A core strategic strength of the US over the last century has been that everyone with any talent wants to come here to work, and by and large we’ve let them do so. You can argue how well that’s worked out for us - having worked with a great many extremely talented H1bs in an industry largely built by immigrants, I’d consider it pretty positive - but it damn sure hasn’t worked out well for the countries those talented folks came from.
Creating low cost alternatives and taking advance of lax laws is part of that. If you can import 100k skilled workers per year under a scheme that gives you more power over them. Then you also offshore 300k jobs per year to countries with weaker protections.
It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections.
Why's that? The jobs and lives of individuals in those countries are better than the alternatives present otherwise to them. Globalization may hurt certain America jobs but certainly countries like India is grateful for all of the engineering roles.
High consumerism is harmful to the environment but I don't think the link between offshoring jobs is direct to environmental harms and certainly it's helpful to giving more job opportunites.
Instead they'll be made unemployed by AI and a crashing tech economy.
But that isn't the point of this. It's leverage - much like the tariffs.
Big companies making significant donations to the Donald Trump Presidential Aggrandisement Fund will receive carve-outs and exclusions.
It's a grift, like everything else done by this benighted administration.
I don't quite agree that much with causes: high housing, Healthcare & med bankruptcy, and high education costs (correlating with high housing) are bigger factors. However non tech/lawyer/doctors have been adversely effected by the fact they've seen no real income gains in 25 years overall.
Now, the top 5% and corps need to be made to pay more taxes... thats another subject.
A couple elderly people i know are quite concerned Trump will take their snap benefits, or decrease medicaid/care etc while the tax reductions were given on the bb bill. Thats not acceptable.
We may be reaching the breaking point where Americans view any solution to this problem as worth trying. We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans. When your grandparents are the last generation to remember rising living standards, it’s hard to buy that the system is working for you at all.
If you divide the GDP by the number of employed people (including self-employed and entrepreneurs), you get a bit over $180k/person. The median full-time income is a bit over $60k. In other words, as a gross simplification, the mean worker earns 80% more than the median worker.
The comparable numbers for Germany are a ~€100k, ~€45k, and 35%. If something is hollowing out the American middle class, it might be the high earners rather than the capital.
You can look at Pew's survey here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/09/1-the-h....
The upper-income tier grew from 14% -> 21% as the middle-income tier shrank from 61% to 50%. To be perfectly fair, the lower-income tier class did also increase from 25% to 29%. The story is complicated.
As you said, the story is complicated. Even in 2015, a decade ago:
> There is one other stark difference: only upper-income families realized notable gains in wealth from 1983 to 2013.
During the period of analysis then, either consumption among the lower two tiers eliminated their available savings ability, or the real purchasing power over this period declined, leading to the same effect.
That's not to say you shouldn't do it! But the problem is elsewhere.
Importing cheap foreign labor to undercut unions and lower wages is one of the spokes of the wheel used by capital to reduce the power of labor (and always has been).
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/h-1b-spec...
The occupation requires:
Theoretical and practical application of a body of highly specialized knowledge; and
Attainment of a bachelor's or higher degree in a directly related* specific specialty (or its equivalent) as a minimum for entry into the occupation in the United States.
The position must also meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation:
A U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally the minimum entry requirement for the particular occupation;
A U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent, is normally required to perform job duties in parallel positions among similar organizations in the employer’s industry in the United States;
The employer, or third party if the beneficiary will be staffed to that third party, normally requires a U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent, to perform the job duties of the position; or
The specific duties of the offered position are so specialized, complex, or unique that the knowledge required to perform them is normally associated with the attainment of a U.S. bachelor’s or higher degree in a directly related specific specialty, or its equivalent.*
Chances are this was done as a seasonal H-2B non-agricultural worker (likely under a seasonal need)
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
To qualify for H-2B nonimmigrant classification, the petitioner must establish that:
There are not enough U.S. workers who are able, willing, qualified, and available to do the temporary work.
Employing H-2B workers will not adversely affect the wages and working conditions of similarly employed U.S. workers.
Any suggestion that the program is dragging wages down instead of dragging wages up is not just misleading but factually wrong.
It did seem in the past that there was much more of an all-hands-on-deck attitude towards education throughout US corporate activities, more broadly focused on the general fields the various companies valued the most. I suspect this fall off is very real, but don't actually know if that is just my impression or if there is a concrete effect from modern economic structures.
It's an important enough question it should definitely be studied and taken into account in policy.
However I can't agree with your conclusion that "Immigration helps the countries [sic] top-line metrics, but it rarely helps the citizens inside the country". That requires meta studies that I have never seen to prove it is so. I could cautiously accept that "some types of immigration rarely help corresponding sections of the local population" much more than such a blanket judgement. Overall, it is just not true that economics is zero sum. It doesn't have to be. An entire people can in fact flourish.
It's not just a supply and demand equation; it's a fundamentally different environment that changes the social payoff for mentoring, networking, and building a reputation.
Ultimately despite all the propaganda trying to convince us that diversity is inherently beneficial, we are trading economic benefits for social costs. So we need to carefully restrict migration to make sure the economic benefits are actually there.
You can't really expect a company hiring PhD's in a niche field to show that they couldn't have spent 7 years training an American for the work.
What study does one "have to do" to support _this_ claim?
An H1b software engineer median is ~$120k.
Using other official sources, the median pay for US software engineers overall is... ~$120k.
> you'd have to do a study to show that the talent couldn't have been trained in the US, and that an increased supply of workers didn't drag down salaries, either short or long-term.
If the median H1B for software is exactly the same as the overall median, it makes you wonder if the median would be different if the H1B was not an option available to employers.
Lower supply tends to drive the price up.
The whole premise of your original contention was that we should measure like-profession salaries to see whether or not there is an effect. Then when no effect was shown, you switched it up in favor of an argument that (again, incorrectly) predicts that such an effect can't be shown at all. That's not good faith discussion.
[1] Immigrant labor is arriving, by definition, in a pre-existing market. If immigrants can't be hired more cheaply than existing labor, by definition they can't be pulling wages down.
> Using other official sources, the median pay for US software engineers overall is... ~$120k.
So, it seems that if we remove H1b workers and assume that the demand would have stayed the same, then domestic salaries should have been higher. Assuming, of course, that companies won’t simply offshore.
Companies already do a lot of offshoring - you think any rational actor in this space that was hiring H1Bs isn't going to simply relocate them to more friendly jurisdictions for immigration?
On top of this, these are workers who would have otherwise paid tax in the US!
This was true before and after today.
Put another way, if all the H-1B jobs really can be offshored quickly and easily the way so many Indians and anti-Trump people here and elsewhere confidently predict, *that would have happened already*.
But yes, if that path doesn't exist, I don't think that global companies are going to start hiring American, they're going to continue hiring globally but take the path of least resistance towards bringing this talent onboard.
Now you can argue you would prefer that those 200,000 jobs go to Americans, but on the scale of the overall economy, it really doesn’t matter. What’s far more important is the massive impact those 800,000 software engineers have on the rest of the economy. Four million IT jobs, the entire finance and healthcare and retail industries that are propped up on technology built by those people; whole technology companies like Uber or doordash that create entirely new labor markets.
Risk 25% of that capacity on the idea that we would rather have those industries built solely on domestically-grown engineering talent? Why would that be a good tradeoff?
The flipside is that every american industry becomes less competitive globally without the H1b guys.
Maybe at FAANGs what you say is true. But at every place I've been when H1Bs ended up added (normally via consultancy or outsourcing) it was always to cut costs. And the only costs we were cutting was staff.
Then that $120,000 salary median can still represent a 50% undercut of similar Urban salaries for a profession.
I'm going to contend that that is the case. But I don't have time to chase down the statistics
Base salary, not total comp, the first year
Once you are breaking the $100k mark and want to only save costs, you are better off opening a GCC in Eastern Europe, Israel, or India, which is what most companies started doing once remote work became normalized in the early 2020s.
All this did is make a free "Thousand Talents" program for India, especially in chemical, petroleum, biopharma, and biochemical engineering - industries where the delta between US and India salaries aren't significant but the talent gap in the US is real.
There are much smarter ways to crack down on H1B abuse by consultancies - this ain't it.
Edit: can't reply, but here's why this is dumb
Assuming I am in Dallas (a fairly prominent domestic IT services hub) and hiring an H1B employee.
In Dallas, a wage around $95k base is fairly standard based on JPMC, DXC, and C1's salaries in the area.
That $95k an employee is has an additional 18% in employer required taxes and withholdings. Add to that an additional 5-10% for retirement account and insurance plans. That $95k employee became around $115k-125k.
Once salaries start breaking into the 6 figure mark, that 23-35% in overhead starts adding up very fast. On top of that visa processing before this rule costed around $15-20k in additional legal fees on the employer's side.
If I'm at the point where I'm paying a low six figure salary, I'm better off opening an office in Warsaw or Praha or Hyderabad where I can safely pay $50k-60k in base to get top 10% talent while getting a $10k-20k per head tax credit over a 3-5 year period depending on the amount I invest building a GCC because my after tax cost at that point becomes $50-60k per employee. These credits tend to require a $1M investment, and with the proposed H1B fee, this made that kind of FDI much easier to justify than it was before.
At least with the current status quo, if I was hiring an ML Engineer at MS or an SRE at Google (a large number of whom are H1Bs as well), I could justify hiring within the US, but adding an additional $100K filing fee just gives me no incentive at all to expand headcount domestically.
You don't use the stick if you also don't have the carrot.
> You are not taking into account section 174, It takes you 15 years to depreciate foreign salary vs first year
That's a rounding error now that it costs $100K to renew or apply for an H1B visa. And for larger organizations breaking the mid-8 figures in revenue mark, section 174 changes never had an impact one way or the other - it was mostly local dev shops and MSPs that faced the brunt of the section 174 onslaught.
> Honestly, even Germany is probably better bang-for-the-buck than Hyderabad
Germany needs to severely reduce employer contributions and taxes to become cost competitive against Warsaw, Praha, or Hyd for software and chip design jobs.
That said, this is a net positive for Germany's biotech, mechanical, biopharma, and other engineering industries that aren't software or chip design related.
This is a pet peeve of mine, but there is an english name for that city and it's Prague.
There is no point in using the local spelling because it adds no clarity, is less obvious to pronounce for any reader and the locals are not really gonna thank you for doing this either. Just seems like a form of light cultural white-knighting to me.
You are not even consistent because Warsaw is not how locals spell that.
Honestly, even Germany is probably better bang-for-the-buck than Hyderabad, but Hyderabad has the volume and the offices.
