How to get funding from VCs and Angels - <AUTHOR> http://dondodge.typepad.com/the_next_big_thing/2009/06/how-to-get-funding-from-vcs-and-angels.html <comment><USER2> "The chances of a first time entrepreneur getting a meeting without an introduction from a trusted advisor are very small."

This is not true. You need an intro, but it doesn't have to come from someone who's your advisor. A lot of intros come from investors who've just met you themselves.

<comment><USER3> Indeed. Many people might not realize that "who can I introduce you to?" at the end of a pitch is a common way investors say "I'll pass".</comment></comment>


Former GCHQ chief: 'You can't un-invent encryption' - <AUTHOR> http://tech.newstatesman.com/news/robert-hannigan-gchq-encryption <comment><USER2> Encryption is only a danger if you have no values. If you value something, like a farm in Massachussets where your family lives, and some sheep and you like your PSVR, then you have reasons to like encryption. Encryption is defense. It can protect the things you love.

If you are a purely political agent, with no values, just an ideology you are trying to impose on the world, then encryption might be a problem. To you, the world is just power struggles. You like this person, you don't like this other person. You want this to happen, you don't want that to happen. Control is good when you wield it, and bad when someone else does. It's no way to live. That's a prehistoric approach to existence.

There are infinite universes, so there is a universe for everyone. The faster we get to the point where everyone has a universe that they are protecting, one which can sustain their body, the sooner we can see these technologies for what they are: safety.

Armies and nations and crypto breaking should be needed sparingly. We need to get to a world where they're needed sparingly.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. You can make that same wrong argument against any technology. How many times has a vehicle been used in a commission of a crime? Do we ban cars? It's a ridiculous premise. Besides if we build backdoors into encryption or purposely weaken it, hostile nation-states and criminals will exploit it and use it against us.</comment></comment>


Indian Government Restricts PayPal - <AUTHOR> http://www.justskins.com/ecommerce/paypal-india-problems/2616 With effect from March 1st, Indian users cannot receive payments of more than $500 in your PayPal account. Moreover, you cannot keep or use any funds in your PayPal account. You can use your PayPal balance to make send money for any goods or services, and must withdraw it to your bank account within 7 days of the receipt. <comment><USER2> This may have happened in order to stop remittances. Indians abroad usually send fair amounts of money back home to support their families, and using Paypal they can avoid the official government taxes on those payments.

<comment><USER3> This is not accurate. India has agreements with various countries around the world to avoid Double Taxation. I don't pay taxes for the monies I send to India to my parents because I've already paid taxes on my income in the USA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sadly typical of an Indian bureaucracy whose core competency has forever been to obstruct the free flow of money, goods and services, often for the purpose of positioning well-connected fixers to extract lucrative commissions for pulling the strings that would clear the "roadblocks"

<comment><USER5> As much as I agree with you on your observations of Indian bureaucracy, I think this case is slightly different.

The RBI wants to treat PayPal like a bank and subject it to the same regulations as other banks (whether those regulations are fair or obstructive is subject for another discussion).

PayPal wants to run around and be bank-like, but not really a bank.

<comment><USER6> There is no shortage of banks. There is only one Paypal. If Paypal's customers wanted a bank, they would go open an account at one of India's many actual banks.

Who exactly is being helped by taking away the Paypal option from consumers (besides bankers)?

<comment><USER7> Actually, there's a few Paypals out there, just not as big and successful as Paypal, but people use them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The wording here is disingenuous.

The RBI (which deals with taxes and money regulation in India) requires transactions above $500 to be reported.

Also, any entity which keeps money and does transfers on demand over a certain period of time is deemed a bank and is subject to bank regulations.

Paypal is not interested in being treated like a bank in India - that would mean paying interest on money they keep, among other things. So they decided to put in these new rules and blame it on the government.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sadly, the Indian Government is very slow on all things technology. This might come as surprise in a country whose core competency has been technology!

If you don't believe me just visit any Indian Govt website and you'll quickly realize how light years behind we really are. No wonder hackers across the border show it to the world from time to time.

As far as the PayPal move goes its a very bad move considering that not many own credit cards and there is no real way to pay money online for making instant purchases in India. Not that I like PayPal.

<comment><USER10> At least understand the real reason (which someone aptly stated in one of the comments above, money laundering and such) before talking about things that have nothing to do with the decision.

<comment><USER9> Money laundering? Who are you kidding to? In India money laundering takes place in broad daylight right under your nose and I'm sure Paypal's sure would be a drop in the ocean. If you know what I'm talking about. Literally.

<comment><USER10> Oh I exactly know how it all works, hawala or otherwise.

Again, the question is not if it's a move that will deter such laundering and so on. It's one of those things that you'd do to make people believe that you're up to something.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What I learned from writing for The Onion for a month (2015) - <AUTHOR> https://wordsbyevanporter.com/what-i-learned-from-writing-for-the-onion-for-a-month/ <comment><USER2> A few years ago, my friend and I launched our own publication on medium because we were very into comedy/satire. The Onion was the pinnacle. For a couple of months we met every morning in a coffee shop before the start of our respective jobs, around 7;30am and just brainstormed.

The biggest thing to me was that I learned that motivation was something that could come after you force yourself to wake up early and just get started. There were many days where we decided to not show up and skipped the days. The rest of the days that we did show up, I never ever regretted them. We came up with some hilarious ideas (at least to us) and would just sit there laughing like idiots in the coffeeshop.

We eventually launched our "publication" on Medium, and it of course fell flat because there needs to be a level of marketing and consistent effort for years before you have a dedicated following. But, those few months were some of the most creative months I've ever had in my life. I loved it. Was it a huge success? Not in the least. Was it even funny? No idea, our friends thought the articles were pretty funny, but other than that, it made it nowhere. If anybody wants to check it out -- [https://medium.com/thedailylemming](https://medium.com/thedailylemming)

After reading this article, though, I think what OP wrote is sort of not what I imagined. Sitting at home alone churning out ideas to some faceless email for a name on your resume is not my idea of creativity, I guess. I like the concept of sitting at a table and just sort of ping ponging ideas until you get something that is amazing. Of course I can say that since I'm not an actual writer and I can do this on the side and be picky and choosy as much as I want.

<comment><USER3> > The biggest thing to me was that I learned that motivation was something > that could come after you force yourself to wake up early and just get > started

I had a similar experience doing a podcast [1] with a group of 6 others, each putting out one episode per day. It felt like failing the group if anyone had to skip their day, as we came close to a year without a break. I'd spend hours researching and scripting my episodes while riding the bus, waiting for a friend at a bar, or just winding down before bed. It was peak creativity for me and I'm happy with how it all turned out.

But after a while we got burned out and decided to stop, with the idea that we'd keep making our own podcasts. But without that mutual duty to release daily, no one to date has actually put anything out. The deadline/responsibility was the only way to make it happen–at least for me.

[1] - [https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2018/8/5/8-5-1...](https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2018/8/5/8-5-18-the-greatest-thing-since-sliced-bread)

<comment><USER2> oh man, i bet podcasts are so much more work

<comment><USER3> It varied episode to episode. I'd usually end up putting 10-15 hours into research and writing but with some topics I couldn't tackle in 7 days, I'd have to slap a roman numeral after it and try to finish it next week. Or, come up with some sort of cop-out for the week entirely.

In one case [1] I ended up with a teaser + 3 parter that wasn't super congruent because research for part 3 sort of changed how I would have approached the script for the previous two.

[1] Killdozer Teaser - [https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2019/2/16/s2e4...](https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2019/2/16/s2e48-teaser-frontier-justice) I - [https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2019/2/24/s2e5...](https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2019/2/24/s2e54-killdozer-i) II - [https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early- bird-news/2019/3/3/s2e61...](https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2019/3/3/s2e61-killdozer-ii) III - [https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early- bird-news/2019/3/10/s2e6...](https://www.podcastdotcom.net/early-bird- news/2019/3/10/s2e68-killdozer-iii)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> RE: creativity as a muscle, I think this is a powerful shift in framing. A lot of folks treat creativity as this lightening strike that you must passively wait for. And while some creative ideas are like that, many creatives, including some of the greatest artists in history, forced themselves to work for some unit of time with regularity, and were able to train themselves to be consistently creative over time. Sometimes a great idea feels like the firing of random synapses, but perhaps the priming of that firing happens through habit and dicipline.

<comment><USER5> Creativity is illogical and chaotic. Things that work for one, won't for another. Trying to find reason in it might be pointless. Getting it down to a methodology might be ideal for some, but that's because they might be more logic-oriented than emotion-oriented

Ideally you should find how you can extract the most out of your intellect and use that. There's a right way and a wrong way, but not on a collective level, only in an individual one.

<comment><USER6> The Artist's Way would strongly disagree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The broken embedded video that he says he had the idea for has been moved here: "Judge Rules White Girl Will Be Tried As Black Adult" [https://www.theonion.com/judge-rules-white-girl-will-be- trie...](https://www.theonion.com/judge-rules-white-girl-will-be-tried-as- black-adult-1819594949)

<comment><USER8> Here is a link which doesn't require DRM and works with youtube-dl:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Congrats to the author, that's a huge gig.

