[542458]

> If you want to hire, say, an interpreter of a specific foreign language to work on a community in rural Alabama temporarily, a $100,000 minimum wage would be absurd.

Wow, that's a really important point. I'm so in the tech-news bubble that I'd never heard anybody say that before - thanks for pointing that out!

[Retric]

I disagree. If you are not willing to pay 100k then finding someone is not the problem. You just don't want to pay market rates.

The point of H-1B is when salary is not the problem.

PS: Remember, someone on an H-1B can leave your employment. Paying market rates is supposed to keep that from happening, thus the intent is to remove a shortage not lower pay.

[johncolanduoni]

What is the market rate of a translator for an uncommon language in Alabama? Where are you getting your data that suggests $100k is not dramatically above market rates for any job where there is a lack of domestic talent and a surplus of foreign talent?

Median personal income in the US is $30k, so I don't think it's fair to assume every job is like tech and has market rates in anywhere near the same place.

[Retric]

Are there people in the US who know the language and are not willing to move to Alabama for 95k? Then the market has spoken.

The entire point of capitalism is not everyone get's what they want and price how that is decided.

[johncolanduoni]

Okay, that's fine as long as they are available and willing to move for something like $100,000. Doesn't have to be super close; requiring $100,000 to hire a foreign citizen when the market wage is $75,000 seems pretty reasonable to me.

But you don't appear to have data to back up that particular number for all jobs with no specialization whatsoever, and as far as I can tell the administration doesn't either.

[Retric]

Let's suppose you want someone to just watch a parking lot which takes zero skills and I advertise for minimum wage and don't find anyone. Then you show up and say I need an H-1B, yes it's the night shift, but as unskilled labor that's a minim wage job...

That's the point of around a six figure wage floor. It prevents people from understating the requirements then bringing in a H-1B. I could just Advertise for a secretarial job, then only accept people that happen to speak Farsi.

[johncolanduoni]

You're trying to solve a problem that doesn't even exist in the current H1B system. Where are all the H1B parking attendants? Do you really think "parking attendant, needs to speak random language for no discernible reason" is something USCIS can't filter? If it was that easy, Tata would just list all their IT jobs as requiring a Hindi/Bengali/etc. speaker and not need to bother with any of the crony capitalism. Also if the ceiling was specific to groups of jobs, you could enumerate the list of acceptable jobs and not put parking attendants on the list. Then you couldn't sneak one in for even $100k.

Why would the optimum H1B wage floor for every industry that suffers from a lack of local talent just happen to be the one that makes sense for tech? And why would it make sense for it to be the same everywhere when wages and living expenses vary so much with location? You're proposing actively ignoring the market wage, not taking it into account.

[netc]

>The entire point of capitalism is not everyone get's what they want and price how that is decided.

You mean protected capitalism - protected by artificial minimum wages put in place by government?

[Retric]

Remove minimum wage and people are not going to work for 1cent per hour. Further, this is a finite world, with finite resources and finite people. Not every business is viable even without an enforced minimum wage.

[wan23]

The thing is that this is a problem caused by government regulations interfering with supply and demand. If there is a business that's willing to pay for a worker and worker willing to take the job then it should be good for the economy for that match to happen. However, in this case immigration regulations sometimes make the supply lower than the demand. Sure, that makes the price go up and that's good for workers but if there aren't enough workers to go around that's bad for American business.

[dragonwriter]

You are assuming that immigration has no externalized costs; I think it's pretty clear that it does. While I will certainly agree that the actual design of our immigration system is far from optimal in dealing with them, the idea that unregulated immigration so long as employer and employee find mutual benefit is desirable as that mutual benefit internal to the transaction implies total net benefit to society is, IMO, deeply flawed.

[Retric]

Companies are free to higher Canadian workers in Canida etc.

You can even get an Indian worker in Mexico and import the results free of charge. But, limiting immigration is one of the fundamental functions of government, and it's not going away any time soon.

PS: I also somehow doubt you would be OK with al qaeda corp setting up shop an then importing large number of people.

[johncolanduoni]

So the US wasn't a government until 1875 when the first immigration law was passed?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_Act_of_1875

[DrScump]

  You can even get an Indian worker in Mexico

Have you actually researched Mexican immigration law?

