> If only there were a word for the importation of minority labor and locking them into employment with their sponsor, effectively reducing their negotiating power for salary to zero...

It really doesn't do that. To be fair, H-1Bs are supposed to be in-demand specialty workers, to meet the spirit of the program. That means they have, by definition, negotiating power. I've spent a lot of time in H-1 status and I have definitely negotiated my compensation -- with both current and prospective employers.

This data is available for you to search, and it's all public record. You can find my salary in the database. [1]

[1] https://h1bdata.info/

This is so wrong, it is comical. You have a lot less leverage, especially if you want/are in the process of getting a green card.

As a former H1B holder (and currently on a Green Card), being on a H-1B has prevented me:

1. Not accepting a higher salary offer, but going with a more 'safe option'

2. Having to negotiate for asap Green Card application, vs. salary

3. Not being able to accept a promotion to a manager, as I had a ongoing Green Card application as engineer/ic, and that would jeopardize my green card application

4. Not being able to create, or join a very early startup

5. Having high anxiety, for all the paperwork required, and the RFE recieved after switching jobs...

6. Inability to switch jobs, if you have a Perm/Green Card application ongoing, as it will rest it (even for non-capped countries, it might take 2+ years for the whole process to go through)

etc... etc..

You must be young and naive if you believe being on a H1B doesn't suppress one's salary, or potential.

The current H1B system is in-tenured servitude, and a continuation of old Feudal System, by tying the ability to work for a class of workers to their employer. Yes, you can switch employers, but at great costs, and at risking eventual deportation (if you don't play the immigration game right, and get the Perm/Green Card in time).

Not to be pedantic, but the term is indentured servitude, at least in regards to Europeans coming to North America.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servitude

Is it possible you were on the H-1B when transferring the visa between employers wasn't easy? It's gotten better in the past 10 years (and worse again in the past 4). I've switched jobs 4 times, gotten a nice raise every single time.

I can only speak to my own experiences.

> 1. Not accepting a higher salary offer, but going with a more 'safe option'

For me, the 'safe option' came with the highest salary. Usually the riskier bets come with lower up-front payoffs in my experience.

> 2. Having to negotiate for asap Green Card application, vs. salary

I've not had to do this. Most employers I've interviewed with were either (a) early stage and let me do whatever I wanted re: immigration -- even to the extent of saying you drive, and submit the bills or (b) later-stage companies that had fixed corporate policies re: when the green card process can begin and it's initiated by the manager. My most recent employer began the PERM process during our first 1:1 and the my recruiter was very curious why I was so interested in the process since it's totally mechanical from their perspective.

This is a criticism of the green card process, not intrinsic to H-1Bs.

> 3. Not being able to accept a promotion to a manager, as I had a ongoing Green Card application as engineer/ic, and that would jeopardize my green card application

Indeed but that is not actually a function of your H-1, right, but rather a function of that fact you'd kicked off your green card process, a different process. With it's own insanities.

> 4. Not being able to create, or join a very early startup

Create, no. And that's a huge loss to America. What ever happened to Startup Parole anyways?

Join, sure. If you really wanted, you could easily have talked your company into letting you handle the process and submitting the expense reports. All you need for an H-1 is an LCA and prevailing wage. LCA isn't hard, and prevailing wage is low, a common complaint of the H-1 program. For the bay area it's like 90K for a software engineer.

> 5. Having high anxiety, for all the paperwork required, and the RFE recieved after switching jobs...

Yep, that sucks for sure, and is totally fair. There are ways to mitigate this. You can apply for an H-1 transfer speculatively while at your old employer. Once successfully approved, you can make the hop. There's no obligation to go through with it if you later change your mind. I think this is one of the lesser known features of the H-1.

