Vance on H1B

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employers don't have to pay social security or medicare for that employee so that means they save 8% for each worker under OPT. Nearly 540,000 foreign nationals hold jobs in the U.S. without any FICA taxes taken out of their paychecks. This is costing the US billions and causing employers to give preference to foreign nationals over Americans.

At a minimum employers should be made to pay employment taxes.

There is so much that can be done. I don’t understand why Democrats are not leading the charge to stop the replacement of US citizens with cheap foreign labor .

We all know republicans are evil and will exploit workers, but what happened to Democrats? Why are they not repealing h1b and repealing OPT or doing something to fix these programs that hurt US citizens?

I constantly contact my reps , was Connolly, and he was the worst. He advocated FOR h1b and OPT. The emails I would receive from him talked about how the US needs skilled labor. He was completely clueless.

Now, I hear about recent US STEM college grads not landing jobs and older US workers losing jobs. But has that always been the case? I thought there was a long period of time when US grads were not sufficient to meet tech company needs. Lots of people were trying to encourage more US students to go into those stem majors. Not saying policies should be as they have been - companies are certainly taking advantage of low wages and exploitable foreign workers, at the expense of US workers. But there is some reason we got here in the first place.

There was never a skills shortage. It was propaganda from gates and Ellison and Zuckerberg. But MSM bought it hook line and sinker.

How could we have a skills shortage for 35 years?

Where did you learn there was a skills shortage ? Examine the source and their agenda and then talk to other developers with direct experience .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employers don't have to pay social security or medicare for that employee so that means they save 8% for each worker under OPT. Nearly 540,000 foreign nationals hold jobs in the U.S. without any FICA taxes taken out of their paychecks. This is costing the US billions and causing employers to give preference to foreign nationals over Americans.

At a minimum employers should be made to pay employment taxes.

There is so much that can be done. I don’t understand why Democrats are not leading the charge to stop the replacement of US citizens with cheap foreign labor .

We all know republicans are evil and will exploit workers, but what happened to Democrats? Why are they not repealing h1b and repealing OPT or doing something to fix these programs that hurt US citizens?

I constantly contact my reps , was Connolly, and he was the worst. He advocated FOR h1b and OPT. The emails I would receive from him talked about how the US needs skilled labor. He was completely clueless.

Now, I hear about recent US STEM college grads not landing jobs and older US workers losing jobs. But has that always been the case? I thought there was a long period of time when US grads were not sufficient to meet tech company needs. Lots of people were trying to encourage more US students to go into those stem majors. Not saying policies should be as they have been - companies are certainly taking advantage of low wages and exploitable foreign workers, at the expense of US workers. But there is some reason we got here in the first place.

How we got here …

Reduce PH.D Salaries

https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. But “Upcoming labor market shortages will devastate Science and Engineering”.

This was a mantra heard through much of the 1980s. And yet, the predicted “seller’s market” for talent never materialized as unemployment rates actually spiked for newly minted PhDs in technical fields. In fact, most US economists seemed to think that the very idea of labor market shortages hardly made sense in a market economy since wages could simply rise to attract more entrants. Yet we have had workers visas for over 35 years to alleviate mythical worker shortages.

In the late nineties, in the course of research into immigration, I became convinced that our US high skilled immigration policy simply did not add up intellectually. As I studied the situation, it became increasingly clear that the groups purporting to speak for US scientists in Washington DC (e.g. NSF, NAS, AAU, GUIRR) actually viewed themselves as advocates for employers in a labor dispute with working scientists and were focused on undermining scientists’ economic bargaining power through labor market intervention and manipulation.

Increasingly the research seemed to show that interventions by government, universities and industry in the US labor market for scientists, especially after the University system stopped growing organically in the early 1970s were exceedingly problematic. By 1998, it was becoming obvious that the real problems of high skilled immigration were actually rather well understood by an entire class of policy actors who were not forthcoming about the levers of policy they were using to influence policy. The NSF/NAS/GUIRR complex appeared to be feigning incompetence by issuing labor market studies that blatantly ignored wages and market dynamics and instead focused on demographics alone.

