←back to thread

1195 points mriguy | 3 comments | | HN request time: 0.765s | source
Show context
frogblast ◴[] No.45306280[source]
IMO the problem is that H1B employees are stuck at the employer for the duration of their green card process, and so end up both paid lower and unable to escape abuse.

I think a very high application fee is actually part of a good solution, but is useless by itself.

A flawed proposal:

* Dispense with the 'need to search for a qualified American' which just complicates the process without achieving the stated goal, and includes a ton of legal and bureaucratic expense and time.

* A large application fee paid from the company to the federal government.

* The worker's relocation expenses must also be covered by the company.

* The worker gets a 10 year work authorization on the day of their arrival.

* The worker gets to leave their sponsoring employer on the day of their arrival, if they choose to. The employment contract may not include any clawbacks of anything.

The latter bullet is the key one. That's the one that uses market forces to truly enforces this person is being paid above market wages, and is being treated well, at their sponsoring employer. (which in turn means they don't undercut existing labor in the market).

It also means that employers don't really look abroad unless there really is a shortage of existing labor. But when there is a true shortage and you're willing to spend, the door is open to act quickly.

The obvious defect is that it creates an incentive for the employee to pay the federal fee themselves (hidden) plus more for the privilege of getting sponsored, and the company basically being a front for this process. Effectively buying a work authorization for themselves. I'm not sure how to overcome that. Then again, the current system could also suffer that defect (I don't know how common it is).

replies(21): >>45306306 #>>45306308 #>>45306316 #>>45306322 #>>45306337 #>>45306344 #>>45306361 #>>45306370 #>>45306379 #>>45306383 #>>45306387 #>>45306405 #>>45306407 #>>45306465 #>>45306644 #>>45306673 #>>45307004 #>>45308077 #>>45308340 #>>45309828 #>>45310541 #
RealityVoid ◴[] No.45306344[source]
You care about that, and you say that's the problem with H1B but I think that, really, a lot of tech workers in the US, and even a lot of the HN crowd _really_ care about protectionism. They want to suppress competition for their jobs, they want to keep their salaries high. I think this is myopic, but... What the heck, your country is speed running some interesting trajectory, this measure is the not even the biggest one on the radical measures pile.
replies(1): >>45307706 #
1. mancerayder ◴[] No.45307706[source]
What's myopic about keeping your salary high? Most people work for themselves an their families, not how their countries will appear economically in three decades? The situation of wage suppression helps investors and the owning class more than anything.
replies(1): >>45307865 #
2. RealityVoid ◴[] No.45307865[source]
If you see near, but you don't see far, that's myopic. Even you agree with this in your post. Therefore, I don't see where the confusion comes from.

You can argue you only care about the now and, sure, if that's all you care about, who am I to say your priorities are wrong?

I do think that you're wrong though, I think it doesn't make you better off neither now nor in the following years. But, again, who the heck am I to tell you how to run your country. I guess we'll see how this plays out.

replies(1): >>45308287 #
3. mancerayder ◴[] No.45308287[source]
For that matter it's not necessarily my country, despite my being here, and I don't necessarily have just one country I'm attached to. I'm not particularly nationalistic. However I do care about how retirement might look and how much I will have saved. It's almost as if you are implying I should accept a wage cut for the good of my country. (How that's good for the country and not just for a select few percent at the top of my country eludes me)