American man reveals Indian CEO took over a firm, booted out founders, hired Indians. Post goes viral amid H1B visa debate

[Developereo]

What is wrong in running software business with your buddies and classmates ? Anti-discrimination lawsuits apply only for businesses of 15 employees and larger.

The vast majority of H1-B visas go to the big boys. Someone opening a startup in their garage is no different than opening a cafe or lawnmowing business with your family and friends. This discussion is really about bias in the H1-B visa system.

The nepotism I am talking about is within these huge corporations where a project manager will prefer to hire Indians.

The real problem with the technology industry is that many jobs are never advertised.

That is true but not really relevant to this debate.

Good luck filing a anti-discrimination lawsuit for a job you never applied to. It is maddening because his royal highness has missed out on many an opportunity.

The Indians who engage in nepotism would not hire an ABCD or someone who is too 'Westernized'. Part of it is their agenda is to spread prosperity and give more Indians the chance at the good life. The other part is that newly arrived Indians prefer to work in an environment that is not too brashly different so they can ease into Western work culture. Having the project team made up mostly of relatively recent arrivals makes everyone feel more comfortable.

 

[nahtanbob]

That is true but not really relevant to this debate.

The real pain points for me has been
1. Jobs never advertised
2. companies that existed you never knew of
networking matters in top two cases

As far as interview loop with established company goes it is complete crap shoot.
There are zillion ways it can pan out.

 

[Developereo]

The real pain points for me has been
1. Jobs never advertised
2. companies that existed you never knew of
networking matters in top two cases

The number I heard is that 70% of jobs are never advertized which seems a bit high to me, but who knows?

In many cases where I got a job through networking, the job didn't actually exist as such. Many companies have a flex in the budget and project scope where they can do more work, or more quickly, if people are available but they are not actively recruiting. I suspect many of these 'unadvertized jobs' may be in that category.

 

[Michael]

This is not a discussion of what happens in China or India or Vietnam. Nobody cares about countries where the majority population is from the same ethnic group.

This is a discussion about the US where the workforce is diverse and, if there is discrimination against or for a particular ethnic group, then that is illegal.



If a white manager used that excuse they would be prosecuted and called racist. Here you are defending this behavior because... the person is non white? That is racist.

Why is it OK for Indians to prefer Indians but not OK for a white to prefer a white worker?



As I explained before, the West is swamped in political correctness. Minority groups such as Indians get away with things that would be prosecuted if done by whites.

Your response itself proves my point. You are defending racial discrimination against US laws just because Indians are doing it.

You are blabbering goody two shoes. This practice happened in Singapore, too. Come on you are trying too hard to be a nice guy and spewing nonsense. I know personally to be true and You never worked or met with Indians and yet you blab nonsense

I am tired of your know-all-be-nice guy attitude! go away!

The first thing I showed is that this phenomenon is not exclusive to one group. It exists in all groups. It is a typical labor-management conflict. This phenomenon is prevalent in the lower and middle classes of human society. It is based on the most basic human instinct for survival.
The human instinct is to find an environment more suitable for survival. When a person enters an unfamiliar environment, he or she will instinctively choose the environment in which he or she is better adapted to survive. When the group is large enough, they will establish their own unique their most comfortable survival environment. For example. Chinese “Chinatowns” around the world are typical of this phenomenon. Blacks have also established a distinct black community in Guangzhou, China. Hong Kong also has a South Asian neighborhood.
When a boss hires a CEO, the fastest and most effective way for that CEO to ensure that the boss's mission is accomplished is to use the employee he knows best and trusts most. If he comes from a particular community, he is of course most familiar with and trusts the people in his community.
This truth is common to any group of people all over the world.
I (a Sichuanese) once worked for a Hong Kong-owned company in Shenzhen. The boss was from Hong Kong. The boss appreciated very much the hardworking character of Sichuanese people, so he appointed some Sichuanese people to be the management. He spent most of his time in Hong Kong and rarely in Shenzhen. The whole company has slowly formed a culture that “whether one can understand Sichuanese has become the unspoken rule in recruiting employees; whether one can speak Sichuanese has become the unspoken rule in promoting employees”. The whole Sichuanese group has completely monopolized the whole company, and the company's management can already make a lot of decisions for the boss. ......
This is the most basic logic of human society. If the boss only has money but no corresponding management and decision-making ability, he is destined to be replaced by someone else. It has nothing to do with what the CEO is. Even if the CEO in this story was Pakistani or Chinese, the end would still be the same.

