Any suggestion that the program is dragging wages down instead of dragging wages up is not just misleading but factually wrong.
Once you are breaking the $100k mark and want to only save costs, you are better off opening a GCC in Eastern Europe, Israel, or India, which is what most companies started doing once remote work became normalized in the early 2020s.
All this did is make a free "Thousand Talents" program for India, especially in chemical, petroleum, biopharma, and biochemical engineering - industries where the delta between US and India salaries aren't significant but the talent gap in the US is real.
There are much smarter ways to crack down on H1B abuse by consultancies - this ain't it.
Edit: can't reply, but here's why this is dumb
Assuming I am in Dallas (a fairly prominent domestic IT services hub) and hiring an H1B employee.
In Dallas, a wage around $95k base is fairly standard based on JPMC, DXC, and C1's salaries in the area.
That $95k an employee is has an additional 18% in employer required taxes and withholdings. Add to that an additional 5-10% for retirement account and insurance plans. That $95k employee became around $115k-125k.
Once salaries start breaking into the 6 figure mark, that 23-35% in overhead starts adding up very fast. On top of that visa processing before this rule costed around $15-20k in additional legal fees on the employer's side.
If I'm at the point where I'm paying a low six figure salary, I'm better off opening an office in Warsaw or Praha or Hyderabad where I can safely pay $50k-60k in base to get top 10% talent while getting a $10k-20k per head tax credit over a 3-5 year period depending on the amount I invest building a GCC because my after tax cost at that point becomes $50-60k per employee. These credits tend to require a $1M investment, and with the proposed H1B fee, this made that kind of FDI much easier to justify than it was before.
At least with the current status quo, if I was hiring an ML Engineer at MS or an SRE at Google (a large number of whom are H1Bs as well), I could justify hiring within the US, but adding an additional $100K filing fee just gives me no incentive at all to expand headcount domestically.
You don't use the stick if you also don't have the carrot.
> You are not taking into account section 174, It takes you 15 years to depreciate foreign salary vs first year
That's a rounding error now that it costs $100K to renew or apply for an H1B visa. And for larger organizations breaking the mid-8 figures in revenue mark, section 174 changes never had an impact one way or the other - it was mostly local dev shops and MSPs that faced the brunt of the section 174 onslaught.
> Honestly, even Germany is probably better bang-for-the-buck than Hyderabad
Germany needs to severely reduce employer contributions and taxes to become cost competitive against Warsaw, Praha, or Hyd for software and chip design jobs.
That said, this is a net positive for Germany's biotech, mechanical, biopharma, and other engineering industries that aren't software or chip design related.
If you don't fix the supply constraints, you'll depress growth.
You could fix the education system - good luck - and then wait 5 years before you cut H1B.
But yes, obviously it depressed wages, which at a certain point is probably a good thing.
This is a pet peeve of mine, but there is an english name for that city and it's Prague.
There is no point in using the local spelling because it adds no clarity, is less obvious to pronounce for any reader and the locals are not really gonna thank you for doing this either. Just seems like a form of light cultural white-knighting to me.
You are not even consistent because Warsaw is not how locals spell that.
The most prominent exonyms are of cities like Paris, London, Moscow or Beijing.
I.e., places culturally and historically significant enough that older historical pronunciations have become ossified in foreign languages.
English having a "Prague" spelling means the name of the city was important enough to have entered the English language back in the day when English was still borrowing heavily from French.
Honestly, even Germany is probably better bang-for-the-buck than Hyderabad, but Hyderabad has the volume and the offices.
Funny things is the agencies/consultancies/outsource companies all solds us on it would cut costs when the only thing changed was labor. But apparently they could cut costs without cutting labor costs? How does that work?
You can see this in BLS data.
Is there a good resource for data on wages in Poland? I mean, I am going to look, but I thought I'd ask.
I don't doubt there may be people who would be fine with that, but I guess no one who values their own skills would go for it if there are plenty of East/West Coast companies hiring remotely.
> Is there a good resource for data on wages in Poland? I mean, I am going to look, but I thought I'd ask.
