Hacker News Reader

Comment by moon_of_moon | Hacker News Reader

If they made the H1-B system fairer for the immigrant workers, so that they their employability wasn't tied to a sponsorship, it would actually be better for American workers.

How?

Because H1-B employees cannot transfer out easily and live in fear of losing their jobs, because it means packing up and going home. (I can only imagine how much managerial abuse and in the worst case, sexual harassment this situation can lead to.) Employers love this arrangement, because it allows lower wages (the H1B worker isnt going to fight for a higher salary because he knows its dangerous to walk without another sponsor lined up.) and this pseudo indentured servitude arrangement makes for dependable employees.

Now if they took that away those restrictions, salaries would increase and employers would have no incentive to hire an immigrant over a local worker.

View on HN

Not that I'm in favor of the current system, but your argument is flawed.

How?

Loosening restrictions on sponsorships would invariably result in a net increase in the available labor pool, which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone. This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship. So, what you are really advocating is that people without jobs can remain in-country "off-visa". This is not the purpose of the H1-B program.

So, if you were to allow this, yet still keep the notion of H1-B sponsorship alive, then there would be the source of the net increase of available workers.

Now, you could make arguments about lowering the expense and friction involved for sponsoring companies, which would then increase the appeal of H1-B visa holders and make finding new sponsors easier. That would probably go further in the direction of increased salaries you mentioned, so long as you kept the visa-holder cap constant. But, of course, part of the reason for this cost/friction is to provide companies with incentives to source labor locally before looking to non-U.S. labor markets.

It's a complex problem with no easy solutions.

>>This is because the program as-is does not restrict people from changing jobs. It just requires a sponsorship.

It doesn't technically restrict them, but the window for changing jobs is so short that the employees are practically anchored to the employer.

In addition to the short window, changing jobs during H1B also resets the immigrant's place in the green card queue, which can cost them years and years of progress they have made towards permanent residency and citizenship.

You claim that if H1B workers could stay in the country without jobs, it would put downward pressure on wages. I disagree. The current system already places downward pressure: since H1B workers are anchored to their sponsor employer, they have close to zero leverage in salary negotiations. If they could change jobs freely and at their own leisure (during the course of their visa) then they could shop around and go to the highest paying employer.

You didn't process my comment fully.

I was referring to the downward pressure on all wages (and U.S. workers in particular), not those of H1-B holders. This (and my entire comment) was a rebuttal of the GP and should be read in that context. Having workers stay in the country without jobs increases labor supply, which means lower wages for U.S. workers, contrary to the GP's counter-intuitive assertion. It's simple supply and demand.

But, in general, what you're describing is not the intent of the H1-B program. The purpose of that program is to allow companies to "import" supplemental labor in certain specialty fields when there is no local talent available.

It is specifically a non-immigrant visa. However, people have subsequently come to view it as an immigration path and, hence the "binding" to a sponsor as unfair. But, if you go back to the original intent, the worker has agreed to enter the country at the pleasure of their sponsor.

Now, if you want to do away with the H1-B concept, allow companies to hire anyone from anywhere, and allow those workers to switch employers at will, then OK. But, you have to call it something else and assess the impact accordingly. That takes us back to increased labor supply and lower wages for all. There are people who don't like that idea.

It's obviously unpopular to say this, but that makes it no less true. And, if you really want to address the abuses or find a more equitable situation for visa holders, then you have to start by acknowledging the current reality.

>what you're describing is not the intent of the H1-B program

Why does the "intent of the H1-B program" matter to anybody?

Because the intent of the program informs its structure, and its structure informs the agreement under which visa holders participate.

The original intent of the H1B program does not matter. It was created for a specific purpose but has since evolved to fulfill other goals. What matters is that, ultimately, it is in the USA's best interest to have skilled and educated people from all over the world to join its population and contribute to its economy. It is one of the mechanisms through which it can stay ahead of other countries. That's why the H1B program has become one of the paths to citizenship.

What it has not evolved into is an unconditional, open door to citizenship or permanent residence.

Sorry, but if you want to fix the problems created by the program, then you have to scrap it and call the new thing something else. But, as long as it is tethered to filling specialty needs of certain companies as the core justification for holders being in-country, then you have sponsorship. And, with sponsorship comes the problems many decry.

I'm not sure why any of this is controversial. The program itself may be controversial, but simply stating what it is ought not to be.

>>What it has not evolved into is an unconditional, open door to citizenship or permanent residence.

It isn't an unconditional open door. That's why there's a separate application process for Green Card that's independent from the work visa, and not everyone is accepted.

>It isn't an unconditional open door. That's why there's a separate...

That is exactly my point.

H-1B is a dual intent program. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_intent :

    Dual intent is a United States immigration law concept. It generally 
    refers to the fact that certain U.S. visas allow foreigners to be 
    temporarily present in the U.S. with lawful status and immigrant 
    intent. This allows those visa holders, particularly H-1B 
    professionals, to enter the U.S. while simultaneously seeking 
    lawful permanent resident status (green card status) at a port 
    of entry. Otherwise, visa holders may be presumed to have 
    immigrant intent and can be kept from entry (summarily excluded) 
    as a matter of law.

That's a slightly different interpretation of the intent to which I was referring. I was speaking to the genesis of the program.

But, in this context, let's just say that immigration is not the primary intent, and the secondary intent is conditioned upon the primary.

