Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Michael David Cobb Bowen's avatar

ChatGPT sez:

Over the past decade, the Asian Indian population in the United States has experienced significant growth. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of individuals identifying as Asian Indian alone increased from approximately 3.2 million in 2013 to about 4.4 million in 2020. 

This represents an increase of approximately 1.2 million people, or a growth rate of around 37.5% over the seven-year period. While specific data for 2023 is not available, estimates suggest that the Asian Indian population has continued to grow, reaching approximately 5 million by 2024. 

This upward trend reflects the broader growth of the Indian American community, which has become the largest single-origin Asian group in the United States, surpassing Chinese Americans by about 270,000 residents as of 2020. 

The increase in the Asian Indian population can be attributed to factors such as immigration, higher birth rates, and the community’s strong presence in sectors like technology, medicine, and academia.

It’s important to note that these figures are based on available data up to 2020, and while estimates provide insight into recent trends, precise numbers for 2023 may vary.

---

I'm starting to believe that nobody gets rejected for H-1B. Can this be?

BWhatt's avatar

There has always been a shortage of top talent in programming. Top talent isn't merely faster in coding; they are able to divine elegant solutions to complex problems, resulting in greater simplicity, maintainability, adaptability, scalability. No number of Grade B bodies can do what one Grade A body can do (which is to see simplicity in the midst of complexity).

Management doesn't tell Grade A talent what to do. All it can do is tell Grade A talent what problems it wants to solve, and leave it to the talent to determine strategy. This is a giant cultural problem in the corporate world, an inversion of top-down authority, where low-level nobodies make decisions and top-level executives, including bean counters, rely on trust. That's an uncomfortably uncertain void in typical business operations.

At the scale of large corporations, particularly in the software industry, the execs (*not* programmers) see 20% of their payroll consumed by programmers, and that group is no less subject to a normal distribution of talent as any other. So despite the special role in top talent, it still only accounts for <15% of the programmers, and the averages remain, well, the averages. As management reviews its financials, it can't help but consider how many heads are in programming, the average cost per head, how high that number is, and what can be done to drive it down. Because that's what good management typically does: try to drive down costs.

The truth is that top programming talent is somewhat like top Hollywood talent in terms of the outsized effect that talent has on overall performance (read: "financial results"). Movie producers know the A-listers are crazily expensive, but understand that such talent is a unique but economically sensible aspect of the business. There are actors, bodies, and there is "the talent." They're all actors, but two distinct classes of people with two distinct places in the financial models of the movie-making enterprise.

People intuitively grasp the significance of A-list Hollywood talent. But applying such a model to programmers is much less obvious. We're talking about programmers now, not movie stars. We're talking about modern day laborers. Cost per hour is as significant a managerial force now in software engineering departments as it ever was in managing any major class of labor.

Keep in mind the nature of large software development departments. Those who can program do program, while those who can't program manage programmers. What, therefore, could be a discernible contribution of a mid-level manager of programmers? Cost per head often becomes their priority of the day.

Good CEOs understand this software talent problem, and try to somewhat provision for it. But shareholders and most board members rarely look beyond the top and bottom lines, and presume nothing but cost in between that should best be driven down. Like the problems of a centralized command economy, as a practical problem of complexity itself, the view from the top necessarily ignores important details down the chain because there are simply too many important details for even the greatest brains to completely consider. When speaking of Grade A programmers, we're talking about a fraction of a fraction of employee laborers, and that's too far down in the details to be worthy of much consideration.

Completely aside.. Why do we import so many programmers from India? Answer: It's a source of a relatively lower cost English-speaking population. Language conformance...that is the largest distinguishing factor, in my non-expert opinion.

It is striking, as always, how similar your experience is to mine.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?