I think you can start from looking at the local job offers, e.g. https://justjoin.it. Just remember there are a couple of nuances:
- most developers in Poland don't want to be FTEs, because the tax burden on that type of employment is at least 2 times higher than on B2B contracts; effectively, we ended up having a market where everyone is hired B2B, but with all the usual FT benefits (paid vacations and sick days, equipment, private insurance, gym memberships, free food and whatnot) - it's sort of a gray area, but the related law is not really enforced; thus as a foreign company you compete with the local B2B rates + benefits
- people are aware that US is a different market generating more revenue
- the work-life balance may be quite different, so they expect to be paid accordingly
- Warsaw is generally more expensive than other cities in Poland, so you don't need to limit yourself to one city in your search, the same way as you wouldn't hire remote developers from the Bay Area only
- there's a reason these offers are hanging in there :)
Edit: formatting.
Yep! Krakow, Lodz, and the other various cities have become cost effective and built hiring pipelines as well.
You see this all over the CEE and India as well, such as Czechia (Brno, Ostrava), Romania (Cluj thanks to the Transylvanian government, Timisoara) and India (BLR/Pune/Hyd/Gurgaon to Tier 2/3 cities)
We'd be paying that for Early career base (think L3). Mid-career you'd see people breaking the $80-110k base range.
I don't like giving "TC" simply because RSUs are very dependent on a number of outside variables.
And my example was for why a JPMC opens an offshore office abroad, or why a company hires an EPAM type.
For product companies who actually care about work quality, you won't too see much difference between salary abroad and a US salary from 10 years ago. I'd recommend using a fork of the old GitLab comp calculator - it's fairly accurate.
you're pointing out facts - yet people deny. most software jobs listings are either in eastern europe or india these days. that's the "A.I" eating software jobs.
yeah some companies might list U.S jobs - but they're only seriously hiring for Staff roles. the rest offshored.
The nativism and rejection makes sense with that regards - it's an almost religious hope that stuff will get better.
I just believe in being brutally honest - especially on HN, where I can vent or shine a light on decisions.
It did seem in the past that there was much more of an all-hands-on-deck attitude towards education throughout US corporate activities, more broadly focused on the general fields the various companies valued the most. I suspect this fall off is very real, but don't actually know if that is just my impression or if there is a concrete effect from modern economic structures.
It's an important enough question it should definitely be studied and taken into account in policy.
However I can't agree with your conclusion that "Immigration helps the countries [sic] top-line metrics, but it rarely helps the citizens inside the country". That requires meta studies that I have never seen to prove it is so. I could cautiously accept that "some types of immigration rarely help corresponding sections of the local population" much more than such a blanket judgement. Overall, it is just not true that economics is zero sum. It doesn't have to be. An entire people can in fact flourish.
It's not just a supply and demand equation; it's a fundamentally different environment that changes the social payoff for mentoring, networking, and building a reputation.
Ultimately despite all the propaganda trying to convince us that diversity is inherently beneficial, we are trading economic benefits for social costs. So we need to carefully restrict migration to make sure the economic benefits are actually there.
This is if you believe that lower wages for high skill work is not an issue.
However high migration rates lower social trust, this is well studied.
If you take a smaller example, hiring internationally vs domestically. If you have to go domestic then you might have to settle for a less ideal qualification, requiring more training.
This is repeated everywhere, so companies that train better are more likely to succeed. Leading to conditions that encourage upskilling for locals overall.
Importing people short circuits that idea.
Except the Heritage Foundation, er, I mean, Trump Administration controls all 3 branches of government and has all the freedom in the world to power a resuscitation of public education in America, except they're not interested in that at all; quite the opposite, they want to further fragment education baselines and make secondary education less desirable.
What study does one "have to do" to support _this_ claim?
Immigrants make up 14% of the population but make up over 20% of entrepreneurs. 44% of fortune 500 company founders were either born outside US or to immigrant parents in the US.
They seem roughly correct
You can't really expect a company hiring PhD's in a niche field to show that they couldn't have spent 7 years training an American for the work.
I don't believe for even an instant that there is a significant amount of immigration happening to bring in people who are that specialized
Some, maybe. But not the vast majority of it
But it was so hard to get the visas (and so much uncertainty in whether or not they'd be able to secure a visa for any particular worker) that they opened up a European and Canadian offices.
The admin has been cutting billions in funding to universities which makes this argument easier.
Need an expert in arithmetic combinatorics? Well Terry Tao lost his grants so now you've got to look elsewhere.
