▲ | alephnerd 10 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
In 2025, the decision isn't hiring someone on an H1B versus a citizen - the cost is mostly a wash. The decision is hiring in the US (visa or citizen) versus hiring abroad. Given that a large number of EMs, PMs, Directors, and even VPs are on some sort of immigration or work visa, this makes it easier to incentivize you as an employer to move some of them back to India or Czechia to open a GCC. This is what has been happening for the past 5 years now. On top of that, vast swathes of STEM academia are dependent on H1B. You simply aren't going to find enough American citizens with a background in (say) battery chemistry to become a tenure track professor versus from Korea, Japan, or China. Now you basically created an incentive for large swathes of junior faculty in STEM subfields to return to Asia, leading to a massive reverse brain drain. | |||||||||||||||||
▲ | nis0s 9 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
> The decision is hiring in the US (visa or citizen) versus hiring abroad. True, but there’s a balance that employers have to maintain to get some in-state advantages from local or state governments for job creation. That said, it makes more sense for America to get trainers or professors for niche subfields than actual workers so you can create homegrown talent, not sure why that isn’t done more. | |||||||||||||||||
|