So you're argument is that it's impossible for their to be an actual shortage of US workers unless the salary exceed $100K?
We live in a capitalist society where price is how you communicate demand. Now, if you are willing to pay X times median wage in the US and still can't find people then perhaps there is an argument. But, saying you can't find people when you are not willing to go that far suggests you are not willing to pay market wages.
PS: And yes I chose an undefined X, because there is no clear point when that happens. However, a reasonable lower bound for that X is probably ~3-5.
And then what? Yes, an Alabama community collage can't pay for a language teacher, that's a fairly normal problem for community collages. It does not suggest there is somehow a market failure.
PS: I think you miss understood my upper bound. I doubt people want an immigration policy based on filling any jobs that pays more than ~30k/year.
I don't see what "market failure" has to do with the H1B at all. Just because the market worked correctly doesn't imply that the outcome was desirable.
Some distant collage may chose to pay for such a teacher and then gain students from the community collage who want that instruction. So, in that context your community collage bringing in the H-1B may end up costing an American a job. It could also depress wages for teaching that language discouraging other students from learning it thus extending the shortage over time. Alternatively, the demand may simply not be there for the language at which point the collage is better off paying for a different type of instruction that more students want.
In the end your H-1B is clearly a boon for that collage. However, if may end up hurting the country overall.
The H-1B system short circuits that mechanism. The salary doesn't rise, and young people are savvy enough to realize once an industry starts using foreign workers it never will.
Voila! Permanent shortage of Americans willing to do that job.
It might be a better outcome for native translators who see higher demand increase their salaries. The market has to be fair for all participants. Salary will never increase with demand, if increases in demand are always undermined by bringing in H1B workers.
The supply of gold is huge if I am willing to pay above market rates. If I want a conductive metal I am going to chose something other than gold in the vast majority of cases because of price. In the case of gold the price is based on both demand and resource extraction costs.
Moving to the workforce, students pick jobs in part because of what they will pay. Over time this feedback loop combines with demand and other factors to set a clearing price for the industry. If a job pays less than 100k that's a very big sign that people are choosing to do something else because of pay not the jobs inherent difficulties.
Now what happens if you try and subsidize an industry with H1B's. Let's say you add 50% as many H1B as people working in the field for a huge effect. Well in the short term wages fall and people either find something else, but more importantly students study something else. Fast forward 20 years, the market price is a little lower but not by that much even though lots of H1B's are now doing that job' you still need to entice a lot of US workers. Meanwhile close to 1:1 with those H1B's, US students have moved into other fields.
Thus, unless you are going to have most people in an industry be H1B's trying to help out an industry shortfall with some H1B quota is not that useful and simply subsidizes an industry for minimal benefit.
PS: Even defining things based on job is tricky. I need a Doctor what's the price for that, type: surgeon, type of surgeon: cosmetic. Now a hospital that can fill out generalist one level up can get a discount. Even industry gets tricky as a school may need a doctor for example.
You can't explain things based on an entire economy without taking into account the entire economy, and all it's parts and interactions; much like, say, blood-sugar levels in the body involve multiple organs.
If you focus on one area of the economy, you must avoid those 'non-local' attributes, unless you are willing to do this. If you analyse the attributes of any local economic part enough, you will eventually hit upon a non-local attribute; Hence, any analysis eventually hits this roadblock.
Back to context, the specific effect of H1B visas, on national salary is complicated, because salary not only is non-local, but involves the silent interactions of supply vs demand across and outside the nation. You'll hit all sorts of GM-like fallacies if your analysis is too shallow.
This is why it is necessary to take it, almost as 'faith', in the mechanics of the market; A true analysis of market principles is a complex process indeed, most people can only take them on faith at some level. Even mathematicians accept some (personally) unchecked axioms.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window
If, on the other hand there is no difference, then the visa is justified.
Uh, or you know, you can't afford it?
IMO, that's the crux of the issue. Yes, the clearing price for some jobs mean people are expensive; making some business nonviable. But, that does not inherently mean there is a shortage.
The CEO of the theoretical company is always welcome to put in an extra 30 hours a week and reap the extra economic value.