Funny things is the agencies/consultancies/outsource companies all solds us on it would cut costs when the only thing changed was labor. But apparently they could cut costs without cutting labor costs? How does that work?
H1B holders are paid less for the same job, keeping wages down.
Cap-exempt H1B holders working for universities are restricted to switching only to other cap-exempt employers, but even then I never felt I had to work 60+ hours a week.
In my experience recruiters saw H1B transfers as routine but would ghost me once I explained that I required a new visa sponsorship since I worked or a cap-exempt employer and could not simply transfer.
This compares medians across to huge populations. I have seen many H1Bs making less and working more.
But also, the H1b median salary for a software engineer is ~$120k, which is almost identical to that of the US median overall - so all of this hullabaloo seems pretty groundless.
First, I would like you to reconsider 'high income' and putting $120k in that category. It was a good chunk of change. In this year of our lord 2025, it is not. It is, for my region anyway, barely acceptable middle class income.
A $120k job in any region of the country is 'high income'. You are feeling a different effect, which is that we have designed our country such that even high income people often do not feel economically secure.
And your self-classification is questionable, but that is very common. Maybe a good trigger to experience gratefulness and satisfaction for the economical situation you are in?
The upperbound for middle class pay is over $100k in all states, approaching $200k in a couple.
H1B visa abuse by consultancies and mass recruiters is a real issue, but this now incentivized companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, Pfizer, Cheveron etc to expand their Indian offices.
Edit: can't reply
> Was there any reason for them not to? It's cheaper than H1B anyways.
Spending an additional $10-15k in visa filing fees isn't that big of a deal for an employer who's already paying around 25-35% in withholding and benefits, but at $100K that makes it enough that if you needed to sponsor 10 people on an H1B, you now hit the monetary amount to avail GCC tax rebates and subsidies in most of Eastern Europe and India, where they will give you an additional $10-20k in tax credits and subsidies per head.
Basically, opening a new office abroad just to save on $10-15k of filing fees per employees wasn't worth it, but now that it'll be $100k per employee, the math just shifted.
> Why is this parasitic organization allowed to incorporate?
VC now, not a director anymore. But help me find a new grad with 3-4 years of exploit development and OS internals experience in the US. I can't.
On the other hand, I can in Tel Aviv. There's a reason the entire cybersecurity industry has shifted outside the US.
Large sectors of the US tech scene just lack ANY domestic know-how.
Was there any reason for them not to? It's cheaper than H1B anyways.
There could be some rare edge case where you are undercut by a direct competitor, but overall America is much richer with H1Bs that without them.
A few select tech and financial services companies, and their shareholders, benefit the most from the program.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/04/what-we-k...
If 150,000 people buy the app, then I have ~$150,000 of revenue. I can pay a programmer $100,000 a year and have $50,000 left over. 150,000 people benefited from the app.
Now say I have to pay an additional $100,000 visa fee for my programmer. My cost of $200,000 is less than my revenue of $150,000. I don't build the app. I don't get $50,000. 150,000 people who would have bought the app don't benefit from it. The biggest loss is to the Americans who don't get to buy the app.
There are other possibilities, maybe I increase the price to $1.99 or I hire an American. We can see that those are both bad. The former extracts $150,000 extra dollars from American consumers. Since unemployment is low for Americans and an American programmer can't have two jobs at once, the later just means that some other project that the American programmer would have worked on is not completed.
https://www.epi.org/blog/tech-and-outsourcing-companies-cont...
https://www.epi.org/publication/new-evidence-widespread-wage...
Ask HN: Has anyone else been unemployed for over two years? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45306539 - September 2025
Ask HN: Recent unemployed CS grad what do I do? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43211153 - March 2025
https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/state-of-the-tech...
https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/04/it_job_market_july/
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/job-market-report-c...
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/06/unemployment-job-market-edu...
https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1kcc40j/what_happ...
https://apnews.com/article/college-graduates-job-market-unem...
U-6 (the most inclusive unemployment rate) is 8.1 as of this comment, the highest it’s been in the last five years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
So, start cutting labor visas until the unemployment rate improves. The domestic labor clearly exists.
The American electric car market is never kickstarted, none of the American employees of SpaceX or Tesla are hired, there is no space renaissance.
Keeping out Elon Musk is somewhat good for United Launch Alliance and for Ford, but it's worse for all the Americans who have to buy worse cars and pay more for satellite internet.
That’s certainly one version of how events may have been different - a sort of “It’s a Wonderful Life” scenario. (Though comparing Elon Musk to the kind and ethical George Bailey would be quite a stretch!) But it’s not inconceivable that other possibilities would have emerged.
I also am not convinced that those statistics alone can be used to draw such a conclusion; there's more to it than that.
The stats you provide here don't support your claim.
H1B visa holders can be paid more on average while still having a downward effect on wages...
Imagine that some car model costs $200,000 to buy in the US. However, an entrepreneur realises they can can import the same car from a poorer country for just $100,000 then sell it in the US for less than the manufacturer themselves. The manufacturer finds out about this and says, "hey! you're selling my car for less", but the importer says, "no, actually, you'll find the median car in the US is $50,000 so I'm technically increasing car prices".
So what you're saying could be wrong in two ways... One you could be wrong in the sense that even if it does increase median wages, that doesn't mean it necessary increases the median wage of US citizens if now a significant percentage the best employment opportunities are going to H1B visa holders instead of citizens.
But secondly, and the point I was trying to make with the car analogy, is that you could be wrong about the average wages going up too if H1B visa holders are taking jobs which would pay even more were it not for HB1 visas. So if the average wage of a SWE in the US is say $150k, but the average H1B visa holder is being paid $120k, H1Bs are clearly not "dragging wages up".
And realistically it's far more likely H1B visa holders suppress wages given how relatively high US wages are.
I'll end this comment by saying that personally I think this idea that giving the best opportunities to immigrants is probably directly wrong for many reasons. Of course, allowing in businesses and individuals who will create jobs makes a lot of sense, but what you really want is the best opportunities going to your own citizens, then to bring in cheap labour to fill the crappy jobs citizens don't really want to do, but are now increasingly doing when they leave university like working in a bar or becoming a barista. If there's a great job a company can't fill with the domestic workforce perhaps they should train someone for that role or take a risk on a recent graduate like in the old days?
Also, those numbers are bumped up by bigtech who doesn't discriminate by visa, so pays in bodyshops are even lower and tech salaries are way higher than that in US.
Second, Indians have to pay their bosses to get a job. Their real pay is at least $20k lower. And there's far worse as well.
Do you suggest that they check the immigration status and offer to some people lower compensation because of their status?
But yes, as far as I know companies would usually offer an H1B applicant lower salary. They know the candidate will need visa sponsorship because the candidate has to say up front (usually in the first conversation) if they are authorized to work in the US. If the companies know they will have to undertake costly sponsorship, and as far as I know employment law leaves them quite free to offer a lower salary: foreign nationals are not a protected class so salary discrimination on the basis of who will need visa sponsorship is just to be expected in the current system...
Though there's pretty hard limitations on what you can transfer with - it has to be the same sector, similar limitations on minimum salary, and requires work on the new employer's part to move the H1B to them (so you can't keep it quiet, and it's another barrier as it's non-zero cost for lawyers etc. to actually do that).
https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-7-part-e-chapter-...
most of us here have been hiring managers in the bay area so we have been exposed to this. My exposure was you are fairly locked into one company. I had friends who had to go home abruptly when fired. We would have to buy their cars so we could sell them slower at non-fire sale prices for them. But this was late 90s through early 2000s. Maybe it's different.
You're not locked into one employer on an H1B. Once you are here it is possible to switch jobs relatively easily since you do not need to go through the lottery again.
> as far as I know employment law leaves them quite free to offer a lower salary
"The H-1B employer must pay its H-1B worker(s) at least the “required” wage which is the higher of the prevailing wage or the employer’s actual wage (in-house wage) for similarly employed workers."
https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/fact-sheets/62g-h1b-require...
If they offer below-market (for American workers) salaries and get no sufficiently-qualified domestic candidates, as they're required to promise they do, it's no surprise to anyone that they're hiring a ton of H-1Bs. They want that because they want to pay less.
I don't blame them for doing what's fiscally advantageous for the shareholders up till now -- but I think I'll be glad to see this change implemented, if it is, because I know companies write on those forms "domestic talent not found" when they know the truth is "domestic talent not available at the wages we'd like to pay".
The incentives ensure that it will happen with zero intent, and probably without the people doing it even realize they're doing it. It's not illegal to see someone, think of them as a 'sucker' but not even realize why, then lowball them, which is far more likely than for a person to actually consciously confront themselves they may be a racist.
In any case, even if they know it's illegal, it's not so easy to enforce, the fact that people get successfully sued or jailed a small fraction of the time isn't going to be some solace.
The only way to actually solve it is to remove the incentive in place, namely either the market pressure to get the best developer at the cheapest price or the vulnerability of being an immigrant.
This is precisely what HR and hiring managers at FAANG companies are instructed and trained to avoid.
1) Hiring manager to have incentive to hire quality talent at the most economical price
2) Foreign talent be more desperate than domestic talent
The effect is practically guaranteed even if there is exactly zero intent by the hiring manager or any conscious 'discrimination.' Incentives beget results and people may not ponder how they got there, and they often don't.
Unless you change (1) or (2) all the discrimination legislation, lawsuits, and 'training' in the world isn't worth the paper it is written on.
It's kind of sad to see the accelerated downfall of your country.
Have you ever considered what causes income inequality? Maybe policy that favors globalist, ownership class over salaried workers? H1B in it's current form favors owners/managers over workers! We are saying the same thing. We have to analyze the causes of income inequality in order to solve it.
I will leave you with one last thought: the states with the lowest gini co-efficient are the ones that have been more conservative over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
policy matters!
Of course - they're connected. Taking advantage of labor is a big part of income inequality, including the way H1B is used/abused.
But that is your story you believe, consider that the parent commenter has the exact same (mirrored) mindset.
A useful segue to avoid you or them "being resigned": given that you say you're "skeptical", what would be the minimal proof you'd consider valid for you to change your mind?
I might be wrong, fully willing to cede the point, but this whole thing going on is more than _just this point_.
And how are “they” planning on determining who is “truly exceptional”? And what makes you think the “truly exceptional” ones are still going to have any interest in coming here when they see what happens to the people who the current regime deems “not exceptional”?
I sure as hell wouldn’t come to the US knowing I may be deported to a third world prison if I post the wrong thing online.
For example by implementing a $100 000 fee for their H-1B visas, which ensures that companies will only use those visas to contract truly exceptional talent. That's a very small price to pay for a company to be able to hire a person who is among the greatest in the world in her field.