Secondly. I am certainly aware of the international relations between India, Pakistan and China. But attacking an “enemy country” by attacking an entire community is the stupidest way to attack the public opinion of an “enemy country”. The most effective way to deal with an “enemy country” is to polarize, not to attack the community as a whole.
Attacking the whole community of an “enemy country” will make the other side more united. A precise attack on a specific group of people in the enemy country will cause serious divisions within the enemy country, which will cause the enemy country to attack each other, further depleting the enemy country. The overall strength of the “enemy country” will be further depleted by mutual attacks from within the “enemy country”.
When Western media and politicians attack China, they are more likely to attack the CCP than the entire Chinese community. The elite groups in the Western world manipulate other groups, also by polarizing the internal contradictions of these groups, thus causing serious internal divisions within these groups, and causing them to continue to implode. For example: the Indo-Pakistani conflict, the conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, the conflict between Hutus and Tutsis in Rwanda, and so on. These contradictions deliberately created by the elite groups of the Western world give rise to all kinds of strife in this world so that they can derive greater benefits from them.

So, we need to calmly face the problem of these social contradictions. We need to deal with these social contradictions by keeping them within appropriate limits, rather than expanding them further into communal contradictions.

I've never wanted to be a “good man”, I don't think I'm a “good man”, and I've never considered being a “good man” to be my goal in life. “Good man” is synonymous with “ stupid” in my philosophy of life!

 

[nahtanbob]

The number I heard is that 70% of jobs are never advertized which seems a bit high to me, but who knows?

it sounds about right

 

[Developereo]

The first thing I showed is that this phenomenon is not exclusive to one group. It exists in all groups. It is a typical labor-management conflict. This phenomenon is prevalent in the lower and middle classes of human society. It is based on the most basic human instinct for survival.
The human instinct is to find an environment more suitable for survival. When a person enters an unfamiliar environment, he or she will instinctively choose the environment in which he or she is better adapted to survive. When the group is large enough, they will establish their own unique their most comfortable survival environment. For example. Chinese “Chinatowns” around the world are typical of this phenomenon. Blacks have also established a distinct black community in Guangzhou, China. Hong Kong also has a South Asian neighborhood.

Running a business is different from how people live their private lives. In private life, e.g. in dating or marriage, someone can discriminate for or against people based on race, religion, height, hair color, whatever. Same for living arrangements. The discussion here is about hiring for a job.

Now, as @nahtanbob mentioned, companies below a certain size are exempt from equal opportunity requirements because governments want to encourage people to start businesses, and it is a known fact that many small businesses would be staffed with family and friends or relatives. This discussion is about businesses that are subject to equal opportunity requirements.

When a boss hires a CEO, the fastest and most effective way for that CEO to ensure that the boss's mission is accomplished is to use the employee he knows best and trusts most.

Absolutely true. Most people will bring over people with whom they worked previously.

If he comes from a particular community, he is of course most familiar with and trusts the people in his community.

This is the problem. In an ideal world, his previous workplace would be a diverse workplace, so the people he knows and trusts would be from a diverse background, not just from a particular ethnicity. What you are describing is a recipe for propagating workplace segregation based on ethnicity. This is not something desirable, at least not in multi-ethnic, multicultural societies like the West.

The whole company has slowly formed a culture that “whether one can understand Sichuanese has become the unspoken rule in recruiting employees; whether one can speak Sichuanese has become the unspoken rule in promoting employees”.

And you don't see a problem with this? Is this something to be encouraged or tolerated?

I don't know the domestic dynamics within China but, in the West, this situation would not be welcome. If an Indian CEO only feels comfortable working with Indians then he should move to India, not live in a 'white' country.

Secondly. I am certainly aware of the international relations between India, Pakistan and China. But attacking an “enemy country”

White Americans are complaining about Indian nepotism. Did you not read the thread opening post. Are you saying white Americans are doing this because India is an 'enemy country' to the US?

