The reality that I observe with H1Bs among a couple of my friends who are here on one is: They are paid less, they dislike their jobs, and they feel a tremendous inability to find a new one.
H1Bs are figuratively a policy disconcertingly similar to slave labor.
Much of this election cycle has been about the schism between the ground truth people observe, and what we're being told by the elites; the economy is good, but many people are struggling, stuff like that. H1Bs are that for me. Everyone says we need them, that our industry would be screwed without them; but what I see is a program which exists only to prop up unsustainable companies on the backs of cheap indentured labor; it does not serve the interests of the American people. The vast majority go to companies like Accenture; trash consulting companies.
Immigration is America's superpower. Temporary migrant workers are not immigration. The goal of every foreign worker entering America should be citizenship, every migrant worker program should pose citizenship as the outcome, and if it would be politically/economically unsustainable to do that the program should not exist.
I think America's natural resources are its superpower personally. Immigration has historically been important in setting up systems for extracting these resources however I think whether its good at a given time needs to be justified every time.
As global birthrates decline, as they are, nations which can consistently and willingly integrate immigrants have a huge cultural superpower. America does this better than any nation; we're the only nation on the planet that someone can come to and "become" our nationality. As an American; I can (with difficulty) move to Japan, but I cannot become Japanese; I can't become Australian; I can't become British, German, Chinese, or Indian; but people from those countries may come to America and become, in every sense of the word, American. That's a superpower. It might change over time, but its still true today.
When you combine that superpower with our insane natural resources; our insane oceanic coverage on the west and east borders; and our cultural and governmental bias toward personal freedom; there's simply no alternate reality or predictable-term future where America isn't a global leader.
Some parts of the country you can "become American". My wife is a naturalized citizen from a former colony nation, and some places we travel people make it clear that they feel she is not a "real American" despite almost no accent and having lived here twice as long as where she was born.
Ironically, DC makes me feel that way the most, where I routinely have to suffer the indignity explaining to people in professional contexts about my “diverse background” while they “ohh” and “ahh.”
I've heard that complaint from second gen immigrants. First gen don't seem to mind quite as much. (Just my observation - my wife also holds this view)
Performative interest in diversity is condescending and othering. Well, performative interest period can be condescending and othering, regardless of the topic.
I’m first gen so I actually think of myself as less American than say my wife, whose ancestors came over before the revolutionary war. So I’m not offended that someone might view me that way. I just don’t see the point of making me discuss that in a professional setting. It’s like “dance for us, foreigner!”
There's one other way. While "demographic collapse" is an overwrought problem, relative demographic advantage (a country having more favorable demographics for growth) is an area we can optimize for, and immigration (as well as child-positive culture) are a great way to ensure economic growth when dialed in properly.
Child positive growth only serves to further the Ponzi-esque post New Deal-esque Social Security apparatus. It is no more stable/sustainable than reliance on H-1B's. Until we break the Ponzi structure, all we're doing is gaslighting the next generation.
It should be possible to make a sustainable SS-like system. I recently did an interesting calculation using the SS taxes on my pay over my career so far.
If the SS taxes from my pay had each month been been put in an account that invested in 1-year T-bills at whatever the current rate was at the start of that month, and when T-bills matured they were rolled over into new T-bills, the amount in that account now would be enough to cover what my monthly benefit would be if I retired now for the rest of the expected lifespan of a US person of my age and sex.
I also did a similar calculation with the Medicare taxes from my pay. That account would have enough that if put toward monthly premiums on a decent insurance plan from the ACA marketplace in my state the amount I'd have to contribute monthly is close to the amount of the current Medicare premium.
Perhaps. Or it can be reformed.
Most my retirement savings comes from averaged market growth.
Kids are the future - having kids shouldn't be a burden. Most people will have only a few kids if given the chance, not 10.
Depends on your age, I guess. It's not like I manage my portfolio myself. I defer to e.g., Vanguard and they do what they do and I just watch the balance periodically. Once I get near retirement, I'll start reinvesting accordingly.
Honest question... is the Twitter screenshot[1] of Amazon jobs in Arlington VA enough to conclude that their H1B is specifically about low-wage warehouse jobs?
