3 ms·

Replacing the lottery with a salary-based assignment seems like just common sense to me. Why should we allow over someone the employer says is worth $62k, when

Replacing the lottery with a salary-based assignment seems like just common sense to me. Why should we allow over someone the employer says is worth $62k, when we could allow over someone the employer says is worth $110k? As a bonus, it means that the minimum wages aren't relevant, since supply and demand of skilled international workers will set the lowest wage that gets admitted to the US. This rule would unfortunately favor employers in high cost-of-living areas over low COL ones. Employees are approximately ambivalent between taking home $5k/mo and paying $2k/mo in rent, and taking home $4k/mo and paying $1k/mo in rent. But, the higher rent + higher pay scenario will get admitted well before the lower rent + lower pay. It also incentivizes putting as much of the compensation in salary as possible, and as little as possible in other benefits.

DamnYuppie 11y ago
I think you miss the point of increasing the minimum salary. It isn't to bring over better people, it is essentially to make it so that it no longer makes economic sense to replace local workers with foreign ones.
- ThrustVectoring 11y ago
  I'm not opposed to a minimum salary, I'm just saying that it's pointless when the market-determined salary to convince the Xth person to work in America is higher than the minimum (where X is the number of people we want to work in America through the H1-B program). Raise it if you want, but given the salary-based H1-B allocation, the salary minimum is the same thing as the quota.
serge2k 11y ago
> This rule would unfortunately favor employers in high cost-of-living areas over low COL ones > It also incentivizes putting as much of the compensation in salary as possible, and as little as possible in other benefits. Both of these to a pretty ridiculous degree. You would have issues with companies like Amazon (who pay reasonably well and so far as I know don't abuse the H1-B system) getting screwed because they either don't pay as much in cash (they like a stock heavy comp model) or because they aren't paying people bay area money.
- st3v3r 11y ago
  I can't say I'd be that upset with Amazon getting screwed.
- xiaoma 11y ago
  Both of those factors are Amazon's choice. I really don't see how Amazon would be any more "screwed" by not getting H1-B employees they won't pay a competitive salary to than they are in not getting US citizens they won't pay a competitive salary to. In fact, if they find the prices too high, they could always hire locals! They could also expand their presence in their SF office, if somehow an area costing a lot to live in would become an advantage. Unless there's an assumption that Amazon has some sort of unalienable right to hire foreign workers at less than local market rates, there really isn't anything unfair about it.

DamnYuppie 11y ago

I think you miss the point of increasing the minimum salary. It isn't to bring over better people, it is essentially to make it so that it no longer makes economic sense to replace local workers with foreign ones.

ThrustVectoring 11y ago
I'm not opposed to a minimum salary, I'm just saying that it's pointless when the market-determined salary to convince the Xth person to work in America is higher than the minimum (where X is the number of people we want to work in America through the H1-B program). Raise it if you want, but given the salary-based H1-B allocation, the salary minimum is the same thing as the quota.

serge2k 11y ago

> This rule would unfortunately favor employers in high cost-of-living areas over low COL ones > It also incentivizes putting as much of the compensation in salary as possible, and as little as possible in other benefits. Both of these to a pretty ridiculous degree. You would have issues with companies like Amazon (who pay reasonably well and so far as I know don't abuse the H1-B system) getting screwed because they either don't pay as much in cash (they like a stock heavy comp model) or because they aren't paying people bay area money.

st3v3r 11y ago
I can't say I'd be that upset with Amazon getting screwed.
xiaoma 11y ago
Both of those factors are Amazon's choice. I really don't see how Amazon would be any more "screwed" by not getting H1-B employees they won't pay a competitive salary to than they are in not getting US citizens they won't pay a competitive salary to. In fact, if they find the prices too high, they could always hire locals! They could also expand their presence in their SF office, if somehow an area costing a lot to live in would become an advantage. Unless there's an assumption that Amazon has some sort of unalienable right to hire foreign workers at less than local market rates, there really isn't anything unfair about it.