I think your argument is that the workers aren't available at any salary, and that you're communicating this sarcastically through the clearly false claim that

I think your argument is that the workers aren't available at any salary, and that you're communicating this sarcastically through the clearly false claim that if you raise salaries, the population of network engineers will magically increase overnight. Right, no. It does take a while. You can't make a network engineer right away. But putting aside "abiogenesis", it is as close to a well known fact as anything in labor markets that supply will rise in response to higher prices, and demand will fall, and that the market will eventually settle onto an equilibrium point. Certain events, like a new technical breakthrough or market shift that suddenly increases demand can lead to temporary "shortages", and it can take a while to get back to that equilibrium. In that case, it's tempting to interfere with a "short term" visa program. But this is how short-term fixes can make the long term problem even worse. Because we suppressed the rapid wage growth that tends to happen in a "shortage" in order to get back to equilibrium (in this case through employer controlled visas bestowed on workers who aren't allowed to participate in free labor markets) we more or less made assured a chronic shortage. Now, instead of gradual wage increases that occur along with an increase in demand, we have a gap. We'd need to raise salaries considerably, and then wait a while, in order to get back to the kind of labor market you'd see in the absence of highly coercive programs (where tech employees decide who is allowed to live in the US and what jobs they're allowed to work if they want to stay here). It's interesting, how the attempt to control labor markets often results in coercion at a human level (in this case, laws that severely curtail a large portion of the labor force's basic right to pursue a career in response to their own interests and abilities).