More specifically, the "lawful status" that prefaces immigration is conditioned upon sponsorship.

> In addition to the short window, changing jobs during H1B also resets the immigrant's place in the green card queue, which can cost them years and years of progress they have made towards permanent residency and citizenship.

The place is line is left intact. But the immigrant has to start over the green card process, which can get arbitrarily delayed due to any number of bureaucratic reasons. This adds needless friction to the job market.

I'm seeing downvotes, but no valid rebuttals. I suppose the truth is uncomfortable for some.

I suppose the main rebuttal is that, if the program enforced an earning requirement of > $100k (or so depending on state) regardless of position, it would not affect a net increase in the available labor pool for a large section of workers.

>...which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone

This is a common misconception about the H1B program.

In order to be approved for sponsorship, the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens who are for working the same job in the same area. If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule, then you're only creating your own hypothetical problems.

Ideally as long as the prevailing wage rule is in place and enforcement (like in this article) works, then there shouldn't be a need for artificial restrictions like the lottery - and you won't have wages being driven down.

>the immigrant needs to be paid more than citizens

Not exactly: "You must be paid at least the actual or prevailing wage for your occupation, whichever is higher." [0]

See [1] for info in your area, and you'll understand the potential for taking some latitude with this rule.

>If you're going to propose that "loosening" the restrictions means removing this one rule...

Not sure who is proposing loosening this one rule. My point to the GP was only that removing or significantly loosening the sponsorship rule would not lead to an increase in wages for all, as he/she claimed.

[0] https://www.uscis.gov/eir/visa-guide/h-1b-specialty-occupati...

[1] http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesWizardStart.aspx

The point still stands that the immigrants are getting paid at least what citizens are getting paid, which means wages are not going to get driven down.

No. The point doesn't still stand. It never stood.

All else held constant, increased labor supply means lower wages for all. So, the prevailing wage goes down for everyone. Sure, companies have to pay everyone equally, so everyone just gets paid less.

It's simple supply and demand. I think some are taking these simple statements of fact as some sort of anti-immigrant rant or advocacy of the current H1-B policy. It's not. But, if you want to fix it, you first have to understand it.

It is a pretty simple supply and demand curve, but again you're intentionally ignoring the facts about prevailing wage (PW) and operating under the same misconception.

H1B visas are only increasing supply for jobs that pay above the PW, not "all" jobs. That means that there is not additional supply for below PW jobs. If anything, the PW goes up because of the increased liquidity for supplying above average wages. This problem you're trying to fabricate is precisely what the PW rule successfully prevents.

The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself?

Edit: I seem to have hit a nerve - You've replied three different times to the same thing and are incoherent at this point. I guess you're still trying to convince yourself there's a problem?

>the problem is you're still operating under the same misconception that all demand is met by H1B supply (which is false)

>H1B visas are only approved for the average or above average job wage

>Hence wages are not going to go down because there is no supply for below-average wages.

Wow. This is pretty tortured logic.

OK, what I am saying is that when you increase the supply of workers in an industry, the wages in that industry will go down. Whether it's a high or low wage industry, the wages will go lower.

Until now, I haven't been speaking to the impact on wages in other industries, however, I fail to see how decreased wages in one industry would not lead to a decrease in the overall cross-industry wage average. It's simple math.

In fact, the impact of higher wage earners losing a percentage of their income would have an outsized deleterious effect on overall wages vs. lower wage workers losing that same percentage.

EDIT: You've updated your comment three or four times, and you seem to be contorting a bit. So, I will just leave my comment as-is along with the quotes from one of your previous revisions.

>The question I think needs answering is why are you still trying to make this a problem? Who are you trying to convince - me or yourself

You've been twisting, contorting, and re-editing ferociously in your war on basic economic theory.

And now, I'm making your misunderstanding of supply and demand a problem?

Oy vey.

>you're intentionally ignoring the facts about prevailing wage (PW)

>H1B visas are only increasing supply for jobs that pay above the PW, not "all" jobs

Wait, I think I see part of what's going on here: you're completely confused about how the term "prevailing wage" plays into this context.

Look up what the requirement really means. It's linked in one of my comments above.

>I seem to have hit a nerve - You've replied three different times to the same thing and are incoherent at this point. I guess you're still trying to convince yourself there's a problem?

Yes, you're absolutely right. And this comment makes it four responses, so that means you must be extra-right. There's simply no other explanation.

So, you obviously completely understand now. Very impressive!

> Loosening restrictions on sponsorships would invariably result in a net increase in the available labor pool, which would put downward pressure on wages for everyone.

The labour market doesn't work like that..

How so? Isnt this just a typical supply and demand issue?

People usually consume a significant part of their income, so they create more demand.

Also, aggregate demand has more to do with central bank policies than the real economy.

Yes, in each particular occupation, an influx of people willing to work for less might lower salaries in that occupation (compare game programing vs CRUD apps; or magazine journalism vs lawyers), but that doesn't exert downward pressure on everyone's wages.

In addition, if it's easy to start up new competing companies, the employers are forced to pass on the savings.

It works exactly that way. Walmart employees get paid less because supply (everyone is qualified to do this job) outstrips demand and walmart can then just pick the cheapest applicants.

In the tech industry the opposite happens. Demand is higher than supply so you're forced to hire somebody who already has a job. The only way to convince them to switch is by paying them more than they already make.

Of course it does. Care to explain why you think it doesn't?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com