Simple rule: At least 50% of your domestic workers need to be citizens or green card holders.
Unless the visa cap changes, we should just give visas to the 65k most highly paid workers. If you're in those top 65k then the US probably really needs you. Don't tie the visa to a particular employer and give people time to find a new job.
Location and industry are irrelevant.
If you're providing enough value to a company that they're willing to pay you that much then who cares if you're in San Francisco or Detroit.
If you're providing enough value that a company is willing to pay you that much then who cares if you're a manager, a software developer, or a sales person.
If nobody is willing to pay you that much then the market has spoken. We can have other visa programs for artists and other people whose work might not be as valuable.
I'm playing devil's advocate here a bit as I am not against government intervention, but it's a question that needs to be asked and answered
Any system is going to have winners and losers. As I said above, my company can't sponsor new H1Bs under the current regime. I suspect that your startup example can't take that gamble either.
Finally, there are always workarounds. Your hypothetical startup could hire the expert as a remote employee or if they're a true expert then other visas are available to them.
Simple rule: Don’t allow visas for client projects. If companies need people let them hire directly at market rates.
It’s weird that you work with organization A and your paycheck comes from organization B.
Little things that can make the program better, and avoid the current abuse from some the bodyshops, and make it work for actual real talent/great engineers
A one-size-fits-all solution might very well not exist.
That number is not tracked directly, but it's about a million or so, all at significantly higher wages than the median US personal income of $31,099/y.
https://qz.com/949589/the-h-1b-visa-cap-tells-you-very-littl...
Right now to go to work full time they have to get an H1B, which means they'll get screwed over if it becomes a matter of who pays the most.
The US loses if we educate kids on things, and then they move back to whatever country they came from. I mean, it's good for the country they go back to, but if we're looking at this in a self-interested "Good of the US" standpoint (Which we must be, if we're having this discussion at all), we want to keep them here.
Oversees students are a revenue stream for universities as they can charge more and subsidise locals or pay the hug wages bursars get.
And is it fair to steal the best and brightest from third world countries?
Because we are spending resources teaching them things, and not reaping the real reward of that effort. Being attractive to the best and brightest is a way to keep innovation and progress going.
>And is it fair to steal the best and brightest from third world countries?
Is it fair for them to be forced to live someplace with a lower quality of life just because they were born there? To deal with the lack of infrastructure? etc. If they feel a moral obligation to go back to their home and try to improve that, that's great for them - but it shouldn't be an obligation we've forced upon them because we decided that immigrants are icky and all we want from them is their money for 4-6 years.
There's absolutely no reason we shouldn't make it easy for students educated in the US to stay in the US, especially if they work in STEM or any other research heavy field.