsourcing are 2 sides of the same coin.

I disagree with this. At companies that pay higher for tech talent Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Meta etc. its about having sufficient people to build teams in the US. These companies have budgets for high salaries, but once you stop getting people in the US they start looking in other Countries Canada, UK, Eastern Europe, India etc.
This is because their hiring bar is really high.

If you see the list

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/the-top-companies-using-h-1b-visas-in-2024/, There are actually 2 tiers in their
Tier 1: Apple, Amazon, Microsoft, Meta, Google
Tier 2: Infosys, Cognizant, TCS

Tier 1 is high talent bar and mostly high margin businesses. Tier 2 is garbage software consulting firms and most H1B critics equate all of H1B to Tier 2 which is disingenuous.

A lot of "world citizen" types on TA look at US companies as "world employers".

Others, including myself, look at US companies as "American first, world next employers". But it is not as simple as just these 2 statements. There is a lot of case by case analysis.

That seems to be the difference.
You cannot go to either extreme for a good result. there is a lot of nuance and detail of how the loopholes are exploited by both US and Indian companies.

Those need to be plugged. H1B and other programs need to be clear about their goal and must stick to their goal. You cannot have a program supposed to bring in the "brightest from around the world" and then actually bring in "dumb as rocks" type people who get paid to breathe just because the US CEO of a publicly traded company wants to show cost cutting to juice his bonus. I have seen such situations first hand.

H1B is on the firing line, there are many other types of visa that no one talks about. Spouse work visa is another one.

Entire system is as rotten as USAID. Trash the current system and bring in a new one.
Do Musk/Trump have the balls to do it? Let's see.

There needs to be some protection of workers in the US. E.g if you are a U S company getting Us law protections and US tax rates you should be prevented from doing core R&D and development in other countries. Otherwise you get the China in manufacturing situation. Once work and skill development move to another region, it just doesn't come back.

I don't know all the right nuances to get the policy right, but smart people can figure that out. Really important to stem the tide here

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Open a history book please and see that this does not end well. The clown world economy is going to collapse at some point and then you will have people fighting for land.

---

What specifically does not work well? Hiring the best possible talent?

---

Mass "immigration" like we've been doing since 1965.

---

Fair. i don't agree with it either, even though i have benefitted.

This discussions was about H1Bs specifically.
The current H1B system is being manipulated by companies. However, not allowing any H1s is a bad idea. Want to make it more expensive to hire H1s? Absolutely, go for it. If you're sponsoring H1s make sure they are truly worth it. But make no mistake, there are some exceedingly talented folks worldwide that you want in the US.

For smaller companies (I work for one) outsourcing is a very efficient way to grow. I can hire 10 engineers in India for the price of 1 really good one in the US. There is a much higher ROI with the 10 engineers, alows us to grow. We want to get to a point where we can hire a US only team - if we were forced to hire only in the US, we would pretty much have to shut shop.

Outsourcing also makes many US companies more competitive globally. We don't like to hear it, and rail on CEOs, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's true.

---

All I hear from you is taking taking and more taking from the US and tax payers. No giving back.
As another poster said, you are justifying slave labor at obs
Maybe it is better for your company to shut shop.


(I say it figuratively of course, I don't want you to lose your job)

---

Yes, lets shut down companies so that you can get better job security.

Maybe you are better off working in government , because you clearly have a problem understanding the real challenges faced by startups and small businesses.

Suggesting they shut down, is an absolutely absurd statement.
The rest of us will live in the real world, trying to overcome these challenges.

BTKAG97 said:

---

H1B and outsourcing are 2 sides of the same coin.

---

You can control H1Bs and make it more difficult- restricting entry to only those with outstanding talent.

Preventing outsourcing requires better policy, and incentives to keep jobs here.
Oftentimes its cheaper to offshore, especially if it's not your core business or a back office operation.

Offshoring your core business,is a very bad idea, unless you have the team and management to make it work - not very common. Most companies that do this, will either reverse course, or become uncompetitive

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

Why exactly?

A corporation outsourced 50% of their salary staff.
That means less dollars in the United States to circulate.
Grown to a significant scale that leads to a decrease in buying power for the USA.
That means businesses most reliant on US consumers will suffer the outcome of decreased buying power.
That then causes a recession.

