Microsoft On US Immigration: It's Our Way Or the Canadian Highway 365
theodp writes Even as it cuts about 14% of its workforce, Microsoft is complaining that the company might be denied some of the "roughly" 1,000 H-1B visas for foreign workers it intends to seek, and made it clear that the company could shift some work to Canada or overseas if it can't get talent on its terms. "If I need to move 400 people to Canada or Northern Ireland or Hyderabad or Shanghai, we can do that," said William Kamela, a senior federal policy lead at Microsoft, who later explained that about 60% of Microsoft's workforce is in the U.S., yet it makes 68% of its profits overseas (where it also stashes its cash out of IRS reach). Kamela made the statements on a panel at a two-day conference on high-skilled immigration policy, where he sat next to Felicia Escobar, special assistant to President Barack Obama on immigration. The day before the conference, Mark Zuckerberg's FWD.us PAC — which counts Bill Gates as a Founder and Steve Ballmer and Microsoft General Counsel Brad Smith as Major Contributors — posted its "MythBusters" video on H-1B visas.
Fine! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Interesting)
Better idea. For every piece of work they shift, their taxes go up to support communities they dump. As in, they are forced to shoulder the real costs of outsourcing, rather than "outsourcing" the cost to the tax payers.
But in today's system, where corporations are people with human rights and capital has more rights than most people, that's not going to happen.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I can picture the howling of "socialism" from the Tea Party and the Republicans now.
Because to them, if it means corporate profits, it's a good thing.
You may want to get out more, then, because I doubt that you'd find an actual conservative anywhere (who doesn't own a company) that would fit the sterotype you propose. Seriously - I'm very right-leaning in my ideology, but I can tell you right now that I'd love to see corporations get slammed in taxes for off-shoring (and if you actually looked beyond your circle of like-minded friends and pundits, you'd find that I'm not the only one saying it.)
The only difference we have is in justifying the levy, which
Re: (Score:3)
I think you need to drop the brainwashing you recieved and seriously think about this a bit more.
Here we are in a regulatory and tax climate such that a traditionally American company is willing to relocate to another country if we do not let enough foreigners in to work for them and your focus is on scolding the people wanting to cure the regulation and tax problems because they are evil in your mind.
Wow.. thats kind of like fucking a knothole in a fence and bitching that people on the other side saw your
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Interesting)
And somehow you seem to think this hasn't been happening to other countries for years, and that it's different when it happens to you.
Numerous American firms have bought Canadian companies, signed contracts saying they'd keep the jobs, and then after a few years shut everything down and left .. leaving us with neither the jobs nor the ownership of the original business. And in several instances when the Canadian company was more profitable, but since they weren't American jobs they were expendable.
Multinationals are like locusts, they take what they want, make huge demands to get concessions, fail to live up to their promises, and then move on to somewhere else.
Companies like Nike have been steadily moving their labor to the next cheapest place whenever people start asking for fair wages and working conditions. And yet a lot of people just say "well, that's the free market, adapt or die".
I've been looking at the entire picture for the last 20 years.
Maybe some Americans are only just now realizing what that picture is?
The problem is the branch of economics which says all of this is a desirable outcome, and the fact that politicians and business people have been feeding us this line saying it's going to improve our lives. Because it's all predicated on lies, bullshit, bad assumptions, and the implicit idea that greed is the highest ideal.
The reality is, it doesn't, and never actually has.
What it has done is allowed corporations to do what you describe for the last several decades, and the politicians who back them (or, are paid by them), hand over what they want.
Capitalism as envisioned by a lot of people is basically a suicide pact, and as long as the people at the top get what they want, nothing will change.
The rest of us just get screwed. And, like I said, it's been happening to everybody else for decades.
Re: (Score:3)
Companies like Nike have been steadily moving their labor to the next cheapest place whenever people start asking for fair wages and working conditions.
Actually the evidence indicates [nber.org] that multinational firms routinely provide higher wages and better working conditions in poor countries than their local counterparts, and they are typically not attracted preferentially to countries with weak labor standards.
On the other hand, if manufacturers are forced to stay in high labor cost countries, they will simply
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you don't let me not employ Americans in America, then I'm going to go not employ them outside of America!
Then why bother capitulating to them?
Re: (Score:2)
And how does that solve the problem? Since open source does not pay its developers (in most cases), developers don't get paid whether MS outsources or if open source products are used.