The criticism is valid and stems from the rampant nepotism by Indians in the high tech hiring. The objective statistics confirm it: over 70% of H1-B visas go to Indians. There is no 'enemy country' agenda here, only objective facts.

So, we need to calmly face the problem of these social contradictions. We need to deal with these social contradictions by keeping them within appropriate limits, rather than expanding them further into communal contradictions.

It is ethnic nepotism so how else do you want to frame it to hide the reality for the sake of political correctness?

 

[r3alist]

@r3alist bro has answered the Q without intending to. Americans may be able to do the tech jobs but IND H1Bs can do it much cheaper, that is why the low wage growth. Chinese keep the manufacturing jobs, INDs keep some of the low end tech jobs. I see nothing wrong in it.

Regards

This was always true

It's not my problem to have

The only thing that's changed is a section of Americans are perceiving it an issue more vocally

 

[r3alist]

Running a business is different from how people live their private lives. In private life, e.g. in dating or marriage, someone can discriminate for or against people based on race, religion, height, hair color, whatever. Same for living arrangements. The discussion here is about hiring for a job.

Now, as @nahtanbob mentioned, companies below a certain size are exempt from equal opportunity requirements because governments want to encourage people to start businesses, and it is a known fact that many small businesses would be staffed with family and friends or relatives. This discussion is about businesses that are subject to equal opportunity requirements.



Absolutely true. Most people will bring over people with whom they worked previously.



This is the problem. In an ideal world, his previous workplace would be a diverse workplace, so the people he knows and trusts would be from a diverse background, not just from a particular ethnicity. What you are describing is a recipe for propagating workplace segregation based on ethnicity. This is not something desirable, at least not in multi-ethnic, multicultural societies like the West.



And you don't see a problem with this? Is this something to be encouraged or tolerated?

I don't know the domestic dynamics within China but, in the West, this situation would not be welcome. If an Indian CEO only feels comfortable working with Indians then he should move to India, not live in a 'white' country.



White Americans are complaining about Indian nepotism. Did you not read the thread opening post. Are you saying white Americans are doing this because India is an 'enemy country' to the US?

The criticism is valid and stems from the rampant nepotism by Indians in the high tech hiring. The objective statistics confirm it: over 70% of H1-B visas go to Indians. There is no 'enemy country' agenda here, only objective facts.



It is ethnic nepotism so how else do you want to frame it to hide the reality for the sake of political correctness?

If you want to function in the West then operate by the norms and rules others must

 

[Michael]

Running a business is different from how people live their private lives. In private life, e.g. in dating or marriage, someone can discriminate for or against people based on race, religion, height, hair color, whatever. Same for living arrangements. The discussion here is about hiring for a job.

Now, as @nahtanbob mentioned, companies below a certain size are exempt from equal opportunity requirements because governments want to encourage people to start businesses, and it is a known fact that many small businesses would be staffed with family and friends or relatives. This discussion is about businesses that are subject to equal opportunity requirements.



Absolutely true. Most people will bring over people with whom they worked previously.



This is the problem. In an ideal world, his previous workplace would be a diverse workplace, so the people he knows and trusts would be from a diverse background, not just from a particular ethnicity. What you are describing is a recipe for propagating workplace segregation based on ethnicity. This is not something desirable, at least not in multi-ethnic, multicultural societies like the West.



And you don't see a problem with this? Is this something to be encouraged or tolerated?

I don't know the domestic dynamics within China but, in the West, this situation would not be welcome. If an Indian CEO only feels comfortable working with Indians then he should move to India, not live in a 'white' country.



White Americans are complaining about Indian nepotism. Did you not read the thread opening post. Are you saying white Americans are doing this because India is an 'enemy country' to the US?

The criticism is valid and stems from the rampant nepotism by Indians in the high tech hiring. The objective statistics confirm it: over 70% of H1-B visas go to Indians. There is no 'enemy country' agenda here, only objective facts.



It is ethnic nepotism so how else do you want to frame it to hide the reality for the sake of political correctness?

The phenomenon of grouping is a universal phenomenon in human society, and it is a product of human society's discrimination against each other. The law can only solve part of the more significant problems; it cannot solve the fundamental problems. In essence, we can only weaken this imagination through social progress and the efforts of various groups.
At the same time, it is not a specific product of a specific group.

