US signals intention to rethink job H-1B lottery(theregister.com)
theregister.com
US signals intention to rethink job H-1B lottery
https://www.theregister.com/2025/07/20/h_1b_job_lottery/
125 comments
I agree on the principle but that condition would be specific enough to invite abuse.
Using pay as the article is mentioning would force a natural market clearing mechanism into the system (if you really want that person you may not get them if another company is willing to pay more for the H1B slot).
Using pay as the article is mentioning would force a natural market clearing mechanism into the system (if you really want that person you may not get them if another company is willing to pay more for the H1B slot).
But most H1-Bs are brand new grads, so their salary is just not very high. You'd be kicking out every 22 year old graduate of Stanford, Harvard etc. if you enforced a pay scale. The US has had a public policy since the 60s of making it easy for foreign grads of our elite colleges to stay here, I wouldn't mess with that
That’s F1 visas. You get a couple years on the F1 in private industry before you have to convert.
Also, H1B began in the 90s.
Also, H1B began in the 90s.
You get a single year of work authorization on an F-1. Only STEM graduates get an extra 2 years for a total of three. It's called OPT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optional_Practical_Training
OPT is mostly only useful to give you extra tries on the H-1B, since the current system is a lottery. Since that lottery is once a year, OPT also makes it easier for employers to hire you at any given time so that you can wait for the next lottery. But no employer is hiring an OPT with an expectation that they will leave in 1 or 3 years, so the H-1B is still what everyone anchors on.
There's basically no way to get a green card straight after an OPT. There's also no way to extend an H-1B past it's 3+3 years.
OPT is mostly only useful to give you extra tries on the H-1B, since the current system is a lottery. Since that lottery is once a year, OPT also makes it easier for employers to hire you at any given time so that you can wait for the next lottery. But no employer is hiring an OPT with an expectation that they will leave in 1 or 3 years, so the H-1B is still what everyone anchors on.
There's basically no way to get a green card straight after an OPT. There's also no way to extend an H-1B past it's 3+3 years.
I just don't think that salaries are high enough for engineers that have been working for 2 years, that we can employ a market-based model for just the highest paid ones. I guess to be fair you could lengthen the OPT visa period to like 5 years, but that just seems cruel to all of the OPT folks who don't make it
Yeah OPT is way too short after college (I think 2-3 years max). And it does make sense to expand it to 5 years and offer a time based path to a green card (which many other countries do employ).
But there is the risk people might game the system to take advantage of that framework (though that sounds like a higher hurdle than the H1B charade now).
There isn’t an easy answer but for sure what exists now isn’t working.
But there is the risk people might game the system to take advantage of that framework (though that sounds like a higher hurdle than the H1B charade now).
There isn’t an easy answer but for sure what exists now isn’t working.
The culture that is brought over is definitely very prevalent in faang.
I think they shouldn’t be indentured servants and they should just charge a huge fee, discount it for US grads and then don’t allow someone here to easily switch so they can’t maintian a pay disparity.
I would also suggest not tying the visa to a particular employer. The current system makes H1Bs easier to exploit.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
> An eligible H-1B worker can change employers as soon as the new employer’s nonfrivolous H-1B petition is properly filed with USCIS.
> An eligible H-1B worker can change employers as soon as the new employer’s nonfrivolous H-1B petition is properly filed with USCIS.
That's harder to do than the sentence says. And not all employers are H-1B employers. H-1B workers should be able to sponsor themselves, they shouldn't need to do the whole paperwork through businesses. So long as they can prove they meet the requirements, they should be able to apply for the visa (or its renewal).
The current system works like if every tourist had to first ask Disney to apply for their visa before coming to Orlando.
The current system works like if every tourist had to first ask Disney to apply for their visa before coming to Orlando.
They're not tied to a particular employer, this is a myth that will seemingly never die. H1-Bs are transferrable between employers. I know multiple people in both my professional & personal life who have done so easily
https://immigrationhelpla.com/h1b-visa-transfer/
https://immigrationhelpla.com/h1b-visa-transfer/
[deleted]
Having H1-B visa employees introduce overhead. Not all companies are willing to do it. We’ve recently decided to stop H1-Bs for anyone that isn’t a senior hire.
I think you're mixing in H-1B with L-1A/B. They're tied to a single employer.
Seriously. It’s slavery. I’ve seen people stay at staggeringly toxic environments because their visa was tied to a narcissist.
Replace the lottery with a compensation auction until it reaches 90th percentile for the area and ban any companies with layoffs in the last three years. Anything else, like making it "skills based" will be gamed.
This appears to assume that the only worthwhile H-1B visas are those for highly compensated positions.
How about a French language teacher? https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=french&city=&year=202...
How about a French language teacher? https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=french&city=&year=202...
> How about a French language teacher?
Pay more? Even on language learning sites there is variability on language and location. So if french language is that important so should the compensation be. You US will end up like Quebec https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/23-quebec-business-o...
Pay more? Even on language learning sites there is variability on language and location. So if french language is that important so should the compensation be. You US will end up like Quebec https://www.ctvnews.ca/montreal/article/23-quebec-business-o...
The only people that matters to Indian tech managers in the US is being able to hire more Indian H1Bs. It’s not their money. It’s the company and shareholders’ money so they can pay whatever amount the government dictates.
Of course, layoffs themselves can be gamed. You can do things like RTO, cutting intangible benefits, and other social engineering to make people quit.
In my position I directly deal with the consequences of others design choices.
There is one type of software engineer who creates software to keep running without any maintenance. Or with a very small number of people. They create software that operates logically and is essentially self documenting.
There’s another group of people who create software with no regard to the amount of mindless busy work that is required to maintain it. It seems like their primary goal is to create more work, not to actually solve the problem.
From years of direct observation and experience, people in the first group are those who are not concerned about being deported.
The ones in the second group are people who will do absolutely anything to stay in this country.
There is one type of software engineer who creates software to keep running without any maintenance. Or with a very small number of people. They create software that operates logically and is essentially self documenting.
There’s another group of people who create software with no regard to the amount of mindless busy work that is required to maintain it. It seems like their primary goal is to create more work, not to actually solve the problem.
From years of direct observation and experience, people in the first group are those who are not concerned about being deported.
The ones in the second group are people who will do absolutely anything to stay in this country.
It’s not just because of being afraid of losing H1B. Even the Indian developers in India behave the exact same way. They are extremely envious of their foreign counterparts and often sabotage the project through passive aggressive ways. They are even more envious of other Indians that have better jobs in India. They will often try to overcompensate by astronautic architecture designs.
Yeah...look at all the top researchers in AI, and count how many of them came here through H-1B. Gotta be something like 70%-80%.
Nothing against "homegrown" talent, but let's be real - US is getting cream of the crop talent from other countries.
(And that's just AI, not do the same for other fields. Many of these people started as regular engineers and devs., and didn't come to the through the EB-1B/Einstein visa. Just a regular H-1B. And many on student visas.)