> 6. Inability to switch jobs, if you have a Perm/Green Card application ongoing, as it will rest it (even for non-capped countries, it might take 2+ years for the whole process to go through)

The inability to switch jobs isn't H-1 related, again, it's a function of the green card process which is, as I conceded earlier, very stupid. But also, transient. Once you hit 180 days in Adjustment of Status, AC21 portability kicks off and your employer can no longer withdraw your I-140. You can then move largely at will -- even to self-employment, for the few remaining weeks it takes your I-485 to be approved. [1]

> Yes, you can switch employers, but at great costs, and at risking eventual deportation (if you don't play the immigration game right, and get the Perm/Green Card in time).

Again, yes, but this also not intrinsic to the H-1 but rather to the green card process. With that in mind you're eligible to indefinitely extend your H-1 status as soon as you have an approved I-140 (which you can get in 14 days) in 1 or 3 year increments.

[1] http://cilawgroup.com/news/2012/10/01/rules-governing-i-485-...

I've also had several employers (from a startup to a FAANG) tell me that an H-1B transfer would be no problem. I haven't actually done it, but I don't feel as mobility-impared as people seem to believe I should.

H-1B transfers are quick (14 days with premium processing), easy and you can file speculatively if you're looking at a couple of potential employers but are afraid it may not go through. Your current employer will not be notified and you do not need to move forward with the transfer if you change your mind.

Yes it does do that and worse. When I was on H1b years back in big co, most of my coworkers were on h1b as well and they were scared to death to leave because of comfort and self doubt. Some manager knew this and abused this power by pointing out that their green card application can be withdrawn any moment if they don’t work on weekends.

Economists have researched that data, and consistently confirmed what the GP asserted:

"Research by Daniel Costa, of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, and Howard University political science professor Ron Hira, found that 60% of H-1B workers receive lower-than-average wages for their job and region. Google, Facebook and Apple “take advantage of program rules in order to legally pay many of their H-1B workers below the local median wage for the jobs they fill,” Costa and Hira said in an Economic Policy Institute paper."

(from the article above)

"60% of H-1B workers receive lower-than-average wages for their job and region."

As opposed to 50% of the normal workforce which receives lower-than-average wages by definition? Feels like that number, while significant, was framed to be sensational.

I'm curious how much of this is attributable to:

1. Technical skill level. Are they new grads or junior folks? Is this skew happening because the senior folks roll off onto green cards?

2. Soft skill level. Are employers taking on folks with language skills or management skills or cultural skills that need to be leveled up?

Does this delta level off over time once foreign workers achieve a certain level of domestic experience? Does it go away once they transfer to new jobs?

Actually, I think that number doesn't even really capture the problem. Because it doesn't indicate by how much those workers salary is lower than average. The studies I've seen on this suggest it's a significant gap. I'll see if I can find that study, and others.

>Does this delta level off over time once foreign workers achieve a certain level of domestic experience? Does it go away once they transfer to new jobs?

I'd be very surprised if it didn't at least improve. But it still results in suppressed salaries for American workers. And isn't some weird conspiracy that tech CEOs believe salaries are far too high and want to suppress them: we have emails of them discussing exactly that (in another context not involving immigration)

EDIT: I previously had some other suggestions, but I think the most beneficial and abuse-proof system for all involved would be to have the tech companies bid for visas (as many others have suggested). That should eliminate the potential for abuse.

> Also make an O-1 type visa as an immigrant visa.

That's unnecessary, as the O-1 has the same requirements as an EB1A green card petition. The immigrant visa form of the O-1 is simply an EB1A petition. It's actually possible to self-petition EB1A. Only India and China have a backlog of EB1A petitions, and their priority dates are ~2017.

I'd love to read that study if you dig it up!

For what it's worth, I believe in wholesale immigration reform. I think the current system is byzantine and utterly ridiculous and leaves the country at a huge disadvantage compared to the rest of the world. While by no means a Trump supporter, his points-based immigration program that never materialized would be a big, big step in the right direction.

Interesting about EB1A, didn't know.

