Foreign citizens make up nearly three-quarters of Silicon Valley tech workforce

Posted by freedomforall 1 month ago to Government
12 comments | Share | Flag

"About 71 percent of tech employees in the Valley are foreign born, compared to around 50 percent in the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region, according to a new report based on 2016 census data.

Many foreign tech workers are employed under the controversial H-1B visa — intended for specialty occupations — which has become a flashpoint in the U.S. cage fight over immigration, with opponents claiming it lets foreigners steal American jobs."
SOURCE URL: https://www.winterwatch.net/2019/10/h-1b-foreign-citizens-make-up-nearly-three-quarters-of-silicon-valley-tech-workforce-report-says/


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by mccannon01 1 month ago
    IMHO this is a mixed bag. Most of these tech foreigners are not unskilled welfare recipients that are invading our southern border and if they offer more value than a dumbed down American worker, then why not hire them?

    OTOH I would suspect many of the initially employed foreigners were brought on board to satisfy a PC quota and that got the ball rolling to push out primarily white Americans. The Indian and other non white foreigners are considered minorities and have no barriers against hiring their own people, which has now resulted in a minority majority - white people (especially white male) need not apply. The Silicon Valley ilk played their self loathing leftist game and brought this upon themselves. Boo-hoo-hoo for them.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ exceller 1 month ago
    Most of the are from India.

    No surprise that the CEOs of Microsoft and Google are Indians.

    It is a self perpetuating nightmare. Once inside, they will hire other Indians not Americans. Many years ago when I was part of a team working on an algorithm to automate a production process, we had one Indian in the group of 11. Now the same group has 7 Indians.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 1 month ago
    "lets foreigners steal American jobs."
    If the gov't gets more intrusive, the next Blueseed, founded specifically to avoid immigration, will be successful. We'll create even more wealth and jobs, and people who think of jobs as meal tickets in limited supply rather than people trading with one another will still be demonizing the people in tech who send in big quarterlies to fund to programs the rednecks depend on.

    I know it's not that simple. The moocher / producer narrative is a gross over simplification. But it feels like free people create unbelievable value for the world, and the people in the rural areas demonize us but don't turn down federal programs.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by ewv 1 month ago
      As this is written it is very hard to follow what you are saying. Try again?

      The first two sentences are a loss. In the second paragraph, what people in what rural areas are demonizing who? Who is "we", and what is the connection to what "Federal programs"?

      The sentence you quote at the start, and are apparently responding to (how?), is false. Jobs don't belong to anyone when they aren't hired for them and talented "foreigners" are competing for them and doing them productively, not "stealing" them.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by CircuitGuy 4 days, 12 hours ago
        Sorry for the poor writing. I'm saying it feels like the tech world produces so much value for the economy and sends huge quarterlies to the federal gov't. It feels like the money goes to ungrateful rural areas. In this simplistic, feelings-based narrative, those people see jobs as meal tickets to be preserved because they're pepole who have no concept of creating value that wasn't there before. This leads to a frustrating life for them, making them open to politicians who promise to make the producers of the society feel a little uncomfortable in some way, a little taste of how pathetic they feel about themselves. This is what Clinton called the basket of deplorables. It's simplistic but there's some truth to it.

        I call this idea incorrect, though, because there's more variation from person to person than from group to group. It's not like all the producers live in cities and poor areas are full of moochers. Just traveling across the country by car dispels this idea. But when I hear people talking about "foreigners stealing jobs from Americans" it's hard not to indulge in this stereotype. The closer it gets to April 15, when both Q1 ES and any annual amount owed are due on the same day, the more susceptible I am to this emotional "deblorable moocher" narrative.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by ewv 4 days, 10 hours ago
          "Feels like" to whom? I know what April 15 is and don't have those "feelings" about rural people. And what difference do feelings make? Feelings aren't a basis for any knowledge. Why would you want to "indulge", based on "feelings", in something you know is wrong? Your own feelings of resentment and injustice around April 15 are an evaluation of what you are crudely reminded of that you know year 'round is wrong, not a basis for anti-rural feelings.

          Rural areas tend to have very productive, common sense, individualistic people -- along with the Starnesvillers who inhabit them along with every other area of the country and the world. Redistribution goes to the "ungrateful" everywhere, and the "everywhere" is much more populous than the low density rural areas.

          Those who see their jobs as a political meal ticket issue include both those who want a salary regardless of the value or lack of value of what they do, and those who want productive jobs, especially urban manufacturing jobs, with or without trying to outlaw competition from "foreigners" to politically protect their positions.

