Mark Zuckerberg launches FWD.us political action group

I find it difficult to take at face value any claims of a "shortage of tech people" when huge numbers of engineering majors at top schools are still going into finance and consulting: <a href="http://web.mit.edu/facts/alum.html" rel="nofollow">http://web.mit.edu/facts/alum.html</a>. At MIT there are still about 50% more people going into finance and consulting than computer technologies.[1]<p>When Google, Apple, Microsoft, etc, start paying comparable salaries to Goldman and Morgan Stanley, and still can't find enough qualified workers, then I'll believe that there really is a shortage. Until then, I'm going to consider this the latest in a long line of anti-competitive moves to depress engineering wages: <a href="http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2010/September/10-at-1076.html</a>.<p>[1] And it's not because financial firms make more money per worker. Google is at about $1m in revenue per employee, Apple is at about double that. Goldman Sachs is at about $1.25 million.

You'd think these companies all had a vested interest in underpaying a bunch of H-1B visa holders or something...

The United States should just go the route of Canada, and give permanent residency to individuals with in-demand skills who meet a high standard for linguistic ability, educational achievement, and work experience. If a person's got the skills, there's no reason for the country to mess around with a temporary visa.<p>Once this is done, the United States should bump up the numbers of skilled people it can admit by cutting back on the unskilled people it bizarrely decides to admit every year. The over fifty thousand people given permanent residency each year through the diversity visa lottery have no real qualifications other than being lucky. We could replace each and every one of them with someone with an advanced degree and strong work experience in an in-demand field.<p>Never going to happen, though - not when the government's primary focus is figuring out how to make citizens out of low-skilled economic migrants who've already shown they don't care about following laws.

I'm not sure why there is so much talk about ulterior motives on this one. In this case, I think everyone's incentives are aligned. Successful tech companies like Google and Facebook hold their engineers in the highest esteem and pay very generously for them (far above prevailing wage). The best workers want to work at these companies. Our economy, tax base, and society needs these people for the long term.<p>Stapling a Green Card to anyone that gets a phd from a top 25 US university, giving an automatic h1b to anyone who can raise $1 million in funding, making companies pay 2x prevailing wage to guarantee an h1b...these are all reasonable ideas. And I think discussing the merits of different proposals and how to make sure top tech talent stays in the US is where our energy should go.

I've read a lot of the comments here and thought I would chime in as a current H1B holder. I have two degrees, and received many concrete offers before moving to the U.S. However, I still found the process incredibly difficult. I have lived in many countries around the world, but this has been the least tolerant of highly skilled migrants.<p>Am I underpaid? No, I am paid market rate. Is there a demand for my skills? An emphatic yes. Do I feel the visa system is broken? Hell yes.<p>It is not desirable to live in the U.S on an H1B. My wife, is not allowed to work here, despite being qualified and experienced. This broken rule alone is making us consider leaving. Will the void be filled by a U.S citizen? Unlikely - demand is far exceeding supply here.<p>Contrast this with competitors to the U.S (European countries, Australia etc), where immigration policy is far more accepting of highly skilled migrants. There, I did not even have to be married for my partner of 7 years to work. I was given tax breaks, as I would likely not see the benefits of a percentage of the tax I contributed.<p>My advice to any highly skilled foreigner considering moving here with the current immigration policy would be - don't. Move to Europe, Australia, Canada or New Zealand instead (just picking countries I am familiar with there).

Yay, tech companies band together to benefit from importing more foreign workers to the U.S. to work for half of the prevailing wage.<p>I'd support this change to the H1B program: it's now totally unlimited, with this caveat: hiring companies must pay 150% of the prevailing wage to any hired workers.<p>This should be a win-win - companies like Facebook and Yahoo get to hire as many workers as they want, from anywhere in the world. And with multi-billion dollar profit margins, slightly increased salaries should not be a problem. After all, we know that good tech workers make much more for their companies than their salaries cost.<p>Any takers? No? Huh.

I'm curious to know what his ulterior motive is behind this, as I've never been able to take anything he says at face value.

The problem with H1B is that you have to apply April 1st to have the best chances of getting one. And you actually get it in October.<p>If you want to work in the US being a foreigner you've got to find a job more than 6 months in advance and only at one time every year.

This could become very interesting. I wonder if Zuckerberg will have the strength of character to keep his own corporate interests removed from his politcal group.

Can someone explain like I am five:<p>Briefly, What is the current immigration policy?<p>Why is it so broken?<p>WHY/HOW did it get the way it is (who benefits from having it the way it is)?

There is little that is more backward and corrupt than the path to citizenship in the US.

So another strategy to continue underpaying engineers. Sounds novel.

Speaking as someone who is currently in the process of getting L1 visa status to switch to the US HQ of a startup, I applaud this move.<p>I hear the arguments about well-skilled US workers who could do the same job. (Money is not a factor, I lead a global team, earn normal US wage.)<p>There's actually only a few people who can do my job without extensive ramp up time. It's the global background and experience that is necessary.<p>And still I am moving me and my family to the US. My wife will get a L2, will be not be allowed to work immediately (a work permit can later be applied for).<p>Why?<p>a) The US is the perfect ground to start a software company. Single currency, single language, single legal system. No other country comes close. Your new business can reach a scale here that is unreachable outside of US for the same effort. Start in Germany and France is your first stumbling block.<p>b) Hence the US has the highest density of software jobs. My current job profile exists a handful of times in Europe.<p>c) I am good in my job, my job exists in US, US companies need people like me - why would you step in between? I will pay (high) taxes immediately, won't hop the border fence or form a gang. I won't depress any wages, I am here to make money and live in the Bay Area, which is freaking expensive.<p>What I don't get anyhow - White Americans are in the minority in IT anyhow. My current employer? More than 50% are of Chinese or Indian decent.<p>And famous founders? A lot of Eastern Europe, Asia, etc. The world comes to the Bay to build software. Why not make this easier?

Immigration benefits the economic elite, but is either financially neutral or harmful to the larger population. <a href="http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature" rel="nofollow">http://cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-ac...</a><p>That's just a financial perspective but there are other costs to consider. As NumbersUSA and others document immigration is harming the environment. Robert Putnam and others have documented how immigration is eroding trust and social capital in American communities.