Live data from Hacker News

Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

reuters.com

71–80 of 1001 posts

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#71

IMO, the fee is the wrong thing that needs adjusting. It's the salary that should be adjusted. The minimum salary for an H1B should be $200k. It's something like 50k right now which is ridiculous especially with all the restrictions an applicant is under. It both suppresses wages and abuses the worker.

You may have policy opinions but what would incentivize the current admin to require more money given to foreign workers vs keeping wages low (which also helps suppress wages for non-foreign worker peers industry-wide) while collecting more fees for federal use?

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#72
post #67

IMO, the fee is the wrong thing that needs adjusting. It's the salary that should be adjusted. The minimum salary for an H1B should be $200k. It's something like 50k right now which is ridiculous especially with all the restrictions an applicant is under. It both suppresses wages and abuses the worker.

Can every industry pay $200k? I bet software, AI, or finance would be okay paying $200k, while e.g. hardware, aerospace, or biotech would have a harder time. 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 they can pay a $100k fee, they can pay a similarly higher wage instead

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#73

IMO, the fee is the wrong thing that needs adjusting. It's the salary that should be adjusted. The minimum salary for an H1B should be $200k. It's something like 50k right now which is ridiculous especially with all the restrictions an applicant is under. It both suppresses wages and abuses the worker.

Having a $200k minimum salary will just see outsourcing to Asia / Eastern Europe.

Why is that a problem? Thats how the program should work, to recruit talent wherever it's found.

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#74
post #63

While the stated intention is to prevent abuse by consultancies, I think this effectively kills the H1B program. Who will be able to afford this? 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.

So startups often bring in H1B employees? What prevents them from hiring the same great people remotely?

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#76

IMO, the fee is the wrong thing that needs adjusting. It's the salary that should be adjusted. The minimum salary for an H1B should be $200k. It's something like 50k right now which is ridiculous especially with all the restrictions an applicant is under. It both suppresses wages and abuses the worker.

Having a $200k minimum salary will just see outsourcing to Asia / Eastern Europe.

That's going to happen regardless.

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#77

Mafia behavior continues… (not my observation, but the Texas senator’s Ted Cruz[1]). $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…

It does go to the government and not to Trump's personal wallet (like the memecoins and lavish gift), it's just a tax that's just not being called a tax, and frankly it's a good idea. The current abuse of H1B doesn't work out positively for anyone but the companies making a boatload of money on exploiting people.

Oh? And taxes can’t be used to buy influence and votes? How naive… Money is fungible… one pocket into another

Exhibit 1: Tariff revenues to bail out American farmers: https://www.ft.com/content/0267b431-2ec9-4ca4-9d5c-5abf61f2b...

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#78
As a side effect, this could reduce the pipeline of foreign students coming in on F1 with plans to transition to a work visa over time.

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.

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#79
post #67

IMO, the fee is the wrong thing that needs adjusting. It's the salary that should be adjusted. The minimum salary for an H1B should be $200k. It's something like 50k right now which is ridiculous especially with all the restrictions an applicant is under. It both suppresses wages and abuses the worker.

Can every industry pay $200k? I bet software, AI, or finance would be okay paying $200k, while e.g. hardware, aerospace, or biotech would have a harder time. 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.

Who would have a harder time? The company that wants to bring in employees? Sure. But I'm also sure that the top experts would be lining up to take such a job. The companies wouldn't struggle to find someone abroad.

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.

Re: Trump to impose $100k fee for H-1B worker visas, White House says

#80
IMO the problem is that H1B employees are stuck at the employer for the duration of their green card process, and so end up both paid lower and unable to escape abuse.

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).

Post reply on HN