3 ms·

https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-DOL-H-1B-Wage-Rule.NFAP-Policy-Brief.October-2020.pdf https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analys

by geofft 6y ago

https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-DOL-H-1B-Wage-Rule.NFAP-Policy-Brief.October-2020.pdf https://nfap.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Analysis-of-DOL-... (via https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/11/02/flaw-in-dol-rule-sets-h-1b-visa-salaries-at-208000-a-year/?sh=647762a8187c https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/11/02/flaw-...) has a longer description of what "the same wage" means here: > The new DOL wage system requires employers to pay exactly $100 an hour, or $208,000 a year, for over 18,000 combinations of occupations and geographic labor markets, regardless of skill level and position, NFAP research found, because DOL cannot provide prevailing wage data for the occupations under the new system. This takes place for some of the most common high-skilled occupations in America’s leading hightech area. While there certainly are citizens getting paid $208,000 a year for certain high-skilled roles, I think it is entirely plausible that for many roles, the competitive wage is far below that and there are not enough American citizens who can fill those roles even for $208,000. (Or, put another way, for certain roles, if they can't find citizens available and qualified to do the work, employers will simply choose not to engage in whatever business they were considering engaging in. There's no way that's good for the American economy.)

whatshisface 6y ago
>there are not enough American citizens who can fill those roles even for $208,000. Given that it's possible to train people, that condition cannot occur. Maybe "no cost-effective American citizens," or "no quickly available American citizens," but the state of there being absolutely no possible way to fill a role with an American citizen, cannot happen.
- geofft 6y ago
  Correct, I mean no cost-effective American citizens. (Or, really, I do literally mean people who can fill those roles - if they need to be trained, and a company wants to train them, awesome, but they're not actually filling the role until they've been trained.) Businesses will not do cost-ineffective things. If they cannot pursue a venture profitably, they won't pursue it. The question is whether we're better off with companies hiring qualified foreign workers for sub-$208,000 wages to do work in America or not hiring anyone and not doing the work.
exabrial 6y ago
I don't really see a problem with anything above actually. If a certain job role is so covetted, they [can &| should have to] raise the salary to recruit an American, or pay a prospective immigrant a life changing salary. If a company objects to paying the market price salary for Americans they're totally free to outsource their work to foreign workers for whatever price those workers are willing to do so. But nobody coming to America should be short changed a salary because of their national origin. The loser in this is Big SV who has built an empire taking advantage of prospective immigrants.
- geofft 6y ago
  Outsourcing the work is exactly what they're going to do (all the more now that everyone's spent most of the year figuring out how to work remotely). The question I'm asking is, does that help America? If you want to help America, it seems to me that allowing American businesses to grow the American economy is a straightforward means to do so, and telling American businesses to move their work elsewhere is a straightforward means to do the exact opposite. Meanwhile, if you want to help H-1B immigrants to not be taken advantage of (which I personally think is at least as important), stop handcuffing them to their employers - do not give employers the ability to threaten them with deportation along with unemployment, and allow them to change jobs while being sponsored for a green card. Then they can compete freely in the labor market as well as citizens can, and their wages will rise naturally. Anything short of that is more government fiddling in the market, usually to the benefit of those who have won the game of regulatory capture.
  - exabrial 6y ago
    It absolutely helps America, and the world. One only has to look at the history of manufacturing, labor unions, and misguided attempts to 'keep jobs on American soil' to see why the wage fixation approach fails. What does work is defining the trend, then selling the knowledge while we work on the next big thing. That's been a money maker for America and has benefited the world too via secondary effects. If we get out-innovated, well, we deserve it, fair is fair. Ps upvoted you for a great response. I absolutely agree with you on the other points about threatening and harassment.
uberman 6y ago
While it may work out that many roles would require a $200k salary, this is just not how the new rules work. The changes proposed are this: "H1B applicants will need to be earning a salary equivalent to the 45th percentile of their profession's salary if they're an entry-level worker, rising to 95th percentile for higher-skilled workers. In the past, the boundaries were set at the 17th and 67th percentiles respectively." Does anyone feel it was the right thing to do to bring foreign laborer into the domestic market at the 17 percentile? In my opinion, that is exploitative and clearly not fair to the international worker nor any domestic worker potentially displaced.

by geofft 6y ago

whatshisface 6y ago

>there are not enough American citizens who can fill those roles even for $208,000. Given that it's possible to train people, that condition cannot occur. Maybe "no cost-effective American citizens," or "no quickly available American citizens," but the state of there being absolutely no possible way to fill a role with an American citizen, cannot happen.

geofft 6y ago
Correct, I mean no cost-effective American citizens. (Or, really, I do literally mean people who can fill those roles - if they need to be trained, and a company wants to train them, awesome, but they're not actually filling the role until they've been trained.) Businesses will not do cost-ineffective things. If they cannot pursue a venture profitably, they won't pursue it. The question is whether we're better off with companies hiring qualified foreign workers for sub-$208,000 wages to do work in America or not hiring anyone and not doing the work.

exabrial 6y ago

I don't really see a problem with anything above actually. If a certain job role is so covetted, they [can &| should have to] raise the salary to recruit an American, or pay a prospective immigrant a life changing salary. If a company objects to paying the market price salary for Americans they're totally free to outsource their work to foreign workers for whatever price those workers are willing to do so. But nobody coming to America should be short changed a salary because of their national origin. The loser in this is Big SV who has built an empire taking advantage of prospective immigrants.

geofft 6y ago
Outsourcing the work is exactly what they're going to do (all the more now that everyone's spent most of the year figuring out how to work remotely). The question I'm asking is, does that help America? If you want to help America, it seems to me that allowing American businesses to grow the American economy is a straightforward means to do so, and telling American businesses to move their work elsewhere is a straightforward means to do the exact opposite. Meanwhile, if you want to help H-1B immigrants to not be taken advantage of (which I personally think is at least as important), stop handcuffing them to their employers - do not give employers the ability to threaten them with deportation along with unemployment, and allow them to change jobs while being sponsored for a green card. Then they can compete freely in the labor market as well as citizens can, and their wages will rise naturally. Anything short of that is more government fiddling in the market, usually to the benefit of those who have won the game of regulatory capture.
- exabrial 6y ago
  It absolutely helps America, and the world. One only has to look at the history of manufacturing, labor unions, and misguided attempts to 'keep jobs on American soil' to see why the wage fixation approach fails. What does work is defining the trend, then selling the knowledge while we work on the next big thing. That's been a money maker for America and has benefited the world too via secondary effects. If we get out-innovated, well, we deserve it, fair is fair. Ps upvoted you for a great response. I absolutely agree with you on the other points about threatening and harassment.

uberman 6y ago

While it may work out that many roles would require a $200k salary, this is just not how the new rules work. The changes proposed are this: "H1B applicants will need to be earning a salary equivalent to the 45th percentile of their profession's salary if they're an entry-level worker, rising to 95th percentile for higher-skilled workers. In the past, the boundaries were set at the 17th and 67th percentiles respectively." Does anyone feel it was the right thing to do to bring foreign laborer into the domestic market at the 17 percentile? In my opinion, that is exploitative and clearly not fair to the international worker nor any domestic worker potentially displaced.