3 ms·
I think this is an upfront cost, not an annual cost.
by LPisGood 1y ago
I think this is an upfront cost, not an annual cost.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- nvrmnd 1y agoFrom CNN: "Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told reporters on a call Friday evening that the administration came to the fee of $100,000 per year, plus vetting costs, after talking with companies. He noted that the payment structure is still under discussion with the Department of Homeland Security, in terms of “whether we’re going to charge the $300,000 up front or $100,000 a year for the three years.”
- sigwinch 1y agoIt’ll be struck down in court within a year. The question is: who’ll be brave and bring the case?
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoI will be demanding that my company do so, and I think quite a lot of the people reading this should do the same.
- sigwinch 1y agoBut one alternative is for your company or industry to arrange an exception.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y agoCEOs who go that route should face criminal bribery charges in 2029, so I hope my company chooses more wisely.
- k33n 1y agoIt is an annual cost. This will dramatically shake up the US tech industry. I expect to see engineering budgets increase, and less Americans struggling to get interviews and ultimately jobs at companies HQ'ed here. The originally stated purpose of the H1-B program was to import top-tier elite talent but anyone who watched it evolve saw that it became terribly exploitative. I've watched as companies that I've worked for have given 1/4 market rate or worse to H1-B hires. They got addicted to cheap talent. It stopped being about talent on the hiring side and more about increasing head-count at a major discount. Bring in top talent, but pay them what they're worth if you do. A top-talent elite hire should easily be worth double what a native-born top-talent elite hire would be worth if this program can just do what it was designed to do.
- rogerrogerr 1y agoI hope this is the outcome. Can anyone convince me that these companies won’t just hire more Indians in India (or outsource to Indian companies)?
- nebula8804 1y agoBecause they would have done it already. Why go through the hassle of bringing over an h1b if you could just hire them overseas now? The use case for h1b is different from outsourcing. If the requirements need to have someone in their US branch then you use h1b.
- mgh95 1y agoI have a feeling if you hire more Indians in India (which is already coming out to ~40$ per hour billing rate) you are going to be stuck with the problem that you now have the typical Indian outsourcing problem which is why companies want them locally: to keep an eye on them. When the C-suite moves to India, I'll believe it.
- wonderwonder 1y agoMy hope is that this unleashes American tech workers and the US market again. There is almost no reason to apply for H1B anymore except for the original purpose of hiring workers with very unique skill sets that cannot be found in the US. This could be the most monumental thing this Admin does for tech workers as long as there is not some monkey paw aspect to this
- wonderwonder 1y agoannual cost and they raised the minimum pay to 150k so now its a minimum of 250k to hire an h1B. Or they can hire a new american grad, pay them 80k and train them