How are H-1Bs comparable to nepotism?

sokoloff 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

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.

▲

C-x_C-f 10 hours ago | parent [-]

I still don't see what the issue is.

Consider two scenarios:

1. H-1Bs get massively reduced over the next five years. Tech sector crisis ensues due to market shocks. Foreign workers decrease. American workers go up by 25% (~2.5M).

2. H-1B numbers stay as is. Tech sector relatively unperturbed. Foreign workers increase by 50% (~1.3M). American workers increase by 30% (~3M).

Wouldn't you argue that 2 is preferable to 1?

(I'm not saying that a crisis will happen if H-1Bs end, I'm just presenting two scenarios with different relative increases that I believe prove my point)

▲

sokoloff 10 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Are you asking if I would prefer a tech market that didn't experience a crisis over one that did and from my answer of "of course I do", believe that proves some unrelated point?

	▲	C-x_C-f 9 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The relevant variable here is the increase in jobs. The crisis in my example is just some exogenous variable. I'm genuinely trying to understand your point. In my view, if one cared more about difference in relative increases inter-group rather than absolute differences intra-group, then scenario 1 would be preferable.

▲

hilsdev 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I too am capable of semi random number generation

▲

DaveExeter 10 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

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.

▲

seanmcdirmid 9 hours ago | parent | next [-]

What if China only charges $1k or even free for the same people? I mean, they are doing lots of AI work now also, and you can already see a few foreign programmers in Beijing, Shanghai, and Shenzhen. What is stopping Apple, Microsoft, Meta, or Amazon from doing even more work in India or other countries because they can't get the people they need in the US, or its just cheaper to setup more research jobs in Stockholm or London than it is in Seattle or San Jose?

Its not like it isn't already a work market for talent. $100k is a significant amount of friction to overcome.

▲

cmxch 8 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Set a floor that is regionally adjusted such that the foreign ops/noncitizen cost is consistently higher no matter where. And that it also accounts for and penalizes malicious compliance/intent.

Regarding the overall problem: For the jobs that people care about keeping away from the alphabet soup provisions, the only problem is finding pliant and desperate people that take any port in a storm - not competence.

On business resistance: As for firms like Alphabet/Microsoft/Meta, they are not immune to noneconomic forces that might favor US presence and penalize non US expansion, broadly construed.

▲

DaveExeter 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

I think you meant "world market".

Companies are going to be offshoring as much as they can anyway. Bits fly across borders untaxed.

If there is some foreign talent that, for example, Meta thinks will benefit their bottom line by $1M/year, an extra $100K on top of a $250K benefits package is small change!

It's a human-tariff, but it is paid by wealthy corporations.

	▲	seanmcdirmid 5 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, world market, darn phone. They have more incentive to offshore now, $100k is some overhead but so is setting up an office overseas (~$100k/engineer).

▲

C-x_C-f 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Do you think that the employee pool overall would be more or less talented without the H-1B program? What about the tails of the distributions?