For example.
A Chinese boss goes to Pakistan to open a company and hires a Pakistani as the CEO. if this Chinese boss does not have proper management measures and constraints, very soon this company will also be monopolized by the Pakistanis, and the Chinese boss will soon be overshadowed.
If some Chinese criticize Pakistanis for this, I think many Pakistanis will not recognize this criticism. There are also some Chinese who will not recognize this criticism. They would see it as this boss's own incompetence. Of course, this has to do with the China-Pakistan relationship. If it were an Indian instead, more Chinese would probably criticize the Indian for it. This would fall under the rubric of mutual discrimination, we just don't quite recognize it.
The same story would still happen if we replaced the bosses and CEOs in this story with other groups. But our perspective would change. ------ This is classic racism, it's just that, people usually don't realize it.

I have no problem with people criticizing this phenomenon. What I am against is extending those critiques to entire groups.

Racial discrimination on a legal level is not the same thing as racial discrimination on a practical level.

As I said before. Chinese people are given special protection in Pakistan. Chinese are banned from staying in hotels that are not guarded by police/security guards; Chinese are banned from traveling to high-risk areas; Chinese often need close police protection when traveling in Pakistan ...... As a Chinese, I am very grateful to the Pakistani government for the relevant measures. However, this is also “discrimination” in the broader sense of the word.
We can't irrationally praise a “discriminatory” policy just because we are the beneficiaries of it. Similarly, we should not lose our senses and attack the policy of “discrimination” just because we are the victims of it.

 

[Pakman1]

Indians in America bring their Indian practices to America. When Indians hire fellow Indians, it’s more nuanced. Indians hire mainly other Indians of the same caste. And they would never hire untouchables.

Soon, Indians would turn America into a shyt hole country. With people dumping in the street. Oops, many Americans are already doing that in the cities.

Indians start with hiring Indian in HR who then screen majority Indians. This is a game they have played since Y2K. They are very cunning and practice hidden discrimination.

 

[Thinking_Hard]

Sounds good. Many were talking about "racism". Or was that only for some people. I guess this CEO is giving it back?

By the way, this CEO is either Tamil or Telegu.

 

[Suresh Naresh]

'There is a permanent shortage...': Elon Musk challenges claims of foreign talent displacing US tech workers

Musk weighs in on tech talent debate amid backlash over foreign worker policies.

Pranav Dixit
Updated Dec 29, 2024, 9:08 AM IST

Elon Musk

Elon Musk has sparked conversation around the perennial debate on foreign-born workers in the US tech industry, responding to claims that they might be taking jobs from native-born Americans. The discussion was initiated by Amjad Masad, CEO of Replit, an online platform for coding, who questioned the validity of such allegations.

Masad posted on X (formerly Twitter), “Genuinely curious: Are there actual instances where qualified native-born Americans couldn’t get jobs in tech because foreigners took all of them? I’d be surprised if it’s true because at any given point there are hundreds of thousands of unfilled jobs in tech.”

Responding to Masad, Musk dismissed the notion of job displacement by foreign talent, highlighting the chronic scarcity of skilled engineers in Silicon Valley. “There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent. It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley,” he wrote.

Musk’s remarks align with ongoing discussions in the tech industry about the need for diverse talent pools to address a growing demand for skilled professionals in areas like artificial intelligence, software engineering, and data science.

The conversation gains significance amidst controversy over the appointment of Indian-American businessman Sriram Krishnan as a senior policy advisor on artificial intelligence in the incoming administration of President-elect Donald Trump.

While some hail Krishnan’s appointment as a step forward for AI policy, others argue that foreign workers, particularly those on H-1B visas, are being hired at lower wages, allegedly displacing American talent.

Musk rejected this perspective, labelling it as a “fixed pie” fallacy. “There is essentially infinite potential for job and company creation. Think of all the things that didn’t exist 20 or 30 years ago!” he said, urging a focus on innovation and growth rather than competition for existing roles.