Nothing against "homegrown" talent, but let's be real - US is getting cream of the crop talent from other countries.
(And that's just AI, not do the same for other fields. Many of these people started as regular engineers and devs., and didn't come to the through the EB-1B/Einstein visa. Just a regular H-1B. And many on student visas.)
I don't disagree with you, but:
If the supposed benefit of H-1B is getting top researchers from other fields, why do we allow body shops to fill the annual quota with low skill workers?
Like, shouldn't we be in favor of rules will which will shift the balance of H-1B recipients towards the highest skilled (and probably highest paid) workers, instead of a lottery that rewards spamming the system with the greatest number of people who technically have a bachelor's degree?
It seems like a rules change could actually increase the number of very highly qualified people coming to America.
If the supposed benefit of H-1B is getting top researchers from other fields, why do we allow body shops to fill the annual quota with low skill workers?
Like, shouldn't we be in favor of rules will which will shift the balance of H-1B recipients towards the highest skilled (and probably highest paid) workers, instead of a lottery that rewards spamming the system with the greatest number of people who technically have a bachelor's degree?
It seems like a rules change could actually increase the number of very highly qualified people coming to America.
H-1B for top talent in fields like AI makes sense. But in most cases it's not being used for that. It's just being used to fill generic software jobs that can be filled by US citizens/residents.
Those top tier researchers are the kind of people the program is legitimately meant for, but for every one of those there are probably 10 or 100 H-1B contractors being paid below-market wages resulting in underemployment of US citizens, especially early career graduates.
The program is also used to employ people that won’t quit when they are mistreated because their family’s existence in the country depends on continued employment.
The program is also used to employ people that won’t quit when they are mistreated because their family’s existence in the country depends on continued employment.
Even more basic IT jobs, no programming at all
I’ve worked with a lot of backend and mobile devs that are on H1-B. They were solid for the most part but they aren’t exactly niche skills.
If they truly have extraordinary talent in AI, there is the O1 visa. Bigger hurdle, but considering how Zuck is paying 100mil for some of these people, a low bar relatively.
The EB1 visa exists for these "top researchers", the H1B is being used to suppress wages by increasing labor supply for basic software engineering roles a fresh college grad can easily complete.
Indeed, but so many in the field of AI have followed this route:
Student -> regular dev/engineer -> promoted to lead/researcher/manager (or jump to another company for those positions).
If they didn't come to the US on a student VISA, or H1-B to begin with, they wouldn't have been able to follow the path they did.
Student -> regular dev/engineer -> promoted to lead/researcher/manager (or jump to another company for those positions).
If they didn't come to the US on a student VISA, or H1-B to begin with, they wouldn't have been able to follow the path they did.
I have worked with many very smart engineers at big tech firms. We were constantly searching, never hitting hiring goals. The H1B people were not displacing anyone and were paid top of market.
> look at all the top researchers in AI, and count how many of them came here through H-1B. Gotta be something like 70%-80%
What’s your source?
What’s your source?
By and large the majority of our H1Bs are from India. Why isn’t China fighting tooth and nail for these hires if they’re so valuable? Additionally, why isn’t India fighting tooth and nail to keep them home and help their own country? Last I checked, Modi is working to facilitate these hires.
Higher comp in the US, because that's where the capital is. More freedom, too. Especially if you're religious (compared to China).
Indians are already very integrated in tech, so networking benefits. If Indians prefer to hire Indians, makes sense that more Indians want to give it a shot.
Indians are already very integrated in tech, so networking benefits. If Indians prefer to hire Indians, makes sense that more Indians want to give it a shot.
I’m saying there’s no effort from China to get these workers and there’s an effort from India to facilitate these workers out of India and to America.
If these were high value workers neither of these things would be true.
If these were high value workers neither of these things would be true.
> Yeah...look at all the top researchers in AI, and count how many of them came here through H-1B. Gotta be something like 70%-80%.
It's funny how easily the argument flips between that and "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.", so long as it leads to the desired conclusion.
It's funny how easily the argument flips between that and "I am, somehow, less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein’s brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.", so long as it leads to the desired conclusion.
Would you say the bulk of the H-1Bs are cream of the crop?
This is complete BS. There are plenty of good candidates all over the world including the US. To make it fair, just put a 1000 limit per country per year.
My understanding is that the specifically set limits per country are actually somewhat unfair in the status quo. It means that applicants from smaller countries are way more likely to get in just based on where they were born rather than based on merit or employers’ talent needs.
That makes no sense. Are you saying just because India has more people than Thailand, more Indian should be able get this Visa? That’s completely unfair Thai men, women, and the ones in between.
Should India be able to send more soccer teams to the World Cup also?
Should India be able to send more soccer teams to the World Cup also?
I think setting limits per country at all is probably dumb. Should just be a global limit or maybe no limit at all and, perhaps making the program far more stringent about qualifications if needed.
Let’s say hypothetically India has 10,000 A+ candidates, and Thailand has 1,000 A+ candidates. India’s limit is 5,000 candidates and Thailand’s limit is 500 candidates based on population difference or other factors like diplomatic relations.
Half of India’s most qualified aren’t getting in while all of Thailand’s most qualified candidates are getting in plus 500 less qualified candidates.
So all else being equal if you’re very qualified you’ll have a better chance to win the lottery just by being born in a different country.
Let’s say hypothetically India has 10,000 A+ candidates, and Thailand has 1,000 A+ candidates. India’s limit is 5,000 candidates and Thailand’s limit is 500 candidates based on population difference or other factors like diplomatic relations.
Half of India’s most qualified aren’t getting in while all of Thailand’s most qualified candidates are getting in plus 500 less qualified candidates.
So all else being equal if you’re very qualified you’ll have a better chance to win the lottery just by being born in a different country.
You know what the most important people should be when considering what is fair? Americans. Why should American policy care if fewer qualified Indians don’t get in? If less qualified Thais are available then fewer than the limit will be issued. The limit is not there to serve Indians.
The limit should be there to prevent the industry from further concentration and becoming a subsidiary of a foreign government like India. There is a national security element to this also.
The limit should be there to prevent the industry from further concentration and becoming a subsidiary of a foreign government like India. There is a national security element to this also.
It’s really nice to hear the perspective of a Native American. What tribe is your family from?
1. In the hypothetical scenario I outlined, a smaller amount of qualified people come in because of the arbitrary per-country limits.
2. I agree, let’s prioritize Americans. Immigrants create a net positive of jobs and economic activity for native-born American citizens. How many businesses that you patronize or work for would never exist if immigrants didn’t start them? Do you think America would be better off economically and have more jobs if companies like Apple, AT&T, Disney, and Qualcomm didn’t exist? Because those companies wouldn’t exist without immigrants and children of immigrants who founded them. Would you instead prefer a declining population?
