<refills popcorn> This'll be interesting.

Tech workers hate Trump, and have been forcing SV bosses to say bad things about him.

But this move is clearly going to benefit us (well, I'm in Australia so not affected directly, but "us" as tech workers). Raising tech salaries and reducing the ridiculous exploitation of immigrant tech workers is good.

SV bosses would clearly like to continue paying less for tech workers, and the visa program was a tool to do that. They now have a proper reason to say bad things about Trump.

But Trump would also like to have SV on his side. Where does he think the power lies there? With the bosses or the workers?

I look forward to next week's episode of "What Trump did to the USA"

> But this move is clearly going to benefit us (well, I'm in Australia so not affected directly, but "us" as tech workers). Raising tech salaries and reducing the ridiculous exploitation of immigrant tech workers is good.

As a US green card holder currently living in SV, I must say I'm really confused what you mean by "us". At first I thought you meant "US citizens who are tech workers", but it's possible you really meant all tech workers?

In any case, considering the past two weeks, I don't think most SV folks would consider Trump as a net positive, even though this particular action might benefit some of them.

let's define "us" as "the people reading this who do things with technology for a living".

and the net positive thing is the interesting bit - when does self-interest trump social values? (pun intended)

> Raising tech salaries and reducing the ridiculous exploitation of immigrant tech workers is good.

Why not keep the H-1B floor at 60,000, but require employers to contribute another 60,000 to a fund to pay for Americans to be retrained as tech workers?

Because the same companies will open training programs that provide $50 worth of education to the Americans and pocket the rest. Probably even make them do mandatory job training alongside the H1bs and triple dip.

Kinda like a certain defunct university....

I don't think that's particularly fair on immigrants. It sets a double standard as to what people are worth.

PS. Also Australian... yeah, we're awake at this time.

EDIT:

To clarify, I'm not at all suggesting screw over Americans either. I'd not be thrilled working in any industry where I'd spent years getting qualifications, just to be constantly undercut by any group of people.

However, I don't think encouraging companies to underpay a certain segment of humans is an ethical way to resolve the problem.

> I don't think that's particularly fair on immigrants. It sets a double standard as to what people are worth.

How so? The minimum wage for H-1Bs is over 4x higher than the minimum wage for Americans.

If Americans had a minimum wage of 60k per year and immigrants were getting paid $7.25 per hour then that would be one thing, but it's currently the other way around.

Not all tech workers hate Trump. Those that don't probably won't be posting about it here, advertising it at work if they work at Google, Facebook, Github or some place like that.

It might be comforting to think that it was only those dirty uneducated white supremacists who voted for Trump, but I don't think that is reality. That's called living in bubble.

Not all, but most.

> Raising tech salaries and reducing the ridiculous exploitation of immigrant tech workers is good.

> tech

Are we able to replace "tech" with other types of workers? Or is nationalism only ok when it protects this particular class of workers?

Depends if just having a larger salary is important to you or do you want religious idiots out of the education system for your kids and that your gay relatives and friends have the same rights as you if all that is important to you or just having more money

I was referring to self-interest. You could replace "tech" with "steel" but that conversation probably wouldn't happen on HN...

Tech workers in SV seem to hate Trump, but tech workers are not only in SV. There are also tech workers at defense contractors all across the deep south, and they definitely do not hate Trump. They might roll their eyes at his antics or prefer a tougher stance on Russia, but "lock her up" is a very real desire. The H1B issue kind of resonates with them, since many are older people with families, though obviously the competition with H1Bs is indirect due to citizenship requirements at defense contractors.

> but "lock her up" is a very real desire.

Given that Trump abandoned that almost immediately after being announced as President-Elect, how is that a reason to support him now?

1. Support and hate are relative. Given that the alternative was somebody they really really seriously want locked up, even a Trump who fails to carry that out is obviously preferred.

2. It's possible he said things in order to avoid encouraging a pardon.

I'm sure there are some tech workers who support Trump, but education seems to be one of the best predictors for who voted against Trump, and tech workers are probably on average better educated than the general populace...

The most educated also tend to cluster around areas where a Trump vote would have been a waste.

I wonder if the higher educated are also more prone to the "shy tory" effect.

The education correlation is also supported actual voting results, by seeing how voting results correlated with education levels in each voting region.

So it doesn't seem to be just an artifact of polling behavior.

But would an educated Trump voter in California or New York bother coming out to vote?

And turnout numbers for Democrats was lower than usual, so you are correct.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not if the hands have fallen off.

They've not fallen off, they're just really small.

I'm in favor of vastly raising the H1-B cap, or eliminating it altogether. But. If we are going to have an H1-B cap, I think awarding the visas to the highest-paid applicants is probably the most fair way to administer it. I know of no better way to objectively measure "in high demand" than "well-paid."

>I know of no better way to objectively measure "in high demand" than "well-paid."

Sure, if the entire US had uniform costs of living. However, it's only the Bay Area that has costs (and local competition and investors) that keep those salaries at their current heights.

Every other company not based in Southern California who can't find workers will suffer, whereas before they'd at least have a chance, albeit a slim one.