Most of the companies that are paying salaries could (and already do!) have offices in other jurisdictions where they could hire the same talent.
Better to bring this talent onshore, where the wages are taxed, than force these companies to hire from satellite offices?
It doesn't make much financial sense for companies to stop sourcing talent globally just because they can't be brought onshore, especially given enough time.
Purely anecdotal, but for me personally this wouldn't change who or how I hire, just the location.
But there's a parallel push around taxing American firms using foreign labor (https://www.moreno.senate.gov/press-releases/new-moreno-bill...).
If multiple new policies are put in place at the same time, then... I dunno... it seems harder to predict...
This is not just a hypothetical, this is something that already happens when companies are looking to optimize their tax burden. Corporate structuring and income shifting are big businesses in their own right and serve to find the minimum amount of changes required to be able to legally reclassify income.
In the case of this bill specifically, in the unlikely even it passes, a simple corporate inversion will solve this problem. Instead of the US company owning foreign subsidiaries, the structure is inverted: the parent company becomes foreign, which will own a domestic US corporation. When the multinational wants to hire or retain offshore talent, it simply pays out from the parent company. Again these aren't hypotheticals, these are real tax avoidance strategies that are already in place and are well-trodden paths.
You can come up with an infinite amount of regulation to try to halt this (this problem is also called tax base erosion) but it ends up doing more harm than good - eventually you end up with a tax code and regulatory environment so complex that that alone disincentivizes new investment.
The goal is not just to retain existing capital and talent by forcing them to be locked in - it's to compete for the next dollar, the next startup, the next factory - new investment will follow the path of least resistance, while older companies eventually close up shop due to one reason or another.
If your worldview is one of "We already have the best capital and talent, so we don't need to bother to compete to acquire new capital and talent", the world you live in will stagnate and wither with respect to societies that will bend over backwards for this.
What is "mid level talent" though? you're not getting that data from H1B wage filings, they're factually under-reporting compensation.
However, which startup can afford an additional cost of 100,000 dollars for a fresh PhD graduate who is essential for their niche?
The true economic benefit of the H1B visa program for the US economy lies in the long tail of smaller firms that require a limited number of specialized personnel, which, by definition, is scarce.
O1 is unlikely to be granted to a student who has not graduated yet. What are they going to show for evidence? Manuscripts in preparation? Or class grades?
That's a weird definition for "middle class", there are only 65k H1b visas issued every year. If you really are talking about the middle 60% or whatever of all workers, immigrants on H1b's are irrelevant noise. At most, these visas might be seen to impact specific professions (tech in particular, lots of doctors too) that most people don't consider representative of the "middle class".
In such a world, why wouldn't you see 1. foreign R&D companies, 2. indexed into a thriving foreign equities market, 3. gathering the interest of domestic investors who want to diversify beyond domestic investments, by 4. moving their money and/or investing in domestic proxy investments?
I say this as a Canadian whose managed mutual-fund holdings are apparently largely composed of foreign (mostly American) proxy equities — and who has met many Canadian-based VCs who don't do much investment into Canadian companies. If not for talent immigration, the American investment landscape would probably look similar!
https://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/publicrandd-aspx/
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php...
(Or, if we really lean into the "alternate history" bit, then the US might not have so many rich investors to begin with, as those investors would have been the ones living in that other global R&D center country, who became ludicrously wealthy when their investments into the domestic R&D companies in that other country bore fruit.)
If you want to invest in another country, that's a big change. There's certainly opportunity there, but without knowledge and contacts, it can be very hard to get things done.
One track to investing in foreign R&D is foreign nationals come and work in the US to earn skills, knowledge, and capital, and then they take those earnings and invest them in their country of origin, maybe living here or there.
Sure, investors could just park their money in what few dumb domestic options there are. That's the "patriotic" approach, and in less-aggressive markets, you'll see some investors [esp. big institutional investors] building the hedge parts of their portfolios out of these kinds of investments. But when the only domestic options are dumb/boring, any "smart money" investor will either take their money and leave the country for greener pastures, or they'll pick up the skills required to play in foreign markets.
Well sure, it depends what the counterfactual is. If those countries just physically prevented the people from leaving, and nothing more, I wouldn't expect that countries' outcomes to improve. But what the countries suffering from brain drain presumably want is for there to be attractive opportunities for those skilled workers in their own country.
Other countries are free not to want the things that Silicon Valley talents generate. More for us!
Often, the person may not have been as productive, happy, or well compensated in their own country.
Also, over time, some of those people make money in the US and take that, their knowledge and skills and go back home to share there. Everyone is better off.
I was discussing this elsewhere, and dug up something I wrote 11 years ago, and I think I'm still pretty happy with it:
https://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and-job...
How are Americans better off in this scenario?
1. An American company benefited from their labor
2. American consumers benefited from the goods / services they contributed to providing
3. American citizens benefited from the services provided by the taxes they pay
4. Other American businesses benefited from their patronage
But if we were to take your argument at face value and I generally do because that's what the economists say and makes sense to me, why don't other countries encourage this specific type of immigration? China, for example, or perhaps Japan or Korea? What about New Zealand or Switzerland?
People who are purely consumers (usually living of real estate gains or entitlements) are of course a huge part of the population, and benefit from everything brining consumer prices down - including cheap labour.
And many people are both consumers and workers, so they are benefitted from lower prices at the same time as they're disadvantaged by lower salaries. If they've already got real estate and the biggest expenses in life paid, they are more interested in lower consumer prices.
Then you have the people who have a much bigger interest in higher salaries than in cheaper consumer goods. Primarily young workers who need to get a foothold in life. For them it is of utmost importance that salaries increase, even though consumer goods get more expensive, because without a foothold in life they have nothing to live for.
Short term - shareholders win, long term - everyone loses except the country of origin, where they can bring the knowledge back and develop their economy.
It's like outsourcing, just the foreign workers are onshore.
I'm from the US, but lived in Europe for quite a while, and my kids have dual citizenship. I think that people moving to places where they are better off is a good thing.
Suppose I'm not an American--like plenty of HN commenters--or alternatively that (as in reality) I am an American but I have good reasons to think that the personal benefit I derive from the presence of immigrants is greater than the cost to me as an individual, even were I to concede more generic economic arguments about wage competition. Then... why am I supposed to prioritize the interests of American tech workers over foreign immigrants?
I don't in general endorse an "I got mine, screw you" approach, nor one that says "hey GDP is going up so screw the losers", but if someone else is taking exactly that attitude just with a nationalistic inflection, it's hard to extend them a lot of empathy.
[1] https://bsky.app/profile/josephpolitano.bsky.social/post/3lz...
A huge reason we have so many unicorns is because doing business and scaling in the US is easier than EU or other places.
A huge part of why the Manhattan Project was successful was also because of substantial brain drain from Europe. I think Scott Galloway wrote about this or may have popularized it.
If an employee is exceptional and a skilled unicorn wrangler... 100K is nothing.
That's largely a myth, though. The vast majority of smart, driven people have no path to lawfully immigrate to the US.
By a wide margin, the main immigration pathway are family visas (i.e., marriages and citizens bringing in relatives). H-1B visas are a comparatively small slice that's available via a lottery only to some professions and some backgrounds - and the process is basically gamed by low-wage consultancies, with a large proportion of the rest gobbled up by a handful of Big Tech employers. And that's before we even get to the fact that H-1B doesn't necessarily give you a path to permanent residency, depending on where you're from.
For most people who aren't techies, the options are really very limited, basically "be exceptionally wealthy", "be a celebrity", or "be one of the world's foremost experts on X".
There is also EB with National Interest Waiver - including for profession like Doctors and such.
Not to mention a lot of employment based visa, if you work for a US employer - L1, EB1/2 directly etc...
There isn't a permanent resident visa for Driven people - but you can get entrepreneur visas if you run a profitable business.
But only a tiny sliver of what you would consider successful, skilled people can qualify for O-1. To my original point: if you're "merely" hard-working and good at something, you - as a general rule - have no lawful pathway to immigrate to the US.
Here's another way to look at it: let's say that in any country, roughly 10% of people fall into the category of "talented and hard-working" - not superstars, but the kind of people who would conceptually enrich the economy. Worldwide, that's probably what, 400 million adults? Further, let's say that about 10% would be interested in living in the US. And before all the EU folks sneer at that: that's probably a big underestimate, because a good chunk of the world is living in places with a much lower standard of living. So that's 40 million who probably want to come. And the total number of employment visas is ~100k/year. We aim for the global top <0.1%.
This is especially true for immigration that is not tied to employment. If you can choose to only take the top, which America mostly could as it is the most desired immigration country in the world, you would prioritize the top.
If there's a limited amount of spots, why won't you prioritize the superstars over just talented and hard working?
So the top 0.1% of the total population, that's likely a good deal (on top of the employment oriented visa which have less of a strain on the economy).
And its an easy argument:
The Manhattan Project engaged thousands of scientists, but over 16 notable principal scientists (with major published credits) were foreign-born and either retained their citizenship or became naturalized U.S. citizens only after escaping persecution or war in Europe.
As of 2025, about 10-12 CEOs of the top 50 Fortune 500 (F50) companies were born outside the United States, representing roughly 20-25% of F50 CEOs. This number has grown over the past two decades, reflecting increasing diversity among leadership at America's largest corporations.
Nearly half of all Fortune 500 companies in 2025—specifically 44%—were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants, meaning the original founders were not born in the United States or were the first generation after immigration.
These are just three major examples.
A better test may be comparing company performance worldwide instead of only in the F500. That's a different list, the Global 500.
This is a double edged sword given that it means there’s less incentive to invest in US public education and fostering our own talent. Instead of brain drain we’re dealing with brain rot.
As of now, both the K12 system and college education seem in freefall in terms of quality and applicability to careers. No doubt those companies will devote their money to lobbying to keep hiring H1Bs instead of training the talent they need here, since they're just profit-optimizing functions, rather than humans with morals.
People with actually talent and intelligence realise how messed up the USA is (and has been for some time) and prefer things like healthcare and gun control.
And if they really want the lack of work life balance and/or high paid roles, they can consult from US company like I do. Now I get the money, but I live in a decent country.
I don't think there is any amount of money you could offer me to move to the USA. Well ok, maybe when it gets to $10 million / year I would have to start considering it.
The H1B process is unfair to engineers because it drives down their compensation in a way that doesn't affect nurses or welders. If immigration were completely irrespective of profession and based solely around whether the imported laborers get paid enough to contribute more than they receive in taxes/public services, nobody would have any standing to complain about their wages being driven down because every single person benefits in the long run from the economic growth.