The total cost of the above is likely much more expensive for our society in the USA to sustain then just limiting the overseas salary savings making businesses more "competitive".

Look at the present landscape, America doesn't really have competitors. Japan's means of business is too slow. Western Europe is trash. India and China aren't launching global brands to compete. So this whole we have to do it to stay competitive is just to stay competitive versus US.

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

Open a history book please and see that this does not end well. The clown world economy is going to collapse at some point and then you will have people fighting for land.

---

What specifically does not work well? Hiring the best possible talent?

---

Mass "immigration" like we've been doing since 1965.

---

Fair. i don't agree with it either, even though i have benefitted.

This discussions was about H1Bs specifically.
The current H1B system is being manipulated by companies. However, not allowing any H1s is a bad idea. Want to make it more expensive to hire H1s? Absolutely, go for it. If you're sponsoring H1s make sure they are truly worth it. But make no mistake, there are some exceedingly talented folks worldwide that you want in the US.

For smaller companies (I work for one) outsourcing is a very efficient way to grow. I can hire 10 engineers in India for the price of 1 really good one in the US. There is a much higher ROI with the 10 engineers, alows us to grow. We want to get to a point where we can hire a US only team - if we were forced to hire only in the US, we would pretty much have to shut shop.

Outsourcing also makes many US companies more competitive globally. We don't like to hear it, and rail on CEOs, but it still doesn't change the fact that it's true.

---

All I hear from you is taking taking and more taking from the US and tax payers. No giving back.
As another poster said, you are justifying slave labor at obs
Maybe it is better for your company to shut shop.


(I say it figuratively of course, I don't want you to lose your job)

---

Yes, lets shut down companies so that you can get better job security.

Maybe you are better off working in government , because you clearly have a problem understanding the real challenges faced by startups and small businesses.

Suggesting they shut down, is an absolutely absurd statement.
The rest of us will live in the real world, trying to overcome these challenges.

---

You didn't read my post before replying.
I said shut it down AND create another one without the loopholes.

Just like Trump is doing with USAID.
We will at some point still give out aid to deserving countries but not for sex change ops in Guatemala.

How's that for some real world solution?

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

texagbeliever said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

Why exactly?

A corporation outsourced 50% of their salary staff.
That means less dollars in the United States to circulate.
Grown to a significant scale that leads to a decrease in buying power for the USA.
That means businesses most reliant on US consumers will suffer the outcome of decreased buying power.
That then causes a recession.

The total cost of the above is likely much more expensive for our society in the USA to sustain then just limiting the overseas salary savings making businesses more "competitive".

Look at the present landscape, America doesn't really have competitors. Japan's means of business is too slow. Western Europe is trash. India and China aren't launching global brands to compete. So this whole we have to do it to stay competitive is just to stay competitive versus US.

---

[Wrong emoji, please ignore]

Because corporations are the best judge of what they need to outsource.
This is not saying that they are good at it, but all things considered, they are still the best judge, and often have the most to lose from making a bad decision.

We need to make it more attractive for companies to retain jobs in the US.

texagbeliever said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

Why exactly?

A corporation outsourced 50% of their salary staff.
That means less dollars in the United States to circulate.
Grown to a significant scale that leads to a decrease in buying power for the USA.
That means businesses most reliant on US consumers will suffer the outcome of decreased buying power.
That then causes a recession.

The total cost of the above is likely much more expensive for our society in the USA to sustain then just limiting the overseas salary savings making businesses more "competitive".

Look at the present landscape, America doesn't really have competitors. Japan's means of business is too slow. Western Europe is trash. India and China aren't launching global brands to compete. So this whole we have to do it to stay competitive is just to stay competitive versus US.

---

Yup.
People saying "we will have to compete with Indian engineers" are just gaslighting us. Only 5% of those are good (we want them here). The rest are all trash. I know this first hand, and my wife now is forced to work with such con-artists.

I challenge any US company to move to any other country. Do it!
No one will. They all want to be here.
This is like Oprah and Ellen Degenerate threatening to leave if Trump became President, but then saying "who? me?".

deddog said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

Why exactly?

A corporation outsourced 50% of their salary staff.
That means less dollars in the United States to circulate.
Grown to a significant scale that leads to a decrease in buying power for the USA.
That means businesses most reliant on US consumers will suffer the outcome of decreased buying power.
That then causes a recession.

