Tag Archives: visa

Call Centers, Outsourcing, and Immigration

Globalization is not a one-way street. It’s really a multi-lane superhighway with multiple entry and exit ramps. Contrary to the view that globalization means the loss of US jobs, we see that trade and immigration that involves Indians and Americans means jobs in both India and America and an increased variety of products and services for consumers.

The Anti-Outsourcing Hysteria of 2004

During the 2004 election campaign Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry famously declared that U.S. executives who set up operations in India were, in essence, committing treason. He labeled such executives “Benedict Arnold,” after the colonial officer who switched sides and joined the British during the American Revolution. Kerry said, “When I am President, and with your help, I’m going to repeal every benefit, every loophole, every reward that entices any Benedict Arnold company or CEO to take the money and the jobs overseas and stick the American people with the bill.”

It wasn’t just rhetoric. Local lawmakers began introducing anti-outsourcing legislation at a furious pace. In 2003 state legislators introduced fewer than 10 bills to restrict work from being performed overseas. By 2004, that number increased to over 100 such bills. State lawmakers who would never otherwise receive national attention suddenly found that by introducing a bill they could garner appearances on national television with Lou Dobbs on CNN.

The vast majority of the bills did not pass and the pace of such legislation eventually diminished. However, New Jersey passed legislation that forbids work to be performed outside the United States on contracts with the New Jersey government. A legal analysis by the National Foundation for American Policy found such state bills, including New Jersey’s, were likely unconstitutional because only the federal government, not individual state governments, possesses the authority to regulate international trade. (That study can be found here.) However New Jersey’s law was never challenged in court, in part, because the state provided a generous “grandfather” policy that allowed existing contract arrangements with the state to continue.

What’s Happened Since 2004?

The past 7 years have seen changes to globalization. Indian companies have continued to thrive with US-based customers but have adopted an approach that seeks to maintain a U.S. presence with more US workers, according to recent news reports. The goal is not to mollify critics, although that might be a side effect, but rather to be close to customers and supply better service at a reasonable cost.

A lengthy Washington Post article recently detailed the efforts of India call center operations to place more employees in the United States. The key part of the article explains: “India’s outsourcing giants — faced with rising wages at home — have looked for growth opportunities in the United States. But with Washington crimping visas for visiting Indian workers, some companies such as Aegis are slowly hiring workers in North America, where their largest corporate customers are based. In this evolution, outsourcing has come home.”

Conclusion

The bottom line is important. To remain profitable employers, including Indian companies, most compete both on price and the quality of service. The idea that employers hire only employees who will work the cheapest is belied by experience. A company will soon lose customers and profitability if it hires people whose only virtue is to work for little money. Such employees are unreliable and result in labeling a company as unreliable as well. Most importantly, companies will place employees where customers can be served most effectively.

The marketplace is addressing concerns about jobs going to India and U.S. workers “losing” in the process. Globalization is a boon to Americans, who enjoy great products and services made possible by globalization, such as iPods, iPhones, Androids, flat screen television sets, gaming devices and computers that be serviced with a phone call. New restrictions on either trade or immigration that inhibit the growth of such products and services will only make Americans poorer.

Will Improved Tech Job Market Help Change Immigration Policy?

Even when making policy that might last years, elected officials tend to look to the moment. That’s particularly true in the case of immigration, where the unemployment rate at a particular time influences whether or not to relax or restrict immigration quotas. It’s happened before on skilled immigration.

In 1998 and 2000, unemployment rates were around 4 percent nationally. That made it possible, though still not easy, to increase the quotas for high skilled foreign nationals on H-1B visas. Many of those individuals come from India.

Today, H-1B applications are down when compared to earlier years, but it is still likely the quota of 65,000 (plus a 20,000 exemption for recipients of a master’s degree from a U.S. university) will be reached before the end of the 2012 fiscal year.

There are several changes that could be made to improve U.S. immigration policy, particularly for high skilled professionals: increase the H-1B quota or exemptions from the annual cap, increase the quota or exemptions from the annually 140,000 limit for employment-based green cards, eliminate the per country limit, and exempt more individuals from the burdensome requirements of labor certification when applying for a green card. Yet the fate of such reforms rests as much on perceptions of the current job market as to whether they represent good long-term policy.

