Re: Bill Gates and the H-1B Visa, Chapters 1 and 2

These comments are along the lines that I believe to be significant to Microsoft. It seems to me that the real goal is to carry the Microsoft culture out of Redmond. Every company has its own culture, and it is a difficult task to make that culture repeat from business ynit to business unit. McDonalds and Wal-Mart are two recent example of being able to execute that seemingly simple task. It would seem to me that Microsoft has found the H2-B program to be an excellent way to build that cadre of loyal employees and then send them home to fly the company flag.. I am betting that IBM is doing about the same thing?

Tom Liotta wrote:

Joe Pluta wrote:

Tom Liotta wrote:

MS doesn't profit from hiring H-1Bs. Yes, they might get a wider talent pool. And, yes, they might execute hirings for lower salaries. And, yes, there are probably various elements that affect their bottom line during the time a H-1B holder works for them. But it still isn't quite "profit".

I usually stay out of this conversation, because in my opinion if you don't understand the horrific effects of America's H-1B policy then it's unlikely anything will convince you, but I find this statement to be so untrue that I have to respond.

Note that my comments were _specific_ to Microsoft. I'm commenting on
Bill Gates' involvement, not the validity of the H-1B program. I'm
wondering if there is a motive that is obscured by the controversy that
is the focus of everyone, such that Mr. Gates might have an unseen
potential advantage in the coming future in Indian and Chinese and other
markets -- which could very easily slide radically into the Linux
universe if not opposed by moves by MS.

With that much clarification, you might have a better chance at
understanding what I'm musing about. If you want to rant about H-1Bs, I
don't have much disagreement. Just be aware that it's only peripherally
related to the thought that I was trying to write about.

I will grant that there might be a salary difference between any H-1Bs
that MS (specifically) has hired and equivalent domestic non-H-1B
workers. I'm not sure if anyone can demonstrate it in the _specific_
case of Microsoft, but I'll grant it anyway. I find it hard to believe
that the _difference_ is enough to be significant to MS (specifically).

But even if a difference exists, it ignores other cost factors. E.g., it
ignores added cost of administering a program within a corporate
structure to seek out, hire, monitor and report to the feds on H-1Bs.
H-1Bs are not free; it takes some $2k from the employer just to file for
_each_ H-1B application. And maintaining a business model that relied to
a major degree on temporary (and especially foreign and
foreign-language) workers brings plenty of harder to define costs.

It is rendered almost irrelevant by the relatively small number of H-1Bs
in the total number of software engineers employed by Microsoft. Precise
numbers are hard to come by, not the least of reasons is simply that it
changes probably daily. And digging hard numbers out of USCIS isn't
easy. Still, the total is something under 8% of all software engineer
employees at Microsoft in the U.S.A. The current number is somewhere
under 1900. In all of 2007, Microsoft received 959 visa petition
approvals. Because H-1Bs are currently limited to six years, a big part
of that 2007 number is simple replacement.

The H-1Bs hired by Microsoft are _not_ Visual Basic programmers from a
community college. If you think, for example, in terms of speech
recognition experts, you're closer to the actual situation. Obviously,
simple applications programmers are easy to find; H-1Bs are hardly
meaningful to Microsoft at that level.

Many H-1Bs hired at Microsoft are often _not_ taking cheap jobs. They're
often able to work for any company anywhere in the world, pretty much
naming their salary. Yes, granted, there are probably a significant
number below the elite level. But the _total_ number of H-1Bs is small
enough compared to Microsoft's revenues, and total employment, that it
takes painful stretches of imagination to invent an argument that
Microsoft (specifically) has much interest in turning somewhat lower
salaries or benefits (if so and if low enough to offset related costs
fully) into a profit center.

Nobody can construct a meaningful argument that MS doesn't understand
business. It might have trouble with business programming, but
'business' -- domestic and global -- is definitely a MS forte.

I'm not at all _claiming_ that MS is interested in taking over a
monopoly stake in Indian/Chinese/wherever markets. I'm just wondering if
H-1B is one way to influence future market direction, from something
like a grass-roots influence.

By all means, if you feel that that can't be done by MS, let me know.

Tom Liotta