As things stand, tech workers and unskilled laborers get screwed by the current status quo because they don't reap the benefit of cheaper goods and services in all the other industries, but everyone else benefits from cheaper electronics/software and landscaping/housekeeping/food service while their wages grow.
You're not wrong on paper, the current immigration practices are just screwy.
EDIT - The hard statistical proof that most of the H-1Bs are tech workers:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/o...
Yet again, we have classic HN speculation masquerading as authority.
Should software developer salaries be comparable to accountants or to surgeons? That's an arbitrary value judgment.
Software engineers have less purchasing power than they would without the H-1B visa program, and that's indisputable. 64% of the visas go to IT workers and 52% go specifically to programmers, which implies beyond all shadow of a doubt that their salaries decrease further than the cost of the goods and services they pay for.
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/o...
It's all there, black and white, clear as crystal. You get nothing. You lose. Good day, sir!
You're just passing off your own speculation as authoritative, and you didn't even read my comment to comprehension.
I didn't say we need less immigration in the tech sector. I said it hurts tech workers when there's a deflationary effect on their earnings but not the goods and services they pay for, and hence the same immigration practices should apply to every industry.
On paper, you would think this is the case, but in practice 64% of H1-B workers are in IT and 52% are programmers:
https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/document/reports/o...
Again, it stands to reason that if the deflationary effect on tech workers' salaries is disproportionate to the deflationary effect on all the other goods and services they pay for, then tech workers are worse off from the H1-B program. I've seen claims less ironclad than this accepted as fact in peer-reviewed life sciences-related research.
Your comment is just another classic HN case of speculation masquerading as authority.
Not so straight forward. Ambitious people leave underdeveloped countries because there are little opportunities. It's not like they are going to build same great product there as in California.
It's great if you only root for the US, but taking more global perspective, let's have other countries improve their situation as well. There are almost 200 or so countries, I am ok with them improving their economy using their equivalent of H1-B programs.
This is a golden opportunity for others to step in an eat Americans' lunch so to speak, let's see if they capitalize on it.
We would have to filter for these more. In reality the majority of H1B visa are issued to companies like Infosys or Tata who often have below average people.
I think some people underestimate the power of those willing to migrate to the US.
I’m in my early 40s and moved from Western Europe to the US 11 years ago, and I feel I was the last generation eager to come, the perception of US is changing fast. This is not an H-1B problem but still a parallel one on how to attract people.
Looking at the politics in Europe and Asia today, the question of who is allowed in and why is a central point of debate that rages and threatens to tear apart much of the fabric that was built over generations.
The elephant in the room is that many of these highly successful people who have brought great economic advantage to the US over the years happen to have brown skin.
As for why this policy is being adopted: sometimes an elephant is just an elephant. The huge price increase hurts brown people (mostly), and possibly curbs immigration. It will play well with a certain segment of Americans.
There are many subtleties to the H1-B visa debate, but I don’t think they are at play in this policy change.
H1B program == leverage over the H1B workers due to the employment tie-in to residence, leverage over other non-H1B workers as well, due to the wider talent pool at LOWER wages.
I don't know whether Trump is doing is good, but the H1B program helps Owners more than it helps Workers.
I don't think being against exploitive mass migration - which by its definition is brain drain of other countries, which every bleeding hearter likes to ignore - is the same saying no one should ever immigrate ever.
In reality, this will just be used to show fealty to trump and a fastlane visa will be opened to companies willing to join the fascists.
Again, good faith argument against something that isn't bewing done with a reasonably democratic outcome.
On the other hand, those working for WITCH companies…
And trust me, I’m in no way “anti minority”. Not only are some of my best friends minorities - so are my parents…
WITCH companies are not hiring the best or the brightest. Their entire value play is contracting out mediocre developers at mediocre wages.
It's corruption of the government.
Now, by the way I understand H-1B, $100k still seams cheap for essentially getting a slave.
Very chilling to think about.
The ethics of emigration is an interesting area that's under explored, especially in non-emergency scenarios. We have obligations to our own societies, for example, but how this affects emigration requires clarification.
H1B visa is just a rank and file worker with a certain skill.
The employment environment in Silicon Valley has been extremely strange since 2022. I haven’t been able to find a job in my field since then, despite being at the top of my game. I’m practically bankrupt and currently making ends meet in a minimum wage job.
Do we need more Facebooks and AirBNBs?
For H-1B see report here - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45306919
I think a very high application fee is actually part of a good solution, but is useless by itself.
A flawed proposal:
* Dispense with the 'need to search for a qualified American' which just complicates the process without achieving the stated goal, and includes a ton of legal and bureaucratic expense and time.
* A large application fee paid from the company to the federal government.
* The worker's relocation expenses must also be covered by the company.
* The worker gets a 10 year work authorization on the day of their arrival.
* The worker gets to leave their sponsoring employer on the day of their arrival, if they choose to. The employment contract may not include any clawbacks of anything.
The latter bullet is the key one. That's the one that uses market forces to truly enforces this person is being paid above market wages, and is being treated well, at their sponsoring employer. (which in turn means they don't undercut existing labor in the market).
It also means that employers don't really look abroad unless there really is a shortage of existing labor. But when there is a true shortage and you're willing to spend, the door is open to act quickly.
The obvious defect is that it creates an incentive for the employee to pay the federal fee themselves (hidden) plus more for the privilege of getting sponsored, and the company basically being a front for this process. Effectively buying a work authorization for themselves. I'm not sure how to overcome that. Then again, the current system could also suffer that defect (I don't know how common it is).
If they are just using the program to pay less than they otherwise would for labor that does exist in the us, well, then we have another issue.
I would modify the proposal to include a larger annual fee rather than an application fee, so that the initially sponsoring company isn’t solely bearing the cost. There should also be a floor pay rate for the visa holder, something the 75th or 80th percentile of both the company and of income in the MSA the visa holder is located in.
But those work permits mostly concern the individual and the government. The employer is not as much sponsoring them as providing evidence.
Yes, you have three months to find a new job if you're fired, but it's Europe, you most likely got at least a 3 month notice as well.
[1]: https://www.udi.no/en/answer-pages/answers-skilled-worker/#l...
A company that is confident it is offering worthy salary and career should have no extra reason to worry a foreign worker will quit during first week, than that a local worker would do the same thing.
The only difference a fee would make under such conditions is that locals become cheaper to hire, which is the point.
Else, if company A pays a $100k fee, company B has an incentive to give the worker $90,000 more to jump ship. And this devolves to no one paying the $100k fee.
You almost had me there.
We can do better than bonding people by immigration status. This might be controversial, but I don't think should be bonding people at all.
I'm open to hearing why it's ok, but it's going to take a lot of evidence to convince me that a company's well-being is part of that calculus.
This would be workable if it also results in the person losing their visa. There must be some downside for the employee, otherwise it's an invitation for abuse.
If the worker gets to keep their visa then it's just a backdoor way to get a company to pay for their visa and relocation so they can immediately quit and then go do some other job they actually want (at no expense to the next employer).
The whole reason most people stay at jobs? (Theoretically)
That's the whole point. It distorts market forces when companies are allowed to just trap people.
It is reasonable that if you get a temporary visa to perform work in another country, and you decide you don't want to do that work anymore, you leave. They aren't enslaved or anything if the work is not worth it you can attempt to transfer your status to another employer or leave.
This is not true. Transferring your H1-B to another employer is entirely possible, the new employer will have to file the application as usual, but the application is not subject to the annual H1-B quotas.
At least this was the way it was several years ago. I doubt the process has changed since.
I'm not familiar with current H1B law, but what prevents this from happening today? I've hired away an H1B holder in the past; the process wasn't particularly difficult.
My understanding at the time was that the tricky thing for H1B holders is that they can only have a 60-day gap of unemployment before they need to leave the country (or find a different visa resolution, I guess).
Now, if this new fee applies to H1B transfers as well as the initial application, well, that'll actually make it harder for H1B holders to change jobs.
This is not true. Typically you want to stay until i140 which for me took 1 year or so back in 2020. If I want to switch there are multiple other reasons I'd end up delaying the switch anyway (wait for vest, bonus etc ...)
You can argue you only care about the now and, sure, if that's all you care about, who am I to say your priorities are wrong?
I do think that you're wrong though, I think it doesn't make you better off neither now nor in the following years. But, again, who the heck am I to tell you how to run your country. I guess we'll see how this plays out.
Your other points are a good start. The main thing I would add is a floor on salary. H1B for a >$200k job makes some sense, it shows it's essential, the employer really wants to fill it and is having a hard time finding a US citizen. H1B for average or below average salaries is where the real abuse is. It's basically a form of indentured servitude.
Make the incentives align with the priority, is what OP was getting at.
I'm with OP. Make it crazy expensive and let the employee quit if they want. Employers will immediately build the 'search for qualified citizens' into the process themselves.
My ancestors came here ~140 years ago when the only "visa" process was a look in the mouth at Ellis Island. I don't see any fundamental reason why we need to have stricter regulations than that, and I reject dragging the Overton window further right on immigration.
Most H1B go through perm process that does this already.
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3l...
Unfathomably cruel.
[0]: Oh, it looks like the bsky link has an article with companies advising as such - https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2025/03/31/immigra...
The US makes up about 4.5% of the global population and it seems silly to think that the FAANG companies and the new AI startups chasing behind them are going to restrict their hiring to this tiny slice of the global talent pool.
The only effect this is going to have is accelerating the offshoring of jobs through more hiring in India, Europe and Canada, which is a net loss for the US.
I myself became a US citizen two years ago after being on a H1B. I was paid the same as all my peers and for all its shortcomings the program worked for me. It stunning to think this has been closed off, killing the main path for skilled immigration into the US.
No, this is just another tariff. If it costs $200k/yr to employee an H1B Software Engineer, and you expect them to work for you for 3 years, it raises the cost of employment from $200k/yr to $233k/yr. It'll discourage people from applying on the margins, which will bring the application rate down and acceptance rate up.
Is it? $100k per hire isn't much of a cost to pay for large companies. Smaller companies may -- may -- end up having some trouble with this, but consider that $100k often amounts to less than a yearly base salary (and will pretty much always be less than a year of total comp/total employee cost), not to mention the costs of legal staff that they're already paying to deal with this stuff.
What this may do is cause some of the "body shop" consultancies to drop some of their "low end" business, so they'll focus more on targeting positions with higher salaries. That's... probably a good thing.
And yeah, we may see some higher rates of offshoring, but I don't think that will be significant. And I'm not even really convinced: offshoring is already possible, and in strict dollar terms is already cheaper than going through the H-1B process to bring someone to the US. If companies preferred offshoring, they'd be doing it; clearly the already-higher-cost H-1B program is still their preference.
