| | | Agree with the points made.
Basically, the purpose of the H-1b program is to rake off the most unique talent in the world and bring them to the US. The program has been subverted by some companies to bring in fungible talent which talent can be otherwise found in the US. This has caused wages for that fungible talent class to be lower than otherwise expected (and especially true today with AI replacing that level of worker).
It's always easier to elucidate flaws in existing programs; it's much harder to fix those programs so the programs can meet the original goals - without severe unintended - yet predictable - outcomes.
So, how does placing a 100k fee, which can be raised arbitrarily, for a period of unknown duration accomplish the goal? The fee isn't by statute; the fee is by the stroke of a pen; that pen can double the fee, make the fee monthly, cut the number, eliminate entire countries experts, etc.
IOW, the pen can/will/has remove the certainty upon which companies make their decisions. Which cutting edge project, which promising field of study, which factory needing unique skilled staff won't be finished or be moved offshore? What's the budget if those projects remain in the US? Who knows? Will the ground rules be changed, without warning, over a weekend?
Don't think it will happen? Look at the knee-jerk gleeful statements from our allies - in two days they figured it out. If there are barriers (like existing visa obstacles), those barriers will be removed; incentives will be offered (think FoxCom in Wisconsin, TSMC in Arizona, $5 billion to INTC). Fast moving companies will open research centers, move entire divisions, close US offices, vacate US real estate, and take advantage of these incentives (my son's tech firm already sent out questionnaires asking who is willing to relocate to places yet TBD).
The paper's suggestion, "Replacing the random lottery with a wage-based ranking system would curb abuse, prioritize high-skilled roles, and
better align with the program’s original goals" is great (IMO). We need to move unique brains to the US - no question.
But, does the "do it by fiat and pen" accomplish the goal; or does such an approach have unintended - yet predictable - consequences? Where in the proclamation is this goal accomplished (ignoring which branch of government actually has the power to do so)?
The paper points out the problem; the paper even offers a potential solution; does the proclamation roll out that solution?
I dont think our current system - for all of its problems - was so broken as to need such radical experimentation. Throwing out the baby with the bath water is radical. |
|
