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

U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

601–610 of 637 posts

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#601

Post by bsder »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #33
bsder wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are paywalled articles tolerated on HN? Personally, I would feel no loss if all paywalled articles were simply omitted.

People upvote the content they want to see. Implicitly, whether something is paywalled or not is already included in that judgment. What's more, people keep upvoting paywalled content because non-paywalled content isn't providing the same level of content. By not tolerating paywalled content you are making an explicit call for less content of the type that HN readers say they want to see. You could make the argument…

> Implicitly, whether something is paywalled or not is already included in that judgment.

No, it's not.

If those of us who despise this could downvote the article, then your statement would be correct.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#602

Post by clmckinley »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #481
geggam wrote: post #410

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regulation has killed small business.

Efficiencies of scale killed small business. People had the choice of patronizing small business or large business, and they chose the latter.

i cannot upvote this enough. The regulation has very little if anything to do with the closure of the vast majority of small businesses. Access to larger/more efficient companies that provide better service to cost has killed the demand for the services that small businesses provide.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#603

Post by KorematsuFred »

stale2002 wrote: post #563
fredkorematsu wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think a high school drop out with 5 years of work experience coding can beat a masters from silicon valley university. In tech jobs degrees are in no way indicator of skill.

This is not comparing a person with 5 years if experience to a person without 5 years experience. Instead, related to the H1B question, this is comparing the "average" person applying to the H1B program who has a bachelor's degree, and comparing that to the "average" person applying to the program with a master's degree. It is not about perfect correlation. It is instead about imperfect correlation of the averages am…

> s at the very least it means that they have spent more money on an American business (IE, the univerity).

I am not sure why it matters. Good chance the university is a visa mill and setup specifically for f1 to h1b transition like the recent DHS sting revealed. Such businesses needlessly muddle edu-sector and destroy capital on things that solely exist to bypass government red tape. It adds to economic inefficiency of the society.

Also, that is not the reason USCIS has given. "They spent money on USA business" is the criteria than the law should explicitly state that and everyone can then compete. My wife arrived on H4 and lost to H1B lottery twice. In that time she converted to F1 and then got her OPT is a small college. The degree was worthless and we spent $25K on her education. That enabled her to win H1B lottery in her third attempt in master's cap. Technically beneft to US society was significantly more if she had got her H1B in first attempt.

But that is not the point I am making. My central point is that USCIS policy clearly (I am not sure how much more clear it can get than that text) violates the law passed by Congress. USCIS at the very least need to provide credible evidence as to why this new system is better, why someone with US masters degree be automatically assumed to be higher skilled and based on what evidence and how it links to BAHA executive order whose pretext is being used for such changes. H1B visa is not meant for "high skilled" any ways. It is meant for specialized skill that is in short supply in USA. So there is a violation of far basic principles there too.

Any ways an injunction will prove my point.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#604

Post by ra7 »

t1o5 wrote: post #588
ra7 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> A majority of Masters degree holders in the US are those students who couldn't crack the basic campus recruitment in India for software companies during their Bachelors. The majority? How did you get that data? Sounds like proper BS to me. Campus recruitment in India is a joke. There's nothing to "crack" there. How do you explain the same majority completing their graduate studies in the US (much harder than in Ind…

If there was no market for Master degree H1Bs who fake their experiences on their resume, how do you explain all those thriving body shops in the US ? Just how many of them are in New Jersey alone. See the LCA filings data from DOL. Source: https://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/performancedata.cfm Goto Disclosure Tab & Download the H-1B_FY2018.xlsx excel. Filter NJ state and Employer City as Edison.

> If there was no market for Master degree H1Bs who fake their experiences on their resume

I did not say that and this was not your original assertion.

> How do you explain all those thriving body shops in the US ? Just how many of them are in New Jersey alone. See the LCA filings data from DOL.

This still does not explain your claims of:

1. Those people not being able to "crack" campus recruitment of Indian companies.

2. Those people actually being the majority who come to get a Master's degree. I saw your doc and filtered exactly like you said. I didn't see a "majority" number. Perhaps you are using that term very casually?

