Trump's new visa fees spur offshoring talks, hiring turmoil(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Trump's new visa fees spur offshoring talks, hiring turmoil
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/silicon-valley-hiring-turmoil-after-new-h-1b-visa-fees-move-spurs-offshoring-2025-09-23/
106 comments
Yes, and for software, remote work actually... works. Have a few in-person meetups in a year, but most of the day-to-day is git, Slack, and Zoom (or equivalent).
If I can hire someone remotely in San Antonio, why can't I hire someone remotely in São Paulo as a result?
This is why the offshoring boom happened since COVID - remote-first proved that async works well enough, which made offshoring more enticing.
Now that sponsoring 10 H1B visas is guaranteed to cost $1M, I may as well spend that much to open an office abroad, get 7 figure tax credits per employee, and pay a lower salary.
This is why the offshoring boom happened since COVID - remote-first proved that async works well enough, which made offshoring more enticing.
Now that sponsoring 10 H1B visas is guaranteed to cost $1M, I may as well spend that much to open an office abroad, get 7 figure tax credits per employee, and pay a lower salary.
> If I can hire someone remotely in San Antonio, why can't I hire someone remotely in São Paulo as a result?
Because the person in Brazil would be able to steal your IP and you'd have no financial, legal, or emotional recourse since they're across an international border. Big tech is continuing to find this out the hard way when countries like China and India somehow clone their products in record time.
By hiring in the same country you reside in, you have access to your legal system to protect you and your business interests. And it can also protect your own ego as well (if you have one).
And for the USA specifically, it is also really about the people here. Tech is a surprisingly human industry, and Americans have the humanity and grit to pull it off.
> pay a lower salary
Nothing is stopping tech from doing this right now to American workers. Remember that those higher paying firms do false positive hiring - they reject way more people than they pull in. If you do the reverse and adjust your operations to account for more workers that "aren't good but aren't bad either", you'd probably perform even better than offshoring.
Because the person in Brazil would be able to steal your IP and you'd have no financial, legal, or emotional recourse since they're across an international border. Big tech is continuing to find this out the hard way when countries like China and India somehow clone their products in record time.
By hiring in the same country you reside in, you have access to your legal system to protect you and your business interests. And it can also protect your own ego as well (if you have one).
And for the USA specifically, it is also really about the people here. Tech is a surprisingly human industry, and Americans have the humanity and grit to pull it off.
> pay a lower salary
Nothing is stopping tech from doing this right now to American workers. Remember that those higher paying firms do false positive hiring - they reject way more people than they pull in. If you do the reverse and adjust your operations to account for more workers that "aren't good but aren't bad either", you'd probably perform even better than offshoring.
Right, nothing's stopped offshoring for a few decades, especially since the Internet became global. That's why I say what can be offshored pretty much has been. I even know some companies who did it years ago and reversed the policy after it didn't work out as well as they expected.
So higher costs on importing workers might prompt a bit more offshoring, but not much, because if those companies thought those jobs could be done offshore, they'd already be there.
So higher costs on importing workers might prompt a bit more offshoring, but not much, because if those companies thought those jobs could be done offshore, they'd already be there.
> nothing's stopped offshoring for a few decades
Async development at scale (and especially for revenue generating IP) was still not proven until COVID.
Additonally, the reverse brain drain in much of China, CEE, Israel, and India only kicked off in the late 2010s, and the COVID layoffs and subsequent rehiring made it easier to open an office abroad.
> because if those companies thought those jobs could be done offshore, they'd already be there
Every job that would have gone to someone who requires some kind of work sponsorship can now be justified with a hiring abroad.
I'd recommend reading tfa, and as someone who is on a couple boards, trust me when I am saying that offshoring is now going to go in hyperdrive.
Async development at scale (and especially for revenue generating IP) was still not proven until COVID.
Additonally, the reverse brain drain in much of China, CEE, Israel, and India only kicked off in the late 2010s, and the COVID layoffs and subsequent rehiring made it easier to open an office abroad.
> because if those companies thought those jobs could be done offshore, they'd already be there
Every job that would have gone to someone who requires some kind of work sponsorship can now be justified with a hiring abroad.
I'd recommend reading tfa, and as someone who is on a couple boards, trust me when I am saying that offshoring is now going to go in hyperdrive.
I suppose economically, sure. But you know what happens if you employ people in your country? Everyone's quality of life improves and your country is stronger and wealthier. But that doesn't seem to matter to the capital class, they'd rather make a shit hole out of where they live and then escape to their bunkers. :)
If a member of the capital class hired local prompted by your comment they would be out-competed and go out of business due to the lower costs if their off-shoring competition.
If you want to induce a behaviour in thousands you change the law, wagging your finger at them isn't going to work.
If you want to induce a behaviour in thousands you change the law, wagging your finger at them isn't going to work.
That just tells me you have never built a company with local people and treated them right. I have made a ton of money fixing outsourcing problems or translating requirements - mostly India but also South America, Romania and Russia.
There's a reason Wiz is HQed and developed in Tel Aviv and not Tiburon.
The median school teacher in the Bay Area (teachers are the typical go to example of low paid educated labor) makes about 700k over the 6 year time span of an h1b. 100k is literally nothing, and not just in the Bay Area, it’s a painful joke to those who know about the issue.