Let's say one were 90th percentile level good, what is the out/endgame for how much money a writer can make these days? Like if you're the writing version of the most entry level pro player on a hockey or basketball team - in the big leagues, but still bottom rung of a tall ladder, are you earning average software developer income at that point?

Almost all the pro writers I've known (n=50) had one of a higher-earning spouse, independent means/inherited real estate, an editing/teaching job that they occasionally wrote through, or a grant funded position or fellowship.

Assuming it's Pareto distributed where the top %20 of writers make %80 of writing income, how much can a good writer expect to make?

<comment><USER10> Good / great doesn't matter as much as you would think. How well you sell matters. Your subjects matter.

Great subjects like a Michael Jordan interview talking about Scotty would superseed any average/good/great writing ability.

I don't find the writing great in the 4 hour work week. But it sold well. A great writer wouldn't have added much in terms of income generated.

Marketing matters more for income.

<comment><USER9> I've published in mainstream publications, and while I see that point, arguably, the quality of writing is measured by how much it changes the mind of the reader, and not how it emulates prior art that may have been well- received by critics. I would even say that writing that doesn't change the mind of the reader is basically on a spectrum of porn.

By that measure, the 4 Hour Workweek was a great bit of writing. I like triads, so I'd say it's a balance of Topic, Timing, and Talent. Three is best, but if you aren't a contender with two, you don't have a chance. I've been thinking about returning to it as a vocation, but don't think the economics of writing make sense right now, hence the question.

<comment><USER11> Not to overanalyze, but there's probably a minimum bar for each leg of that stool. And once you're over it, investing more time and white won't move the needle.

Ok overthinking it. There are probably different "formations" of the stool. Imagine each axis on a scale from 1 to 10. A 10 topic and 10 timing can get by with as low as a 4 writing talent. A 7 topic and 2 timing can make up for the gap with a writing talent of 8.

End ramble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The article is from 2015 but the actual story/experience is from 2010. FWIW, the onion has changed hands at least twice and the entire industry has cratered since then (hence them being owned by a PE firm now). The TV show mentioned is of course long canceled.

I know this is kinda dragging a tangential thing in here, but it really can't be overstated how much Facebook hollowed out the sector. We're talking rockefeller rolling up oil refineries, except instead of cutting them in zuck just middle-manned their entire distribution chain and squeezed them to death.

<comment><USER13> I don't know how much of it is Facebook specifically. The decline of revenue coming into ad-supported sites generally has been happening for a very long time. Facebook is part of the reason but it's not the only one.

<comment><USER12> It was a one-two-three punch. First it was Craiglist, then it was Google, now its Facebook. The main difference between google and facebook is that search optimizes for sending you on your way, so the destination sites could still do something with their audience. Facebook is extremely optimized to keep you on facebook, so in a raw attention-economy eyeball-minutes sense FB hurt much more than google.

And yes, if you're looking for full spectrum technicalities here amazon and microsoft and yahoo all shaved a few % each themselves too.

But the high order bit, in 2020, is unequivocally FB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The onion from 2010-ish is the onion the world needs today. The onion now is neutered and just not what it was.

Babylon Bee is fantastic, I absolutely love it. They are as close as you will get to a 10 year old onion.

<comment><USER15> I don't know if neutered is the right word, but perhaps diluted, with a lot of effort going into many projects. Also, moving from New York to Chicago c. 2012 caused a lot of staff changes. I was a little surprised they were able to remain pretty consistent after moving from Madison to New York.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's impressive to me as a non-westerner about the satire media in US/Canada is the wonderful exhibition of free speech at a time when reporting factual news can get a journalist into extreme trouble, even in countries wearing 'democracy' banner.

I highly recommend Onion's new podcast - The Topical[1][2] as a detox for real news by the EOD; Ironically some times Onion's news contain more truth than real(air quotes) news!

[1] Google Podcast - [https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGh...](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkcy5tZWdhcGhvbmUuZm0vdGhldG9waWNhbA)

[2] Apple Podcast - [https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the- topical/id14946007...](https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the- topical/id1494600747)

<comment><USER17> IMO a great example of this freedom is the Stephen Colbert character roasting Bush in person at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Dinner. This was when 9/11, Iraq war, Guantanamo Bay, Katrina, etc. were on peoples' minds at the time.

[https://youtu.be/6ZnuYKKtpxg](https://youtu.be/6ZnuYKKtpxg)

<comment><USER18> All that's special about it (and not that special) is that the president is there in person, there are lots of countries where comedians can roast the government all day long.

<comment><USER19> >All that's special about it (and not that special) is that the president is there in person

I cannot fathom how you think this is "not that special". Of _course_ it's a bigger deal to be allowed to roast the president to his face and an audience consisting of his strongest supporters than to be critical of the government to a (probably smaller audience) of people who already agree with you.

If this happened in the current administration it would be met with a severe character assassination by the president, Fox News, OAN, etc. His ego is simply too fragile to handle any sort of criticism.

Of course the only way it could happen in the first place would be to trick them into thinking it wasn't going to be a roast in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I feel almost ashamed to say that I don't think I've ever read past the headline on an Onion article.

They just absolutely nail the satire in that one-liner, time after time after time.

<comment><USER21> You're missing out then. What you're describing is true much of the time, but in others the content is just amazing: [https://www.theonion.com/planned- parenthood-opens-8-billion-...](https://www.theonion.com/planned-parenthood- opens-8-billion-abortionplex-1819572640)

> "Although we've traditionally dedicated 97 percent of our resources to other > important services such as contraception distribution, cancer screening, and > STD testing, this new complex allows us to devote our full attention to what > has always been our true passion: abortion," said Richards, standing under a > banner emblazoned with Planned Parenthood's new slogan, "No Life Is Sacred."

<comment><USER22> Agreed. They absolutely nail the headlines, but the content is top-notch as well. I'm regularly reminded of this one from 2013: [https://www.theonion.com/jesus-this- week-1819574831](https://www.theonion.com/jesus-this-week-1819574831)

> "WASHINGTON—Calling the last four days of American life just…I mean, talk > about a goddamned punch in the gut, citizens across the nation confirmed > today that, Jesus, this week.

This fucking week, sources added.

Christ."

<comment><USER23> The Onion headline I think about regularly is from January 2001: "Bush: 'Our Long National Nightmare Of Peace And Prosperity Is Finally Over'".

It was supposed to be a joke, but was prescient, promising a "Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years" and a deep recession.

[https://politics.theonion.com/bush-our-long-national- nightma...](https://politics.theonion.com/bush-our-long-national-nightmare-of- peace-and-prosperi-1819565882)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This American Life had an episode, Tough Room, in which Act One [1] was chronicling how jokes get whittled down. This was from 2008 - don't know how freelancers' jokes fit in but here the writers' jokes weren't submitted over email but read out loud, one after the other, in a room where your coworkers unemotionally approve or ask you to move on. It's worth a listen.

[1] [https://www.thisamericanlife.org/348/tough-room/act- one](https://www.thisamericanlife.org/348/tough-room/act-one)

</comment><comment><USER25> I can't imagine how much harder it must be now for Onion writers who have to compete with real-world headlines.

<comment><USER26> So instead of being comedy writers pretending to be a news room, they've become a news room pretending to be comedy writers? Now they just need to work on their embargo dates, because they've been clearly running their stories before the events.

<comment><USER25> Yes, they accidentally posted this one a month early: [https://local.theonion.com/man-just-buying-one-of-every- clea...](https://local.theonion.com/man-just-buying-one-of-every-cleaning- product-in-case-t-1842493766)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interesting. Writing and creativity is indeed a muscle. The author should not disqualify themselves from being funny from just 4 week experience. Creating funny content for the onion at that time required that you be in the 95th percentile. The author could have been in 90th percentile for funny people in America.

I just started writing my newsletter at [https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/](https://leveragethoughts.substack.com/) and I am currently building my writing muscle.

</comment><comment><USER28> A bit OT: Back in the 70s/80s there was a national weekly radio show called Week Ending where anyone could turn up off the street in the writers' room and contribute. The results were a bit mixed, rather tame by today's standards, but it nurtured a lot of people who would go on to do great radio and TV comedy in the UK.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week_Ending](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Week_Ending)

</comment><comment><USER29> Two reactions to this blog:

1\. What does it feel like to work a job that's pretty morally unambiguously doing good? (Making people laugh)

2\. Their interview process sounds a bit like tech take home assignment. If they reject the interviewee, do they get to keep all their ideas? At least they don't make them do improv in front of an interviewer in real time... (equivalent of a white board leet code interview?)

<comment><AUTHOR> > Their interview process sounds a bit like tech take home assignment

the worst are the Fermi Comedy questions;

How many mimes slip on bananas in Paris

If you fill the Empire State Building with helium how many people in New York will sound like dorks?

stuff like that, awful.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Conversely, as a BabylonBee subscriber, they let you pitch headlines.

And see the other submissions.

Heart goes out to whoever is wading through that mess.

