Hacker News Reader

Comment by barishnamazov | Hacker News Reader

The most counterintuitive finding: cutting H-1B quotas didn't help American workers, but it did make the remaining H-1B pool less innovative. Employment losses were heaviest at both the lowest AND highest wage levels, filtering out the most exceptional talent while concentrating visas among mid-skill workers and Indian-born computer workers due to network effects.

Classic unintended consequence -- the policy achieved neither goal. Opponents didn't get more jobs for Americans, supporters lost the highest-impact innovators who drive patents and startups.

View on HN

I doubt it was due to network effects. I’m probably one of those top quartile potential H1-B holders that never applied. My main reason for not applying is that the random nature of the lottery reduces the RoI on finding a US job so much that it becomes rational to stay in Sweden and focus on local / remote consulting opportunities. As I understand it the way those Indian IT firms get around that is that they hire locally in India and send in applications for more staff than they want visas for. So they can get around the lottery dynamics through collective action, something I can’t do.

That used to be a common abuse vector, but that loophole was fixed last year. Apps are deduped now (1 person, 1 app). It's still a lottery that is oversubscribed by something like 3x.

How does 1 person, 1 app do anything to fix body shops flooding the zone by submitting apps for all of their employees knowing that most won’t win the lottery but whoever does they’ll ship to the US to subcontract out. All of the large Indian body shops have more employees than the cap.

Yes, that is still a problem, which is somewhat mitigated by the $200 fee to enter the lottery currently. The proposed change of giving higher odds to higher wages instead of a flat lottery is a step in the right direction.

I believe he wasn't even thinking about duplication of applications per person, but the following scenario. Correct me if I'm wrong: Company A would like to hire 1000 qualified IT personnel. An Indian workforce provider has e.g. 10000 qualified people and would be able to get 5000 of them to apply for the visa. From those that win the lottery (e.g. 1 in 3) you would easily cover the demand of the Company A. Economy of scale works here.

Exactly.

Were the most innovative people actually "lost" or did they just switch to something like the O1 Visa which isn't subject to quota, and highly innovative people should qualify for?

O-1 is a useless visa. Nobody switches to it or uses it by choice. You only use it if you can't use H-1B.

I would guess that they found different ways to stay and work. I know that some companies send people to their office abroad (e.g., Canada or Europe) until there's a workaround by doing the green card process or applying H1B until it works out.

I did not end up using it, but I have personally "lost" the H1B lottery 3 times. I was also subject to the option above at some point.

Year of work in foreign office of a corporation enables transfer on L1 visa, common tactic in FAANG shops at one point

drafting specific, targeted policies in the hopes of achieving a targeted outcome (without any unintended consequences) is very difficult - it's almost as if human minds are not smart enough to consider all possible outcomes, and all possible ramifications!

That's why i dislike gov't intervention - in most cases, these policies are drafted by vested interests, to the exclusion of some other group (who often then bear the brunt of the externalized cost of such a policy).

What we really need is a meta-policy to address this meta-problem. For example, before passing a law, politicians are required to sponsor a contest with a prize of $100K for the best argument that the law will create unintended consequences.

(Half-joking, half-serious.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com