During the late 1990s I became convinced that in order to orchestrate lower wages for scientists, there would have to have been a competent economic study done to guide the curious policy choices that had resulted in the flooded market for STEM PhDs. For this theory to be correct, the private economic study would have had to have been done studying both supply and demand so that the demand piece could later be removed, resulting in the bizarre ‘supply only’ demographic studies released to the public. Through a bit of economic detective work, I began a painstaking search of the literature and discovered just such a study immediately preceded the release of the foolish demography studies that provided the public justification for the Immigration Act of 1990. This needle was located in the haystack of documents the NSF was forced to turn over when the House investigated the NSF for faking alarms about a shortfall.

The title of this study was “The Pipeline For Scientific and Technical Personnel: Past Lessons Applied to Future Changes of Interest to Policy-Makers and Human Resource Specialists.” The study was undated and carried no author’s name. Eventually I gathered my courage to call up the National Science Foundation and demand to speak to the study’s author. After some hemming and hawing, I was put through to a voice belonging to a man I had never heard of named Myles Boylan. In our conversation, it became clear that it was produced in 1986, as predicted, immediately before the infamous and now disgraced demographic shortfall studies.

The author turned out, again as predicted, not to be a demographer, but a highly competent Ph.D. in economics who was fully aware of the functioning of the wage mechanism. But, as the study makes clear, the problem being solved was not a problem of talent but one of price: scientific employers had become alarmed that they would have to pay competitive market wages to US Ph.D.s with other options.

The study’s aim was not to locate talent but to weaken its ability to bargain with employers by using foreign labor to undermine the ability to negotiate for new Ph.D.s

That study was a key link in a chain of evidence leading to an entirely different view of the real origins of the Immigration Act of 1990s and the H1-B visa classification. In this alternative account, American industry and Big Science convinced official Washington to put in place a series of policies that had little to do with any demographic concerns. Their aims instead were to keep American scientific employers from having to pay the full US market price of high skilled labor. They hoped to keep the US research system staffed with employees classified as “trainees,” “students,” and “post-docs” for the benefit of employers. The result would be to render the US scientific workforce more docile and pliable to authority and senior researchers by attempting to ensure this labor market sector is always flooded largely by employer-friendly visa holders who lack full rights to respond to wage signals in the US labor market.

The correlate of these objectives were shifts in orientation toward building bridges to Asia and especially China, so that senior scientists, technologists, and educators could capitalize on technological, employment, and business opportunities from Asian (and particularly Chinese) expansion. This, in turn, would give US scientific employers and researchers access to the products of Asian educational systems which stress drill, rote learning, obedience, and test driven competition while giving them relief from US models which comparatively stress greater creativity, questioning, independence, and irreverence for authority.

I wrote this up in a study that the National Bureau of Economic Research published. Until a few weeks ago, it was available on their website. With other studies now appearing that are consonant with my conclusions and the Trump administration studying a possible revision of legislation on visas, I am grateful for INET’s encouragement and willingness to republish the study.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employers don't have to pay social security or medicare for that employee so that means they save 8% for each worker under OPT. Nearly 540,000 foreign nationals hold jobs in the U.S. without any FICA taxes taken out of their paychecks. This is costing the US billions and causing employers to give preference to foreign nationals over Americans.

At a minimum employers should be made to pay employment taxes.

There is so much that can be done. I don’t understand why Democrats are not leading the charge to stop the replacement of US citizens with cheap foreign labor .

We all know republicans are evil and will exploit workers, but what happened to Democrats? Why are they not repealing h1b and repealing OPT or doing something to fix these programs that hurt US citizens?

I constantly contact my reps , was Connolly, and he was the worst. He advocated FOR h1b and OPT. The emails I would receive from him talked about how the US needs skilled labor. He was completely clueless.

Now, I hear about recent US STEM college grads not landing jobs and older US workers losing jobs. But has that always been the case? I thought there was a long period of time when US grads were not sufficient to meet tech company needs. Lots of people were trying to encourage more US students to go into those stem majors. Not saying policies should be as they have been - companies are certainly taking advantage of low wages and exploitable foreign workers, at the expense of US workers. But there is some reason we got here in the first place.

How we got here …

Reduce PH.D Salaries

https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. But “Upcoming labor market shortages will devastate Science and Engineering”.