Re: (Score:2)
Since open source does not pay its developers (in most cases), developers don't get paid whether MS outsources or if open source products are used.
...actually, you'd be amazed at the number of OSS devs who do get paid; many are hired by OSS-based companies (e.g. RedHat), but many more are hired by large tech firms who find it in their interest to do so, such as Intel, IBM, HP, Dell (no, seriously!), and etc. Intel still has a sizable OSS dev group, for instance.
Tariffs (Score:2)
I don't think we should do that. We should just start moving away from free trade arrangements. Go back to having tariffs likely through a VAT with subsidies for domestic job creation. That way Microsoft can contribute to the economy by providing jobs or they can can contribute by (indirectly) paying tariffs to import their work from overseas.
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Insightful)
its a problem with ANY group or individual that want to decide what's "best for you."
what's best for you never seems to be very good for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
its a problem with ANY group or individual that want to decide what's "best for you."
what's best for you never seems to be very good for them.
If it's not best for you, then aren't you the stupid one for listening to them?
Re: (Score:3)
You don't get a choice when government is involved. 51% votes for stupid things 49% has no choice, that's the problem with big government.
Re: (Score:3)
its a problem with ANY group or individual that want to decide what's "best for you."
what's best for you never seems to be very good for them.
Shh .. your mum could be listening!
Re: FWD.US lies, just like its founder, Zuckerberg (Score:5, Informative)
Undercover of helping immigrant agricultural workers who have long needed a break in America, the American technology sector - lead by Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg - has seen fit to heavily lobby Congress to increase H1-B and other worker visa permits, vastly increasing H1-B visas at a time when very good research shows that there is no shortage of tech workers in America. Zuckerberg has so far succeeded, in the Senate. What is motivating the claim for more H1-B visas?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/... [huffingtonpost.com]
previously [metafilter.com]
One of the most respected technology pundits in Silicon Valley has this to say about the H1-B worker problem [cringely.com] and Two H1-B's walk into a Bar: More on the H1-B visa problem [cringely.com]
One of many examples of what goes on behind closed doors: an immigration attorney and his consultants teaching corporations how to manipulate foreign-worker immigration law to replace qualified American workers. [youtube.com]
H1-B's are only the tip of the iceberg; there are more than 20 categories of foreign worker visas. [economyincrisis.org]
Professor Norman Matloff's extremely well documented studies on the H1-B and foreign worker visa problem. [ucdavis.edu] Matloff claims that Hi-B abuse has cost Americans $10Trillion dollars, since 1975. Inc. Magazine weights in [inc.com] Professor Matloff's Webpage [ucdavis.edu]
Mother Jones [motherjones.com] weighs in:How H1-B visa abuse is hurting American tech workers
Marc Zuckerberg and other wealthy tech scions - including large immigration law firms and corporation who profit from importing H1-B's continue to perpetuate this trend [programmersguild.org]
How H1-B malpractice hurts the American economy [yahoo.com]
Most of the new crop of H1-Bs is coming from one of the most [indiaeducationreview.com] corrupt [globalpost.com] university [oneindia.in] systems in the world.
Indian government officials are not happy that the universities that they collude with might have some limitations placed on the abuses that have enabled them to "sell" their product to the American IT sector. [oneindia.in]
How the new immigration bill could ignite a trade war with India [newrepublic.com]
How to underpay an H1-B worker [programmersguild.org]
Re: (Score:3)
I agree, that was a bad video hitting all the corporate dogmas. It makes an unwarranted assumption behind the scenes that only H1-B workers have computer or technological skills. And that's the lie being told, that no domestic worker with the skills can be found, despite these jobs often needing only basic IT drone skills.
As for Microsoft, it should be made to prove under penalty of perjury that for any H1-B worker they want to get that they did not lay off a worker that had those skills.
Re: (Score:3)
I would even go one step further: They can only hire an H1-B if they did not offer these jobs (and any training) to the 18,000 people laid off.
In other words, someone hacking on Office could be offered a job writing software for XBox with minimal re-training.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, why do you think that Gates thinks he's exempt from being a responsible citizen?
I'm pretty sure he thinks he's doing a pretty good job. What with the fight to end malaria, the public library funding, and helping to put a pc in every home. Sure he's profited hansomly, and broke some rules along the way, but you can't say that he hasn't done some good.
