9 ms·

I work in a global company. As an interviewer, I don't even know if the person I interview is a US citizen. I don't even know if they live in the US or another

I work in a global company. As an interviewer, I don't even know if the person I interview is a US citizen. I don't even know if they live in the US or another country, and I'm probably not allowed to ask. I just rate their performance. And everybody is paid the same. I think the situation is quite simple. Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better. If tomorrow you were to tell (let say) Google they now need to hire only US citizens, would they lower their hiring bar, or would they expand their Shanghai or Zurich offices? Are US citizens entitled to work at Google more than others for the sole reason they have a particular citizenship?

overfeed 21d ago
> I just rate their performance. And everybody is paid the same. For some visa classes, the law says you should hire an American citizen if they can do the job - not if they rank first at whiteboards or fizz-buzz. > If tomorrow you were to tell (let say) Google they now need to hire only US citizens, would they lower their hiring bar Does it really matter? To a point, obviously, but a lot of people are good enough for the role without being the world's best. The bar for getting into Google has dropped since its early days, and Google keeps breaking profit records quarter after quarter. This entire "hire the best or nothing" mindset has led to a dysfunctional hiring process that's a pain to both employers and employees, and is prima facie unachievable.
- yodsanklai 21d ago
  > not if they rank first at whiteboards or fizz-buzz. As an interviewer, I don't rank candidates. I have my set of questions, some candidates solve them, others don't. You can argue that it's the bar to do your job properly. Should politicians tell big tech companies what's the bar for being a successful SWE? > When it comes to national interest, the argument for "meritocracy" falls apart quickly. A lot of US tech exists because of skilled foreign workers. I'm not sure what would be the tech industry without them.
  - overfeed 21d ago
    > As an interviewer, I don't rank candidates Someone in your org does - an individual or committee: that's the entire purpose of the hiring pipeline. I've interviewed candidates at multiple companies small and (extremely) big, and interviews always have to give recommendations for ranking purposes (out of 10/100, or (strong-/)yes / maybe / (strong-/)no) I am not attacking you personally, but the fact remains: in some circumstances hiring "the best" - when they happen to be a non-citizen - can be in contravention with the law depending on the visa class and whether you failed to find an American capable of doing the job. Don't just take my word for it, big tech companies have lost or settled multiple AG suits because they tried to hide job postings from Americans, e.g. by posting SWE/PM jobs in some podunk, print-only Farmers-Weekly-type magazines. > A lot of US tech exists because of skilled foreign workers. I fully agree. Unfortunately being skilled doesn't grant them the right to vote, and as young people keep finding out, those who write (and sign) laws care a lot about what actual voters think and feel. You have to get into office first before you can do the hard labor-policy stuff.
  - achenet 21d ago
    > A lot of US tech exists because of skilled foreign workers. I'm not sure what would be the tech industry without them. Relevant historical footnotes: The Manhattan Project [0], where an international team of scientists and engineers built the world's first atomic bomb. Operation Paperclip [1] where Nazi scientists and engineers were hired by the US government to work on the space program, amongst other things. and of course, there's this Andrew Grove guy, [2] who convinced the tech industry to obsessively focus on KPIs, for better or worse. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove
- EagnaIonat 21d ago
  > you should hire an American citizen if they can do the job I went for a job in the US back in the late 80's (Specialist on hardware). California it was exceptionally strict. While I was more than qualified it took months of the company advertising in the US, and at the end of it all an American was hired. The second job for another company in California, same deal except they only advertised in the local newspaper (which felt off), and when I finally got an interview they said they couldn't hire me but recommended places in Mexico to jump the border if I ever wanted a job. Noped out of that fast. Did eventually get to a spend a couple of years in the US in the 90's. It was the same hoops to jump through as the first company. Wasn't easy or fast. No idea what it is like now. But I had seen the racism of "They are an immigrant, so they were only hired because we can pay them cheap", not as bad as my Indian co-workers though.
ra0x3 21d ago
> I think the situation is quite simple. Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better. Respectfully, this sounds terribly naive.
- qaq 21d ago
  Why? All big and even medium tech companies have dev offices in EU and India. As example since it's much easier to deal with visas say in Ireland a lot of hiring was shifted to Irish offices.
- nostrebored 21d ago
  Having worked at a few large companies, this was the case at all of them. I do think there is a messy middle of companies built on vibes.
  - itake 21d ago
    There are 2 issues: 1/ Employment provides training and experience. If the h1bs are given access to the jobs (training and experience), then is it the American's fault that they are no longer considered "best"? 2/ h1b increases labor supply, not the demand. More supply, means lower wages for everyone.
    - nostrebored 21d ago