An H1b software engineer median is ~$120k.
Using other official sources, the median pay for US software engineers overall is... ~$120k.
> you'd have to do a study to show that the talent couldn't have been trained in the US, and that an increased supply of workers didn't drag down salaries, either short or long-term.
If the median H1B for software is exactly the same as the overall median, it makes you wonder if the median would be different if the H1B was not an option available to employers.
Lower supply tends to drive the price up.
The whole premise of your original contention was that we should measure like-profession salaries to see whether or not there is an effect. Then when no effect was shown, you switched it up in favor of an argument that (again, incorrectly) predicts that such an effect can't be shown at all. That's not good faith discussion.
[1] Immigrant labor is arriving, by definition, in a pre-existing market. If immigrants can't be hired more cheaply than existing labor, by definition they can't be pulling wages down.
Base salary, not total comp, the first year
> Using other official sources, the median pay for US software engineers overall is... ~$120k.
So, it seems that if we remove H1b workers and assume that the demand would have stayed the same, then domestic salaries should have been higher. Assuming, of course, that companies won’t simply offshore.
Companies already do a lot of offshoring - you think any rational actor in this space that was hiring H1Bs isn't going to simply relocate them to more friendly jurisdictions for immigration?
On top of this, these are workers who would have otherwise paid tax in the US!
This was true before and after today.
Put another way, if all the H-1B jobs really can be offshored quickly and easily the way so many Indians and anti-Trump people here and elsewhere confidently predict, *that would have happened already*.
But yes, if that path doesn't exist, I don't think that global companies are going to start hiring American, they're going to continue hiring globally but take the path of least resistance towards bringing this talent onboard.
The flipside is that every american industry becomes less competitive globally without the H1b guys.
And it is the 10 times more competitive economy compared to non H1B importing nations.
Now you can argue you would prefer that those 200,000 jobs go to Americans, but on the scale of the overall economy, it really doesn’t matter. What’s far more important is the massive impact those 800,000 software engineers have on the rest of the economy. Four million IT jobs, the entire finance and healthcare and retail industries that are propped up on technology built by those people; whole technology companies like Uber or doordash that create entirely new labor markets.
Risk 25% of that capacity on the idea that we would rather have those industries built solely on domestically-grown engineering talent? Why would that be a good tradeoff?
The prospect of a $100k/year/employee visa tax makes opening an office in Europe so much more compelling.
I guess the people who can't be offshored will see their salaries go up so that's cool?
https://www.newsweek.com/computer-science-popular-college-ma...
Obviously there is not going to be a drop of 200k overnight, but I think the graduates of CS will be thankful there are more opportunities for them. These opportunities will drive more students to take CS classes in the US.
All I have is anecdotal conversations of people avoiding tech under the assumption that writing code would be off-shored.
You know what would provide job growth in high tech? Economic growth and expanding prosperity in the economy overall.
Then that $120,000 salary median can still represent a 50% undercut of similar Urban salaries for a profession.
I'm going to contend that that is the case. But I don't have time to chase down the statistics
Sure it's sound to argue that wages would be higher with more constraint supply.
BUT: The network effect of all SWE talent from across the globe moving to the US is also huge.
Probably, you'd have a smaller overall tax base without H1B. Make no mistake most countries would like to keep their H1B expats :)
If you really wanted to grow US supply of engineers, you'd have to start by fixing the education system, making it cheaper, and then wait 5 years.
Maybe at FAANGs what you say is true. But at every place I've been when H1Bs ended up added (normally via consultancy or outsourcing) it was always to cut costs. And the only costs we were cutting was staff.
This program was meant to allow talent that is not available in the US, so that gaps could be filled with experts from overseas.
H1B holders are paid less for the same job, keeping wages down.
This compares medians across to huge populations. I have seen many H1Bs making less and working more.
See also Understanding H-1B Minimum Salary Requirements for Eligibility - https://day1cpt.org/news/understanding-h-1b-minimum-salary-r...
Cap-exempt H1B holders working for universities are restricted to switching only to other cap-exempt employers, but even then I never felt I had to work 60+ hours a week.
In my experience recruiters saw H1B transfers as routine but would ghost me once I explained that I required a new visa sponsorship since I worked or a cap-exempt employer and could not simply transfer.
