In a message dated 11/7/07 3:06:41 P.M. Central Standard Time, News@JobDestruction.info writes:
<<<<< JOB DESTRUCTION NEWSLETTER No. 1779 -- 11/07/2007 >>>>>
A couple of weeks ago a debate was given at UCLA called "Future of U.S. IT
Professionals in a Global Market". It was a rather one-sided affair that
pitted Dr. Norman Matloff against three H-1B proponents. The audience
mainly consisted of CIOs, CEOs, and other assorted business oriented
people. Norm held his own in the debate against the three and occasionally
got some rounds of support from some of the older patrons -- especially
when he talked about how H-1B fuels age discrimination.
A Computerworld blog has a partial transcript of the debate between Ravi
Aron and Norm Matolff. My jaw dropped open when I read Aron's statements,
and I'm at a loss to describe them. The transcript is below. This is
probably the most outrageous thing I have heard since Carly Fiorina of HP:
If you’re willing to pay enough, supply will meet demand.
Let me add: You should not pay that much.
The idea that there exists an exalted class of
[computer] aristocracy that
should be pampered with the salaries of their desired level
is baloney. We did not do this with agricultural or steel
workers or bank tellers. There is absolutely no reason
whatsoever for someone coming into this occupation to feel
entitled to an $85,000 salary and a bonus.
At the end of the debate, each panelist was awarded with a souvenir clock
with their names engraved against a world-and-time-zones background. It was
just the type of gift you would expect from a bunch of blood sucking
globalists!
An official description of the debate can be seen at:
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/x18889.xml
For Ravi Aron's Bio go here:
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/isassoc/Ravi_Aron_bio.html
For Norm Matloffs Bio go here:
http://www.anderson.ucla.edu/Documents/areas/ctr/isassoc/Norman_Mat_bio.html
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
http://www.computerworld.com/blogs/node/6482
Matloff vs. Aron on the loss of U.S. IT jobs to non-U.S. workers
By Don Tennant on Mon, 11/05/2007 - 11:39am
A couple of weeks ago I moderated a panel discussion at the fall meeting of
the UCLA Anderson School of Management IS Associates. The topic of
discussion was the future of U.S. IT professionals in a global market, and
we focused on offshore outsourcing and the H-1B visa controversy.
Much of the discussion took the form of a debate between Professor Norman
Matloff of the University of California at Davis, a long-time vocal critic
of the H-1B visa program; and Professor Ravi Aron of the University of
Southern California Marshall School of Business, an authority on offshore
outsourcing.
The following is an exchange between Matloff and Aron, edited for clarity
and brevity. It began with Matloff’s response to my first question:
Is the premise that there is a shortage of IT workers in the U.S. fact or
fiction?
Matloff: You can look at it in terms of salaries - they’re not going up.
There was a Business Week study that found that starting salaries for
computer science and electrical engineering graduates, adjusting for
inflation, are on the downswing. There is no study, other than those made
by the industry, that has established a shortage, even during the dot-com
boom. The problem is that people are not willing to hire who’s out there,
and largely it’s a matter of money. That, in turn, becomes a matter of
age - older people cost more. They cost more in salary, they cost more in
benefits. The whole thing about [there being a shortage because of] baby
boomers retiring is kind of ludicrous, because almost nobody gets to
retirement age in this business. After you reach age 40 or even age 35, you
find yourself becoming less employable. I’m talking about my specialty,
which is software development, so everything I said holds to that group. HR
doesn’t know what to do with that mountain of applications. They vet
people out, and the age issue is central - it’s a way to filter out the
older people. Eminently qualified people can’t even get an interview. It
amounts to legalized age discrimination.
Aron: If you’re willing to pay enough, supply will meet demand. Let me
add: You should not pay that much. The idea that there exists an exalted
class of [computer] aristocracy that should be pampered with the salaries
of their desired level is baloney. We did not do this with agricultural or
steel workers or bank tellers. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for
someone coming into this occupation to feel entitled to an $85,000 salary
and a bonus. If I can’t get it, I find another occupation. The road to
China winds through entitlement. No IT worker, now or in the future, can
have an entitlement that says, "I have the right to bypass the salary level
set by the market because in some way I’m critical to the future of the
United States." Let the market decide that number. If you find that number
unacceptable, there are plenty of other things to do.