(This coming from someone who detests microsoft products these days, and is writing this from Fedora).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
hahahaha! Gates is anything but. His "charity" is a tax dodgy scam. He doesn't give a shit about malaria, only allow the drugs (he owns the pharmaceutical companies) into countries where he gets direct benefit. He energy concerns are all about promoting his new energy investments. It's not about doing "good", it's about increasing his personal wealth.
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Insightful)
Standing alone sure, but the comment was not standing on its own. The comment was about Bill Gates who is a known liar (See the US vs. Microsoft Antitrust cases for easy to validate examples) and made his fortune on thievery, manipulation, and lies. Ignoring known immoral behavior in determining someone's "character" would be asinine correct?
To further believe that an obvious narcissist would do anything for purely altruistic purposes is also asinine correct?
So the statement that was made does not equate to your gross oversimplification. The statement made was that roughly that "Bill Gates is not altruistic and/or of high moral character".
Re: (Score:2)
hahahaha! Gates is anything but. His "charity" is a tax dodgy scam.
It's not about doing "good", it's about increasing his personal wealth.
If he's spending $X on charity, then he gets a deduction of some amount less than $X in taxes. He doesn't end up richer (at least money-wise); he just redirects government funding to suit his charity interests.
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Interesting)
That is not exactly right.
He gives $X of his personal income to his non-profit charity. He can now write off the $X from his personal taxes and still keep the money in something he controls.
Aside from that, being the head of the non-profit means that he can receive benefits from the non-profit for his time and service. For example the non-profit can own his house, car, boat, etc and provide for his use free of charge. This protects his assets while still giving him control of them, on top of this it is deducted from the non-profit as an operating expense. Remember, a non-profit can spend 90% of it's income on operating expenses and 10% or less on the charitable actions.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Does it matter? Malaria researchers are getting more money from him than anyone else, regardless of his motives. If there are people who genuinely care more about malaria, they sure as hell aren't even close to keeping pace with this "false" philanthropist. Given that, maybe more people should be greedy pigs, motivated only to increase personal wealth. The world might be a better place for it. Perhaps you could put up a few $billion to prove him wrong?
Re: (Score:3)
Considering Gates has pledged to give away 100% of his fortune any tax avoidance is only to increase the amount of money that ends up in the charity. Let's face it, as the wealthiest man in the world he's never going to go hungry, or even be uncomfortable, but unlike many his goal isn't to setup a line of descendants that never need to work. He's done making his money and now his focus is how to use that amassed wealth to help the world. Frankly to his mindset offshoring isn't necessarily a bad thing as it
Give Bill Gates some credit (as if it matters) (Score:4, Informative)
I'll leave aside the fact that most of these "charities" are tax-avoidance scams, and would probably do the world a favor by not existing.
Bill Gates gives about 40 times as much money to charities as do the Koch brothers, who together have about the same amount of money as Gates. The Koch brothers, in turn, are about 25X as generous as all the Walmart heirs combined- 85% of whose donations come from Christy and 15% from Alice. Jim and Rob also each have their $35 billion and together they donate approx. $30,000 to charity each year- i.e. 4 ppm of their total income. If I make six figures and I toss a dollar at a homeless person, I've just donated 10 ppm.
In comparison, the LDS church for example receives approx. ten billion dollars in "donations" (i.e. tithes) per year- ostensibly for charitable purposes- but spends only fifty million for charity, an overhead of approx. 99.5%. The Gates Foundation has an "overhead" of 90% (meaning 90% of his wealth is stuffed in his mattress). Charities would benefit 20X more if Mormons sent their tithe payments directly to scum-of-the-earth Bill Gates!!!!
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Informative)
I'm pretty sure he thinks he's doing a pretty good job. What with the fight to end malaria, the public library funding, and helping to put a pc in every home.
Many robber barons [wikipedia.org] have succumb to their conscience late in life and begin to try to make recompense. Others just do it for good PR to keep "the masses" from rioting at the Gate's. If Gates had truly been interested in serving humanity he would have been doing it (probably at a smaller scale) his entire life. John D. Rockefeller gave over half of his fortune away in his later years but was known to be quite ruthless [pbs.org] and ethically challenged.
I liken it to burning down a city, killing the mayor and making yourself the new ruler and then offering to rebuild the city at a reduced rate but you still get to be the ruler.
Re:Fine! (Score:5, Insightful)
oh bullshit.
