Someone getting a high salary doesn't signal the country's overall prospect. That might be just a "take" case where that job was supposed to be served by a US citizen.

Any US citizen (or citizens in any country) doesn't want fair competition against immigrants/foreign laborers. They accept immigrants because it (is supposed to) enlarge the pie to share. That's why things like dynamic scoring attempt to capture a bigger picture.

I'm personally skeptical about metrics with a lot of guess work, but I appreciate the effort here. The impact of the immigration is just hard to quantify.

My case is more about motivating smart people to come into US. Current system is broken.

Immigration system is byzantine and unpredictable. Person can even get kicked out with very short notice. And frankly salary in US quite often does not even cover expenses (rent, insurances, taxes...).

Semiconductor engineer from Taiwan has options in mainland China, Singapore, UAE... If you count expenses (living, travel and legal), cultural values, taxes... This engineer may actually make more money outside of US!

I'm not sure what you mean by "dynamic scoring" here - maybe you mean a points based immigration system? The article is not about this. It's about how Congress scores legislation based on its economic impact, and is advocating for using a system called "dynamic scoring" for scoring immigration law. It has nothing to do with how workers are treated by companies.

Fair point, I got the meaning wrong.