I agree that we need reform in this area. For one, a bidding system for H1-B type visas could prevent much of the abuse. Like you, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I like the points-based system. Not sure why that got so much criticism (probably simply because it came from him). It's similar to Canada's system, which most people around the globe seem to admire.

I hope people can understand that it isn't some kind of xenophobic nativism that inspires the H1-B dislike among some Americans. It's fear for our financial future. It isn't always obvious to those working in SV, but in most of the country, the typical lower- or middle-class worker has not been enjoying a a booming economy in terms of wages. Real wages for the middle- and lower-classes in the US have been stagnant or falling for decades. So we're fighting to get or remain in the middle class.

In my own extended family, the generational difference in financial security is stark, despite getting similar degrees, military service, working hard, etc etc. Some cousins are basically falling out of the middle class. Crossing over into some kind of IT work is one of the few remaining paths someone at age 30 can take to remain in the middle class after their profession is lost to globalization or automation. I have a cousin who did it.

Anyway, I think real immigration reform won't happen under either of the current political parties. We need something new, which is unlikely to happen.

Edit: here the study referenced in that article, at least: https://www.epi.org/publication/h-1b-visas-and-prevailing-wa...

Edit: Here's the paper I was thinking of. It's pretty convincing to me. I'd be interested in your input: https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pd...

Will read and report back!

What I think is most disheartening is that Republicans and Democrats alike have no interest whatsoever in immigration reform. Democrats controlled both houses and the presidency and were unwilling to do anything. And then there's Dick Durbin, who torpedoed the most recent round of reforms.

Dick Durbin was totally right to torpedo that bill because it would ease the Green Card backlog for Indians but will set everyone else back by 5-10 years. Removing the per-country cap must come with increasing the overall Green Card cap. Otherwise it will just be pitting one group of immigrants against another.

>because it would ease the Green Card backlog for Indians but will set everyone else back by 5-10 years.

Not really true. There is no special treatment for Indians in that bill. Indians will have to wait the same 5 to 10 years if they apply for a green card at the same time as others.

Even that will happen only 5 to 10 years from now, during which an immigration friendly administration could increase the green cards or give other forms of relief. It's sad to have to say this but when people from Europe, Australia etc. are waiting for a long time it'll be more palatable for Congress and the President to increase green cards compared to the current situation.

>Removing the per-country cap must come with increasing the overall Green Card cap. Otherwise it will just be pitting one group of immigrants against another

Those groups aren't equivalent though, one has been waiting for 10+ years in the green card queue while the other is expecting instant green cards based on their country of birth. The current system already pitts one group against the other and gives one the preferential treatment and disadvantages the other.

Also, the Congressional Research Service's research on the bill says that the current system makes employers prefer Indians for IT jobs since it's much harder for them to switch jobs for a very long time compared to other nationalities who might take off once they get their Green Card.

I guess one question I have re the first study you posted is: just because you get a certified LCA for level 1 or 2, does that mean the employer is going to actually pay what corresponds to a level 1 or level 2 wage? Isn't that the floor? LCA happens before I-129, so the employer is just certifying they need someone, anyone, to take the role.

For instance, a promotion or regular pay raise doesn't trigger a new LCA. That only happens when you change employers. As an employer, if it didn't affect the likelihood of an approved LCA (and the article does itself state that they're largely pro forma, and won't get denied unless there's an obvious error) why would the employer not pick the lowest class to maximize flexibility?

I actually have only read the synopsis of the first one. I only included that link because it was mentioned in the article. And I had quoted from the article's interview with that author.

The one that convinced me previously was the second link, which was a pretty convincing natural experiment leveraging the fact that the visas are awarded by (randomized) lottery.

>Like you, I'm not a Trump supporter, but I like the points-based system. Not sure why that got so much criticism (probably simply because it came from him)

The reason was quite simple, Republicans didn't like it because it did not reduce the legal immigration numbers, and Democrats did not like it because it eliminated pretty much all the family based immigration except for spouses and children which meant people would be not be able to sponsor their parents and siblings.

