9 ms·

That's completely not true - the programs goal is to bring in skills that are not available in the market. The fact that it's being used to reduce the cost of t

That's completely not true - the programs goal is to bring in skills that are not available in the market. The fact that it's being used to reduce the cost of the skills is arguably an unintended consequence (though my personal opinion is the lobby that helped make H1-B a reality fully intended this consequence). A much better use for these visas would be to bring in workers we need at competitive US salaries. There are plenty of positions that need filling that would still make sense to pay full market salary for. (Speaking from personal experience trying to find certain skill sets in LA.)

x0x0 10y ago
If you can't fill it, you are (almost by definition!) not paying market. Unless you claim there's no-one in LA or the US able to do the job.
- aianus 10y ago
  If I have some work that is profitable at a cost of labour of $100k/year and no American wants to work for less than $120k then I can either hire an H1B for $100k or abandon the project. It doesn't benefit anyone to have the latter outcome occur.
  - intrasight 10y ago
    Economists would disagree.
    - aianus 10y ago
      I don't think they do -- it's pretty basic economics that price fixing and/or supply shocks can result in smaller net economic output. For a thought experiment: imagine if the price of a haircut was fixed by law at $500 (or that 99% of barbers suddenly died and the price naturally surged to $500). Enough people would start cutting their own hair at home that the entire haircut GDP and employment of the nation would go down. Even though the lucky few who still have jobs have excellent wages and there is still a steady supply of haircuts to rich people willing to pay $500 a pop.
      - intrasight 10y ago
        There no "law" in the current context except the law of supply and demand.
        aianus 10y ago
        The relevant law is the one where you need a certain visa or a greencard to get a job in the US.
  - jlarocco 10y ago
    If the thing you're creating can't cover the costs of making it then it's not a good enough product and you should find something else to do. It sucks, but that's the way it works.
    - xerophyte12932 10y ago
      Or I could just find a way to lower my costs. Also, this applies to the skills of the employee. If your skills aren't good enough that people would pay top dollar for them, then you should find something else to do. it sucks, but that's the way it works.
      - closeparen 10y ago
        "The way it works" can be altered through legislation, as is happening here.
    - Const-me 10y ago
      In this century it doesn't work this way. Because now you can develop and even manufacture your product elsewhere. There’re places outside US where you can find top-notch people for less than $100k.
      - jlarocco 10y ago
        No, it still works this way, but society has put in place rules and regulations defining what is allowable and what isn't. Companies can cut costs by dumping waste in a river and burning garbage, too, but we don't let companies do that any more. If a company wants to operate in a country then they need to obey the laws of that country.
    - kalleboo 10y ago
      And instead let a Chinese company develop that next greatest thing
    - aianus 10y ago
      > It sucks, but that's the way it works. But in this case it doesn't suck for the rich management and shareholders (they'll manage just fine without doing the project at all) it mostly just sucks for the taxpayers who get less tax revenue, the community that has one fewer consumer, and the foreigner who has to stay put in his country working at something even less productive making $25k.
  - Trundle 10y ago
    The latter outcome benefits the employee who is elsewhere earning $100k+.
  - randomdata 10y ago
    If it is always better to move forward with a project with the cheapest labour available to fill the role, what purpose does the H1B system serve? Why not just grant entry to everyone who has a wanting employer without all the unnecessary hoops?
    - aianus 10y ago
      > what purpose does the H1B system serve I assume the purpose is to select only those who are going to be employed securely enough at a high enough salary that they're extremely unlikely to ever go on welfare or otherwise be a net burden on the US.
  - toast0 10y ago
    $100k plus legal fees (about $5k[1]), plus a super long wait between offer and start date. [1] https://www.hooyou.com/h-1b/attorneyfee.html https://www.hooyou.com/h-1b/attorneyfee.html
  - briandear 10y ago
