5 ms·

This is what creates more downward pressure on everyone's comp than just getting foreign workers. It artificially creates a group of workers for whom it's signi

This is what creates more downward pressure on everyone's comp than just getting foreign workers. It artificially creates a group of workers for whom it's significantly harder and more risky to change jobs or simply quit when they are unsatisfied. I think everyone in tech would be better off if you wouldn't lose the H1B quickly if unemployed and if you wouldn't need to rely on an employer doing extra work to sponsor you. Make it two years instead of two months and make it so that the visa holder just can mail in proof of a paycheck. There is no real downside to this change for anybody in US society.

isaacremuant 3y ago
> There is no real downside to this change for anybody in US society. Well, the downside is for the companies exploiting migrants and those are the ones donating money to the people who make decisions. Lobbying is legally bribing them and the effect is that the politicians don't represent the people who vote for them but the corporations. And No, this is not a cynical take but a factual one.
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  I'm not sure about this. Maybe the companies would be better off with a system that makes it much easier to hire from wherever they want as well.
dccoolgai 3y ago
Or like... if the actual _company_ that claims it "needs that worker from outside the U.S. so so so much" actually took the risk on instead of foisting it on the poor employee (and by extension, the entire labor market). My 2-step process for fixing the H1-B system. 1. H1Bs are _auctioned_ instead of raffled. You really need that H1B? Prove it - pay for it. 2. Sponsoring companies are responsible for cost of living for that employee for the entire duration of their H1B. That obligation can be transferred to another company. 3. (Bonus) After reaching a certain threshold of "taxes paid to the U.S." (maybe 300k or something) H1B holders _automatically_ get their green cards. No questions asked. If you can take that much of their money, they can be citizens.
- appplication 3y ago
  This is practical, but there is some inherently pay-to-play classist issues with handing out green cards to those with money.
  - swalberg 3y ago
    There's already a category for that, the EB-5 investor visa. If we understand the act of giving a green card to mean the US wants that person to join the society for the long term, is "taxes paid" really the best measure of desirability?
- swalberg 3y ago
  My issue with "H1B to the highest bidder" is that there's a lot of industries outside of tech that use H1Bs like healthcare, academia, skilled trades, or heck, even fashion models. I think something like that would have to be paired with quotas on the industry otherwise high tech salaries would blow away possibly-even-more-important healthcare and research spots. As for #2, the main issue now is more of supply and demand. The US only gives out 140,000 employment based green cards a year (plus some from other unused categories), which also includes the worker's families. There are far more ways to get an employment based green card than through H1B. The problems we're hearing about are less to do with the process (which _is_ byzantine) and more to do with that there are not enough green cards to go around. And just as an aside, there's no labor certification for an H1B, e.g. a company isn't saying they need that worker so so much. A company just wins the lottery and agrees to pay at least what the DoL says is the prevailing wage for the occupation. If they later want to get a green card for that employee, they have to redo the prevailing wage determination AND make an attempt to hire an citizen/GC before they can get the GC (or the employee has to prove they have exceptional skills that gains them international recognition, among other things which includes "being paid way more than your peers")
- ajmurmann 3y ago
  > Bonus) After reaching a certain threshold of "taxes paid to the U.S." (maybe 300k or something) H1B holders _automatically_ get their green cards. I think this is a good idea in general. One of the main complained about immigration is some supposed cost to the barely-existing US welfare system. Having a minimum lifetime tax before getting access to that seems like a decent compromise to calm down the xenophobes

isaacremuant 3y ago

> There is no real downside to this change for anybody in US society. Well, the downside is for the companies exploiting migrants and those are the ones donating money to the people who make decisions. Lobbying is legally bribing them and the effect is that the politicians don't represent the people who vote for them but the corporations. And No, this is not a cynical take but a factual one.

ajmurmann 3y ago
I'm not sure about this. Maybe the companies would be better off with a system that makes it much easier to hire from wherever they want as well.

dccoolgai 3y ago

Or like... if the actual _company_ that claims it "needs that worker from outside the U.S. so so so much" actually took the risk on instead of foisting it on the poor employee (and by extension, the entire labor market). My 2-step process for fixing the H1-B system. 1. H1Bs are _auctioned_ instead of raffled. You really need that H1B? Prove it - pay for it. 2. Sponsoring companies are responsible for cost of living for that employee for the entire duration of their H1B. That obligation can be transferred to another company. 3. (Bonus) After reaching a certain threshold of "taxes paid to the U.S." (maybe 300k or something) H1B holders _automatically_ get their green cards. No questions asked. If you can take that much of their money, they can be citizens.

appplication 3y ago
This is practical, but there is some inherently pay-to-play classist issues with handing out green cards to those with money.
- swalberg 3y ago
  There's already a category for that, the EB-5 investor visa. If we understand the act of giving a green card to mean the US wants that person to join the society for the long term, is "taxes paid" really the best measure of desirability?
swalberg 3y ago
My issue with "H1B to the highest bidder" is that there's a lot of industries outside of tech that use H1Bs like healthcare, academia, skilled trades, or heck, even fashion models. I think something like that would have to be paired with quotas on the industry otherwise high tech salaries would blow away possibly-even-more-important healthcare and research spots. As for #2, the main issue now is more of supply and demand. The US only gives out 140,000 employment based green cards a year (plus some from other unused categories), which also includes the worker's families. There are far more ways to get an employment based green card than through H1B. The problems we're hearing about are less to do with the process (which _is_ byzantine) and more to do with that there are not enough green cards to go around. And just as an aside, there's no labor certification for an H1B, e.g. a company isn't saying they need that worker so so much. A company just wins the lottery and agrees to pay at least what the DoL says is the prevailing wage for the occupation. If they later want to get a green card for that employee, they have to redo the prevailing wage determination AND make an attempt to hire an citizen/GC before they can get the GC (or the employee has to prove they have exceptional skills that gains them international recognition, among other things which includes "being paid way more than your peers")
ajmurmann 3y ago
> Bonus) After reaching a certain threshold of "taxes paid to the U.S." (maybe 300k or something) H1B holders _automatically_ get their green cards. I think this is a good idea in general. One of the main complained about immigration is some supposed cost to the barely-existing US welfare system. Having a minimum lifetime tax before getting access to that seems like a decent compromise to calm down the xenophobes