New Report on the Tech Job Market

Contrary to popular perceptions, a new report from the tech job website Dice.com finds that the job market is good for people with talent in technology fields. (The report can be found here.)

The report cites Dr. Tim Lindquist, a professor of computer science and engineering, Arizona State University’s Polytechnic College. “I can’t tell you the last time I had a student, even some of our poorer students, tell me they had trouble finding a job,” says Lindquist. “None of our graduates have trouble getting jobs, and we have weekly requests, very consistent, looking for people.”

The report states that “Incredible . . . describes well the challenge facing American businesses in need of tech skilled new hires in 2011. From coast to coast and metro to metro, companies in need of tech help say they’re struggling mightily to match open positions with qualified people and state-of-the-marketplace skill sets.”

Anne Hunter, with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, estimates, “There are easily two or three jobs for every computer science grad.”

Dice.com found a 60 percent increase in the number of tech jobs posted on its site from a low of two years ago. In other words, the job market for high skilled workers in tech-related fields has picked up substantially.

What’s Most in Demand?

In analyzing the job postings, Dice.com has determined that the most frequently requested skills today are Oracle, followed by J3EE/Java, C,C++, C#, and Project Management and SQL. (See Table 1)

Table 1

Most Frequently Requested Skills on Dice.com

Skills Number of Job Postings Requesting Skill on Dice.com Percentage Growth from 2010
Oracle 16,895 25%
J2EE/Java 16,683 21%
C, C++,C# 16,033 16%
Project Management 14,795 14%
SQL 13,554 21%

                                      Source: America’s Tech Talent Crunch, Dice.com, May 2011.

Products demanded by consumers are helping to drive the tech job market. The fastest growing skills requested in job postings in the first quarter of 2011 compared to the first quarter of 2010 are Android, Cloud, iPhone, JavaScript and Peoplesoft. (See Table 2)

Table 2

Fastest Growing Skills Requested on Dice.com

Skills Percentage Growth from 2010 to 2011
Android 302%
Cloud 221%
iPhone 220%
JavaScript 88%
Peoplesoft 83%

                                               Source: America’s Tech Talent Crunch, Dice.com, May 2011.

Conclusion

Even though there is no evidence immigration affects the unemployment rate over time, perceptions about the job market figure into the calculations made by elected officeholders. The reality of an improved job market in high tech jobs could help tip the balance favorably if smaller scale reforms on employment-based immigration are proposed in Congress. That would improve the situation faced by employers and high skilled foreign nationals.

Winning the Future Together

The global ascendance of India as an economic power, technology hub and a source of professional talent will create major opportunities for Indian and multinational businesses alike. But this development has also injected a not-insignificant measure of zero-sum thinking into US-India economic affairs, especially in the area of human capital. These contradictory themes are a growing source of irritation, but if managed smartly could also be a good opportunity for advancing the bilateral relationship.

These contradictions have been in full view in recent months. Last year saw the rise of a populist anti-India backlash as Americans increasingly blamed the country for their economic hardships. Election campaigns trafficked in the outsourcing issue, Congress enacted heavy India-specific fee hikes on the H-1B temporary visa program for skilled foreign workers, and President Obama called for tightening tax penalties on corporate outsourcing in language that pitted U.S. prosperity against that of India’s.

Yet when Mr. Obama arrived in India for a state visit last November, his rhetoric markedly shifted. The country was now portrayed as an economic opportunity too golden to pass up; indeed, the main purpose of his visit seemed to be securing as many commercial deals for American companies as possible. In an address to Indian corporate leaders in Mumbai, he emphasized that “in our interconnected world, increased commerce between the United States and India can be and will be a win-win proposition for both nations. I realize that for some, this truth may not be readily apparent.” For good measure, he added that “there still exists a caricature of India as a land of call centers and back offices that cost American jobs. But these old stereotypes, these old concerns ignore today’s reality.”

