4 ms·

> The obvious way to make H1B work for the high end software engineers is to approve applicants based on highest paid applicant first, instead of via a random l

> The obvious way to make H1B work for the high end software engineers is to approve applicants based on highest paid applicant first, instead of via a random lottery. This would grant a massive advantage to companies like Google and Facebook over smaller companies, and more generally to geographic locales and parts of the industry with higher pay. In terms of economic and competitive impact for those companies and for Silicon Valley, it's hard to think of anything that could have greater impact. They already have an inherent advantage when it comes to hiring due to their financial firepower.

kcorbitt 9y ago
...and that financial firepower, and resulting ability to outbid everybody else, comes because they're using their workers more productively than anybody else. Successful companies should be able to command the best, most scarce resources -- that's just efficient asset allocation, and is the entire point of the free market.
- jldugger 9y ago
  Well, it's not entirely efficient allocation, if you take the daring leap to assume that rents in certain areas are not totally subject to free market forces. I know a number of people who suggest they take home more by working in the Midwest metros than they would in equivalent jobs in the West Coast hubs. It's possible that living in a high cost West Coast metro area is itself some sort of benefit, or at least better in ways we can't deduce by salary means alone. One alternative would be to keep the existing lottery system, and simply allow visa holders more latitude to switch employers. At which point any firms flooding the lottery with underpaid and underqualified applicants would see themselves out the door.
  - legolas2412 9y ago
    Well, that solves the issue of worker exploitation. But it won't address the America first arguments, neither the rampant abuse by service companies. If TCS sees attrition rates go from 1% to 40%. Wouldn't they just put 66% more applications (40% of 166 = 66). There is no disincentive to not flood the visas. Also, if candidates are underqualified, they aren't going to switch at all. There is no reason to keep lottery system at all, maybe normalize by geographical location, years of experience and field of work. But it is absolutely insane to put it down to lottery and incentivize companies to flood applications. As a personal example, I am a PhD student on a F1, but I'd prefer other countries than the uncertainty of H1B and then painful decades long GC application. Further, there aren't as many jobs for PhDs. If I was a bachelors degree holder though, I'd have a ton more candidate employers to make the risk palatable.
- aanm1988 9y ago
  > comes because they're using their workers more productively than anybody else I'd actually argue that google especially is absolutely not the case. How many skilled people do they have stuck in bullshit jobs? They get away with it because they shove money and the google reputation in peoples faces all day long.
  - jaredklewis 9y ago
    It's a reasonable qualitative analysis, but quantitatively Google is able to earn far more per employee than most other businesses. Google has ~70k employees and ~6 billion in revenue per quarter. Google is objectively more efficient, as reflected by their profits.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
fredophile 9y ago
Massive companies already have an advantage when it comes to H1Bs. Because of the lottery system most H1B applicants will be rejected. If you have a small company and only need to hire 1-2 people how do you fill those positions with H1Bs? Apply for 2 and hope they both get it? What if they're both rejected? Even if they're accepted you have to have the applications done in the spring and they can't start work until the fall. Can a small company really afford to wait that long? Your argument about the higher pay in certain areas is just wrong. Why can't a company in a lower cost of living area pay Silicon Valley rates? I'm getting paid more now in North Carolina than I was when I worked in Silicon Valley.

kcorbitt 9y ago

...and that financial firepower, and resulting ability to outbid everybody else, comes because they're using their workers more productively than anybody else. Successful companies should be able to command the best, most scarce resources -- that's just efficient asset allocation, and is the entire point of the free market.

jldugger 9y ago
Well, it's not entirely efficient allocation, if you take the daring leap to assume that rents in certain areas are not totally subject to free market forces. I know a number of people who suggest they take home more by working in the Midwest metros than they would in equivalent jobs in the West Coast hubs. It's possible that living in a high cost West Coast metro area is itself some sort of benefit, or at least better in ways we can't deduce by salary means alone. One alternative would be to keep the existing lottery system, and simply allow visa holders more latitude to switch employers. At which point any firms flooding the lottery with underpaid and underqualified applicants would see themselves out the door.
- legolas2412 9y ago
  Well, that solves the issue of worker exploitation. But it won't address the America first arguments, neither the rampant abuse by service companies. If TCS sees attrition rates go from 1% to 40%. Wouldn't they just put 66% more applications (40% of 166 = 66). There is no disincentive to not flood the visas. Also, if candidates are underqualified, they aren't going to switch at all. There is no reason to keep lottery system at all, maybe normalize by geographical location, years of experience and field of work. But it is absolutely insane to put it down to lottery and incentivize companies to flood applications. As a personal example, I am a PhD student on a F1, but I'd prefer other countries than the uncertainty of H1B and then painful decades long GC application. Further, there aren't as many jobs for PhDs. If I was a bachelors degree holder though, I'd have a ton more candidate employers to make the risk palatable.
aanm1988 9y ago
> comes because they're using their workers more productively than anybody else I'd actually argue that google especially is absolutely not the case. How many skilled people do they have stuck in bullshit jobs? They get away with it because they shove money and the google reputation in peoples faces all day long.
- jaredklewis 9y ago
  It's a reasonable qualitative analysis, but quantitatively Google is able to earn far more per employee than most other businesses. Google has ~70k employees and ~6 billion in revenue per quarter. Google is objectively more efficient, as reflected by their profits.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

fredophile 9y ago

Massive companies already have an advantage when it comes to H1Bs. Because of the lottery system most H1B applicants will be rejected. If you have a small company and only need to hire 1-2 people how do you fill those positions with H1Bs? Apply for 2 and hope they both get it? What if they're both rejected? Even if they're accepted you have to have the applications done in the spring and they can't start work until the fall. Can a small company really afford to wait that long? Your argument about the higher pay in certain areas is just wrong. Why can't a company in a lower cost of living area pay Silicon Valley rates? I'm getting paid more now in North Carolina than I was when I worked in Silicon Valley.