      1/ Training is only effective if you can fill the function of the job and learn from it. Many software engineering jobs people claim are stolen by H1B hires are filled by human beings more likely to meet the bar. Many American candidates just don’t. Filling a software role is hard. 2/ Demand for software is not static. Good software drives demand for more engineers in many cases, intra or extra-company. There is probably a non zero rate of wage suppression per marginal h1b currently. But an American economy with no h1b employees could feasibly have a much lower average sde salary. It is not an Econ 101 problem.
      - itake 21d ago
deleted 21d ago
[deleted]
Georgelemental 21d ago
> Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better. Yes, at the lowest wages they can get. Increase supply -> lower prices (wages) -> more corporate profits! However, there are those who believe that corporate profits are not the highest good. Some of us also care about the earnings of American workers. Also, "best candidates" alone does not "best company" make. You need people who can work well together—which requires some degree of culture fit. Immigration restrictions help preserve the cultural homogeneity that makes collaboration and social trust possible.
- golly_ned 21d ago
  > Yes, at the lowest wages they can get. Increase supply -> lower prices (wages) -> more corporate profits! I don't understand this. At least in tech megacorps, immigrants get paid the same as americans. They're also very good, and if they were to hire only americans, their talent pool would be worse. They're not 'cashing in' on cheaper labor.
  - Georgelemental 21d ago
    > At least in tech megacorps, immigrants get paid the same as americans … which is less than the Americans would otherwise get paid if there were fewer immigrants. A larger labor pool depresses wages for everybody.
    - triceratops 21d ago
      > which is less than the Americans would otherwise get paid if there were fewer immigrants Why do you think so? Where are all the people good enough to work in Big Tech but they have better options than a job that pays $300k to a new grad? What work are they doing right now which pays them more than Big Tech would?
      - Georgelemental 21d ago
        Most H-1Bs are not $300k FAANG employees
itake 21d ago
If the h1bs are given access to the jobs (training and experience), then is it the American's fault that they are no longer considered "best"? Google (and friends) famously have teams composed of a single national origin (or caste...). What does that say about their hiring bar? Google (and friends) are already expanding the Shanghai and Zurich offices.
- rootusrootus 21d ago
  > Google (and friends) famously have teams composed of a single national origin (or caste...). What does that say about their hiring bar? That racism isn't only something white people are capable of.
CSMastermind 21d ago
> Companies want the best candidates they can get Every global company I've worked at has had extensive ethnic networks and sometimes teams of only one ethnicity. It's painfully obvious that they're not just taking the most qualified candidates.
klooney 21d ago
> As an interviewer, I don't even know if the person I interview is a US citizen I don't either, but my guess is almost none are
- jameshart 21d ago
  That seems like a bias you should work on.
y-curious 21d ago
The “lack of local talent” is a fallacy. It’s “lack of talent at the prices I want”. Some people don’t take kindly to having their “product” replaced by a 1/2 price aliexpress clone
dzonga 21d ago
bingo. capital, talent has no borders.
dudul 20d ago
> Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better. Did you write this with a straight face? Companies want candidates that are good enough for the lowest possible price. Yes, US citizens are more entitled to be employed for US based jobs than importing someone from a different country to do the job. If Google wants an office in Zurich then Swiss candidates there should be more entitled instead of asking Switzerland to import foreign workers to fill the positions.
- yodsanklai 20d ago
  Big tech companies aren't patriotic, they work for their shareholders. They don't care about US or Swiss citizens. They'll open offices wherever there's a high density of talents, and where they can import qualified foreign workers. I'm pretty sure there aren't many SWEs from Switzerland at Google Zurich offices. If the US wants to restrict visas, automatically a portion of these jobs will be moved abroad.
  - dudul 20d ago
    I have no idea what point you're trying to make now. Companies are free to open an office wherever as long as 1) they hire local talent over immigrants 2) they are willing to deal with whatever policies countries put in place to "fight" offshoring. A company can decide to open an office in India where there is cheap talent as long as they pay the taxes put in place by US/EU governments to prevent offshoring. That's the game. Maybe try to express yourself a bit more clearly, because once again, I have no clue what your point is now.
    - yodsanklai 20d ago
      My point is that US can restrict visa all they want, it won't prevent companies to move somewhere else where they can get better talent and/or cheaper labour. So all this whining about H1B taking the jobs Americans feel entitled to is a bit misplaced - because this is all this discussion is about. It's all the more ironic when it comes from conservatives who claim to promote free market, globalization and meritocracy. Now local talent over immigrants, each country has different policy, and it certainly affects where companies decide to open foreign offices. For instance, would OpenAI open an office in London if all they can hire are British citizens?
ct0 20d ago
I find this hard to believe. Recruiters would not allow an applicant not eligible to work in the US pass to the next stage of the hiring process. Your role must not have the visibility that recruiters have.
- yodsanklai 20d ago
  What I'm saying is that I don't know if they are US citizens or not. From the look of it, most are not though. As for eligibility to work there, I suppose that's validated before with the recruiter.