    If I could sell a Mercedes at $20k, that would only be profitable if I could pay <$20k for the car. Mercedes and the economy are missing out because of the commerce not being transacted right? The idea that work that's profitable at $100k and not at $120k -- that means that the work isn't profitable if the market cost is $120. Everything is profitable if the cost of inputs is less than the sales price. It's an absurd argument. Essentially, your statement singlehandedly destroys minimum wage arguments. "If I could pay less, then I could be profitable, otherwise I am not profitable and thus won't hire anyone." But you are also admitting that the purpose of H1 isn't to fill shortages -- it's to fill shortages of people willing to work at a rate below what the market dictates. It's like the illegal immigrant advocates that claim that Americans don't want to pick fruit -- at $5 per hour, probably not. But at $15 per hour, suddenly there isn't a shortage. Except in rare cases, H1s are not used to fill actual shortages but to lower costs. A junior level Tata engineer isn't filling a shortage of skills, they're filling a shortage of engineers willing to work for $50k per year.
    - aianus 10y ago
      > Essentially, your statement singlehandedly destroys minimum wage arguments. "If I could pay less, then I could be profitable, otherwise I am not profitable and thus won't hire anyone." Yes, it does. Minimum wage laws are not good economics. We would be better served scrapping them and instituting a basic income to ensure a quality-of-life floor instead.
    - mmirate 10y ago
      > Essentially, your statement singlehandedly destroys minimum wage arguments. "If I could pay less, then I could be profitable, otherwise I am not profitable and thus won't hire anyone." Yes. That statement shows exactly why minimum wage is economically unsound in the long-term. e.g. why else would McDonald's feel the need to automate their cashiers?
- makomk 10y ago
  So long as there are more jobs than people with the skillset to fill them, that just shuffles the vacancies around - at least until some of the jobs move to another country. Which is probably not a good thing when, for example, the job is a specialised position required to keep a factory that used to employ a whole bunch of people up and running and the only way to move it is to shut that factory down and set up operations in a different country.
  - ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
    Wrong. The wage of that specialized position will increase, thus attracting more people into that specialized field.
sverige 10y ago
Well, that's my point. In theory, this program is intended to provide US employers with employees who have skill sets that they cannot find here. In practice, it's ludicrous to think that the vast US university system cannot produce employees with whatever skills are in demand, so workers must be imported from countries that have much smaller education complexes. The reality is that many US employers don't want to pay market rate for those skills. I would argue that this is especially true in tech. The same or similar forces are at play at the bottom end of the labor market, which is what has driven much of the illegal immigration through the southern border.
- herbst 10y ago
  Dont get me wrong. But to my understanding these visas would be used by a lot of people from countries with way better education systems. Hence the whole reason for this. Edit:// as example. Right now barely any swiss tech pros consider the U.S. as interesting destination. A lot of husstle for just minimal more pay.
  - sverige 10y ago
    I would prefer to live in Switzerland over Silicon Valley too. And a generation ago I might have argued that the US education system was as good or better than Switzerland's, but I can't make that argument now. But it's still better than most places, and certainly good enough to provide qualified workers.
  - hocuspocus 10y ago
    As a Swiss working abroad (in Berlin right now), it's not always about pay, two years ago I interviewed with a dozen of companies in the US because there are just so many more opportunities.
    - herbst 10y ago
      True that. But there are many options outside of the U.S. that are less complicated to reach. Like berlin, schengen makes it easy
randomdata 10y ago
> There are plenty of positions that need filling that would still make sense to pay full market salary for. If it made sense to pay market salary, why aren't they filled? Market price, after all, is a look back on the transaction once it has happened. The market salary is exactly what it took to get someone in that seat. Perhaps you mean it would make sense to pay below market salary, necessitating a change in the market (i.e. increase the supply of workers through foreign imports) to meet that lower price goal?