'There is a permanent shortage...': Elon Musk challenges claims of foreign talent displacing US tech workers

Musk weighs in on tech talent debate amid backlash over foreign worker policies.

www.businesstoday.in

 

[Developereo]

The phenomenon of grouping is a universal phenomenon in human society, and it is a product of human society's discrimination against each other. The law can only solve part of the more significant problems; it cannot solve the fundamental problems. In essence, we can only weaken this imagination through social progress and the efforts of various groups.
At the same time, it is not a specific product of a specific group.

For example.
A Chinese boss goes to Pakistan to open a company and hires a Pakistani as the CEO. if this Chinese boss does not have proper management measures and constraints, very soon this company will also be monopolized by the Pakistanis, and the Chinese boss will soon be overshadowed.
If some Chinese criticize Pakistanis for this, I think many Pakistanis will not recognize this criticism. There are also some Chinese who will not recognize this criticism. They would see it as this boss's own incompetence. Of course, this has to do with the China-Pakistan relationship. If it were an Indian instead, more Chinese would probably criticize the Indian for it. This would fall under the rubric of mutual discrimination, we just don't quite recognize it.
The same story would still happen if we replaced the bosses and CEOs in this story with other groups. But our perspective would change. ------ This is classic racism, it's just that, people usually don't realize it.

I have no problem with people criticizing this phenomenon. What I am against is extending those critiques to entire groups.

Racial discrimination on a legal level is not the same thing as racial discrimination on a practical level.

As I said before. Chinese people are given special protection in Pakistan. Chinese are banned from staying in hotels that are not guarded by police/security guards; Chinese are banned from traveling to high-risk areas; Chinese often need close police protection when traveling in Pakistan ...... As a Chinese, I am very grateful to the Pakistani government for the relevant measures. However, this is also “discrimination” in the broader sense of the word.
We can't irrationally praise a “discriminatory” policy just because we are the beneficiaries of it. Similarly, we should not lose our senses and attack the policy of “discrimination” just because we are the victims of it.

If a company in Pakistan hires mostly Pakistanis, it is not discrimination. If a Pakistani started a company in China and hired mostly Pakistanis, it would be considered discrimination unless the work required specific skills, e.g. Pakistani cooking or Pakistani arts and crafts. Similarly in reverse.

The bottom line is that, barring exceptional circumstances, the workforce should reflect the population demographics. If there is a significant deviation, consistently year after year, then there is bias at play. This is what we see in the H1-B visa grant where more than 70% go to Indians, therefore it is correct to look at Indians and see what kind of bias is at work in these hirings.

This is not about friendly country or enemy country. This is not about what comes naturally to people. Some people might say that racism and homophobia are 'natural' to them. That is not an excuse.

This is about the H1-B numbers -- objectively verified numbers -- plain and simple. This is about blatant, systematic, ongoing discrimination by a group of people in a very specific context. To try and frame this as some sort of victimization is wrong.

 

[UKBengali]

If a company in Pakistan hires mostly Pakistanis, it is not discrimination. If a Pakistani started a company in China and hired mostly Pakistanis, it would be considered discrimination unless the work required specific skills, e.g. Pakistani cooking or Pakistani arts and crafts. Similarly in reverse.

The bottom line is that, barring exceptional circumstances, the workforce should reflect the population demographics. If there is a significant deviation, consistently year after year, then there is bias at play. This is what we see in the H1-B visa grant where more than 70% go to Indians, therefore it is correct to look at Indians and see what kind of bias is at work in these hirings.

This is not about friendly country or enemy country. This is not about what comes naturally to people. Some people might say that racism and homophobia are 'natural' to them. That is not an excuse.

This is about the H1-B numbers -- objectively verified numbers -- plain and simple. This is about blatant, systematic, ongoing discrimination by a group of people in a very specific context. To try and frame this as some sort of victimization is wrong.

That poster has no real understanding of either western or a truly diverse county like USA as he lives in Han China.

For nearly all Han Chinese, discrimination does not exist as minorities do not exist in the social or business sphere.

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

It's a generic image of Indians. If you search the image, it shows up in a dozen different contexts.

So it was a generic pic.

Now explain why no names were mentioned in the OP...maybe this was just a generic story too. I'm sure this scenario happens...but in this story things are fishy because no specifics are given. It doesn't help attaching a generic pic to it.