</comment><comment><USER31> The video embed wasn't working for me, but if I'm reading the article right, the sketch the author got produced is the first segment here:

[https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6sw420](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6sw420)

(It is indeed funny, and still relevant).

<comment><USER32> Why the image flip?

<comment><USER33>
        document.querySelector('video').style.transform = "scaleX(-1)"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I think an AMA on Reddit from someone who wrote/worked for the Onion would be really cool. The Onion is one of those companies that is just really good at what it does and has found an incredible fit in a niche market. I always love organizations like that who choose art over profit.

</comment><comment><USER35> I love the Onion. There's also an old BBC comedy called Brass Eye that was quite similar.

For example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IEwBrJzhlg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IEwBrJzhlg)

<comment><USER36> Morris is a genius, if you like his stuff, do check out _Blue Jam_ , very strange indeed

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> The "Jobs page" that's linked to in the article just goes to a page of all the onion articles that are about "jobs". Is that the joke?

<comment><USER38> Article was from 2005. New link is here: [https://www.theonion.com/careers](https://www.theonion.com/careers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Given how many people shared Onion stories without knowing it's "satire" and the article mentioning "It was always some kind of dry, subtle joke"-

I think The Onion is bad for society.

It spawned numerous knockoff websites that would mislead people "because it's funny!".

If you are scrolling through a website, do you click on every article? Read every detail? And research the root website?

Or do you skim, read mostly headlines and occasionally deep dive?

How many "satire" website headlines do you subconsciously believe?

All for "humor", which is rarely found tbh.

<comment><USER40> The Onion is Baby's First Satire. I want it exposed to as many people as possible so when they fail to get the joke we can relentlessly mock them and know who to exclude from serious conversations.

Imagine someone who can't even handle the Onion trying to process challenging satire. The kind that might get you to change your mind, rather than the Onion/Daily Show brand of pats on the head for agreeing with established orthodoxy.

<comment><USER41> > The Onion is Baby's First Satire.

ITYM MAD Magazine, at least after the 80s.

It was hilarious when I was 12; these days, not so much.</comment></comment></comment>


Would you pay five bucks a month for the New York Times? - <AUTHOR> http://technologizer.com/2009/07/09/would-you-pay-5-a-month-for-the-new-york-times/

<comment><USER2> Hell, I won't even pay free. I have an account and I STILL just leave the page when it tells me I have to sign in to access free content.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is stupid.

The $5 fee, whether it's small or not, still requires people to pull out their wallets. A lot of people simply don't want to get out their wallet and go through the sign up process, so they won't.

A lot of their news is available everywhere else. Why would I need the NYT.com website to read about Obama winning when MSNBC.com had it for free? So the question should be "Are our op-ed's and in depth reporting worth $5/mo?" And if the in depth reporting is big (e.g. CIA eavesdropping scandal) it will be covered elsewhere shortly after it breaks.

So the number of page views they lose to $5 kills their advertising dollars. Is that $5 really going to make up how much they're losing? Not according to this post: [http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/04/paying-for-online-news- sorr...](http://www.niemanlab.org/2009/04/paying-for-online-news-sorry-but- the-math-just-doesnt-work/)

<comment><USER4> agree with "news is available everywhere else", agree with "stupid".

But, what I like about NYTimes is the succinct quality of language used. "Everywhere" (mostly) else it's not quality. Everywhere else, You get the bits of news - the fast food of news. At NYTimes, you go for the 3 course lunch. "Everywhere" I tend to crap out my brains, when I read "your" used interchangeably with "you'r" in slangy english(even the famous tech brunch site) - my opinion.</comment></comment>


Mnesia and CAP - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jlouis666/mnesia-and-cap-d2673a92850 <comment><USER2> Unrelated, but maybe interesting: WhatsApp was running Mnesia and made it work fantastically. Especially with such a small team of engineers.

Here is a video of Rick Reed talking about how they did it (hint it is not a one monolithic Mnesia cluster).

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c12cYAUTXXs](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c12cYAUTXXs)

<comment><USER3> Yeah, you can build scalability into Mnesia, but it's not there by default. It's also dependent on what kind of data and persistence guarantees you want; if it's mostly transient data, or acceptable to lose some data in the one in a million case, Mnesia out of the box is probably fine. If you need stronger guarantees, you either have to do a lot of work, or you should investigate an alternative solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If Mnesia claims to be AP or CP, and it's not, there is a problem, but the following sentence is wrong IMHO: "In short, it is broken with respect to the CAP theorem.".

Basically if it is _per design_ , it is perfectly fine to design a database system that does not try to be Available nor Consistent (capitalized to mean A and C of CAP, not other kinds of availability or consistency).

C of CAP is very strict, and requires consensus (because we assume we are partition tolerant). A of CAP is very strict, and requires even a single isolated node to be able to reply to requests.

As long as the behavior of the system is well specified in the documentation, a database system can make the conscious tradeoff of not being AP nor CP without being "broken". If it is a good idea or not it's a matter of design and use cases, but the point is, CAP does not capture the whole set of tradeoffs of a database system, so there are other real world reasons in certain systems that may make you sacrifice the possibility of taking the maximum theoretical availability or consistency.

So certain real world systems may have a specific set of liveness and safety property, well documented, and designed for a given set of use cases and implementation goals.

<comment><USER5> Mnesia predates the CAP theorem so perhaps that is why the author feels it doesn't specifically fit into AP or CP. You can't design your system around something that doesn't exist yet! Though, the qualities that CAP tries to represent were probably still on their mind albeit in a less formalized way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> A lot of good points, the most important to remember is that nowadays mnesia is good only for storing configuration.

<comment><USER3> I've used it even for fairly small amounts of user data (a few gigs max). What we had, though, was a load balancer out front that would ensure only one node was ever receiving writes (lazily switching on failure), and were relying on it solely for fault tolerance (which, despite the article, Mnesia can do just fine at, with certain caveats; what it can't do is scale).

In the event of a network partition, the load balancer is channeling all writes to a single node, and the system rather loudly lets us know that a node disappeared (in the event of a network partition, every node is loudly letting us know that a/some node(s) disappeared), ensuring quick redress. While it's possible that in such an event the node being written to will go down, causing the load balancer to switch to the partitioned node(s) (thereby creating an inconsistency), this is generally over a -very- small time window, as the facility this was deployed into is manned 24 hours. Thus, any inconsistency is confined to a very small window, approximately half of the time between the initial split, and its being addressed (as if the failure that causes the load balancer to switch to the other node happens before then, we could take the switched to node as most canonical, and if it switches after that, we could take the switched from node as most canonical), so even without an express mechanism to resolve consistencies, we're losing very little data, and for such a rare occurrence (multiple years running in multiple locations and we've yet to see it happen), that's an acceptable risk.

It just depends on what your requirements are. The author is bang on that Mnesia should not be used for scaling (and in general probably shouldn't be used any time you don't want a full replication on every node, or relying on some other mechanism to reconstruct/deconflict data), but in an environment where split brains are infrequent, where you've got Nagios or similar running to alert you to a split brain, and you've got people on call, where scalability is not a concern, and where in the (extremely) unlikely event you actually lose some data it's okay or easily addressed, Mnesia can be a reasonable solution, since it's so easy to get running with, and quite performant.</comment></comment>


Show HN: A tool to audit your Google Analytics implementation - <AUTHOR> http://mixedanalytics.com/audit/public/ <comment><USER2> Looks nice.

Some suggestions:

* provide more information about does "audit" consist of.

* update your privacy policy so that your users get aware of which data you will pull out of their GA accounts, what you do with it, how long you will keep it etc...

* dashboard's not too bad, you may make the summary at the top (score, #pass/fail) more prominent, and expand all the fail by default.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback. Those are all great ideas. Actually none of the user's GA data is directly accessed or stored whatsoever -- it's all done through the Google API using oAuth so we can't see any of their account data. But I will add in some text to explain that more clearly. Thanks again!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What does it do? What is meant with "Deep clean" and what does the audit solve?

I notice their services page [0] mentions an audit for US$3000 with different checks and fixes, but no pricing is mentioned at their audit tool page. Is it the same service?

It looks cool, if I know what it does I might press the yellow button to check my GA setup.

      [0]: http://mixedanalytics.com/googleanalyticsaudit.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your feedback. They are not the same service -- the web app is a free automated audit that checks for 17 different issues I regularly find while auditing client accounts (for example, problems with event tracking, view filters, marketing campaign tags, etc.) The $3000 audit is a full service audit that is usually requested by large e-commerce sites with custom, complex set-ups. I will make an effort to differentiate these more clearly. Please go ahead and press the button :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I second the comments here about wondering what an "audit" does here. I have no idea what it means to "audit" my Google Analytics accounts.

The other thing is: I have no idea who you are, so why would I hand over my Google Analytics information to you? You have a client list, but no general "about" page, no information about your team, etc.

<comment><USER5> I agree. Note that the Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn links are wrong. A bit odd for a company that has been around for 3 years, isn't it?

In its current form, I wouldn't trust this one bit.

EDIT: I see from an above comment that it's a new product. Fine. Still: work on your credibility if you don't want to be confused for a phishing attempt.