The antinomies of the bilateral economic relationship similarly were on display in Obama’s State of the Union address in January. He cited the growth of science and technology capacity in China and India as a threat to America’s competitive edge, while also acknowledging that continued U.S. prosperity requires greater access to the human capital originating from both countries. The success of U.S. enterprises engaged in the advanced technology sectors Mr. Obama identified in his address as key to “winning the future” will increasingly depend on access to the global reservoir of skilled professionals, of which India is a major contributor. The president admitted as much when he criticized the self-defeating nature of U.S. immigration policy: “[Students] come here from abroad to study in our colleges and universities.  But as soon as they obtain advanced degrees, we send them back home to compete against us.  It makes no sense.”

The President has regularly sounded off on this latter theme, most recently in a series of events over the last month aimed at reviving the issue of immigration reform.  In a speech in El Paso earlier this month, for example, he noted that:

[W]e provide students from around the world with visas to get engineering and computer science degrees at our top universities. But our laws discourage them from using those skills to start a business or power a new industry right here in the United States. So instead of training entrepreneurs to create jobs in America, we train them to create jobs for our competition. That makes no sense. In a global marketplace, we need all the talent we can get – not just to benefit those individuals, but because their contributions will benefit all Americans.

The President added that “We don’t want the next Intel or Google to be created in China or India. We want those companies and jobs to take root in America.”*

Obama’s remarks picks up a proposal he made during the last presidential campaign to create a “fast track” mechanism allowing foreign students with advanced technical degrees from U.S. institutions to receive an employment-based visa. At present, 20,000 H-1B visas are reserved for such graduates – many of whom are Indian – though demand greatly eclipses this number.

Although immigration policy remains a hotly-contested issue, the adverse consequences of limiting U.S. access to foreign-born skilled labor are widely acknowledged. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, for example, is at the head of a broad group of civic and business leaders calling for a job-creation strategy based on visa reform.

The United States has been able to maintain its global preeminence in no small part due to the influx of foreign science and engineering professionals and graduate students. Immigrants comprise nearly half of the science and engineering workforce holding PhD degrees. High-skilled immigrants are a significant driving force of American prosperity and innovation, most famously in building the information technology industry.  Research indicates, for instance, that Indian immigrant entrepreneurs play a leading role in founding some of the most dynamic high-tech companies. Studies also point to the valuable entrepreneurial streak immigrants possess: They are 30 percent more likely to form new businesses than native-born Americans, and foreign-born university graduates are some three-times more likely to file patent applications than US-born citizens.

Foreign-born scientific and engineering talent – particularly Indian – is an important pillar of the faculties in America’s top universities. And foreign students earn the majority of engineering doctoral degrees awarded by U.S. universities, and of this number a large percentage opt to remain in the country for some period of time. Their presence, along with other high-skilled immigrants, has helped the U.S. technology workforce expand at a faster rate than the United States is graduating native-born scientists and engineers.

America’s dependence on foreign-born technology professionals will shortly become all the greater. Since younger native-born workers tend to lack the skill levels of their baby boomer parents now nearing retirement age, the United States could face broad and substantial skill shortages in the coming decade. Thus, the United States should be promoting greater access to the global talent pool, and India is a good place to start.

With India a major source of high-skill professionals and the U.S. needing to draw on foreign talent to fortify its own science and engineering workforce, both countries have a keen mutual interest in cooperating in the area of human capital, the most critical resource in the dawning global innovation economy. To this end, Washington and New Delhi should conclude a bilateral agreement guaranteeing a set number of temporary work visas for high-skill Indian professionals. The United States has crafted bilateral agreements with a select number of other countries that could serve as a template, including the TN temporary visa program (created via the North American Free Trade Agreement) that exempts qualified Canadian and Mexican professionals from the annual quota on H-1B work permits.

Admittedly, important constituencies in both countries regard the global talent pool as a zero-sum equation.  In the United States, some argue that increased mobility of foreign high-skill workers will displace or depress wages of native professionals. The empirical evidence, however, suggests that greater numbers of talented immigrants actually supports job creation in the United States and that immigrant entrepreneurs complement rather than crowd out native-born counterparts.

