politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
The H1-B visa system is a trash system.
It is intended to cover cases where companies can't find a domestic talent pool that meets their needs.
In reality, it's a way for companies to import cheap labor, then hold their visas over their heads to drive down wages.
It should be prohibitively expensive to outsource work to foreign labor. Instead, it's cheaper, which is why the system is being abused, and why tacking an effective tax on that labor was good.
Except $100,000 is a pittance to any company big enough to be importing cheap labor in the first place. These are companies that shrug off billion-dollar fines, they have $100k in the executive boardroom couch cushions, so it's absolutely worth it for them to pay $100k to the government in exchange for getting a $50k per year discount on labor for that role.
Rather than dancing around it we should just be taxing the rich. Crap like taxing yachts, or country club memberships, or tailored suits just present a slight nuisance to billionaires. The problem isn't that they buy these things but that they have insane amounts of money to throw at their problems.
Exactly. The root of the problem isn't cheap overseas labor, it's that companies and billionaires have the money to do whatever they want regardless of the cost.
It's a 3yr visa and a $100k application fee. So yeah, if you're paying someone $50k/yr under market value, that's a savings of $50k (as opposed to the $150k savings it was without the fee).
I agree it might not kill the program outright, but it shouldn't. The actual stated intent of the program is good. But it would curb abuse somewhat, as it takes away a huge portion of the proposed savings.
Sure, in theory. But they're not pulling people over here for a year or two. They're getting them over here for several years, and every year they keep them on is another $50k saved.
But on the other end, you have small businesses who need specialized labor that's not available in the US. Or family businesses who want to bring other family members from out of the country and hire them to work for their little mom-and-pop shop, to further help bring their family out of poverty. Neither were likely to hire anyone local to do the job, and the $100k might be everything the business earns in a year after expenses.
So the $100k fee does nothing to curb the onshoring of cheap labor by big companies who are causing the problem you want to solve, but it completely kills the ability of people in developing nations or people here who are trying to do right by their community to hire anyone who doesn't already have the right to work in the US.
I just realized I didn't address the three year limit. Sure, they're only saving $50k over the term of the visa now. But they're gambling that the visa situation will be more favorable in three years, or that the job market will be in such shambles that they can afford to cut pay across the board, or replace people with AI, or whatever. It doesn't just save them $50k, it lets them defer that cost for three years, which is three years that money can be earning interest for them. Plus, if they write it down as compliance or governmental fees or whatever, I believe there are beneficial tax implications.
Agreed 10x. $100k was far too low. Should've been several times that. For that matter, H1-B should be capped at several hundred in the country, maybe a thousand, max.