This was a mantra heard through much of the 1980s. And yet, the predicted “seller’s market” for talent never materialized as unemployment rates actually spiked for newly minted PhDs in technical fields. In fact, most US economists seemed to think that the very idea of labor market shortages hardly made sense in a market economy since wages could simply rise to attract more entrants. Yet we have had workers visas for over 35 years to alleviate mythical worker shortages.

In the late nineties, in the course of research into immigration, I became convinced that our US high skilled immigration policy simply did not add up intellectually. As I studied the situation, it became increasingly clear that the groups purporting to speak for US scientists in Washington DC (e.g. NSF, NAS, AAU, GUIRR) actually viewed themselves as advocates for employers in a labor dispute with working scientists and were focused on undermining scientists’ economic bargaining power through labor market intervention and manipulation.

Increasingly the research seemed to show that interventions by government, universities and industry in the US labor market for scientists, especially after the University system stopped growing organically in the early 1970s were exceedingly problematic. By 1998, it was becoming obvious that the real problems of high skilled immigration were actually rather well understood by an entire class of policy actors who were not forthcoming about the levers of policy they were using to influence policy. The NSF/NAS/GUIRR complex appeared to be feigning incompetence by issuing labor market studies that blatantly ignored wages and market dynamics and instead focused on demographics alone.

During the late 1990s I became convinced that in order to orchestrate lower wages for scientists, there would have to have been a competent economic study done to guide the curious policy choices that had resulted in the flooded market for STEM PhDs. For this theory to be correct, the private economic study would have had to have been done studying both supply and demand so that the demand piece could later be removed, resulting in the bizarre ‘supply only’ demographic studies released to the public. Through a bit of economic detective work, I began a painstaking search of the literature and discovered just such a study immediately preceded the release of the foolish demography studies that provided the public justification for the Immigration Act of 1990. This needle was located in the haystack of documents the NSF was forced to turn over when the House investigated the NSF for faking alarms about a shortfall.

The title of this study was “The Pipeline For Scientific and Technical Personnel: Past Lessons Applied to Future Changes of Interest to Policy-Makers and Human Resource Specialists.” The study was undated and carried no author’s name. Eventually I gathered my courage to call up the National Science Foundation and demand to speak to the study’s author. After some hemming and hawing, I was put through to a voice belonging to a man I had never heard of named Myles Boylan. In our conversation, it became clear that it was produced in 1986, as predicted, immediately before the infamous and now disgraced demographic shortfall studies.

The author turned out, again as predicted, not to be a demographer, but a highly competent Ph.D. in economics who was fully aware of the functioning of the wage mechanism. But, as the study makes clear, the problem being solved was not a problem of talent but one of price: scientific employers had become alarmed that they would have to pay competitive market wages to US Ph.D.s with other options.

The study’s aim was not to locate talent but to weaken its ability to bargain with employers by using foreign labor to undermine the ability to negotiate for new Ph.D.s

That study was a key link in a chain of evidence leading to an entirely different view of the real origins of the Immigration Act of 1990s and the H1-B visa classification. In this alternative account, American industry and Big Science convinced official Washington to put in place a series of policies that had little to do with any demographic concerns. Their aims instead were to keep American scientific employers from having to pay the full US market price of high skilled labor. They hoped to keep the US research system staffed with employees classified as “trainees,” “students,” and “post-docs” for the benefit of employers. The result would be to render the US scientific workforce more docile and pliable to authority and senior researchers by attempting to ensure this labor market sector is always flooded largely by employer-friendly visa holders who lack full rights to respond to wage signals in the US labor market.

The correlate of these objectives were shifts in orientation toward building bridges to Asia and especially China, so that senior scientists, technologists, and educators could capitalize on technological, employment, and business opportunities from Asian (and particularly Chinese) expansion. This, in turn, would give US scientific employers and researchers access to the products of Asian educational systems which stress drill, rote learning, obedience, and test driven competition while giving them relief from US models which comparatively stress greater creativity, questioning, independence, and irreverence for authority.

I wrote this up in a study that the National Bureau of Economic Research published. Until a few weeks ago, it was available on their website. With other studies now appearing that are consonant with my conclusions and the Trump administration studying a possible revision of legislation on visas, I am grateful for INET’s encouragement and willingness to republish the study.

