5 ms·

The economist proposes getting rid of the rule that requires H1B workers remain within the company that sponsors them That sounds reasonable, but why then requ

by geebee 10y ago

The economist proposes getting rid of the rule that requires H1B workers remain within the company that sponsors them That sounds reasonable, but why then require that a company sponsor an immigrant in the first place? Why not let that immigrant choose where he or she will work? In fact, why not let the immigrant choose what to study, where to work, where to live, all in response to market signals? People have posted various lists for the average H1-B salary at what they consider top companies, like Google. $130k. Is that the salary in mountain view? You know, I actually think that salary is somewhat low for what a talented and well educated person can earn in the Bay Area. Why force these people to get hired as developers? Why make them study what google says they should study, take interview exams on second year data structures and algorithms the way google says they should? Why on earth should google get to have this power, over anyone? Let's just have immigration. All immigrants arrive in the US free, free to choose what they will study, where they will work, how they will go about it. They can sell real estate, install drywall, write python code, write novels, paint portraits, or whatever they wish to pursue. Nobody owes them success, but in the US, they should have the freedom to pursue happiness as they define it. Not as Facebook defines it. If working as a dev in an open office so big it has a horizon line for a CEO who says things like "young people are just smarter" for $152m a year doesn't sound as appealing as the flexibility and stability of working as a dental hygienist for $110 a year (roughly the median salary in SF), then that's the market's answer. I still maintain this - any immigrant system that allows corporations to decide who gets to come here is flawed. Allowing immigrants to quit once they're here would be an improvement, but it still allows corporations to decide who does and doesn't get to come here.

steevenwee 10y ago
'I still maintain this - any immigrant system that allows corporations to decide who gets to come here is flawed.' Corporations ARE the workforce market, which should indicate what kind of workforce is needed. It can only go from employer to employee, not vice versa. You can also look at that from company's perspective: You not only paid for someone's visa but also went through all the paperwork and then the person leaves in a month, just because he got a bigger offer. This should somehow work in both directions.
- geebee 10y ago
  Wow, do I ever disagree with you. I'm not a market fundamentalist, but supply and demand are still relevant concepts here. The market would demand far more developers at $50,000 than the market would supply. It would be the opposite at $250,000 (maybe... there would still be a lot of demand at that level). If corporations can't hire on there terms and conditions they offer, they need to sweeten the pot. If I try to hire a top lawyer at 50k a year and a large open office, people will say "uh, you need to offer more money and a better office." They don't say "oh, there's a shortage of lawyers, so clearly you need to have the power to bestow US residency and worker rights, and remain in control of them, to coerce an immigrant into taking that job"! As for the company's perspective, honestly, I couldn't care one whit. If you can't offer competitive wages and working conditions, that means the worker has found a higher value role somewhere else. Why on early would I, or anyone really, have any interest in helping a corporation force an individual to remain in a lower value job? It's a basic human rights issue as far as I'm concerned, but you know, there's a reason human freedom and generally free markets often go together. No, I'm not a market fundamentalist, but the freedom choose where and how you will work seems pretty basic to me.
  - steevenwee 10y ago
    Wasn't disagreeing with that, just looking at reality. This visa was meant for corporations to be able to get the talent they're unable to find in the US. Not for opening US workforce market for the entire world. Thus it is one-sided. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the US on a work visa and would be happy to have jobs market completely open for me.
ticviking 10y ago
>That sounds reasonable, but why then require that a company sponsor an immigrant in the first place? The point seems to be to let immigrants punish punitive or abusive situations themselves.
throwaway100217 10y ago
There is no rule that stops an H1B from transferring to another company. It is a two way "at-will" law that supersedes any employment agreement.
- learc83 10y ago
  No, but if they are in certain stages of applying for a green card, their application resets.
alexmingoia 10y ago
This is the moral, practical, and efficient solution. It's disheartening to see so many smart people blame H1B immigration for "harming" the tech econonomy, when the tech industry has comparatively high salaries and low unemployment. The amount of vitriol towards people trying to get by in life is unwarranted.
- geebee 10y ago
  It really is unwarranted. Every now and then I like to take the opportunity to say this as well, since I am very critical of the H1B program. The US doesn't have a good immigration system, and if you don't have family reunification or a few other avenues, there isn't much left for you, even as a skilled worker. We don't have a "I'm a skilled and decent person, I'd contribute a lot, and I'd like to live and work in the US" program. Yeah, I completely get it. This is the only game in town for some really good people. No way would I blame someone using this path, considering their limited options. The nice thing that I really believe that we can solve this problem by expanding personal freedom and limiting corporate power over people's lives. The sad thing is, that's probably why it hasn't happened and continues to not happen.
runT1ME 10y ago
One, salary is not total compensation. Two, if an H1B can job hop, you have to include a nice carrot along with the sponsorship to keep them around (vesting RSU, vesting profit share %, tiered bonuses etc). Let the free market work.
mavelikara 10y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1bHpPvSuE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1bHpPvSuE ^^ Rahul Reddy, an immigration attorney, discussing with a group of "body shop" owners how immigration reform allowing free movement of people on H-1B can be bad for business and what can be done to lobby against it.