3. It sounds like you’re suggesting that we use a comprehensive threat model [1] to decide whether immigrants are allowed in from a country so that their country doesn’t take over this country. As you know we have already failed this mission once by allowing British, Italian, Irish, Spanish, French, and other European immigrants to take over the US and we can’t have it happen again. Next thing you’ll know even the First Lady will be an immigrant who abused visa regulations to become a citizen!
4. It doesn’t seem like the US financial system has much of a problem with foreign ownership of companies in the status quo, so why is this suddenly a problem when it comes to individuals immigrating? No individual human being physically immigrated to the US when Budweiser got bought by a foreign company. The issue is entirely detached from immigration. Of course, once you become a citizen the concern of foreign ownership vanishes by definition since you are no longer foreign.
[1] https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/044/241/ski...
1. In the hypothetical scenario I outlined, a smaller amount of qualified people come in because of the arbitrary per-country limits.
2. I agree, let’s prioritize Americans. Immigrants create a net positive of jobs and economic activity for native-born American citizens. How many businesses that you patronize or work for would never exist if immigrants didn’t start them? Do you think America would be better off economically and have more jobs if companies like Apple, AT&T, Disney, and Qualcomm didn’t exist? Because those companies wouldn’t exist without immigrants and children of immigrants who founded them. Would you instead prefer a declining population?
3. It sounds like you’re suggesting that we use a comprehensive threat model [1] to decide whether immigrants are allowed in from a country so that their country doesn’t take over this country. As you know we have already failed this mission once by allowing British, Italian, Irish, Spanish, French, and other European immigrants to take over the US and we can’t have it happen again. Next thing you’ll know even the First Lady will be an immigrant who abused visa regulations to become a citizen!
4. It doesn’t seem like the US financial system has much of a problem with foreign ownership of companies in the status quo, so why is this suddenly a problem when it comes to individuals immigrating? No individual human being physically immigrated to the US when Budweiser got bought by a foreign company. The issue is entirely detached from immigration. Of course, once you become a citizen the concern of foreign ownership vanishes by definition since you are no longer foreign.
[1] https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/044/241/ski...
The beautiful thing about being an American is that we don’t segregate ourselves into tribes and castes anymore. I know some countries still have separate castes but fortunately we don’t.
Answer to 1-4: yes fewer H1Bs is a good thing. Everything else you said is just hot air and not worth a respond. While we are at it, let’s have fixed equal per country limit it so that no single country could hijack our tech industry anymore.
Answer to 1-4: yes fewer H1Bs is a good thing. Everything else you said is just hot air and not worth a respond. While we are at it, let’s have fixed equal per country limit it so that no single country could hijack our tech industry anymore.
The H-1B program is meant to fill jobs that otherwise would not be filled because qualified American candidates don’t exist. It’s a win-win situation and I’ve never seen anyone on either side of the aisle dispute the value or desirability of that.
You can argue that it’s been perverted and that’s fine but several intelligent people in this thread have already suggested foolproof methods for ensuring we only fill unfillable positions. That is to say, it’s a noble program that everyone supports and is fully capable of fulfilling its intended goal.
You can argue that it’s been perverted and that’s fine but several intelligent people in this thread have already suggested foolproof methods for ensuring we only fill unfillable positions. That is to say, it’s a noble program that everyone supports and is fully capable of fulfilling its intended goal.
H1B is a noble program to help support the economic development of India from Indian perspective. From an American perspective it’s robbing Americans of well paying jobs right in our own country.
But if Indians or any other immigrants become naturalized citizens then your argument is just racism.
What makes you think that immigrants don't participate in the economy? Jobs aren't a zero sum game.
When someone gets a job they don't just take your job and then you don't have one. They now have a job and money to spend in the economy. They start businesses and patronize other businesses.
A productive working immigrant is an asset. You are thinking about this backwards: when someone like that immigrates to your country, wealth is being transferred from the home country to yours.
What makes you think that immigrants don't participate in the economy? Jobs aren't a zero sum game.
When someone gets a job they don't just take your job and then you don't have one. They now have a job and money to spend in the economy. They start businesses and patronize other businesses.
A productive working immigrant is an asset. You are thinking about this backwards: when someone like that immigrates to your country, wealth is being transferred from the home country to yours.
Based on your response, all Indians are just future Americans waiting to become one and any policy against the interest of India and its people now is racism. Perfectly logical but completely absurd.
A lot of people seem to believe that the path to the next generation of American prosperity is playing a series of zero-sum games through demagoguery. I’m not convinced.
I'm not even sure that's it's a desire for greater prosperity, honestly. I think it's most about enforcing social hierarchy by race and gender and parentage, though people vary a lot on what they want the hierarchy to be based on. This is a huge change from past visions for America, and will lead to far less prosperity, inevitably. The fight against DEI, policies meant to maximize corporate success by taking the best talent no matter race or gender, is clear indication of that. And there was plenty of indication that companies that used ESG in running their companies overperformed, yet there was a huge revolt against that.
> DEI, policies meant to maximize corporate success by taking the best talent no matter race or gender
You're thinking of equality. The Equity of DEI is different from that.
You're thinking of equality. The Equity of DEI is different from that.
> You're thinking of equality. The Equity of DEI is different from that.
> The fight against DEI, policies meant to maximize corporate success by taking the best talent no matter race or gender, is clear indication of that.
That's not how DEI looked to me. In the places I've worked, DEI consisted of policies meant to force organizations to hire underqualified applicants so long as they were members of certain demographics, i.e. a variant of affirmative action.
That's not how DEI looked to me. In the places I've worked, DEI consisted of policies meant to force organizations to hire underqualified applicants so long as they were members of certain demographics, i.e. a variant of affirmative action.
I often hear the excuse of “underqualified” hires being made by anti-diversity advocates to try and justify a return to prior status quo policies that prefer status quo candidates via conscious and unconscious bias.
For most professions (not talking about professions with rigorous licensing and training like pilots and doctors), I would argue that the idea of a “qualified” candidate has been taken too far and is used as a construct of social hierarchy.
A DEI program done right will recognize this. For example, someone who isn’t fluent in upper middle class corporate speaking and etiquette may not be considered “qualified” even though they are more than capable of doing the job. This disproportionately affects minority and lower income groups. A good DEI program can train hiring committees to look past issues like that and focus on skills and traits that lead to success in the role.
As a side note, I think it’s clear that affirmative action wasn’t performed fairly at many college institutions, especially competitive ones, but corporate DEI has almost no relation to those programs and how they operate. Corporations have no real functional equivalent to the college application process. Universities are dealing with volumes on a completely different scale with completely different end goals.
For most professions (not talking about professions with rigorous licensing and training like pilots and doctors), I would argue that the idea of a “qualified” candidate has been taken too far and is used as a construct of social hierarchy.
