[elevenfist]

> Highly skilled workers do not receive cost of living adjustments. I've been recruited for jobs in low cost of living and high cost of living areas. The pay is the same in both when there is a true shortage of labor.

Policy cannot be determined by anecdotes.

> Company A wants to pay Engineer X $500k and Company B wants to pay Engineer Y $50k then clearly Company A has a greater need.

Hardly a forgone conclusion, there are numerous confounding factors. For example company B might not have the resources/revenue to outbid company A.

Another counterexample of many for why an auction system is terrible: employee y could be a research scientist in industry contributing to the foundation of a new industry. An auction system would give their visa to a fullstack developer hired by a startup flush with funding.

[vostok]

> For example company B might not have the resources/revenue to outbid company A.

If Company B doesn't have the resources to outbid Company A then we've decided, as a society, that whatever Company A is doing is more important that what Company B is doing.

> Another counterexample of many for why an auction system is terrible: employee y could be a research scientist in industry contributing to the foundation of a new industry. An auction system would give their visa to a fullstack developer hired by a startup flush with funding.

That sounds like a problem with the way that we fund science and not a problem with immigration.

Also, anecdotally, there is no shortage of scientists. I know plenty of people who had to go into tech or finance because they couldn't find science jobs.

[ubernostrum]

then we've decided, as a society, that whatever Company A is doing is more important that what Company B is doing.

Congratulations, you've invented oligarchy!

Many tech startups are able to bid up wages not because they're "creating value", but because they have access to the pockets of a small number of venture capitalists. Which means that if you make VC-backed high salaries a necessary part of doing business, you've handed those VCs the literal authority to regulate commerce and decide who does and doesn't get to be in the market.

And last I checked, "have a small group decide which businesses are allowed to exist" is not considered a free market.

[eli_gottlieb]

>Many tech startups are able to bid up wages not because they're "creating value", but because they have access to the pockets of a small number of venture capitalists. Which means that if you make VC-backed high salaries a necessary part of doing business, you've handed those VCs the literal authority to regulate commerce and decide who does and doesn't get to be in the market.

Very true. That's why we need to tax the VCs very highly and break up monopolistic firms.

All of which has nothing to do with the immigration system for skilled workers on temporary visas.

[denzil_correa]

> If Company B doesn't have the resources to outbid Company A then we've decided, as a society, that whatever Company A is doing is more important that what Company B is doing.

The question being - has that been decided in a fair manner?

[st3v3r]

Would it be fair for the candidate to not get the highest wage possible? I don't see how this problem is any different than trying to get non-immigrant labor. Company A is offering a significantly higher salary to a citizen than Company B, they'll probably get the candidate.

[Retric]

Capitalism is not about fair, it's about diminishing returns.

VC's don't have access to a significant chunk of US GDP. Sure, some things are over allocated, but Wall Street is limited to the amount of money invested by other people.