EDIT2: For anyone wondering, it's definitely legit, see the added LinkedIn profile. Nice work!

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, thank you for the feedback. It slipped through since I just made this new site last week. I am a web analyst and not a phisher but I see how it looks suspicious -- I'm editing the links now!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just tried it, seems legit and gives a couple of good suggestions.

@thatsnice why don't you explain the things your tool checks on the home page like it's explained after I connect a GA account?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, filipm. It's interesting, the intro page does actually list all the things it audits in the box that says Site Settings, Goals and Funnels, Site Search, Campaign Tracking, etc. Did you not see that (perhaps because it's below the fold) or was it just not clear enough?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey this is pretty good. I tried it and found all kinds of problems that I didn't know about on my website. It would also be great if there were definitions easily available for those of us who don't understand what is being interpreted.

</comment><comment><USER8> Clean design and nice project.</comment>


G7 statement canceled: US wants to call it the Wuhan virus - <AUTHOR> https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/streit-um-wuhan-virus-a-6bb570bb-9f2b-4cd1-a895-fdeabf53f6b4 <comment><USER2> My wife is part of a Mom's group based in the bay area. One of the mom's in that group (who happens to be Taiwanese), wrote a post about how she was a victim of statements along the lines of a) "It is funny you want to practice social distance when it is you folks who brought the virus here" b) "How dare you show your face here during this time..."

And this was by the folks working at the checkout counter (with passive support from other shoppers there). IMHO calling it Chinese / Wuhan virus opens the gate to these kind of hate crimes to become common place.

My wife, who is Asian, is terrified to go shopping.

<comment><USER3> My friend who is Asian (not Chinese) says she and her family are experiencing similar treatment. They get stared at harshly everywhere they go, which never happened before this crisis. They also don't want to go out anymore to get necessities because of this.

<comment><USER4> To be fair "getting stared harshly" may be them dreaming that up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I understand "coronavirus" isn't specific, but why not just use that? Nobody this year will be confused what is being talked about. And if another coronavirus comes around, it will end up with a different commonly used name. Hearing "Chinese virus" the first time made me think first of a computer virus, then some brand new virus I wasn't aware of, and then finally realizing it was another term for the coronavirus.

<comment><USER6> The fact that it's not specific enough really is a problem. We can call it COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2, but that kind of precision is inconvenient.

<comment><USER5> Fair. COVID-19 would also work for me. That's used enough that people know immediately what you're talking about.

<comment><USER7> COVID-19 is a _disease_ caused by SARS-CoV-2, just as AIDS caused by HIV.

<comment><USER8> Point is, nobody will be confused when you say COVID-19 or more specifically "COVID-19 virus" where context demands it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The correct name for virus is SARS-CoV-2. The resultant disease it causes in humans is named COVID-19. Simple.

Anyone is free to make up whatever names they like, and the rest of the world is free to ignore them and use the correct names.

<comment><USER10> Is it SARS-CoV-2 or is it 2019-nCoV? Seems to depend on the context.

<comment><USER11> Apparently, 2019-nCoV was the earlier label, until they decided to classify it more precisely as a SARS-type: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41564-020-0695-z)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Naming virused by places creates incentive to keep things hidden as long as possible - hoping that it will become public in some other place first.

<comment><USER13> That's how "Spanish Flu" happened when the first detection was in Kansas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> SARS-CoV-2 is a bit overwrought. A semi official short version would be helpful.

SARS was easy.

SARS2 seems okay.

CV19 is easy enough.

So on. Officials should pick something that's shorter and easier (but still specific) as the informal name.

<comment><USER15> SARS2 seems to be a rational name

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I looked for an English version of this news without luck. Anyone have another source?

</comment><comment><USER17> China should decide the name since they discovered it.

</comment><comment><USER18> What the article doesn't say, is that China _too_ is desperately blaming other countries for the virus; not just the US, but also Italy.

</comment><comment><USER19> The US calling it The China Virus et al is in response to Chinese officials blaming the virus on American troops. It's all just politics, not racism.

That said, I'm not sure it's a good discussion to have on this site..

<comment><USER20> > It's all just politics, not racism.

It's going to end up as both, because in public speaking, we don't control our meaning -- the people do. The branding power of the "Chinese Virus" is going to reach Asians across America.

<comment><USER19> Then how should higher-level geopolitics and popular sentiment modification be carried out better? China is undoubtedly leveraging every bit of power they have to sow popular opinion against the US. How can the US counter that without bringing claims of racism?

Edit: removed snark

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can understand the desire to not want to stigmatize the people of China and people of Chinese decent.

But we should not let the Chinese leadership off the hook for continuing the disgusting Wet Markets.

Let's meet half-way and give it a short pronounceable name:

Call it the PROCVirus - named after the government of the People's Republic of China.</comment>


The World's First Social Mobile Operating System - <AUTHOR> http://www.altay-os.org

<comment><AUTHOR> Please share your thoughts. This will be an open source project (it's based on Linux and openwebos) so your early input is welcome.</comment>


New H1-B Visa bill doubles the salary requirements to $130K/yr - <AUTHOR> http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/h-1b-visa-reform-bill-introduced-in-us-house-of-representatives/articleshow/56888616.cms <comment><USER3> Here is the summary straight from the horses mouth: [https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/high_skilled_bill_sx...](https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/high_skilled_bill_sxs_and_analysis_-1-2017__final.pdf)

A few points:

\- This does not raise the salary requirement to $130k/yr. This only applies to employers that do not want to do the extra paper work for "attestations regarding recruitment and non-displacement of U.S. workers"

\- It takes a "market based" allocation strategy which allows "cash bonuses and similar compensation" to be included. This is a joke.

\- Startups and small businesses will get 20% of the visas. It'll be interesting to see how this is gamed

\- This does not fix the Corporate/Higher Ed partnership loophole

\- This does not fix the power imbalance between visa holders and employers

I personally don't see this bill going anywhere. Zoe just needs to look like she is doing something.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for this!

I've been on multiple H1B visas, at both large companies and startups. I've also sponsored H1B visas as an employer. I would support this bill.

The headline is a classic example of sensational journalism by the Times of India.

The $130k salary requirement applies only to "dependent employers", defined as employers with over 15% of their workforce on H1Bs. This is clearly aimed at reducing H1B misuse by TCS, Infosys, and their ilk.

The vast majority of companies who employ people on H1Bs aren't "dependent" employers by this definition, and hence will be unaffected by the salary increase rule. If anything, they'll benefit from more visas being available to non-dependent employers.

Also, startups will likely benefit from the 20% requirement.

<comment><USER5> Although a startup might only marginally benefit because a single one would be a significant portion of their employees, right? So it would be over 15% right off the bat if they have fewer than 7 people

<comment><USER6> I think this 15% rule applies only to companies with more than 50 employees

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whoever is working on the bill is disconnected from reality and the damage it is doing long term here.

Why's everyone so focused on IT? Everyone can learn how to code, it's not a real science.. Oh it's hacker news :)

Now walk into any major university science department. See who the newly minted PhD students are in biology, chemistry, physics, math ... Most are foreigners. This bill will send them home after they graduate... USA will lose here and other countries win big time on people with great science backgrounds with brains who are willing to work and move the science forward. It will take decades for American educational system to change (if it ever changes) and generate the replacements.

<comment><USER8> _> Why's everyone so focused on IT? Everyone can learn how to code, it's not a real science._

I think that's exactly why people are focusing on IT. The H-1B program is meant to allow companies to hire foreigners with rare skills that are hard to find domestically. In reality it's abused to import cheap labor and undercut average American workers doing common work like building applications or administering systems. There should be no problem continuing to hire PhDs and other foreigners with actual unique skillsets at $130k.

<comment><USER7> The abuse of h1b program by IT firms is the issue that has to be separated out and resolved on its own.

There is no reason why we should send a freshly graduated physics scientist back to Uganda or whatever because he can't find an employer willing to pay him/her some abstract 130k salary straight out of school (which is A LOT OF MONEY).

Again, when I hire - I do it strictly based on skills and experience. If I have to do a bit more paper work to get this talented guy work for us I'll do it - but there is a limit. And at 130k limit a lot of these brains will flow back overseas. It would be a huge mistake for USA to get rid of willing to work just talent like that.

<comment><USER9> I don't see any reason why h1b visa holders shouldn't have a high bar to reach. The whole point of the program is to bring the best of the best, not the average or mediocre, which could likely be filled by an American somewhere.

<comment><USER7> 130k salary is absurdly high amount of money for people outside of IT and finance. Stop living in a bubble. It will price out a lot of talent that will be forced to leave the country. Wich is a huge mistake for American society.

<comment><USER10> If that talent is really that much difficult to find locally, they'll pay it, don't worry.

And if they don't, that doesn't make the situation any worse. It's impossible to get a H1B VISA right now and they have zero chances to get one, because the quota is ridiculously low and they are all taken by the Indian sweat shops, on top of requiring 1-2 years ahead for the procedure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This makes sense from a distance. Such employees are supposed to be specialists, not hired for the purpose of undercutting wages. I'm not in the bay area, but if you're bringing in a specialist from another country because you can't find one here, this sounds like the sort of wage that person ought to have.

Whether this restriction makes sense in the first place is a different question, but this does sound like it fits the spirit of the h1-b.

I'd be curious to hear an opposing claim on this as I don't know a great deal about it and wonder if I'm missing something.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think the existing system foments a covert lie-rewarding fear-inducing form of indentured servitude and depresses native nonmanagerial salaries of actual programmers.

I was told early in my career by at least two CEOs that I shouldn't waste my time doing programming (and should join the managerial class) because it would be done overseas or by low cost labor onshore. I do think it's a bummer for those hoping to move/live here from overseas and may slightly reduce US tech industry competitiveness, but it looks to me to be a removal of a capital- favoring wage-surpressing distortionary loophole in our immigration policy that at the end of the day is probably a good thing.

</comment><comment><USER13> Color me surprised, I commented on many related threads recently but this sounds actually pretty good!

$130k is maybe a little high for seed stage startups but given that we're talking about relocating engineers to the most expensive region in the world, I believe it's fair. And the path from F-1 to Green Card will solve companies taking advantage of people on OPT status, at least partially.

<comment><USER14> Thing is that the whole of US isn't Silicon Valley or Seattle. Startups in upcoming hubs like Portland and Boulder will suffer(sic) because the salary requirements are too high for them to satisfy given the living costs.

It basically means that the only companies who are gonna be able to hire through H1Bs are the big cos or unicorns.

<comment><USER15> Companies may have to do something unimaginable and invest in their employees who may not have the exact skill set they need and offer them training or give them time to ramp up....

<comment><USER16> And yet that delay is antithetical to starting to work in a new area, innovating rapidly, etc. The ability to attract and retain employees from anywhere around the world is a massive advantage, and this sounds like a disincentive program.

I agree with you that training is part of the solution, but for niche applications that can be pretty hard, you're talking people who have studied for years. So if you are doing work like that, why wouldn't you set up in a country without such restrictions? E.g. Vancouver.

How about caps on the percentage of H1Bs/L1s in any company (e.g. 15%), and the ability for H1B workers to transfer employers?

<comment><USER15> "but for niche applications that can be pretty hard, you're talking people who have studied for years."

How many people that have studied for years to become experts at niche applications are being paid only $60,000 a year - the current minimum for H1B Visas? I would think that getting such an expert is well worth $130,000 a year.

<comment><USER16> Agree that 60k is too low. But 130k is too high.

Consider someone who has just finished their PhD in a relevant area. You want to employ them in your startup in e.g. Orlando, where the cost of living is much lower than SF. Maybe 80k is reasonable. But you'll have to pay a 50k premium.

Or you could set up an office in Montreal. And then your tech team will come to Florida for a 3 month code camp every December anyway...

<comment><USER17> >Consider someone who has just finished their PhD in a relevant area.

If they're hiring fresh grads, it should be an American. There's plenty of them.

<comment><USER7> There are not. By the time you graduate with a masters or PhD you often accomplish a body of research work in a SPECIFIC field, have publications, patents. So yes you are a "fresh" grad but with 5-10 published scientific papers to your name. High tech scientific companies often don't have a luxury of choosing between multiple qualified candidates. Often you have 1-2 qualified applicants ( which takes a long time to find) who are a good fit and often they have foreign backgrounds. Why? I don't know, may be it has something to do with poor American education system? Which noone is interested in fixing it seems.

<comment><USER17> If they're this incredibly rare then I don't see why paying them 130k is a big deal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well intentioned but misses the mark.

If this had been in place when I came to the US, me and many of my friends (petroleum, chemical, electrical and software engineers and possibly nurses, doctors, anesthesiologists and doctors) would have had to have left the US after getting STEM degrees here. Instead of this, just ban skilled immigration to the US and be upfront about not wanting immigrant skilled labor. Everyone will understand. It's your country.

However, if you want to fix the problem, however, let h1b workers move companies as freely as green card holders without having to "transfer" the visa from company to company, and let holders apply for a green card on their own after a year or two. Simple.

Solves the supply problem and balances the relationship between the employer and h1b holder to more closely match a normal employment relationship, not one where they hold all the cards and can literally decide your fate at a moments notice, forcing you to work for lower wages just so they can maybe .. eventually ... sponsor your green card or make you do more work than you should for the same reason.

</comment><comment><USER19> This is a good but flawed move.

In very high COL places like NYC and SFBA $130k is barely a living wage unless you can put up with a 2h commute.

OTOH, in low COL markets (eg. KC) this eliminates H1-Bs from consideration for most entry-level positions.

For many markets in the middle (an example doesn't come to mind, perhaps Los Angeles?) where $130k+ is a decent salary for an entry-level position this new minimum works.

What's really needed to make H1-B work on a national scale for a broad range of professions while still limiting abuse is something like a COL adjustment, or scaling the minimum with some formula like 75% of the median salary, or the 30th percentile, or something similar.

Edited to add: I am assuming that no more than 30% of your salary is spent on rent, you save 10% of your salary, that you are working in downtown San Francisco, that your commute is under 30m door to door via public transportation, and you live in a 2-bedroom apartment.

Also: [https://smartasset.com/mortgage/what-is-the-cost-of- living-i...](https://smartasset.com/mortgage/what-is-the-cost-of-living-in- san-francisco)

<comment><USER20> > NYC and SFBA $130k

Really ? Surely it can't be that expensive ?

<comment><USER21> It's not. Maybe he's assuming a stay at home wife and/or children which would be a stretch on $130k, it's true.

You can live well and have savings as a single guy on $130k in both those areas.

<comment><USER20> How do the non-tech denizens manage ? I thought waitresses (and people in similar low-skilled jobs) barely made $30k ?

<comment><USER22> Yeah 130k being barely a living wage is an absurd thing to say. Tons and tons of people in NYC do not make 130k — even half of it would be a great salary for most — and they seem to still be living just fine.

<comment><USER19> Well, to me, a living wage isn't just _living just fine_ , but actually managing to get ahead, at least generationaly.

<comment><USER23> "living just fine" is pretty much the definition of living wage. Having extra is having more than living wage. Having enough to get ahead is earning a really nice wage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think this is the entirely wrong solution because it misunderstands the problem.

The problem isn't that the H1B requirements are off a bit. The problem is that H1B visa holders are essentially indentured servants. Say you're a foreigner who applies for an H1B job. Your employer does a bunch of paperwork, gets you an H1B visa, and imports you. Now you can't quit because you can't get a new job. Of _course_ you get underpaid, and of _course_ companies love their H1B workers.

The US should scrap the whole system and replace it with some kind of merit- or point-based visa system for skilled foreigners. The replacement system should have _portable_ visas so that the foreigners aren't inherently cheaper to employ than citizens, permanent residents, and holders of less broken visas.

(Frankly, I agree a bit with the anti-immigrant save-our-job perspective right now. Citizens, permanent residents, etc do have an unfair disadvantage to H1B workers because of the broken structure of the H1B visa.)

<comment><USER25> Is it better to be TN?

<comment><USER26> TN is better if you're Canadian, but you have to do some legal wizardry if you want to get a green card.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> While TCS, Infosys etc figure prominently in the H-1B debate, I think this new bill does not affect them as much as it is made out to be. The real downside is for staffing firms (popularly known as "desi consulting shops"), mostly run by Indian-Americans.

TCS employs 370K+ employees worldwide and had revenue of $16B+ in 2016. They might have gotten 3K H-1Bs each year. If they know how to run projects staffing 370K employees with 3K H-1Bs per year, they will figure out a way to run it with 500. Also, with that kind of revenue, they will pay the $130K if it comes to that.

H-1Bs, I suspect, have a power law distribution. TCS, Infosys etc top the list of H-1B visas per year, but there is a long tail of companies which get allotted few visas every year. Some of these in the long tail are high tech firms in real need of skill and are the ones paying appropriately for it (AmaFaceGoodSoft etc). But I think the larger cohort are the staffing shops which bend the rules often and pay low.

</comment><comment><USER28> A quick calculation: $60,000 in 1989 adjusted for inflation equals $116,132.42 in 2016. This changes the narative a lot.

<comment><USER19> Rather than adjusting for inflation, try adjusting for productivity instead:

[http://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/](http://www.epi.org/productivity- pay-gap/)

<comment><USER29> The productivity gap is really an economics understanding gap.

The whole idea is that when productivity goes up, prices go down! To suggest wages should go up when productivity goes up is a complete misunderstanding of economics. It's stupid. You only need one! Prices going down is how the free market adjust for productivity.

If they wanted to make a fair comparison, chart a graph between productivity and the cost to buy a basket of goods in real money. You'll find wages have gone up! Roughly the rate of GDP growth per year! Shocking!!! /s

<comment><USER28> Good point. Also, wages are not disposable income - the government redistributes more wealth than it used to. The number on your payslip may not be bigger but you can afford more food and health care. Any graph should take this into consideration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a blatant hypocrisy on American side. They will sue the shit out of Indian Solar, Pharma, Angri industries if it has competitive prices but won't allow india/emerging nations to do the same in their market. Emerging nations are bullied by developed nations for a long time and the saga goes on. I get that H1b visa was used to provide cheap services but globalization works both way. Powerful nations can't just enact the laws which only works in their favor.