Thank you for your societal contributions here. I hope something good comes out of your work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Here are the links:

Microsoft:
https://h1bgrader.com/h1b-sponsors/microsoft-corporation-ew2x79yyk3#employer-salaries

Bethesda:

https://h1bgrader.com/cities/bethesda-maryland-v82we7o215#city-salaries

DO NOT REDEEEM

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.

You're fine with his and Trump's use of H1s, too. Thanks for confirming.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employers don't have to pay social security or medicare for that employee so that means they save 8% for each worker under OPT. Nearly 540,000 foreign nationals hold jobs in the U.S. without any FICA taxes taken out of their paychecks. This is costing the US billions and causing employers to give preference to foreign nationals over Americans.

At a minimum employers should be made to pay employment taxes.

There is so much that can be done. I don’t understand why Democrats are not leading the charge to stop the replacement of US citizens with cheap foreign labor .

We all know republicans are evil and will exploit workers, but what happened to Democrats? Why are they not repealing h1b and repealing OPT or doing something to fix these programs that hurt US citizens?

I constantly contact my reps , was Connolly, and he was the worst. He advocated FOR h1b and OPT. The emails I would receive from him talked about how the US needs skilled labor. He was completely clueless.

Now, I hear about recent US STEM college grads not landing jobs and older US workers losing jobs. But has that always been the case? I thought there was a long period of time when US grads were not sufficient to meet tech company needs. Lots of people were trying to encourage more US students to go into those stem majors. Not saying policies should be as they have been - companies are certainly taking advantage of low wages and exploitable foreign workers, at the expense of US workers. But there is some reason we got here in the first place.

How we got here …

Reduce PH.D Salaries

https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. But “Upcoming labor market shortages will devastate Science and Engineering”.

This was a mantra heard through much of the 1980s. And yet, the predicted “seller’s market” for talent never materialized as unemployment rates actually spiked for newly minted PhDs in technical fields. In fact, most US economists seemed to think that the very idea of labor market shortages hardly made sense in a market economy since wages could simply rise to attract more entrants. Yet we have had workers visas for over 35 years to alleviate mythical worker shortages.

In the late nineties, in the course of research into immigration, I became convinced that our US high skilled immigration policy simply did not add up intellectually. As I studied the situation, it became increasingly clear that the groups purporting to speak for US scientists in Washington DC (e.g. NSF, NAS, AAU, GUIRR) actually viewed themselves as advocates for employers in a labor dispute with working scientists and were focused on undermining scientists’ economic bargaining power through labor market intervention and manipulation.

Increasingly the research seemed to show that interventions by government, universities and industry in the US labor market for scientists, especially after the University system stopped growing organically in the early 1970s were exceedingly problematic. By 1998, it was becoming obvious that the real problems of high skilled immigration were actually rather well understood by an entire class of policy actors who were not forthcoming about the levers of policy they were using to influence policy. The NSF/NAS/GUIRR complex appeared to be feigning incompetence by issuing labor market studies that blatantly ignored wages and market dynamics and instead focused on demographics alone.

During the late 1990s I became convinced that in order to orchestrate lower wages for scientists, there would have to have been a competent economic study done to guide the curious policy choices that had resulted in the flooded market for STEM PhDs. For this theory to be correct, the private economic study would have had to have been done studying both supply and demand so that the demand piece could later be removed, resulting in the bizarre ‘supply only’ demographic studies released to the public. Through a bit of economic detective work, I began a painstaking search of the literature and discovered just such a study immediately preceded the release of the foolish demography studies that provided the public justification for the Immigration Act of 1990. This needle was located in the haystack of documents the NSF was forced to turn over when the House investigated the NSF for faking alarms about a shortfall.

The title of this study was “The Pipeline For Scientific and Technical Personnel: Past Lessons Applied to Future Changes of Interest to Policy-Makers and Human Resource Specialists.” The study was undated and carried no author’s name. Eventually I gathered my courage to call up the National Science Foundation and demand to speak to the study’s author. After some hemming and hawing, I was put through to a voice belonging to a man I had never heard of named Myles Boylan. In our conversation, it became clear that it was produced in 1986, as predicted, immediately before the infamous and now disgraced demographic shortfall studies.