So with this requirement in place, sure, it'll be hard for Disney to sell out American jobs... but it'll also make sure that only Bay Area companies will be able to justify importing workers.

> Every other company not based in Southern California who can't find workers will suffer

Well they'll lose the advantage of being located somewhere with a low cost of living but I don't think I'd call it "suffering". Engineers in other areas should be able to produce as much value to the company as those in California and the company should be just as willing to pay for that value as a company in California.

Depends on the skill level and experience. 130,000 could be a senior developer / architect salary in parts of the Midwest. My company has paid contractors 5,000/week before.

Depending on what you consider senior (I've seen job listings that seem to use it to mean "anything that's not new grad"), that could be a salary in the valley.

I think a big problem with H1-B is that it's hard to switch jobs. While an American engineer can easily quit and go somewhere else, a non-resident is pretty much forced to leave the country. This makes the worker's bargaining position very weak, and overall lowers the market rate for immigrants.

It used to be hard to switch jobs under H1B, but that got fixed ~15 years ago. The visas are now pretty much transferrable to another employer.

What's still a problem is that Green Card applications are tied to a specific employer, so that clock will be reset any time you switch jobs.

Not really. AFAIK, after you obtained a priority date with an approved I-140, you can still switch job while keeping your priority date. But you need the new company to transfer H1-B and re-sponsor the GC application again given the job skills are matching.

OK. I'm out of the game since over 10 years, so my info is old.

H1Bs today have it so easy... Back in my day, we had to file all paperwork uphill in the snow!

Does this mean that any applicant can set their salary requirements at $300,000 and nobody else can be hired until they are?

I was wondering about this same thing. Highest paid doesn't equate to highest skilled at all.

The scheme seems more designed to punish companies from hiring immigrants than actually ensuring only high quality employees make their way to Silicon Valley.

Admittedly, I think increasing the $60,000 figure seems reasonable. It should be set at a figure (and updated regularly enough) such that it's slightly above the average wage in the industry. That way it's really targeting skilled workers, as opposed to cheap workers.

>The scheme seems more designed to punish companies from hiring immigrants than actually ensuring only high quality employees make their way to Silicon Valley.

I'd say you're exactly right (perhaps replace "punish" with "disincentivize" for more broad agreement), as concerns about the place of domestic labor in the face of foreign labor was the major campaign issue, rather than a desire on the part of the US electorate to refine/optimize the talent pool of Bay area international workers.

My understanding is that the $300,000 person already has a job locked down. An employer has already agreed to hire him for $300,000 as long as his H1B visa is approved. And since $300,000 is super high, it would get approved before any lower paid people.

So the process:

1) You have a job locked down with a company for a specific position at a specific salary. You + Company apply for an H1B.

2) All of those H1Bs are sorted by salary and the top N are selected. No random lottery anymore.

I think by highest paid applicant they meant have an auction system instead of a lottery system. The highest paid job offers up to the quota will get accepted instead of picking them randomly. But there is still issues like valuation of stock options in such offers. Also cash strapped startups may have a hard time against big companies like Google. Maybe it needs to be a combination of pay and some random factor?

I think it's totally fine if only base salary, guaranteed minimum bonus and maybe liquid stock options are used in the calculations. Most people here who had experience with startups wrote that non-founding employee options should be valued at 0 anyways. Also Google doesn't abuse workers like some startups do, so it adds extra safety to immigrants.

Something should be done as long as we hear stories like this from Disney and other companies: http://www.computerworld.com/article/3077302/it-careers/it-l...

There's a substantial difference between actions like that where they're clearly out-sourcing to slash costs and situations where you're trying to build an engineering team with top talent and want to tap the top 1% from all over the world, not just the local labor pool.

The reason there's a lot of foreign workers in the valley is becaus these companies poach the best. Just look at how many Canadian software engineering graduates are sponged up by Valley firms: It's a constant drain on talent. The Valley picks the best because in many cases the Valley can pay the best rates. This is not "We hired X because they were 50% cheaper than Y", it's "We hired X and Y because they're the best in their fields."

Attacking foreign workers as a whole is a serious problem. These firms want the best talent, and the best talent is not exclusively American.

Attacking deliberate undercutting efforts like Disney's is something that's reasonable. Disney had a team that could do the job that they cut loose so they could hire another cheaper team using foreign workers. That shouldn't be as easy to do as it is.

Don't think that slamming the door on foreign workers will magically make American salaries go up. It'll mean the average talent will go down, and salaries will be roughly the same for the same amount of talent anyway.

These companies will just open up satellite offices and hire foreign workers anyway. They just won't pay American taxes.

I suspect another reason that politicians are so eager to stomp on H1B workers is because they're an easy target: most people don't care, and the H1B workers themselves can't vote, so pandering to anti-foreigner hysteria is a good bet for a politician...

I think this is n-th hand reporting of the exact same draft executive order that has been out for weeks. It is just repeating speculation of other news sources as to what the actual reforms will be and losing some of the fact that it is mere speculation.

The draft circulated weeks ago merely says to investigate the program and propose to better protect American workers and prioritize hiring the best, with no concrete proposals.

