5 ms·

I'm not sure I understand your comment. It is not obvious to my why you think that we underpay. Can you help me understand by elaborating? We just end up hirin

by vostok 10y ago

I'm not sure I understand your comment. It is not obvious to my why you think that we underpay. Can you help me understand by elaborating? We just end up hiring people who already have some form of work authorization instead of sponsoring new H1Bs. The current system for sponsoring new H1Bs is dominated by large companies. The lottery system means that we do not even attempt to sponsor new H1Bs. An auction system would mean that our small company would probably get approved H1Bs because, as I mentioned, our pay is competitive with the best paying large companies and higher than the majority of large companies.

pm90 10y ago
I think he is referring to citizen hires. i.e. offer more money for the job and US citizens with the right qualifications will magically appear at your door. It is a rather simplistic view of how the labor market works, but some people can't seem to not think this way.
- vostok 10y ago
  I mean right now we hire people who already have work authorization. Right now we can't sponsor a foreign new grad who goes to Cambridge and has an IMO gold medal because their H1B has a high probability of not being approved. We'll lose time interviewing and we'll probably lose other candidates while we wait. If H1Bs were allocated by pay then our H1B would probably get approved because we're really desperate to make those hires. Instead those visas go to megacorps who are not as desperate as we are. How do I know that they are not as desperate? They pay less. We are so desperate to make these hires that we are opening an office in a jurisdiction with friendlier immigration laws. This is extremely expensive in terms of direct costs. I also think we lose out on ad-hoc communication by not having everyone in the same office. The net effect is that the US loses out on a ton of tax revenue. Not only will the employees' personal taxes go to a different country, but taxes on some our profits will also shift to that country as the company will have to make transfer payments for the work done in the overseas office.

by vostok 10y ago

pm90 10y ago

I think he is referring to citizen hires. i.e. offer more money for the job and US citizens with the right qualifications will magically appear at your door. It is a rather simplistic view of how the labor market works, but some people can't seem to not think this way.

vostok 10y ago
I mean right now we hire people who already have work authorization. Right now we can't sponsor a foreign new grad who goes to Cambridge and has an IMO gold medal because their H1B has a high probability of not being approved. We'll lose time interviewing and we'll probably lose other candidates while we wait. If H1Bs were allocated by pay then our H1B would probably get approved because we're really desperate to make those hires. Instead those visas go to megacorps who are not as desperate as we are. How do I know that they are not as desperate? They pay less. We are so desperate to make these hires that we are opening an office in a jurisdiction with friendlier immigration laws. This is extremely expensive in terms of direct costs. I also think we lose out on ad-hoc communication by not having everyone in the same office. The net effect is that the US loses out on a ton of tax revenue. Not only will the employees' personal taxes go to a different country, but taxes on some our profits will also shift to that country as the company will have to make transfer payments for the work done in the overseas office.