Hello Eric,

I was born in India, I have studied in the US, worked in the US, worked and lived in Canada, moved back to the US and finally, will be settling next year in the UK or Canada.

From my experience, I would say that Americans are neither more or less xenophobic than any other Anglo-Saxon heritage culture. I think that is a reasonable comparison....however, you must keep into account that people are people. When they are anxious about the future, they will demonstrate xenophobic tendencies. You don't have to look back very far for an example, a contrast of Germany of 1900 with the one in 1930 will do.

Comparison with some other cultures is somewhat unreasonable. For example, Koreans have faced survival anxieties in terms of Japanese and Chinese threats for several centuries, which explains their xenophobia very well. And Anglo-Saxon cultures generally have been quite safe (even at his peak, Hitler never had a real chance of taking America, Canada, Australia or even the present UK).

However, in today's world, there is a strong threat to any culture which does not have adequate quality and emphasis with regards to math and science education. That is just a simple, indisputable fact of life going into the 21st century.

The current anxiety in the US is caused by the consequences of losing the plot on primary and secondary education, although people haven't yet formed a consensus on that conclusion.

I like your approach, and I would just say: be psychologically prepared to face a lot more irritating and infruriating nonsense. From experience of history, people will deny the true cause of their decline until no other visible cause remains to be blamed. Remember the French saying: things will get worse before they get better.

Regards,

Devang

As a highly skilled, honest, tax paying foreigner, I applaud the American peoples' choice to continue to gut the American education system.  It won't be long now that I'll be able to bring my entire clan down to the US to take generations of fine American jobs from fine American generations :)

Eric,

I would argue that your particular problems stem from where you are in the country as well.  

When I moved from up there the going rates were at least 10k a year less then they were in any other part of the country.  Even when my employer there in Ohio realized what a diamond in the rough I was and that they were going to get great things from me (and were planning major initiatives for the next couple years based on my skills)., they still chose to pay me at a rate that was 5k a year less than I made when I moved to Florida... and we're not even talking about the job I turned down that paid more than twice (to do more or less the same job I was doing in Ohio).

It's not everywhere.  Just where you are.  The fact that I work for you as a consultant (remotely) because there are no good consultants in your neck of the woods ought to scream about issues in the talent pool in your region of the country.

I think what Scott said was very insensitive. The kids have suffered because of the adults waisting money on stupid stuff. Each generation since the fifties (in America) has become less and less educated. Yet, because of manufacturing they got more and more wealthy. Now, the trend is away from physical labor, and turned to intelligence, and many Americans, including myself, started at a disadvantage. I personally have worked very hard to close the gap, but many I know have given in to fatalism, and don't see any hope. They just try to "get along".

The other thing you have to remember is that education in many other countries are far less expensive, at least that is what I have read.

I hope, that as the world becomes more "global" we can stop seeing each other as this group or that group, and see each other as human, and help each other succeed in life.

Somewhat offtopic, but directed @ScottB's comments.

Unfortunately, I think Scott Bellware's comments are right on.  Working in the public education industry (in an IT respect), I am amazed at how closing the gap appears to be bringing everyone down to "the level" rather than raising everyone up to meet expectations.

Is this the school's fault?  Ehh, maybe, but it's also the current culture because we want everyone to be the same.  Unfortunately, life is a lot like the Demotivator's sign--not everyone grows up to be an astronaut--and we spend so much time try to "fix" everyone that we forget to nuture the truly bright of our culture.

@Ben, as far as cost goes, in many areas, public education is 100% free at the K-12 level.  That includes tuition, books, and meals while at school.  Does it include sports and such?  Nope, but if you're there truly to learn, that shouldn't be important--you're getting a free education.  The college level has similar incentives, grants, and such that can make that process as painless as possible.

I do agree that, eventually, it will be impossible to consider yourself anything but "of Earth" and "Human", because where you are from _shouldn't_ impact your employability and your opportunities for self-improvement.  That said, however, those interested must work for it and want it--not expect it to be handed to them.  I've worked two jobs for the past several years to put myself through my undergrad and graduate degree and expect noless dedication from others seeking the same path.

Business is about making money, solving a problem or addressing a need... and most companies want the best and the brightest.  If they're not from US soil, then so be it--that should be a motivator for Americans to step it up and ensure, next time, that there's someone to fill that position.

If you want the best talent you are going to have to offer more than market rate.

This seems to be the justification for most companies on depressed already IT salries.  No one will work for us for the *fair* market rate.  

Try posting a job for 6 figures and see how many really top notch people apply.  

Why not hire on some american college students as interns and give them 15 an hour?

Why not make the standards for hiring less restrictive?

How much do you think is a generous salary?

Well, I read all the comments and I see they are not really applicable to the issue of what is going on in a real IT environment right now.  I read about the talent pool being shallow here in US, but in reality, most companies just hiring unexperience people in India just because they are much cheaper.  Most of the work they do is not challenging and a lot of it have to be tweaked or redone by local US programmers.  That what I see in a lot of brokrage companies here in US.  In turms of H1B visas:  If all the people who hold h1B visas would get competitive market rate, we wouldn't have the problem we facing right now.  In reality, most h1B holders are getting significantly less, which drives the IT rates down, especially in consultancy sector.

