H-1B visas mainly go to Indian outsourcing firms

Also don't forget to add the ~$10-$20k in legal fees for sponsoring an H1b on top of that.

The economist proposes getting rid of the rule that requires H1B workers remain within the company that sponsors them

That sounds reasonable, but why then require that a company sponsor an immigrant in the first place? Why not let that immigrant choose where he or she will work?

In fact, why not let the immigrant choose what to study, where to work, where to live, all in response to market signals?

People have posted various lists for the average H1-B salary at what they consider top companies, like Google. $130k. Is that the salary in mountain view?

You know, I actually think that salary is somewhat low for what a talented and well educated person can earn in the Bay Area. Why force these people to get hired as developers? Why make them study what google says they should study, take interview exams on second year data structures and algorithms the way google says they should? Why on earth should google get to have this power, over anyone?

Let's just have immigration. All immigrants arrive in the US free, free to choose what they will study, where they will work, how they will go about it. They can sell real estate, install drywall, write python code, write novels, paint portraits, or whatever they wish to pursue. Nobody owes them success, but in the US, they should have the freedom to pursue happiness as they define it.

Not as Facebook defines it. If working as a dev in an open office so big it has a horizon line for a CEO who says things like "young people are just smarter" for $152m a year doesn't sound as appealing as the flexibility and stability of working as a dental hygienist for $110 a year (roughly the median salary in SF), then that's the market's answer.

I still maintain this - any immigrant system that allows corporations to decide who gets to come here is flawed. Allowing immigrants to quit once they're here would be an improvement, but it still allows corporations to decide who does and doesn't get to come here.

The (sad?) truth is STEM degree is useless in most IT areas. Even the most complicated development (OS kernels, drivers, a/v processing and encoding, encryption, cv, ml, etc) is all about self-education. It's anecdata, but I personally see zero to no correlation between GPA/how-cool-school-name-sounds and efficiency of a developer. IMO a university is good for building a network, but not for knowledge per se.

Because they won't be able to get domestic forces for that money. I'm not saying that it is the way to go, but there might be businesses that can only exist on h1bs. So we should definitely reform this, but be cautious. Execution should not be the same as the ban, rolled out without any kind of consideration or preparation.

>> What's not democratic about optimizing need based upon projected tax revenue? Are we discriminating against "poor companies"? Would you classify companies that allow their employees to work remotely doing the same?

> The unstated assumption in your questions seems to be that optimizing for revenue should be the #1 (or a high) priority for a government.

> If so, why not just cut all social programs? They're expensive, and the poor people can find jobs, right?

Social programs aren't revenue, they're an expense.

> My leaning is more towards the idea that governments should optimize for something else. Perhaps "the greater good", however the citizens decide that.

The beauty of using something objective like salary or even a pure auction where the USA sells the via to the highest bidder is that it's objective and consistent. "Greater good" is a feel good (no pun intended) term that has no objective meaning. It may make you feel better that you've provided a job to a third-world immigrant but that doesn't mean it's objectively a good thing for the USA. And at the end of the day the foreign policy of the USA is for its own interests (which may align with global ones but not at the expense of USA ones).

> Money is always an issue, but optimizing for tax revenue is a little to inhuman for me to be comfortable with it.

If you don't pick something objective where at least the government can get a fair share of the money, you'll end up with outsourcing firms gaming the system. It's the immigration equivalent of "this is why we can't have nice things".

>> It's in their interests to raise the price of said foreign labor.

> ... to artificially raise the price of foreign labor. Many companies now are trying to artificially lower the price of foreign labor, through lobbying, etc.

It's not artificial at all. It's the price of providing that same service locally which is what the H1-B's salary is supposed to be anyway.

If the foreign labor wants to provide that service remotely, more power to them. Let them do so. But if it's done in SF, or NY, or anywhere in the USA, the prevailing labor rate is what should be paid. The point isn't to provide cheap labor to firms. It's to fill gaps in the labor market (or at least that was supposed to be the point).

> And the foreign labor market is in no way free. When I worked in the Bay area, it was well known that many H1B holders were paid low salaries, and treated like crap. Because they wanted to stay in the country, and were willing to accept hardship in order to do so.

> That artificially lowered the labor cost, and lowered salaries. If they were paid the same as local talent, the artificial low cost would go away, and more local talent would be hired.

Well duh. That's what I'm trying to say!!