Ok, but a more interesting question is that if it is true (or something very similar is in the works) is it a good idea?

I am finding the occasional reference to immigrant tech workers going back to their home countries and launching good teach business at home to be a positive thing. Seeing developing country with new tech scenes come around to solve their own local problems is inspiring to me. It gives me hope that tech really can change the world...

What about non-tech workers that come to the US through an H1-B? Scientists come to mind. If you don't have a PhD, your starting salary isn't going to exceed $100K. Are they just out of luck?

There's already a good number of US-citizen PhDs in non-CS/"tech" fields who are being underutilized. Perhaps such moves will help prioritize them and adjust some of the supply/demand issues.

Not all PhDs are equal. You're not hiring them to flip burgers at McDonald's

That's a gross generalization. Plenty of unique overseas talent could not be utilized at $100k minimum. Translators, for example.

Outside of very high cost of living cities, probably yes

Two questions (one fact-based, one opinion)

1. This article notes that the various proposed H1B reforms would require (for some definition of require) that companies make an effort to hire Americans before offering positions to visa workers. Isn't this already a requirement?

2. I agree $60,000 is a very low minimum. But how is $130,000 reasonable? Even in this industry that's a significant salary.

> I agree $60,000 is a very low minimum. But how is $130,000 reasonable? Even in this industry that's a significant salary.

I think the point is that the minimum should be far above what you'd expect to pay for a US worker, to add solid monetary incentive to hire locally first.

If the average salary for a "highly skilled" worker is $90k (seems reasonable) but you've attempted to find a US worker at an unusually high $130k (as you're required to do) and not found one, it ensures that your imported worker is not competing against the average local talent.

> 2. I agree $60,000 is a very low minimum. But how is $130,000 reasonable? Even in this industry that's a significant salary.

The current administration is businesspeople. They know $130k sounds too high, it's anchoring for negotiations. It'll go lower.

But also it's kind of the point of the reform being pushed, right? If somehow $130k is passed, it will obviously disqualify most foreign workers from acquiring these visas, and maybe the current quota of visas wouldn't be met. Then the quota may be lowered in the future, further limiting the visa program.

The 130k minimum was proposed by a Democratic congresswoman, not the administration.

There is a requirement to hire Americans first but there are loop holes and shenanigans. One is that the wage offered is too low so no qualified American applies b/c they are already making more. I guess that this is what the 130k would fix. Jobs are advertised in weird ways either internally (a paper print out on a board in a company room somewhere). And you have the job interview itself which can always be gamed.

What are ways companies skirt L1 laws? I always assumed offshoring was done through a country with the laxest visa laws possible.

The L1 has no quota so it is used to get around the H1B quota. They just have to form a shell company in the other country, have employees stick around for an year and then come over under the L1 visa. There are no education requirements unlike an H1B. There are no prevailing wage requirements unlike an H1B.

> They just have to form a shell company in the other country, have employees stick around for an year and then come over under the L1 visa.

That does not sound easy as you make it out to be.

Not easy but if you are hiring enough employees then it can be cost effective.

Isn't this the same "leaked executive" order that was being discussed few days back ? This news items has nothing new. Also, government's "American First" approach would always result into another mess like "war on drugs". Somehow American workers should come first but not the American company!

> Raising tech salaries and reducing the ridiculous exploitation of immigrant tech workers is good.

Why not raise it to $200K or another arbitrary number if increasing wages are a good thing ? All increased wages would mean american corporations will be less competitive and hence it hurts average American consumer who perhaps is more poorer than the tech worker.

I sense "American First" is more of a "No Browns and Asians" that is likely to hurt entire tech industry.

There is clearly need for reform here. Careful thought and a deep understanding of what is good for tech, and for workers, should both be considered. Unfortunately, careful thought and deep understanding is not what this administration has shown itself to be about.

The H1-B program isn't just about techies. Translators, for example, might not demand a $130,000 salary, yet the top talent will often be foreign.

I'm sure Trump would like SV to form a movement behind this, much like the inroads he's trying to make with various tech leaders. It's just not as simple as looking at one type of worker and calling it a day.

Any changes to such a policy would need to be properly vetted across all industries.

Cringley discussed the L-1B issue on Feb 6:

http://www.cringely.com/2017/02/06/trumps-upcoming-move-h-1b...

L-1B suppresses wages more than H-1B because it is not transferable. Not getting any raises? Only option is to go back home or accept it.

I'm sure the lawyers will figure out how to abuse the L1 if H1B reforms are brought in. At least on the IT consulting side.

there is nothing about trump's plans in this article. 130k and everything else were bills introduced by senators. they have very little chance of becoming law.

Won't this push companies to hire remote workers as contractors instead for even lower salaries?

This. Many people (usually on the right) argue that increased minimum wages cost people jobs because companies that rely on low-wage, low-skilled will simply automate, because the companies are going to follow basic economic principles. A high wage barrier to H1B workers makes hiring overseas workers more attractive, and if companies can get the model working well (where offshore tech teams do a great job), that's worse in the long run for American tech workers.