-bullshit, if your school doesn't have differentiated curriculum, it sucks, not common core
-bullshit, exploring how math concepts evolved is not that same as "going back to"; "showing your work" has been a part of education forever
-bullshit, the only people introducing politics are ones like you (who tend to introduce politics or religion into anything they don't like or understand)
-epic bullshit, doesn't merit a response
-bullshit, the Texas school board does this
I lived through New Math decades ago enduring binary, octal, and hexadecimal in 3rd grade, so I have every right to be skeptical of CC. I find it a vast improvement over what was there, but I recognize the consternation of parents who suddenly realize their snowflakes aren't quite so precious.
Re: (Score:2)
I have every right to be skeptical of CC. I find it a vast improvement over what was there, but I recognize the consternation of parents who suddenly realize their snowflakes aren't quite so precious.
To me, the failing of CC is more about the precious snowflakes who will be shoveled along with everyone else. The idea that we should all be held to the same standard is not only ridiculous, but it removes any and all time to support the exceptional students in being exceptional.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
From your "starting point" video summary:
He has taught at major research institutions and small liberal arts colleges, and his been active in education reform, developing and implementing an elective Bible course that is currently available for public high school students in Texas.
You are kidding right? I watched parts of that nonsense and it's entirely propaganda for anti-common core, conspiratard conservative should-be-home-schooling douchebags that need their religious views justified by applying them to the public educational system, trying to infect every facet of historical context with religiosity regardless of factual truths. Common core is probably just too hard for willfully ignorant people to adapt too. I think a lot of it is st
Re: (Score:3)
That's been standard in the math curriculum for decades at least. You don't remember it because you were young when you learned to grasp why you can't just add things in the "tens place" and the "hundreds place" together and instead had to line numbers up. Until you do that exercise kids will gladly do things like 32.5 + 60
Re:Fine! (Score:4, Interesting)
No. There were no boxes and lines when I was taught to add. We lined places up vertically. It's called column addition.
32.5
+60.0
--------
92.5
Number line addition, ten frame addition, etc. are different ways to teach addition.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Semantics. "How math is taught is completely up to each school." - This is the talking point of common core defenders. "It's not a curriculum, it's a standard." But of course to meet this standard you need a supporting curriculum generated by Pearson or McGraw-Hill. So, while it's not technically a curriculum, it is a curriculum by any practical measure.
I'm no tinfoil hat wearing conspiracy theorist, and the basic idea of a "core" standard sounds good, but the implementation is classically bad big governme
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
He's one of the richest men in teh world. A 1% of a 1%. There are no liberals like Gates, or conservatives for that matter. When you're standing in the rarefied atmosphere atop the layer cake, you're political ideology is bent to maintain your position.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with liberals like Gates. They are very good at telling others how to be responsible citizens but consider themselves exempt from that
Unfortunately, I think it's at least partially to do with how corporations are run in the USA. Bill Gates might be generous and want to donate his
personal time/money. Even a corporation might be generous and can donate a percentage to charity but when it comes to actually "running"
the company then you are suppose to do what is in the best interest of the company and shareholders so corporations do everything unethical
under the sun as long as it's legal.
Maybe a solution would be to fine companies for viola
Re: (Score:3)
No, just shareholders. The company can be utterly destroyed as long as share price goes up in the short term. That's arguably one of the bigger problems nowadays: companies are treated as people yet are effectively not bound by law or even basic survival instinct.
Double standards (Score:3)
That's the problem with liberals like Gates. They are very good at telling others how to be responsible citizens but consider themselves exempt from that
And you think "conservatives" don't do exactly the same thing? Bit of a double standard you have there. One standard will work just fine.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gates has nothing to do with Microsoft cash handling and has not since a long time. Public companies are driven by director board who seek the maximum returns for share holders, using whatever legal means it take. And as there is legal loopholes allowing big companies to shuffle cash around, the accounting use it to maximize profits.
Re: (Score:2)
That's the problem with liberals like Gates. They are very good at telling others how to be responsible citizens but consider themselves exempt from that
There's a classic quip about that. "A liberal is someone who will give you the shirt off of someone else's back."
Re: (Score:3)
The Salish Sea straddles Washington State and British Columbia if Microsoft want to move HQ from Redmond to Vancouver!
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You know, the reality is that US businesses have been moving labor to cheaper places for decades now.
This whole globalization thing was your idea, and has been championed as economic policy for a very long time now -- so that corporations can maximize profits.
I find it terribly amusing that suddenly Americans are going "Yarg! But what about our jobs?".
And I'm sure a l
Re: (Score:3)
Once you clarify what you're talking about, I don't see anything funny about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Haven't you been blaming your own politicians and your own politicians for going along with it? I'll assume you have.