My mom is a teacher here in the Bay. Schools were never sponsoring work visas because there are credential requirements.
The difference is, that $100k on top of the 30-40% premium on top of base salary means a $150k employee went from costing $210k to $310k almost overnight.
The math for sponsoring someone on any work visa was already growing tenuous against offshoring, but this rule change sealed the deal by giving FP&A a number it can use to justify that it is much cheaper to offshore.
The difference is, that $100k on top of the 30-40% premium on top of base salary means a $150k employee went from costing $210k to $310k almost overnight.
The math for sponsoring someone on any work visa was already growing tenuous against offshoring, but this rule change sealed the deal by giving FP&A a number it can use to justify that it is much cheaper to offshore.
Your mom wasn’t a math teacher I presume. An h1b is 6 years, so divide your 100k by six and account for inflation which is high and will continue to be high under the current (incompetent? sociopathic?) regime.
...no, that level of high prices/wages/cost of living really is just in the Bay Area.
Median teacher salaries in the US are around $63k/yr. If you were to hire one at that rate on an H1B visa for 6 years, the $100k visa cost would be nearly a quarter of the total cost of their hire. (Assuming, of course, that the declaration that it only needs to be paid once per visa remains true, and that Trump doesn't change it on a whim later on, which are absolutely not safe assumptions.)
Median teacher salaries in the US are around $63k/yr. If you were to hire one at that rate on an H1B visa for 6 years, the $100k visa cost would be nearly a quarter of the total cost of their hire. (Assuming, of course, that the declaration that it only needs to be paid once per visa remains true, and that Trump doesn't change it on a whim later on, which are absolutely not safe assumptions.)
Also, no school district is sponsoring a work visa. I've never seen that happen in my life.
> Median teacher salaries in the US are around $63k/yr
Also the average salary for Bay Area teachers in the good school districts in my experience. Educators are severely underpaid in California.
> Median teacher salaries in the US are around $63k/yr
Also the average salary for Bay Area teachers in the good school districts in my experience. Educators are severely underpaid in California.
Again public or NEAs own summaries. My point was not that the unionized k12 system is abusing h1b (thank God for unions!) it was that teacher salaries are the exemplar of being under paid.
In California, statewide, it’s about 100k as of a few years ago. This is public data so you can check if you have the skill to do so.
Are h1b distributed evenly by state? Think about it for a minute or just go check the data if you have the high skill needed to do so.
Are h1b distributed evenly by state? Think about it for a minute or just go check the data if you have the high skill needed to do so.
No, mention of OPT in this thread so here it goes. I’m directly observing OPT candidates crowding out American workers from getting jobs.
Foreign students pay large sums of money for advanced American STEM degrees and then flood the market for the same jobs American tech workers are trying to get. Americans in debt from undergrad degrees that foreign nationals were able to obtain a lot cheaper.
The ratios I’m seeing are insane, like 90% OPT candidates. You can’t discriminate against them, have advanced degrees and accept lower salaries and out number domestic applicants - so we reluctantly hire them. Even though their technical communication and English skills are abysmal.
Foreign students pay large sums of money for advanced American STEM degrees and then flood the market for the same jobs American tech workers are trying to get. Americans in debt from undergrad degrees that foreign nationals were able to obtain a lot cheaper.
The ratios I’m seeing are insane, like 90% OPT candidates. You can’t discriminate against them, have advanced degrees and accept lower salaries and out number domestic applicants - so we reluctantly hire them. Even though their technical communication and English skills are abysmal.
Generally verbal fluency in a language goes up quickly if you are able to read and write well in that language.
I don’t think you’re making a very strong argument.
Full disclosure, I read a lot in English but almost never spoke it. 6 years ago I started working internationally and my spoken English has improved enormously.
I have observed the same with my colleagues. The man who recruited me, an older German, could barely make himself understood in English.
A couple of years later, he sounds American.
I don’t think you’re making a very strong argument.
Full disclosure, I read a lot in English but almost never spoke it. 6 years ago I started working internationally and my spoken English has improved enormously.
I have observed the same with my colleagues. The man who recruited me, an older German, could barely make himself understood in English.
A couple of years later, he sounds American.
He sounds American to you, but does he sound American to an American?
His English has gone from terrible to fantastic which was my point.
He’s spent a lot of time in English speaking countries(years), including Australia and the US… very minor accent. I doubt many would be able to place him, unless they saw how he looked first.
He’s spent a lot of time in English speaking countries(years), including Australia and the US… very minor accent. I doubt many would be able to place him, unless they saw how he looked first.
If someone's communication skills are bad, it's legal to not hire them. That's a job-relevant characteristic. Of course you have to apply that job requirement to all candidates, not just OPT candidates.
I think their conversation skills are fine talking with recruiters and HR, simple stuff. But in the tech interview it takes 5x longer to communicate and even then it’s still not very good. Going back to interviewing a native English speaker feels like a turbo boost. Unfortunately trying to explain this to HR opens you up to being accused of racism, so it’s not worth it.
Also you got to think HR has incentive to let it slide to get those cheap workers. It’s sad hearing them talk salary expectations of terrible candidates knowing they’re going to be hired because they want 20k less or whatever.