Siblings already have to wait 13-14 years. IMO that was no big loss. My brother is 26. If I were in a position to sponsor him today, he wouldn't get a green card until he turned 40. This means he'd have to spend all his peak earning years abroad anyways.

average is a mean, not a median

This paper is really shoddy work. It doesn't even account for the fact that most H1B workers are early in their career and thus more junior employees.

If you want to convince people, please post a paper supporting your point of view, then. My mind is open. I've found one such paper described here, but haven't yet found the original paper:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/stuartanderson/2020/05/19/immig...

If it's accurately described, I have some problems with this one, but still looking for the original.

It's fundamentally not a level playing field in "at-will" employment states where losing a job means finding a new one or leaving the country within <x> number of days.

I agree with you generally, but I think you might just be a missing a piece of the puzzle. For folks from countries that don't have a large backlog, you can get a green card in something like 3 or 4 years today.

But if you're from somewhere with a large backlog (e.g. India and China) you're looking at a decade+.

So the real issue here is the green card quota levels, not so much the h1b itself.

This is good information, thank you. I had team members who had put down roots here and they would be terrified every time they had to renew. They were Indian so it was likely because of the queue you mentioned their green card application seemed to never end.

I'd still rather spare people that terror.

I am a conservative strongly against illegal immigration, but conversely I think we need to open up legal immigration a lot more, especially to those who've worked here and contributed to our economic success, like H-1B workers.

> For folks from countries that don't have a large backlog, you can get a green card in something like 3 or 4 years today.

If you've got a motivated employer you can get it done in 18 months.

- PERM takes 6-9 months to prepare.

- PERM takes 120 days to certify currently.

- I-140, I-485, I-765, I-131 and I-693 can be filed simultaneously for rest-of-world.

- I-140 with premium processing takes 1-15 days (3-12 months without).

- I-485 takes 8-14 months, but after 180 days you're AC21 portable.

I think you are missing the point that it's only a pain point for countries with a backlog, not ones without a backlog. 3-4 years in the grand scheme of things is not all that long for gaining PR of a different country.

On top of that, the pain is extra bad for people from India, where the queue wait is effectively infinite. While for Chinese people it's a relatively tractable 5 years last time I checked.

Indeed this assumes your priority date is current, which it is for all EB2 excluding India and China, and many EB3s. [1]

[1] https://www.uscis.gov/visabulletininfo

Why should it take more than a couple of days?

The longest part of the process is the labor market test to ensure there are no willing, able and qualified American workers. This includes advertising the position in a number of different locations and channels for a set number of days and interviewing any American workers that apply.

Right, what purpose does that serve?

Economies are demand driven. Participation is good. Banning foreign workers to protect a subset of American workers is bad.

Or just also quota H1B.

This assumes the green card quotas are actually solving a problem in the first place.

H1-B has other issues but regarding H1-B working for 10+ years, it is mostly due to country caps for green cards.

H1-B do get sponsored green cards, at least for the non-startup companies. IIRC, any H1-B having more than one extension i.e. > 6 years has to have a green card application pending. H1-B doesn't have country caps.

The green card system however has per country caps, which impacts primarily people born in India, China, Mexico,El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Vietnam and Philippines. If you are born in Greece and come to USA on H1-B where a company sponsors green card for you, you would get it in around 1-3 years.

Source: Was born in India and also had a roommate from Greece who got green card in about 14 months after being in USA.

EDIT: Added El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras and Vietnam to list of countries impacted based on https://travel.state.gov/content/travel/en/legal/visa-law0/v...

I don't think incremental reform can work here. As you say, the H-1B is by design a non-immigrant visa. If we want a "I'd like to immigrate to the US for software engineering" visa, we need to design one from scratch; anything jury-rigged on top of the H-1B process is going to be inequitable or unfair somehow.