India likewise would stand to benefit from the increased mobility of its technology professionals. Instead of causing “brain drain,” the global innovation economy is actually generating “brain circulation” or a “brain chain,” in which expatriate talent returns home with acquired capital, skills and knowledge, as well as personal links to transnational entrepreneurial and technological networks. Obviously, some of the high-skill Indians who benefit from the bilateral immigration accord will choose to remain permanently in the United States, though they would in time contribute a significant stream of remittance income and serve an important bridging function between Indian innovators and entrepreneurs and those in other countries.  But others, empowered by new ideas and experiences, will return in time and play a direct role in the nation’s development; indeed, this process is already underway (see here and here).

The United States and India are prime constituents in the brain circulation process. Far from seeing access to the global talent pool as a competitive proposition, the interdependency of their skills base requires them to act in a cooperative, synergistic way. Doing so not only makes sound economic sense for both countries, but would also strengthen the foundation of US-India relations.

* Ironically, as Mr. Obama was uttering these words, the Indian science minister was lamenting that the country’s lack of innovation infrastructure keeps India from producing companies like Google and Blackberry.


Why (and What) Are Indians Studying In The United States?

Indian students are a key source of future immigrants to the United States. Many of these students are recruited off U.S. campuses to work in America and are sponsored for permanent residence (a green card). But why do Indian students come here? And what are they studying?

A primary reason anyone desires to study abroad is the belief that education in another country will offer a unique benefit or perspective, or be important for a future career. When U.S. students go abroad it’s more likely to be for a semester or a year, rather than for a full degree program. However, a chance to earn a degree from a prestigious university, such as the London School of Economics, is valued. But in many cases, Americans are seeking unique cultural opportunities when studying abroad, particularly the chance to master another language.

In the case of Indians, there is great interest in gaining a degree abroad that will advance career goals. The majority of Indians come here to earn a masters or Ph.D. In the 2009/2010 academic year, 65 percent of Indian students in the United States were enrolled in a graduate program, compared to 14.5 percent in undergraduate programs (and 18.7 percent in Optional Practical Training), according to the Institute of International Education. That is much different than for countries as a whole, where the number of students seeking a bachelor’s degree and graduate degree is about even for international students coming to the United States.

There appears to be a strong sense among Indians coming here that an American university education is most valuable in engineering, computer science or business. As Table 1 shows, in the 2009/2010 academic year nearly 40 percent of Indian students in America were enrolled in engineering programs at U.S. colleges, according to the Institute of International Education; approximately 20 percent were in math/computer science and 15 percent in business/management. While 10 percent were in physical/life science, only 5 percent were enrolled in health professions, 3 percent in social sciences and 0.6 percent in humanities. Indians are not coming to America in great numbers to earn a degree in history or sociology.

Table 1

                                                    Indian Students By Field of Study in U.S.: 2009/2010

Business/Management Engineering Physical/Life Sciences Math/Computer Science Social Science Health Professions
Percentage of Indian Students in Field 15.3% 38.8 % 10.2% 19.8% 3% 4.9%

           Source: Institute of International Education

How does this study pattern compare to other countries?

India possesses the highest proportion of students enrolled in engineering, followed by Malaysia, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Turkey, Pakistan and China. (See Table 2)  India also possesses the highest proportion of students enrolled in math/computer science, followed by Nepal, China, Pakistan and Turkey. It is important to remember that India and China send many more students to the United States than those other countries, which means there is a high concentration of Indians, as well as Chinese, in U.S. graduate programs in both engineering and math/computer science.

For students from many other countries studying in America to earn a degree in business/management is a higher relative priority. While 15 percent of Indian students in 2009/10 enrolled in business/management, 24 percent of students from China did so, as did approximately 25 percent of students from Taiwan, Germany and Pakistan. Nearly 40 percent of students from Vietnam are here to study business/management.

