[monoideism]

Actually, I think that number doesn't even really capture the problem. Because it doesn't indicate by how much those workers salary is lower than average. The studies I've seen on this suggest it's a significant gap. I'll see if I can find that study, and others.

>Does this delta level off over time once foreign workers achieve a certain level of domestic experience? Does it go away once they transfer to new jobs?

I'd be very surprised if it didn't at least improve. But it still results in suppressed salaries for American workers. And isn't some weird conspiracy that tech CEOs believe salaries are far too high and want to suppress them: we have emails of them discussing exactly that (in another context not involving immigration)

EDIT: I previously had some other suggestions, but I think the most beneficial and abuse-proof system for all involved would be to have the tech companies bid for visas (as many others have suggested). That should eliminate the potential for abuse.

[arcticbull]

> Also make an O-1 type visa as an immigrant visa.

That's unnecessary, as the O-1 has the same requirements as an EB1A green card petition. The immigrant visa form of the O-1 is simply an EB1A petition. It's actually possible to self-petition EB1A. Only India and China have a backlog of EB1A petitions, and their priority dates are ~2017.

I'd love to read that study if you dig it up!

For what it's worth, I believe in wholesale immigration reform. I think the current system is byzantine and utterly ridiculous and leaves the country at a huge disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. While by no means a Trump supporter, his points-based immigration program that never materialized would be a big, big step in the right direction.

[monoideism]

Interesting about EB1A, didn't know.

I agree that we need reform in this area. For one, a bidding system for H1-B type visas could prevent much of the abuse. Like you, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I like the points-based system. Not sure why that got so much criticism (probably simply because it came from him). It's similar to Canada's system, which most people around the globe seem to admire.

I hope people can understand that it isn't some kind of xenophobic nativism that inspires the H1-B dislike among some Americans. It's fear for our financial future. It isn't always obvious to those working in SV, but in most of the country, the typical lower- or middle-class worker has not been enjoying a a booming economy in terms of wages. Real wages for the middle- and lower-classes in the US have been stagnant or falling for decades. So we're fighting to get or remain in the middle class.

In my own extended family, the generational difference in financial security is stark, despite getting similar degrees, military service, working hard, etc etc. Some cousins are basically falling out of the middle class. Crossing over into some kind of IT work is one of the few remaining paths someone at age 30 can take to remain in the middle class after their profession is lost to globalization or automation. I have a cousin who did it.

Anyway, I think real immigration reform won't happen under either of the current political parties. We need something new, which is unlikely to happen.

Edit: here the study referenced in that article, at least: https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wa...

Edit: Here's the paper I was thinking of. It's pretty convincing to me. I'd be interested in your input: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pd...

[arcticbull]

Will read and report back!

What I think is most disheartening is that Republicans and Democrats alike have no interest whatsoever in immigration reform. Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency and were unwilling to do anything. And then there's Dick Durbin, who torpedoed the most recent round of reforms.

[huy-nguyen]

Dick Durbin was totally right to torpedo that bill because it would ease the Green Card backlog for Indians but will set everyone else back by 5-10 years. Removing the per-country cap must come with increasing the overall Green Card cap. Otherwise it will just be pitting one group of immigrants against another.

[belltaco]

>because it would ease the Green Card backlog for Indians but will set everyone else back by 5-10 years.

Not really true. There is no special treatment for Indians in that bill. Indians will have to wait the same 5 to 10 years if they apply for a green card at the same time as others.

Even that will happen only 5 to 10 years from now, during which an immigration friendly administration could increase the green cards or give other forms of relief. It's sad to have to say this but when people from Europe, Australia etc. are waiting for a long time it'll be more palatable for Congress and the President to increase green cards compared to the current situation.

>Removing the per-country cap must come with increasing the overall Green Card cap. Otherwise it will just be pitting one group of immigrants against another

Those groups aren't equivalent though, one has been waiting for 10+ years in the green card queue while the other is expecting instant green cards based on their country of birth. The current system already pitts one group against the other and gives one the preferential treatment and disadvantages the other.

Also, the Congressional Research Service's research on the bill says that the current system makes employers prefer Indians for IT jobs since it's much harder for them to switch jobs for a very long time compared to other nationalities who might take off once they get their Green Card.

[arcticbull]

I guess one question I have re the first study you posted is: just because you get a certified LCA for level 1 or 2, does that mean the employer is going to actually pay what corresponds to a level 1 or level 2 wage? Isn't that the floor? LCA happens before I-129, so the employer is just certifying they need someone, anyone, to take the role.

For instance, a promotion or regular pay raise doesn't trigger a new LCA. That only happens when you change employers. As an employer, if it didn't affect the likelihood of an approved LCA (and the article does itself state that they're largely pro forma, and won't get denied unless there's an obvious error) why would the employer not pick the lowest class to maximize flexibility?

[monoideism]

I actually have only read the synopsis of the first one. I only included that link because it was mentioned in the article. And I had quoted from the article's interview with that author.

The one that convinced me previously was the second link, which was a pretty convincing natural experiment leveraging the fact that the visas are awarded by (randomized) lottery.

[belltaco]

>Like you, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I like the points-based system. Not sure why that got so much criticism (probably simply because it came from him)

The reason was quite simple, Republicans didn't like it because it did not reduce the legal immigration numbers, and Democrats did not like it because it eliminated pretty much all the family based immigration except for spouses and children which meant people would be not be able to sponsor their parents and siblings.

[arcticbull]

Siblings already have to wait 13-14 years. IMO that was no big loss. My brother is 26. If I were in a position to sponsor him today, he wouldn't get a green card until he turned 40. This means he'd have to spend all his peak earning years abroad anyways.