You are clearly outside of the field. There are tons of jobs in the biotech industry for qualified graduates. The issue is finding people with appropriate scientific and industry backgrounds. This is why h1bs are hired. I don't care what color you are and where you come from. If you know your stuff I will hire you.

I do know something about the industry. A couple a of years ago Merk had a massive layoff. Basically there mission was to get rid of R&D because R&D wasn't cost effective. They would much rather just buy up startups when a drug looked promising. I think most of the other big pharmas are doing the same. I have friends who are phds doing stuff that a tech could do. Look at how many BMEs with BS degrees are getting jobs. A lot of these jobs don't need a phd.

Who do you think is driving a lot of the research work at the biotech start ups that the Merc and others are buying up?

Biotech products are seen as harder to copy (me too drugs), require an expensive-to-validate pipeline (like vaccines), and look very attractive as a novel mechanism of action (as compared to traditional small molecule drugs). Most pharmas are inexpert in large bio-molecule mechanisms and drug design, and the fact that small molecule high-throughput-screening infrastructure cannot compete in that space makes it attractive as a game changer. (Since HTS has not shown the ROI that was hoped.) Many also see RNA-based or immune-based therapies as the next revolution in drugs.

I don't know that much about biotech startups. Maybe you can tell me who pays for them?

Rich guys, speculators, VCs

Independent investment? Is this a trick question?

the scientists that got laid off, and then found funding elsewhere.

>The issue is finding people with appropriate scientific and industry backgrounds.

My wife worked in biotech. It's very easy to find people with the appropriate undergrad and Master's degrees. It's hard to find someone with a postdoc in exactly what your company does. Unfortunately, the firm wanted to do exactly that: any advancement required going back to academia for a very precise degree/research program. There was no system of internal training or advancement at all, and as a direct result, the firm is (still) chronically understaffed, chronically overworking its employees, and frankly not at all a good place to work.

Thing is, that's your problem as a biotech firm, since the doctoral and postdoctoral job track was never meant to produce workers for industry. You really ought to just take people at an earlier stage of their career, train them for your unique needs, and advance them over the years. While doing so, you should also provide competitive salaries, reasonable hours, and job security.

Oh, and respect for basic safety. None of this "if a chemical fire starts, see if you can put it out before pulling the fire-alarm" crap I've heard about.

Lastly, if we're going to talk xenophobia, why should a firm in the Northeastern United States receive visas to hire a Serbian postdoc (educated in one of Europe's many cheap, publicly-funded university systems!) instead of hiring and training up an undergrad from Nebraska? Are Nebraskans less deserving to "immigrate" to the Northeast than Europeans?

Or are American firms just trying to leech off other countries' public education systems while not paying into making the American system comparably cheap and accessible? How come the undergrad from Nebraska has massive student-loan debt, while the European postdoc has been earning net income since grad school?

if there's really a scarcity, then there shouldn't be a problem paying higher wages as these bills require right - especially given how huge money-spinners successful drug molecules can be.

You seem to be assuming that salaries are based only on scarcity. This is of course wrong - they also are based on available budgets. If there's nobody to hire for available money, the result may be not more money offered, but less startups surviving. Startup can be hugely successful - but more likely it would be wasted money. Salary floor means more money wasted, means higher risk, means less startups. Or at least less startups located in the jurisdiction having price floors.

I don't at all assume that and nothing constrains you from hiring your own citizens at lower salaries if they'll accept them or investing in training them, making your colleges more accessible and affordable etc. The proposals merely say if you want to hire non Americans, pay more. If you don't want to invest in training your citizens and also don't want to pay more to hire outsiders, maybe you should relook at your business model or incorporate in another country.

This level of open regulatory capture, gaming of the system and not looking out for the interests of the 99% strikes me as dangerous and destabilizing over the long term (but you know that already - that's why Trump won). No one wants a de-stabilized nuclear power.

I'm saying this as a citizen of a country that will certainly get affected by any of these proposed restrictions.

> nothing constrains you from hiring your own citizens at lower salaries

Except if those are not available, or do not want to work for this salary, e.g. because fringe benefits of the position (getting into US, visa being handled by somebody else, etc.) do not apply to them. Or just because they are used to much higher standards of living and demand salary that pays for well located apartment in SF, new Tesla car, etc. while some other people would be OK living with roommates and using public transportation.

> making your colleges more accessible and affordable

I'm not sure how a startup should go about making colleges more accessible and affordable. And why more accessible college necessarily would produce more highly qualified professionals exactly required by this startup and not just more people with college diploma, which means increasingly less as everybody has them now.

> The proposals merely say if you want to hire non Americans, pay more.

That is an import tariff. Tariffs are measures that harm consumers and destroy value, ask any economist.

> not looking out for the interests of the 99%

You are assuming 99% have the same interest. It is not true - it's more likely you ascribe a narrow interest to a lot of people without even trying to consider what their actual interests are.

> No one wants a de-stabilized nuclear power.

That's not even an argument. "I am right because you will lead to a nuclear war". Really?

> Except if those are not available, or do not want to work for this salary, e.g. because fringe benefits of the position (getting into US, visa being handled by somebody else, etc.) do not apply to them. Or just because they are used to much higher standards of living and demand salary that pays for well located apartment in SF, new Tesla car, etc. while some other people would be OK living with roommates and using public transportation.

In such a case, the point of view of your democratically elected representatives & president seems to be that either you should pay more or you should relocate your business to another country where you'll find people working for lower salary.

Your choices therefore are - become politically active & work to change the new policy, figure out ways to game the new policy (which is what led to the mess in the first place) or rethink your business model.

> That is an import tariff. Tariffs are measures that harm consumers and destroy value, ask any economist.

Unfortunately, the social harm that results from ordinary people losing their livelihood or hope of bettering their lives (as opposed to go-getting business-owners) tends to not enter the calculations of academic economists. Politicians of course have always instinctively understood this (Idle hands are a devil's workshop - to give you an idea of how old this is) and that's why they ignore the advice of economists & impose import tariffs in the real world.

Yes, there is a problem paying 130k. For a masters or even phd straight out of school that's a lot. (I'm excluding you living in bubbles like SF).

Even in SF not exactly everybody makes that much. And note that SF is in California, which is a high-tax state. So the cost of $130k salary is much higher than that (and you get to actually keep quite less than that). And SF specifically has long been gunning for levying additional payroll tax on top of that.

Relative to what? There's no such thing as an absolute "that's a lot".

If you poke into it, you'll probably find that the "lot" assumption is typically "relative to what other masters and PhDs from universities are paid". So why not hire them instead?

If this was true, salary increases would follow suit. Biotech is not a well-paid industry, especially considering the level of education required. Ergo, we have way more people than we need in this industry already (yes, business owners probably disagree).