I agree that this isn't going to fix the H-1B visa system, and is not a reform or even a particularly positive step toward a reform, but I think you're overestimating the negative impact. I really don't think this will change things much at all.
That's almost as much as the media H1B salary. It's a huge cost overhead. I don't understand how you can be dismissive of a number almost as high as hiring another engineer.
It is $100k per hire per year.
https://apnews.com/article/h1b-visa-trump-immigration-8d3969...
I’m honestly tired of hearing the argument “if we do X then business will move to another state or out of US”.
Good riddance to the companies that flee from jurisdictions enforcing workers rights, don’t allow exploitation, etc.
The most important thing is protecting people, not fearing the cries of money-making machines.
California could introduce a million dollar minimum wage for software engineers, ban electricity on Thursdays, raise corporate taxes to 60% and still probably have more new unicorns founded in the subsequent year than Europe.
Is it?
Some AI recruitments have seen 9-figure contracts. $100K is actually a surprisingly well-considered number and would still see the intake of legitimate talents, obviously contingent on the specific details. Indeed, those people wouldn't have to compete with masses of consultant trash and the whole lottery system could be done away with.
$100K actually seems perfectly coherent with forcing the program to winnow down to actual talents. People truly good enough to get the employer to pony up $100K to pull them in -- presuming there isn't some kickback fraud happening -- will truly be the best of the best.
> The only effect this is going to have is accelerating the offshoring of jobs through more hiring in
Paradoxically the #1 reason H1B employers bring in H1Bs is to bridge offshoring work. Pull in a dozen Indians and they're your bridge to the big Indian office, which is precisely why Infosys, Tata et al are such H1B users.
These are crazy outliers who would go through a different visa path anyway. US tech companies still need mid-level workers making low-to-mid six figures. Weirdly O1 visa holder spouses will get an O3 which doesn't allow them to work, making it worse than the H1B/H4 visa for some set of people. (H4s allow spouses to work)
They are. And in the truly talented spaces there are many at all of the ranges in between.
> US tech companies still need mid-level workers making low-to-mid six figures
$100k for three to six years seems entirely reasonable if it's really such a critical need.
There's literally millions of talented Americans out of work in the tech industry right now while companies continue to hire H1B.
The companies post impossible requirement job ads in obscure locations..to get around the requirements to hire Americans first.
That is, at most, less than half a million people in the field and the majority of those jobs aren't the ones looking for overseas hires anyway. If we take CompTIA's number of roughly 5M tech workers it's 140,000 people, not "literally millions."
If you have better numbers, please, let us know.
Says you. I work in Lake Wobegon.
I think there are certainly abuses of the system, but we should be focusing on stamping out that abuse, not just generally "slowing it down". A $100k price tag is not going to affect abuse all that much; yes, it will make it less profitable, but probably not to the point where it will fix anything.
As a US-born citizen working in the US, I would rather work with a smart, motivated person from another country than a mediocre person from the US. The problem is that there are a lot of non-exceptional people being brought in on these visas, so let's focus on stopping that as much as we can. And while there are plenty of exceptional people who are US citizens, there are also many more who are mediocre or worse; we should be importing talent in order to raise that average.
Such offshoring was possible before and after today.
Put another way, if all the H-1B jobs really can be offshored quickly and easily the way so many Indians and anti-Trump people here and elsewhere confidently predict, *that would have happened already*.
I suspect it didn't happen before because these companies were more focused on growth than efficiency.
That being said, thanks to AI parts of the big companies are again focused on growth at all cost.
We'll see a rebalancing for sure.
This was already addressed by changing the odds to be per unique candidate, not application, thereby reducing the incentive to game it. More context here: https://www.uscis.gov/newsroom/news-releases/uscis-announces...
And yes, it does work, because we have data from the year before this change, to the year after to compare against. The "Eligible Registrations for Beneficiaries with Multiple Eligible Registrations" dropped from 47,314 for FY 2025 to 7,828 for FY 2026. Source: https://www.uscis.gov/archive/uscis-announces-strengthened-i...
I believe the parent commenter's argument is that they instead play the game with multiple people. The increased chance is not per person, but achieved by using more people, each with their own chance.
I don't know if they do this, I merely find the argument itself intriguing with the shift in perspective, and that you as the reader has to keep track of the change in context from the individual one level up.
When faced with an arbitrarily small, insignificant problem, in lieu of the status quo, the solution he/she advocates is to completely dismantle the status quo without any form and reason instead of actually focusing on the solution.
I.e punishment over progress.
But you'll really need that person. It will also kill OPT in general.
The idea of requiring a high salary is reasonable, but I'd make it rather e.g. 120% of the median salary in a particular industry.
If you can't find somebody skilled enough here to work for 200k or less, then you should probably be paying 200k or more since you're looking for a role that is niche and low supply.
This fee is a great way to ensure that there's very little medical services available to rural populations and to help kill science in the US among other things.
Doctors, pilots and other genuinely essential professions are well covered by a number of other visa categories, such as EB-2.
Part of the shortage is also because very few people can afford to become doctors.
"My rural patients are so much more insufferable than my urban ones"
https://old.reddit.com/r/medicine/comments/1nkb8f9/my_rural_...
It seems that the reasons for missing doctors are... complex.
Don't post docs usually come over on J-1s (if they aren't using practical training)?
Rural hospitals are lucky to have any doctor on staff let alone a cardiologist. They are mostly staffed by nurses for quick patch-up work and life flights to major medical centers.
H1B doesn't solve the problem of poor communities getting poor healthcare. Frankly, it costs too much to become a doctor which limits where doctors can be employed. Plenty would like to work rural, but not with $500,000 in student loans. And no, that's no joke. I have a nephew going to medical school in Idaho and that's what his loans are.
To go further, I believe there’s good data on cost of living, geographically. It would probably be wise to use that in the formula as well, so as not to disadvantage smaller areas, where cost-of-living and salaries are lower.
I like the goal of making sure visa works are paid well for where they live.
I would not want to restrict the visa worker geographically though. Or alternatively I am unsure about the overhead of tracking the location visa holders and enforcing salary changes.
Might also have unintended knock on effect of encouraging job growth in low cost of living areas.
The percentage could be reasonable, but I think it's too easily gamed. You just know the company would try and say they are bringing in entry level people for whatever they want and use whatever lowest median they could find. There needs to be a fairly significant minimum salary to avoid such monkey business.
An H1B job should be cushy. Otherwise, the company should simply raise salaries to find local workers.
I don't think it's easy to game the median number, or the third quartile number if you prefer. Unless the salary distribution is severely bimodal, it should work reasonably.
The h1bs are often used to abuse that system by just importing someone willing to work for x, with the added bonus of it being very hard for them to ever leave your company.
If you couldn't undercut H1B salaries there is little incentive to use them except for their desired purpose (you can't find any local workers).
> There is a lot of under-employment for highly qualified US citizens.
No, there isn't. Even with the current AI mess, the unemployment for highly-qualified software engineers is 2.8%: https://www.ciodive.com/news/june-jobs-report-comptia-data-I...
The AI is now decimating the jobs for the recent CS graduates.
qualified nurses are having to get jobs at retail, etc to survive. For some sectors, it's importing cheap labor (aka wage suppression).
What now?
What I care about is the current system isn't being used to find hard to find labor, it's used to bring in cheap labor in an abusive situation.
We as a nation are really better off if we bring in the best in the world to work here with a cushy salary.
You're believing and repeating the propaganda. The H1B was sold to Americans as for this purpose and then very deliberately turned into a loophole for importing massive amounts of foreign labor.
How silly is it to accept the idea that Big Tech companies like Google, Microsoft, and Tesla are not be able to hire Americans for any role they want. They're the richest companies on the planet!
These companies use the H1B to increase their labor supply, suppress wages, and gain indentured workers.
If they couldn't cheat by importing cheaper foreign labor they would have to compete against each other much more than they do for American workers.
This is all about big companies rigging the system. They do not care if it's good or bad for America, the foreign workers, or anyone else. It's simple greed.
https://www.uscis.gov/working-in-the-united-states/temporary...
It was never, ever that they "can't find someone".
There are extraordinarily few roles handed out to H1Bs where there aren't enormous numbers of domestic options. Indeed, by far the biggest users of H1Bs in tech are shitty consulting firms like Cognizant, Infosys and Tata doing absolute garbage, low skill development.
Yes, there are exceptions. There are truly unique talents in the AI space, for instance. Not someone to build Yet Another agent, but someone who actually understands the math. They are extraordinarily rare in that program. And for those exceptional talents, a $100K fee would be completely worth it. But they aren't going to pay it for an army of garbage copy-paste consultant heads.
In actual reality it's just a way to push down wages by forcing Americans to compete with the developing world in their own country. In Canada we have "TFWs" filling the same role. It is a laughably unjustified, massively abusive program.
I'd much rather push everything into the salary of the person being hired. Both because it ends up raising the median salary for local workers and because it stimulates the local economy where that person is brought in. It's also a yearly fee. I think there's value in getting a very capable person working in your company and having a high salary is one way to make such roles highly competitive. A highly capable person will ultimately make everyone they work with more capable.
https://thefactcoalition.org/tariffs-manufacturing-tax-break...
EDIT: This is a proposal by 1 senator - not Trump.
"The proposal would increase the wage floor for H-1B visa recipients from $60,000 to $150,000, eliminate the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program, and replace the current lottery-based selection process with a highest-bidder system."
EDIT: This is a proposal by 1 senator - not Trump. https://www.newsweek.com/h-1b-visa-change-proposal-2132484
But that would be a free market that respected human rights, and Americans don't want that! Equality? Freedom? That's just marketing!
Of the both of us, I've been the strong proponent for moving the US. and with each passing day, its getting harder to make a strong case for the pain, and uncertainty of moving here.
Lately everything has been counter to what one would expect from a pro-growth, accelerationist country. But I understand where the reasoning is coming from, though.
Similar to what ended up happening with china and manufacturing.
It's not just this specific issue, honestly. Throwing wrench on all economies, that my wife and I bet on is what's horrible. Research fund cuts on premium institutes, the wonky arrests etc.
Even yesterday, I had to make a case for why all of this certainty might be worth it. And it was not easy. At this point though, I certainly agree that the US is not in a trajectory for appreciating external contributions.
That is exactly the goal here by this administration.
The nature of the American success story changes over time and with that the nature of immigrant success also changes.
In the last decade or so tech, especially information tech, has been one of the biggest contributors to growth in the US economy, and first generation immigrants have been a big contributor to that. For example, first generation immigrants have founded many of the tech unicorns (although I think he overstated it a little--my searching suggests it is closed to 40-50% rather than a majority).
In earlier decades the biggest contributors at various times included manufacturing, farm technology, defense, the Gulf Coast petroleum industry, and construction.
There were certainly immigrants involved in all those but not nearly to the extent that they are in present day tech, especially at the top.
Consider that, in 1905, my great-grandfather got on a boat in Italy, sailed across the Atlantic, arrived in New York, went through a very simple immigration process on-site, and at that point was legal to live and work in the US for as long as he wanted. He eventually naturalized as a US citizen in 1920, only needing to prove his residency and present the record of his legal entrance 15 years prior.
We're a long way from that state of affairs now. The H-1 program was developed because we weren't getting enough of an influx of skilled work due to the reduction in immigration caused by new, more-restrictive immigration laws enacted over the prior decades.
Which is why all the people yelling about immigration today, who are second and third generation, need to be quiet.
We are seeing it in real time.
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3l...
Isn't this a change USCIS makes? Or does it have to go through congress?
Not startups. 100k is like 75% of base comp in most bay area startups
Among BigTech, maybe like ~20 companies will be willing to pay this per employee.
I suspect that flying someone from Buenos Aires to SF or NYC for onboarding and then and back would cost significantly less than $100k.
Remote work from Europe is harder in this regard, and from India... would be night shifts only.
What if they are a contractor? Well usually the law treats these things like ducks and asks if they quack. If it quacks like employment it is subject to that law.
Certainly the $100k fee is going to make the application much more expensive (though you can amortize it across 3 or 6 years, right?), but it was already not exactly cheap to deal with the legal costs around H-1B employees.
> Among BigTech, maybe like ~20 companies will be willing to pay this per employee.
I think that's a vast, vast underestimation. Most companies, even not-so-big ones, will continue to pay it. Maybe they'll think twice a bit more for future hires, and try harder to find someone local, which I don't think is a bad thing. Or, of course, this could just represent another factor in downward wage pressure across the board, which is bad.
That exactly is Trump’s intention, no?
He has been pretty good at sticking to his campaign promises.
I dont know of a single person here on a visa making less than 150k salary. They get the same stock, bonus and benefits that every one else gets.... it's well over 300k to have that staff member when all is said and done.
You're not adding on 100k a year, you're adding on 100k for a 3-6 year employee.
Even if that works out to 20k a year, it's pocket change in the grand scheme of things.
I'm glad to hear this has been the environment you've worked in, but I don't believe it reflects the majority of skilled workers in the US on H1-B.
$150,000 median yearly salary would mean H1-B positions are taking home 10k a month. I've worked with too many people in these positions to believe they're being paid reasonable wages - unless you have an extremely in-demand skillset, H1-B holders are often treated like indentured servants by huge companies/teams.
H1b also only takes into account the actual salary, it completely ignores stock bonuses.
The USCIS uses the BLS data for the prevailing wage. You can also check it on the BLS website if you want.
Don't have data on this but anecdotally the base salary range for most YC startup jobs advertised here is around 150k-200k based on what I see.
You are right that it does amortize if the employee stays long enough.
And I expect workers on H-1B change jobs much less frequently than citizens & green card holders (and holders of "safer" visas), since changing jobs on an H-1B involves more risk that can end up with you being required to leave the US.
All the H1B's I have worked with are whip smart, hard working, and in general amazing people. I cant say the same for all my localy sourced colleges. The tragedy of the economics in most of these cases was that they were making the same amount of money as their peers and not more...
In a lot of cases companies are getting a Steff Curry or a Lionel Messi and paying them the average of the rest of the team...
Anecdotally myself, I've worked with great ones yes, but the majority aren't incredible.
In the tech arms of banks you can see a lot of what I would describe as at best regular software engineers, nothing special.
https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2025-h1b-visa-middlemen-c...
That's surprising; for me, H-1Bs have run the gamut, with a range of talent and ambition that's pretty similar to the range of talent and ambition I see with US-born workers. And I think this is perhaps the problem: your experience should be the norm, if the H-1 visa program is functioning properly, but I don't think that's the case.
Among my friends who have been on H-1Bs, they tend to be high performers, but that's just selection bias at work.
Mathematically if we collected all the brightest people from both these nations, say the top 5 percent of their population thats 100 million people in that pool to pick from.
The entire population of the US is 350million.
Comp sci went from something people did cause they enjoyed to something they did cause they thought it was a pay day: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/ocpf0g/oc_...
We ran out of talented, passionate people a long time ago.
There is also a cultural problem in America, one that buisness and staff are afflicted with.
https://www.construction-physics.com/p/no-inventions-no-inno...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At3256ASxlA (pay attention to Noyce in Japan and the article he wrote... think about intel today, compare it to the above article).
I don't think Noyce's take as a business owner is far removed from the above take from the prospective of staff.
“The restriction imposed pursuant to subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall not apply to any individual alien, all aliens working for a company, or all aliens working in an industry, if the Secretary of Homeland Security determines, in the Secretary’s discretion, that the hiring of such aliens to be employed as H-1B specialty occupation workers is in the national interest and does not pose a threat to the security or welfare of the United States.”
More command economy, more opportunity for graft.
Having worked with the recent generation of Indians, I can safely say this can be a good thing. Baseline morality and work ethics for many (not all, but many) in the recent generation of Indians are so low. It’s a generational shift that I can tell. Get rich quick, wannabe try too hard to fit in and have fun with wild Wild West mindset that just has a completely different tone from earlier generations of hard working Indians who helped build some of the major products we use today.
These kids that come from often wealthy or upper middle class families with faith and cultural grounding would be far better off in their life trajectory (and country as a whole with brain drain) if they stayed back, led innovation in their own country, and pushed their corrupt bureaucratic government ecosystem to change. Instead of opting for a mediocre hedonistic lifestyle in the west where they know they have no lasting stability (mind you it is 100+ years wait time for many in the current immigration process to get green card), often get stuck working in the same company and not able to move, can’t start things on their own again because of visa rules.
No one wins in this in the long run. Except maybe some corporations.
I'm deeply unhappy about H1B abuse. I've watched it happen, in front of me. It's definitely a real thing. But I also worry about the legit folks, that want to take advantage of it.
However, when used by people that we (theoretical, rational economic actors) actually want here… those truly exceptional people who may not look exceptional on paper… Well, getting those people here has been one of the magical things about the United States of America, so far.
Messing with that is dangerous. It needs to be done, but it needs to be done very surgically.
A few hundred? All of the tech companies I've worked for are > 50% Indians in the US. Especially in big tech. I could be wrong, but my understanding is there there is not enough software developers in the US, hence the temp workers. Is there expectation that the demand will drop?
I know for a fact that multinational companies are expanding in exactly those areas (plus India) for exactly the reason that it's become very difficult to hire and move people to the US.
Those workers aren't paying taxes in the United States, and obviously the companies hiring people outside of the US aren't going to hire people for those positions in the United States.
Canadian salaries are also notoriously low in tech.
However the ceiling in the US is so much higher that it still makes sense for many to tolerate the chaos and uncertainty of moving here for work.
I wouldn't mind a new policy that would raise the median "quality" of the H-1B visa holder, even if that meant the total number is lower. Sure, Canada and Western Europe can take the mediocre people we'd no longer be granting visas to, but so what.
But this $100k policy is not going to increase the median quality of candidates. I actually don't think it's going to have a huge affect on things; it's just a token effort to "do something" that Trump's base will eat up, and he'll declare it a success even if there's no improvement or it makes things worse.
Yes, this new fee will make that more expensive to do, but I'm not convinced it will no longer be worth it for most companies.
By all accounts those arguments were pretty correct, no? The tariff rollout was delayed multiple times, changed multiple times. What we have now doesn't very much look like what Trump announced back in March/April.
And the tariffs may disappear soon, depending on SCOTUS. Not that I depend on SCOTUS doing the right thing anymore, but I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised on this one.
Also, you're right that it's often used in a way that wouldn't make sense grammatically if it were written out, but that's true for most acronyms I think; e.g. JPEG or GIF.
"Look at this funny Graphics Interchange Format I just sent you!"
Now that you say, I can see some similarities with Al Pastor.
TACOBELL
- Trump Always Chickens Out Before Eventually Losing Loudly
And FWIW, I think the H1B program, like the TFW program in Canada, is outrageously corrupt and has zero legitimacy, and the laughable foundations that people use to justify it -- namely a completely unsubstantiated labour shortage -- is such a ridiculous lie that it deserves to be obliterated. It is a way for the ultra-rich to stomp on worker rights and compensation.
That's demonstrably false, even just by my own experience with people, so not sure I can take what you're saying seriously.
Yes, there's corruption and abuse, but I've also worked with some fantastic, excellent, smart, ambitious, hard-working people on H-1B visas. They would not have been in the US without it.
I've also worked with some mediocre fools who were on H-1B visas. That's the problem we should be focusing on, and there's no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
F1 -> OPT -> H1 bridge is way more expensive now.
Universities are bound to lose a ton of money due to this. Those outside of the top 50 will likely get hammered.
Yes, it brings in more income for the government at the expense of universities.
It’s a great way to remove h1b fraud and abuse but you do burn down a bit of your garage in the process of getting rid of the rat.
Most won't be filled at all.
This has been proposed before and I don't really see any downsides. If your company really needs them, just pay them what they're actually worth.
Amongst other elements that should be fixed:
* Taxation without representation (i'm suggesting adding the latter, not removing the former)
* The H1B worker must be paid at or above the higher of the median rate at the company for the role or at the employee's request by an independent valuation for the role, this ensures workers are not being paid less
* The fee should be prorated, monthly, over the 6 year span of the H1B, allowing the company to spread it over time and manage cashflow
* The H1B worker should only be contractually required to stay for the average tenure of the role in the industry (which afaik is 18mo right now)
* The H1B worker should be able to easily port their H1B over to another employer. The new employer must pay the fee, prorated, on the H1B, the prior employer will be reimbursed prorated unused fees
Happens to permanent residents too, not only employment visas.
I sort of wish it had been done 15 years ago but better late then never.
It's not doing really well though, COL is sky high, and wages are low.
You're right because that totally didn't happen to varying degrees in various industries in the US...
This insanity seems collective.
Recently Trump also met with Indias arch enemy Pakistan’s de facto leader (military chief) in Washington and shortly following that you had Saudi-Pakistan NATO like alliance announced (of course US is major allies for both of those countries). It is interesting because pre-election Trump touted many Indians and even had Modi joining him in one of the largest Indian gatherings. But I guess Trump admin being the wild card it has always been policy wise had a shift. What that leads to is still to be seen.
Recent SCO summit where India and China had some shared alliance pledges can give some hints what’s to come but it’s interesting he didn’t so far do so with Chinese students and had in fact a U turn on allowing 600000 students with their visas as part of the trade negotiations.
Until anything actually happens there's no reason to take this president at his word.
Why? Trump was known for "telling it as it is" so shouldn't the assumption be that it will happen?
AFAICT, the people that promoted him that way often had mutually incompatible interpretations of what he was saying that happened to fit their own biases coming in, which they felt like Trump was agreeing with.
And as the rubber of vague, contradictory, and incoherent statements hit the road of substantive action, that impression became a lot less common.
Which is clearly a good thing, but I fear it signals deteriorating relationships with other countries.
This just made it a little bit harder for american capitalists. No doubt there are nationalist concerns but also national security concerns behind this decision.
Ultimately this isn't going to do anything to reform the H-1B program; this is just trump "doing something", which he'll claim as a success (and his base will eat up), even if it does nothing or makes things worse.
It's $100K per employee per year.
"the entry into the United States of aliens as nonimmigrants to perform services in a specialty occupation under section 101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the INA, 8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b), is restricted, except for those aliens whose petitions are accompanied or supplemented by a payment of $100,000"
It sounds like it applies every time you leave and enter, provided you are a nonimmigrant alien on H1B (which they all are).
I do find it interesting that these trillion dollar companies can't find domestic workers, at their level of wealth they should simply be forced to pay for the education of Americans to create a funnel of workers rather than exporting this societal need to other nations.
The Hyundai factory exposed this. The VISA'd employees (or non-VISA'd? I don't remember the details offhand) were only there in the first place overseeing the project because they literally could not find anyone qualified to do the fucking job in Georgia.
Last I checked, Software Developers did not have a 0% unemployment statistic, so clearly there are American software developers that could be employed in those jobs, but FAANG still hires an H1B. Gee, I wonder why.
Maybe it's because H1Bs are cheaper than an American. Maybe it's because H1Bs cannot say no without risking being deported.
This claim that "No no no, every H1B was fine and totally could not even possibly be replaced by American labor" flies in the face of the actual reality of the tech industry. Microsoft can't find an American to write code? Bullshit, they just fired tons of them.
The fact that it is less abused in other industries should not be used to paper over the games the tech industry play. FAANG have been found multiple times to be collaborating to suppress tech industry wages. This is just another way they do that.
>could not find anyone qualified to do the fucking job in Georgia.
There was not a single American anywhere in the entire united states that could do things to build a car factory? Really? They couldn't fly someone out from Texas, or Michigan? Am I supposed to believe we don't have any human beings in the entire united states that know how to build part of a factory?
This is literally the dumbest administration this country has ever seen. Between tariffs and immigration and now this, it’s like they don’t even know what the consequences of their actions are.
This was true before and after today.
Put another way, if all the H-1B jobs really can be offshored quickly and easily the way so many Indians and anti-Trump people here and elsewhere confidently predict, *that would have happened already*.
The original Bloomberg article doesn't state: https://archive.is/tpuut
Some research (okay, okay, I used Claude) indicates that "In summary, while Congress provides the statutory authority and mandates certain specific fees, the specific amounts for most H1B fees are set through the regulatory process by DHS/USCIS based on cost recovery principles and activity-based costing analysis."
Further, "The core authority comes from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) section 286(m), 8 U.S.C. 1356(m), which authorizes the Secretary of Homeland Security to set fees for adjudication services "at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services".
From the legislation ( https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2024-title8/pdf/U... ):
That fees for providing adjudication and naturalization services may be set at a level that will ensure recovery of the full costs of providing all such services, includ- ing the costs of similar services provided with- out charge to asylum applicants or other immi- grants. Such fees may also be set at a level that will recover any additional costs associated with the administration of the fees collected.
I imagine there's a very good argument that the fee is intentionally excessive, and I also imagine that the Supreme Court will decide after a lengthy court battle that the President is due extensive deference in this.
The first country that cracks this will have streets paved with gold.
How do you determine that?
Of course much of this could be solved by narrowing the gap between the lowest earnings and highest earnings workers so that the tech career path wasn't so high of stakes. Anybody working should have the opportunity to launch into a dignified adult life. There must be a conversation ultimately about where the vast profits of tech firms should sit within our economy.
It says that the payment is for H1B visa applicants who are currently outside the country?
It’s too bad policy won’t actually track economic needs or fairness; it’s mainly to drive the expansion of the political franchise.
I would be totally fine with this if it was the former, but I would bet that it won't be...
Why would you pursue a PhD with a 25k/year stipend when you can just start a near 6-figure job and start paying off your student debt?
Only the ones with financial freedom or commitment to research take the PhD pill. Or when you go through a recession and you want to delay the entry to the job searching market.
Something's gotta give, and the endless dancing with partial offshoring and H1Bs is band-aiding over two options: a bloodbath for American workers where competing for their jobs is actually opened up to the globe, or a massive, nationalist set of labor protections to stop other countries from bidding on work asked for by the US markets. Making H1Bs more costly is a little stronger than a Band-Aids, but not by much.
Post nothing here you would not mind showing to a border guard.
Like seriously, I get this is very impactful, but don't risk your livelihood to argue with internet strangers.
1. Hire more American workers (pay more, maybe they don't exist so don't hire)
2. Move their offices overseas (already happening, we should see an acceleration)
Ok, I guess AI could also start replacing more roles, but we won't see that productivity for a year or two.
If companies choose 2 over 1, it will mean fewer jobs overall in the USA (including support and service jobs).
Companies could already hire offshore for 50% of what they pay in America, so I don't expect a dramatic change there.
https://thefactcoalition.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/02/No-T...
We are in 2025!
Decentralisation is important due to the high cost of living in cities. Bring life to less populated areas.
I don't know many tech workers who criticize H1B visas, outside of maybe the way that they empower the employer over employees.
People want to avoid negative effects from immigration (cultural/language/crimerate)- fine.
But are those people acknowledging how much economical growth was driven by migrant labor over the last half century? Hell no. Would the average alt-righter be willing to sacrifice any fraction of all those compounded gains? Absolutely not- every dollar of tax is too much, even to pay a fraction of the damage that is and will be caused by them (=> energy price/co2 taxation).
As a self-identifying moderate patriot, selfish complainers of that ilk seem a worse plague on their nation than the immigrants they keep whining about.
Now, you likely feel 'but I'm not like that, so why is it my problem?' and the answer is twofold. One, unless you actively push back on those people they're going to drag you down with them into a moral and legal pit, and two, because (unlike immigrants) you can vote and donate and lobby. There's a lot of weird stuff going on in the country right now, as I'm sure you're aware. It'd be nice to just look at policy in the abstract and deal with things compartmentaly, but there are times you have to step back and look at the bigger picture.
> you likely feel...
Thank you for the advice, but I don't worry about that, and I do not have that feeling at all. I don't experience any conflation with xenophobes in my real life. I find them repugnant, and vote against them and speak against them, except where we incidentally align. I am 90% liberal leaning (US liberal).
The fact of experiencing negative things that happen to be related to immigration (or employment/contracting) policy does not make you a xenophobe, generally speaking. Cultures can sometimes clash and economics have concrete effects on the American Dream - it's an unfortunate reality, but it is reality.
It should be an auction.
The annual salary should match the fee (unless below some minimum).
I’ll wait till I form an opinion on this.
oof, that's a big price increase.
https://bsky.app/profile/reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3l...
However, the unsolved problem is that this could just lead to more offshoring by these same tech companies who are abusing the program now. Not sure if there's any way to stop that.
In my understanding H-1B is supposed to be for generic workers, rather than O1 which is for people with extraordinary ability in their field. That's why there is limit, lottery and high application fees.
H-2B is for ordinary workers.
I am an immigrant (not to US though), so looking from this standpoint. If I wanted to move to the US, H1B would be a pretty straightforward way for me to do so - as it is for many professionals now. With this path cut off - what is left to people who are just good professionals in their field, but maybe not exactly Nobel laureates? There is Green card lottery, but being a lottery, it's not ideal for life planning, and it doesn't account for one's professional achievements.
So there is a tension between competition and increased opportunities and wage growth through increased company growth.
But how does this work out in practice? Luckily, there have been a lot of studies about the impact of the H1B program, which you can find on Google Scholar or SSRN. An extremely quick scan shows mixed findings that are hard to summarize, which is understandable because the dynamics are complex. (Contemplating getting Gemini to do a Deep Research report on this.)
So to narrow things down, I looked for empirical studies that focus on the specific counter-factual, "how would native workers fare if there were no H1B?" Interestingly, while I actually found some, even the recent studies (from 2022-2025) rely on empirical data from 2006 - 2008. That was when the H1B moved to a lottery system, creating a natural experiment allowing for comparison between firms that won and lost the lottery. (One study does find that limited data from 2022 corroborates its findings.) Not perfect, but better than hypotheticals.
Here's a government page with a very brief overview of two relevant studies: https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/IF12966 (The page doesn't scroll, but the PDF can be downloaded.)
To summarize, the studies find that there was no negative impact on native-born workers in terms of employment, and in terms of wages, some saw increases and others saw decreases in the range of 3-5%, depending on age, tenure and level of education.
But interestingly, the 2025 study also found that winning a lottery also increased the chance by 2.5% that the firm survived. Causation and correlation etc. aside the implications for employment are clear: if a firm does not survive, all employees, native or foreign, lose their jobs. This is an example of the dynamic I mentioned above.
Beyond these studies, I follow a labor economist and it's fascinating to see how these dynamics have been playing out over the last few years in the broader economy. As a relevant example, there is a credible theory that increased immigration was what helped the US manage its inflation crisis:
https://fortune.com/2024/04/12/immigration-inflation-economy...
Does the extension also cost 100k?
I don't know the statutory authority under which this is being done, if this is true it will come out in the next few days.
I would have preferred a simple auction, seems like the most reasonable solution.