How important is it to change the perception among young people that an IT
job isn’t worth pursuing because offshoring and H-1B visas are making
those jobs too difficult to attain?
Matloff: You have to ask if this profession is important to us as a nation,
as an economy, as a society. There are some real issues there. There’s an
obvious one: the military, which is very dependent on technology. We
don’t want to offshore that. Regardless of what you think of the war, you
obviously don’t offshore that kind of stuff. On the other hand, you
can’t say, "We’re going to produce just enough [IT talent] for the
military." It doesn’t work that way. You have to have a critical mass.
Innovation is supposed to be our forte in the United States. There’s a
lot of stuff that we don’t do well as a society, but we are creative. And
if we offshore that to a place where, on average, people are less creative,
we’re going to have less innovation and we’ve lost our comparative
advantage. So it’s a negative for us as a country, and it’s a negative
for the business community.
Aron: Is the concern that these people might go be a lawyer or an MBA? So
go be a lawyer or an MBA. What’s the big deal? If you can find a good MBA
program that will take you, go and be an MBA. You will do useful work; you
will add to the wealth and efficiency of the corporation. The military
needs steel. They need mechanical engineers, metallurgical scientists, all
of which can be offshored. Have we lost our innovation? Today, the gap
between the United States and the rest of the world in terms of
value-bearing patents - patents that actually make money - is increasing,
not decreasing. Who are America’s chief competitors? Germany and Japan,
not the low-cost manufacturing economies of China and India. Design and
innovate in America; develop and deliver in the CPI countries [China, the
Philippines and India]. That is the formula for making money and staying
innovative. Not protected by America, for Americans. If people want to
leave [the IT profession] and go become lawyers, let them become lawyers.
Nothing will stop them from being innovative, creative, and adding to the
wealth of this country.
Why not recognize a good thing when you see it? Why do people have to go
through these [H-1B] procedures? Why have procedures that [cause people to
look for] painful ways of skirting them? Why don’t they simply say, "If
you’ve got a Masters degree and Goldman Sachs wants to employ you, come
on over?" If they’re good enough for Goldman Sachs, they’re good enough
for the Unites States.
Matloff: The implicit theme of your argument is that these engineers and
programmers are smart people, and we need more smart people. Well first of
all, they’re not necessarily all that smart - anybody here who’s been
an IT manager knows that. They’ve been burned many times. No. 2, and much
more importantly, is the issue that influx is causing an internal
brain drain. Innovative people are leaving the field, and I know many, many
cases of that. I don’t think anyone, including
Ravi , is going to say it’s a good thing when you have bright people not
going into something where they really have talent. They’re going into
something that they don’t like and where maybe they don’t have talent.
Let them become a lawyer? Well, maybe they’re not going to be as good a
lawyer as they would have been a software engineer.
Aron: I’m not at all saying that you should bring these people in because
they’re smart. I couldn’t care less whether they’re smart or not. If
they are pumpkin farmers, and it turns out there’s an economic viability
and they can find a market for it and they can make money, I say bring them
in. I am completely agnostic about their intellectual prowess. And if
people become lawyers and they find they’re not very good at it, fine -
find something else to do. As I discovered when I was 18 years old that it
was not likely I was going to make it in a career as a rock guitarist, you
will discover that there are other things to do.
Will it mean that some people will not go into IT as a career? Absolutely.
So what? Will it mean that some talented, bright folks will move from IT
into financial services as they’re now doing? Yeah, of course. So what?
That is the strength of the U.S.: Constantly reallocate people and talent
where it is most rewarded. We do not want to be North Korea.
Can we do without the H1-B program? If you’re willing to pay enough,
certainly. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Can America’s driving
needs be met without Japanese cars? Of course. Can our photographic needs
be met without Japanese cameras? Without doubt. But the consequences would
be catastrophic. For sure, we can do without H1-B. For sure, we can do
without Japanese cars.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Newsletter Homepage:
http://www.JobDestruction.com/shameh1b/JobDestructionNews.htm
Support this Newsletter and www.JobDestruction.com by donating:
www.zazona.com/Donations.htm
To Be removed from this mailing list, reply to this
email with UNSUbSCRIBE in the subject window
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -