They either
1. Left tech due to low salaries from immgration. I don't think this is true because tech still pays higher than almost any other field.
2. Working in tech for low(er) salary, which contradicts the orignal claim that only reason for importing tech workers is for lowering salaries.
I think there are these different kinds of tech workers. For lack of a better term lets call them IT staff and software engineers.
IT staff builds some new systems but mostly puts pieces together to solve problems. This kind of job is easier to replace with moderately skilled foreign tech workers, maybe even working remotely, there's more supply here for this kind of worker. Then there is the harder to find software engineers who can work on new software from scratch, perhaps with more experience in this kind of worker. There's an incredible demand for this kind of person, that's unquenchable at least today (perhaps it used to be infinite for it staff but no longer). We really do need more of the second category of workers. Certainly a little smaller supply of workers means higher salaries, but when you need double the supply, you can restrain growth of the industry.
Are we being paid low? No.
Are we being paid lower than what we should be paid? I could see that argument being made.
Is it possible that we may get paid higher? Maybe
Do we deserve to get paid much higher than those equally talented people working elsewhere in the world? Or those who are super smart and hard working but not making much money just because they don’t work in tech? I don’t think so
I am not quite so sure my immigrant coworkers make noticeably less than I do, although I cannot really validate this claim either as I don't ask people who much they are paid.
> Employers see engineering as a cost sink and want to do everything possible to reduce budgetary pressures.
Yes and no. Employers see developers as a debt pool, because they are a cost factor unlike people in sales who actually generate revenue, but typically they see hiring, recruiting, and retention as even more expensive and riskier endeavors.
That drives all kinds of counter-intuitive behaviors regarding expenses and developers. Companies are typically willing to hire more developers than they need, because hiring is expensive and isn't always quick. Companies are also willing to prioritize slower more expensive technologies that require more developers so long as it means a reduction in recruitment and hiring risks.
I find that process horribly broken. Why is it so hard and deceptively untrustworthy to hire people generally in software? I don't believe it is the hiring process that is to blame, but rather the candidate pool in consideration for the required skills or experience.
You should start. The only people who don't like you talking about compensation is your employer.
Well, that and a society full of people taught by years of public school that talking about finances is taboo.
It's not. The only person that gains anything from your inability to talk about compensation is your employer.
You lose a tonne of leverage while negotiating a raise / new job offer.
I believe the starting compensation is part of the application and is public info. See http://h1bdata.info for example. You should be able to check your assumption.
Willing to work at the salary that employers want to ideally pay? No.
American software engineers with American degrees are expensive.
Employers see engineering as a cost sink and want to do everything possible to reduce budgetary pressures.
While some visa workers are incredibly talented (see: most of google's visa hires) most are just cheaper. Look at Cognizant, Tata, Infosys etc.
Just look at who is getting all of the visas from the program and it's clear what it's actually being used for. Importing cheap overseas labor and/or outsourcing, usually in tandem.