The total cost of the above is likely much more expensive for our society in the USA to sustain then just limiting the overseas salary savings making businesses more "competitive".

Look at the present landscape, America doesn't really have competitors. Japan's means of business is too slow. Western Europe is trash. India and China aren't launching global brands to compete. So this whole we have to do it to stay competitive is just to stay competitive versus US.

---

[Wrong emoji, please ignore]

Because corporations are the best judge of what they need to outsource.
This is not saying that they are good at it, but all things considered, they are still the best judge, and often have the most to lose from making a bad decision.

We need to make it more attractive for companies to retain jobs in the US.

---

You trust corps too much. Corps care only about themselves (rather the top management, not the employees), not the US.

We care about the US. I hope you do too, as a citizen.

So if something does not benefit the US, they need to GTFO.
If it benefits the US, then stay.

It is really that simple. America first.

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

---

Well tell is what X is. Because details matter.
What's reasonable? Who gets to decide?
The ****ing government gets to decide how much a corporation can outsource? Based on what?
Exactly what does a bureaucrat know about running a high tech corporation?

Last corporation I worked for made 80% of their revenue outside the US. They are US based because they are very high tech and get significant talent here. Some of the talent is H1s and they also moved a development center overseas.

What would you suggest? What percentage should they be allowed to send overseas? Or would you shut them down too?
We paid 70 million in taxes last year.
What's your solution? Kick us out the US?
You realize how asinine that reasoning is?

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

Why exactly?

A corporation outsourced 50% of their salary staff.
That means less dollars in the United States to circulate.
Grown to a significant scale that leads to a decrease in buying power for the USA.
That means businesses most reliant on US consumers will suffer the outcome of decreased buying power.
That then causes a recession.

The total cost of the above is likely much more expensive for our society in the USA to sustain then just limiting the overseas salary savings making businesses more "competitive".

Look at the present landscape, America doesn't really have competitors. Japan's means of business is too slow. Western Europe is trash. India and China aren't launching global brands to compete. So this whole we have to do it to stay competitive is just to stay competitive versus US.

---

[Wrong emoji, please ignore]

Because corporations are the best judge of what they need to outsource.
This is not saying that they are good at it, but all things considered, they are still the best judge, and often have the most to lose from making a bad decision.

We need to make it more attractive for companies to retain jobs in the US.

---

You trust corps too much. Corps care only about themselves (rather the top management, not the employees), not the US.

We care about the US. I hope you do too, as a citizen.

So if something does not benefit the US, they need to GTFO.
If it benefits the US, then stay.

It is really that simple. America first.

---

i don't "trust" corps.

I understand the realities of running both small businesses and corporations, and understand the complex decisions that have to be made.

This simplistic thinking is not realistic.

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

---

If the business is owned by Americans they should be able to run it however they see fit without governmental social engineering restrictions.

It is the reason I left the government and opened my own business. If I want only white male attorneys, guess what? That's what I have.

If I want to outsource my intake process to ramjit in India, that is my choice.

Now, in my business I have zero incentive to ever do that. I beat my competition through hiring the very best that I can. That means Americans.

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

---

If the business is owned by Americans they should be able to run it however they see fit without governmental social engineering restrictions.

It is the reason I left the government and opened my own business. If I want only white male attorneys, guess what? That's what I have.

If I want to outsource my intake process to ramjit in India, that is my choice.

Now, in my business I have zero incentive to ever do that. I beat my competition through hiring the very best that I can. That means Americans.

---

Some people whine.
Some people do.

Congratulations man, and I really do mean it. I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body.

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

---

Well tell is what X is. Because details matter.
What's reasonable? Who gets to decide?
The ****ing government gets to decide how much a corporation can outsource? Based on what?
Exactly what does a bureaucrat know about running a high tech corporation?

Last corporation I worked for made 80% of their revenue outside the US. They are US based because they are very high tech and get significant talent here. Some of the talent is H1s and they also moved a development center overseas.

What would you suggest? What percentage should they be allowed to send overseas? Or would you shut them down too?
We paid 70 million in taxes last year.
What's your solution?

---

I said it, please read. 75% seems good to me.
Trump gets to decide. He is the President. If that is too low, he should jack it up. Just like he is adjusting tariffs.

