241–250 of 350 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You advertise in small circulation newspapers, I thought this was well known.
Another trick I've seen on LinkedIn is job applications open from 12:00 am to 12:01 am. The employer can legally say they advertized the job and had no applicants and need an H1B employee.
The title is extremely deceitful. They filed H1Bs for 2025 and 2026, but not after or during the layoffs from last week. That’s like saying “Oracle hires tens of thousands and mass layoffs” (* hired during the pandemic)
> They filed H1Bs for 2025 and 2026, but not after or during the layoffs from last week These kinds of layoffs don't just happen on a whim, certainly aren't supposed to. Oracle's business conditions really didn't change that much over the past year. It's perfectly reasonable to retroactively question a company's choice to hire immigrant workers relatively shortly before layoffs.
I find the topic of the morality or effectiveness of having a H-1B a little bit intractable to reason about rationally. Consider a simplified model of the system. You have 2 countries, C1 and C2. Scenario 1: C1 has enough demand for 100 tech jobs. C1 only has 50 qualified natives for 100 tech jobs. The wages of C1 go up because there is more demand than supply. Scenario 2: C1 has enough demand for 100 tech jobs. C1 o…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's not much preventing you from starting a company and not hiring immigrants. This is something I'd encourage everyone with strong opinions about work visas to try and accomplish. You don't change a system by crying about it on anonymous internet forums, you do it by competing against it and making it redundant.
That's missing the point. Ultimately, companies who use H1B visas will outcompete companies who don't because the H1B system gives them cheaper labor costs. The solution has to come at the regulatory level. 150 years ago, if you told someone "oh if you want safer factories just build one yourself," that business would never survive because they'd get outcompeted by the less scrupulous factory owners who were happy to…
But people who oppose H1B don’t seem opposed to that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to cut through the headline here. The largest chunk of Oracle layoffs were in India [1]. In comparison, they've barely fired any American workers. Contrary to popular opinion, IT workers aren't interchangeable and there exist a large swath of jobs that very few people qualify for (HN should know this) because of the specialization required. America is at near full employment [2]. Replacing American workers with…
> America is at near full employment Pretty sure that is the U3 rate which only counts people as unemployed if they are actively looking for a job. The U6 is better and rarely falls below 5%: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
People who are wondering about $100k fee- it only applies if you are bringing people from overseas for this job; meaning if an immigrant is already in the country (eg: on a student visa), they don't have to pay $100k. It's just a visa change for them. There have also been murmurs about pay-to-play system, not sure how it works though.
People who got pissed reading the title- majority of the visas sponsored were last year and not last week's layoffs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was not aware of this loophole. Thank you. I’ve got some strong opinions but I’m just going to keep those to myself right now. And my dog. She’ll hear me as I scream profanities into the void…
The loophole does not exist. He's pulling it out of his arse.
https://www.employmentlawworldview.com/update-to-the-new-100...
What I’m not clear on - how many of these H1B hires are subject to the EO that jacked up the fee to $100k per person? Assuming even just 100 of them were, that’s still ten million USD (assuming I didn’t visualize the zeroes in my head wrong…), and a really large fee to justify to the board if you’re otherwise paying “roughly the same” in salary. Productivity is going to basically break even anyway after a few years.…
Remember that there was a "one-time fee" exception for "favored clients" (read: friends of Trump), who could pay a single lump-sum of something like $1 million, and then apply for unlimited H-1B's at the old fee structure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only because the inflation metrics don't include housing.
> Only because the inflation metrics don't include housing Which price index are you looking at that doesn’t include housing?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Supply and demand is fake when it suggests something I don't like, what's so hard to understand?