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.