My point is simple. A business in the US needs to contribute to the US. If they cannot or do not want to, they need to GTFO.

Taxes? ha ha you know where your 70Mil in taxes went to right? To do sex change ops in Guatemala. And for gender studies in Pakistan.

They need to contribute by hiring here. Simple as that.

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

Why exactly?

A corporation outsourced 50% of their salary staff.
That means less dollars in the United States to circulate.
Grown to a significant scale that leads to a decrease in buying power for the USA.
That means businesses most reliant on US consumers will suffer the outcome of decreased buying power.
That then causes a recession.

The total cost of the above is likely much more expensive for our society in the USA to sustain then just limiting the overseas salary savings making businesses more "competitive".

Look at the present landscape, America doesn't really have competitors. Japan's means of business is too slow. Western Europe is trash. India and China aren't launching global brands to compete. So this whole we have to do it to stay competitive is just to stay competitive versus US.

---

[Wrong emoji, please ignore]

Because corporations are the best judge of what they need to outsource.
This is not saying that they are good at it, but all things considered, they are still the best judge, and often have the most to lose from making a bad decision.

We need to make it more attractive for companies to retain jobs in the US.

---

You trust corps too much. Corps care only about themselves (rather the top management, not the employees), not the US.

We care about the US. I hope you do too, as a citizen.

So if something does not benefit the US, they need to GTFO.
If it benefits the US, then stay.

It is really that simple. America first.

---

i don't "trust" corps.

I understand the realities of running both small businesses and corporations, and understand the complex decisions that have to be made.

This simplistic thinking is not realistic.

---

What we have now is not realistic at all. People like you have killed off our manufacturing. Now you want to kill our high tech industry as well.

What next? Kill O&G? Kill farming?

What will the US do in 2100AD?

deddog said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

---

If the business is owned by Americans they should be able to run it however they see fit without governmental social engineering restrictions.

It is the reason I left the government and opened my own business. If I want only white male attorneys, guess what? That's what I have.

If I want to outsource my intake process to ramjit in India, that is my choice.

Now, in my business I have zero incentive to ever do that. I beat my competition through hiring the very best that I can. That means Americans.

---

Some people whine.
Some people do.

Congratulations man, and I really do mean it. I don't have an entrepreneurial bone in my body.

---

No one is whining, everyone is doing, so please don't pretend like you are the only one.

Corporations who do not contribute to nation building need to go. If I don't pay taxes, I need to go too. But I do pay whatever I have to. And I do other kinds of charity work. I don't only take, I give back also.

Just like we invest in our children, we spend money to send them to school, coaching classes, tennis lessons etc etc. Why? So they can be capable some day to earn their living and contribute back to society. Not to go on the dole and take take take some more. Similarly corporations also need to learn to give back to society to the extent they can. If not, OUT.

If we don't do that, America will die.

Tom Fox said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

---

If the business is owned by Americans they should be able to run it however they see fit without governmental social engineering restrictions.

It is the reason I left the government and opened my own business. If I want only white male attorneys, guess what? That's what I have.

If I want to outsource my intake process to ramjit in India, that is my choice.

Now, in my business I have zero incentive to ever do that. I beat my competition through hiring the very best that I can. That means Americans.

---

Sure, you hire whoever you want.
But if I was the Government, I will tax/tariff you for that. So if you want to hire Ramjit, go ahead. You just pay extra to the Govt in taxes as we want you to hire Steve, not Ramjit. When you hire Ramjit in India and not Steve in Cincinnati, we have one more person on unemployment and one more person who is cutting back and not buying American products so we need you to make up for that.

You can do whatever you want. But everything has a price based on your decision.

PS: You seem to have a law firm, so it makes sense to hire here. High tech is different and I don't think you have any idea how the industry has been gamed.

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

H1B visas are trash and so are the paper Americans who support them.

---

H1Bs the way they are currently handled are trash.
But there needs to be a pathway for outstanding and exceptional talent to make it to the US.
Either you get them here, or they become competition.

Just in my immediate circle I know exceptionally bright talented H1s that were at the top of the class in their far more competitive schools in Asia, and now work for US startups or corporations.

You want those people here.

