7 ms·

I agree, and these people should be offered a green card as soon as they start with the employer.

by hwstar 11y ago

tosseraccount 11y ago
Put the corporations in charge of immigration? H1B a program is for special access for tech firms to nonresident alien guest workers.
dominotw 11y ago
>should be offered a green card as soon as they start with the employer. they can jump ship to a big company like google after your small startup went through the hassle of lawyers/visa fees/ govt fees ect.
- hwstar 11y ago
  Maybe you should have paid them as much as what they would make at Google then. Having to compete on salary,benefits, and working environment is the true meaning of an open and free market, not a rigged market as the current H-1B system is.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - yummyfajitas 11y ago
    Then whoever poaches them can just offer salary + cost of getting the visa. It's always cheaper to freeload off the guy who paid for the visa. The right solution is that if google or whoever hires an H1B 1 year into a 3 year visa, they need to pay for 2/3 of the cost of the visa.
    - hwstar 11y ago
      Google in a hypothetical case would then offer a lower salary to cover the visa cost, and/or deem it too much trouble to bring the H-1B on board. This leaves the H-1B worker operating in a suboptimal market. The issue of visa fees does not confront the H-1B employee, only the employer which sponsored them in the first place. Besides it should cost slighly more to bring in an H-1B than current parket rates. Maybe then more natives would be hired.
      - yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Why would it be beneficial if more (extremely wealthy) natives were hired rather than (extremely poor) immigrants? Why would you want to use trade barriers to increase inequality?
        hwstar 11y ago
        Is should be slightly more expensive to bring in immigrants because one of the governments missions voters expect is to ensure that there is a job market where there are good well-paying jobs, not a market where it is flooded with immigrants that have driven down wages. Having American citizens and green card holders idled or having to work in a lower paying job is not a true free market because only the employers are benefiting. Once the domestic pool of potential employers has dried up, then employers will bring in the slightly more expensive foreign labor.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Why is it the government's mission to harm Indians, harm consumers of software services, and benefit sellers of software services? Again, why is creating more inequality, harming the poor, and harming consumers via rent seeking a good thing?
        blfr 11y ago
        The idealised government's role has always been acting in the interest of its citizens. More importantly though: how is not letting Indians into the US harming them? Are Indians incapable of creating a US-like environment in their own country? If so, that's an argument to keep them out. If not, why wouldn't they do just that instead of moving half-way around the world?
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Why don't we pass laws saying it's illegal to move out of Flint, MI. Would such a law harm the people living there who might like to move? Black Americans in Flint seem incapable of creating a NYC-like environment in their own city. Is that an argument to prevent them from moving to NY? And none of this explains why American consumers should pay extra. Apparently Indian humans count for less than 3/5, but don't American consumers count as full humans? Why should labor sellers be privileged over consumers?
- serge2k 11y ago
  and? They aren't indentured servants.
  - URSpider94 11y ago
    The issue is that companies won't take on the risk and hassle of sponsoring a visa. Employees will arbitrage this by taking any job they can get until they can get sponsored, then leave. It's not necessarily about pay, it's about wanting to work for a big name like Google. I think the best solution, as others have suggested, is that the new employer has to buy out the visa costs. This is the deal I made when my employer paid to relocate me to the Bay Area -- if I left in the first two years, I would have had to repay my moving costs.
- olalonde 11y ago
  They can also jump ship to a startup after a big company like Google went through the hassle of lawyers/visa fees/govt fees, etc.
- dj_doh 11y ago
  Sizeable number of visa interviews sponsored by startups are rejected at the consulate. They find it very difficult to differentiate an authentic startup from a phony body shop.
joe_the_user 11y ago
Good response. And of course the objections to your idea highlight the point that hb1s have generally not been about finding people with unique skills but rather about getting cheap labor on a tight leash.

I agree, and these people should be offered a green card as soon as they start with the employer.

by hwstar 11y ago

I agree, and these people should be offered a green card as soon as they start with the employer.

Put the corporations in charge of immigration? H1B a program is for special access for tech firms to nonresident alien guest workers.

dominotw 11y ago

>should be offered a green card as soon as they start with the employer. they can jump ship to a big company like google after your small startup went through the hassle of lawyers/visa fees/ govt fees ect.

hwstar 11y ago
Maybe you should have paid them as much as what they would make at Google then. Having to compete on salary,benefits, and working environment is the true meaning of an open and free market, not a rigged market as the current H-1B system is.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- yummyfajitas 11y ago
  Then whoever poaches them can just offer salary + cost of getting the visa. It's always cheaper to freeload off the guy who paid for the visa. The right solution is that if google or whoever hires an H1B 1 year into a 3 year visa, they need to pay for 2/3 of the cost of the visa.
  - hwstar 11y ago
    Google in a hypothetical case would then offer a lower salary to cover the visa cost, and/or deem it too much trouble to bring the H-1B on board. This leaves the H-1B worker operating in a suboptimal market. The issue of visa fees does not confront the H-1B employee, only the employer which sponsored them in the first place. Besides it should cost slighly more to bring in an H-1B than current parket rates. Maybe then more natives would be hired.
    - yummyfajitas 11y ago
      Why would it be beneficial if more (extremely wealthy) natives were hired rather than (extremely poor) immigrants? Why would you want to use trade barriers to increase inequality?
      - hwstar 11y ago
        Is should be slightly more expensive to bring in immigrants because one of the governments missions voters expect is to ensure that there is a job market where there are good well-paying jobs, not a market where it is flooded with immigrants that have driven down wages. Having American citizens and green card holders idled or having to work in a lower paying job is not a true free market because only the employers are benefiting. Once the domestic pool of potential employers has dried up, then employers will bring in the slightly more expensive foreign labor.
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Why is it the government's mission to harm Indians, harm consumers of software services, and benefit sellers of software services? Again, why is creating more inequality, harming the poor, and harming consumers via rent seeking a good thing?
        blfr 11y ago
        The idealised government's role has always been acting in the interest of its citizens. More importantly though: how is not letting Indians into the US harming them? Are Indians incapable of creating a US-like environment in their own country? If so, that's an argument to keep them out. If not, why wouldn't they do just that instead of moving half-way around the world?
        yummyfajitas 11y ago
        Why don't we pass laws saying it's illegal to move out of Flint, MI. Would such a law harm the people living there who might like to move? Black Americans in Flint seem incapable of creating a NYC-like environment in their own city. Is that an argument to prevent them from moving to NY? And none of this explains why American consumers should pay extra. Apparently Indian humans count for less than 3/5, but don't American consumers count as full humans? Why should labor sellers be privileged over consumers?
serge2k 11y ago
and? They aren't indentured servants.
- URSpider94 11y ago
  The issue is that companies won't take on the risk and hassle of sponsoring a visa. Employees will arbitrage this by taking any job they can get until they can get sponsored, then leave. It's not necessarily about pay, it's about wanting to work for a big name like Google. I think the best solution, as others have suggested, is that the new employer has to buy out the visa costs. This is the deal I made when my employer paid to relocate me to the Bay Area -- if I left in the first two years, I would have had to repay my moving costs.
olalonde 11y ago
They can also jump ship to a startup after a big company like Google went through the hassle of lawyers/visa fees/govt fees, etc.
dj_doh 11y ago
Sizeable number of visa interviews sponsored by startups are rejected at the consulate. They find it very difficult to differentiate an authentic startup from a phony body shop.

joe_the_user 11y ago

Good response. And of course the objections to your idea highlight the point that hb1s have generally not been about finding people with unique skills but rather about getting cheap labor on a tight leash.