• Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    27
    ·
    16 hours ago

    Honestly, this isn’t a terrible concept. The execution leaves a lot to be desired, however.

    That $100,000/yr would presumably be paid by the employer, because what employee would agree to that?

    This increases the cost of their previously-dirt cheap labour by a lot, opening positions for Americans.

    • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      5 hours ago

      actually it wont, it means they will just solely hire international without having them move to the states for work.

      • snekkysnek@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 hours ago

        That’s a terrible take. If that was the case, why do they hire in the US AT ALL? Just cut out the middle man of dealing with visas at all and just hire everyone in Asia. But they don’t because there’s value to having people on the ground in the US.

        • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          20 minutes ago

          Sure there would be value, but now with an additional 100k hurddle,.expanding overseas office may be a better value

          • snekkysnek@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            18 minutes ago

            But that doesn’t make sense. The gap between a US based HB1 and someone in China or India was already well north of 100k - so why were there jobs in the US at all to begin with?

            • yes_this_time@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 minutes ago

              Decisions and jobs aren’t monolith.

              In some cases employers are going to hire US based no matter what. In other cases there would be a choice and this policy may tip the scale in some of those cases.

              In aggregate, it seems really likely to me that this will result in some outflow of jobs from the US to international

    • This is fine🔥🐶☕🔥@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      30
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      16 hours ago

      opening positions for Americans.

      Sure dude. Not like companies will offshore entire teams to Asia to save money. They can hire entire team there for a salary of American employee.

      Then no H1b workers earning and spending money in USA. That should do wonders for the economy.

      • justOnePersistentKbinPlease@fedia.io
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Microsoft has ~4 major office buildings in Vancouver.

        Amazon has two(one massive) and two warehouses that I know of.

        Nintendo has an office.

        Salesforce had one of their core dev hubs there.

        EA has two massive compounds, their main one which just added 50% capacity.

        They won’t offshore them to Asia. They’ll move them back across the border.

      • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        14 hours ago

        Yeah I suppose that’s a good point.

        However, you’d have higher paid Americans spending more money in America.

        I dunno. I’m not an economist, but there’s a housing crisis and I feel like companies importing cheap labour is a piece of the problem.

        Also, I’m Canadian, so I’m kinda using our TFW program as an analogue, I’m not entirely sure how H1Bs work.

        • dylanmorgan@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          12 hours ago

          There’s more housing than demand in the US. The cause of the “housing crisis” is institutional landlords who snapped up foreclosures after 2008 for pennies and jacked up rents beyond affordability, as well as keeping units vacant to make it appear that there is constrained supply. There aren’t nearly enough H1B holders to impact nationwide affordability.

          • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            12 hours ago

            It’s a multi-pronged problem, all of which lead you back to the same root problem of corporate greed.

      • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        16 hours ago

        Technically yes, but if it keeps jobs in America it’s a much more worthwhile one.

        The way it was done is ridiculous though. I’d rather have it stsy the same than this crap. Having a fee so companies can’t just outsource for cheaper labor is probably what’s been needed for a while though. $100k is too much and is basically never going to be worth it. And having it apply to everyone instantly is stupid as well.

        • Valmond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 hours ago

          It’s not a zero sum game. If you make the workforce more expensive guess what, your products gets more expensive, and thus less competitive so you’ll export less and the cycle continues. The production of competitive items will just shift to another country, and if you try to block that (say more tariffs) from coming to the USA, bravo you played yourselves and only now have access to inferior products.

        • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          13 hours ago

          if it keeps jobs in America

          Making it harder for people to move to the US to work is not going to keep jobs in America. It means companies are more likely to hire foreign talent as remote workers instead.

        • danA
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          13 hours ago

          if it keeps jobs in America

          How would it do that? If anything, the opposite will happen. Instead of bringing skilled workers from other countries into the USA (which benefits the US as they pay US taxes and spend money in the US), companies will instead hire those same people to work at their other offices (London, Sydney, Singapore, wherever), or just outsource the work.

          • Alexstarfire@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            13 hours ago

            Well, I did say if. Not every company has international offices. And not all of those positions can be filled overseas either.

      • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        13 hours ago

        Yea I suppose, but if they pay Americans a fair rate instead of immigrants dirt rates, that tax will be less and Americans on average will have slightly more money.

        • Tollana1234567@lemmy.today
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          5 hours ago

          its not because of the wages, eventhough it has an effect. they would have to pay benefits in terms of insurance, or retirement plans to us citizens, which cost more than just paying wages for a visa worker.