[mabbo]

You make a lot of good points and I'm not saying I disagree on all of it. But many of these issues are orthogonal to the problem here. (Tech startups always have a problem of salary competition, which they fight via stock options; SV's problem is housing and local legislation that prevents sufficient supply; etc).

The USA has, as a society, decided it wants to limit the number of immigrants. (I say this as a non-American who has had work visas in the US before, and left). If you disagree with that idea, vote for politicians who will change things. But if we take it as given that the number of immigrants on H-1B should be limited, then the question is: how do we decide who gets them?

I contend that raising the salary minimum is better than lotteries. First, if you're going to limit the number of immigrants, you should be limiting it to the most talented rather than a random assortment of anyone at all that applies. Salary limits isn't a perfect fit for that, but it's a close approximation. Second, companies shouldn't be using immigration as a means to have cheap labor, given the laws around limited immigration. The H-1B isn't meant to be a means to lower the salary costs of a company, it's meant to bring the best talent to America.

Lastly, in a lottery with limited winners, small companies will always lose out. Why? Because companies with less integrity can and will abuse the lottery system by inundating them with applications, often for job positions that could be easily filled by Americans. These companies want H-1B employees that they can underpay and abuse.

Worth adding as well, if every H-1B holder is making $200k+, they're paying taxes on that huge salary too. This helps shut up those xenophobic types saying 'lazy immigrants don't pay their share'.

My argument isn't that it's a fix-all for every problem. But given the premise of limited immigration, I think lotteries are a terrible solution companies to salary-based sorting.

[horyzen]

I am all for raising minimum salary to rule out abusers, but my point is there are also a lot of other factors to consider here in addition to absolute salary number, and if you ignore those factors, it will be unfair to a lot of people & companies just as lottery is unfair to a lot of people & companies.

This is a complicated problem and the solution has to be non-trivial. Both lottery and salary-sorting seems too trivial, and are therefore prune to cheating. For example, abusers can just pay their employee $200k but then charge them $100k "legal fees" for "immigration processing"? (I know some companies are already doing something similar)

[tjpnz]

Until then raising the minimum salary sounds like it will do significantly more good than harm.

[geebee]

Why not just have immigration? Full and free citizens who have the right to pursue a job or career in response to personal interests and market signals?

If people prefer to work a accountants in Cincinnati rather than devs in the valley, that’s the market’s answer. If people choose to drop out of stem PhD programs and open a crepe stand, that’s the markets answer. If being a PhD student we’re a better deal, the market might give a different answer.

Why a program that allows corporations to determine the jobs immigrants are allowed to work and the circumstances under which they are allowed to live in the us, simply because they don’t like the market’s answer?

[bradleyjg]

We have programs like that. Are you suggesting adding 45,000 or so visas to the EB 2/3 categories and eliminating the H1B? You'd still have corporations driving the process as those visas require an employer-sponsor (albeit once the visa is actually granted the situation is closer to full and free situation than it is for H1Bs).

[geebee]

I believe that any large scale immigration program that denies would be immigrants the right to participate freely in labor markets is pretty much hopeless.

All this discussion about requirements of “market pay”, limitations on skills that “can’t be found elsewhere”, jobs “citizens don’t want to do”... i just find it so weird that people use free market rhetoric to defend a program like this. I mean, to people who lean libertarian, doont phrases like the ones above seem terribly clueless, even deeply corrupt?

I think this actually becomes an affront to human freedom. What, you’re only allowed into the us if you interview the way google says you should interview, live where google says you should live, and so forth? And yeah I know ther is some limited transferability if you find a new “sponsor” (a euphemism, in my opinion, for someone who can have you deported if you get too uppity about not liking open offices or daily scrum applications of deadline pressures).

If the 300 million us citizens or roughly 1.2 million immigrants who come to the us don’t want to do the job at the pay offered... I just don’t get it, how can people who appear from their comments to be libertarian or free market leaning not see the state power granted to tech companies using the h1b? It’s weird, and gives me pause.

I’ve started thinking a lot of so called libertarians are 11th hour libertarians. They want the government to prop them up with all kinds of subsidies and state power, but get pissed when there’s the slightest state interference with their scheme to profit from it.