An entirely different question that HN would prefer not be asked...
(Often not very well, but this is the internet, and that's a different issue.)
Foreign workers usually already have a relevant degree or experience (knowing atleast the basics) and don't have as much student debt.
It's like when manufacturing complains about labor and skill shortages but the wages are terrible. When you need labor and can't find it, lots of times its just that employers aren't meeting the market rate for said labor. Hence their desire to get it on the cheap via importation or outsourcing.
Also, because it is a new application, your old one does not expire, so you can always continue your current job till you sort things out. And you can always file a third application with a third employer if things don't work out with your RFE. Changing jobs isn't as crazy as people make it out to be, unless you really don't meet the minimum.
PS: Been doing it for more than a decade without any problems
If you’re a truly high skilled worker, then US is not the only place that you can have a good life in therefore if you’re underpaid, you go somewhere else. On the other hand if your skill is not on par, then why would the companies go through the trouble of H1B and hire you while they can hire low skilled domestic labor with lower wage demand (not implying that domestic labor is low skilled, just pointing out that it’s available)
2. Immigration is a Network effect. You would prefer a country where you already have acquaintances, friends or family over starting your social life from scratch.
3. Soft power plays a huge role. In many societies being able to go to US has much higher prestige than say Germany, Netherlands or Japan. So many people don't see immigrating to these countries as an actual upgrade in social status back home even if the life might be better
2. The network effect is more important for low-skilled immigrants and those planning to make the destination country their new home. High-skilled immigrants typically have an expat mentality. They leave the people they know behind and move to a new place for a specific opportunity. Their country of residence is not their home but a place they happen to be living in at the moment. They are also prepared to move again, should new opportunities arise.
3. The prestige argument is also more important for low-skilled immigrants. For high-skilled immigrants, a more likely reaction is your friends wondering how you can put up with the bureaucratic BS of living as an immigrant in the US. (As an example, because H-1B workers are formally visitors instead of immigrants, most of them are currently unable to visit their friends and family in their home countries.)
The immigrant/emigrant question is a matter of perspective. An immigrant to one country is an emigrant from another.
H-1B is a dual-purpose non-immigrant visa. When you have obtained/extended your H-1B status and are applying for the entry visa required for international travel, you are required to provide a permanent address outside the US. Once you enter the country, the immigration officials really don't like it if you claim you are living in the US. And because H-1B workers are not US residents from immigration perspective, most of them are currently banned from entering the country if they have visited places like the UK, Schengen area, or India in the past two weeks.
I think herein lies the crux of difference in our opinions. Most immigrants I know don't immigrate just for mere job opportunity, they go in with the intention of changing their lives and settle forever. They are not treating this like a Working Holiday Visa
> And because H-1B workers are not US residents from immigration perspective, most of them are currently banned from entering the country if they have visited places like the UK, Schengen area, or India in the past two weeks.
F1 visa is technically a non-immigrant visa and yet they are allowed entry. The entry ban has nothing to do with whether your visa is immigrant or not
I don't think I've ever met highly skilled immigrants like that. Many people first move to a new country in search of better life and then become highly skilled there, but those are not the kind of immigrants this discussion is about.
The highly skilled immigrants I know switch jobs once in a while, and sometimes the new job happens to be in another country. While they are building new lives in their current country of residence, they are not truly committed to remaining there. Some stay long enough to get citizenship and some even retire in the country, but the reason to move again may come at any time. The first international move is usually the hardest. After that, you have accepted the idea that switching countries is possible, and international moves are no longer that different from domestic moves.
It's labor-economics 101.
It doesn't matter what the job is, if you pay enough then someone will take the job (and become qualified if needed).
ex: I'd scrub the shit out of sewage pipes with a toothbrush if you paid me enough, but most companies would just say that there is a "skilled labor shortage".
[0] https://www.glassdoor.com/research/h1b-workers/
[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/04/27/key-facts-a...
The sad thing is that workers - and we see this in this very thread - end up attacking immigrant workers (who are merely trying to improve their lives), rather than employers who are exploiting workers on employer-tied work visas (both in terms of up-front pay, but often in terms of kickbacks and the like) to drive down local pay and conditions.
The answer would be that if there is a genuine labour shortage in local skills, the work permit should be in that industry/skill set, not employer tied. That would allow migrant workers to better their lot (and, given that many support extended family on remittences, whole communities) while allowing them to avoid being exploited by agencies or shitty employers; it would also avoid migrant labour being mis-used to depress local terms and conditions.
Unfortunately it seems easier to convince people to vote for anti-immigrant, often bigoted, political platforms than to convince workers to see their common interests.
This number is too high, even if you include 1st and 2nd generation immigrants who have greencards/citizenship. Did you work for a company that underpaid its employees by only hiring foreigners?
There is the network effect in hiring - as in, referrals from already existing employees, who are H1-B (or once were H1B). If I was once a H1B , and my employer is looking for a Software Engineer, there is a larger network (compared to my American colleague) of possible referrals that can originate from me. This results in a higher likelihood of H1-B getting a job offer - in spite of the higher documentation and process.
Company hiring policies have usually leaned towards "ready made" candidates - candidates who know Programming Language V1.4 (say) and Web Framework XYZ - H1Bs are more motivated and better prepared with these exact requirements compared to American domestic/citizen candidates. So, on paper a H1B checks all the boxes. In some cases (or many cases depending on point of view) these paper qualifications don't transfer to reality.
Also hiring of Grad Students on Student Visas - 75% of Grad Students in STEM are usually foreigners, these enter into the H1B pool (after 2 years of CPT visa).