This is how it used to be before Y2K.
Any indian or chinese who came into the US before that was almost always exceptional. There was a high bar. Somewhere along the line, companies realized they could use it to suppress wages and opened the floodgates.
Which worked out well for me of course. But that's a different story

---

Agreed. I have two fantastic people on my team. Highly intelligent, hard workers. One from Venezuela, the other from Panama. I'd pick them any day over a lot of the American people I've worked with in the past.

---

I am sure you also bring in Mohammed and Xiaohua into your own home, 2 nice boys who are well behaved and work hard, and would pick them above your own kids Steve and Melissa.

---

You don't think there are talented engineers in India?
China? You need to get out more and work with folks far more talented than yourself.
It's a sobering experience.

Either you hire the best or you have them compete against you.
We need to allow H1s, though i'm fine by making it a lor more expensive for companies to do so.

You cannot stop companies from moving jobs overseas. A lot of times it makes business sense, and especially if you are competing in those markets.

---

China yes, India no. I have met almost no one from India that I would consider to be a good engineer. Zero practical knowledge, most of them cannot turn a wrench and don't understand how things work in the field at all. It's generally awful to work with them.

Nanomachines son said:

---

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

H1B visas are trash and so are the paper Americans who support them.

---

H1Bs the way they are currently handled are trash.
But there needs to be a pathway for outstanding and exceptional talent to make it to the US.
Either you get them here, or they become competition.

Just in my immediate circle I know exceptionally bright talented H1s that were at the top of the class in their far more competitive schools in Asia, and now work for US startups or corporations.

You want those people here.

This is how it used to be before Y2K.
Any indian or chinese who came into the US before that was almost always exceptional. There was a high bar. Somewhere along the line, companies realized they could use it to suppress wages and opened the floodgates.
Which worked out well for me of course. But that's a different story

---

Agreed. I have two fantastic people on my team. Highly intelligent, hard workers. One from Venezuela, the other from Panama. I'd pick them any day over a lot of the American people I've worked with in the past.

---

I am sure you also bring in Mohammed and Xiaohua into your own home, 2 nice boys who are well behaved and work hard, and would pick them above your own kids Steve and Melissa.

---

You don't think there are talented engineers in India?
China? You need to get out more and work with folks far more talented than yourself.
It's a sobering experience.

Either you hire the best or you have them compete against you.
We need to allow H1s, though i'm fine by making it a lor more expensive for companies to do so.

You cannot stop companies from moving jobs overseas. A lot of times it makes business sense, and especially if you are competing in those markets.

---

China yes, India no. I have met almost no one from India that I would consider to be a good engineer. Zero practical knowledge, most of them cannot turn a wrench and don't understand how things work in the field at all. It's generally awful to work with them.

---

Well Sir, that is a bit harsh. I have worked with several good ones from India myself, and a few extraordinary ones. Chinese engineers work very very hard, much harder than Indian ones, but they are order takers with no innovation or ideas. They are good implementers. Not inventors.

We only feel that Indian engineers are trash because the volume of Indian engineers is so much more than Chinese. So the trashy ones are also huge in numbers.

These days Chinese engineers get into Data Science and other areas, not as much in pure software engineering.

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

****ing Boomers. I really despise your generation. Why do you care nothing at all for the nation your grandkids will inherit? Do you want them to be destitute? Oh wait you'll be dead after you reverse mortgaged your house and sold everything off so we know you won't care.

infinity ag said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

H1B visas are trash and so are the paper Americans who support them.

---

H1Bs the way they are currently handled are trash.
But there needs to be a pathway for outstanding and exceptional talent to make it to the US.
Either you get them here, or they become competition.

Just in my immediate circle I know exceptionally bright talented H1s that were at the top of the class in their far more competitive schools in Asia, and now work for US startups or corporations.

You want those people here.

This is how it used to be before Y2K.
Any indian or chinese who came into the US before that was almost always exceptional. There was a high bar. Somewhere along the line, companies realized they could use it to suppress wages and opened the floodgates.
Which worked out well for me of course. But that's a different story

---

Agreed. I have two fantastic people on my team. Highly intelligent, hard workers. One from Venezuela, the other from Panama. I'd pick them any day over a lot of the American people I've worked with in the past.

---

I am sure you also bring in Mohammed and Xiaohua into your own home, 2 nice boys who are well behaved and work hard, and would pick them above your own kids Steve and Melissa.

