6 ms·

The points I've seen and agree with for an argument against an auction is: - It is a tacit acceptance of the falsehood that there is a skills shortage. - It u

The points I've seen and agree with for an argument against an auction is: - It is a tacit acceptance of the falsehood that there is a skills shortage. - It ultimately relies on scarcity of visas. There will be a number of visas to auction off and this number will become a political football that is tweaked and tweaked until it is meaningless. What is the point of an auction if there are a million visas being auctioned off? - It does not address the corporate/education institution partnership loophole. Ultimately if they are the best and brightest the visas should be given to the employee not the employer and, if the employee wants, they should be put on a fast track to a green card as soon as they start (6 mo-1 year)

koolba 10y ago
> It is a tacit acceptance of the falsehood that there is a skills shortage. The entire premise of the H1-B program is that there is a skills shortage. It's not specific to IT, it can be used for any field where you cannot find local talent. > It ultimately relies on scarcity of visas. There will be a number of visas to auction off and this number will become a political football that is tweaked and tweaked until it is meaningless. What is the point of an auction if there are a million visas being auctioned off? There's already a number of visas auctioned off. I don't see how the number is any more or less political if it changes to an auction based on salary. > It does not address the corporate/education institution partnership loophole. I don't know what you're referring to here. Please explain. > Ultimately if they are the best and brightest the visas should be given to the employee not the employer and, if the employee wants, they should be put on a fast track to a green card as soon as they start (6 mo-1 year) The visa already goes to the employee, not the employer. H1-B visa holders can move jobs if the new company is willing to take over the H1-B sponsorship (I think it's just a bunch of paperwork).
- dragonwriter 10y ago
  > The entire premise of the H1-B program is that there is a skills shortage And it's a bad program even if that was true, since at best it's a band aid that papers over short-term symptoms without addressing underlying problems, and since it is perennially used in the same industries for the same types of jobs, it's clear that if it is addressing a skills shortage, it's not a transitory, short-term problem for which a short-term patch to cover up symptoms is the appropriate response. Either no one involved in making policy has noticed this, or "skills shortage" isn't the actual reason for the policy.

koolba 10y ago

> It is a tacit acceptance of the falsehood that there is a skills shortage. The entire premise of the H1-B program is that there is a skills shortage. It's not specific to IT, it can be used for any field where you cannot find local talent. > It ultimately relies on scarcity of visas. There will be a number of visas to auction off and this number will become a political football that is tweaked and tweaked until it is meaningless. What is the point of an auction if there are a million visas being auctioned off? There's already a number of visas auctioned off. I don't see how the number is any more or less political if it changes to an auction based on salary. > It does not address the corporate/education institution partnership loophole. I don't know what you're referring to here. Please explain. > Ultimately if they are the best and brightest the visas should be given to the employee not the employer and, if the employee wants, they should be put on a fast track to a green card as soon as they start (6 mo-1 year) The visa already goes to the employee, not the employer. H1-B visa holders can move jobs if the new company is willing to take over the H1-B sponsorship (I think it's just a bunch of paperwork).

dragonwriter 10y ago
> The entire premise of the H1-B program is that there is a skills shortage And it's a bad program even if that was true, since at best it's a band aid that papers over short-term symptoms without addressing underlying problems, and since it is perennially used in the same industries for the same types of jobs, it's clear that if it is addressing a skills shortage, it's not a transitory, short-term problem for which a short-term patch to cover up symptoms is the appropriate response. Either no one involved in making policy has noticed this, or "skills shortage" isn't the actual reason for the policy.