I wish they would just set the H-1B minimum pay to $120k a year or something.
I think one easy thing to do to ensure that small cos and rural areas still have access is to require all h1b hires to be level 4, the highest level. As it stands now more than 70% are hired at levels 1 and 2 (2018 data), which are essentially "below average" which is weird for a program aimed at bringing in those with hard to find skills.
H1B doesn't really have a job market test. You just need to justify it's a job that requires a bachelor's degree and pays whatever the DOL wage data says should be the prevailing wage for that classification. It's not that difficult to game the system by playing around with job level, title and location and getting away with the lowest possible pay. This is basically the business model of staffing agencies and contractors.
It's also being used by many genuine employers looking for talent and highly specialized skills. Cost isn't a concern here as their business model relies on making the best product.
> The H 1B also requires that the H-1B employer pay the H-1B employee the prevailing wage or the actual wage, whichever is higher.
And https://www.dol.gov/whd/h1bworkers.htm
> and you must be offered fringe benefits on the same basis as offered to U.S. employees.
But now that I read it again, they may be separate things that don't sum up. Is that what you meant?
There are much, much better ways to fix the issues with H-1B visas. The first and most important thing that needs to happen is no longer tying the visa to the employer. Once we make it so that people on H-1B can freely move around in the labor market during the course of their visa, they would automatically gain the ability to command higher wages, which would result in employers rely on foreign labor less (since it would be more expensive), and only hiring foreigners who are actually skilled and exceptional.
At least at 120k you know that the company involved really does value this employee to some extent. They're not likely to spend 120k on someone easily hired locally for far less.
I've found both experiences to be pretty common.
I'm not sure where you're going with it. The existence of outsourcing isn't something I thought we were confused about.
If they are really difficult spots to fill and important, them the pay should be no issue.
No, it's a program for employers.
> but is often abused to just bring in cheaper people.
That's what it is obviously designed for, within limits, and any contrary explanation requires hoping the person you selling it to doesn't understand the relation between supply, demand, and price.
> If they are really difficult spots to fill and important, them the pay should be no issue.
Pay is always an issue; importance just sets the exact level of pay at which it becomes not worth it to hire.
It's meant for companies to bring some in if needed.