I’m just sorry for the people the candidate will be working with and the company itself because it’s a net negative for them.
Also you got to think HR has incentive to let it slide to get those cheap workers. It’s sad hearing them talk salary expectations of terrible candidates knowing they’re going to be hired because they want 20k less or whatever.
I’m just sorry for the people the candidate will be working with and the company itself because it’s a net negative for them.
It sounds like the problem is your company, not the law.
It's my company's problem that the market is flooded with foreign nationals with advanced degrees, who work for less money and have poor English skills?
It's your company's problem that your legally valid hiring opinions are being overridden by other departments to cut costs. Especially when there are tons of American citizen CS grads from non-target schools that would probably take the $20k hit (or even more) to get their foot in the door. Your company is acting absolutely stupid.
The H-1B program was already broken by the lottery. This new fee just solidifies the L-1 visa as the real high-skilled pipeline. More L-1 visas are already approved annually than new H-1Bs, and this policy only widens that gap.
In addition to L1, O1 is also often gamed. $100K for H1B is mostly "posturing" at this point, as voters don't know about other options.
In addition to L1, O1 is also often gamed. $100K for H1B is mostly "posturing" at this point, as voters don't know about other options.
L-1 has been broken for decades as well. The same problems that impact an H1B impact an L1 as well.
The only way abuse of both visas can stop is if they are not tied to an employer, allowing free movement of labor. Thus, if someone is talented and at TCS then they can either demand a salary equal to their skill or go to an employer who can offer that salary.
Additonally, federal, state, and local governments need to start playing the subsidy game that Poland, Romania, Czechia, India, Israel, and other companies play to attract offshore offices.
> H1B is mostly "posturing" at this point, as voters don't know about other options
I disagree. This was clearly timed to distract and overshadow the Gold and Platinum card announcement.
The only way abuse of both visas can stop is if they are not tied to an employer, allowing free movement of labor. Thus, if someone is talented and at TCS then they can either demand a salary equal to their skill or go to an employer who can offer that salary.
Additonally, federal, state, and local governments need to start playing the subsidy game that Poland, Romania, Czechia, India, Israel, and other companies play to attract offshore offices.
> H1B is mostly "posturing" at this point, as voters don't know about other options
I disagree. This was clearly timed to distract and overshadow the Gold and Platinum card announcement.
> the subsidy game that Poland, Romania, Czechia, India, Israel, and other companies play to attract offshore offices.
Do you mean US government must dramatically reduce cost of living by offering subsidized housing, investing in education, healthcare etc? When I hire, I never consider USA and nobody pays me to find skilled labor in Eastern or Central Europe. You can pay one half of American salary there and people will be put in upper middle class with such income, being able to afford a lot and living comfortable life.
Do you mean US government must dramatically reduce cost of living by offering subsidized housing, investing in education, healthcare etc? When I hire, I never consider USA and nobody pays me to find skilled labor in Eastern or Central Europe. You can pay one half of American salary there and people will be put in upper middle class with such income, being able to afford a lot and living comfortable life.
> The only way abuse of both visas can stop is if they are not tied to an employer, allowing free movement of labor.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
Someone on a H-1B visa can change jobs as soon as the other employer files a form I-129 to hire them.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
Changing or Leaving Your H-1B Employer
Q. What is “porting”?
A. There are two kinds of job portability, or “porting,” available based on two different kinds of employer petitions:
H-1B petition portability: Eligible H-1B nonimmigrants may begin working for a new employer as soon as the employer properly files a new H-1B petition (Form I-129) requesting to amend or extend H-1B status with USCIS, without waiting for the petition to be approved. More information about H-1B portability can be found on our H-1B Specialty Occupations page.
...
Q. How do I leave my current employer to start working for a new employer while remaining in H-1B status?
A. Under H-1B portability provisions, you may begin working for a new employer as soon as they properly file a non-frivolous H-1B petition on your behalf, or as of the requested start date on the petition, whichever is later. You are not required to wait for the new employer’s H-1B petition to be approved before beginning to work for the new employer, assuming certain conditions are met. For more details about H-1B portability, see our H-1B Specialty Occupations page, under “Changing Employers or Employment Terms with the Same Employer (Portability).”
Someone on a H-1B visa can change jobs as soon as the other employer files a form I-129 to hire them.
That process remains tied to an employer, which is the very point that was originally made.
Many employers simply won’t do that paperwork by policy and treat that process as no different than sponsorship.
Many employers simply won’t do that paperwork by policy and treat that process as no different than sponsorship.
It still means you cannot, for instance, quit to escape intolerable conditions, unless you already have another job lined up.
It also means that you're much, much less likely to find another employer willing to fill out the paperwork to hire you—especially if they also have to pay the $100k fee (yes, I know, the announcement doesn't say they have to—wanna take bets on whether Trump would say they do if he learned that it's possible?).
It also means that you're much, much less likely to find another employer willing to fill out the paperwork to hire you—especially if they also have to pay the $100k fee (yes, I know, the announcement doesn't say they have to—wanna take bets on whether Trump would say they do if he learned that it's possible?).
Is Trump the great puppet master people believe him to be, or more likely someone like Lutnick? Think about that. It’s hard to imagine a fool that’s more easy to manipulate than Trump, and I was here for GW Bush!