Yes: software developer incomes are high. But simultaneously, unemployment amongst CS grads at American universities is also high.
Level 1 Wage:$65.24 / Hour - $135,699 / Year Level 2 Wage:$77.71 / Hour - $161,637 / Year Level 3 Wage:$90.18 / Hour - $187,574 / Year Level 4 Wage:$102.65 / Hour - $213,512 / Year
(Compared to the all levels $175k occupational median vs the $74k all occupation median.)
Software Developer (15-1252). Eau Claire County. Bachelors degree. 0 experience.
The prevailing wage is Level 1 Wage:$36.54 / Hour - $76,003 / Year
Change it to San Francisco County.
Level 1 Wage:$65.24 / Hour - $135,699 / Year
And so, as noted... it is location dependent.
The stats you provide here don't support your claim.
H1B visa holders can be paid more on average while still having a downward effect on wages...
Imagine that some car model costs $200,000 to buy in the US. However, an entrepreneur realises they can can import the same car from a poorer country for just $100,000 then sell it in the US for less than the manufacturer themselves. The manufacturer finds out about this and says, "hey! you're selling my car for less", but the importer says, "no, actually, you'll find the median car in the US is $50,000 so I'm technically increasing car prices".
So what you're saying could be wrong in two ways... One you could be wrong in the sense that even if it does increase median wages, that doesn't mean it necessary increases the median wage of US citizens if now a significant percentage the best employment opportunities are going to H1B visa holders instead of citizens.
But secondly, and the point I was trying to make with the car analogy, is that you could be wrong about the average wages going up too if H1B visa holders are taking jobs which would pay even more were it not for HB1 visas. So if the average wage of a SWE in the US is say $150k, but the average H1B visa holder is being paid $120k, H1Bs are clearly not "dragging wages up".
And realistically it's far more likely H1B visa holders suppress wages given how relatively high US wages are.
I'll end this comment by saying that personally I think this idea that giving the best opportunities to immigrants is probably directly wrong for many reasons. Of course, allowing in businesses and individuals who will create jobs makes a lot of sense, but what you really want is the best opportunities going to your own citizens, then to bring in cheap labour to fill the crappy jobs citizens don't really want to do, but are now increasingly doing when they leave university like working in a bar or becoming a barista. If there's a great job a company can't fill with the domestic workforce perhaps they should train someone for that role or take a risk on a recent graduate like in the old days?
But also, the H1b median salary for a software engineer is ~$120k, which is almost identical to that of the US median overall - so all of this hullabaloo seems pretty groundless.
H1B visa abuse by consultancies and mass recruiters is a real issue, but this now incentivized companies like Google, Meta, Microsoft, Pfizer, Cheveron etc to expand their Indian offices.
Edit: can't reply
> Was there any reason for them not to? It's cheaper than H1B anyways.
Spending an additional $10-15k in visa filing fees isn't that big of a deal for an employer who's already paying around 25-35% in withholding and benefits, but at $100K that makes it enough that if you needed to sponsor 10 people on an H1B, you now hit the monetary amount to avail GCC tax rebates and subsidies in most of Eastern Europe and India, where they will give you an additional $10-20k in tax credits and subsidies per head.
Basically, opening a new office abroad just to save on $10-15k of filing fees per employees wasn't worth it, but now that it'll be $100k per employee, the math just shifted.
> Why is this parasitic organization allowed to incorporate?
VC now, not a director anymore. But help me find a new grad with 3-4 years of exploit development and OS internals experience in the US. I can't.
On the other hand, I can in Tel Aviv. There's a reason the entire cybersecurity industry has shifted outside the US.
Large sectors of the US tech scene just lack ANY domestic know-how.
Was there any reason for them not to? It's cheaper than H1B anyways.
The upperbound for middle class pay is over $100k in all states, approaching $200k in a couple.
First, I would like you to reconsider 'high income' and putting $120k in that category. It was a good chunk of change. In this year of our lord 2025, it is not. It is, for my region anyway, barely acceptable middle class income.
And your self-classification is questionable, but that is very common. Maybe a good trigger to experience gratefulness and satisfaction for the economical situation you are in?
But, and this is the most important part, just because I am in better situation than most, does not make the overall state of the population that much less shitty.
Am I getting through to you?
