If an interpreter is so rare that one can't be found in the US and they need to be hired internationally, then maybe it's worth it to pay $100,000?
The problem with a hard salary floor is that it doesn't account for differences in cost of living at all. It would very quickly become the visa of coastal cities and little else.
If the aim of the H1B program was to bring in the highest possible paid workers, you'd be correct. But it isn't. These programs are designed in such a way that all states can benefit from them, and a variety of professions.
"The H-1B program applies to employers seeking to hire nonimmigrant aliens as workers in specialty occupations or as fashion models of distinguished merit and ability. A specialty occupation is one that requires the application of a body of highly specialized knowledge and the attainment of at least a bachelor’s degree or its equivalent. The intent of the H-1B provisions is to help employers who cannot otherwise obtain needed business skills and abilities from the U.S. workforce by authorizing the temporary employment of qualified individuals who are not otherwise authorized to work in the United States."
https://www.dol.gov/whd/immigration/h1b.htm
You will note that the word "salary" does not appear in that description.
Unless fashion model is a legal euphemism for someone at the top tier of new tech or skills? edit: Like, some sexy new JavaScript framework or some ancient functional language.
I think they're referring to real fashion models, though, amazingly.
It is to make it possible for foreigners to provide work to US organizations when no local person is available.
I have hired many many people on H1s. It was always a hire of last resort: when we could not find someone local. It always cost us a lot more than a local person: in both legal fees and procedural fees (you need to verify that the salary you are paying is not lower than the prevailing wage, which is totally fair) not to mention that it takes a while to get the person so while you're messing about you have nobody to fill the job. Some people are unusually distinguished (perhaps expert in a particular machine or language) but lack the appropriate degree, and they are even harder to bring in.
I have a hard time complaining about that (and I'm an immigrant myself). I think it's totally fair that the system should be biased towards locals. But the system does need an escape mechanism when nobody local can do the work.
There are problems. The big outsourcing companies (not just Indian ones but IBM) flood the lottery early. Also somehow they apparently/allegedly pay below market rate, which I don't understand. As usual it's the startups that get screwed.
Note this H-1 is to bring someone here. If I could outsource I would (to Alabama or Amadebad, it would be all the same to me). When we can get away with a distributed team we hire people where they already are.
I submit that there is no work in the US that can't be done by a US citizen. The problem isn't "finding someone" the problem is "finding someone at the below-market-rate wage we want to pay"
In another thread to this article I gave an example of a teacher for a German school -- native speaker, experienced in teaching the German state curriculum. A few such people have moved here and indeed we hired them, but mostly they had to come in on H-1.
There are certainly medical specialties for which there is a shortage of available doctors or nurses, in particular outside the cities.
And you really believe that there is a US citizen expert in every possible discipline in every possible location?
> The problem isn't "finding someone" the problem is "finding someone at the below-market-rate wage we want to pay"
In the very comment to which you were replying I just said we pay more for H-1 workers, in both time and money (and salary -- the labor conditions verification makes sure that's the case. Why do you assume they come in at below market wages? Have you ever hired one? In my experience it's impossible to do, at least for a startup.
discipline, yes, but location is the same as wage - people can move if offered enough incentive.
I don't have a problem with hiring foreigners as long as they pay a fair sum to the taxpayers for thier diminishment of citizen's welfare. This is because immigrant is a potential drain on the welfare state and also uses resources that otherwise would be enjoyed by citizens.
Also I do believe most h1bs are paid below market rate because they are hired by large IT contractors like Infosys. They have the people and presence in India to make hiring in H1b cheap- they contract to US firms and pocket the difference.
For small business in the US I would agree that h1b is expensive.
For example, Disney of Florida replaced 250 American IT workers in US using immigrants with H1-B Visas. They in theory could have saved more money by sending that operation overseas but they chose not too.
Computer operations today are way too mission critical to most organizations to risk problems by moving tech overseas at least in operational settings.
I think that's the problem here - those on H1-B visas aren't immigrants.
It is a dual intent visa and most outsourcing firms keep it strictly in the non-immigrant category.
Until they get a DoL clearance & get into an I-140 approval process, they're "temporary workers" who can be dispensed with any day.
Perhaps that's Trump's plan.
Not every company operates like that. I know it's hard to believe, or even comprehend, in the tech world.