Clearly, however, complaining to your own politicians and corporations hasn't done you any good. And now you know how the American public feels, since complaining to our politicians and corporations hasn't done us any good either!
Re: (Score:2)
That said, I personally think we should be incredibly open about immigration, and that we should put more focus on increasing the quality and lowering the cost of living than just jobs. But policies should be implemented like that for the sake of practical value or principle, not b
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Seriously? I got a 3 year work visa to Canada just by showing up at the border with a letter from my employer. The whole process took less than an hour. Canada has logical, common sense immigration controls, as opposed to the completely broken and non-sensical immigration laws that we have in the US.
In the US, if I got an H1B visa, my wife would not be allowed to work. In Canada, with a work visa, my wife is allowed to work, doing anything she wants. I could go on, but don't tell me Canada has "stricte
Re: (Score:3)
Your solution is to modify the law to allow corps to bring as much low cost labor as they want? Now you've suppressed wages to the point of significantly lowering the standard of living for everyone. That causes drops in tax revenue which hurts schools, fire, police, etc.. The whole point of quotas is to ensure that we don't bring in more people than our communities can handle.
"stashes its cash" (Score:5, Interesting)
Only the US charges income tax on profits from foreign subsidiaries which have already been taxed abroad. Besides being unfair, such a disincentive to bring the money into the US obviously discourages the spending and employing here that could be done with it.
Re: (Score:2)
Australia too charges income tax from money I earn abroad - namely the difference between the obscenely high Australian taxes and the much lesser taxes I pay in most other countries, even if I earned the money while working and living in those other countries
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That's because you claim Australian residency in addition to being an Australian citizen. If you claimed residency overseas they would stop doing this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_taxation
Re: (Score:2)
Australia too charges income tax from money I earn abroad - namely the difference between the obscenely high Australian taxes and the much lesser taxes I pay in most other countries, even if I earned the money while working and living in those other countries
shhhh! You're new to America bashing aren't you?
So if Microsoft moves to Canada, does that mean they'll at least say "sorry" every time they do something bad?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You may have a good point, but you'd need to provide more of an explanation. Given that it's been a known loophole for companies to shuffle money and profits to offshore "subsidiaries" or "parent companies" in low-tax countries, why should we ignore it and open that loophole up? I'm not very familiar with the situation, and I'd need a better explanation before I believed you that this is unfair, or a real problem.
See, there are a bunch of idiots out there who think in terms of, "Whenever we tax rich peop
Re: (Score:2)
No one is arguing that. What the right wing argues is that the rich people are investing their money and not stuffing it in their mattress. So the theory is that if you whack them, they won't invest as much. I have yet to see a real analysis that proves or disproves this. Personally, I'm doubtful the effect of their investment with untaxed dollars amounts to all that much if you subtract out the investment government would make with those same dollars and if you subtract the amount rich people invest outsid
Re: (Score:2)
No one is arguing that.
Oh no, there are people arguing that. It's true that there are some people in the right wing pointing out that rich people invest money, but there are an awful lot within the right wing who, when you figure out what they're actually arguing, it boils down to "If you tax rich people, they no longer have an incentive to be rich, and they will stop driving economic growth with their magical rich-people super-powers. I can't explain how any of this works, but I will tell you that rich people have magical rich
Re: (Score:2)
The foreign subsidiary being a P.O. box in a country that doesn't tax them.
It's a corruption. They get loopholes that allow them to get out of taxes as long as their money stays overseas, but then every 10 years or so we have a "tax holiday".
They belong in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, but it sounds like if MS could bring all their cash home, the jobs they'd like to create would go to H1Bs. So what is precisely the difference except that H1Bs must spend some of their dough to live in America.
Big American companies seem to want it both ways. Be protected by American laws, bring foreign-earned cash back to America to hire foreign H1Bs.
Re: (Score:3)
Your comment would have more value if Microsoft was actually being taxed on its overseas income somewhere but it is my understanding that they move all the money through Ireland and the Caribbean thereby avoiding any taxation. They are not being good US or world citizens. They take money from everywhere and pay a share of taxes nowhere.
This is actually incorrect. They pay a lower tax rate by doing this, they don't pay a zero tax rate. Depending on the corporate tax bracket, income tax is paid in Ireland at 25%, 12.5%, or 10%.
Then, because both it and Ireland are E.U. countries, the money is transferred to Belgium, which due to E.U. law does not have a tax applied on that transfer.