[ild]

Who gives a damn about what is good for business? Businesses are (very) important only up to a certain point, until their interests start to go against the interests of the people.

[sage76]

This. I don't understand why some people think companies are entitled to get people for whatever wage they seem fit. If you can't afford it, tough luck. Let market forces decide what people are to be paid.

[refurb]

So you're argument is that it's impossible for their to be an actual shortage of US workers unless the salary exceed $100K?

[Retric]

Yes, in the same way as there is no shortage of Bugatti Veyron for 100k. They simply cost more than that.

We live in a capitalist society where price is how you communicate demand. Now, if you are willing to pay X times median wage in the US and still can't find people then perhaps there is an argument. But, saying you can't find people when you are not willing to go that far suggests you are not willing to pay market wages.

PS: And yes I chose an undefined X, because there is no clear point when that happens. However, a reasonable lower bound for that X is probably ~3-5.

[jessespears]

The upper bound isn't limited by the number of dollars in circulation. The upper bound is limited by what's economically feasible. The outcome of the theoretical Alabama community college language teacher is that the language program just gets cut. The fees for a niche program wouldn't support a highly-paid faculty member.

[Retric]

> the language program just gets cut.

And then what? Yes, an Alabama community collage can't pay for a language teacher, that's a fairly normal problem for community collages. It does not suggest there is somehow a market failure.

PS: I think you miss understood my upper bound. I doubt people want an immigration policy based on filling any jobs that pays more than ~30k/year.

[lutorm]

So why is this a better outcome than letting them hire one on an H1B? No American loses their job, and a community college program remains, giving people access to education.

I don't see what "market failure" has to do with the H1B at all. Just because the market worked correctly doesn't imply that the outcome was desirable.

[johncolanduoni]

Okay, but then why do you refuse to accept multiplying X by the actual market wage for the job instead of picking a fixed number (in which I see no X)?

[Retric]

Because supply is influenced by price.

The supply of gold is huge if I am willing to pay above market rates. If I want a conductive metal I am going to chose something other than gold in the vast majority of cases because of price. In the case of gold the price is based on both demand and resource extraction costs.

Moving to the workforce, students pick jobs in part because of what they will pay. Over time this feedback loop combines with demand and other factors to set a clearing price for the industry. If a job pays less than 100k that's a very big sign that people are choosing to do something else because of pay not the jobs inherent difficulties.

Now what happens if you try and subsidize an industry with H1B's. Let's say you add 50% as many H1B as people working in the field for a huge effect. Well in the short term wages fall and people either find something else, but more importantly students study something else. Fast forward 20 years, the market price is a little lower but not by that much even though lots of H1B's are now doing that job' you still need to entice a lot of US workers. Meanwhile close to 1:1 with those H1B's, US students have moved into other fields.

Thus, unless you are going to have most people in an industry be H1B's trying to help out an industry shortfall with some H1B quota is not that useful and simply subsidizes an industry for minimal benefit.

PS: Even defining things based on job is tricky. I need a Doctor what's the price for that, type: surgeon, type of surgeon: cosmetic. Now a hospital that can fill out generalist one level up can get a discount. Even industry gets tricky as a school may need a doctor for example.

[Chris2048]

I think the problem here (with this conversation) is what I call "All roads lead to GMF[1]".

You can't explain things based on an entire economy without taking into account the entire economy, and all it's parts and interactions; much like, say, blood-sugar levels in the body involve multiple organs.

If you focus on one area of the economy, you must avoid those 'non-local' attributes, unless you are willing to do this. If you analyse the attributes of any local economic part enough, you will eventually hit upon a non-local attribute; Hence, any analysis eventually hits this roadblock.

Back to context, the specific effect of H1B visas, on national salary is complicated, because salary not only is non-local, but involves the silent interactions of supply vs demand across and outside the nation. You'll hit all sorts of GM-like fallacies if your analysis is too shallow.

This is why it is necessary to take it, almost as 'faith', in the mechanics of the market; A true analysis of market principles is a complex process indeed, most people can only take them on faith at some level. Even mathematicians accept some (personally) unchecked axioms.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window

[Chris2048]

I think the right justification for H1B visas, rather than a set minimum should be "How will this affect the salaries of existing workers". If there is any reduction, you are not working in the interests of those workers, hence the visas are not fair.