"Non-immigrant visa" simply means "getting it doesn't grant you immigrant status". In this way it's like a tourist or student visa.

The H-1B is a dual-intent visa. This means "you may apply for it and show intent to immigrate, for example, by starting the PERM process". This is unlike a tourist or student visa, where there are grounds for denial if you show any intent to immigrate.

There are a number of "I'd like to immigrate to the US" visas, primarily based around 3 categories - family, employment, or refugee status. The employment-based green card (which is what H-1B holders apply for) has quotas based upon the applicant's country of birth. An H-1B holder born anywhere other than India or China can get an employment-based green card in less than 3 years.

I got from h1b to gc in under 3 years but that was a while ago when caps weren’t being maxed out. Essentially your argument is to remove the caps which Im not sure most people would support (for rather selfish reasons)

As an American worker, I have been discriminated against on majority H1B teams at two separate companies. I have seen the same for other Americans.

I'm an Indian. As a past H1B visa holder, I know that this happens. I've seen people being so biased that they only recruit people from the state they belong to in India.

And, I've come across Americans in bay area who were so pissed off with this that they voted for Trump. The level of politics and discrimination I've seen would make anyone angry.

There are highly skilled people working on H1B but they're a minority. If H1B allows only full time employment and no contract jobs, a lot of abuse will be eliminated.

Edit: Why the downvotes? Truth hurts? This is a known secret throughout the valley.

Reforming the H-1B to do what it was intended to do would mean eliminating 99% of the visas that are granted.

It turns out that the entire H-1B program has been a massive scam. It was created and promoted by American Big Tech companies to make them money at the expense of American citizens. It's been a trillion dollar theft from lower and middle class Americans into the hands of the 1%.

Without the H-1B in place, these companies would be working to fix America's education system, paying more in salary to workers, and lifting more Americans into the middle class.

The program has been beneficial in many ways but the overall effect has been to use foreigners as a weapon against citizens.

One of the most reprehensible aspects has been the propaganda by the Big Tech companies. They're pretending to care about America's melting pot and helping immigrants, but they're importing primarily the wealthiest immigrants. They're damaging America and other countries at the same time, all in the name of money.

I'm guessing the '99%' number is hyperbole, because that would roughly equal around 60K H1B active visa holders so far and it doesn't make sense at all.

Besides, most of the "legitimate" companies, pay good wages (this would be pretty much any company in the bay area). I'm not sure if you know this, but almost all H1Bs negotiate their offers in the valley (and in places like NYC/Chicago/Atlanta).

There's an additional overhead to the company hiring H1Bs as well, it's somewhat cost prohibitive in general.

Are you a software developer? Most people seem to underestimate the work software developers do, it's definitely not a simple "desk job".

That said, I've made my peace with this, if a majority of the people think that they don't want high skilled immigrants in the country (as opposed to say, low farm labor, which hires way more H-visas). I'm cool with it, I'm making my way to Canada anyway, and my current employer is ok with it.

The impression I get is that Americans don't want to do "dirty" jobs, like farm labor, clearly the latest Executive Order exempted them. Somehow, that it is morally acceptable to vie for the high paying jobs, while outsourcing the "dirty" jobs to immigrants.

Citation needed. In both India & China, H-1B has given millions of talented people a pathway to learn new skills and earn a vastly increased income, and many of them have returned to their home countries to found their own companies and spread the wealth. So while the implementation of the program remains pretty broken, and the jury is out on their net impact to America, from a global POV the visas have definitely been a plus.

>Without the H-1B in place, these companies would be working to fix America's education system, paying more in salary to workers, and lifting more Americans into the middle class.

Without this system, companies would move a lot of jobs to Canada(which has a much easier immigration system) and to India and East Europe etc. Which would hurt the general economy real hard.

Those big tech companies already have international offices. Why wouldn't they have just expanded those offices?

