Wherever their major offices are look for newspapers in the small towns nearby advertising for "Software developers for Oracle" all written in the tiniest print, right next to classified that sell used bikes, car parts and other stuff.
- "Well, Uncle Sam, we looked so hard in US and nobody answered our job posts, we have to go to ... $othercountry to hire, there is no other way"
Just to cut through the headline here. The largest chunk of Oracle layoffs were in India [1]. In comparison, they've barely fired any American workers.
Contrary to popular opinion, IT workers aren't interchangeable and there exist a large swath of jobs that very few people qualify for (HN should know this) because of the specialization required.
America is at near full employment [2]. Replacing American workers with lower paid foreign workers is already illegal and frequently enforced[3].
This is such a deep distraction but a virulent virus of a narrative, surgically designed to needle our reptilian minds.
From your first link, it says 10% of 28k employees in India were cut. I personally know several people who were laid off from Oracle this week (OCI). One person who's still there described it as a "bloodbath across our division" and says he counted 15k. I don't know what exactly he was counting but as we're in North America I am assuming they're all here. Whereas India layoffs were fewer than 3k. So that directly disputes your statement that "they've barely fired any American workers".
Can confirm. Friend laid off on team of 15, that team is now down to 7. They built datacenters, too. US based. That's, sorta concerning since I thought their entire future bag was making datacenters......
Pretty sure that is the U3 rate which only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for a job. The U6 is better and rarely falls below 5%:
FWIW, I'm not saying we are at full employment for all possible specializations and geography's, clearly some are out and others are in and we have some of the most immobile labor we've seen in a while [1]. The problem, as with many things, is housing. People simply can't (and aren't) moving to where the jobs are.
Same issue in my country with employment rates. Yes, some of those have been looking for work for so long that they slide from looking to "not looking" automatically. However at the same time, some of those people actually don't want to work.
And if they don't want to work, why would that impinge upon full employment, because what is the plan? Force people to work who are retired, or don't want to? Work or go to jail? "Full employment" is always presumed to be "people wanting to work can find it".
The U6 is also historically low though. America is as fully employed as just about anytime in the past 50 years. Using a different metric may have different raw numbers, but the conclusion is the same.
>America is as fully employed as just about anytime in the past 50 years.
And what percentage of those workers are Walmart or Amazon warehouse employees who don't have healthcare coverage and don't make enough money to actually cover their monthly bills without being on welfare/public assistance?
Because my linkedin extended network says there's an awful lot of highly skilled people unable to find jobs in their respective fields.
I suppose we simply disagree, and that is fine. I think the H-1B should be eliminated in favor of the O-1, the domestic labor exists, corporations would simply prefer "optimize their labor costs" and employ workers with reduced mobility via the H-1B. The data is clear from the salaries paid, which is public data.
As I've commented previously: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46257889 "I am calling for a temporary moratorium for issuing new worker visas based on the current economic macro and existing immigrant worker base in the US companies can pick from, yes. I support the current $100k H-1B fee, in perpetuity. The domestic workforce exists, it is a choice to not pick from the domestic labor pool. Choices have consequences."
The US has an obligation to its citizens, not corporations, not immigrant labor (already on US soil, or desiring to be on US soil). Shareholder returns go to the top 10% of Americans (who own 90% of US equities), so any argument about prosperity impairment from impaired immigration is going to fall on deaf ears in this context. Again, we may disagree on this, but I think I can find a majority of Americans who do agree with this sentiment (considering the current macro and affordability crisis in the US).
> Shareholder returns go to the top 10% of Americans (who own 90% of US equities), so any argument about prosperity impairment from impaired immigration is going to fall on deaf ears in this context.
"We fail to tax our corporations adequately, so the proceeds of rampant deregulation and profiteering don't benefit the general populace".
I don't necessarily disagree with your stance but this seems like a weak justification (it's pragmatic, to be fair)
Just for reference, if you’re in tech and a senior even in a 2nd tier city, you’re probably not “the little guy”, you’re probably in the top 10% if you make more than around $160K
I have personally been in the room when illegal labor decisions were made around H-1B hiring and immigration law, which I reported to USCIS. But that doesn't scale unless you can get into more places where these decisions are made. So, when all you have is a hammer, you have to hit whatever is within reach of the target outcome.
> you’re probably not “the little guy”, you’re probably in the top 10% if you make more than around $160K
I am closer to a blue collar worker than a CEO or other very wealthy/empowered person driving these anti labor decisions, so your argument is not compelling, I know who these people are behind closed doors. It's always about some combination of wealth, profit, status, power, and/or control.
