> 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.

▲

alephnerd 5 hours ago | parent [-]

> 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).

	▲	porridgeraisin 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> such a stupid approach What do you think of this alternate one? Don't make H1-B employer-specific. That way, they automatically have to pay market rates to the guy since otherwise you would sponsor his entry and he'd switch to a market rate employer immediately. This removes the "unfair" aspect of h1bs being cheaper to hire.