Not all companies would prefer to hire Americans first.  In fact, many avoid it, because they know they can pay the H1B workers less.

In case you missed it, a law firm has created a video on how to avoid hiring Americans:

www.youtube.com/watch

With all due respect, its all about money. Jobs just like products are a market economy.  After the Dot.com bust, and the advent of outsourcing the software developer salaries have dropped. We are now in a global market for software developers where Americans are competing with Indians, Brits, Chinese etc. for work. When compared on straight cash, American workers will never be able to compete with the Indians/Chinese.

Given the uncertain future of american software development why should a college student spend 5 -6 years and $60,000 in loans to get a software degree? Basically there is no incentive for them.  Its much easier (and more reliable) to get degree in management or some other field.

Of course the end result is that its now more difficult to find American Software Engineers, because the college students choose better paying jobs in other fields.  Also the existing engineers get out of the field in search of better salaries thus the ranks are futher reduced.

In general, I don't believe there is an Amercian software labor shortage.  There is just a shortage of people at the desired salary ranges.  If you truely wished to end the shortage, increase the salaries and people would flood back into the field.  However, I really don't see that happening because of the global nature of the business,

Without mentioning any salary range we are running couple have job opening ads on different web sites for a senior developer. My company has a no H-1B policy and we just cannot find any qualified candidates.

In addition to that, we have 4 of contractors, 1 of them is an H-1B , 3 of them are citizens. Guess what, they all cost us six figures, H-1B guy is not making less then any of them.

All those H-1B haters, I sincerely think you just looking for scape goats for losing your jobs. Just accept the fact that if a developer works 40 hours in office, s/he needs to spend another 20 hours studying at home to keep up to date.

There have always been problems with the free markets when it is influenced by government subsidies to corporations like H1B visas. To explain simply what's going on, consider this thought experiment:

There are two sellers, #1 & #2, and many buyers in the same market. The two sellers would like to buy their supply to make their product at a low price. The supply includes all inputs to make the product such as materials, labor, manufacturing processes, etc. Ultimately, these two sellers would like to sell their products at a high price and make a profit. Well one day, seller #1 decided that they would like to make more profit but they can't figure out how to take more market share from seller #2 to increase profits. During a meeting with management, seller #1 decides to lobby the government for more H1B visas to help them be more competitive against seller #2 because their labor rate is too high. The government agrees with seller #1 and decides to increase the H1B visa quota. Like magic, the labor rates fall as predicted because of the increase labor supply, and this makes seller #1 happy. Seller #1 can now buy their supply at a lower cost. This in turn, allows their profits to increase because they are still selling high. If seller #2 doesn't take advantage of the H1B visas or the resulting new labor rates, then their profit will be lower because they are still buying the supply at a higher price than seller #1. Therefore, seller #2 will see a decrease in profits. If seller #2 continues to be unprofitable, then they will go out of business after some period of time. Well seller #2 wants to stay in business, so they take advantage of H1B visas as well. So who wins and who loses? Since the labor rate obviously goes down, then the workers for seller #1 and #2 will take a financial loss.

That's what happens when the government intervenes. The government basically allowed the sellers to profit at the expense of someone else-the workers. This may not be the intention, but it is certainly the result. Now, let's consider what happens without government intervention:

There are two sellers, #1 & #2, and many buyers in the same market. The two sellers would like to buy their supply to make their product at a low price. The supply includes all inputs to make the product such as materials, labor, manufacturing processes, etc. Ultimately, these two sellers would like to sell their products at a high price and make a profit. Well one day, seller #1 decided that they would like to make more profit but they can't figure out how to take more market share from seller #2 to increase profits. During a meeting with management, seller #1 decides to lobby the government for more H1B visas to help them be more competitive against seller #2 because their labor rate is too high. The government disagrees with seller #1 and decides to not to increase the H1B visa quota. Seller #1 is not happy and goes back to management with a different strategy. This time seller #1 decides to improve their manufacturing process to be more efficient and increase productivity. Seller #1 can now buy their supply at a lower cost because they were innovative. In turn, this allows their profits to increase because they are still able to sell high or even slightly lower than before they were innovative. If seller #2 doesn't become more innovative, then his profits will be lower because he is still buying the supply at a higher price than seller #1. Therefore, seller #2 will see a decrease in profits. If seller #2 continues to be unprofitable, then they will go out of business after some period of time. Well seller #2 wants to stay in business, so they become more innovative. So who wins and who loses? Everyone wins because these two sellers are doing more with less. The results are lower supply costs and increased profits that benefit their shareholders and workers.  Moreover, the buyers of their products benefit because the price of their products will ultimately decrease.

We're essentially making a choice between capitalism and socialism. Should the government make rules that benefit one at the expense of another?