overfeed 21d ago

> I just rate their performance. And everybody is paid the same. For some visa classes, the law says you should hire an American citizen if they can do the job - not if they rank first at whiteboards or fizz-buzz. > If tomorrow you were to tell (let say) Google they now need to hire only US citizens, would they lower their hiring bar Does it really matter? To a point, obviously, but a lot of people are good enough for the role without being the world's best. The bar for getting into Google has dropped since its early days, and Google keeps breaking profit records quarter after quarter. This entire "hire the best or nothing" mindset has led to a dysfunctional hiring process that's a pain to both employers and employees, and is prima facie unachievable.

yodsanklai 21d ago
> not if they rank first at whiteboards or fizz-buzz. As an interviewer, I don't rank candidates. I have my set of questions, some candidates solve them, others don't. You can argue that it's the bar to do your job properly. Should politicians tell big tech companies what's the bar for being a successful SWE? > When it comes to national interest, the argument for "meritocracy" falls apart quickly. A lot of US tech exists because of skilled foreign workers. I'm not sure what would be the tech industry without them.
- overfeed 21d ago
  > As an interviewer, I don't rank candidates Someone in your org does - an individual or committee: that's the entire purpose of the hiring pipeline. I've interviewed candidates at multiple companies small and (extremely) big, and interviews always have to give recommendations for ranking purposes (out of 10/100, or (strong-/)yes / maybe / (strong-/)no) I am not attacking you personally, but the fact remains: in some circumstances hiring "the best" - when they happen to be a non-citizen - can be in contravention with the law depending on the visa class and whether you failed to find an American capable of doing the job. Don't just take my word for it, big tech companies have lost or settled multiple AG suits because they tried to hide job postings from Americans, e.g. by posting SWE/PM jobs in some podunk, print-only Farmers-Weekly-type magazines. > A lot of US tech exists because of skilled foreign workers. I fully agree. Unfortunately being skilled doesn't grant them the right to vote, and as young people keep finding out, those who write (and sign) laws care a lot about what actual voters think and feel. You have to get into office first before you can do the hard labor-policy stuff.
- achenet 21d ago
  > A lot of US tech exists because of skilled foreign workers. I'm not sure what would be the tech industry without them. Relevant historical footnotes: The Manhattan Project [0], where an international team of scientists and engineers built the world's first atomic bomb. Operation Paperclip [1] where Nazi scientists and engineers were hired by the US government to work on the space program, amongst other things. and of course, there's this Andrew Grove guy, [2] who convinced the tech industry to obsessively focus on KPIs, for better or worse. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manhattan_Project [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Grove
EagnaIonat 21d ago
> you should hire an American citizen if they can do the job I went for a job in the US back in the late 80's (Specialist on hardware). California it was exceptionally strict. While I was more than qualified it took months of the company advertising in the US, and at the end of it all an American was hired. The second job for another company in California, same deal except they only advertised in the local newspaper (which felt off), and when I finally got an interview they said they couldn't hire me but recommended places in Mexico to jump the border if I ever wanted a job. Noped out of that fast. Did eventually get to a spend a couple of years in the US in the 90's. It was the same hoops to jump through as the first company. Wasn't easy or fast. No idea what it is like now. But I had seen the racism of "They are an immigrant, so they were only hired because we can pay them cheap", not as bad as my Indian co-workers though.

ra0x3 21d ago

> I think the situation is quite simple. Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better. Respectfully, this sounds terribly naive.

qaq 21d ago
Why? All big and even medium tech companies have dev offices in EU and India. As example since it's much easier to deal with visas say in Ireland a lot of hiring was shifted to Irish offices.
nostrebored 21d ago
Having worked at a few large companies, this was the case at all of them. I do think there is a messy middle of companies built on vibes.
- itake 21d ago
  There are 2 issues: 1/ Employment provides training and experience. If the h1bs are given access to the jobs (training and experience), then is it the American's fault that they are no longer considered "best"? 2/ h1b increases labor supply, not the demand. More supply, means lower wages for everyone.
  - nostrebored 21d ago
    1/ Training is only effective if you can fill the function of the job and learn from it. Many software engineering jobs people claim are stolen by H1B hires are filled by human beings more likely to meet the bar. Many American candidates just don’t. Filling a software role is hard. 2/ Demand for software is not static. Good software drives demand for more engineers in many cases, intra or extra-company. There is probably a non zero rate of wage suppression per marginal h1b currently. But an American economy with no h1b employees could feasibly have a much lower average sde salary. It is not an Econ 101 problem.
    - itake 21d ago

deleted 21d ago

[deleted]