A DEI program done right will recognize this. For example, someone who isn’t fluent in upper middle class corporate speaking and etiquette may not be considered “qualified” even though they are more than capable of doing the job. This disproportionately affects minority and lower income groups. A good DEI program can train hiring committees to look past issues like that and focus on skills and traits that lead to success in the role.
As a side note, I think it’s clear that affirmative action wasn’t performed fairly at many college institutions, especially competitive ones, but corporate DEI has almost no relation to those programs and how they operate. Corporations have no real functional equivalent to the college application process. Universities are dealing with volumes on a completely different scale with completely different end goals.
How does a policy like that look in practice? Presumably it doesn’t read “we want to hire underqualified people.”
The DEI policies I’ve seen were careful to emphasize that diversity should be a factor only when several candidates are otherwise competitive, and the focus should be on reducing interviewer bias towards hiring people like themselves so the company can benefit from a wider range of experience among employees.
The DEI policies I’ve seen were careful to emphasize that diversity should be a factor only when several candidates are otherwise competitive, and the focus should be on reducing interviewer bias towards hiring people like themselves so the company can benefit from a wider range of experience among employees.
> How does a policy like that look in practice? Presumably it doesn’t read “we want to hire underqualified people.”
For example, HR hands this decree down from on high to hiring managers: "At least X% of your hires need to be women"
If you don't get many women candidates applying (as is the case with certain types of STEM roles), you end up hiring candidates you might otherwise consider unqualified in order to try to make the quota.
For example, HR hands this decree down from on high to hiring managers: "At least X% of your hires need to be women"
If you don't get many women candidates applying (as is the case with certain types of STEM roles), you end up hiring candidates you might otherwise consider unqualified in order to try to make the quota.
I always tell people who say these things: name and shame the places! What you’re talking about would be illegal.
In any place where I worked, all it influenced was where the intake funnel was sourced from. Once someone was in the recruiting funnel, it had exactly zero bearing on interviews and hiring decisions.
From observing the public behavior of the current regime and it's war against DEI, it itself seems to be lazer-focused on hiring unqualified morons whose most important quality is loyalty to the supreme leader. Methinks merit was never the goal, and DEI was just a figleaf to get angry culture warriors to turn out and vote for them.
From observing the public behavior of the current regime and it's war against DEI, it itself seems to be lazer-focused on hiring unqualified morons whose most important quality is loyalty to the supreme leader. Methinks merit was never the goal, and DEI was just a figleaf to get angry culture warriors to turn out and vote for them.
> How does a policy like that look in practice?
I used to work for a manager who would blatantly say "I will not hire a white person for this position". Of course, it wasn't an official policy to exclude people based on race. I'm pretty sure that would be illegal? But in practice, some hiring managers would sometimes reject or not even consider candidates of certain races. I've also seen people on hiring panels lower standards explicitly because of "diversity" (but to be fair, only when the candidate was on the fence of hire/no-hire).
I used to work for a manager who would blatantly say "I will not hire a white person for this position". Of course, it wasn't an official policy to exclude people based on race. I'm pretty sure that would be illegal? But in practice, some hiring managers would sometimes reject or not even consider candidates of certain races. I've also seen people on hiring panels lower standards explicitly because of "diversity" (but to be fair, only when the candidate was on the fence of hire/no-hire).
No, that's just how white people are hired, so we need to combat that. White people who legitimately think a "free for all" type system doesn't greatly favor them are genuinely delusional.
Look, the reality is we live in a country where being white makes every aspect of your life a little easier. If you just "let" people hire whoever, they're gonna hire more white people than they should, because they are white. They've done studies on this - even just having a non-white sounding name on your resume slashes your odds of getting hired in half!
The idea that we somehow, at sometime, had an "equal" system is just not true. 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s whenever - these were times by, and for, the white man. No DEI, but actually yes we had extreme DEI, in the opposite direction. Hence why DEI was then created.
And before I hear anything, I'm white. I just have eyeballs and the ability to look around me.
Look, the reality is we live in a country where being white makes every aspect of your life a little easier. If you just "let" people hire whoever, they're gonna hire more white people than they should, because they are white. They've done studies on this - even just having a non-white sounding name on your resume slashes your odds of getting hired in half!
The idea that we somehow, at sometime, had an "equal" system is just not true. 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s whenever - these were times by, and for, the white man. No DEI, but actually yes we had extreme DEI, in the opposite direction. Hence why DEI was then created.
And before I hear anything, I'm white. I just have eyeballs and the ability to look around me.
I work in a european liberal art school. It doesn't get much more left wing than this. So of course we have written policies regarding gender, diversity and inclusion.
As part of the staff I was included in various hiring processes. And I can assure you I haven't seen even the slightest sliver of someone being hired based purely on DEI without having the qualifications to back it up. In fact most of the times we had to throw out those candidates, because they lacked in one way or another against non-DEI candidates.
Turns out even the most left-leaning people prefer working with competent colleagues, who would have thunk..
I file the whole DEI thing as right wing myths without basis in reality. All we hear is vague stories. You know my dogs aunt knows a guy who said on facebook..
As part of the staff I was included in various hiring processes. And I can assure you I haven't seen even the slightest sliver of someone being hired based purely on DEI without having the qualifications to back it up. In fact most of the times we had to throw out those candidates, because they lacked in one way or another against non-DEI candidates.
Turns out even the most left-leaning people prefer working with competent colleagues, who would have thunk..
I file the whole DEI thing as right wing myths without basis in reality. All we hear is vague stories. You know my dogs aunt knows a guy who said on facebook..
I personally witnessed DEI done wrong at the last company I worked at. We had a new HR lady who was all in on the hype and decided that our team was too white.
After that, we didn't have a white person to interview for quite awhile. The racial makeup of interviews had changed- quite radically- and the quality of interviewees had gone down quite a bit as well. I'm certain one submitted a fake resume, and possibly a second.
Bear in mind, our team was not entirely white, and we had people working with us from around the world as far away as Pakistan.
Eventually, our manager got her taken out of the loop, and we took back control of hiring, including several (albeit not exclusively) non-white people.
> I work in a european liberal art school
There have been several prominent academia scandals in the US around the DEI space. Some of the studies that triggered a lot of the companies to hop on the bandwagon (and either Air Force or the DoD, I forget which) ended up being full of basic statistical fudging to fit conclusions.
After that, we didn't have a white person to interview for quite awhile. The racial makeup of interviews had changed- quite radically- and the quality of interviewees had gone down quite a bit as well. I'm certain one submitted a fake resume, and possibly a second.
Bear in mind, our team was not entirely white, and we had people working with us from around the world as far away as Pakistan.
Eventually, our manager got her taken out of the loop, and we took back control of hiring, including several (albeit not exclusively) non-white people.
> I work in a european liberal art school
There have been several prominent academia scandals in the US around the DEI space. Some of the studies that triggered a lot of the companies to hop on the bandwagon (and either Air Force or the DoD, I forget which) ended up being full of basic statistical fudging to fit conclusions.