<comment><USER31> I don't understand your claim of hypocrisy. What is America saying is bad, but also doing?

And what suing are you talking about?

<comment><USER30> Basically USA has long history of suing Indian companies which competes with their product in Indian market.Some examples.. (1) The US Said India's Solar Power Plan Discriminates Against American Companies — And the WTO Agrees - [https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-said-indias-solar- power...](https://news.vice.com/article/the-us-said-indias-solar-power-plan- discriminates-against-american-companies-and-the-wto-agrees)

(2) Indian pharma companies legally trying to make cheap generic version. Nope, big boss USA doesn't like it because it is against 'globalization'.

Pfizer Inc. (PFE) Keeps Suing Generics Makers In India [http://www.ibtimes.com/pfizer-inc-pfe-keeps-suing- generics-m...](http://www.ibtimes.com/pfizer-inc-pfe-keeps-suing-generics- makers-india-even-though-its-hopeless-legal-1374655)

and the list goes on.

But when Indian companies tries to compete in the market by providing cheap services, Nope. Sorry, Can't do.

Basically the post world war II history is all about enacting the laws to the maintain the hegemony of selected few elite countries. S. Korea and Japan were lucky in that regards as sympathy of west was on their side but emerging countries like China, India and Brazil are screwed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is just a proposal that has to get ratified by the House of Congress, right?

It's noteworthy that Zoe Lofgren, the sponsor of this bill, has attempted to pass similar bills before, which were not successful. See e.g. [https://www.us-immigration.com/blog/bill-fails-in-the- house-...](https://www.us-immigration.com/blog/bill-fails-in-the-house-no- green-cards-for-stem-graduates)

<comment><USER33> That is right. Forget voting, this bill may not even go to the Committee. I am not sure if this worth all this hysteria. If it is proposed by a ranking Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, we will know it is serious.

<comment><USER12> Exec orders might be coming. [https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Famp.usat...](https://news.google.com/news/amp?caurl=http%3A%2F%2Famp.usatoday.com%2Fstory%2F97240588%2F#pt0-505341)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> > _" The raised salary level - to more than $130,000 - is more than double the > current H-1B minimum wage of $60,000, which was established in 1989 and has > since remained unchanged."_

This is interesting. Adjusting for inflation, $60K in 1989 is worth 117K in today's dollars. This adjustment is essentially just a compensation for inflation.

</comment><comment><USER35> Isn't this discriminatory on states with lower cost of living? 130k is not very high in Bay area for big companies and non entry level engineers.. However, at emerging cities in the US, that may be unattainable until say director positions for now.. So government powers more immigration and bias to CA at the cost of other cities developing cities? (Disclaimer) H1B from big co in the east coast, senior SE making 110k. Will make > 130k if bonus and stock compensation could be included though.

<comment><USER36> I don't think we as a country have figured out cost of living adjustments to compensation and taxes in general. I know first hand that there are certain jobs that pay you very similarly no matter where you are. So the guy in NYC pays more in taxes and cost of living while the gal in Texas saves a lot more especially with no state income tax, low property taxes, and lower cost of living.

<comment><USER37> > I don't think we as a country have figured out cost of living adjustments to > compensation and taxes in general.

I'm not sure you should. There's a reason for the cost of living to change so much from one region to another, and compensating that change with government money can have severe economic impacts.

<comment><USER36> Aren't we already compensating by virtue of tax deductions at federal level and allowing certain states to not tax income?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> How can an Indian or Chinese immigrate to USA under the current system?

Legally there is simply no way besides marriage. These people who are actually very skilled have a very good history of assimilating in the mainstream and being successful in USA are discriminated against.

As a student you have to lie that you will return to India, as a H1B you have to lie that you intend to return back. As H4 you have to sit quietly at home like an obedient biblical wife.

At the root of H1B is the a deep systemic hatred and racism against Asians.

<comment><USER39> the 130K cut only applies to H1 dependent employers: those company that has at least 15% H1 employees.

So this pretty much means, if you are not in tech, most likely you won't be affected, as your employer most likely won't have 15% H1 employees.

If you are in tech, and is in one of thoes legit tech companies, most likely you are also covered, as you will make 130K. Your employers may need to be a bit smart when it comes to meeting the cut, e.g., it may need to reduce some of your RSUs/EFTTs and put them into your salary. But you should make it.

The new proposal doesn't say much about H4s. But I didn't really read much details of the new proposal. As of today, H4s can have EAD if their H1 spouses apply green card and get i-140 approved.

At the root, we have this new proposal today exactly because Indian companies try to abuse the current H1 system. I know stories of both Chinese and Indians got effed up by the H1 system, real stories from real friends in my life, including my wife. I blame Indian outsourcing companies as much as I blame the system, to be honest.

As a student, on F1 visa, if your intention is to stay, honestly you shouldn't get the F1 visa in the first place. If you have to lie about this intention to DHS, that's your own problem. H1, on the other hand, is a dual-intention visa. So you don't need to lie about stay or return. That's why H1s are allowed to apply green card.

<comment><USER38> > So you don't need to lie about stay or return.

Dual intent does not mean you can tell the visa officer you will request the employer to also sponsor green card. That will most certainly get your visa rejected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This increase in salary is not for the H1-B workers benefit; rather, it's to make hiring them more expensive so American workers will be considered first-- as they should be.

I would support any law that REQUIRED American companies to hire Americans first and then consider foreigners ONLY if no qualified Americans can be found in the 50 US states.

If America wants to do good by her workers, she needs to put Americans first. Always and foremost. Let India, Vietnam, and China take care of their own people first.

H1-B visas have always been bad for American workers. And they always will be. I would raise the minimum to $250k, were it me. Very few companies will pony up the currency to play that game. If companies were to hire Americans again FIRST, as they should have been doing, perhaps American primary and secondary schools as well as universities would have stronger STEM programs. No one is going to suggest STEM to their children if they have to compete with foreigners.

On H1-B and desire to immigrate here... I'm not opposed to immigration if it's done the old fashioned way like my dad did it. Come here, apply, wait your tenure for green card, and eventual citizenship. Don't come here for an American passport, come here because you want to be an American.

<comment><USER41> The reason top companies (FB, Google, major SV startups, etc.) exist primarily in the US is because the US is able to attract talent from all over the world.

If these companies had never been able to hire the best people, there wouldn't now be the same companies hiring more Americans. They would simply exist in other countries, instead of the United States.

By the way, I work at one of these companies and have had frank discussions about compensation with many of my coworkers and I can guarantee you that H1-B holders are NOT being paid less than Americans.

Obviously none of this applies to body shops like Infosys and Tata.

> On immigrating here... I'm not opposed to immigration if it's done the old > fashioned way like my dad did it. Come here, apply, wait your tenure for > green card, and eventual citizenship.

This suggests to me that you don't actually know what an H1-B visa is. Getting an H1-B _is_ the first step to coming here, waiting for green card, etc. How else do you propose people do it? Out of curiosity, what papers did your dad have that allowed him to come?

<comment><USER40> I understand the nuances of immigration and why people seek the worker visas...

My dad moved here from Europe in the early 60s, went through INS, got a green card, a job, and 6 months later was drafted into the Army and went to Vietnam. Unlike Americans at the time, my dad was given the choice to accept the draft or go back to Europe. He accepted the draft, fought in Vietnam, was injured, and EARNED his citizenship the hard way. My dad was a stellar man in many ways. He exemplified the best work ethic I have ever seen and likely will ever see. He went from being a civilian handyman and cook to E9 in the military (only 1% make this grade by law) to earning almost $200k a year before his death.

<comment><USER41> What does "went through INS" mean? What papers or visa did your dad have that gave him the right to live here, and how was it meaningly different from an H1-B ?

<comment><USER42> From what I read, I don't think OP knows. My dad came here on a J-1 visa as a student which meant my mum, my sisters and me came here on a J-2 visa since we were dependent on his visa status.

It took us 10 years of constant applying, thousands of dollars spent before we got our green cards. I still remember my interview because I got my green card in 2015 and it was the most invasive thing I've ever gone through. I still even remember all the interviews we had to do before we got our visas to come to America.

In my opinion, I don't think OP really knows how difficult it is to get to America in the first place as an immigrant. It's not as simple as the media makes it out to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I never visited U.S and heard about H1-B and its abuse by Indian Body-shops. Let me know if below understanding is correct or not:

1) So far, Indian Body-shops paid low salary compared to original one. (for example, say instead of 80K/yr ,Indian Body-shops paid 40K/yr and kept the remaining for themselves)

2) Now with new bill, increased base amount to 130K/yr and also ensures this goes the employee?

Is that correct?

<comment><USER12> Yes, Indian body shops have charged high fees >80k while not even remitting even close to the 60k back to the employee. I have witnessed this. I have also witnessed employers rescuing people from such body shops by hiring them for 60k on h1b for jobs that could absolutely be done by a u.s. citizen (web programming) and keeping their salary at 60k for many years despite growing skill. The system is broken and abused... unless you are the employer trying to work the angles to pay less.