Has it ever been better?
Not saying it shouldn't, just that we might have unrealistic expectations.
Total national health expenditures have grown much faster than population growth: https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...
And yet, over the same time period, life expectancy hasn't gone up that much: https://datacommons.org/tools/visualization#visType%3Dtimeli...
I deleted longer response from yesterday. Long story short, I disagree. If anything, it is unrealistic for anyone to expect that current economic ecosystem is sustainable.
I don't expect a lot, but I do expect my standard to improve over that of my parents', not decrease.
Partially, that's because increased self determination is part of being middle class. Partionally, that's because the ability to participate in culture (art, music, education, multiculturalism, etc.) is part of being middle class; and those opportunities are highly concentrated in the cities.
A $120k job in any region of the country is 'high income'. You are feeling a different effect, which is that we have designed our country such that even high income people often do not feel economically secure.
The sheer balls on people to suggest that high absolute value automatically means it is high. And that is before we get to how those jobs are are not even in the same category...
I am going to stop here, because I don't want to get mean.
There could be some rare edge case where you are undercut by a direct competitor, but overall America is much richer with H1Bs that without them.
A few select tech and financial services companies, and their shareholders, benefit the most from the program.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/03/04/what-we-k...
If 150,000 people buy the app, then I have ~$150,000 of revenue. I can pay a programmer $100,000 a year and have $50,000 left over. 150,000 people benefited from the app.
Now say I have to pay an additional $100,000 visa fee for my programmer. My cost of $200,000 is less than my revenue of $150,000. I don't build the app. I don't get $50,000. 150,000 people who would have bought the app don't benefit from it. The biggest loss is to the Americans who don't get to buy the app.
There are other possibilities, maybe I increase the price to $1.99 or I hire an American. We can see that those are both bad. The former extracts $150,000 extra dollars from American consumers. Since unemployment is low for Americans and an American programmer can't have two jobs at once, the later just means that some other project that the American programmer would have worked on is not completed.
https://www.epi.org/blog/tech-and-outsourcing-companies-cont...
https://www.epi.org/publication/new-evidence-widespread-wage...
Ask HN: Has anyone else been unemployed for over two years? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45306539 - September 2025
Ask HN: Recent unemployed CS grad what do I do? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43211153 - March 2025
https://newsletter.pragmaticengineer.com/p/state-of-the-tech...
https://www.theregister.com/2025/08/04/it_job_market_july/
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/job-market-report-c...
https://www.axios.com/2025/07/06/unemployment-job-market-edu...
https://old.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/1kcc40j/what_happ...
https://apnews.com/article/college-graduates-job-market-unem...
U-6 (the most inclusive unemployment rate) is 8.1 as of this comment, the highest it’s been in the last five years: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/U6RATE
So, start cutting labor visas until the unemployment rate improves. The domestic labor clearly exists.
Millions of Workers Are Left Out of the 'Low-Hire, Low-Fire' US Job Market - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45414795 - September 2025
The American electric car market is never kickstarted, none of the American employees of SpaceX or Tesla are hired, there is no space renaissance.
Keeping out Elon Musk is somewhat good for United Launch Alliance and for Ford, but it's worse for all the Americans who have to buy worse cars and pay more for satellite internet.
That’s certainly one version of how events may have been different - a sort of “It’s a Wonderful Life” scenario. (Though comparing Elon Musk to the kind and ethical George Bailey would be quite a stretch!) But it’s not inconceivable that other possibilities would have emerged.
Are they underpaid, or are they swimming in cash to buy up all the expensive housing? Make up your mind.
https://www.bankrate.com/real-estate/home-affordability-in-c...
https://www.uschamber.com/economy/the-state-of-housing-in-am...
"The shortage of housing can be attributed to a range of regulatory and policy failures. These include burdensome permitting processes, outdated zoning regulations that dictate everything from lot sizes to parking requirements, complex legal frameworks, price controls, and restrictive financial regulations."
I also am not convinced that those statistics alone can be used to draw such a conclusion; there's more to it than that.
Also, those numbers are bumped up by bigtech who doesn't discriminate by visa, so pays in bodyshops are even lower and tech salaries are way higher than that in US.
Second, Indians have to pay their bosses to get a job. Their real pay is at least $20k lower. And there's far worse as well.