Then, due to treaty, it's transferred to the Bahamas, which like Bangladesh, Bahrain, Bermuda, the Cayman Islands, the Central African Republic, Chile, Estonia
Muck funny in politics and muck Ficrosoft. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Muck funny in politics and muck Ficrosoft. (Score:5, Funny)
The only reason Microsoft needs to argue this point at all is to present the pretense that politicians are uninformed, as opposed to corrupt.
I disagree. There's no reason politicians can't be both.
Cake and eat it too (Score:5, Interesting)
I also highly doubt that Canada, for example, going to look any more favorable on work visas. If they move to Canada, they will have to hire Canadians (or people eligible for NAFTA visas). That won't be 25K/year PhDs from India.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, it won't, but it will still be 10, 20, or even 50% cheaper depending on where they open office.
That said, a lot of the H1B visas they get ARE to hire Canadians, at the same salary they hire Americans.
Those Waterloo undergrads that go to in Boston/NYC/SF don't work for cheap, and they prefer H1Bs to TN status.
Re:Cake and eat it too (Score:4, Informative)
You're both somewhat wrong. What he was talking about is TN visa status. A Canadian that matches certain criterias (more or less, has a meaningful bachelor degree should do), and an accepted job offer in hand can show up at the border, show the paperwork that they have a job waiting for them, and move in, start working.
However, the moment they lose that job, they have to get out. Not tomorrow, not next week. NOW. They also have no path for permanent residency, cannot have a bigger attachment to the US than they do to Canada (ie: there's restriction in investments and real estate), and still file canadian tax reports.
Its annoying as hell.
Re: (Score:3)
Then it won't scale though. You can just get 30-40% cheaper in Montreal, still have a lot of people, and bonus point, get kick backs from the government begging you to keep your office there.
Cake -> yum.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Cake and eat it too (Score:5, Insightful)
If you incorrectly believe that _everyone_ pays the US 35% corporate tax sure, the US has the highest corporate tax rate. You would have to be extremely ignorant or gullible to believe that anyone pays the base rate. 70,000 pages of tax code are currently ensuring that anyone that can afford an a loophole has a loophole.
If we had any legitimacy in the Government, I would expect the Government to be asking why Microsoft just terminated 18,000 employees (including no-competes preventing their hire at MS or anywhere else) and is now requesting 1,000 more foreign workers.
For those that claim that H1Bs have nothing to do with wages, I'd ask the same exact question.
People are not interchangeable (Score:2)
If we had any legitimacy in the Government, I would expect the Government to be asking why Microsoft just terminated 18,000 employees (including no-competes preventing their hire at MS or anywhere else) and is now requesting 1,000 more foreign workers.
You can ask the question but the answer is simple. (whether the answer is actually honest or not is a different issue) What Microsoft would say is that those 18,000 workers didn't have the skill sets needed by the company going forward. If you fire an accountant you cannot replace him with an engineer. Not all people and jobs are interchangeable. I personally have had to fire people and hire different people precisely for this reasons. Even if they are lying through their teeth, this answer provides
Re: (Score:2)
If you incorrectly believe that _everyone_ pays the US 35% corporate tax sure, the US has the highest corporate tax rate. You would have to be extremely ignorant or gullible to believe that anyone pays the base rate.
A lot of people do. They are the hard working local stores, builders, mom & pop hotels, and so on. Its only the big guys get exemptions.
The DO have it both ways (Score:4, Interesting)
Corporations want infrastructure, rule of the law, and educated workforce that comes with doing business in US while paying third-world wages and hiding income in tax shelters. You can't have it both ways.
So far they very clearly have been able to have it both ways. Sad but true.
Now let's be fair that Microsoft in general is not paying "third world wages". You only have to look at their financial statements to prove that. They generally pay their employees fairly well. That said, I think they are being more than a little disingenuous in claiming they need workers from overseas when they have net profit margins well in excess of 20%. Microsoft's problems aren't with their costs but with their revenue streams and no amount of cheap overseas talent is going to solve that problem.
Re: (Score:2)
Corporations want infrastructure, rule of the law, and educated workforce that comes with doing business in US while paying third-world wages and hiding income in tax shelters. You can't have it both ways.
By the same argument, we want high wages through government intervention and artificial barriers to labor just by the virtue of the luck of being born on the right side of the line. At the same time, we want to buy the cheapest parts and gadgets manufactured in China so we can consume more even though it costs the manufacturing sector in the US.