Because Arlington VA also has these software engineering jobs:
[1] >@drsuffy: Anyways Amazon just had 9,200 Warehouse jobs be approved for H1B for 2024. Yes. Because "retail trade"(warehouse labor) is the best of the best and definitely can't be filled by your average American : https://x.com/drsuffy/status/1872679207991669109
The richest man in the world, who just fired 90% of his employees and plans on cutting the Department of Education saying Americans are too stupid so we need to remove the caps on indentured labor is the most amusing thing I've seen in a really long time.
Immigration is America's greatest asset, followed closely by the vast oceans that shield our capital from any threats. H1B should be replaced by an auction system that lets in the top paid employees and converts to a green card after one year with the company.
> “It comes down to this: do you want America to WIN or do you want America to LOSE,” Mr Musk posted on X. “If you force the world’s best talent to play for the other side, America will LOSE. End of story.”
> The world’s richest person later clarified, however, that he only advocated bringing in the top “0.1 per cent of engineering talent”.
It's funny, looks like, at a meta level this also explains both my burning hatred for Twitter (even before Musk) and why Musk doesn't give a fuck about this context issue :
> “Are people really dumb enough to think they can convince Elon Musk, an immigrant to the United States who has generated untold wealth and national security advantage for our economy and nation out of thin air, that high skilled immigration is bad for Americans? Like, seriously?” Mr Nelson wrote.
> “My tolerance for subtards is limited,” Mr Musk replied.
I can certainly see how this philosophy can work wonders at his level. And even produce tremendous improvements for *everyone : an invention has a one-time cost, but a "forever" benefit.
Still, even Musk needs a society that is liberal enough to produce the kind of people that can reach for the stars, and an environment pristine enough that something like an industrial civilization is possible. He would do well to not jeopardize these...
Vivek Ramaswamy recently said that we need "more movies like Whiplash, fewer reruns of Friends."
He (and presumably Musk) think that a society of Terence Fletcher overlords and Andrew Neiman whipping boys is an ideal to strive for, not a cautionary tale.
This is what happens when you don't get any exposure to the liberal arts.
> The richest man in the world, who just fired 90% of his employees
This isn't true. Best I can guess you are referencing the company formerly-known-as-twitter. The 90% number refers to software engineers, not employees and only applies to one of several companies that Musk runs.
EDIT: in general, my point is that he practically triggered mass layoffs at large companies by being so vocal about doing it at twitter. A ton of investors were celebrating it after and pushing companies to do the same.
>EDIT: in general, my point is that he practically triggered mass layoffs at large companies by being so vocal about doing it at twitter. A ton of investors were celebrating it after and pushing companies to do the same.
His acquisition was in October 2022. Job postings started dropping off in May 2022. It was already leveling off as early as February 2022. You'd have to squint really hard to believe this was caused by musk, or that he played a major factor.
> in general, my point is that he practically triggered mass layoffs at large companies by being so vocal about doing at twitter. A ton of investors were celebrating it after and pushing companies to do the same.
That's an interesting claim, and one I'd be curious to see a more detailed argument for. I'm sure it had an impact, but arguing it had a larger impact than the prevailing market conditions seems hard. The massive overhiring in the year or two before seems like the obvious culprits for the majority of the mass layoffs.
I see a lot of hyperbolic and flat out false things said about Musk. I push back on them because I think that people's habitual innaccuracy when he is involved tends to make the real criticism of him harder.
It is too politically loaded for people to examine.
In the simple terms, as per the title, it is protectionism. Without making an argument for either position, it seems a bit hypocritical when tariff critics, "You know this means the consumer will pay more, right?", reverse their position and demand protectionism for labor.
Of course there is much more nuance. Many H1Bs are not the mega-geniuses proponents allege. I lose interest when the argument turns towards IQ distributions and ID politics.
"Wage theft" is a bit spicy as well. Are employees entitled to their job at a given wage as some kind of Nativist birth right?
Comedian Sam Hyde had some interesting takes. I'm not convinced of his position, but he did well to illustrate how the dialogue around this issue isn't getting us there.
