[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.

[Retric]

I am going to step back for some context:

The H-1B program is a tiny fraction of the overall workforce and if you want it to stick around you need to justify it. Saying industry X needs workers for wage Y, falls on deaf ears. No, it really does not because for the most part it get's by without them as there is just not a lot of H1B workers in any industry.

Having said that, at the societal level we can talk about gaps that a H-1B program can fill in the short term. If there is a sudden demand for people in machine learning then giving the US access to a wider talent pool has value. But, at the social level each industry needs to compete with every other industry or your talking about soviet style planned economies which don't work.

How do you separate companies wanting cheaper workers from gaps society is better off fulfilling? Well wage is by far the strongest indicator. If the oil drilling industry goes though a boom and can pay 200k for people working oil jacks for a few years then they should get most of the H1B pool as they may need it more than every other industry combined.

However, as the demand is met internally wages will fall then some other industry may have a larger demand.

Now the US is a horribly corrupt society with groups with a lot of power use it to get more power. Thus, the actual H1B program looks very different from what I described. But, again I am only saying there is a justification for an H1B program with a very strong salary floor not anything like our current system.

PS: Anyway, understating the requirements and advertising a job that's below market rates is one the main problems with the H1B system that's most often gamed. I have seen more than one advertisement for a junior job title with 5 years of experience and a masters degree. Lying on a form is easy, lying with money is harder.

[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

[Retric]

American Indians where removed from US soil long before 1875. See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_Wars further these go back to 1540.

[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.

[Retric]

It's a market not just one collage.

Some distant collage may chose to pay for such a teacher and then gain students from the community collage who want that instruction. So, in that context your community collage bringing in the H-1B may end up costing an American a job. It could also depress wages for teaching that language discouraging other students from learning it thus extending the shortage over time. Alternatively, the demand may simply not be there for the language at which point the collage is better off paying for a different type of instruction that more students want.

In the end your H-1B is clearly a boon for that collage. However, if may end up hurting the country overall.

[gozur88]

The way it's supposed to work is people who already have those job skills enjoy a temporary boom in compensation, and then other people think "I could do that. I will learn that skill and get paid the big bucks."

The H-1B system short circuits that mechanism. The salary doesn't rise, and young people are savvy enough to realize once an industry starts using foreign workers it never will.

Voila! Permanent shortage of Americans willing to do that job.

[Chris2048]

> So why is this a better outcome

It might be a better outcome for native translators who see higher demand increase their salaries. The market has to be fair for all participants. Salary will never increase with demand, if increases in demand are always undermined by bringing in H1B workers.

[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.