Regarding question 2, it does bump up the $ amount but I am not sure it protects the worker any more than currently. Also other posters indicate the proposed 130k only applies to a subset of h1bs for whom less paperwork is filed, so i'm frankly not sure it goes far enough.

<comment><USER43> Thanks for the details. imo, this will have more impact on Indian body shops profit and shareholders more than affecting employee's and that's why greedy IT companies are more upset.

Its good for U.S IT professionals, since hopefully it will end discrimination based on low-pay. Good for India's IT professionals, because they need to prove their worth based on technical skills and not just cheap labor.

I also hope visa interview system get more technical (i assume its not technical atm)- instead of getting interviewed by someone with-in the company, candidates need to be evaluated by independent third party to allow only right candidates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Reading the article it doesn't sound like this bill does anything to make it easier for the employee to find a different job once they are here (e.g. Making it easier for other employers to take on sponsorship of the H1-B visa.)

The article says this bill makes it easier for students to get a path to citizenship but doesn't say anything about H1-B workers.

I also don't think the salary requirement is necessarily a win for people who want to come over here as an H1-B worker. The gap is so big it is likely that employers will find someone over here rather than eat the $60k salary increase in some cases. It will be a win for anyone who was going to be close to that new $130k minimum where a big company may just soak the increase.

We really need to replace the H1-B program with something that empowers the employees and allows them to switch jobs and have a clear and easy path to citizenship.

<comment><USER45> > The article says this bill makes it easier for students to get a path to > citizenship but doesn't say anything about H1-B workers.

My understanding of the text is that it just makes student visas "dual- intent". This would allow prospective students to get an F-1 visa without having to prove that they have no intention of staying back after completing their degree. It's an open secret that a large percentage of students actually want to work after graduating and many intend to naturalize eventually. This would spare them having to lie on the application. Other than this change, the bill does not do anything to make it easier for students.

<comment><USER46> You currently cannot file for an adjustment of status to legal permanent resident while on a F-1 visa.

This also includes employment-based Greencard. Currently you would need to obtain a H-1B before you could apply for employment-based permanent residency as EB-1, EB-2, EB-3 etc (assuming you reside in the US).

My understanding is that this removes the common pattern of having to get a H-1B before being eligible for employment-based immigration petitions. Additionally experience obtained during university and on the F-1 Optional Practical Training (OPT) would count towards the experience requirements for EB-1, EB-2, EB-3, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Looking at the following database of h1b salaries: [http://h1bdata.info/highestpaidcompany.php](http://h1bdata.info/highestpaidcompany.php)

It seems like only 63 companies have an average salary above 130k and 1937 companies have average salaries below 130k.

With only 11641 H1b's being at companies with an average salary above 130k and 476425 below the cap.

So this is going to free up a bunch of h1b's at the top end of the sepctrum.

<comment><USER48> There are at least four stakeholders in this situation:

1\. The American company that wants to save money

2\. The Middleman (e.g. Wipro etc) that wants to make money on the wage arbitrage

3\. The foreign worker on the H1B

4\. The American citizen that doesn't want to be replaced by the foreign worker

I'm all for cutting out (2) and making it easier for the foreign worker (provided they have the skills) to become an American and not beholden to (2). However, I don't like the American companies saving money on the backs of American employees losing their jobs. How to balance everything is the tough question.

<comment><USER49> Yes, #4 is the first problem to handle. I have this idea there's at least a dual world here. (a) IT workers that get replaced by H1Bs and are often asked to train their replacements (more operations and putting things together), (b) big software co that writes handmade software, like Microsoft, Amazon, Google, a startup. It's category (a) where people lose jobs and can't find them, because they are more easily replaced? It's category (a) that needs protection, for cateagory (b) we need way more workers. I just heard today that seattle has 11,000 open software jobs. 11k is a lot of jobs.

<comment><USER41> A lot of people don't understand this concept.

People even apply it on a more local level, like "why don't Amazon and MS hire more UW grads instead of bringing in transplants from all over the country?"

Amazon could hire 50% of UW CS grads and MS the other 50% and it wouldn't be enough to fill their needs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> One problem with a very high minimum salary is that due to the disparity in cost of living, only companies that could afford H1B workers would be from a few cities like SF and NYC. As a side effect, it would increase the diversity of those cities and not anywhere else. I don't think it is ideal - <USER2> concentrates immigrants into a small location; and does not allow immigrants to live in a place of their choice.

<comment><USER50> I think you are mixing up cause and effect - it's not easier from a financial standpoint for companies in NY to pay high salaries, it just happens that companies who can afford high salaries are located there because it's easier to get top talent at those locations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Really what they need to change are the accounting loopholes. When I was working at a large employer most of the offshored work was under 'services contracts' where the legal wordings were such that it looks like services are being rendered for a specific purpose. This is to avoid having those people show up as labor on a P&L which affects the corprate bottom line.

What actually happens is behind these agreements are a team of people with an onshore presence and the actual employees overseeing the on/offshore work prefer to work with the same set of people. Once you get a team and rhythm going on work, it made things easier to predict. So both sides want to game this 'services contract' to have the same team for literally years.

If they make corporations count all of the on/offshore people as contractual labor in their accounting practices, which is what they actually are, then companies will be hit negatively in their P&L statements. These are essentially jobs which used to be done onshore so they certainly weren't 'talent can't be found' types of roles.

<comment><USER52> Contractual labor _is_ a service. If it wasn't, it'd be employment. Both show up the same way on a P&L statement; they're both expenses.

It's all the additional regulation and requirements for employment (healthcare coverage, disability insurance, termination protection) that companies want to avoid by hiring contractors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> For all those worried about their job, just remember this is just a bill that was introduced. It takes around 200 days for bill to pass and become a law. Also 96% of the bills die during the process.

[https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-pass-a- bill-i...](https://www.quora.com/How-long-does-it-take-to-pass-a-bill-in-the- US)

</comment><comment><USER54> I think this is great news.

Right now it is almost impossible to get working visa in US, unless you work for a sweatshop.

Minimal salary makes it easier for small business to hire foreigners.

> _The legislation sets aside 20 percent of the annually allocated H-1B visas > for small and start-up employers (50 or fewer employers) to ensure small > businesses have an opportunity to compete for high-skilled workers_

told you so ;)

</comment><comment><USER55> There are some good ideas in this, but not enough. While not everyone will share this view, it seems like most people agree visas for highly-paid, high- value R&D workers are good, and filling up body shops with seatwarmers is not good. The question is: How to make H1-B unattractive to body shops?

A high minimum salary is definitely one way to do it, but, as another commenter pointed out, there remain loopholes. Another way would be to auction H1-Bs, with a high minimum bid. Another would be to prioritize positions that are not contract-labor positions. If it works right, and expands the tech industry, it should be possible to implement the supposed intent of H1-B-to get people into the country that we don't have.

But, unless the barriers are financial, they will get lawyered into nullity.

</comment><comment><USER56> lol I'm a senior engineer and I don't make that much annually :(

<comment><USER57> You need to know your value. I don't know your ability, but you are probably being underpaid.

<comment><USER56> I agree, but I'll leave it at that since this is very public. However, I'd counter that the average Senior Engineer salary is 112k/year; according to Glass Door anyway.

[https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/senior-software- engineer-...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/senior-software-engineer- salary-SRCH_KO0,24.htm)

<comment><USER58> I can't say for certain why, but GlassDoor is significantly lower than reality for positions in my area (Boston, MA.) Of the jobs I see advertised for Senior developers, most of them are in the $140-$170K range these days. Assuming that glassdoor is accurate, perhaps the issue is that people who stay in positions more than a few years fall behind new hires because yearly raises don't keep up with market rates.

<comment><USER59> That and as you get older with more responsibilities many people don't jump ship as often for higher wages. And the higher wage thing is a fairly recent (5-10 year) thing. We can thank Millenials and Vic investment pushing salaries up from bottom. That being said, if you want the money, try to find a 10x company winner take all in growth mode. Life is otherwise too short. Finance also pays well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Bodyshops like Infosys, TCS and Wipro should be banned or heavily regulated from exploiting the H1B visa. I don't support them. They don't help anyone but the shareholders of the companies. Americans, Indians, Chinese, Govt. and Startups are equally screwed.

'Best and the Brightest' arguments can't be on the same line as $60,000 annual compensation premise. I'm not against people earning a better living. But it's not so complicated to see that something is broken here.

Me - East Indian on H1B visa with both degrees from reputed US schools (full ride). Multiple patents and publications. Left leaning. 6+ corp experience and 3+ startup exp.

</comment><comment><USER61> Well I think $130k/year is unfair for companies located outside of california, Newyork, MA, Chicago. I think this bill would benefit companies in those locations where cost of living is very high. What about a company in North Dakota or west Virginia. I don't think any company can afford 130k/year in these states, rather they will outsource their jobs(paying 30% tax). I think salary limit should be set based on the state and it should be set as-least 110k/year for other states where cost of living is very low. Well I think This bill is introduced by democrat to help his state.