[deleted]
...I don't particularly credit any grand strategy to Trump, nor do I think my post suggested that?
It's possible that someone intended the knock-on effects I describe, but I would say it's just as likely that it's pure coincidence that they support the right's desire to hurt labor as a whole.
It's possible that someone intended the knock-on effects I describe, but I would say it's just as likely that it's pure coincidence that they support the right's desire to hurt labor as a whole.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> The visa previously cost employers only a few thousand dollars. But the new $100,000 fee would flip the equation, making hiring talent in countries like India - where wages are lower and Big Tech now builds innovation hubs instead of back offices - more attractive, experts and executives told Reuters.
> "We probably have to reduce the number of H-1B visa workers we can hire," said Sam Liang, co-founder and CEO of popular artificial intelligence transcription start-up Otter. "Some companies may have to outsource some of their workforce. Hire maybe in India or other countries just to walk around this H-1B problem."
> "We probably have to reduce the number of H-1B visa workers we can hire," said Sam Liang, co-founder and CEO of popular artificial intelligence transcription start-up Otter. "Some companies may have to outsource some of their workforce. Hire maybe in India or other countries just to walk around this H-1B problem."
The roles sent to India are those that will soon be replaced by AI. For years US companies have treated India like an API to do menial tasks that we’re hard to automate. It made no sense for that do be done by American workers. Now probably 80% of that work can be replaced by AI in the next few years.
For a while the US outsourced a lot of call centers India, but that quickly became a stereotype for terrible cost cutting measures. The customer experience was horrible. Most of these have now been onshored or placed in locations with better performance for the American market, like Ireland, Canada, Costa Rica, or a lot of WFH folks in the US.
For a while the US outsourced a lot of call centers India, but that quickly became a stereotype for terrible cost cutting measures. The customer experience was horrible. Most of these have now been onshored or placed in locations with better performance for the American market, like Ireland, Canada, Costa Rica, or a lot of WFH folks in the US.
I have (in the past) hired extensively in India offshore centers.
Without the H1B hand cuffs, retention/productivity in India will be doubly chaotic.
As messy as this is, some US companies may consider to make the effort to attempt to hire more in the US.
EDIT: added retention
Without the H1B hand cuffs, retention/productivity in India will be doubly chaotic.
As messy as this is, some US companies may consider to make the effort to attempt to hire more in the US.
EDIT: added retention
There is still a fairly large Indian American 1st and 1.5 gen diaspora with GCs and citizenship.
In most cases, we have those people manage relations with offshore teams in India.
So, just like how Chinese Americans became overrepresented in hardware and supply chain management roles in order to help manage a company's "China" story, the same thing is happening for "white collar" industries.
In most cases, we have those people manage relations with offshore teams in India.
So, just like how Chinese Americans became overrepresented in hardware and supply chain management roles in order to help manage a company's "China" story, the same thing is happening for "white collar" industries.
The first HN thread on the H1-B $100k fee pointed out that the $100k fee can be waived by the secretary (not sure which department). Most likely, H1-Bs won’t go away, they will just be bribe bait for the administration. Smaller companies who can’t lobby the admin or who aren’t in the good graces of the administration will have to do without H1-Bs, but all those tech titans who donated to the Trump Inauguration will magically get waivers for the fee.
It won’t be a matter of “outsource to India or hire locally”, it will be “what is the ROI of the bribe compared to having to hire locally when the labor market gets tighter?”
It won’t be a matter of “outsource to India or hire locally”, it will be “what is the ROI of the bribe compared to having to hire locally when the labor market gets tighter?”
I can't imagine that any company executive thinks the solution to the new H1-B visa is going to be outsource more employees (if they are a US Based company). That would be the antithesis of this administration and I wouldn't be surprised if there weren't stiffer penalties for companies that tried to do this.
Well, this is the end result. $100K per filing has now given every company a metric with which to benchmark whether they should open a GCC (an offshore office with P/L and Product Roadmap responsibilities) or continue to hire a mix of citizens and foreigners domestically.
If having to file for 10 H1B visas now costs the same as the amount of FDI needed to get $10-20k per head of tax subsidies and credits across CEE and India, the math to open an office abroad just became justified for every business.
If having to file for 10 H1B visas now costs the same as the amount of FDI needed to get $10-20k per head of tax subsidies and credits across CEE and India, the math to open an office abroad just became justified for every business.
Listen - I'm not saying that that isn't the logical response. I'm saying I don't see how an executive would go ahead with that plan thinking that there weren't going to be worse repercussions for their company from the government if they went that route.
The smallest companies that don't have visibility in the market maybe could try and do it (dangerous risk) but the larger companies that have a lot to lose from headline risk will be at significant risk.
Like the executive who only thinks in short term budget will go ahead and do this -- the executives who think maybe 2-4 years down the road will realize its a trap.
The smallest companies that don't have visibility in the market maybe could try and do it (dangerous risk) but the larger companies that have a lot to lose from headline risk will be at significant risk.
Like the executive who only thinks in short term budget will go ahead and do this -- the executives who think maybe 2-4 years down the road will realize its a trap.
> but the larger companies that have a lot to lose from headline risk will be at significant risk
Google [0], Microsoft [1], and Amazon [2] have continued to make headline making investments abroad despite Trump being in office.
