The system needs to address 2 issues:
1. Real advance skilled labor, not menial skills 2. Fair distribution. Companies need to get a fair shot to get what they need and no single company ought to be allowed to hog the permits
1. Real advance skilled labor, not menial skills 2. Fair distribution. Companies need to get a fair shot to get what they need and no single company ought to be allowed to hog the permits
Better question, if there are 100 visas allowed, and 80 experts needed for software, and 50 experts needed for bio, then how do you compare software experts vs bio experts? What metric do you use to justify someone is more of an expert overall? It is apples and oranges.
Arguably, the most effective justification is that experts in X are compensated higher, therefore they must extract more value for the US economy, than experts in Y. A simple sort on minimum-guaranteed-salary seems best.
However, this stops being the case if we have no cap. But a limitless H1B systems is not a likely reality.
Example: Sound designers and sound mixers typically do not make a six figure salary in the US. The industry is essential to many fields, including advertising, theater, television, etc.
Supply/Demand is also a function of how much the employer has to pay.
Conversely, if a for-profit company claims that they are "essential to the economy", but make so little profits that they can't afford H1B visas, I'd be extremely skeptical of such claims. It undermines the entire premise of a free-market economy.
But more importantly, you haven't then answered my question.
> Better question, if there are 100 visas allowed, and 80 experts needed for software, and 50 experts needed for bio, then how do you compare software experts vs bio experts? What metric do you use to justify someone is more of an expert overall? It is apples and oranges.
You might find that without any cyclical dependencies, it is really hard to define "crucial" without ending up on "provide most value". And when discussing jobs which "provide most value" you are forced into a corner accepting that the highest paid positions are the ones which the market has determined as "providing most value".
==== Fair distribution. Companies need to get a fair shot to get what they need and no single company ought to be allowed to hog the permits reply
This sounds like you have an issue with "free market" economics. You seem to be arguing from the point of view of an idealist, not a pragmatist. I'm a pragmatist. Sadly, I'm not sure our conversation would amount to anything constructive.