[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).