And these size of companies are large enough that they can eat the litigation cost, becuase it is significantly cheaper to completely offshore.
And in all honesty, the Trump glare isn't severe. You become part of the media zeitgeist for a couple of days, and then everyone moves on to some other controversy. Look at how this now overshadows the US-Korea snafu, which itself overshadowed the Russian oil snafu, which itself overshadowed ....
[0] - https://blog.google/intl/en-in/company-news/welcome-to-anant...
[1] - https://news.microsoft.com/en-in/microsoft-announces-us-3bn-...
[2] - https://www.aboutamazon.in/news/aws/aws-invests-8-billion-in...
Google [0], Microsoft [1], and Amazon [2] have continued to make headline making investments abroad despite Trump being in office.
And these size of companies are large enough that they can eat the litigation cost, becuase it is significantly cheaper to completely offshore.
And in all honesty, the Trump glare isn't severe. You become part of the media zeitgeist for a couple of days, and then everyone moves on to some other controversy. Look at how this now overshadows the US-Korea snafu, which itself overshadowed the Russian oil snafu, which itself overshadowed ....
[0] - https://blog.google/intl/en-in/company-news/welcome-to-anant...
[1] - https://news.microsoft.com/en-in/microsoft-announces-us-3bn-...
[2] - https://www.aboutamazon.in/news/aws/aws-invests-8-billion-in...
Those plans were already in place as a continuation and during a time when they thought tech would have a more coveted space in policy positioning. Watch what happens going forward -- they will re-plan investments (at least for the time being).
They’re all already doing this and doing it more will go unnoticed
Yeah kinda hard to see companies being more aggressive than they already are about outsourcing. I know companies that fired their entire tech org from the CTO down and moved it to India.
When I was looking for work early this year I was told that most of the Google NYC roles were listed for internal transfers and that most of the actual hiring was in Warsaw (with 1000s of open roles, which I was told by Google recruiters at a conference in Europe)
This is true for most SV tech companies with multiple offices (including nyc) because there are a shitload of men trying to move out of SF.
Post-pandemic most single men in Silicon Valley have realized that the region is terrible for anything but settling down with a family.
Post-pandemic most single men in Silicon Valley have realized that the region is terrible for anything but settling down with a family.
If someone is transferring from SF to NYC they wouldn't have to advertise the position. I think the OP is referring to transferring people into the country on L1.
I was told that they were actually required to list them even if it’s someone transferring internally.
It was for a few specific ML research roles that I was interested in, of which there were very few in NYC and during the interview process I was told that they would go to internal candidates
It was for a few specific ML research roles that I was interested in, of which there were very few in NYC and during the interview process I was told that they would go to internal candidates
Especially because they need to be in the same office for collaboration. Right?
I don't see the issue: talented individuals can get O1, and not-talented individuals are not worth hiring at startups anyway.
The issue is the O1A is oversubscribed because it includes "Sciences, education, business, or athletics" and in reality, the only thing needed to get an O1 through the door is a good lawyer and around $50k-60k in legal fees.
As such, an O-1 is now being used the way an L-1 should have been, an L-1 is being used the way an H1B should have been, and an H1B is used the way an OPT should have been.
Most academics, nurses, PhD students turned ML Researchers, etc will be filed on an H1B or (in the latter case OPT to H1B).
As such, an O-1 is now being used the way an L-1 should have been, an L-1 is being used the way an H1B should have been, and an H1B is used the way an OPT should have been.
Most academics, nurses, PhD students turned ML Researchers, etc will be filed on an H1B or (in the latter case OPT to H1B).
The next step will be to impose tariffs on code developed abroad.
Not that I agree with tariffs, but there are import taxes on physical goods and parts and so on, even when they are produced by the same company, so why not on services?
Not that I agree with tariffs, but there are import taxes on physical goods and parts and so on, even when they are produced by the same company, so why not on services?
We export more services than we import, so if we start tariffing them, we are very vulnerable to reciprocal services tariffs.
But also, it’s logistically difficult to tax services because they don’t enter into the same ports of entry (eg. airports, seaports), but rather over phone or the internet. There’s no CBP agent listening in on every international phone call, identifying which type of service is being performed across the international phone system.
But also, it’s logistically difficult to tax services because they don’t enter into the same ports of entry (eg. airports, seaports), but rather over phone or the internet. There’s no CBP agent listening in on every international phone call, identifying which type of service is being performed across the international phone system.
[deleted]
How do you do that without disrupting all of America?
Literal backbone cybersecurity software used by the Congress IT team is developed in Tel Aviv, let alone by every single F1000.
And we ourselves export services abroad. What's to stop the EU from passing a Digital Services Tax as a result?
Literal backbone cybersecurity software used by the Congress IT team is developed in Tel Aviv, let alone by every single F1000.
And we ourselves export services abroad. What's to stop the EU from passing a Digital Services Tax as a result?
[deleted]
Poe's law....? I honestly can't tell if you're joking.
US Customs interdiction on those ssh/https-transported "git clone" sessions you use as an importer, then. "Please first fill out CBP Form 5106 to identify yourself as an Importer and get in that line over there to get your git license."
