| ▲ | stephen_cagle 4 days ago |
| This straight 100k to the top is not a good way to implement this. It should be a percentage (say 50%, we can talk about what the number should actually be) of the total compensation that is being paid to the H1B. We should also just completely remove caps on H1B. This allows companies that truly want extraordinary talent to pay a premium to acquire it with no red tape . It also makes it far less likely that they can significantly underpay foreign workers to work in the united states and undercut American employees (at a 50% surcharge, you would have to pay 2/3 the prevailing salary to break even (assuming all employees are the same)). The 50% number is something I made up, I think we can have an honest discussion about what that number should realistically be (and it should probably be different for different industries). But my main point is it should simply be a percentage tax paid on top of all compensation for foreign employees. This is the correct way to balance domestic companies undercutting domestic labor, while allowing them to access genuinely extraordinary talent with no impedance. |
|
| ▲ | thatfrenchguy 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| Or we could have a functioning smart government who lets say, Nvidia or Apple hire more folks and Infosys less instead of having a lottery? Folks on H1B pay federal income taxes |
| |
| ▲ | pwarner 4 days ago | parent [-] | | There was a proposal for an auction. Highest prices get the visas. | | |
| ▲ | elAhmo 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That would just make the top companies get all the talent and new players and startups to stop hiring internationally. | | |
| ▲ | czl 3 days ago | parent [-] | | If you have an auction or allocate the immigration quota based on highest immigrant worker compensation the quota will be filled by those most in demand being hired by those with the most urgent need for them. That top companies can offer the highest wages and attract the best talent is desirable -- think how things would be if the opposite was true. | | |
| ▲ | elAhmo a day ago | parent [-] | | Not really true. Take someone like Meta, who might not have a problem to hire 1000 people this year paying them half a million each. They can just hire that and it wouldn't even make a dent on their balance sheet. Compare that to a hundred startups wanting to hire 10 people each, who can't compete with Meta on the salary terms above. I find it hard to argue that the first case above is the desirable outcome of the immigration policy. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | wonderwonder 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| I disagree, why would they then not just hire the H1B at 50k and pay a 25K fee. 100k flat annual fee plus the new minimum 150k salary returns the H1B program to its original purpose of allowing US companies to hire truly exceptional foreign workers who have skills US workers do not. This allows companies to do just that and pay for it and at the same time protects the jobs and job prospects of US workers |
| |
| ▲ | famerica 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > new minimum 150k salary Where did you get this from? It is not in the EO passed today: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest... | | | |
| ▲ | stephen_cagle 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | I'll be honest that I read a different article on the same topic and did not know about the salary floor. So I wasn't thinking about that. I'm... mixed on that, but it does add a wrinkle to the equation. I prefer a purely compensation relative approach because it let's the market decide what the actual salary for a software engineer is (with a percent of compensation premium for a foreigner and a 0 extra cost for a native). The market can dynamically adjust what a software engineer makes (not fixed price control) but it just cost more to hire foreign people. In direct response to your first sentence, I think even foreign workers (who largely work harder and have more on the line than domestic workers) would question the wisdom of working for 50k a year as a software engineer in the US. They are actors in this system as well, and you can't just assume that you could offer 50k and get them to accept. | |
| ▲ | abeppu 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | What's the basis for saying that the "original purpose" was to let companies hire "truly exceptional foreign workers"? My understanding is that the H-1B was introduced by the 1990 immigration act, where the H-1B is supposed to be for "specialty occupations" other than nursing. But the same act introduced EB-1 and O-1 for people with "extraordinary ability", which sounds a lot closer to your "truly exceptional" understanding. I think maybe you're projecting a purpose onto the program that was never really there. The H-1B quota when it was introduced was 65k, so it's not like it started out being dramatically rarer than it is today. | |
| ▲ | winter_blue 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > purpose of allowing US companies to hire truly exceptional foreign workers You're wrong on the purpose of it. The O-1 visa is for "exceptional" workers. The H-1B is for normal people. |
|
|
| ▲ | jayanmn 2 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Half of India’s talent will be in US next day after H1B cap is removed. I will be first one to try |
|
| ▲ | sniggler 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| The entire point is to block middling unneeded H1Bs that are just taking middle-class American jobs, a high yearly salary bar does exactly that. |