---

You don't think there are talented engineers in India?
China? You need to get out more and work with folks far more talented than yourself.
It's a sobering experience.

Either you hire the best or you have them compete against you.
We need to allow H1s, though i'm fine by making it a lor more expensive for companies to do so.

You cannot stop companies from moving jobs overseas. A lot of times it makes business sense, and especially if you are competing in those markets.

---

China yes, India no. I have met almost no one from India that I would consider to be a good engineer. Zero practical knowledge, most of them cannot turn a wrench and don't understand how things work in the field at all. It's generally awful to work with them.

---

Well Sir, that is a bit harsh. I have worked with several good ones from India myself, and a few extraordinary ones. Chinese engineers work very very hard, much harder than Indian ones, but they are order takers with no innovation or ideas. They are good implementers. Not inventors.

We only feel that Indian engineers are trash because the volume of Indian engineers is so much more than Chinese. So the trashy ones are also huge in numbers.

These days Chinese engineers get into Data Science and other areas, not as much in pure software engineering.

---

My experience with Indian engineers is in oil and gas, which requires practical knowledge. It's very different from software engineering. You literally cannot do the job if you don't understand how things work in the field so no it's not harsh and I'm actually understating the issue here.

If a company is getting any sort of tax break or other government financial enticement, then they should be restricted from outsourcing any of the work overseas.

Agree. My experience with them has been in medical devices & O&G.

For medical devices, they could scrape by. It still wasn't easy to get them to use common sense for things that fell slightly outside of the normal process, but they could get by without any major catastrophes.

For O&G, they have caused many more issues. Those that work on site are okay, though they lack any sort of personality needed to build relationships/trust, and have almost no ability to do negotiations. But trying to work remote with an entire team outsourced to India is a nightmare.

deddog said:

---

texagbeliever said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

Why exactly?

A corporation outsourced 50% of their salary staff.
That means less dollars in the United States to circulate.
Grown to a significant scale that leads to a decrease in buying power for the USA.
That means businesses most reliant on US consumers will suffer the outcome of decreased buying power.
That then causes a recession.

The total cost of the above is likely much more expensive for our society in the USA to sustain then just limiting the overseas salary savings making businesses more "competitive".

Look at the present landscape, America doesn't really have competitors. Japan's means of business is too slow. Western Europe is trash. India and China aren't launching global brands to compete. So this whole we have to do it to stay competitive is just to stay competitive versus US.

---

[Wrong emoji, please ignore]

Because corporations are the best judge of what they need to outsource.
This is not saying that they are good at it, but all things considered, they are still the best judge, and often have the most to lose from making a bad decision.

We need to make it more attractive for companies to retain jobs in the US.

---

How do we make it more attractive for companies to retain jobs in the US? Face it one of the huge reasons for outsourcing is it let's companies avoid SS, unemployment tax, etc. Not to mention that the legal ground to sue is likely much more shakes.

But letting this loophole (which I'd argue maybe was intentional as it favors big business) play out is bad for America.

I'm Gen X bro. I love my nation. I would end SS, Medicare, and Medicaid tonight and let the olds twist in the wind.

But I am for the free market. I want the government out of my business.

I want the bottom 50% to start paying and have skin in the game. What is IninityAgs plan for those that are not pulling their weight. I pay a metric ****ton in taxes and employ 7 Americans. I'm doing my part.

are we really worried about innovation happening overseas?

Name one cool ass thing besides Nintendo and Sega that were made outside of the United States

Charpie said:

---

are we really worried about innovation happening overseas?

Name one cool ass thing besides Nintendo and Sega that were made outside of the United States

---

Nope they can only copy and miniaturize what Americans have created.

Exactly. I ain't scared.

infinity ag said:

---

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Tom Fox said:

---

I am cool with severely restricting H1Bs but companies should be free to outsource whatever they want overseas.

---

OK. But I think there needs to be a caveat. If you consider your business to be an "American" business, then have 'x'% of workers in the US. Else move your business overseas.

I am sure no one will move their business anywhere. US is the best country for tech businesses.

What 'x' is, I don't know yet. Something reasonable. You cannot offshore everything but still use the US as HQ and get benefits that accrue from it without giving anything back.
I think 75% seems okay to me. You can offshore 25%.