x0x0 10y ago

If you can't fill it, you are (almost by definition!) not paying market. Unless you claim there's no-one in LA or the US able to do the job.

aianus 10y ago
If I have some work that is profitable at a cost of labour of $100k/year and no American wants to work for less than $120k then I can either hire an H1B for $100k or abandon the project. It doesn't benefit anyone to have the latter outcome occur.
- intrasight 10y ago
  Economists would disagree.
  - aianus 10y ago
    I don't think they do -- it's pretty basic economics that price fixing and/or supply shocks can result in smaller net economic output. For a thought experiment: imagine if the price of a haircut was fixed by law at $500 (or that 99% of barbers suddenly died and the price naturally surged to $500). Enough people would start cutting their own hair at home that the entire haircut GDP and employment of the nation would go down. Even though the lucky few who still have jobs have excellent wages and there is still a steady supply of haircuts to rich people willing to pay $500 a pop.
    - intrasight 10y ago
      There no "law" in the current context except the law of supply and demand.
      - aianus 10y ago
        The relevant law is the one where you need a certain visa or a greencard to get a job in the US.
- jlarocco 10y ago
  If the thing you're creating can't cover the costs of making it then it's not a good enough product and you should find something else to do. It sucks, but that's the way it works.
  - xerophyte12932 10y ago
    Or I could just find a way to lower my costs. Also, this applies to the skills of the employee. If your skills aren't good enough that people would pay top dollar for them, then you should find something else to do. it sucks, but that's the way it works.
    - closeparen 10y ago
      "The way it works" can be altered through legislation, as is happening here.
  - Const-me 10y ago
    In this century it doesn't work this way. Because now you can develop and even manufacture your product elsewhere. There’re places outside US where you can find top-notch people for less than $100k.
    - jlarocco 10y ago
      No, it still works this way, but society has put in place rules and regulations defining what is allowable and what isn't. Companies can cut costs by dumping waste in a river and burning garbage, too, but we don't let companies do that any more. If a company wants to operate in a country then they need to obey the laws of that country.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    And instead let a Chinese company develop that next greatest thing
  - aianus 10y ago
    > It sucks, but that's the way it works. But in this case it doesn't suck for the rich management and shareholders (they'll manage just fine without doing the project at all) it mostly just sucks for the taxpayers who get less tax revenue, the community that has one fewer consumer, and the foreigner who has to stay put in his country working at something even less productive making $25k.
- Trundle 10y ago
  The latter outcome benefits the employee who is elsewhere earning $100k+.
- randomdata 10y ago
  If it is always better to move forward with a project with the cheapest labour available to fill the role, what purpose does the H1B system serve? Why not just grant entry to everyone who has a wanting employer without all the unnecessary hoops?
  - aianus 10y ago
    > what purpose does the H1B system serve I assume the purpose is to select only those who are going to be employed securely enough at a high enough salary that they're extremely unlikely to ever go on welfare or otherwise be a net burden on the US.
- toast0 10y ago
  $100k plus legal fees (about $5k[1]), plus a super long wait between offer and start date. [1] https://www.hooyou.com/h-1b/attorneyfee.html https://www.hooyou.com/h-1b/attorneyfee.html
- briandear 10y ago
  If I could sell a Mercedes at $20k, that would only be profitable if I could pay <$20k for the car. Mercedes and the economy are missing out because of the commerce not being transacted right? The idea that work that's profitable at $100k and not at $120k -- that means that the work isn't profitable if the market cost is $120. Everything is profitable if the cost of inputs is less than the sales price. It's an absurd argument. Essentially, your statement singlehandedly destroys minimum wage arguments. "If I could pay less, then I could be profitable, otherwise I am not profitable and thus won't hire anyone." But you are also admitting that the purpose of H1 isn't to fill shortages -- it's to fill shortages of people willing to work at a rate below what the market dictates. It's like the illegal immigrant advocates that claim that Americans don't want to pick fruit -- at $5 per hour, probably not. But at $15 per hour, suddenly there isn't a shortage. Except in rare cases, H1s are not used to fill actual shortages but to lower costs. A junior level Tata engineer isn't filling a shortage of skills, they're filling a shortage of engineers willing to work for $50k per year.
  - aianus 10y ago
    > Essentially, your statement singlehandedly destroys minimum wage arguments. "If I could pay less, then I could be profitable, otherwise I am not profitable and thus won't hire anyone." Yes, it does. Minimum wage laws are not good economics. We would be better served scrapping them and instituting a basic income to ensure a quality-of-life floor instead.
  - mmirate 10y ago
    > Essentially, your statement singlehandedly destroys minimum wage arguments. "If I could pay less, then I could be profitable, otherwise I am not profitable and thus won't hire anyone." Yes. That statement shows exactly why minimum wage is economically unsound in the long-term. e.g. why else would McDonald's feel the need to automate their cashiers?
makomk 10y ago
So long as there are more jobs than people with the skillset to fill them, that just shuffles the vacancies around - at least until some of the jobs move to another country. Which is probably not a good thing when, for example, the job is a specialised position required to keep a factory that used to employ a whole bunch of people up and running and the only way to move it is to shut that factory down and set up operations in a different country.
- ConfuciusSay02 10y ago
  Wrong. The wage of that specialized position will increase, thus attracting more people into that specialized field.

sverige 10y ago

Well, that's my point. In theory, this program is intended to provide US employers with employees who have skill sets that they cannot find here. In practice, it's ludicrous to think that the vast US university system cannot produce employees with whatever skills are in demand, so workers must be imported from countries that have much smaller education complexes. The reality is that many US employers don't want to pay market rate for those skills. I would argue that this is especially true in tech. The same or similar forces are at play at the bottom end of the labor market, which is what has driven much of the illegal immigration through the southern border.

herbst 10y ago
Dont get me wrong. But to my understanding these visas would be used by a lot of people from countries with way better education systems. Hence the whole reason for this. Edit:// as example. Right now barely any swiss tech pros consider the U.S. as interesting destination. A lot of husstle for just minimal more pay.
- sverige 10y ago
  I would prefer to live in Switzerland over Silicon Valley too. And a generation ago I might have argued that the US education system was as good or better than Switzerland's, but I can't make that argument now. But it's still better than most places, and certainly good enough to provide qualified workers.
- hocuspocus 10y ago
  As a Swiss working abroad (in Berlin right now), it's not always about pay, two years ago I interviewed with a dozen of companies in the US because there are just so many more opportunities.
  - herbst 10y ago
    True that. But there are many options outside of the U.S. that are less complicated to reach. Like berlin, schengen makes it easy

randomdata 10y ago

> There are plenty of positions that need filling that would still make sense to pay full market salary for. If it made sense to pay market salary, why aren't they filled? Market price, after all, is a look back on the transaction once it has happened. The market salary is exactly what it took to get someone in that seat. Perhaps you mean it would make sense to pay below market salary, necessitating a change in the market (i.e. increase the supply of workers through foreign imports) to meet that lower price goal?