221–230 of 1001 posts
> Under the changes, an applicant must have a college degree in the specific field in which he or she is looking to work. A software developer, for example, wouldn’t be awarded an H-1B visa if that person has a degree in electrical engineering. As an EE, that is rough.
I'll give you that, but it seems like a much simpler solution would have just been improving the flexibility for an H1B worker to be allowed to work at any employer for the term of their status. If an employer used an H1B in order to hire a foreign worker and then under pay them, the worker would just get another job that pays market rate, without the work status concern. Without the artificial control over the emplo…
This is right. The answer that's best for the economy is to allow more immigration, not less (especially skilled immigration). This move will just make it more dificult for the average company to sponsor H1B workers
Overall, I really support these changes. However, this piece really struck me as a big mistake: "Under the changes, an applicant must have a college degree in the specific field in which he or she is looking to work. A software developer, for example, wouldn’t be awarded an H-1B visa if that person has a degree in electrical engineering." Some of the best software engineers I know are graduate degree holders from neu…
> Under the changes, an applicant must have a college degree in the specific field in which he or she is looking to work. A software developer, for example, wouldn’t be awarded an H-1B visa if that person has a degree in electrical engineering. As an EE, that is rough.
Yikes. I would have been unemployed by that measure because I work as a SWE without a CS degree.
This is one of those policy decisions that I guess might sound reasonable on the outside, but has absolutely no bearing on reality.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The H1B program has been abused for a long time What's the abuse?
You're bound to the employer that sponsors your visa. Lose your job? You're effectively deported. Your employer has... well, a power imbalance over you, to put it nicely. I'm not sure how the proposed changes will play out for American workers. Theoretically, treating H1B workers better could benefit American workers: there is less incentive to callously replace them with underpaid H1B workers. On the other hand, Ame…
I can't help but think of this any time I see an HN comment about some questionable surveillance-ad-tech, usually saying that engineers should just refuse to build that stuff.
“ Because those required wage increases take effect this week, existing H-1B holders looking to renew their visas might not qualify unless their employers raise their salaries accordingly.” This is really bad. Families are going to get told to leave. I’m surprised that there is no discussion on this thread about the impact to people who haven’t done anything wrong.
This means the US economy will lose all the taxes and local expenditure in the economy by the family like rent, food, travel, vacations, utilities, entertainment, cars, home sales, etc. etc. And if that works out, the next hire may just be directly hired in India or Canada itself.
If I were in the Canada govt, I'd immediately create a way around the travel ban for workers who's visas didn't get renewed to be able to move to Canada after following a strict quarantine protocol. If the worker was able to work remotely in the US using Zoom, why can't they do the same job remotely in the same time zone in Canada using the same remote working tools?
There is already a small industry in Canada where a company takes a few % of the billing rate in order to sponsor and hold a Canadian visa for people who lost their H1B visas due to increased and inconsistent rejections over the past few years, but whose employer is willing to allow them to work from Canada. This moves a lot of money to Canada.
Also, some tech companies have been outright moving jobs to Canada because they can hire from a global workforce and Canada has been welcoming them. This is going to intensify.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personally I think there's a middle ground that's very important, which is that I think anyone who received a university degree in the US and passes the background check should be able to get an unrestricted work visa. The US should want to keep the talent it selects and trains. These are people who build the economy, generate IP, and create jobs in the long run. Not only that, but these people who have spent 4+ year…
anyone who received a university degree in the US No. No. No. That would mean that anyone from the University of Oxford would be out until he got himself a masters degree from the Christian College of Lost Hope, AR. There are far too many paid masters degrees around already that serve exactly that purpose and that are good for no one except the useless college.
Yeah no, screw that crap. I don't know the exact regulation framework that would accomplish my intent but you understand what I mean.
I'm talking about all the people with bonafide degrees and skillsets. 4-year bachelor degrees, PhDs, MDs, and the like. These people should be treated as assets to the country. (Maybe just excluding masters' degrees is the answer, but I'm not sure.) It's dumbfoundingly stupid as a national policy to invest so much in resources to train a person and then send them back to another country instead of giving them every incentive to stay.
Singapore and Australia (and maybe others I don't know about) allow international students to apply for permanent residency if they meet certain very reasonable qualifications and it works out very much in their favor for retaining talent.
Overall, I really support these changes. However, this piece really struck me as a big mistake: "Under the changes, an applicant must have a college degree in the specific field in which he or she is looking to work. A software developer, for example, wouldn’t be awarded an H-1B visa if that person has a degree in electrical engineering." Some of the best software engineers I know are graduate degree holders from neu…
I would absolutely speculate that this requirement was made to block many good candidates. After all, the point of a visa system is to constrict the pool of potential candidates anyway.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m sure this administration’s policies on China will find many fans around here.
Good rhetoric, half-assed and ineffective implementation.
For years countries have also been forced to waste taxpayer money to deliver cheap junk from Aliexpress/Wish/etc. because Universal Postal Union wouldn’t allow countries to increase postal rates from China. The previous administration was unable to do anything about it, but Trump succeeded where they failed.
Huawei has also been significantly hurt. Being banned from using Android and chips with US tech has effectively destroyed their mobile products (as their stock runs out), and countries are abandoning their 5G deals (either as a result of USA paying them to drop Huawei, or simply because China/Huawei’s reputation has dropped so much in the last four years). Trump also dragged other countries into it by e.g. requesting Meng Wanzhou’s arrest, which resulted in China arbitrarily arresting Canadian citizens.
He’s also the first US President to speak directly with Taiwan’s President since 1979, and has made the largest arms sale to Taiwan in the past few decades.
TAIPEI Act and Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act was signed under his administration, and Hong Kong lost its special status.
If judges hadn’t temporarily stopped Trump’s executive orders then TikTok and WeChat would also be banned now (it’s absurd that the west for decades have put up with China blocking western companies from their markets while freely allowing them into our markets).. hopefully the bans will go through, and hopefully TikTok/WeChat will just be the first of many.
Trump is also one of the few world leaders who continuously remind the world that China are responsible for the pandemic, and China still won’t allow WHO/others to investigate the origins in Wuhan.
Trump has also been pushing for China to lose WTO developing country status, which will surely happen if he’s re-elected.
As a liberal I disagree with most of Trump’s policies, but I could really go on-and-on about his effective/positive actions towards China.. you could make a solid case that Trump in four years has done more to stand up to China than the rest of the western world combined (including the previous administration) has done in the past decade.