We need to have an honest conversation about not only the economic aspect, but the cultural aspect as well. We know that key cultural traits like social trust persist for generations in immigrants: https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran.... What is the effect of importing H1B workers, who are mostly elites back home, into the U.S. where many of them or their children attain positions of power over Americans?
My extended family has been extremely successful as immigrants from Bangladesh to Canada, the U.S., and Australia. But temperamentally, even the second generation folks are still basically Desi. They lack the egalitarianism and conscientiousness of Anglo Americans, and retain much of the “everyone for themselves” from back home. Ross Douthat wrote a fascinating article about the ramifications of this change: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/05/opinion/george-bush-wasps...
> They lack the egalitarianism and conscientiousness of Anglo Americans
I'm sorry, but egalitarianism is not a trait I would attribute to Anglo Americans. America is a very selfish nation, built on selfish ideals. You'll have communities that aren't, but they aren't Anglo Americans: it's mostly germano-americans, maybe Acadians, or Swedish/Norwegian late immigrants communities. And probably Sikhs recent immigrants, although I'm not sure about that.
I think it is important to distinguish between individualism vs. collectivism and selfish vs. altruistic. Egalitarian ideals are something different again. The US is highly individualistic. The founding documents are explicitly egalitarian.
Those two things aren’t in contradiction. Egalitarianism refers to equality of opportunity regardless of social class: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egalitarianism. That’s distinct from believing everyone has a communal responsibility to take care of each other.
E.g. Desi culture is communal—people lean on each other for support. But it’s not egalitarian—social class, family reputation, and even birth order are important in social interactions. I have cousins that married above their league because our family reputation carries weight back in our town. Americans by contrast are not communal. The difference is especially stark within extended families, where the bonds of mutual support are very weak. But they are egalitarian. Nobody cares about your family reputation.
Egalitarianism is one of the things that makes America so attractive for immigration. Immigrants by definition have no spot in established familial hierarchies. In a society where that matters, immigrants can’t get to the top.
Looking for a "right" answer here is a lost cause. These are preference- and value-based policies, and we just have to cohere around a set of values that drive our policies. If it was framed in terms of "I value this" then the moral defensiveness would probably subside a little.
It is my opinion that any argument against a native birthright to work and collectively demand the peak wage you can get is a fools errand. It just seems a natural extension of labor unions to have the whole country itself block access to jobs for foreign workers, to the extent that it does not subsequently drive ourselves out of a job through non-competitiveness. USA (arguably!) does not have a competitiveness problem yet in tech. But it also fits with the value of competition to have foreign workers enable our own businesses to succeed, such that they enable it through irreplaceable innovation, rather than wage suppression. Stealing scientists makes sense. Importing cheap labor does not.
So, on paper, it fits with my values. In practice, that's another problem, and that's where we can change it.
> "Wage theft" is a bit spicy as well. Are employees entitled to their job at a given wage as some kind of Nativist birth right?
"Entitled" and "Nativist birth right" is loaded language that I think you're using to discredit valid labor concerns. Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on, although opinions on what that level is or how best to accomplish it vary considerably. Having to compete with the slave labor of authoritarian regimes isn't right. Having to compete with indentured servants on H1B visas isn't right. These things are good for corporations, but as Sam Hyde pointed out, they make America worse.
I was an H1B, but I most certainly didn't feel indentured. Nor did other recruiters who wanted to talk to me.
I did actually end up moving back to Denmark, but that's another story.
I think my point is that even for Europeans that have competitive job offers elsewhere, H1B is still the easiest visa, if you want to work on the US.
I'll admit I think I mostly did it for the experience -- it was fun, I learned a lot -- but it's not like I couldn't have gotten the same job in Europe or Canada. I probably could, probably even with the same employer. I did even work remotely a few months from Denmark before my H1B kicked in.
I would be sad to see H1B go, I had a lot of fun. And if I wanted to stay I'm confident I would have found a green card sponsor with ease.
It's inaccurate insofar as as the indentured servitude of the 19th century was actually a proper path to citizenship while the new form officially is not, with participants only hoping to have a shot at citizenship if they get lucky with other visa applications. Otherwise, it binds workers to their employer in a way that facilitates wage suppression and other labor abuse. That's why it's indentured servitude.