US Customs interdiction on those ssh/https-transported "git clone" sessions you use as an importer, then. "Please first fill out CBP Form 5106 to identify yourself as an Importer and get in that line over there to get your git license."
Ugh don't give them ideas
it some way you already have with that - section 174 requires amortization of foreign software salaries for 15 years. I'm ok with that as long americans will stop crying about EU trying to tax tech companies. Trump administration completely was not taking into account service sector when applying tariffs to everyone when in fact we buying a lot of such services.
This is a win for common sense. At first the H1Bs were justifiable, but over time the hack became a staple for squeezing out local hires for bottom dollar contenders. Of course it was executed extremely poorly and with confusion. That's standard procedure for this administration.
If there's any truth in the "phd level AI", let alone AGI narrative going on since a few years this must be no problem at all, just use AI.
If that narrative isn't true then in not-so-distant future SV must run out of money to hire people for other stuff anyway as all the resources seem to be in the AI basket.
The AI thing aside, I wonder why people are not demanding actual fix on the issues, i.e. right to change employer. Sure, companies wouldn't want that but aren't the SV engineers highly paid individuals? Wouldn't they be able to collect considerable resources to lobby the politicians into it?
The AI thing aside, I wonder why people are not demanding actual fix on the issues, i.e. right to change employer. Sure, companies wouldn't want that but aren't the SV engineers highly paid individuals? Wouldn't they be able to collect considerable resources to lobby the politicians into it?
> I wonder why people are not demanding actual fix on the issues
It’s yet another case of what economists call “concentrated benefits, diffuse costs”.
The companies that use H1-Bs have strong lobbying power. The average US citizen doesn’t know much about H1-B or the common criticisms. Some grievance-based US voters want to cut most/all work visas, especially H1-B. Crucially, H1-B recipients don’t vote in US elections, so the people most affected have no influence in fixing it.
The underlying problem is that Congress is defective. It used to fix problems that helped America. Now it’s only useful for launching influencer careers.
It’s yet another case of what economists call “concentrated benefits, diffuse costs”.
The companies that use H1-Bs have strong lobbying power. The average US citizen doesn’t know much about H1-B or the common criticisms. Some grievance-based US voters want to cut most/all work visas, especially H1-B. Crucially, H1-B recipients don’t vote in US elections, so the people most affected have no influence in fixing it.
The underlying problem is that Congress is defective. It used to fix problems that helped America. Now it’s only useful for launching influencer careers.
They can’t vote
They can pay people who are trying to make other people vote for their candidate though. Chip in a 10K per, and you a major power in US politics. Apparently there are 730K H1B holders, that's enormous demographic considering that all of them are employed people. Even at 1K per person would generate 730M budget.
Jamie Dimon is in DC right now lobbying the admin over this, but in all honestly, most companies built redundancy plans for this kind of a regulation years ago with GCCs in India along with the Canadian branches of American companies.
Reality is this rule only incentivizes offshoring (maybe India, maybe Canada, maybe LatAm, etc) instead of hiring domestically.
In trying to get a headline saying "we can hire 100% American" now companies are considering offshoring, which means 0 Americans are hired.
There are smart ways to crack down on H1B abuse, and the headline policy wasn't it.
Reality is this rule only incentivizes offshoring (maybe India, maybe Canada, maybe LatAm, etc) instead of hiring domestically.
In trying to get a headline saying "we can hire 100% American" now companies are considering offshoring, which means 0 Americans are hired.
There are smart ways to crack down on H1B abuse, and the headline policy wasn't it.
There aren't enough of them to rate that level of attention from politicians. Especially when pitted against the lobbying might of Silicon Valley, which very much wants to keep its totally-not-indentured workers.
The H1B program has been abused by employers for a long time. Nobody can reasonably defend it at scale. Some fear mongering now that the party is over, but unlikely doomsday is coming for US tech.
Is this a unilateral change that will have some collateral damage? Yes.
Is this going to total ruin the US tech sector? Unlikely.
Will all these jobs just go to India directly? Almost certainly not. That option was always on the table and lots of reasons why employers aren’t sending more jobs to India, including deep structural challenges in the country that aren’t close to being solved.
Will they get offshored elsewhere? Mostly not. Maybe a bit, but those jobs were already at risk of being offshored. The H1B change won’t make a huge difference there. More likely is 15% of roles offshore, 15% were truly needed and employers pay up, 15% are just eliminated and absorbed into existing workers, and the rest stay in the US. Thats still a big net win for the United States.
What will happen? Not completely clear yet, but over time this simply raises the bar for claiming you need to import somone to do a job. India will lose the most as it puts big hurdles to folks there getting highly desirable jobs in the US. There may be some very limited movement of roles elsewhere but those will likely go to Canada, the UK, and maybe a few other places.
The administration is calling the bluff of these companies crying foul, and very likely these companies will cave. Expect to see anyone that does actually try to move things abroad to simply be slapped with tariffs that make such moves unprofitable. These companies value access to the US market much more than employing a few H1Bs.
Not saying I agree with everything happening, but the idea that this was some poorly researched jerk reaction dangerously underestimates the playbook being used here. The administration knows exactly what they’re doing.
Is this a unilateral change that will have some collateral damage? Yes.
Is this going to total ruin the US tech sector? Unlikely.
