It seems like there are two conflicting forces here. We want to ensure that we accept mostly high-skilled immigrants, so we can't do a pure lottery. But anything less than a pure lottery and immigrants are forced to "perform" or be kicked from the country, they will end up "both paid lower and unable to escape abuse" as you say. I don't know that it's possible to solve this satisfactorily.

▲

czl 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Why is a lottery necessary? There is a quota so why not fill it with those being paid the highest compensation? What's wrong with a market solution? It would bring in those who are most in demand. What better way to measure demand than prices?

	▲	phendrenad2 a day ago \| parent [-]
		I mean, yeah, I was assuming that we have immigration at all. A lottery allows a natural influx of people, who are free to find their way into whatever jobs are needed. It's another form of market solution, but more of a push model than a pull model. But it also, logically, reduces wages across the board (to some degree). A pull-based model, where companies compete to bid for visa slots, lowers wages in high-end roles, because visa holders are beholden to their sponsor company, and uprooting and moving back to your home country is not something to be taken lightly.

▲

arwhatever 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Index the H1B quantities issued to the unemployment rate per job specialty + geographic region?