Good luck finding a new employer willing to sponsor your H1B within just 60 days (the grace period allowed before self-deportation) in this job market.
Additionally, switching employers resets your green card approval process (if it has started), which can take years. This serves as a significant disincentive to change employers unless you've already filed your I-485. Considering that an H1B worker has only 6 years to progress through this process, there is even more pressure to avoid changing employers.
>Most people besides techy libertarians with empathy trouble generally think that workers should be getting paid enough to get by on
I think everyone will agree that workers, or anyone else for that matter should live comfortable lives. The question is how and who? Should those poor souls slaving away under an authoritarian regime be given a chance to escape to greener pastures?
The question of wages is well outlined, but more concerning is the purchasing power of those wages. This relates directly to productivity, specialization and the cost of goods.
As for the concept of nativist birth right entitlement, for myself, I must start somewhere with first principles. Perhaps you have an alternative method of reasoning that you might outline for us.
Many here take libertarianism to be some kind of Gordon Gecko caricature, or perhaps the Monopoly Man comes to mind. Yet if they propose that the state take matters (authoritarian regime?) into its own hands with central planning, they assume it to be a purely altruistic endeavor. Regulatory capture and a host of other malign incentives are lying in wait.
Please don't assume a lack of empathy. It is simply a different approach to solving the problem of how workers or anyone else can prosper in an economy.
It's not the libertarianism that's the problem, it's the assumption that, at scale, humans are fungible. Your "first principles" should include the presumption that "countries are the way they are because of their citizens." So the question is not just whether a given individual "deserves" to live in more or less comfortable circumstances. It's also: what happens when you import a large number of people from a place with an authoritarian regime to a democracy?
well said, this debate is too emotional to have a balanced conversation. Overall h1b issue is a dichotomy - like with many such hot-button issues - with both sides right about the other side, but wrong about themselves.
I am not sure about the claim by one tweet cited in the article that the approved number per year is exceeding the limit of 85k to 800k. I understand that the limit can be exceeded (transfers and academic positions mainly) but I am not sure that would give x10 increase above the limit.
Does anyone with more understanding and good numbers weight in about that?
85k is new visas. Old visas need renewal every few years and that needs a new application and approval. In addition, if a visa holder changes their job, they need to transfer their visa to the new employer. That also counts.
No matter what the real numbers are, the 85k ceiling is strictly enforced, meaning the program introduces up to 85k new people per year, excluding their dependents. Their dependents cannot work in the US though.
The H1B system sucks for everyone but the employer, which is kind of the point.
I have watched brilliant young devs have to jump through the OPT hoops in hopes of finally getting an H1B to live out their startup dream. I have also met H1Bs who have the mental acuity of a mildewy scone.
There needs to be a difficult, but fair and clear path to citizenship.
You don't need H1B for citizenship. Applying for EB2 green card is not dependent on work visas. However, most companies only sponsor green cards after the worker passes the H1B lottery.
Whenever the H-1B visas come up, I always remember this old video(1) and Disney hiring foreign IT workers to replace its American workers and asking the American workers to train them(2). Companies will always abuse the system and find loopholes, just like rich people often find ways to avoid taxes.
It is not valid to use the number of workers got laid off vs the number of new H1B visas applied in the same company to argue that foreign labor is replacing US workers. You just don't know how many H1B owners are laid off.
What is the point and purpose of the body shops? What's the value proposition for people contracting with them instead of a more straightforward offshore contracting arrangement? Who is hiring them?
"Live, work, spend, pay taxes" is valuable from the perspective of the government, but what's the point of keeping them local from the point of view of the company hiring the body shop? You can't use them to work on government stuff, which tends to require citizenship, so if it's just regular business, you could offshore them, and not pay the "rent in New Jersey" tax.
What’s the point? To brag how jobs remain in the US and MAGA.
It makes sense to a certain extent. You need to secure the infrastructure for that particular job to remain in your country but you want cheaper labor.
From an employer perspective it shifts the balance of power. Those pesky citizens, they change jobs, have all these rights and demands… The visa is tied to the employer. The visa holder cannot just change an employer without the new employer applying for a new visa.
Don’t like your job? Suck it up. Boss is a bully? Suck it up. Underpaid for your skills? Suck it up. Otherwise leave the country within 60 days max.
