3 ms·

The payment should be by the employee, not the employer, but perhaps pre-tax. This way the difference between an H1B and a real citizen employee is transparent

The payment should be by the employee, not the employer, but perhaps pre-tax. This way the difference between an H1B and a real citizen employee is transparent to the employer, and the employee can move between companies without issue (or even take time off work, as long as they still pay)

jmpman 3y ago
No. The employer should be required to pay market rate, plus whatever they bid on the slot. Now, you could convince me that the additional fee is evenly split between the employee and the employer. Any excess money the employee has is either spent in driving up the local rental market, enriching landlords, or sent back to their home country. Minimizing rental competition is in the best interest of US citizens. Minimizing exporting money is in the best interest of the US government.
- konschubert 3y ago
  This won’t happen, that would not be a market equilibrium. What will happen is that the sun of fee and immigrant salary will match the non-immigrant salary.
jcarrano 3y ago
It makes no difference who pays, save for what you propose about free movement between companies. If it is paid by the employee, then companies would probably reimburse at least part of it. If it is paid by the company, it is already factored in the .salary amount. In the end, both employer and employee only care about the net amount the pay or get.
- jmpman 3y ago
  Absolutely it does. Let’s say that the market rate for a job is $100k. The company, over time, has a bunch of “overpaid” senior employees making $200k. Now they want to lay off all their senior employees and replace them with H1B. Currently they must pay the H1B $100k. With the additional tax, they now must pay $100k + (tax) * (some multiplier due to laying off US employees), which could bring the cost of the H1B worker much closer to the US workers salary of $200k. Now let’s say that the H1B, when he receives his $100k salary, goes and rents an apartment. He pays $2000/month for the apartment and lives in a nice luxury rental, and the apartment complex has one less available unit and charges $2100/month to future renters. The H1B is sending $30k/year back home. Instead, let’s say the H1B must also pay a $40k tax/year from their $100k salary. Now the H1B isn’t renting a luxury rental. They’re sharing a bedroom in a house, and sending $5k/year back home. The luxury rental stays on the market longer, and the next renter pays $1900/month, instead of $2000/month. The key is that the H1Bs will take significantly lower than the “market” price which companies are being forced to pay. The companies are willing to pay significantly more than “market” price in order to displace their older workers. The claim for this system to work is that there aren’t enough US citizens to perform the work, and yet they’re laying off older US workers.

jmpman 3y ago

No. The employer should be required to pay market rate, plus whatever they bid on the slot. Now, you could convince me that the additional fee is evenly split between the employee and the employer. Any excess money the employee has is either spent in driving up the local rental market, enriching landlords, or sent back to their home country. Minimizing rental competition is in the best interest of US citizens. Minimizing exporting money is in the best interest of the US government.

konschubert 3y ago
This won’t happen, that would not be a market equilibrium. What will happen is that the sun of fee and immigrant salary will match the non-immigrant salary.

jcarrano 3y ago

It makes no difference who pays, save for what you propose about free movement between companies. If it is paid by the employee, then companies would probably reimburse at least part of it. If it is paid by the company, it is already factored in the .salary amount. In the end, both employer and employee only care about the net amount the pay or get.

jmpman 3y ago
Absolutely it does. Let’s say that the market rate for a job is $100k. The company, over time, has a bunch of “overpaid” senior employees making $200k. Now they want to lay off all their senior employees and replace them with H1B. Currently they must pay the H1B $100k. With the additional tax, they now must pay $100k + (tax) * (some multiplier due to laying off US employees), which could bring the cost of the H1B worker much closer to the US workers salary of $200k. Now let’s say that the H1B, when he receives his $100k salary, goes and rents an apartment. He pays $2000/month for the apartment and lives in a nice luxury rental, and the apartment complex has one less available unit and charges $2100/month to future renters. The H1B is sending $30k/year back home. Instead, let’s say the H1B must also pay a $40k tax/year from their $100k salary. Now the H1B isn’t renting a luxury rental. They’re sharing a bedroom in a house, and sending $5k/year back home. The luxury rental stays on the market longer, and the next renter pays $1900/month, instead of $2000/month. The key is that the H1Bs will take significantly lower than the “market” price which companies are being forced to pay. The companies are willing to pay significantly more than “market” price in order to displace their older workers. The claim for this system to work is that there aren’t enough US citizens to perform the work, and yet they’re laying off older US workers.