> This is a huge change from past visions for America
The America that limited citizenship to free White persons, and had an effectively Whites-only immigration policy until 1965 [1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
The America that limited citizenship to free White persons, and had an effectively Whites-only immigration policy until 1965 [1]?
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Ac...
That was the starting point, but the vision for the future was to break down that hierarchy to lead to a more fair and prosperous society.
We are at a point now where passing laws as were passed during the civil rights movement is completely unthinkable. Even laws advancing equality that were passed in the late 20th century are pretty unthinkable in today's environment. There revanchist movement has control of the government, the media, and much of society.
We are at a point now where passing laws as were passed during the civil rights movement is completely unthinkable. Even laws advancing equality that were passed in the late 20th century are pretty unthinkable in today's environment. There revanchist movement has control of the government, the media, and much of society.
It was certainly not the vision of the founders: Among the Romans emancipation required but one effort. The slave, when made free, might mix with, without staining the blood of his master. But with us a second is necessary, unknown to history. When freed, he is to be removed beyond the reach of mixture. - Thomas Jefferson [1]
Even the lauded Abraham Lincoln advocated for the removal of freed Blacks, and made several attempts at it [2], and in the Douglas-Lincoln debates said: I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. [3]
(His opponent, Stephen Douglas, was even more opposed to the idea.)
[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h490t.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Co...
[3] Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 235-236
Even the lauded Abraham Lincoln advocated for the removal of freed Blacks, and made several attempts at it [2], and in the Douglas-Lincoln debates said: I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will for ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. [3]
(His opponent, Stephen Douglas, was even more opposed to the idea.)
[1] https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part3/3h490t.html
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln_and_slavery#Co...
[3] Basler, The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, pp. 235-236
I agree. But perhaps where we differ is that I don't think America is not a constant set of ideas, to establish an unchanging status quo. But rather the one constant in America is a vision for a different and better future than the present or past. And this is what MAGA is fighting against. MAGA is a vision for regression towards less equality, more hierarchy, and less universal freedom.
Personally I think the DEI push was a mistake, purely because a push for social equity carried out by the private sector was always going to lead to complete disaster. It was another zero sum game, if not in actual application due to legal issues, then in rhetoric.
But I think you’re right overall, or to put it differently, certain people want to redefine what it means to be American in a way that funny enough, would have excluded large chunks of the Trump administration if applied out when their ancestors got here.
But I think you’re right overall, or to put it differently, certain people want to redefine what it means to be American in a way that funny enough, would have excluded large chunks of the Trump administration if applied out when their ancestors got here.
This is my current thought as well. The neo-fascist movements throughout the west all do not have a positive vision, beyond it being a narrative vehicle to convince the people who bought into the rethoric.
Returning a nation to former greatness is a strong story, especially among those who never benefited from that hypothetical greatness. If you ask those politicans to make their promise of a return to greatness more concrete, they often can't even point at a point in time where the nation was great. And when they do you it usually involves prior atrocities where one class of people was beneath the others.
Excuse me for being vague and open here, but I purposely tried to tell it in a way that works for all countries with whose neo-fascists movements I had experiences with, so Geemany, Austria, Italy, Serbia and now unfortunately also the United States of America.
Returning a nation to former greatness is a strong story, especially among those who never benefited from that hypothetical greatness. If you ask those politicans to make their promise of a return to greatness more concrete, they often can't even point at a point in time where the nation was great. And when they do you it usually involves prior atrocities where one class of people was beneath the others.
Excuse me for being vague and open here, but I purposely tried to tell it in a way that works for all countries with whose neo-fascists movements I had experiences with, so Geemany, Austria, Italy, Serbia and now unfortunately also the United States of America.
H-1B visas have significantly benefited many non-profit science labs, attracting talented researchers who often earn less than those in the technology sector. Therefore, using salary as the sole criterion for H-1B eligibility would be bad idea. A careful approach is needed, as many H-1B talents, though perhaps not immediately impressive on paper by certain metrics, consistently add immense value.
[deleted]
Here's a bulletproof working visa policy: automatically approve everyone who will be in income tax (state and federal) more than the median gross income (~$60k). Sort of minimum-income-tax personal guarantee, which all highly-skilled migrants for in-demand occupations will easily match (OTE >$200k). Alternatively, earning 2x of the median income in their profession, with a national floor of $200k pa.
It won't solve all immigration woes, but it will do a great deal to keep the country competitive.
It won't solve all immigration woes, but it will do a great deal to keep the country competitive.
Yes, only that it leaves vast parts of the US economy without workers, since not only skilled labour is sought after. Farm work would be one popular example.
So unlike you somehow explain to Americans why foreigners get the good jobs while they now have to work the fields, a kins of labour that has been beneath them for decades, that won't even remotely fly (at least not without other major restructuring).
As an immigrant, I understand the deal (for a working visa): I must bring valuable and scarce skills that this economy lacks (as demonstrated by the premium it is willing to pay). "Total Compensation" is an imperfect-but-good-enough proxy for how valuable and scarce my skills are. This does nothing to address other issues in immigration or labour forces, but if your goal is to attract global professionals with valuable and scarce skills, you need a working visa based on the total compensation this economy offers for those skills (i.e., Total Compensation).
I’m curious what the policy with the highest long-term benefit would be. The country needs external talent, but would skewing H-1B towards high skill be good? The economy seems to need unskilled labor for the jobs Americans are not interested in. Should the government try to curb hi-tech outsourcing instead, to create more jobs in the States, both for the citizens and the skilled immigrant workers? But that would be protectionism, and protectionism rarely play out well economically.
Ask the countless unemployed and underemployed CS and CE and EE grads. They have a simple answer: give them a job first.
Until local grads are fully employed, H1B should be limited to a fixed and equal amount per country per year. That’s fair. No more Indian managers hiring only Indian H1Bs. If they need the foreign talents so much let them hire some Irish or South Korean H1Bs.
Until local grads are fully employed, H1B should be limited to a fixed and equal amount per country per year. That’s fair. No more Indian managers hiring only Indian H1Bs. If they need the foreign talents so much let them hire some Irish or South Korean H1Bs.
I think it's important to note that not all H-1B jobs are the same. There are many companies that abuse the system, and this is one of main reasons to revamp it.
But there are also companies that are just looking for talent that they can't easily find in the US. I had an H-1B working in Investment Banking and was paid a high salary after business school. Most of my classmates did not want to go into banking. I was ranked a top performer year after year, put in hundred-hour weeks and provided actual value to the bank, clients, and the US economy.
Economies generally want high-skilled, high-salary immigrants. The H-1B can and should be a program for that. Literally everyone benefits.
It should also enable a path to citizenship. Right now, those high-skilled workers get a lottery with ~30% odds, another try at 40% odds if they have a graduate degree, and then six years working for Uncle Sam before they're kicked out of the country.