If that's the case would you not expect there to me more European H-1Bs, the reasoning being that if these VISAs are not merit based but gaming the system, then why aren't Europeans taking advantage of this opportunity to get a 2x/3x salary bump, and loads more growth opportunities? What am I missing?
As an Australian, I could easily earn at least twice what I earn here in the US, but no amount of money would entice me to put up with dealing with your healthcare system or to subject my kids to "active shooter drills" at school.
I lived in Europe for close to a decade, and I can assure you many Europeans share this sentiment.
Weirdly enough, I grew up an Americophile, watching Beverly Hills 90210 while reading about Jefferson and Washington as a teenager. To this day I have a picture of Abe Lincoln on my wall.
Because a 2x bump isn't perceived to be enough to justify all the drawbacks and hoops : extra cost of living (healthcare, travel), being treated as a second class citizen, and of course the H1B lottery.
Because Europeans don’t want to work 60-80hrs/week. Many don’t want to leave home. And the ones which do, are a minority. Thus you see low percentages of h1b go to europeans
Do all H1Bs really work 60-80 hours weeks? This is an honest question I find this very surprising. Also are the American colleagues of these H1B employees working significantly less hours, how does this work in practice?
In my experience, yes. Over the years I was involuntarily tasked to manage H1Bs. During onboarding, they always tell me things like they are happy to pull all nighters on my whim. I tried to be professional. I told them I am not tracking when they come to the office or when they leave. I don’t check who is logged in after hours. I only care if their stories especially critical ones are being blocked.
A director gently reprimanded me for my naivety and said his standard practice is to always promise dinner in the office and dinner is always late like 9PM. He expected a 996 culture in the US.
Ok. How has this worked out long term? Were the H1B indentured employees fully segregated from American employees? How was the attitude and collaboration from both sides?
As you would expect. The best non H1B workers started quitting. The teams who had H1B and non H1B working from 9AM to 9PM delivered a Frankenstein system that broke everyday. My little team delivered something that wasn’t as shitty. Eventually the powers that be had enough. The Director and his boss were let go and the entire crew of H1Bs were given their walking papers. Some departments still have H1B but through a different staffing agency.
I had a friend here on a visa whose boss definitely committed wage theft, making anyone who was not a citizen or on a green card work extra hours for no overtime. He was not even a techie. This is apparently very common.
That is before you even get into the "body shops" which I find quite believable.
In his case, he was not on an H1B, but whatever it is people from Japan tend to get. He was tied to the employer for his visa, but the market was fine at the time. In 2008/2009 (I forget) he won he green card lottery, and immediately all that overtime he was asked to put in stopped. This was after being told his company would sponsor him for a green card if he stayed there 5 years (and then reneged on that - his boss saying "I never said that").
There was a bit of cultural exploitation as well - Japanese workers were expected to put in 12 hour days (it was a Japanese company) even though the bosses weren't all Japanese. It was surreal to hear about - a Korean boss saying, "You have to work 12 hours, because you're Japanese".
This is just the stuff I recall. There was more I am forgetting as well. A fair bit has to be illegal I'm sure, and was back then even.
You'd have a hell of a time convincing anyone to take a US job if you had to leave your spouse and five-year-old behind. (Parents, siblings, and adult children aren't eligible for H-4 status.)
We were sold on H1-B's being extraordinary people working extraordinary jobs that Americans cannot fulfill, not a wage suppression indentured servitude program.
H1Bs are figuratively a policy disconcertingly similar to slave labor.
Much of this election cycle has been about the schism between the ground truth people observe, and what we're being told by the elites; the economy is good, but many people are struggling, stuff like that. H1Bs are that for me. Everyone says we need them, that our industry would be screwed without them; but what I see is a program which exists only to prop up unsustainable companies on the backs of cheap indentured labor; it does not serve the interests of the American people. The vast majority go to companies like Accenture; trash consulting companies.
Immigration is America's superpower. Temporary migrant workers are not immigration. The goal of every foreign worker entering America should be citizenship, every migrant worker program should pose citizenship as the outcome, and if it would be politically/economically unsustainable to do that the program should not exist.