Don't focus on the nepotism aspect specifically, but rather that job group in one distinct, identifiable population (my kid or H1Bs) grew at a far higher rate than for the general (not my kids or not H1Bs) employment market, despite the latter experiencing more absolute growth.

Maybe because nepotism leads to untalented people getting jobs?

I think the $100K fee is a good idea. If these H-1Bs are exceptional talent, paying $100k to employ one is truly a bargain.

You seem good at using the tools of data. Stick to that. We need more people like you. Don’t let clever phrasing dim your shine.

Hanlon’s razor is in that group of things the expert class is supposed to say so the expert class doesn’t use the tools of data on their masters and attempt to convict them. Along with Occam’s razor, correlation does not imply causation, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, data is not the plural of anecdote, let’s agree to disagree, no one can beat the market, and so on.

These all throw out the baby (Iran-Contra, etc) with the bath water (flat earth, etc), tend toward curbing scrutiny, and let someone off the hook. All of these sayings are worth considering, and red flags, at the same time.

> If there such a thing as American exceptionalism, if the USA has an edge, it is immigration

You’re conflating cause and effect. The U.S. has had high immigration because it’s exceptional, not the other way around. The U.S. GDP/capita was head and shoulders above everyone except Great Britain by 1801: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/bdvazr/top.... That was before even the German mass migration.

Silicon Valley arose during the 1950s and 1960, during a period of very low foreign born population in California: https://www.ppic.org/publication/immigrants-in-california/

Retail investors can't purchase shares of SpaceX. Nearly anyone on Earth can purchase shares of Google and Tesla, and we all benefit from the knock on effects of their technology.

And yet only Americans have to compete for housing and jobs in this context.

I ask you once again, why would I lose anything if Tesla was in the UAE?

Those are not H1-Bs.

You mean the part where former HP exec Carly Fiorina said “Forget the engineers”?

The point is to highlight the skill gap. There's a reason Wiz was founded Tel Aviv and not Silicon Valley.

In a lot of technical subfields, the talent pipeline in the US is dead because of a mix of government, education, and (yes) personal apathy,

That's what's steadily happening, and why the pipeline crisis in cybersecurity and other segments of the tech industry is arising in the US.

The US system only worked because the US had the right mix of openness to domestic and foreign capital and talent.

A lot of people on HN and in our industry in the US need to recognize that they are competing in a global market, and need to upskill accordingly.

Just having a CS degree and knowing Leetcode isn't enough, and I'm not going to pay $150k base for an MLE who only knows how to use PyTorch wrappers and basic math, but little-to-no CUDA or Infiniband background, or for a new grad SWE to work on a CNAPP if they don't understand how eBPF and LSMs work.

And no, it is not our responsibility as businesses to incubate that talent if American admins are not helping us (though I shouted myself hoarse about this when I used to be in that space). Everything has become hyper-politicized in the US now, and that is not the kind of environment any business can operate in.

> but there’s a balance that employers have to maintain to get some in-state advantages from local or state governments for job creation

True! The issue is local, state, and federal governments gives limited benefits compared to CEE countries, Israel, India, and others who roll the red carpet with multi-year tax holidays, subsidizes, and targeted hiring pipelines.

> makes more sense for America to get trainers or professors for niche subfields than actual workers so you can create homegrown talent

How? They overwhelmingly came on H1Bs as well, not O-1s.

This is why this is such a stupid approach, and is absolutely showing the hallmarks of a Stephen Miller policy. Interestingly, this seems to have overshadowed the Trump Gold Card and Platinum Card announcements (which part of me thinks was part of the reason this announcement happened).

"Section 1. Restriction on Entry. (a) ... the entry into the United States..., is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000".

OK, if I consider this interpretation, which of the following do you think will apply to already-approved H-1B petitioners: 1. Existing H-1B holder can amend their already-approved petition by "supplementing a payment" to become eligible for a visa and re-entry. 2. It's not possible to amend an already-approved H-1B petition. So existing H-1B holders can never satisfy the requirement. They cannot re-enter with H-1B visa anymore. 3. This EO is not retrospective. So already-approved H-1B petitioners (with or without visa) are fine.

Then make the GCC itself unprofitable to operate as an extractive force and the costs unable to be mitigated as an extractive entity.

Your GCCs will be paying for the direct training of the US side people you overlooked and essentially a generous and well backed “pension” for the few that can’t be made current.

Unless you’re helping to fix the pipeline problem you allege exists, you’re expanding the problem space.

What’s a GCC?