<comment><USER50> What makes you think that it's easier for a company in CA to afford 130k salaries? Costs are even higher there, also for companies. It's rather the other way around - companies paying those salaries are located in CA, NY, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> This is such no-brainer reform. I really hope the Valley comes together and crushes the H1-Bs used up by employees of Wipro, Infosys etc. at the expense of much more exceptional people employed by amazon, google etc.

</comment><comment><USER63> Does this affect existing H1B visa holders working in USA?

</comment><comment><USER64> I think this is going to drive more jobs out of US. Corporations will seek out opening new off-shore offices, in Asia, Canada and EU.

This doesn't change the fact that we don't produce enough skilled workers to meet our demands. And in Trump's America it's not going to get any better.

Not all speciality occupations pay as high as tech, and it's going to affect them 'biggly'.

Immigrant hate is what this is cultivating.

<comment><USER65> This is a Democrat proposal

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> " Providing employment and travel authorization to those with approved employment-based petitions awaiting visa availability, so they have similar protections to those provided portability under the American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act "

What exactly does this mean? Can people with approved petitions move freely between employers without redoing a labor cert?

</comment><comment><USER38> Why do these bills make so much noise ? Isn't it the case that any senator, congressman can introduce the bill they want ? Shouldn't we take them seriously only after they have passed committee review ? This is probably 4th such bill in last 2 weeks I suppose.

This bill has even affected stock markets in India!

</comment><comment><USER67> It seems like, in future, most jobs above 130k will go to Non American workers and on the other hand the american workers will be left with low paying jobs (that is under 130K) or American worker < $130K jobs Non American Workers > $130k I would not support such a bill.

<comment><USER31> What, you think companies are going to hire non-Americans for a higher price just for the fun of it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> It'll be interesting to see if this takes effect on existing employees. Or only new applicants.

</comment><comment><USER69> Draft text of the bill: [https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/high_skilled_bill_sx...](https://lofgren.house.gov/uploadedfiles/high_skilled_bill_sxs_and_analysis_-1-2017__final.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER70> Completely unrelated.

Having never viewed India Times' website before, can I say, I really like their method of pulling in infographics and backing up their statements. I'd like to see a lot more of that in the States.

</comment><comment><USER71> A Bill? Can we not just decree this down with an Executive Order or something?

</comment><comment><USER72> Correct me if I'm wrong but if this is proposed by a democratic congresswoman, isn't it unlikely to go into effect versus what I assume would be a more aggressive reform by the Republican party?

</comment><comment><USER29> This is only $13,000 more than $60,000 in 1989 inflation adjusted to 2016 - $116,132. (1989 is the year this minimum wage was mandated).

Assuming the past law was reasonable, this increase also seems reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER73> Question from an Indian:

In India, this bill is projected as a move by Trump to limit otsiders getting IT job in US. But this bill is moved by a democrat who also moved a bill against travel ban!

What can I infer from this?

</comment><comment><USER74> Just to add to the conversation: recently, I analyzed some of the H-1B data and concluded that if you want to get an H-1B visa, you should get your visa certified in March via Indian outsourcing companies that are located in New York City, hire programmer analysts, pay out a base salary above $75,000. You can find the article here: [https://www.datacamp.com/community/blog/data-h1b-visa](https://www.datacamp.com/community/blog/data-h1b-visa) .

</comment><comment><USER75> Fixing the F1 visa loophole will also reduce tuition costs for American students.

It's simple supply/demand micro-economics.

<comment><USER76> This is absurd. Most F1 students pay full tuition in the state and private colleges, whereas Americans are eligible for need base aid. F1 students are effectively subsidizing American students.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This actually looks very reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER77> Hopefully the industry will reinvent itself and VCs fund more overseas startups.

<comment><USER78> If H1B salary restrictions are a big part of what you're doing as a small startup, there's probably more wrong than that. This move should be hitting large, established firms way, way harder

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> so is this catching up or exceeding the rate of inflation? How was this salary number not tied to inflation or another index?

If anything it seems to me to be a benefit to those seeking employment who have real skills and ability.

<comment><USER80> If the $60,000 from 1989 had been indexed on inflation, it would be $115,000 now. So, 130k doesn't seem so unreasonable. Of course, that does exclude states and cities with a lower cost of living.

It would really make more sense to just index it to inflation or even better to the cost of live of the city where the employee would work (but that would potentially leave some loopholes)

<comment><USER57> >just index it to inflation

It's so that politicians can fight every few years it needs to be raised and say, "vote for me, I fight for wages." On the other side of their mouth, on the years they don't fight for an increase, they can go to businesses, "donate to me, or I might have to fight to raise minimum wage this year."

The minimum wage fight a few years ago is a prime example of this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> How about H1-B cap-exempt candidates, professors, doctors and etc...?

</comment><comment><USER82> Hopefully this will free up some H1B visa space for small companies.

</comment><comment><USER83> Is the a data on why skilled immigrants on H1-B accept lower wages?

<comment><USER84> Still better than staying in their shitty country + hope to become a US citizen one day.

<comment><USER83> Maybe for some, but I'm working in the US because of the higher wages only. And I'd probably hustle my way to a even higher salary if I could compete by freely switching job. So I was curious if there's data around that. It seems to me more like the natural balance of offer and demand with H1B is broken, as an employer can get high skilled workers, and then lock them in for multiple years without needing to compete salary wise anymore.

I think there's a lot more H1B workers who are attracted to working in the US because of those high wages and not because they want to flee their shitty country. High skilled workers are not refugees. They could go to Canada or any other western country, but they flock to the US if they can because of the high salaries.

So my point is, I don't think it's that they accept a lower wage, the wage offered to them is the highest they can get, it's more then in any other country. The issue seems to be that the H1B artificially lower the American wages, by not giving fare market competition on recruiting, which caps out salaries for H1B workers. If that wasn't the case, the H1B workers might even boost salaries, if companies tried to compete even more aggressively for the highest skilled.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> FYI. The executive order may not be same as this bill.

</comment><comment><USER85> TL;DR

We'll give H1B visa to Linus/Einstein;

</comment><comment><USER86> The simplest way to fix this program is to let H1-B holders freely switch jobs.

<comment><USER87> They already can, in the current system.

<comment><USER86> They have to reapply through their new employer. The applications can fail.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I love the blatant racism of HN. Everyone loves to rip on the H1-B, which is predominantly used by Indians, but no one seems to give a shit about the TN visa. Aren't those Canadians stealing your precious American jobs too?

<comment><USER88> _I love the blatant racism of HN._

Please don't generalize about the HN community in this way, particularly as you choose to be part of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> AWESOME

</comment><comment><USER90> Rumor is, Trump will issue a EO that is much smarter than this bill. In particular it's supposed to replace the lottery system with a priority queue, in which priority will be determined by salary. Combined with a cap, this will lead the system to letting only the most expensive workers through. Not ideal, but better than any alternative I have heard of so far.

</comment><comment><USER91> Sounds like this should have quite an impact on most of the companies that hire a lot of H1Bs. Out of the list below, only Apple is hitting that salary level with their average.

(edit) [http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2016-H1B-Visa- Sponsor.aspx](http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2016-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx)

Also, damn, I knew TCS and Infosys were big, but I wasn't aware they were quite that big.

<comment><USER13> Fixed link: [http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2016-H1B-Visa- Sponsor.aspx](http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2016-H1B-Visa-Sponsor.aspx)

The new bill will take "cash bonuses and similar compensation" into account. A rock bottom offer from FB/Google/... to new grads in the bay area is typically 160k.

<comment><USER92> I don't believe it. Maybe if you add up all the initial grants, but those vest over 4 years but I would bet a rock-bottom offer to a new grad is more like $120k/year or even $100k/year.

Still ample for an H1B (well, under other bills) but I suspect this will put significant upward pressure on salaries in the tech industry.

<comment><USER13> Yes I was counting equity in, since they're publicly traded companies, RSUs are pretty much equivalent to a cash bonus, at least to me...

But even without that, given the total compensation, I'm sure it'd be easy for said companies to extend offers that are over $130k in cash on paper, since it includes bonuses.

<comment><USER92> Yes, RSUs are cash, but only when they vest. The way I see it, RSUs for those companies are more like guaranteed raises than current compensation. So it might be more accurate to say that a rock-bottom offer from such a company guarantees you will rise to $160k/year total compensation within four years, but the total compensation in your starting year will probably be less than $130k.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> Here's a question. Two people in same job with similar performance one is h1b the other a us citizen. Layoffs are coming. Who gets cut?

<comment><USER61> Well with HR point of view, US citizen gets cut. Not just in this scenario my friend. I am in this business(recruitment). Let me give you another tough scenario (forget H1b).

Two people in same job with similar performance one is US citizen who is contracting and while other is US citizen who is full time with company. As we know the contractor salary is very high.Layoffs are coming, But still HR will fire full time US citizen who is getting less pay because to fire a full time employee we need to wait till next lay offs or provide a big reason to fire him. While on other hand you can fire Contractor any time without any formalities.

My point is if you want to abuse H1b program you will abuse it no matter what. It all depends on work culture(HR) of a COMPANY.</comment></comment>