There's no path to a green card unless your employer chooses to sponsor you, at which point you are even more at their whims than during your H-1B stint and obviously there's a massive imbalance in that relationship.
And because I believe offering solutions is more valuable than just criticizing, here's my relative non-controversial suggestion for the program:
• Country quotas
• Minimum salary of [$175-200k/year] (pick your number)
• H-1B workers should be allowed to easily switch jobs, so long as the job is still above the minimum salary. (Giving workers flexibility reduces the possibility of abuse. Currently you have 30-days to find a job or you have to leave the country.)
• Spouses of H-1B workers (H-4 visas) should get a work permit with no minimum salary (They're currently not allowed to work at all. They don't need a salary minimum because their visa is tethered to the H-1B already, and it's better (for everyone) to have them work some job rather than no job.)
• H-1B can self-petition a green card after X years working in the US (personally I'd say 3 years, but 5 may be more palatable to the general public)
• H-1B visas should be good for 5 years instead of the current 3. They should also be allowed to extend for another 5 years, so 5+5 instead of 3+3.
But there are also companies that are just looking for talent that they can't easily find in the US. I had an H-1B working in Investment Banking and was paid a high salary after business school. Most of my classmates did not want to go into banking. I was ranked a top performer year after year, put in hundred-hour weeks and provided actual value to the bank, clients, and the US economy.
Economies generally want high-skilled, high-salary immigrants. The H-1B can and should be a program for that. Literally everyone benefits.
It should also enable a path to citizenship. Right now, those high-skilled workers get a lottery with ~30% odds, another try at 40% odds if they have a graduate degree, and then six years working for Uncle Sam before they're kicked out of the country.
There's no path to a green card unless your employer chooses to sponsor you, at which point you are even more at their whims than during your H-1B stint and obviously there's a massive imbalance in that relationship.
And because I believe offering solutions is more valuable than just criticizing, here's my relative non-controversial suggestion for the program:
• Country quotas
• Minimum salary of [$175-200k/year] (pick your number)
• H-1B workers should be allowed to easily switch jobs, so long as the job is still above the minimum salary. (Giving workers flexibility reduces the possibility of abuse. Currently you have 30-days to find a job or you have to leave the country.)
• Spouses of H-1B workers (H-4 visas) should get a work permit with no minimum salary (They're currently not allowed to work at all. They don't need a salary minimum because their visa is tethered to the H-1B already, and it's better (for everyone) to have them work some job rather than no job.)
• H-1B can self-petition a green card after X years working in the US (personally I'd say 3 years, but 5 may be more palatable to the general public)
• H-1B visas should be good for 5 years instead of the current 3. They should also be allowed to extend for another 5 years, so 5+5 instead of 3+3.
So your position is: make it an even juicier deal for Indian H1Bs and screw the unemployed and underemployed Americans.
The point is to set the min pay to be top of market for the field. If there really are plenty of Americans available they should get hired first
Good luck with that approach. Indian tech managers in the US are some of the most biased people in the world. They will find all the missing-semi-colon reasons to not hire an American and hire an Indian H1B instead. Money is no object because it’s the company and shareholders’ money.
How is that what you read from my suggestion? Do you really think putting a salary floor will make companies pay H-1B workers _more_ and not consider US applicants? That's literally the opposite of what would happen.
Did you also ignore the country quotas bullet?
Did you also ignore the country quotas bullet?
Change quota to limit and put a small number on it. Uncouple that number from the foreign country’s population size and couple it to the unemployment and underemployment rate of the CS grads in the US instead. The rest of your points is just an Indian H1B person’s wishlist.
I think your bias is showing and clouding your judgment. You've made the same inaccurate and bigoted point several times on this thread and I'm not sure it's added much to the conversation.
I shouldn't need to say this, but I'm not Indian.
I shouldn't need to say this, but I'm not Indian.
> • Minimum salary of [$175-200k/year] (pick your number)
How would this impact... say... Foreign Language Instructors? https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=foreign+language+inst... or school teachers? https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=teacher&city=&year=20...
How would this impact... say... Foreign Language Instructors? https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=foreign+language+inst... or school teachers? https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=&job=teacher&city=&year=20...
If US army truly needs to hire some foreigners I don't think they would have issues either modifying H1B rules so they are exempt or getting their own visa category for their own needs. I don't think either party would truly be against that even if Congress needed to pass the law since DOD is asking it.
Of course they could also just hire them with higher wage and tell Congress that they have option to make a small dent in the defense budget by passing that law.
Of course they could also just hire them with higher wage and tell Congress that they have option to make a small dent in the defense budget by passing that law.
I don't think school teachers need an H-1B. Plenty of people in the US willing to do that job. If anything, we need to restrict the supply of school teacher labor so that there's an upward pressure in salary.
As for Foreign Language Instructors, I would argue that should be a different visa category altogether. Probably an O-1C type visa (which doesn't exist today). Someone with a specific skill set that is unavailable in the US by definition.
But IANAL.
As for Foreign Language Instructors, I would argue that should be a different visa category altogether. Probably an O-1C type visa (which doesn't exist today). Someone with a specific skill set that is unavailable in the US by definition.
But IANAL.
I would encourage to to look at the reports from https://tsa.ed.gov/#/reports - that's "Teacher Shortage Areas"
If it was the case that we needed to restrict the supply... those reports would suggest a different story.
The pressure on teacher salary is more often limited by state and local government rather than the availability of teachers.
There is a problem there with teacher salaries and the number of them available to hire - but making it so that it would be impossible for a school in a city in rural North Carolina to hire teachers ( https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=vance+county+public+school... ) that they're having difficulty with finding people to work there isn't necessarily the answer.
And to the "but they're only paying $40k - of course no one is going to work there. That's slightly above the median household income for the area (and almost twice the per capita income).
There does need to be a larger discussion about the funding of education. Making it so that the schools can't hire anyone who would need a visa because they're having difficulty hiring there - I don't believe that is the right answer.
If it was the case that we needed to restrict the supply... those reports would suggest a different story.
The pressure on teacher salary is more often limited by state and local government rather than the availability of teachers.
There is a problem there with teacher salaries and the number of them available to hire - but making it so that it would be impossible for a school in a city in rural North Carolina to hire teachers ( https://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=vance+county+public+school... ) that they're having difficulty with finding people to work there isn't necessarily the answer.
And to the "but they're only paying $40k - of course no one is going to work there. That's slightly above the median household income for the area (and almost twice the per capita income).
There does need to be a larger discussion about the funding of education. Making it so that the schools can't hire anyone who would need a visa because they're having difficulty hiring there - I don't believe that is the right answer.
The H-1B visa should not be designed as a solution for teacher shortage in America.
I still think the core problem is low salaries. Comparing to median household or per capita income isn't necessarily accurate because jobs don't all place the same demands on workers, so workers don't choose solely based on income.