We also want it both ways as well. Everybody wants it both ways.
The goal is to find the balance that is best for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
Corporations want infrastructure, rule of the law, and educated workforce that comes with doing business in US
What, you think Canada doesn't have an educated workforce?
We just laid off a ton of people (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretty Please?
there I said it (Score:3)
Satellite Offices (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This!
Despite NE Ohio's obvious downside (namely, the weather), I would never leave the area for a job in SF making $150k / year. That's a fine salary - more than I'm making now - but would diminish my standard of living as compared to NEOH. Answer? Open an office in Solon or Beachwood or on the west side in Westlake or Rocky River (but please, not Cleveland proper - what a dreadful city that is). Paying $100-$150k / year would allow a family to live quite nicely in those areas.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly! Why should I give up my nice house in Atlanta (not to mention my friends and family) for the "privilege" of living in some overpriced hovel in California? After adjusting for cost-of-living, I'm paid better than I would be at a comparable job there.
Re: (Score:2)
All these tech companies simply need to open a few satellite offices. Inherently some people don't want to be in San Fransisco, Redmond, etc. if you can't find the talent you need perhaps you aren't in the right area?
Agree. Either that or let people work remotely. I bet there are a lot of people who simply don't like living in big cities/etc who would be able to contribute, and at far less cost.
Geographic matching (Score:5, Insightful)
who later explained that about 60% of Microsoft's workforce is in the U.S., yet it makes 68% of its profits overseas
Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to software. There is no need at all in software to match development costs to geographic locations. It's one of the beautiful things about being in that industry. That's why you can have a development team in India for a product that isn't even sold there and it still makes sense. It's not a tangible good you export.
Now if they cannot get the right talent for the right price domestically then sure they might have to look elsewhere but frankly I doubt that is really the core problem for Microsoft. If they are having trouble getting good talent I think it has a lot more to do with the fact that people are well aware they have a pretty toxic corporate culture where everyone has to have their knives out at all times and so much of the best talent decides to work elsewhere. Microsoft is just not an attractive place to work compared with Apple or Google or some of the other top IT firms.
It's also a little disingenuous to claim you need cheaper talent when you have net profit margins well above 20%. Microsoft's problems are not rooted in their cost structure but in their revenue streams. Their problems are that their key revenue streams (Windows and Office) are tied to tightly to the PC market and they haven't been able to translate them very well to the mobile market. They spent so many years trying to maximize their monopoly on the PC they they found it difficult to acknowledge that mobile devices have different requirements and to relax their grip so that they could grow. Microsoft saw the opportunity in mobile 10-15 years ago but kept trying to cram a PC into a mobile device with predictably bad results.
Re: (Score:2)
who later explained that about 60% of Microsoft's workforce is in the U.S., yet it makes 68% of its profits overseas
Which is pretty much irrelevant when it comes to software. There is no need at all in software to match development costs to geographic locations.
But it's relevant to the protectionist arguments people use.
People essentially claim that hiring workers outside the US is dishonest because they're an American company making money from the US. But most of their business (or at least their profit) comes from outside the US, if Microsofts' worker distribution matched its profit distribution (which may not be highly related to revenue distribution) then only about 30% of the workforce would be in the US. The current state of the company structure means that
People are not (necessarily) interchangeable (Score:2)
That being said it kinda dodges the question of why they need more HB1s after laying off a ton of people whom presumably had the necessary qualifications.
You cannot presume that. While it's certainly possible that some of them did have the necessary qualifications, it is also quite possible (likely even) that most did not. If you fire an engineer you cannot replace them with an accountant or even necessarily a different engineer with a different skill set. Even if they did have the qualifications that does not mean they were available and willing to work in the jobs that Microsoft had available. To make up an example, if they fire some guy in Finland fro
Re: (Score:2)
There is no need at all in software to match development costs to geographic locations.
Not completely true. There is value in having developers who are from the countries where you sell your products because their understanding of the local culture and context can help them to design and build products better suited to the customer base. But assuming you address that issue (or just don't care about it), yeah, dev shops can be anywhere and everywhere.
Re:Geographic matching (Score:4, Insightful)
That's why you can have a development team in India for a product that isn't even sold there and it still makes sense. It's not a tangible good you export.
This is the thing I don't like. Companies play both sides of the fence.
If I start selling copies of Win8, I'll be put in jail because I'm stealing MS's property.
