Not exactly: "You must be paid at least the actual or prevailing wage for your occupation, whichever is higher." [0]
See [1] for info in your area, and you'll understand the potential for taking some latitude with this rule.
>If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule...
Not sure who is proposing loosening this one rule. My point to the GP was only that removing or significantly loosening the sponsorship rule would not lead to an increase in wages for all, as he/she claimed.
[0] https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupati...
All else held constant, increased labor supply means lower wages for all. So, the prevailing wage goes down for everyone. Sure, companies have to pay everyone equally, so everyone just gets paid less.
It's simple supply and demand. I think some are taking these simple statements of fact as some sort of anti-immigrant rant or advocacy of the current H1-B policy. It's not. But, if you want to fix it, you first have to understand it.
H1B visas are only increasing supply for jobs that pay above the PW, not "all" jobs. That means that there is not additional supply for below PW jobs. If anything, the PW goes up because of the increased liquidity for supplying above average wages. This problem you're trying to fabricate is precisely what the PW rule successfully prevents.
The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself?
Edit: I seem to have hit a nerve - You've replied three different times to the same thing and are incoherent at this point. I guess you're still trying to convince yourself there's a problem?
>H1B visas are only approved for the average or above average job wage
>Hence wages are not going to go down because there is no supply for below-average wages.
Wow. This is pretty tortured logic.
OK, what I am saying is that when you increase the supply of workers in an industry, the wages in that industry will go down. Whether it's a high or low wage industry, the wages will go lower.
Until now, I haven't been speaking to the impact on wages in other industries, however, I fail to see how decreased wages in one industry would not lead to a decrease in the overall cross-industry wage average. It's simple math.
In fact, the impact of higher wage earners losing a percentage of their income would have an outsized deleterious effect on overall wages vs. lower wage workers losing that same percentage.
EDIT: You've updated your comment three or four times, and you seem to be contorting a bit. So, I will just leave my comment as-is along with the quotes from one of your previous revisions.
Yes, you're absolutely right. And this comment makes it four responses, so that means you must be extra-right. There's simply no other explanation.
So, you obviously completely understand now. Very impressive!
>H1B visas are only increasing supply for jobs that pay above the PW, not "all" jobs
Wait, I think I see part of what's going on here: you're completely confused about how the term "prevailing wage" plays into this context.
Look up what the requirement really means. It's linked in one of my comments above.
You've been twisting, contorting, and re-editing ferociously in your war on basic economic theory.
And now, I'm making your misunderstanding of supply and demand a problem?
Oy vey.
This is a common misconception about the H1B program.
In order to be approved for sponsorship, the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens who are for working the same job in the same area. If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule, then you're only creating your own hypothetical problems.
Ideally as long as the prevailing wage rule is in place and enforcement (like in this article) works, then there shouldn't be a need for artificial restrictions like the lottery - and you won't have wages being driven down.