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#605

Post by kortilla »

Ar-Curunir wrote: post #227
tossaccount123 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>To prime your intuition a bit, consider how woman and minorities more than doubled the work force from the 1960s to 1990s with no loss in jobs or lowering of wages. You do realize there hasn't been a raise in real wages since the 70s when you account for inflation right? Coincidentally during that same time period the income gap exploded because the wealthy had plentiful cheap labor and were able to pocket the produ…

No, wealth inequality increased because we stopped taxing rich people.

If that were true rich people wouldn’t be paying half of the taxes.

Even when the US had high marginal tax rates for the wealthy, there were tons more loopholes so the effective tax rate was significantly less. That’s the reason people were on board with lowering the marginal rate in exchange for the elimination of lots of deductions.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#606

Post by kortilla »

reissbaker wrote: post #429
adventured wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wealth inequality has increased mostly due to the massive expansion of the global economy, which was a large benefit to capital owners and was a detriment to US labor (whose wages were artifically very high in the post WW2 decades). Global labor competed, capital benefited. Federal Reserve policies since ~1970 have also overwhelmingly favored capital, asset holders, and not workers. The US tax code has gotten more pr…

> The US tax code has gotten more progressive over time, not less. The very high tax rates from the past were quite narrow in scope, they covered few taxpayers. That's not how that works. The U.S. has become massively more disparate in income and wealth, which alone would explain why more taxpayers fall into high tax brackets: the middle class is evaporating, leaving a somewhat larger upper class (more high-income ta…

Medicaid covers the poor and preventative services. Adjust your political rant accordingly.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#607

Post by grad_ml »

hart_russell wrote: post #557
winter_blue wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your comment , joshe, and for being a small light in the darkness. There's so much hatred in here. I'm on an H-1B, and I've never worked for a low-paying or shitty company, and I've been very well-paid. At my last company, I was the highest paid person in my team. And, I've on one occasion made over $200,000 in a single year. I've never met one of underpaid immigrant engineers. Every immigrant I've know…

>Like a Jew in Nazi Germany Really? You're going to compare your situation to that?

You're right, not until they are sent to gas chambers. /s

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#608

Post by Buge »

madengr wrote: post #549
Buge wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "stuff" I was actually referring to digital products, digital technology, websites, technology companies, etc. An import tax on those would be harder than for physical products.

Yes, mostly crap.

I never claimed it wasn't crap, I said it's hard to tax imports of it.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#609

Post by mberning »

joshe wrote: post #590
mberning wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is hard believe so many people still don’t “get it”. You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff.

This is perfect, this is exactly what I'm arguing against! Does this statement also seem true? "It is hard to believe so many * economists * don't "get it". You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff." What do we think economists are doing with all their data sets and papers and conferences and stuff?

Opinions of economists vary. But neverminding that, if swelling the labor supply was so incredibly beneficial to the economy we would not be $21 trillion in debt and 40% of the population unable to muster $400 for an emergency. Give me a break.

Re: U.S. Changes Visa Process for High-Skilled Workers

#610

Post by solveit »

mberning wrote: post #609
joshe wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is perfect, this is exactly what I'm arguing against! Does this statement also seem true? "It is hard to believe so many * economists * don't "get it". You cannot inflate the supply of labor, regardless of the means, and get a good result for the average working stiff." What do we think economists are doing with all their data sets and papers and conferences and stuff?

Opinions of economists vary. But neverminding that, if swelling the labor supply was so incredibly beneficial to the economy we would not be $21 trillion in debt and 40% of the population unable to muster $400 for an emergency. Give me a break.

First, it's unclear whether the debt is actually a bad thing. Note debts for countries don't work like debts for individuals, especially if said country controls the world's reserve currency.

Second, the idea that immigrants and women getting jobs is a major factor in 40% of Americans not having significant savings is so completely ungrounded in reality or even popular thought as to make me wonder if you're being deliberately dishonest.

Post reply on HN