Table 2

                              Percentage of International Students By Country in U.S. Engineering Programs: 2009/2010

Country Percentage Enrolled in Engineering
India 38.8%
Malaysia 28.4%
Saudi Arabia 24.0%
Nigeria 23.6%
Turkey 23.3%
Pakistan 23.2%
China 20.2%

                                                     Source: Institute of International Education

Table 3

                      Percentage of International Students By Country in U.S. Math/Comp. Sci. Programs: 2009/2010

Country Percentage Enrolled in Math/Computer Science
India 19.8%
Nepal 11.7%
China 10.7%
Pakistan 10.7%
Turkey 10.0%

                                                     Source: Institute of International Education

Conclusion

The number of Indian students enrolled at U.S. universities nearly doubled in the last decade and has tripled since 1995. The data show Indians are taking advantage of American universities’ comparative advantage in the fields of engineering, math/computer science and business/management. Examining the fields of study shows Indians have increasingly seen an American degree in these fields as the ticket to success.

Addressing the Arguments Against Comprehensive Immigration Reform

Indian-Americans know that for the past several years failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform legislation has blocked other changes to U.S. immigration law. Smaller, more targeted measures to fix problems associated with employment and family immigration, including reducing the large backlogs, have not see light of day to due to the inability to pass large-scale immigration legislation. Important measures on employer-sponsored green cards were part of a 2006 immigration reform bill that passed the Senate but failed to become law after opposition from House Republicans.

What are the main arguments against comprehensive immigration reform? And are there good responses to those arguments? I recently addressed the five main arguments offered against comprehensive immigration reform in a paper for the Cato Institute. (The study can be found here.)

1) Immigration Reform Will Not Harm Taxpayers. The paper notes that legalizing both the flow of workers and those already in the country without legal status will help taxpayers by raising the newly legalized workers’ earnings, productivity, and the likelihood they will pay taxes. Columbia University economist Francisco L. Rivera-Batiz found that illegal immigrants who received legal status under 1986 legislation received “significantly” higher wages once they became legal. (Higher wages equals higher taxes.) Peter Dixon and Maureen Rimmer, both with Monash University in Australia, found compared to more increases in border enforcement, using legal temporary workers to replace the flow of illegal immigrants would benefit U.S. households by $260 billion a year.

2) Newly Legalized workers will not burden the welfare rolls. In general, newly arriving immigrants are not heavy users of welfare and, in fact, are usually not eligible for federal means-tested programs. In 2006, according to the House Ways and Means Committee, only 0.7 percent of noncitizen used TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). Much use of benefits declined for immigrants after eligibility rules changed in the 1996 welfare reform law, though even before the changes immigrant welfare use tended to be overstated. It’s true U.S.-born children of immigrants may receive more benefits than their immigrant parents. However, the comparisons of who is a net taxpayer can be misleading if one counts native-born children of immigrants as (immigration) costs when they are young but then fails to count them as tax contributors once they reach adulthood.

3) Another amnesty need not beget more amnesties. If Congress legalizes the status of individuals here unlawfully it does not need to be an amnesty, which usually requires little or no action on the part of the recipient. Instead, Congress can impose a series of conditions for that forgiveness, including fines and future obligations.

4) Legalizing or admitting less-skilled workers will not undermine U.S. culture or the English language. Immigrants and their children are learning English. A total of 91 percent of second-generation Hispanic immigrants (the children of immigrants) said they speak English “well” or “pretty well,” which rises to 97 percent by the third generation.

5) Allowing in more temporary visa holders or legalizing existing workers without legal status will not increase the unemployment rate. Immigrants help make Americans more productive, while having no impact on the unemployment rate. As economists like Mark J. Perry, a professor at the University of Michigan, Flint campus, point out, there is no fixed number of jobs, so there is no way for immigrants to “take away jobs from Americans.” There is no evidence unemployment rates rise over time at either the state or national level simply because additional people enter the labor force, whether immigrants or recent graduates from U.S. schools or colleges.

Conclusion

These are not popular arguments to make in a climate when economic recovery remains incomplete in America. And the strongest opponents of immigration reform will not likely be persuaded. However, those who support a better solution than the status quo will need to continue the debate and responding to critics. Otherwise, other problems, such as the need to add more green cards for skilled immigrants, may never be addressed in a Washington, D.C. that remains divided on immigration issues.