Georgelemental 21d ago

> Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better. Yes, at the lowest wages they can get. Increase supply -> lower prices (wages) -> more corporate profits! However, there are those who believe that corporate profits are not the highest good. Some of us also care about the earnings of American workers. Also, "best candidates" alone does not "best company" make. You need people who can work well together—which requires some degree of culture fit. Immigration restrictions help preserve the cultural homogeneity that makes collaboration and social trust possible.

golly_ned 21d ago
> Yes, at the lowest wages they can get. Increase supply -> lower prices (wages) -> more corporate profits! I don't understand this. At least in tech megacorps, immigrants get paid the same as americans. They're also very good, and if they were to hire only americans, their talent pool would be worse. They're not 'cashing in' on cheaper labor.
- Georgelemental 21d ago
  > At least in tech megacorps, immigrants get paid the same as americans … which is less than the Americans would otherwise get paid if there were fewer immigrants. A larger labor pool depresses wages for everybody.
  - triceratops 21d ago
    > which is less than the Americans would otherwise get paid if there were fewer immigrants Why do you think so? Where are all the people good enough to work in Big Tech but they have better options than a job that pays $300k to a new grad? What work are they doing right now which pays them more than Big Tech would?
    - Georgelemental 21d ago
      Most H-1Bs are not $300k FAANG employees

itake 21d ago

If the h1bs are given access to the jobs (training and experience), then is it the American's fault that they are no longer considered "best"? Google (and friends) famously have teams composed of a single national origin (or caste...). What does that say about their hiring bar? Google (and friends) are already expanding the Shanghai and Zurich offices.

rootusrootus 21d ago
> Google (and friends) famously have teams composed of a single national origin (or caste...). What does that say about their hiring bar? That racism isn't only something white people are capable of.

CSMastermind 21d ago

> Companies want the best candidates they can get Every global company I've worked at has had extensive ethnic networks and sometimes teams of only one ethnicity. It's painfully obvious that they're not just taking the most qualified candidates.

klooney 21d ago

> As an interviewer, I don't even know if the person I interview is a US citizen I don't either, but my guess is almost none are

jameshart 21d ago
That seems like a bias you should work on.

y-curious 21d ago

The “lack of local talent” is a fallacy. It’s “lack of talent at the prices I want”. Some people don’t take kindly to having their “product” replaced by a 1/2 price aliexpress clone

dzonga 21d ago

bingo. capital, talent has no borders.

dudul 20d ago

> Companies want the best candidates they can get, and the larger the recruitment pool, the better. Did you write this with a straight face? Companies want candidates that are good enough for the lowest possible price. Yes, US citizens are more entitled to be employed for US based jobs than importing someone from a different country to do the job. If Google wants an office in Zurich then Swiss candidates there should be more entitled instead of asking Switzerland to import foreign workers to fill the positions.

yodsanklai 20d ago
Big tech companies aren't patriotic, they work for their shareholders. They don't care about US or Swiss citizens. They'll open offices wherever there's a high density of talents, and where they can import qualified foreign workers. I'm pretty sure there aren't many SWEs from Switzerland at Google Zurich offices. If the US wants to restrict visas, automatically a portion of these jobs will be moved abroad.
- dudul 20d ago
  I have no idea what point you're trying to make now. Companies are free to open an office wherever as long as 1) they hire local talent over immigrants 2) they are willing to deal with whatever policies countries put in place to "fight" offshoring. A company can decide to open an office in India where there is cheap talent as long as they pay the taxes put in place by US/EU governments to prevent offshoring. That's the game. Maybe try to express yourself a bit more clearly, because once again, I have no clue what your point is now.
  - yodsanklai 20d ago
    My point is that US can restrict visa all they want, it won't prevent companies to move somewhere else where they can get better talent and/or cheaper labour. So all this whining about H1B taking the jobs Americans feel entitled to is a bit misplaced - because this is all this discussion is about. It's all the more ironic when it comes from conservatives who claim to promote free market, globalization and meritocracy. Now local talent over immigrants, each country has different policy, and it certainly affects where companies decide to open foreign offices. For instance, would OpenAI open an office in London if all they can hire are British citizens?

ct0 20d ago

I find this hard to believe. Recruiters would not allow an applicant not eligible to work in the US pass to the next stage of the hiring process. Your role must not have the visibility that recruiters have.

yodsanklai 20d ago
What I'm saying is that I don't know if they are US citizens or not. From the look of it, most are not though. As for eligibility to work there, I suppose that's validated before with the recruiter.