If MS sells a copy of Win8 in the US, they have to pay a licensing fee to MS Caymans for the rights to sell Win8 in the US, so the US company doesn't make much profit but they'll happily report that profit in the Caymans at a 0% tax rate.
On the other hand, when they want to install Win8 on 10M computers and the code was written in India, well, they just FTP that over with no tariffs because it is an intangible good that has no legal value for customs purposes.
If MS had to pay duty on 10M copies of Windows (at full retail cost) to have a 3rd party install copies on 10M computers, then I bet they'd rethink their development model.
US vs. Rest of the world (Score:2)
[William Kamela] later explained that about 60% of Microsoft's workforce is in the U.S., yet it makes 68% of its profits overseas
Those figures don't compare well, at least not to justify moving Microsoft out of US. The US is one country versus about 200 others; the latters' population is more than 200 times that of the US.
The only conclusion I can make from that figures is that it is very likely that the US is the single country Microsoft makes more profit from.
I call this BS (Score:2)
Mythbust this! (Score:5, Informative)
Globalization (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Self sufficient island sounds good. Especially since I suspect Europe, Japan and a nice chunk of the 3rd world would join a less corporate driven island.
It's a scam. Cheaper Labor is the reason (Score:5, Insightful)
Come on Microsoft, stop the horseshit and just hire workers from within the US. You fucksticks have had it your way too long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
Show Equal Investment in College Hires (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm fine with H1B sponsorship, so long as a company can show they put an equal about of time, money and resources into college hire and training programs. When I first started programming it was very common for me to see programming interns and college hires. I consult with many mid and large companies, and I haven't seen a programming intern in 7 years. I've seen two college hires in that time as well. At some point in the 2000s some bone headed bean counter figured they could pay an H1B about the same as a college hire. If that's the case, hire the "experienced" resource. The problem is that created a devastating hole in Junior level programmers for almost a decade. Now companies are finally starting to hire college folks again they want to increase the H1B levels again, and repeat the cycle over again.
Where IS this Microsoft Talent that you speak of? (Score:2)
Oh Canada (Score:3)
Canada would welcome the jobs. One could also argue that at least moving the jobs to Canada would have a larger net positive impact on the US economy anyway due to our trade relations. Not to mention if you are a unemployed US tech worker, a move to Canada for work isn't that big a deal either.
Another globalist crime. (Score:4, Interesting)
This ought to be an outrage and insult to American citizens who are being kicked out on the street by having their jobs stolen from them so that Bill Gates can add to his billions dollar fortune. Studies have shown that there is a surplus of American workers, which means we have a lot of people in this country who cannot find work becuase the work is being stolen by foreign immigrants, illegal aliens, H1B visa holders, and so on. The H1B visa program is a scam designed to enrich the 1%. That Obama is involved with this shows what Obama really is, a traitor who hates the United States, and who does everything he can to undermine our citizens. It is time to completely abolish the H1B program, and stop all immigration. This will as well create the press and necessity we need to fix our own countries problems, such as improving our education system, and promoting family values, such as marriage, so that we do raise healthy (mentally and otherwise) workforce. You cannot have a country without borders. Ultimately I fear what drives companies such as Microsoft is that they are globalists that want to eventually dissolve the United States and as well destroy it as a unique entity.
Re: (Score:3)
What??? They clearly stated that hiring H-1B Visa workers creates more jobs. What more proof do you need???
(sarcasm)
Re: (Score:2)
All those laid-off workers can just retrain to cook curries.
Re: (Score:2)
This is another call to anyone still holding stock after the Windows 8, Surface tablets, and Windows phone fiascos that the rats have left the ship and the odd pitch and roll of the ship is not a momentary issue that should be shrugged off. Microsoft is the Titanic of corporations. To stupid to think that it could ever fail.
Re: (Score:3)
"but the high end is being too greedy"
So that confirms what everyone here has been saying all along.....that it's not because of a job shortage, it's because H1B's are being used to drive down wages.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because that wouldn't have any wider consequences at all...
Like perhaps a total flight from the US of almost every other significant business (on the grounds that "we might be next"), a total economic collapse and a catastrophic reduction in living standards.
Certain parts of South America are performing this particular experiment for our education at the moment. Watch how that pans out before wishing to see it replicated in your own country.
Re: (Score:3)
I am a fan of smaller government, but we have a far more dire need for that to happen on the side of greater personal liberties, with many of the laws we have being problematic because we are so beholden to corporations.