I do not need their approval to want better for them, or to advocate for or take action to achieve the same. How they see me is irrelevant. Humans are tricky.
Seeing who rural America routinely votes for and that they rather vote for someone who hates the same people they hate at their own expense (including people who look like me) - I stop caring, I’m over it.
You can turn the numbers anyway you want but the results of the 2024 election speaks for themselves. Like I said this is the country that the citizens want.
Before the retort starts that “if that’s what I think then why don’t I leave?”, corporate America has been decent to me. But I’m in my 50s and working on my exit plan and have been in the country I plan to retire to now for six weeks.
> corporate America has been decent to me. But I’m in my 50s and working on my exit plan and have been in the country I plan to retire to now for six weeks.
Crazy take to think the morally correct move is to capitalize on the virtuous parts of America, then leave when it's at its most vulnerable.
Here's to hoping the rest of your generation is willing to fight to bring back the country that allowed you to prosper.
I voted for an advocated for “progressive”/safety net policies all of my adult life. But why should I fight for people who would care less if they saw me hanging from a tree? I don’t owe a country that sees me as less of person as anything.
No I’m not saying everyone is racist.
My fight is closer to being done than starting. In the country I’m in right now (and have been for four weeks), the police don’t look at me suspiciously, the people are nice and tolerant of my horrible Spanish, the ex pat groups I’ve become a part of are friendly and welcoming (and not patronizing like a lot of west coast liberals) even though I’m the only minority in the group.
Did I mention the country I’m in now that they have universal healthcare, a sensible vaccination policy, they actually enforce a decent wage on service staff so they don’t have to live on tips, etc?
For me? I will continue “adding on to what Becky said”, “looking at things from the 1000 foot view and finding synergies” and doing the other corporate speak with decision makers as long as they pay me and continue to allow me working remotely.
The US won’t get better. A large part of the country has been racist, homophobic , etc since its founding. My still living parents grew up in the segregated south and the country voted for a president who claimed Black immigrants were eating pets in 2024.
It's actually exploitative, on both ends but one worse than the other.
H1Bs wind up feeling forced to work far more hours than they should, but then it adds pressure to any in-house employees to work more than they should too.
It's extra evident in the people that go from H1B to full citizenship, they often never learn to just take a break, sometimes to their own detriment.
Overworking H1Bs isn't what people are concerned about (yes it's an issue and part of the problem because it's an extra incentive). Importing people to supplant the local talent who are more than capable of doing the work, widening the labor pool to weaken labor's power, claiming it's "meritocracy" and that everyone who doesn't agree is somehow racist or "illiberal" are the core issues.
Also to cut through the headlines once again. What the article actually says:
> Federal data shows Oracle filed for 2,690 H-1B visas in fiscal year 2025 and 436 so far in fiscal year 2026, totaling over 3,100 visa requests.
There is no proof that these people were also not part of the layoffs. Typically in layoffs, until the day off the announcement, it’s just business as usual. Which means people keep getting hired and H1B petitions being filed. The article doesn’t say they filed these petitions AFTER the layoffs.
Most petitions are filed over the summer, so the numbers so far in this financial year are not super relevant to anything. You will see a spike pretty soon after petitions for lottery winners this year are filed.
Yes, Its sad to see the reactionary hate triggered by a misleading article.
The number from 2025 is not really relevant when the layoffs were in March 2026. The article author clearly has a narrative they want to push.
And of the 436 petitions in 2026, only 235 are new hires (remaining are continuing approvals). Hardly a scandal there. Especially if they're likely hiring AI engineers and laying off call center employees - its not like their laying off an american citizen to hire a cheap H1B employee as this article is angling to have the reader believe.
The cuts include workers in senior director and vice president roles, as well as managers, product developers, product managers, program managers, software developers, site reliability developers, technical analysts, user experience developers and others.
They are in no-way laying off call center employees, they are laying off tens of thousands of the most highly paid US workers.
And yes the numbers of H1Bs granted in 2025 is relevant. You don't layoff 20% of your 100,000+ people workforce all of a sudden 'cos March went badly.
> And yes the numbers of H1Bs granted in 2025 is relevant. You don't layoff 20% of your 100,000+ people workforce all of a sudden 'cos March went badly.
You don’t know that the layoffs are happening tomorrow. That’s how layoffs work. Except for a few in the loop everyone else is largely in the dark. Hiring doesn’t stop, whether it’s us citizens or it’s H1Bs. 2025 hiring, whether H1B or not, is immaterial here.