Will all these jobs just go to India directly? Almost certainly not. That option was always on the table and lots of reasons why employers aren’t sending more jobs to India, including deep structural challenges in the country that aren’t close to being solved.
Will they get offshored elsewhere? Mostly not. Maybe a bit, but those jobs were already at risk of being offshored. The H1B change won’t make a huge difference there. More likely is 15% of roles offshore, 15% were truly needed and employers pay up, 15% are just eliminated and absorbed into existing workers, and the rest stay in the US. Thats still a big net win for the United States.
What will happen? Not completely clear yet, but over time this simply raises the bar for claiming you need to import somone to do a job. India will lose the most as it puts big hurdles to folks there getting highly desirable jobs in the US. There may be some very limited movement of roles elsewhere but those will likely go to Canada, the UK, and maybe a few other places.
The administration is calling the bluff of these companies crying foul, and very likely these companies will cave. Expect to see anyone that does actually try to move things abroad to simply be slapped with tariffs that make such moves unprofitable. These companies value access to the US market much more than employing a few H1Bs.
Not saying I agree with everything happening, but the idea that this was some poorly researched jerk reaction dangerously underestimates the playbook being used here. The administration knows exactly what they’re doing.
Yeah, offshoring has been going on for three decades. What could be profitably offshored has been, and then some, because some executives just like the idea a lot. There are reasons that companies have been abusing guest worker visas and clamoring for more, instead of offshoring those jobs. This may cause a bit more offshoring at the margins, but not a massive change. The fear-mongering is propaganda.
> Nobody can reasonably defend it at scale
I mean its perfectly defendable, its a way of depriving the rest of the world of highly skilled, motivated people.
As we've seen several times before, all it takes to turn a country into a backwater is brain drain. Vienna was _literally_ the centre of arts, culture and commerce, until it wasn't.
> These companies value access to the US market much more than employing a few H1Bs.
I think thats the point, its going to be used as a tool of favour/coercion. "good companies" will get h1bs, "bad companies" will not.
I mean its perfectly defendable, its a way of depriving the rest of the world of highly skilled, motivated people.
As we've seen several times before, all it takes to turn a country into a backwater is brain drain. Vienna was _literally_ the centre of arts, culture and commerce, until it wasn't.
> These companies value access to the US market much more than employing a few H1Bs.
I think thats the point, its going to be used as a tool of favour/coercion. "good companies" will get h1bs, "bad companies" will not.
There are lots of other pathways to do this outside the H1B. The US doesn’t need H1Bs to suck brain drain from elsewhere.
L1 is backlogged, O1 is backlogged, and the eb1/2-to-greencard (not citizenship) backlog is reaching 20 years for those born in India and China.
On top of that salaries have gotten significantly higher in both countries now ($60k-80k TC mid career)
At this point, most H1B sponsorship is for a candidate on an OPT, but now there is an incentive to relocate those employees back to a foreign office (Canada, India, Singapore, etc).
And, leaving aside tech - healthcare workers like nurses and doctors, along with academics are overwhelmingly sponsored via H1B - not O1. Say goodbye to the Phillipines-to-US pipeline that was helping keep rural healthcare infra on it's last legs.
On top of that salaries have gotten significantly higher in both countries now ($60k-80k TC mid career)
At this point, most H1B sponsorship is for a candidate on an OPT, but now there is an incentive to relocate those employees back to a foreign office (Canada, India, Singapore, etc).
And, leaving aside tech - healthcare workers like nurses and doctors, along with academics are overwhelmingly sponsored via H1B - not O1. Say goodbye to the Phillipines-to-US pipeline that was helping keep rural healthcare infra on it's last legs.
My only complaint with the entire H1B process is that it is used to simply hire cheaper labor, rather than the best, often at the expense of Americans. It's essentially importing a cheaper work force to displace the local one. That's the unfair economic impact because Americans cannot compete.
Just ask anyone who had to train their H1B replacement to get severance.
Those who support H1B should start talking to those who feel displaced, replaced, and cheated. Any one of us could be replaced or off shored.
Just ask anyone who had to train their H1B replacement to get severance.
Those who support H1B should start talking to those who feel displaced, replaced, and cheated. Any one of us could be replaced or off shored.
It’s not just cheaper. Think of the several extremely costly lawsuits filed against Tesla for racial discrimination over the years. You know who won’t sue a racist and sbusive employer? An H1b. While local nurses at Kaiser picket, Kaiser claims they need more h1b nurses because of a shortage, while offloading doctor work onto those nurses. You know who won’t go on strike for being overworked and doing the work of actual physicians? Yes, imported workers.
And the critical thing to notice, 16k per year, what this at best half measure from the administration does, is not enough of a cost to offset that benefit. Not being able to sue Tesla for millions of dollars for racism is well worth a measly 100k over 6 years. Calling it a half measure is even being way too kind. It was a psyop on labor. A fake solution that won’t do anything to solve the very real problem of h1b abuse.
People on H1Bs, I can't imagine how scary it all is. I'm disgusted you are going through this. I don't think I have ever worked with an H1B co-worker that I didn't want as a permanent fellow american. I may have been frustrated when their skills weren't where they should have been, but that again was on the companies gaming the system. On the personal level I never once worked with someone I wouldn't have been thrilled to be my friend/neighbor/inlaws. We aren't upset you are here. We are frustrated at how companies are using this system. I know that sort of semantics don't matter when it's your actual LIFE being torn up/risked/threatened.
