How naive.

> If anything, citizens have some edge.

Citizens have also more rights and companies love to have these clause that make you get your head down and work no questions asked - which makes conditions generally worse for everyone else.

The solution here is to increase and qualify the local workforce, and at the same time make the bar even higher for those from outside, starting from sanctioned countries.

> How naive.

All I have to go on is 20+ years of employment at Apple, including several years as a H1B and Green Card holder. Can't possibly compete with your sincerely held beliefs.

> Citizens have also more rights and companies love to have these clause that make you get your head down and work no questions asked

This is undoubtedly the case for some H1B employers, but Apple is not a body shop style operation. Firings are extremely rare, H1Bs and citizens work side by side, and I have never seen the former more hesitant to speak up than the latter.

You might want to entertain the thought that Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, or Betrand Serlet were not really hired for their pliability, but because they were genuinely qualified.

> The solution here is to increase and qualify the local workforce

That would definitely be helpful. But the trend seems to go the other way, with it being fashionable for opinion leaders to tell people to forego college, and education becoming more and more of a luxury.

> and at the same time make the bar even higher for those from outside

… forcing companies who prefer to hire the best qualified candidates over those with the "right" passport to shift their development activities elsewhere.

"I thought that Satya Nadella, Sundar Pichai, or Betrand Serlet were not really hired for their pliability but because they were genuinely qualified"

You lost me at this point. Many more qualified less pliable candidates exist but neither are the reason for their hiring.

In general the most qualified person rarely gets the position. The easiest to bend is usually what power seeks.

What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals?

"Power" also seeks competence. There's no one aspect that is sought is enough to to drown out all the others when hiring, at least not without an outside force requiring it.

Do employers want employees that are easy to deal with? Obviously. Is that more important then skill and ability? It depends not only on the employer, but also probably the job being hired for, but nobody wants to hire an unqualified candidate over a qualified one.

> What's with people in this thread spouting absolutes as if they aren't obviously full of obvious mistakes and rebuttals?

Part of being a Marxist (parent comment) or an anti-immigrationist (grandparent comment) is that you're required to believe any statement anyone makes that has the right words in it. Even though you have no evidence for them.

Its naive to think expanding the labor pool wouldnt reduce labor costs. Its supply and demand/economics 101. And obviously they (and every other company) is going to complain they cant fill positions locally in order to gain access to this cheaper pool.

If you're posting something is econ 101 you're probably wrong, and you're especially wrong if you claim adding people increases supply but not demand. People ARE demand.

What a ridiculous take. There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand). Then there are people to fill those positions (thats supply). You shift the demand/supply balance by expanding the supply pool. This is an extremely simple concept that you've somehow made complicated for yourself.

People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context.

> There are limited job openings and thats a constant for any company (thats demand).

The number of job openings isn't constant over longer than like a day. What you're doing here is called partial equilibrium analysis.

> People are not damand, I have no idea what that even means in the relevant context.

That you missed econ 201?

People are demand because they buy things. Employees increase demand for other employees because jobs are created by "comparative advantage", and as long as your company is growing it's not possible to run out of that, although it does grow more specialized.

> starting from sanctioned countries.

Is FAANG hiring a lot of people from Cuba, North Korea or Iran?

Although Iranians are pretty good at tech and I know a sr. distinguished Iranian engineer at Apple. That's even better than distinguished! Can't beat that.

I can't recall ever having met a Cuban or North Korean engineer at Apple. But I've worked with some outstanding Iranian engineers. They did not strike me as particularly likely to spy for their country…

If anything, these are small scale…

I’m more talking about the wholesale scale from other dictatorship countries, under export control restrictions.

I highly doubt it’s a top-down decision to prefer foreign applicants at Apple. But that said, it’s common in FAANG to find scenarios where a manager is of a certain background, and 90% of the people under just happen to be of the same background, and nobody says anything.

That's very common with one or two specific demographic, but not all that common with most others. I'll refrain from naming them, but it's widely known i suppose.

I can think of three demographics, one of which, of course, is Americans themselves.

In my 20 years at multiple companies I have rarely seen the Americans not try to create a diverse team. The other ones we all know on the other hand….