4 ms·

>>In fact, I think a better way would be to give two 3-year temporary green cards. if at the end of 6th year if the person still has job, it becomes a permanent

>>In fact, I think a better way would be to give two 3-year temporary green cards. if at the end of 6th year if the person still has job, it becomes a permanent job. No, the entire reason companies get away with paying H1Bs below market rate is because the visa is tied to employment. It needs to be decoupled so that visa holders can freely and easily switch jobs without worrying about losing their status.

x0x0 8y ago
Or both? ie grant them to people being paid the highest wages first, and limit the h1b holder to mandatory 1 year employment with the sponsoring company then 5 years of free to switch at will. We'd still be willing to sponsor as we aren't keeping h1bs via the visa; we keep employees because they want to work here. The pain with sponsoring isn't the cost; it's the time and uncertainty. Sponsoring costs compare favorably to the standard 25% a contingency recruiter charges.
- enraged_camel 8y ago
  >> grant them to people being paid the highest wages first I'm against that because it would give FAANG a massive advantage, since they can afford to pay really high salaries compared to, say, a startup.
  - x0x0 8y ago
    average salary of h1b holder in bay area is $91k [1]. If startups can't beat that, they don't deserve employees. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/h-1b-visa-workers-earn-six-figure-salaries-2018-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/h-1b-visa-workers-earn-six-f...
    - enraged_camel 8y ago
      You seem to have not comprehended the parent poster's suggestion. He wants the highest salaries to be given precedence. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether startups can afford the average salary.
      - x0x0 8y ago
        My point -- communicated poorly -- is the average salaries h1b startup employees are being paid is quite low. There's lots of room for them to grow. Further, why shouldn't we allocate visas to the most valuable, ie highest paying, uses?
        enraged_camel 8y ago
        >>Further, why shouldn't we allocate visas to the most valuable, ie highest paying, uses? For this question to be valid, you first need to demonstrate that someone's value can accurately be determined by their salary and their salary only, and that any difference in salary between two people is the result of differences in the value they offer (as opposed to, say, being able to interview well, or knowing someone high up in the company).

x0x0 8y ago

Or both? ie grant them to people being paid the highest wages first, and limit the h1b holder to mandatory 1 year employment with the sponsoring company then 5 years of free to switch at will. We'd still be willing to sponsor as we aren't keeping h1bs via the visa; we keep employees because they want to work here. The pain with sponsoring isn't the cost; it's the time and uncertainty. Sponsoring costs compare favorably to the standard 25% a contingency recruiter charges.

enraged_camel 8y ago
>> grant them to people being paid the highest wages first I'm against that because it would give FAANG a massive advantage, since they can afford to pay really high salaries compared to, say, a startup.
- x0x0 8y ago
  average salary of h1b holder in bay area is $91k [1]. If startups can't beat that, they don't deserve employees. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/h-1b-visa-workers-earn-six-figure-salaries-2018-4 https://www.businessinsider.com/h-1b-visa-workers-earn-six-f...
  - enraged_camel 8y ago
    You seem to have not comprehended the parent poster's suggestion. He wants the highest salaries to be given precedence. This has nothing whatsoever to do with whether startups can afford the average salary.
    - x0x0 8y ago
      My point -- communicated poorly -- is the average salaries h1b startup employees are being paid is quite low. There's lots of room for them to grow. Further, why shouldn't we allocate visas to the most valuable, ie highest paying, uses?
      - enraged_camel 8y ago
        >>Further, why shouldn't we allocate visas to the most valuable, ie highest paying, uses? For this question to be valid, you first need to demonstrate that someone's value can accurately be determined by their salary and their salary only, and that any difference in salary between two people is the result of differences in the value they offer (as opposed to, say, being able to interview well, or knowing someone high up in the company).