I still think the core problem is low salaries. Comparing to median household or per capita income isn't necessarily accurate because jobs don't all place the same demands on workers, so workers don't choose solely based on income.
The H-1B visa is not a solution to the shortage of teachers in the US. Rather, it is a tool that some school districts are using to try to fill in the gaps where they have a shortage.
My point is one of "if fixing of H-1B abuse is solved by changing it to be an auction based on compensation, it will negatively impact all of the companies that use the H-1B for roles other than those that can compete with Big Tech software developers for compensation."
There are a lot of people out there on a H-1B visa working for companies that have gone through the process of trying to hire a US citizen first and failed to find anyone for that role (that isn't a software developer).
There are classifications for companies that employ a lot of H-1B visa holders. It is known as a H-1B-dependent employer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B-dependent_employer
If the goal is to limit the fraud and abuses ( here's how to report https://www.uscis.gov/scams-fraud-and-misconduct/report-frau... ) then further regulating and auditing companies in that classification would be the first place to start rather than trying to change the visa itself.
Yes, this is playing whack-a-mole with "shut down one fraudulent consultancy and another one pops up."
However, a significant component of this is that companies have difficulty managing projects and staff outside of their core competencies. We need to migrate from one ERP system to another - you get the professional services for the ERP company which in turn brings in a consultancy to do the project. It isn't entirely reasonable for the original company to try to staff up FTEs to do it (and them lay 3/4ths of them off when the project is complete and it goes to a maintenance level of work).
Low salaries - by themselves - are not the problem. There are fields that don't pay as well as Big Tech software developer. There are also companies that have much lower revenue per employee than Big Tech companies ( https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=revenue+per+employee+%2... ) and trying to match Big Tech compensation would bankrupt them.
My point is one of "if fixing of H-1B abuse is solved by changing it to be an auction based on compensation, it will negatively impact all of the companies that use the H-1B for roles other than those that can compete with Big Tech software developers for compensation."
There are a lot of people out there on a H-1B visa working for companies that have gone through the process of trying to hire a US citizen first and failed to find anyone for that role (that isn't a software developer).
There are classifications for companies that employ a lot of H-1B visa holders. It is known as a H-1B-dependent employer - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-1B-dependent_employer
If the goal is to limit the fraud and abuses ( here's how to report https://www.uscis.gov/scams-fraud-and-misconduct/report-frau... ) then further regulating and auditing companies in that classification would be the first place to start rather than trying to change the visa itself.
Yes, this is playing whack-a-mole with "shut down one fraudulent consultancy and another one pops up."
However, a significant component of this is that companies have difficulty managing projects and staff outside of their core competencies. We need to migrate from one ERP system to another - you get the professional services for the ERP company which in turn brings in a consultancy to do the project. It isn't entirely reasonable for the original company to try to staff up FTEs to do it (and them lay 3/4ths of them off when the project is complete and it goes to a maintenance level of work).
Low salaries - by themselves - are not the problem. There are fields that don't pay as well as Big Tech software developer. There are also companies that have much lower revenue per employee than Big Tech companies ( https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=revenue+per+employee+%2... ) and trying to match Big Tech compensation would bankrupt them.
> There are a lot of people out there on a H-1B visa working for companies that have gone through the process of trying to hire a US citizen first and failed to find anyone for that role (that isn't a software developer).
Yes, but I still think those positions are better solved by increasing the salary for those positions.
Even if you don't believe that, the H-1B as it exists today is trying to do too many things at once and it's failing at most of those. My specific policy proposal is on fixing it for the use case of finding high-skilled workers for high-paying jobs US citizens do not want to do today.
I'm not at all against having other visa programs to solve other needs, including temp workers for tech consulting gigs, teachers or anything else, for that matter. I'm 100% pro immigration, as is anyone who understands Economics.
Yes, but I still think those positions are better solved by increasing the salary for those positions.
Even if you don't believe that, the H-1B as it exists today is trying to do too many things at once and it's failing at most of those. My specific policy proposal is on fixing it for the use case of finding high-skilled workers for high-paying jobs US citizens do not want to do today.
I'm not at all against having other visa programs to solve other needs, including temp workers for tech consulting gigs, teachers or anything else, for that matter. I'm 100% pro immigration, as is anyone who understands Economics.
Consider a different approach then.
Instead of (what I consider would be) breaking the H-1B for everything that isn't tech, create another H-1 category visa. The Immigration act of 1990 split the H-1 visa into the H-1A (nurses) and H-1B (everything else). In 1999, the H-1C was created for nurses shortages (which expired in 2009).
Would having a H-1D visa that is limited to jobs that are classified under the BLS 15-xxxx ( https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_stru.htm#15-0000 ) and have a different criteria (compare how the TN visa limits to specific occupations that align with the BLS occupational profiles - https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-p-chapter-... - which means that the classification is either a computer system analyst or engineer for someone from Canada or Mexico to get a technical job in the US). This would change the the other H visas to prohibit people from getting a visa for a position that would otherwise require a H-1D visa to be authorized to work.
At that point, one could have an auction for those candidates and highest wage compensation wins. Might want to have something with a US masters degree again (as that's an important part of many graduate program income for universities). I still believe there are a number of second order effects that need to be considered in this suggestion (this would likely exacerbate the "immigrants are getting paid more than me" problems that one also sees with "juniors are getting paid more than me" - and yes, those are problems, but I think that this may make it worse).
The thing is to not break the rest of the H-1B visas when trying to fix the problems caused by H-1B-dependent employers.
Instead of (what I consider would be) breaking the H-1B for everything that isn't tech, create another H-1 category visa. The Immigration act of 1990 split the H-1 visa into the H-1A (nurses) and H-1B (everything else). In 1999, the H-1C was created for nurses shortages (which expired in 2009).
Would having a H-1D visa that is limited to jobs that are classified under the BLS 15-xxxx ( https://www.bls.gov/oes/2023/may/oes_stru.htm#15-0000 ) and have a different criteria (compare how the TN visa limits to specific occupations that align with the BLS occupational profiles - https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-2-part-p-chapter-... - which means that the classification is either a computer system analyst or engineer for someone from Canada or Mexico to get a technical job in the US). This would change the the other H visas to prohibit people from getting a visa for a position that would otherwise require a H-1D visa to be authorized to work.
At that point, one could have an auction for those candidates and highest wage compensation wins. Might want to have something with a US masters degree again (as that's an important part of many graduate program income for universities). I still believe there are a number of second order effects that need to be considered in this suggestion (this would likely exacerbate the "immigrants are getting paid more than me" problems that one also sees with "juniors are getting paid more than me" - and yes, those are problems, but I think that this may make it worse).
The thing is to not break the rest of the H-1B visas when trying to fix the problems caused by H-1B-dependent employers.
You’d have to make it harder to outsource as well, right?