I have been critical of H1B on here. I think it has been abused by companies and hurt American workers. But I also think we should allow more just plain old immigration (that doesn't give companies crazy leverage over workers).
I think people currently under the program should be exempted. You can't invite people into your home, then after they build their lives around that alter the deal. That's incredibly fucked up. Especially when it's kind people excited to come live in your house with you.
My first responses on here when this happened was 'about time'. And then I saw frantic people posting and my heart broke and I felt sick I had posted that.
I have been critical of H1B on here. I think it has been abused by companies and hurt American workers. But I also think we should allow more just plain old immigration (that doesn't give companies crazy leverage over workers).
I think people currently under the program should be exempted. You can't invite people into your home, then after they build their lives around that alter the deal. That's incredibly fucked up. Especially when it's kind people excited to come live in your house with you.
My first responses on here when this happened was 'about time'. And then I saw frantic people posting and my heart broke and I felt sick I had posted that.
I would pivot H-1B teams to Canadian offices if I were big tech.
Reuters has zero credibility at this point. Shameful.
Their reputation is outstanding:
https://ground.news/interest/reuters_fa2539
Care to share how and why you have this opinion?
Care to share how and why you have this opinion?
It’s based on a steady stream of bs they crank out, like the featured article. Oh the poor venture capitalists and other exploiters of labor, how will they ever survive this catastrophic 5% increase on the cost of Coolie labor.
Entry level tech positions are really in turmoil, not silicon valley hiring.
Gentle reminder that the Netherlands has lots of very smart software engineers that prefer to stay there, especially if there were more interesting software companies active there.
Another gentle reminder that the Netherlands has a 50% income tax (for swe salaries, at least) and a number of other non-trivial taxes like a wealth tax. I personally know people who found Dubai an interesting alternative to Amsterdam.
No, it's 50% marginal income tax rate on income over 75k EUR. With a median SWE salary of ~85k EUR you would be taking home 55k a year, that's an effective tax rate of 35% [1]
And that's before we even start talking about what kind of life that country and salary affords you, i.e. the thing that people actually care about, and not just materialistically but also culturally.
[1] https://thetax.nl/?income=85000&startFrom=Year&selectedYear=...
And that's before we even start talking about what kind of life that country and salary affords you, i.e. the thing that people actually care about, and not just materialistically but also culturally.
[1] https://thetax.nl/?income=85000&startFrom=Year&selectedYear=...
Ah yes... Dubai. The obvious alternative for people from the Netherlands that want to stay in the Netherlands.
[deleted]
People from the Netherlands who want to stay in the Netherlands have nothing to do with the US work visa which is being discussed in this thread
Edit:
op
>>that prefer to stay there
you
>>Dubai an interesting alternative to Amsterdam.
The inherent problem with your last sentence is that Dubai is not in the Netherlands.
op
>>that prefer to stay there
you
>>Dubai an interesting alternative to Amsterdam.
The inherent problem with your last sentence is that Dubai is not in the Netherlands.
I've written it, I know exactly what it says. And see no contradiction
Zaheg1123(2)
How kind of Trump to solve the brain drain problems which have affected so many of America's peers and/or rivals.
It'll be easier to hire now that they don't have to compete with US salaries.
Even better there are a lot of US scientists looking for a job since the multi billion dollar funding cuts for cancer research. Perhaps they can also help everyone else out.
It's still America first, he's just using zero based indexing and everyone else is in position 0.
It'll be easier to hire now that they don't have to compete with US salaries.
Even better there are a lot of US scientists looking for a job since the multi billion dollar funding cuts for cancer research. Perhaps they can also help everyone else out.
It's still America first, he's just using zero based indexing and everyone else is in position 0.
If you think about this fee like "tariffs for service workers" then it's easier to infer its impact. Tariff distorts prices. That might be a good thing or not. Monopolies and dominant big tech will be able to absorb this cost better -- they already have huge legal departments and HR, and can pay for the cost as long as they can accelerated things with fees. startups, smaller players and universities will be less likely to be able to afford that. You already see this in H1B market, just to a less extent. More STEM immigrants could move to tech/finance (not that it's not already this case) because that's already the only place any H1B job can be found. You're not going to find a small brewery job recruiting H1B.
Another possibility is this cost gets shared with the workers who are desperate to get a job and supresses real H1B wages even more-- it's already quota controlled. Hey, what are you going to do if you don't get a raise, give up on your life in this country or pay 100k to move?
As always, the best way of protect labor is better regulations and maybe unions.
Another possibility is this cost gets shared with the workers who are desperate to get a job and supresses real H1B wages even more-- it's already quota controlled. Hey, what are you going to do if you don't get a raise, give up on your life in this country or pay 100k to move?
As always, the best way of protect labor is better regulations and maybe unions.
It’s no coincidence that Amazon has more than double the number of H1Bs in corporate tech roles than the next biggest user. They’re not exactly broadly known for being a great place to work in tech. However, with H1Bs Amazon has a lot more power over making tech workers tolerate stupid stuff that makes these jobs much less attractive to top-tier US tech talent with more mobility.