I din't know which planet you are on, but on this one replacing is enforced extremely infrequently, and anybody who had to deal with the process knows it. Your example, where they catch the whopping 12 (!) cases - out of almost 100k h1bs per year - is only a testament of how small the enforcement is.
Either I'm stupid or [2] doesn't actually say anything at all. It starts with "in 2025..." And later talks about how estimates are expected to rise in 2023 and beyond while referencing data that ended in 1988. What am I missing?
"In 2025, it was estimated that over 163 million Americans were in some form of employment, while 4.16 percent of the total workforce was unemployed. This was the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950s, although these figures are expected to rise in 2023 and beyond."
> This was the lowest unemployment rate since the 1950s,
This is only true if you define “unemployment” narrowly to exclude people who are in school. In 1950, you could get a job out of high school. Today, you need to spend four years in college, sometimes more.
Counting people who are in school as “not unemployed” ignores the opportunity cost of school. You’re spending 4 years in the prime of your life. And during that time you’re not earning any income, but instead paying money. So even if eventually your job prospects are as good as they were in 1950, clearly the economy isn’t as good as it was when you could hit that same rate without people making that up front investment.
Why would Oracle replace Americans with H-1Bs if they had to pay the same salaries??
Actually H-1Bs are more expensive than Americans due to visa costs and attorney costs, so Oracle can SAVE money by hiring Americans, yet they still decide to continue hiring H1Bs along with Americans.
Because H1b is an arrangement that more or less amounts to indentured servitude where vulnerable people have their visa status glued to their at-will employment agreement, resulting in a dynamic where employers can and frequently do expect unpaid overtime, fewer sick days, and otherwise disproportionately greater value from h1b employees, and those who fail to meet these unfair expectations are let go and effectively evicted from the country as it is extraordinarily rare to to secure another h1b job within 60 days.
The number on two paystubs can be the exact same while one person is being brutally overworked and the other given a leisurely, comfortable WLB, which effectively amounts to underpaying the foreign labor, per unit of output, devaluing each unit of labor of domestic output.
H1b is tied to employment, not to the employer. You can change employers on the same H1.
It’s not great. But this is similar to how health insurance is tied to employment, not to the employer. Both citizens and H1 employees experience the same abuse here
Responder, you responded to is Indian. It's clear some ass covering going on.
A lot of companies are cutting and then doing contract positions for the same roles. Passed on one with a public company that was $600k tc at the low end and they wanted to shave 5-10% off the contract rate.
I don't mind contracting, but not going to agree to a role where advertise as X, oh, we want you to come on but budget changed. Yeah, nope.
It’s not at all time highs. Your chart combines the data for both genders, which causes the decline in employment to be masked by the separate trend of women working outside the home. Male prime age employment is down 10 percentage points from 1955: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LRAC25MAUSM156S
A higher percentage of prime age adults are working outside the house than almost any time in recent US history. I don’t understand why an analysis of the state of US employment should exclude women, can you please expand on your reasoning?
> why does it take months and months for even experienced devs to land a job?
Software is undergoing a secular downsizing. It increasingly looks like we have too many SWEs, and that we need to support them retraining. That doesn’t mean there isn’t a labor shortage in other industries.
The presupposition behind that question is that immigration is a necessary evil to be limited as much as possible. I am not American, but that strikes me as an ironic position for Americans to take.
> IT workers aren't interchangeable and there exist a large swath of jobs that very few people qualify for (HN should know this) because of the specialization required.
You are stating what IT people understand and are blatantly ignoring the realities of many companies. I've been at more than one shop that decided to do layoffs in a 'corporate' way and the people who knew the system were let go, the people who didn't know a class from a function were kept around, and the smart people from other teams have to jump in and pick up the slack.
And that's not event getting into outsourcing/etc, that's just basic corporate stupidity.
> America is at near full employment [2].
Doesn't tell the full story, i.e. under-employment where someone's working at a Walmart with a CS degree; They're still 'employed' but it's not in their field.
> Replacing American workers with lower paid foreign workers is already illegal and frequently enforced[3].
A Single link to a single enforcement action only resulting in < 180K USD for damages is not a great example of enforcement.
Outsourcing companies prey on gaps in US tax code and the like to make it 'look' cheaper to outsource, except for the huge maintenance cost for the trash that comes out.
And, some of that is the fault of the company procuring those services too. They don't give good enough requirements, they take too long to figure stuff out...
