3 ms·

I agree. I can think of two proposals which are both superior to the current system. A) Get the rid of the H1B cap, and set the minimum income requirement to $

by whack 10y ago

I agree. I can think of two proposals which are both superior to the current system. A) Get the rid of the H1B cap, and set the minimum income requirement to $100k/year. If you're smart enough and talented enough that someone is willing to pay you 6 figures, you would be an asset to this country and there will always be room for you here. B) Keep the H1B cap, and auction off the visas using annual salaries. If there are more applicants than visas, the people who get paid the most will get the visa. I won't pretend that either proposal is perfect, but it's sure better than the current broken system.

didibus 10y ago
I think for A, you'd have to still normalize and keep reviewing the threshold yearly. 100k is junior salary for SDE in SF for example. B has the normalization problem full blown. I'm thinking all we could do is cap outsourcing companies. If you don't plan on having the employee work on your own products, then you're limited to a smaller number of foreign hires a year.
- whack 10y ago
  > "you'd have to still normalize and keep reviewing the threshold yearly. 100k is junior salary for SDE in SF for example." I agree about reviewing the threshold yearly, and indexing for inflation. Why normalize for region though? Why should companies in SF be penalized by the visa system just because they pay high salaries? I stand by my earlier assertion that anyone whom a company deems valuable enough to pay six figures, is valuable enough to be an asset to this nation.
  - didibus 10y ago
    > Why should companies in SF be penalized by the visa system just because they pay high salaries? Well 100k in SF is not equal to exceptional talent. So for 100k, you'd bring engineers who don't fit your definition of "deserving to be here". While 100k in say Nashville, well that's definitly going to be someone exceptional if a Nashville company is willing to spend it on them. So in SF, to infer that the candidate truly merits to be here, he needs to be expanssive to those companies, and 100k in SF is not.
    - whack 10y ago
      I think the key factor isn't "how valuable is she to the company", but rather, "how valuable is she to the economy". There's a significant difference between the 2. Someone who is slightly important to Google, is still a lot more valuable to the national economy, compared to someone who is very important to {random_mediocre_business}.
      - didibus 10y ago
        I thought this was about giving Americans a chance at those jobs. If the focus is the economy, we probably want to allow even more foreign workers. What is the issue with the H1-B visa in terms of the economy?
nomercy400 10y ago
For A, isn't it a risk that only certain areas of the country will get the ability to acquire talent from abroad? Or that only rich companies can afford this, and have a better chance? For B, you really want to give your highly paid jobs to foreign workers, who can easily leave the country with all that money? Once again, the richer the company, the better the chance.

by whack 10y ago

didibus 10y ago

I think for A, you'd have to still normalize and keep reviewing the threshold yearly. 100k is junior salary for SDE in SF for example. B has the normalization problem full blown. I'm thinking all we could do is cap outsourcing companies. If you don't plan on having the employee work on your own products, then you're limited to a smaller number of foreign hires a year.

whack 10y ago
> "you'd have to still normalize and keep reviewing the threshold yearly. 100k is junior salary for SDE in SF for example." I agree about reviewing the threshold yearly, and indexing for inflation. Why normalize for region though? Why should companies in SF be penalized by the visa system just because they pay high salaries? I stand by my earlier assertion that anyone whom a company deems valuable enough to pay six figures, is valuable enough to be an asset to this nation.
- didibus 10y ago
  > Why should companies in SF be penalized by the visa system just because they pay high salaries? Well 100k in SF is not equal to exceptional talent. So for 100k, you'd bring engineers who don't fit your definition of "deserving to be here". While 100k in say Nashville, well that's definitly going to be someone exceptional if a Nashville company is willing to spend it on them. So in SF, to infer that the candidate truly merits to be here, he needs to be expanssive to those companies, and 100k in SF is not.
  - whack 10y ago
    I think the key factor isn't "how valuable is she to the company", but rather, "how valuable is she to the economy". There's a significant difference between the 2. Someone who is slightly important to Google, is still a lot more valuable to the national economy, compared to someone who is very important to {random_mediocre_business}.
    - didibus 10y ago
      I thought this was about giving Americans a chance at those jobs. If the focus is the economy, we probably want to allow even more foreign workers. What is the issue with the H1-B visa in terms of the economy?

nomercy400 10y ago

For A, isn't it a risk that only certain areas of the country will get the ability to acquire talent from abroad? Or that only rich companies can afford this, and have a better chance? For B, you really want to give your highly paid jobs to foreign workers, who can easily leave the country with all that money? Once again, the richer the company, the better the chance.