          "Deplorable" moochers aren't who Hillary Clinton was taunting. She likes the moochers. She was sneering at anyone with a rural lifestyle who (properly) rejected her elitism and supported Trump. Welfare recipients -- everywhere -- are typically ungrateful, but the ungrateful "who don't know how to say thank you", as Ayn Rand put it, means mostly those who don't appreciate what was made possible for them in the accumulated accomplishments of the culture of a capitalist country by the productive efforts of others' minds. They want to bring down the whole system of economic and political freedom and the rights of producers, not just guarantee the next government check. That is often most intense among university elitists and Hillary herself, not rural America.

          April 15 shoving statism in your face is no justification to "feel" like "indulging" in Hillary Clinton's demagoguery against those who tend to be most individualistic.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 3 days, 14 hours ago
            “Feelings aren't a basis for any knowledge.”
            This is true. Those comments don’t belong on a [sarcasm]dispassionate reason-based forum[/sarcasm].

            “Redistribution goes to the "ungrateful" everywhere, and the "everywhere" is much more populous than the low density rural areas.”
            Yes. And it’s not just redistribution in the sense of taking someone’s money and handing it to someone else. It’s gov’t spending (and the taxes that fund it) accounting for a large fraction of GDP.

            “Those who see their jobs as a political meal ticket”
            I don’t necessarily mean political, but rather they see jobs as a scarce thing with only so many to go around. Jobs are just people serving one another in free exchanges.

            “"Deplorable" moochers aren't who Hillary Clinton was taunting.”
            I’m not sure if her motivation was taunting, but she hit it right on the money. There is a segment of losers looking for scapegoats to blame their life’s problems on.

            “[ungrateful means] mostly those who don't appreciate what was made possible for them in the accumulated accomplishments of the culture of a capitalist country by the productive efforts of others' minds.”
            I am concerned that too many people fall into this to some extent or another.

            “April 15 shoving statism in your face is no justification to "feel" like "indulging" in Hillary Clinton's demagoguery against those who tend to be most individualistic.”
            I completely and categorically reject the premise of Clinton condemning individualism more than other politicians. But you’re right that an emotional response to taxes won’t get the job done, and it doesn’t belong in [LMAO] a forum based on rational thought[/LMAO].
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by ewv 1 day, 14 hours ago
              “"Deplorable" moochers aren't who Hillary Clinton was taunting.”
              I’m not sure if her motivation was taunting, but she hit it right on the money. There is a segment of losers looking for scapegoats to blame their life’s problems on.


              Clinton was not talking about "losers". She sneered and taunted rural people who don't support her politics. She likes "moochers". She denounces people who are "ungrateful" for her welfare state collectivism, not "ungrateful" for those who pay the taxes. She wants government dependents who worship her for it.

              “April 15 shoving statism in your face is no justification to "feel" like "indulging" in Hillary Clinton's demagoguery against those who tend to be most individualistic.”
              I completely and categorically reject the premise of Clinton condemning individualism more than other politicians.


              Clinton certainly is more collectivist than others. Clinton hates the individualistic tendencies in rural areas that reject her collectivism. None of the politicians have Ayn Rand's understanding of intellectual, ethical, economic and political independence, if that is what you mean, but there are degrees, and Clinton is among the worst. Many politicians are more favorable towards individualism than Clinton. There are many "moderates" and conservatives who do not like her socialism and statist cronyism (such as Hillary Care) and some conservatives are far better at some some aspects of personal responsibility and individualism.

              I don’t necessarily mean political, but rather they see jobs as a scarce thing with only so many to go around. Jobs are just people serving one another in free exchanges.

              "Working" for a living is not scarce; a "job" is one form of working and generally means being "employed" by someone else. In a particular region (or even nationally) at a particular period of time, such jobs can be limited. It is the cause of changing unemployment statistics. When politicians impose controls and taxes that stifle the economy "jobs" are a legitimate political issue, but not in the form of protectionism and subsidies, including artificial "stimulus".
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Lucky 4 days, 7 hours ago
          I call this idea incorrect
          -me too-

          it's hard not to indulge in this stereotype
          Well indulge for a laugh without presenting it as sensible.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ewv 1 day, 10 hours ago
            It's hard to tell the difference when all we have is words written on the page as if serious. Still, there is a problem with gravitating to a Hillary Clinton narrative as a "natural" inclination.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo