Trump administration proposes H-1B visas go to highest-paid workers first The Trump administration has proposed changes to the H-1B visa that will see it abolish the current lottery process and instead prioritise highly paid workers. “Modifying the H-1B cap selection process by replacing the random selection process with a wage-level-based selection process is a better way to allocate H-1Bs when …
In theory this sounds ideal.
You can hire semiconductor design PhDs without being beaten by Tata hiring 100,000 minimum wage 'consultants'
So how will they fsck it up?
I'm guessing Tata will claim they are paying $250K but hold $200K of that as a bonus and then charge a $200K processing fee at the end of the employment
I wonder if you could avoid the sort of gaming of the system you describe by basing it on the amount of tax paid, rather than a headline salary.
"We, the company applying for the visa, guarantee to pay the employee so that their tax return to the government will be at least $50,000 per year for the duration of the visa."
Give the visas to those companies willing to pay the government the most money. If the employee's IRS-audited tax return is too low, fine the company (not the employee) a suitable multiple of the difference for non-compliance with the visa rules.
Intriguing thought, but income taxes are calculated based on AGI (Adjusted Gross Income) and not on a worker's gross income. Deductions will vary based on family size, medical costs, standard vs itemized deductions, owning vs renting a home, et cetera. This would make the collected income tax quite unreliable as a gauge, unless a company would be on the hook to pay the federal government the difference. However, local governments in the USA usually also levy income tax. This would complicate matters even more.
Would be better to base it on the taxes the companies have to pay on their workers.
Another option would be to require transparency from the companies regarding compensation for the different categories.
When I was in college in the late 80's, one of the people working for the university was in the phd program in computer science department. he complained every payday about the amount of tax that he paid because he paid to both the IRS and to his home country. I don't know if that country's rules have changed, but if they haven't, this would affect the amount of money going overseas.
"I'm guessing Tata will claim they are paying $250K but hold $200K of that as a bonus and then charge a $200K processing fee at the end of the employment"
If wages are regulated somehow by the govt, this won't work. Never worked in Switzerland since salary dumping is getting a lot of trouble to companies. There were tries, but they failed spectacularly.
If not, yes, that's gonna be Far West !
The IRS knows the wage of everyone getting paid, so there would be no way to claim they are paying someone $250K but only pay them $50K. The IRS would know based on the W2 filings, and the government could insure heavy fines and a ban from the H1B program in the future await anyone who lies about the salary they intend to pay.
Not really. Every bell curve has tails; Trump haters will point at one tail, Trump fans will point at the other, neither will admit that it's a bell curve, so picking individual facts to make a point is stupid. The bulk of that curve, though, is fairly bad - not in a grandiose, history-making sort of way, though, just in a mediocre, incompetent way.
The problem is that it isn’t hatred that makes me hope that he gets booted out. It’s critical thinking. He has acted in a demonstrably criminal manner throughout his adult life, and in a manner that most people would consider unacceptable if in any other person even before that. In fact, I actually feel sorry for him - this is a man who was deeply abused as a child (and yes, I think that not being shown love by ones parents does count as abuse), and has now been put in a position of power which is far beyond his intellectual and moral abilities.
True, I am not a supporter of the right wing of politics, but there are plenty of right wing politicians who are clearly trying to act in the best interests of their country according to their political belief systems. Country before Party, Party before Self is the way that it should be - Trump has turned that on itself. And if I’ve said anything so far that you disagree with then you are either misinformed, or blinded by loyalty to a deeply corrupt individual.
And if you’ve ever wondered how the corrupt and authoritarian states of the past rose to power, those demons of history, like the Nazi party in Germany, like Fascists of Spain and Italy, like the Communist parties of Russia and China (or even Putin today), then take a long hard look at what the Republican party is doing in American. Seizing control of Judiciary (rather than ensuring an equitable balance), threatening to undermine the election, deploying unidentifiable police in unmarked cars (i.e. a secret police) to deal with protestors - if this was being done by a left wing party you would, quite rightly, be up in arms. But because you think he’s your guy, you’re quiet and even supportive of these abhorrent actions. News, I’m afraid. He isn’t your guy. He’s his guy. And if you ever get in his way, don’t be foolish enough to think that you’ll be treated fairly.
The United States deserves better. The world deserves better.
"If you put aside your hatred and ignore certain personal traits of the current president"
You are asking a lot of some people there. Their candidate didnt win therefore Trump must be evil. His record is irrelevant and the facts dont matter, he must be evil because he isnt the one they wanted.
Of course he has been a good president based on his achievements in office and achieved what Obama and the democrats considered magical.
"Of course he has been a good president based on his achievements in office and achieved what Obama and the democrats considered magical."
If you consider the ongoing and persistent destruction, piece by piece, of the US and the lining of his own pockets with taxpayer money (I mean, really: $3 for his own glass of water at Mar-a-Lago?) to be good things, well then, he's been just fantastic.
@beep54
"If you consider the ongoing and persistent destruction, piece by piece, of the US"
How? Huge economic growth with unemployment at such lows not seen in decades. The growth figures hit 4% while Obama called Trumps aim of 3% magical thinking. Of course the global pandemic hit in which the economy is doing better than Obama's recovering from the global financial crash. That is only of note because Biden praised Obama's economic growth but complains about Trumps which is higher.
How?
More than 30 million lost their jobs this year... but all you can see is the Tumplethinskin propaganda that claims 10 million jobs created.
Newsflash... that's still a negative 20 million jobs lost.
but sure... keep listening to the 'party line' of lies, deceit and bullshit.
@The Dogs Meevonks
"More than 30 million lost their jobs this year... but all you can see is the Tumplethinskin propaganda that claims 10 million jobs created."
Eh? There is a global pandemic going on of course employment figures fell. They were pretty bad a few months back in double digits but have fallen back down to about 8% (if I remember right). Its a pandemic what do you expect. Pre pandemic was a fantastic economy.
"Newsflash... that's still a negative 20 million jobs lost."
Are you blaming Trump for the virus?
@Snake
"That didn't stop right-wing ideologues (do you qualify?)"
No idea what that means.
"You see, double standards, of which you people are constantly blind to."
Thanks for the 'you people' but I havnt blamed Obama for the global financial crash. He inherited it from Bush.
Meanwhile, in the world of facts US GDP growth figures since 2007 were:
2007: +1.88%; 2008: -0.14%
--- financial crisis, Obama elected
2009: -2.54%; 2010: +2.56%; 2011: +1.55%; 2012: +2.25%
2013: +1.84%; 2014: +2.45%; 2015: +2.88%; 2016: +1.57%
--- Trump elected
2017: +2.22%; 2018: +3.18%; 2019: +2.33%
Does anybody perceive the imagined "huge economic growth" in there? Net of Obama's best three years: 7.89%. Net of Trump's three years to date: 7.73%.
They're within the margin of error. Trump has done essentially exactly as well as Obama was doing (discounting the COVID year because let's not be stupid).
Shhh, we don't want to confuse the rabid Fox News believers with real FACTS, do we?
For additional confirmation of your perfect post:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckjones/2020/02/21/trumps-gdp-growth-rate-is-only-03-greater-than-obamas/
And, as an extra bonus for this week's lies:
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-10-29/the-record-economic-boom-is-a-mirage?srnd=premium
@ThomH
"Does anybody perceive the imagined "huge economic growth" in there?"
Obama does. Thats why he was claiming to be responsible for the Trump economy. Why is it net of Obama's best 3 years while Trump hasnt had long enough to get a 'best of' but only 3 years as a total?
I do appreciate you removing Covid but if Trump in 3 years managed what Obama's best 3 years did then unless Obama's best 3 years are the last 3 of his presidency it seems a positive for Trump.
@Charlie Clark
"He inherited an expanding economy and still managed to increase the national debt. What's good about that?"
He inherited what Obama called the new normal of sub 2% economic growth with expanding national debt. Both sides wanted to spend more money, they just did different things. The dems picked winners and had low growth they couldnt fix. Trump reduced the burden of government and the economy shot off with pent up energy.
Obama might fantasise he did it but that would be a revision of what he already publicly stated, Basically trying to take credit for someone elses work.
Trump reduced the burden of government and the economy shot off with pent up energy.
In other words: he caused a bubble by reducing corporate taxes even while the Federal Reserve was keeping monetary policy very loose. Along with the national debt, the trade deficit has continued to grow despite all the capricious tarriffs.
And what happened to all the proposed infrastructure spending?
@Charlie Clark
"In other words: he caused a bubble by reducing corporate taxes even while the Federal Reserve was keeping monetary policy very loose."
Both sides wanted to throw out loads-a-money. Trump reduced tax and regulation and let people do what they were good at (finding what works). Obama pissed money on what he hoped would work, and so low growth.
"Along with the national debt, the trade deficit has continued to grow despite all the capricious tarriffs."
I am not a fan of his trade policies but the trade deficit isnt a problem. If you are getting what you want that isnt bad.
"And what happened to all the proposed infrastructure spending?"
It didnt go anywhere. Obama put the money aside for 'shovel ready projects' showing he didnt know how a rich economy worked, too many regulations to have any shovel ready projects. The money just sat there. Is that what you mean?
@Trollslayer
"How much is the interest on $26 billion?"
Eh? The trade deficit is the amount of imports minus exports. The balance of payments matter. Maybe this will help-
https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/22/americas-trade-deficit-is-largely-paid-for-by-european-investment-in-american-manufacturing/
codejunky> https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2016/06/22/americas-trade-deficit-is-largely-paid-for-by-european-investment-in-american-manufacturing/
You really need to broaden your sources and stop continually linking to Tim Worstall articles. Or are you just his Mini-Tim ?
@Dr_N
"broaden your sources and stop continually linking to Tim Worstall articles"
I link to various places but as Tim wrote here with a popular following for his clear explanations of a rather complex subject it makes it easier for people to access. Sorry you still struggle though.
"Both sides wanted to throw out loads-a-money. Trump reduced tax and regulation and let people do what they were good at (finding what works). Obama pissed money on what he hoped would work, and so low growth."
Hey, dont forget Trump's trade war, and the billions he's thrown out in things like farm subsidies to try to defend / deflect / bury all the damage he's caused with his fickle, flighty decisions. While the rest of the world has now discounted the importance of the United States, with trade agreements that do not even take U.S. policy into considerations as proof, Das Cheetos still screams, to people foolish enough to believe the stupidity, that he's made "America Great Again". Whilst the EU flatly states "We can't depend on the US [leading any more]", North Korea only considers him "the Dotard", and many other nations just ignore his childish whining whilst talking like adults amongst themselves.
But, you just keep on believing what you speak. You people refuse to listen to reality anyway.
@Snake
"Hey, dont forget Trump's trade war"
I dont agree with that policy but it is one he was voted for. For the election it seemed Hillary was better for trade but Trump better for domestic (from what I could gather of their economic plans).
"While the rest of the world has now discounted the importance of the United States"
I am not sure which world you are in. Maybe if you join us in this universe you may find thats not the case. I do agree the US suffered humiliation when Russia moved in to resolve Syria and Obama's red lines were feeble, but the US is still seriously important in the world.
"Das Cheetos still screams, to people foolish enough to believe the stupidity"
Not sure how many of them there are. He does like to push the limits with some of his tweets/statements but then he is less polished than usual slimy politicians. Joe is a politician and spouts some concerning stuff.
"Whilst the EU flatly states"
I am not sure many are concerned with that the EU states unless they are in their own little room.
"North Korea only considers him "the Dotard""
I dont know when N.K considered a president of the US good, but there was a promising time where Trump seemed to make diplomatic inroads.
"But, you just keep on believing what you speak. You people refuse to listen to reality anyway."
After reading your comment I think you should try to internalise this line too.
"achieved what Obama and the democrats considered magical"
This is true. He got elected to office with fewer votes than his rival. That's some serious numbers sorcery right there. And he had more people at his inauguration, although fewer were could be seen in the photographs and video, presumably because he kitted them out with invisibility cloaks. He's managed to make nearly half of the people in the US support him, despite all the evidence that he's incapable of doing the job. Yes, that's some pretty powerful magic. Mind control at the very least. Brain washing even.
@45RPM
"He got elected to office with fewer votes than his rival"
Its such a good job the dems changed the system when they were in power? No? So both sides by the rules campaigned and Hillary fucked up. Trump won as per the defined rules both agreed to.
"He's managed to make nearly half of the people in the US support him, despite all the evidence that he's incapable of doing the job"
This is the bit you need to try and substantiate.
In the first instance, I don't need to try and substantiate. I need to try to substantiate.
In the second instance, do I? Why? Haven't you been paying attention? And if I do provide citations of his criminality and incompetence (which are all over the reputable news sites of the internet - The Atlantic, New York Times, Washington Post, The Guardian, The BBC, The Independent, Reuters, Time, The Financial Times etc) would you read it anyway? No. Of course you wouldn't, because it wouldn't fit with the 'facts' as you imagine them to be.
It's easy enough for you to get real information. You don't need me to spoon feed you. So why waste my time when you aren't interested in getting better informed anyway?
@45RPM
"In the second instance, do I? Why? Haven't you been paying attention?"
Ok you can just spout bollocks but I will point it out as bollocks as it doesnt seem to reflect reality.
"would you read it anyway? No. Of course you wouldn't, because it wouldn't fit with the 'facts' as you imagine them to be."
I would but if you imagine I wouldnt thats up to you.
"It's easy enough for you to get real information. You don't need me to spoon feed you. So why waste my time when you aren't interested in getting better informed anyway?"
I am. That is why I know he roared the economy back to life and better than what Obama called magical thinking. He calmed the tensions due to Obama/Russia. Pulled out of the Iran agreement that Iran was already routinely breaching. Was involved in bringing about peaceful negotiations and agreements between Israel and its neighbours.
But you claim he is incapable of doing the job. So why do you think that?
Firstly, what do you mean by 'The Economy'? GDP per Capita? Look at the numbers - the growth has been broadly steady for decades - he can't take credit for that. Sure, it's dropped in the last year - we can't blame him for that either. https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=us+gdp+per+capita
As for calming tensions with Russia, I think you mean 'failing to stand up to Russia for meddling in American affairs, whilst kissing the arse of a dictator'. Yeah, that's really a president to be proud of. And whilst I wouldn't want him to be a war-monger, it would be quite nice if he could show some forthright leadership, as opposed to being utterly lacking in moral fibre and sucking up to a man who should really not be seen as a role model for leadership. With Trump in charge, the cold war would never have been won. Verdict? Incompetent.
In fact, according to the IAEA, Iran did not breach the agreement in any meaningful way (https://www.theweek.co.uk/checked-out/89237/trump-vs-tehran-the-truth-about-the-iran-nuclear-deal) - but if they weren't then then they almost certainly are now. After all, what do they have to lose? So what did Trump do to improve safety in the region? Verdict? Incompetent.
As for the peace agreement between Israel and Saudi, have you noticed that these are the countries who are easiest to bring to terms, and for whom it matters least? Both are wealthy countries who have little to gain and much to lose if they go to war with each other again - so why not formalise the stalemate? The real trick is to find a peaceful settlement for Palestine - and Trump has not only failed to do that but, in fact, made the situation a whole lot worse. Verdict? Incompetent.
@45RPM
"Firstly, what do you mean by 'The Economy'?"
Good question that is vague. So Obama had the 'new normal' with no expectation of a boom or hope. Under Trump was historically low unemployment, median (real) wage rise, economic growth up to 4% and the stock market shooting off. All of this against the backdrop of the certainty that Trump winning the election would cause recession.
"As for calming tensions with Russia"
You might call it kissing arse but Obama was weak and the Russians kicked his arse and sent him packing in Syria. I remember worries of a new cold war etc which has thoroughly evaporated.
"And whilst I wouldn't want him to be a war-monger"
I dont think anyone wants that. Which is also why he is a vast contrast from Obama and Bush in that he is reducing tensions and making peace.
"In fact, according to the IAEA, Iran did not breach the agreement in any meaningful way"
Ok. But the deal itself was fairly weak to limit Iran from developing nukes. Iran not being stable and being of the extreme religion of peace vowing to wipe out Israel and the US.
"As for the peace agreement between Israel and Saudi, have you noticed that these are the countries who are easiest to bring to terms, and for whom it matters least?"
Good job he did it then. UAE and Bahrain peace with Israel contrasts to the wars of the previous presidents.
"The real trick is to find a peaceful settlement for Palestine"
If that makes him incompetent then Obama must be too. Interestingly Trump followed the law (I only recently found this) that the US embassy should be moved to Jerusalem but previous presidents had repeatedly invoked a 6 month waiver not to.
I am not seeing much incompetence there.
@codejunky
what difference does it make to Joe on the street that the "Stock Market is booming" and the economy is growing, this only lines the pockets of trump and billionaires.
Headline median wage rises were minimal and easily offset buy the actuall tax rises experienced by those who dont have billions.
The russians did not kick obama's arse, and its no excuse for trumps constant capitulation (Ukraine, Syria, the bounty issue, ...)
the deal wth Iran, as all negotiations both sides didnt like the deal, but could live with it. it stopped nuclear proliferation, and lengthend the time it would take them to produce a bomb, to a level were it could be detected and stopped before hand, it allowed a flow of wealth back into the country to allow ordinary iranians to escape harsher conditions, and it kept the peace.
The saudi's are agressors in the region and have tried to play all sides off against each other, their war against Yemen and cleansing of non-whabist muslims is an issue. but with the recent more worldly aims they have been sidling up to the world powers and Israel is little threat to them.
the whole situation in the area was created by the colonial war against the ottomans and subsequent displacement of jews from europe, who were later funded by americans who basically took control of the region. By moving the embasy the embassy from tel aviv, this legitamises the claim of the jewish state over jerusalem, which by UN mandate should be a neutral city un protection.
Trump twice signed the 6 month waiver to the move, before being wooed by the israelis into the act, which Clinton, Bush and Obama had avoided on security grounds, as it threatned to provoke all out war with hezbullah and other arab nations in the region.
However, with the iranian peace deal and the failiure of syria, it has not materialised, more through luck than judgement.
There is some sense to the moves that trump has made, but they all lead to enriching either himself or his ego, and have no regard for the US people or perception of its power abroad. The US state department used to wield a lot of power in back chanels, which the Trump administration has basically thrown away with moves like the embasy, pulling out of the iran deal, and the paris agreement.
@EnviableOne
"what difference does it make to Joe on the street that the "Stock Market is booming" and the economy is growing, this only lines the pockets of trump and billionaires."
If you believe that then you need to keep this in your pocket until you finish school. The stock market and the economy is how people have jobs, afford the nice things they have, produce things people want and a biggie for the stock market- pensions. The economy (inc stock market) pays for your social programs. 'The economy isnt everything but in the long run it is almost everything' (Paul Krugman)
"Headline median wage rises were minimal and easily offset buy the actuall tax rises experienced by those who dont have billions."
You just hate the rich dont you. The median income grew beyond the Obama years so you have a problem with his too? Sounds like you just want to complain.
"The russians did not kick obama's arse"
The Russians dealt with Syria while Obama tried to be one foot in and out of the war. In the end being pushed out.
"it stopped nuclear proliferation, and lengthend the time it would take them to produce a bomb"
This is the problem, it cant stop proliferation if it only extends the time before they make the bomb. Iran is not stable.
"The saudi's"
Just wanted to say I dont disagree there. Good to get a peace deal in place.
"By moving the embasy the embassy from tel aviv"
Which is set in law in the US. Apparently back in 95 was signed into law to do this.
"However, with the iranian peace deal and the failiure of syria, it has not materialised, more through luck than judgement."
Sounds like it worked out then. Just like the 60% chance of Osama being in that building when US forces invaded Pakistan.
"There is some sense to the moves that trump has made, but they all lead to enriching either himself or his ego"
Sounds like most presidents. In fact if he does good things for people but in his own interest then it is better than someone doing things to the people for their own good. As historically and currently demonstrated in the world.
Employers say that H1-B's are needed to provide skills that are in short supply in the U.S. tech industry, and not about depressing wages or replacing American residents who are already working. If that is true, then they should be willing to pay well for these needed skills. Plus it would tend to increase overseas earnings and repatriation of those earnings back to H1-B holder's home countries.
But if that's the case, demand will see to this anyway so there is no need for further regulation. But also analysis would suggest that this could work like football transfer fees and continue to drive up the most expensive employees, whilst not solving the skills shortage caused by a poor education system. This, after all, is the main reason for the programme in the first place.
Besides this isn't policy, but simple electioneering.
The problem is negative externalities. Employers offer H1-B jobs, which are only for working for that exact employer, and shouldn't be thought of as an actual transfer to that country that earns citizenship.
Employers know this.
Then when things go wrong, either the employee pays the price by having to abruptly uproot and move to another country, or the state does by having to support a person (or family) it didn't budget for.
Employers are pretty in favour of this, particularly the latter situation, as they can publicly blame the state for their own greed.
But it isn't the workers giving the kickback.
If I'm small tech business willing to pay $250K for that one specialist I can't find in the USA, then I'm less able to kickback as much as a 'consultancy' that is paying 100,000 workers $50K while billing them out at $2000/day
If scarcity of skills determined pay, then stock brokers, accountants, super models, etc would be paid less than STEM PHDs.
However STEM professions that are not deemed management grade rarely get the higher financial rewards and instead attract those who are willing to overlook the poor financial rewards because they have a passion for their subject.
Maybe because the right wing themselves only ever consider the financial rewards rather than the social rewards before doing something, they always equate high value, with high benefit when often it is the opposite. A lot of STEM PHD's are on wages that in some countries are not anywhere near the minimum financial threshold. This is not because of cheap influxes of workers from the 3rd world, but because the companies themselves do not value their contribution.
However one benefit would of been that any future Mrs Trumps would be stopped coming in, but on the other hand the rich and powerful always see a way around these issues
This, and some long awaited action on health care including mandatory upfront price listing of hospital procedures and competition from Canada sourced pharmaceuticals, were all finally put on the table just in time to be talking points before the election, but without possibility of getting passed before the election. Judge for yourself the sincerity of such timing.
This proposal is basic common sense. I would also add changing the time of indenture (binding employment to a single company) from ~5 years to 6 months, to remove the slave motive.
If the genuine goal of these visas are to import people whose skills are desperately needed, why doesn't the government auction off the visas? Whichever company(s) have the most need to import talent would be willing to pay the most to meet their need.
As a side effect, the money from the auctions and could be used to train locals in those desperately needed skills.
It makes sense to me from an economics perspective. Is there anything which I've overlooked?
"“Democrats oppose President Trump’s illegal, chaotic, and reckless changes to the legal immigration system..."
Well you had a whole impeachment thing going that could have stopped ALL the illegal stuff he was doing but you managed to drop that ball so hard you beaned somebody in Mongolia with it and then declared victory for yourselves, so yeah. Not really buying that you actually care all that much about what illegal stuff goes on.
I realize that at this point we've dismantled most of the institutions in the Executive branch, but am I the only one who think it's weird that DHS responsible for *designing* the H1B visa program's caps and thresholds? Maybe it only looks that way because they're the ones enforcing it, but... still weird.
This is actually how the law is already written, yet companies over time have deliberately weakened it and brought us to the current state of H1B undercutting prevailing wages.
The U.S. could put some teeth back into the laws, but companies will just go back to undermining them straight away.
It's not my favored solution, I would favor auctioning off applications (and doling them out on a monthly basis, so smaller companies can apply when they know they need someone), but it appears to be relatively well thought out and effective.
A stopped clock, is right twice a day, I guess.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
