Where did you get this from? It is not in the EO passed today: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/09/rest...
I prefer a purely compensation relative approach because it let's the market decide what the actual salary for a software engineer is (with a percent of compensation premium for a foreigner and a 0 extra cost for a native). The market can dynamically adjust what a software engineer makes (not fixed price control) but it just cost more to hire foreign people.
In direct response to your first sentence, I think even foreign workers (who largely work harder and have more on the line than domestic workers) would question the wisdom of working for 50k a year as a software engineer in the US. They are actors in this system as well, and you can't just assume that you could offer 50k and get them to accept.
My understanding is that the H-1B was introduced by the 1990 immigration act, where the H-1B is supposed to be for "specialty occupations" other than nursing. But the same act introduced EB-1 and O-1 for people with "extraordinary ability", which sounds a lot closer to your "truly exceptional" understanding. I think maybe you're projecting a purpose onto the program that was never really there. The H-1B quota when it was introduced was 65k, so it's not like it started out being dramatically rarer than it is today.
You're wrong on the purpose of it. The O-1 visa is for "exceptional" workers. The H-1B is for normal people.
100k flat annual fee plus the new minimum 150k salary returns the H1B program to its original purpose of allowing US companies to hire truly exceptional foreign workers who have skills US workers do not. This allows companies to do just that and pay for it and at the same time protects the jobs and job prospects of US workers