So why does a startup need to bring in (theoretically) high skilled talent on a work visa, especially if they cant afford it?

Because the total equity+salary package might have a future value that is much greater than say $200k.

Plus, the question really is 'why not?'. Access to H-1Bs could foster early growth in startups and, in the long-term, increase employment.

Because people is early-stage companies are compensated with equity more than salary, and bet that their equity value will go up dramatically.

Plus a lot of startups have foreign founders and these people need visas. So-called entrepreneur visas an not suited for companies that take investment.

People could go to a startup in exchange for equity, if they were willing to bet that the startup would succeed and expand. Others might want to go to a startup that they think will change the world, giving them non-pecuniary rewards.

Why not, if both parties are happy with the arrangement?

Because Paul's dream of open immigration for startup employees is a giant negative externality for the rest of us.

> Because Paul's dream of open immigration for startup employees is a giant negative externality for the rest of us.

How is that? The more talented, hard-working people, the merrier!

Also, by "us", you are not referring to "those of us on HN", but "those of us on HN who had the good sense to have been born in the US", correct?

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

Lump of labour nonsense -- a claim I certainly didn't make -- is your response to VCs/large employers doing their best to leverage h1bs to reduce wages for software engineers? If that's the best you can do, let's just call that you conceding the point.

You didn't make much of any point; you simply claimed there was a 'giant externality', without saying what it is.

The thing most people complain about are how software developers will be reduced to penury if people from other countries are allowed in the US. Were you referring to something else?