Eh, if recent events are any indicators ( going after migrants and not after employers that hire them ), I think most people already know the answer to that question.
Ninety-nine percent of the developers at one of the world's largest transportation companies are from India, with most employed through the H1B visa program. Many of them are aghast at the company's decision to open a new office in India, seeing it as a cost-cutting measure that could put their positions at risk.
* >Ninety-nine percent of the developers at one of the world's largest transportation companies are from India*
What company is that?
What company is that?
I got rejected from the lottery once! It was a while ago, at that time I had about 40% chance to "win" it.
I suppose folks from India and China make up the bulk of the applicants, and a high percentage of the people who end up getting the visas.
My life could have been completely different if I did get an H-1B. Oh for the path not taken.
I hope there is someone who received it in my stead, who now is wonderfully happy and successful in the US.
I suppose folks from India and China make up the bulk of the applicants, and a high percentage of the people who end up getting the visas.
My life could have been completely different if I did get an H-1B. Oh for the path not taken.
I hope there is someone who received it in my stead, who now is wonderfully happy and successful in the US.
I know someone who didn't get the lottery for 3 consecutive years.
Life is a series of lotteries. Where you're born, how wealthy your parents are, what genetic endowment you receive, what environment you grow up in. You have to win enough times and then you get a shot at a happy life.
Is it fair? Not really. Most people lose. I also lost. But, such is the reality we live in.
Is it fair? Not really. Most people lose. I also lost. But, such is the reality we live in.
That's a bit defeatist. When discussing policy, we strive to create optimal, not random outcomes.
Realistically, policy is the outcome of the political process. There is no single optimal policy because what's considered 'optimal' depends on what you want to achieve, and these goals will vary across individuals or groups.
Some people don't want anybody to come in, others want just the brain drain but nobody else, others want cheap unskilled workers, others want open borders. And this is just a small sample.
Some people don't want anybody to come in, others want just the brain drain but nobody else, others want cheap unskilled workers, others want open borders. And this is just a small sample.
There are still less and more optimal choices for any given goal. I can't think of any view on immigration that is favored by a lottery.
I think it's a compromise between:
There could be a better solution for reaching these goals, you could switch priorities, cancel H1B altogether, or lift the cap, or have stricter requirements, or separate caps per country of origin, or per sector, there are a lot of options.
From my point of view, it's all still a lottery.
1. We want to do brain drain to remain a leader in science and technology.
2. We don't want immigration and we don't like immigrants.
3. We can't discriminate based on where you come from, that's racist.
There could be a better solution for reaching these goals, you could switch priorities, cancel H1B altogether, or lift the cap, or have stricter requirements, or separate caps per country of origin, or per sector, there are a lot of options.
From my point of view, it's all still a lottery.
> He also proposes that USCIS should replace the random selection of H-1B visas with a system that prioritizes highest wages....
This change is so obvious that's it's incredible that it hasn't been implemented yet. Auction off the H1-B visas based on how much federal income tax the role will pay and let the market sort it out.
This change is so obvious that's it's incredible that it hasn't been implemented yet. Auction off the H1-B visas based on how much federal income tax the role will pay and let the market sort it out.
The problem with this argument is that most non-spouse H1-Bs are granted to new college grads who just graduated from a US college. Brand new engineers do not have very high salaries, so if you insisted on a 'highest wages' system you'd be sending virtually every new grad from say Stanford back to their home country the second they graduate. US public policy since the 60s has been to welcome foreigners who graduate from our elite colleges.
As I say above- just get rid of visas for consulting companies instead, and everything else fixes itself
As I say above- just get rid of visas for consulting companies instead, and everything else fixes itself
I'm not sure what you mean by "spouse H-1B" as that doesn't really exist.
>new college grads
So? The point of h1-b isn't to hire new grads. It's to find the already educated, industry proven, experienced top talent that exists in the world. How would a new grad fit that description?
So? The point of h1-b isn't to hire new grads. It's to find the already educated, industry proven, experienced top talent that exists in the world. How would a new grad fit that description?
H1-Bs are overwhelmingly new grads, and have been since the inception of the visa. The purpose of a system is what it does- H1-Bs are issued to new grads, hence the point of the visa is to hire new grads. You may want a different system, but that's not how it works now.
Experienced career professionals don't generally move to the US as adults, and anyways if your company really needed one you could just hire them remotely
Experienced career professionals don't generally move to the US as adults, and anyways if your company really needed one you could just hire them remotely
Good riddance. Theres a place for skilled worker visas. This implementation is garbage and deserves to be burned to the ground.
I literally cannot think of a worse system if I tried.
lolol yc/hn/sv is in for a wakeup call when all the cheap, extremely competent, highly motivated talent dries up. i'm not saying labor exploitation is to be celebrated but it's also very clear to anyone who works at a FAANG that their success is highly coupled to how many immigrants work very long hours.
In my area, there is a Tae Kwon Do school my kids go to. You can see every year the class picture. For the last 10 years it was almost all white kids then it made a dramatic change to almost 100% Indian. We live near Microsoft. Something very obviously is going on with immigration. To say Microsoft has simply been flooding the area with Indians is shown visually.
Yep. I live in the same area.
I was a self taught software developer that was very advanced. I remember applying to Microsoft dozens of times. Your resume goes right in the trash … unless you are a foreign indentured servant. These companies are not our friends. I was permanently shadow banned and limited on LinkedIn for mentioning this. It’s a racket. Intel laying off 30K people a quarter. Who do they replace them with?
If Microsoft decided to be a fully Indian company, what would change? I'm actually kind of curious. Then they can just stop pretending and have a giant Taj Mahal HQ in India with tons of Indians. Who is going to stop using Microsoft Office in the enterprise? I have no clue what's actually keeping some companies here at all.
The answer to why this is happening is also very clear.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satya_Nadella
Can anyone who is from India or China explain why the type of person who goes to SV and works in tech from these two countries is so wildly different than the type who goes to NYC and is from those two countries?
It’s a massive cultural difference. I’ve much preferred the individuals who chose to live in NYC as they seem to be a much more outgoing, social, welcoming, and open type of person. The type of individuals that go to SV and are from these two countries seem the complete opposite.
It’s a massive cultural difference. I’ve much preferred the individuals who chose to live in NYC as they seem to be a much more outgoing, social, welcoming, and open type of person. The type of individuals that go to SV and are from these two countries seem the complete opposite.
I'd actually support more skilled immigration if we could get rid of the consulting firms
Edit to clarify slightly: if your concern is 'skilled immigration', I would like to gently but firmly state that most of the developers that work for the consulting firms are just not very good. Sorry. If you're in a hiring capacity at a tech company at all, everyone knows that the Wipro guys who work on 6 month contracts doing Java at Fortune 100 companies cannot pass even the simplest tech screen. Yes it makes me sound like a jerk to say this, but they're not 'highly skilled'