And yet I've found a niche specifically around spending half of my day reviewing pull requests from offshore houses where, requirements be damned, it's obvious the contractor is either overworking employees, letting incompetent employees in, or the employees think they can cheat and put code that 'just happens to work under testing' but inevitably will break under any stress.
But at the end of the day you can still do it. WITCH consultancies have seeped into a number of our industries and all the average consumer can do is bitch about how every software product or interaction UX from the providing companies has gotten so much worse.
Do you have the underlying data? I’m curious if per capita is being averaged across whole population or workers. If the former, that seems to penalize younger-aged countries.
> Consumer price index is probably the most common one and it doesn’t include housing
Almost all BLS price indices, including CPI, include housing. (CPI measures the “rent of primary residence, owners' equivalent rent, utilities, bedroom furniture” [1].)
Honestly, even if that takes into account housing and everything, doesn't that seem... pathetic? All of the automation and technological advancement and productivity gains over the past 45 years, and average workers in the US see a measly 15% higher real wage over that timespan. Compared to the obscene (real) wealth increase by those at the top during the same span, this seems pathetic to me.
You are looking for a good job, not any job. Capital allocator decided that you do not deserve a good one anymore. Time to shake the fist at the sky and blame the times.
Without knowing anything about that particular case, I would assume that the person was initially hired as an F-1 student and later changed to OPT status. University IT tends to hire students to entry-level positions all around the world. And now Stanford wants to keep the proven employee instead of going through the uncertainty of hiring a new person.
So maybe the actual question is what kind of a Stanford undergraduate would choose a university IT position in ~2021 instead of aiming for more lucrative tech roles. Perhaps the kind that wants to maximize their chances of getting H-1B.
it could be not blatant violation, but they more like don't track this on their side because don't think it is a big deal, so some individual can act like that.
Blatant violation would be if they do it on many cases and large scale.
I worked at a company once that posted h-1b jobs on a piece of paper on a board next to a restroom at the office. That was technically a publicly accessible area (if you had a guest pass).
> But none of that worked “The scam continued due to lax punitive action,”
It percolated up. It’s usually what happens with corruption. If lower levels are found out to have a lucrative scheme, the higher ups (auditors, police, legislators) make a big fuss about stumping it publicly, but behind the scenes go and ask for a cut.
They should just go with the full aviation crew naming scheme. Rename some of them to FO (first officer), second officer, navigator, flight engineer, radio operator. The cheaper models for quick answers will be the "relief crew". Data filtering and loading would be "loadmaster". Instead of referring to the user as "user" call them "captain". Who doesn't like to feel important and in charge!? Embrace the ridiculousness, at least they will all have some distinctive labels to go by.
This is why I hesitate updating my laptop. It's a 7 years old intel but my 2 external 4K displays work nicely and I like my setup. Upgrading looks like could mess them up. Doesn't matter how much faster compiling and testing will be, if I have to buy new monitors it's not worth it.
> his report was generated on 2026-03-22 as the final artifact of the SHA-256 Cryptanalysis
Research Project. Collaboration: Robert V. (research direction, strategy) and Claude/Anthropic (implementation, computation).
This Claude guy is pretty prolific it seems.
But I'll wait for some known cryptographers to chime in
>> "Many consumers want to know how long it will take them to make back the upfront costs of solar"
> my answer is that the payback is imediate,
So if I pay $35k for an install, I get a $35k check the first time I connect it to the grid? Pretty sure it doesn't work that way. But it would be a nice subsidy from the government if they were really motivated.
I guess you're saying you start to feel good and validated to have spent the money by seeing _some_ savings every billing period. It's hard to argue with feelings of course, but that's not not the original concern. People want to know how long is it going to take: 1, 5, 10 years or ... never (if panels degrade or break before it will never pay off) to pay off their investment.
> According to Solar Power Europe, it takes an average of two to six years to recoup the cost of the system, depending on what you paid for it, its size and where you mount it.
And then it just keeps working for decades. There's degradation, but even after 25 years I believe it's down to maybe 85% output, which is still huge for something with essentially no operating costs.
Panel degradation is very easy and cheap to fix. Our original panels costed about $2,000 each 400W (made sense in our circumstances, recoup in 7 years). After a couple decades we just added 2kW more power for about $300. In another couple of decades you will buy the same for less than $100 probably.
The fun part is that we might never recoup the cost of our gasoline backup generator, as it only worked for about 10 hours in 30 years.
Anyone that worries today about degradation has zero real interest in this stuff, just complains for the sake of complaining.
reply