by geebee 10y ago

steevenwee 10y ago

'I still maintain this - any immigrant system that allows corporations to decide who gets to come here is flawed.' Corporations ARE the workforce market, which should indicate what kind of workforce is needed. It can only go from employer to employee, not vice versa. You can also look at that from company's perspective: You not only paid for someone's visa but also went through all the paperwork and then the person leaves in a month, just because he got a bigger offer. This should somehow work in both directions.

geebee 10y ago
Wow, do I ever disagree with you. I'm not a market fundamentalist, but supply and demand are still relevant concepts here. The market would demand far more developers at $50,000 than the market would supply. It would be the opposite at $250,000 (maybe... there would still be a lot of demand at that level). If corporations can't hire on there terms and conditions they offer, they need to sweeten the pot. If I try to hire a top lawyer at 50k a year and a large open office, people will say "uh, you need to offer more money and a better office." They don't say "oh, there's a shortage of lawyers, so clearly you need to have the power to bestow US residency and worker rights, and remain in control of them, to coerce an immigrant into taking that job"! As for the company's perspective, honestly, I couldn't care one whit. If you can't offer competitive wages and working conditions, that means the worker has found a higher value role somewhere else. Why on early would I, or anyone really, have any interest in helping a corporation force an individual to remain in a lower value job? It's a basic human rights issue as far as I'm concerned, but you know, there's a reason human freedom and generally free markets often go together. No, I'm not a market fundamentalist, but the freedom choose where and how you will work seems pretty basic to me.
- steevenwee 10y ago
  Wasn't disagreeing with that, just looking at reality. This visa was meant for corporations to be able to get the talent they're unable to find in the US. Not for opening US workforce market for the entire world. Thus it is one-sided. Don't get me wrong, I'm in the US on a work visa and would be happy to have jobs market completely open for me.

ticviking 10y ago

>That sounds reasonable, but why then require that a company sponsor an immigrant in the first place? The point seems to be to let immigrants punish punitive or abusive situations themselves.

throwaway100217 10y ago

There is no rule that stops an H1B from transferring to another company. It is a two way "at-will" law that supersedes any employment agreement.

learc83 10y ago
No, but if they are in certain stages of applying for a green card, their application resets.

alexmingoia 10y ago

This is the moral, practical, and efficient solution. It's disheartening to see so many smart people blame H1B immigration for "harming" the tech econonomy, when the tech industry has comparatively high salaries and low unemployment. The amount of vitriol towards people trying to get by in life is unwarranted.

geebee 10y ago
It really is unwarranted. Every now and then I like to take the opportunity to say this as well, since I am very critical of the H1B program. The US doesn't have a good immigration system, and if you don't have family reunification or a few other avenues, there isn't much left for you, even as a skilled worker. We don't have a "I'm a skilled and decent person, I'd contribute a lot, and I'd like to live and work in the US" program. Yeah, I completely get it. This is the only game in town for some really good people. No way would I blame someone using this path, considering their limited options. The nice thing that I really believe that we can solve this problem by expanding personal freedom and limiting corporate power over people's lives. The sad thing is, that's probably why it hasn't happened and continues to not happen.

runT1ME 10y ago

One, salary is not total compensation. Two, if an H1B can job hop, you have to include a nice carrot along with the sponsorship to keep them around (vesting RSU, vesting profit share %, tiered bonuses etc). Let the free market work.

mavelikara 10y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1bHpPvSuE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1bHpPvSuE ^^ Rahul Reddy, an immigration attorney, discussing with a group of "body shop" owners how immigration reform allowing free movement of people on H-1B can be bad for business and what can be done to lobby against it.