If America does not get anything from a business, they should GTFO.

---

Well tell is what X is. Because details matter.
What's reasonable? Who gets to decide?
The ****ing government gets to decide how much a corporation can outsource? Based on what?
Exactly what does a bureaucrat know about running a high tech corporation?

Last corporation I worked for made 80% of their revenue outside the US. They are US based because they are very high tech and get significant talent here. Some of the talent is H1s and they also moved a development center overseas.

What would you suggest? What percentage should they be allowed to send overseas? Or would you shut them down too?
We paid 70 million in taxes last year.
What's your solution?

---

I said it, please read. 75% seems good to me.
Trump gets to decide. He is the President. If that is too low, he should jack it up. Just like he is adjusting tariffs.

My point is simple. A business in the US needs to contribute to the US. If they cannot or do not want to, they need to GTFO.

Taxes? ha ha you know where your 70Mil in taxes went to right? To do sex change ops in Guatemala. And for gender studies in Pakistan.

They need to contribute by hiring here. Simple as that.

---

What that money went toward, is a different issue.

My last company contributed 75 million dollars in taxes, and employed 3000 people.
1500 of them were in India.

But you want to tax them even more or GTFO because they didn't meet whatever vague criteria you've decided as "helping the country" ?

How much did you contribute?
I also guarantee that corporation and even their CEO paid more in taxes and "contributed" more that you ever will in your lifetime.


And where does your "75% seems good" number come from? What did you base it on?

Tom Fox said:

---

Charpie said:

---

are we really worried about innovation happening overseas?

Name one cool ass thing besides Nintendo and Sega that were made outside of the United States

---

Nope they can only copy and miniaturize what Americans have created.

---

TSMC is a literal example.

And DeepSeek says Hi.

You don't have to be innovative. The Japanese weren't really innovative about their cars, and yet they "beat" the Big three.

Nanomachines son said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

Nanomachines son said:

---

deddog said:

---

infinity ag said:

---

AJ02 said:

---

deddog said:

---

Pookers said:

---

H1B visas are trash and so are the paper Americans who support them.

---

H1Bs the way they are currently handled are trash.
But there needs to be a pathway for outstanding and exceptional talent to make it to the US.
Either you get them here, or they become competition.

Just in my immediate circle I know exceptionally bright talented H1s that were at the top of the class in their far more competitive schools in Asia, and now work for US startups or corporations.

You want those people here.

This is how it used to be before Y2K.
Any indian or chinese who came into the US before that was almost always exceptional. There was a high bar. Somewhere along the line, companies realized they could use it to suppress wages and opened the floodgates.
Which worked out well for me of course. But that's a different story

---

Agreed. I have two fantastic people on my team. Highly intelligent, hard workers. One from Venezuela, the other from Panama. I'd pick them any day over a lot of the American people I've worked with in the past.

---

I am sure you also bring in Mohammed and Xiaohua into your own home, 2 nice boys who are well behaved and work hard, and would pick them above your own kids Steve and Melissa.

---

You don't think there are talented engineers in India?
China? You need to get out more and work with folks far more talented than yourself.
It's a sobering experience.

Either you hire the best or you have them compete against you.
We need to allow H1s, though i'm fine by making it a lor more expensive for companies to do so.

You cannot stop companies from moving jobs overseas. A lot of times it makes business sense, and especially if you are competing in those markets.

---

China yes, India no. I have met almost no one from India that I would consider to be a good engineer. Zero practical knowledge, most of them cannot turn a wrench and don't understand how things work in the field at all. It's generally awful to work with them.

---

Well Sir, that is a bit harsh. I have worked with several good ones from India myself, and a few extraordinary ones. Chinese engineers work very very hard, much harder than Indian ones, but they are order takers with no innovation or ideas. They are good implementers. Not inventors.

We only feel that Indian engineers are trash because the volume of Indian engineers is so much more than Chinese. So the trashy ones are also huge in numbers.

These days Chinese engineers get into Data Science and other areas, not as much in pure software engineering.

---

My experience with Indian engineers is in oil and gas, which requires practical knowledge. It's very different from software engineering. You literally cannot do the job if you don't understand how things work in the field so no it's not harsh and I'm actually understating the issue here.

---

OK, I have no experience in O&G so I defer to you. My exp is in software.