Investing in education etc is not really the job of companies in our capitalist system. They could not capture enough of the value to justify the cost, especially given the very long lead times.p

> Those big tech companies already have international offices. Why wouldn't they have just expanded those offices?

Because they still want to hire lots of Americans. They just don't want to pay them market prices. So they bring in H1-Bs to lower wages. If they hired them overseas, there wouldn't be that effect:

From the article above:

"Research by Daniel Costa, of the left-leaning Economic Policy Institute, and Howard University political science professor Ron Hira, found that 60% of H-1B workers receive lower-than-average wages for their job and region. Google, Facebook and Apple “take advantage of program rules in order to legally pay many of their H-1B workers below the local median wage for the jobs they fill,” Costa and Hira said in an Economic Policy Institute paper."

I'd personally like to see the US adopt a systematic and generous immigration system like Canada's. But the H1-B system has mostly been a farce, used as a weapon against American workers. There are exceptions, but overall, it's most benefited the big tech company stockholders.

> Because they still want to hire lots of Americans. They just don't want to pay them market prices. So they bring in H1-Bs to lower wages. If they hired them overseas, there wouldn't be that effect:

Wow, it takes skill to come up with an argument like that. How do you imagine this conversation happens at MegaCorp_0 between HR and a Hiring manager?

HR: “I know you need someone who has Skill_0, but we want to reduce wages so it has to be a h1b...”

Manager: “But I already have Candidate_0..”

HR: “Nope has to be h1b!”

/s (in case it was not obvious)

> So they bring in H-1Bs to lower wages

Let's say that this was honestly true. H-1Bs have been around for what, 30ish years now? If we assume that the sole purpose of H-1Bs was to lower wages, then we should've seen slow wage growth or wage depression for software engineers.

But the reality seems to be the opposite which is that salary growth for H-1B positions seems to be among the highest wages in the country. It seems absurd to make that claim considering many other countries pay software engineers far less and America is considered an outlier with how much we tend to be paid.

This isn't to say that H-1Bs aren't abused because H-1Bs themselves do tend to be paid a lot less and come with a whole host of restrictions that make job seeking difficult. But overall I don't think the claim that it depresses wages necessarily holds water. If anything what would be likely is companies expanding international offices (which many already are doing) so that they can have access to the same cheap labor pool and avoid paying the absurd SV rates for Americans.

There are some convincing studies that suggest otherwise. Combined with the fact that tech CEOs speak openly that salaries are too high, and conspire with each other to lower them, it seems fairly likely this is what's happening.

Specifically, this study, which is convincing to me, but always interested in other ideas. This one is a kind of natural experiment so the data are randomized (because companies are awarded via lottery): https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/h1b.pd...

The H1B program is the only reason the US has a tech industry at all. 75% of silicon valley tech workers are immigrants.

This is a ridiculous statement. Intel, Facebook, Microsoft, Google, Apple were all founded by US Citizens.

Sergey Brin and Andy Grove were both immigrants.

If the people creating US technology weren't permitted to move here, the center of mass of the world's tech industry would shift somewhere else with sane immigration policies, probably Toronto. US persons who want to work in technology would have to emigrate to find jobs.

You can't just eliminate the vast majority of the people who work in an industry, and expect it to still exist.

Steve Jobs' biological father was an immigrant. So were Eduardo Saverin and Sergey Brin.

His biological father was not involved in his life and had no bearing on whom he became. That's like pointing out that the Night Stalker's father was an immigrant.

Steve Jobs wouldn't have existed in the first place without his biological father.

He certainly wouldn't have been born in the US, gotten adopted into the particular family that he was, and received the opportunities that he did had his bio father not emigrated.

I had to look up who the Night Stalker was, now I wish I hadn't. Not going to be able to sleep now :-/

Lol. The fact that the entire concept was invented here probably would contradict that.

Britain invented the steam engine.