3 ms·

The changes described in the article do not change your hypothetical whatsoever.

908B64B197 6y ago
It does indirectly. Hiring for the later will hopefully cease to be cost effective. But the former should still be worth it.
- ianmobbs 6y ago
  Why do you care whether or not it's cost effective to hire a foreign UI tester? That has zero correlation with whether or not its cost effective to hire someone with experience at CERN. Your hypothetical lists 2 different profiles that would be hired for vastly different jobs, and it seems like you only care that one of them is fucked over - is it just a strawman for racism? Can you point to any actual examples of CERN interns being passed over in favor of foreign UI testers?
  - username90 6y ago
    > Can you point to any actual examples of CERN interns being passed over in favor of foreign UI testers? They both compete for the same H1B visas so it has happened a lot of times. The H1B at Tata getting 70k a year took a spot from a software engineer at Google earning more than twice that. That is how lotteries work. Raising the wage requirement will mean that the actual talent will have better chance to get in. And yes, a lot of Googles new engineers comes from India, that is a good thing, the bad thing is companies like Tata abusing the system to get low paid labor into US.
    - dyslexit 6y ago
      > Raising the wage requirement will mean that the actual talent will have better chance to get in. How does this follow?
      - username90 6y ago
        Lets simplify and say we have 1 spot and 2 applicants. Mediocre engineer with a sponsored job for 70k. Great engineer with a sponsored job for 140k. With no salary requirement both has equal chance to get in, meaning the great engineer has 50% chance to get lose the position. With salary requirement at 100k the mediocre engineer will no longer get sponsored leaving the great engineer as the only applicant left and thus guaranteeing that he get in. Edit: With the old requirements bringing in mediocre engineers was still profitable, with the new requirements it wont be since the salary cap is set at a very high percentile.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    There is one H1B lottery, so the two DO compete in the same lottery. And yes, I've absolutely seen excellent colleagues making north of $200K leave the country because they didn't get an H1B visa.
- sequoia 6y ago
  That’s the point, and the intended effect. They don’t want you to look overseas for the manual UI tester or whatever, they’re saying “that’s not skilled enough to warrant granting a visa based on a claim you can’t find someone in the US to do this job.”

It does indirectly. Hiring for the later will hopefully cease to be cost effective. But the former should still be worth it.

ianmobbs 6y ago
Why do you care whether or not it's cost effective to hire a foreign UI tester? That has zero correlation with whether or not its cost effective to hire someone with experience at CERN. Your hypothetical lists 2 different profiles that would be hired for vastly different jobs, and it seems like you only care that one of them is fucked over - is it just a strawman for racism? Can you point to any actual examples of CERN interns being passed over in favor of foreign UI testers?
- username90 6y ago
  > Can you point to any actual examples of CERN interns being passed over in favor of foreign UI testers? They both compete for the same H1B visas so it has happened a lot of times. The H1B at Tata getting 70k a year took a spot from a software engineer at Google earning more than twice that. That is how lotteries work. Raising the wage requirement will mean that the actual talent will have better chance to get in. And yes, a lot of Googles new engineers comes from India, that is a good thing, the bad thing is companies like Tata abusing the system to get low paid labor into US.
  - dyslexit 6y ago
    > Raising the wage requirement will mean that the actual talent will have better chance to get in. How does this follow?
    - username90 6y ago
      Lets simplify and say we have 1 spot and 2 applicants. Mediocre engineer with a sponsored job for 70k. Great engineer with a sponsored job for 140k. With no salary requirement both has equal chance to get in, meaning the great engineer has 50% chance to get lose the position. With salary requirement at 100k the mediocre engineer will no longer get sponsored leaving the great engineer as the only applicant left and thus guaranteeing that he get in. Edit: With the old requirements bringing in mediocre engineers was still profitable, with the new requirements it wont be since the salary cap is set at a very high percentile.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  There is one H1B lottery, so the two DO compete in the same lottery. And yes, I've absolutely seen excellent colleagues making north of $200K leave the country because they didn't get an H1B visa.
sequoia 6y ago
That’s the point, and the intended effect. They don’t want you to look overseas for the manual UI tester or whatever, they’re saying “that’s not skilled enough to warrant granting a visa based on a claim you can’t find someone in the US to do this job.”