If, on the other hand there is no difference, then the visa is justified.

[prodmerc]

> suggests you are not willing to pay market wages.

Uh, or you know, you can't afford it?

[Retric]

That's not exclusive. I am not willing to pay for a penthouse in Manhattan, because I can't afford it. I am also not willing to pay for a live in chef, and 10,009 other things because I can't afford them. That is not a failing of society it's how capitalism allocates finite resources.

[prodmerc]

I don't get your point.

[NhanH]

I am not the GP, and I do not agree with the statement. However, I have seen it being made numerous times: any shortage of US workers just means the companies are not paying enough (their argument being, try to pay $1mil and you will certainly fill your positions, this is just very minor exaggeration)

[refurb]

I see the thought process, but it's not universally true since you have to account for value the employee brings as well. Consider a company with only 1 employee. That employee can create 1 widget per year which sells for $100,000. The market for widgets is very elastic and at price points above $100,000, the demand is zero. Overhead and cost of goods is $50,000. In that case, the person's salary can't exceed $50,000 or else the company operates at a loss. Even if there is an extreme shortage of skilled workers who can do the job.

[Retric]

Suppose you could higher a doctor and at the end of the year get 50k in value. Is that still a viable business? Why or why not?

IMO, that's the crux of the issue. Yes, the clearing price for some jobs mean people are expensive; making some business nonviable. But, that does not inherently mean there is a shortage.

[dragandj]

That implies that the society does not put much value in that product. Maybe there is an alternative that is better, who knows...

[dikdik]

So then maybe it would be cheaper for the company to hire a low-skilled American worker and actually gasps train them?

The CEO of the theoretical company is always welcome to put in an extra 30 hours a week and reap the extra economic value.

[dxhdr]

Not sure what your example is trying to demonstrate; yes, there's no viable business producing a $100k widget that costs $100k in labor and $50k in goods to create (unless maybe you're VC funded).

[pgodzin]

It seems in that case market rate is a lot lower for that role. Just not a lot of Americans to fill it.

[edge17]

http://www.myvisajobs.com/Reports/2017-H1B-Visa-Category.asp...

[LeifCarrotson]

Wow. I knew the H1B category was biased towards large companies, but I didn't realize it was so bad.

The first cultural, linguistic, or otherwise geographically-constrained job in the list is #84, "Foreign Language And Literature Teachers." "Interpreters and Translators" is down at #131, with a grand total of 268 applicants - practically a rounding error after 300,000 tech applicants. Whatever_dude's example seems so appropriate, that it's shocking to see it so far down the list.

[edge17]

It's like anything, there's a whole ecosystem involved - which includes having a lot of money to pay the right lawyers that know how to navigate the system properly. I've seen companies hire the wrong lawyers and, after promising the individual that everything would come through, end up having to tell the person that the application was denied.

[bostonpete]

> Wow. I knew the H1B category was biased towards large companies, but I didn't realize it was so bad.

Where does that page say anything about large companies?

[sharemywin]

sounds like each job class needs it's own minimum.

[mavelikara]

Which is what the current rule - the one based on prevailing wages - tries to address. Minor tweaks to it - for e.g. using the mean of the top 1/3rd of the salaries surveyed - will accomplish what you ask for, IMO.

[sharemywin]

wonder if that shouldn't be by city since salaries very so much by geography.

[mavelikara]

The current rules determine prevailing wage per geography.

[secfirstmd]

Yeah, or what about those of us in the NGO and non-profit sector who need people with specific regional skills/knowledge/experience and/or folks (including tech people) who prefer to take a slightly lower salary because they want to work with us on important stuff? We've had to sort visas on a number of occasions for people. $100,000 would be like one of the highest ever non-profit salaries!

[gnopgnip]

The salary floor is when the business does not have to prove they did not first search for openings in the US. If you want to hire someone with extremely specialized skills for under 60k(or $130k as proposed by the new bill) a year you have to at least try to recruit in the US first.

[sharemywin]

Sounds like each job class needs it's own salary minimum.

