5 ms·

This means discouraging immigration correct?

m463 6y ago
could it mean lowering salaries across the board? downvoted, hmm.. I'm just wondering what's going to give. maybe department budgets will just go up?
nrmitchi 6y ago
It means discouraging employers using an H1-B when they haven't actually looked at hiring locally, or using an H1-B to hire "cheap" labor because the employee has no leverage and can't really quit as easily as a US employee. I'm not saying that I agree with "discouraging immigration", I'm stating the likely purpose of this change.
- nsonha 6y ago
  What is wrong with hiring cheap labour again? Could it be that company should fix their hiring practices and produce higher quality product, instead of the state making laws that equate "cheap" with "low quality"? So the gov should tell companies how to use their money now?
  - pandaman 6y ago
    There is nothing wrong with hiring cheap labor and everyone is free to do it without applying for an H-1B visa. However, the H-1B law had passed specifically with assurances that it won't be used to hire foreign cheap labor and this is why the law specifies DOL certification ensuring that the H-1B workers are not hired at cut-rate. If you don't like it then nobody forces you to apply for H-1B.
    - nsonha 6y ago
      I'm not applying to any visa thank you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. The work visa was clearly created for America's economic interests, but now it's about not hiring cheap labor somehow? As if cheap labor is principally damaging to America? I'd like to see the evidence. Why would a law be passed with those oddly specific assurances if not that some people think cheap labor is bad?
      - pandaman 6y ago
        Sorry, your argument does not make sense to me. If I understood correctly you assert that if importation of cheap labor via H-1B program is prohibited by law then it means all cheap labor is bad from the POV of the law authors. I believe if you thought more than 15 seconds you could have found some logical faults with this.
        nsonha 6y ago
        Why would foreign cheap labour be bad? And local cheap labour is OK? An foreign "not cheap" labour is also OK? It seems to imply foreign or cheap is bad, the combo doubly so, to the degree that it needs to be restricted.
        pandaman 6y ago
        The most obvious reason I see is that foreign labor cannot vote while domestic can. Since both compete for the same jobs the politician supporting foreign labor is risking losing votes. The more expensive is the labor the less votes it represents and politicians can get away with supporting "highly specialized" foreign labor as the money they get from employers of that labor outweigh the votes they lose from the domestic highly specialized workers displaced by the foreigners.
CyberRabbi 6y ago
Discouraging H1B abuse, which has run rampant if you look at what larger corporations have been doing recently and for the past few decades. H1Bs should not be used to enable firing someone because someone from another country is willing to do the job for much less. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490610/this-it-worker-had-to-train-an-h-1b-replacement.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490610/this-it-worker...
analog31 6y ago
It may just mean that tying immigration to employment invites abuse. If one wants to support immigration per se, it would be better to just bring in X number of people per year by whatever criteria you want (could even be skills or education based, who knows), and then give them total economic freedom within the US.
dragonwriter 6y ago
That's the broader Trump Administration policy it's part of, yes, but this could potentially be one of the more lasting components should Trump be replaced, because it's eminently sensible if you accept that the basic overt purpose of the H-1B is good and the basic structure of the H-1B is a good way of serving that purpose.

m463 6y ago

could it mean lowering salaries across the board? downvoted, hmm.. I'm just wondering what's going to give. maybe department budgets will just go up?

nrmitchi 6y ago

It means discouraging employers using an H1-B when they haven't actually looked at hiring locally, or using an H1-B to hire "cheap" labor because the employee has no leverage and can't really quit as easily as a US employee. I'm not saying that I agree with "discouraging immigration", I'm stating the likely purpose of this change.

nsonha 6y ago
What is wrong with hiring cheap labour again? Could it be that company should fix their hiring practices and produce higher quality product, instead of the state making laws that equate "cheap" with "low quality"? So the gov should tell companies how to use their money now?
- pandaman 6y ago
  There is nothing wrong with hiring cheap labor and everyone is free to do it without applying for an H-1B visa. However, the H-1B law had passed specifically with assurances that it won't be used to hire foreign cheap labor and this is why the law specifies DOL certification ensuring that the H-1B workers are not hired at cut-rate. If you don't like it then nobody forces you to apply for H-1B.
  - nsonha 6y ago
    I'm not applying to any visa thank you. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy. The work visa was clearly created for America's economic interests, but now it's about not hiring cheap labor somehow? As if cheap labor is principally damaging to America? I'd like to see the evidence. Why would a law be passed with those oddly specific assurances if not that some people think cheap labor is bad?
    - pandaman 6y ago
      Sorry, your argument does not make sense to me. If I understood correctly you assert that if importation of cheap labor via H-1B program is prohibited by law then it means all cheap labor is bad from the POV of the law authors. I believe if you thought more than 15 seconds you could have found some logical faults with this.
      - nsonha 6y ago
        Why would foreign cheap labour be bad? And local cheap labour is OK? An foreign "not cheap" labour is also OK? It seems to imply foreign or cheap is bad, the combo doubly so, to the degree that it needs to be restricted.
        pandaman 6y ago
        The most obvious reason I see is that foreign labor cannot vote while domestic can. Since both compete for the same jobs the politician supporting foreign labor is risking losing votes. The more expensive is the labor the less votes it represents and politicians can get away with supporting "highly specialized" foreign labor as the money they get from employers of that labor outweigh the votes they lose from the domestic highly specialized workers displaced by the foreigners.

CyberRabbi 6y ago

Discouraging H1B abuse, which has run rampant if you look at what larger corporations have been doing recently and for the past few decades. H1Bs should not be used to enable firing someone because someone from another country is willing to do the job for much less. https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490610/this-it-worker-had-to-train-an-h-1b-replacement.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2490610/this-it-worker...

analog31 6y ago

It may just mean that tying immigration to employment invites abuse. If one wants to support immigration per se, it would be better to just bring in X number of people per year by whatever criteria you want (could even be skills or education based, who knows), and then give them total economic freedom within the US.

dragonwriter 6y ago

That's the broader Trump Administration policy it's part of, yes, but this could potentially be one of the more lasting components should Trump be replaced, because it's eminently sensible if you accept that the basic overt purpose of the H-1B is good and the basic structure of the H-1B is a good way of serving that purpose.