It is absolutely clear that there is H1B abuse and I'm looking directly at the bodyshops like Infosys and Tata. Here's how it goes:
1. Apply for as many visas as possible. This is done primarily for Indian nationals for reasons which will become clear;
2. As the employer you really don't care which ones are approved or how many because what you're going to do is farm out those employees, whether there's 1000 of them or 10,000 of them;
3. Because there is an annual quota and applications have expanded so much, the chance of success is about 1 in 3 currently in the annual lottery. And a Principal Engineer in AI at Google or Meta has the same chance of success as a junior developer at Tata. There may be other options for the first person such as EB1 or NIW or L1 but that's really beyond the scope;
4. As part of this process you have to "prove" you cannot fill a position with a US resident or citizen. There is a whole process for this to minimize the number of applicants and to reject any who happen to find your newspaper ad and apply. This also applies to the Green card Labor Certification too, to a higher degree. Part of this is to make sure the employee is getting paid enough for their job and area. This is called a prevailing wage determination ("PWD"). This process doens't really work, which I'll get into later;
5. So you, as an Indian national won the H1B lottery and your visa is approved. You come to the US and hope Tata finds you a job where they farm you out at $200-500 per hours while paying you $50 or thereabouts;
6. Now the employer starts doing things they're technically not allowed to do, like if they can't find you a job they stop paying you. You may fall below the PWD because of this;
7. A H1B is valid for 3 years, extendable by another 3 for a total of 6 years, after which you're technically meant to leave the country. But what happens is the employer will file for an employment-based green card for you. If they do this in the first 5 years you can remain while that case is pending;
8. There are annual quotas for how many green cards are issued for each employment category. Additionally no more than 7% each year can be issued to any single country, based entirely on your country of birth, not your actual citizenship. And if you're married and have children under age, they will also count against these quotas.
9. So because H1B applicants are disproportionately Indian natioanals, there is a MASSIVE bottleneck for employment based green cards. As such, there is a HUGE backlog. Currently, USCIS is processing green cards for EB3 applicants from India who have a priority date of August 2013. That means their PERM was approved on or before August 2013;
10. So this is how these bodyshops can abuse Indian nationals. Those nationals really can't leave their job. Not easily anywway. There are laws that if they change jobs they get to keep their priority date but the new employer has to file an entirely new green card applications, including doing the entire PERM process again. Oh and if the employer moves area or their jobs changes significantly, it may invalidate their PERM too.
So these bodyshops can keep essentially indentured servants for 15-20+ years and at any time can fire that person. The power imbalance is so massive. This suppresses wages for everyone.
And these people are in the same cateogry as highly paid engineers in tech companies who have substantially better conditions.
Also, at any point along the way the USCIS can simply decide to take a whole bunch of extra time for literally no reason. They have a policy to randomly audit ~30% of applications. Why? They will never tell you. Their arguemnt is to avoid people "gaming" the system by working out the audit criteria so there's a bunch of random "noise" in there. Literally.
Well that doesn't sound bad right? Extra scrutiny? Except now you've added 1-2 years to the processing for literally no reason. You may get a request for evidence ("RFE") out of it too, which might add another year too. This can go multiple rounds too. I know people who spent 5 years going through audits and RFEs. One in particular is an engineering director at Google now.
While tech companies like Google, Meta, etc are better than the bodyshops they absolutely use this system to suppress wages, again because of the power imbalance.
It doesn't have to be this way. Take Switzerland as an example. I'm rusty on the details but IIRC if you're on a B permit (work permit like an H1B, tied to an employer) for 5 or 10 years (EU citizen is 5, otherwise 10, generally), you automatically get a C permit, which is basically a green card.
All this to say is that I have mixed feelings on this $100k fee. It will absolutely cut demand for H1Bs. It will decimate new graduate H1Bs but there's an argument that US residents and citizens should get priority for entry-level positions anyway, right?
If all this comes with much less paperwork, like skipping the whole LC process, then maybe large employers will pay it because they absolutely do spend a fortune on immigration lawyers.
If anything, the entire immigration system needs an overhaul but there's no political will for that. There are no votes in it. Quite the opposite: any serious attempt can be dismissed as "they're stealing our jobs".
I also think layoffs at large companies should absolutely preclude you from sponsoring H1Bs entirely for 2+ years.
H1B visas are for rank and file employees with just a skill.
This allows employers to indenture servitude employees, depresses American wages, increases unemployment, increases rent prices in areas with high levels of immigration, and hurts American culture.
Most jobs are not that hard and a company should invest in Americans instead of immigrants if it want's to continue to do business here and enjoy the fruits of America.
MAGA (and most Americans) don't seem to have any issue with immigration -what they have a issue with is the culture/skin-color/ethnicity of who immigrates. Indeed this is where the country quotas come from - Europe with 20 odd countries has 20x the priority than India or China.
If the US had an ounce of honestly they'd just make this explicit instead of beating around the bush. Since people have better opinion of the Chinese and other "white" East-Asians (admittedly the fairer gender only), just restrict it explicitly to "race" of Caucasians and there "Yellow" races.
It'll save Indians and other "suburbans" a lot of trouble not dealing with this farce of "liberalism" going forward. I genuinely mean this - given how things are going, Indians will find themselves in the place of Jews in Nazi Germany quite soon. And much like the useless British-colonial state that governed Israel then, the vestigial British state in India which is as internet upon Anglo-American triumph today, can't and will do jack shit for them.
1) All countries are free to come up with as strict or as loose immigration/tourist visa requirements as they like.
2) Companies can source remote labor from anywhere with zero government overhead.
3) Companies cannot source physical labor from abroad.
4) Reform local housing laws so that housing is not used for speculation/tied to employment.
Then communities can finally be communities, work can be work, and tourism can be tourism.
There's a reason Microsoft, Google, Amazon, and others have been expanding offices and raising TC in Eastern Europe and India for years.
The main industries that will be severely hit are chip design, biotech, pharma, and STEM academia.
Good for India though, who needs a "Thousand Talents" program when the targets of a brain drain are to cost prohibitive to hire in the US.
This is how they do it.
What industries are going to get hit hardest? Tech and medicine, two of the largest money makers in the country.
Despite what you read in the globalist media, it didn't cause havoc to the economy.
However, H1Bs have been a thorny issue for a while, and this might be the rebalancing sorely needed. If Capital can freely import cheaper labor ad infinitum from abroad (or outsource it), then that deteriorates domestic stability while amplifying a form of Capitalist Imperialism abroad. Thus far, China's been the only country to really take full advantage of this long-term strategy error, and a lot of tech folks have been warning that failing to address known flaws in the visa process will ultimately leave us at a disadvantage in the long run, much like we did with manufacturing.
A high application fee is a start, but the better solution is dispensing with H1Bs entirely in favor of green card sponsorship with associated work contract. If these talented workers are that badly needed, companies would have no compunction sponsoring their permanent residency and, eventually, naturalization. Long-term data suggests none of the tech industry is really doing this, which means these "uniquely talented workers" are just replacing existing American workers at lower wages and higher precarity.
I love my international colleagues, and I want them to be treated with the same dignity and respect I receive. H1Bs do not, and cannot, accomplish this outcome.
My preferred policy would just be to auction them off by salary offered to the candidate with a reserve set to the 90%tile domestic salary. Also if you layoff any employees your company is banned from the program for three years.
Lets not act like this is a good faith adjustment of concerns.
[1]: https://www.cecc.gov/agencies-responsible-for-censorship-in-...
China draws mainly on the talents of the best of its billion+ population. But America has had its pick of the best of the world's 8 billion people. If people stop immigrating to the US, then we will surely fall behind technologically, economically and militarily, and soon we will be making t-shirts for Chinese for $5 an hour.
OBBB signed: Reinstates immediate expensing for U.S.-based R&D - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44469124 - July 2025 (370 comments) [15 year amortization required for international R&D]
Unlikely. America has a massive services export surplus.
More like you bend the knee and get destroyed. The better option is to not bend the knee, but weak people will do what gets them further today without thinking about the future.
I say this not because of cowardice, but because I know the cemeteries are full of brave dead people.
Sure, if you have no spine, morals, or will to do what is right.
> You need to read the room, if you don't like your odds, leave the fight for another day.
Spoken like someone who enjoys position of privilege.
> I say this not because of cowardice, but because I aknow the cemeteries are full of brave dead people.
Ah yes, I bet those dead people wish they'd just "followed orders" instead.
Keep making excuses for billionaires if you want; I'll resist if I'm given the chance. A cemetery full of people who actually tried is better than the world of non-cowardly room-readers you describe.
.... As the... head of the executive branch?
It’s bad enough that he’s doing it, we should at least be honest about what’s going on.
Obviously there are very serious civic questions here (like under what law the authority to levy that fee was granted! Congress controls taxation, not the president). But so far congress and the courts are uninvolved.
The attribution is colloquial, but correct. It's routine to refer to the executive branch by the president's name.
Now Trump needs to go after all the "founders" scamming the US through their O-1 visa. That shit needs to end yesterday.
https://extraordinaryaliens.substack.com/p/o1-visa-hacks-for...
According to many economists, the presence of immigrant workers in the United States creates new job opportunities for native-born workers. This occurs in five ways. First, immigrant workers and native-born workers often have different skill sets, meaning that they fill different types of jobs. As a result, they complement each other in the labor market rather than competing for the exact same jobs. Second, immigrant workers spend and invest their wages in the U.S. economy, which increases consumer demand and creates new jobs. Third, businesses respond to the presence of immigrant workers and consumers by expanding their operations in the United States rather than searching for new opportunities overseas. Fourth, immigrants themselves frequently create new businesses, thereby expanding the U.S. labor market. Fifth, the new ideas and innovations developed by immigrants fuel economic growth.
Similarly, a recent study found that, between 2005 and 2018, an increase in the share of workers within a particular occupation who were H-1B visa holders was associated with a decrease in the unemployment rate within that occupation. Another recent study found that restrictions on H-1B visas (such as rising denial rates) motivate U.S.-based multinational corporations to decrease the number of jobs they offer in this country. Instead, the corporations increase employment at their existing foreign affiliates or open new foreign affiliates—particularly in India, China, and Canada. A study conducted in 2019 revealed that higher rates of successful H-1B applications were positively correlated with an increased number of patents filed and patent citations. Moreover, such startups were more inclined to secure venture capital funding and achieve successful IPOs or acquisitions.
The available data also indicate that H-1B workers do not earn low wages or drag down the wages of other workers. In 2021, the median wage of an H-1B worker was $108,000, compared to $45,760 for U.S. workers in general. Moreover, between 2003 and 2021, the median wage of H-1B workers grew by 52 percent. During the same period, the median wage of all U.S. workers increased by 39 percent. In FY 2019, 78 percent of all employers who hired H-1B workers offered wages to H-1B visa holders that were higher than what the Department of Labor had determined to be the “prevailing wage” for a particular kind of job.
So, details to follow.
[1] https://www.usnews.com/news/world/articles/2025-09-19/trump-...
$100k is a big pizzo (protection fee)!
[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-19/ted-cruz-...
> “That’s right outta ‘Goodfellas,’ that’s right out of a mafioso going into a bar saying, ‘Nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it,’” Cruz said, using the iconic New York accent associated with the Mafia.
Exhibit 1: Tariff revenues to bail out American farmers: https://www.ft.com/content/0267b431-2ec9-4ca4-9d5c-5abf61f2b...