[testUser69]

If an interpreter is so rare that one can't be found in the US and they need to be hired internationally, then maybe it's worth it to pay $100,000?

[untog]

Obviously we can't know what the organisation doing the hiring is like in this fictional scenario, but $100k would be a huge, huge amount for non-senior staff in rural Alabama no matter what.

The problem with a hard salary floor is that it doesn't account for differences in cost of living at all. It would very quickly become the visa of coastal cities and little else.

[googletazer]

Then they can't afford to run. I'd also love to bring say professional 3D modellers and animators from Eastern Europe or Brazil and pay then 20k CAD/year, but thats not how reality works. All of these programs (hb1/etc...) are basically wage arbitrage schemes and have little to do with presence/absence of talent.

[untog]

There is no universal H1B salary. Translators do not earn as much as developers, in general. People living in Alabama do not earn as much as those working in Silicon Valley, in general. H1B applications go through a "labor condition application" for this exact reason - the government approves the salary, based on industry and location. Therefore, you can't bring 3D developers to Silicon Valley and pay them $20k. But you might be able to bring a translator to rural Alabama.

If the aim of the H1B program was to bring in the highest possible paid workers, you'd be correct. But it isn't. These programs are designed in such a way that all states can benefit from them, and a variety of professions.

[waqf]

Ok, what is the aim of the H1B program? You appear to have raised that question, and then shied away from that phrasing in your answer.

[gumby]

> Ok, what is the aim of the H1B program?

It is to make it possible for foreigners to provide work to US organizations when no local person is available.

I have hired many many people on H1s. It was always a hire of last resort: when we could not find someone local. It always cost us a lot more than a local person: in both legal fees and procedural fees (you need to verify that the salary you are paying is not lower than the prevailing wage, which is totally fair) not to mention that it takes a while to get the person so while you're messing about you have nobody to fill the job. Some people are unusually distinguished (perhaps expert in a particular machine or language) but lack the appropriate degree, and they are even harder to bring in.

I have a hard time complaining about that (and I'm an immigrant myself). I think it's totally fair that the system should be biased towards locals. But the system does need an escape mechanism when nobody local can do the work.

There are problems. The big outsourcing companies (not just Indian ones but IBM) flood the lottery early. Also somehow they apparently/allegedly pay below market rate, which I don't understand. As usual it's the startups that get screwed.

Note this H-1 is to bring someone here. If I could outsource I would (to Alabama or Amadebad, it would be all the same to me). When we can get away with a distributed team we hire people where they already are.

[untog]

Luckily for me, you, and the internet at large, Google lets you look up information on large government programs. Not sure what is "bizarre" about me "shying away" from duplicating publicly available information.

"The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation is one that requires the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States."

https://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm

You will note that the word "salary" does not appear in that description.

[TulliusCicero]

If you factor in cost of living, the consulting agencies that currently abuse the system will just open up offices in cheap areas.

[davidf18]

Not really, because quality software development generally requires teams to be in close proximity. As has been discovered by many firms, moving operations overseas is "penny wise and pound foolish"

For example, Disney of Florida replaced 250 American IT workers in US using immigrants with H1-B Visas. They in theory could have saved more money by sending that operation overseas but they chose not too.

Computer operations today are way too mission critical to most organizations to risk problems by moving tech overseas at least in operational settings.

[gopalv]

> using immigrants with H1-B Visas

I think that's the problem here - those on H1-B visas aren't immigrants.

It is a dual intent visa and most outsourcing firms keep it strictly in the non-immigrant category.

Until they get a DoL clearance & get into an I-140 approval process, they're "temporary workers" who can be dispensed with any day.

[untog]

The H1B already factors in cost of living (via the proxy of what local salaries are) and we don't see that happening all that much.

[wolfgke]

Which would in my opinion even be a good consequence.

[unityByFreedom]

> The problem with a hard salary floor is that it doesn't account for differences in cost of living at all. It would very quickly become the visa of coastal cities and little else.

Perhaps that's Trump's plan.

[whatever_dude]

"It's worth it" only applies if a company is directly going to make a ton of money out of that person.

Not every company operates like that. I know it's hard to believe, or even comprehend, in the tech world.