Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

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

#91

Post by abfan1127 »

frogblast wrote: post #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, an…

who in their right mind would shell out 100k + relocation and not require some level of commitment?

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

#92

Post by toomuchtodo »

Bayko wrote: post #22

So now just outsource to those countries instead??

Ohio senator introduces 25% tax on companies that outsource jobs overseas - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45146528 - September 2025 (68 comments)

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]

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

#93

Post by GartzenDeHaes »

YetAnotherNick wrote: post #46
crooked-v wrote: post #20

Stopped clock, twice a day, etc. H-1Ba are supposed to be for difficult-to-find specialists, not generic tech workers.

> H-1Ba are supposed to be for difficult-to-find specialists 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-1B is for difficult-to-find specialists and O-1 is for people with extraordinary ability in their field.

H-2B is for ordinary workers.

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

#94

Post by mlyle »

frogblast wrote: post #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, an…

You never get someone to pay a large application fee without some kind of reasonable prospect of getting an exclusive right.

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.

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

#95

Post by robofanatic »

jatins wrote: 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.

>I think this effectively kills the H1B program.

That exactly is Trump’s intention, no?

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

#96

Post by consumer451 »

nine_k wrote: post #67
cogman10 wrote: post #36

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.

Since we have relatively reliable economic data on median income per industry, it would be really stupid not to use that data in a formula such as the one you suggested.

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.

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

#98

Post by jpadkins »

frogblast wrote: post #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, an…

hard disagree on the 'search for qualified citizen' or something to replace it. American policy needs to put Americans first.

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.

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

#99

Post by atomicnumber3 »

abfan1127 wrote: post #91
frogblast wrote: post #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, an…

who in their right mind would shell out 100k + relocation and not require some level of commitment?

People who are going to pay them enough money that they stay specifically because of the money?

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.

Post reply on HN