The author turned out, again as predicted, not to be a demographer, but a highly competent Ph.D. in economics who was fully aware of the functioning of the wage mechanism. But, as the study makes clear, the problem being solved was not a problem of talent but one of price: scientific employers had become alarmed that they would have to pay competitive market wages to US Ph.D.s with other options.

The study’s aim was not to locate talent but to weaken its ability to bargain with employers by using foreign labor to undermine the ability to negotiate for new Ph.D.s

That study was a key link in a chain of evidence leading to an entirely different view of the real origins of the Immigration Act of 1990s and the H1-B visa classification. In this alternative account, American industry and Big Science convinced official Washington to put in place a series of policies that had little to do with any demographic concerns. Their aims instead were to keep American scientific employers from having to pay the full US market price of high skilled labor. They hoped to keep the US research system staffed with employees classified as “trainees,” “students,” and “post-docs” for the benefit of employers. The result would be to render the US scientific workforce more docile and pliable to authority and senior researchers by attempting to ensure this labor market sector is always flooded largely by employer-friendly visa holders who lack full rights to respond to wage signals in the US labor market.

The correlate of these objectives were shifts in orientation toward building bridges to Asia and especially China, so that senior scientists, technologists, and educators could capitalize on technological, employment, and business opportunities from Asian (and particularly Chinese) expansion. This, in turn, would give US scientific employers and researchers access to the products of Asian educational systems which stress drill, rote learning, obedience, and test driven competition while giving them relief from US models which comparatively stress greater creativity, questioning, independence, and irreverence for authority.

I wrote this up in a study that the National Bureau of Economic Research published. Until a few weeks ago, it was available on their website. With other studies now appearing that are consonant with my conclusions and the Trump administration studying a possible revision of legislation on visas, I am grateful for INET’s encouragement and willingness to republish the study.

Thank you for your societal contributions here. I hope something good comes out of your work.

lol. stop sock puppeting. That diatribe is posted repeatedly on here.

Trump ain't gonna stop H1s. His financier Musk relies on it too much.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Employers don't have to pay social security or medicare for that employee so that means they save 8% for each worker under OPT. Nearly 540,000 foreign nationals hold jobs in the U.S. without any FICA taxes taken out of their paychecks. This is costing the US billions and causing employers to give preference to foreign nationals over Americans.

At a minimum employers should be made to pay employment taxes.

There is so much that can be done. I don’t understand why Democrats are not leading the charge to stop the replacement of US citizens with cheap foreign labor .

We all know republicans are evil and will exploit workers, but what happened to Democrats? Why are they not repealing h1b and repealing OPT or doing something to fix these programs that hurt US citizens?

I constantly contact my reps , was Connolly, and he was the worst. He advocated FOR h1b and OPT. The emails I would receive from him talked about how the US needs skilled labor. He was completely clueless.

Now, I hear about recent US STEM college grads not landing jobs and older US workers losing jobs. But has that always been the case? I thought there was a long period of time when US grads were not sufficient to meet tech company needs. Lots of people were trying to encourage more US students to go into those stem majors. Not saying policies should be as they have been - companies are certainly taking advantage of low wages and exploitable foreign workers, at the expense of US workers. But there is some reason we got here in the first place.

How we got here …

Reduce PH.D Salaries

https://users.nber.org/~sewp/references/archive/weinsteinhowandwhygovernment.pdf

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies. But “Upcoming labor market shortages will devastate Science and Engineering”.

This was a mantra heard through much of the 1980s. And yet, the predicted “seller’s market” for talent never materialized as unemployment rates actually spiked for newly minted PhDs in technical fields. In fact, most US economists seemed to think that the very idea of labor market shortages hardly made sense in a market economy since wages could simply rise to attract more entrants. Yet we have had workers visas for over 35 years to alleviate mythical worker shortages.

In the late nineties, in the course of research into immigration, I became convinced that our US high skilled immigration policy simply did not add up intellectually. As I studied the situation, it became increasingly clear that the groups purporting to speak for US scientists in Washington DC (e.g. NSF, NAS, AAU, GUIRR) actually viewed themselves as advocates for employers in a labor dispute with working scientists and were focused on undermining scientists’ economic bargaining power through labor market intervention and manipulation.

Increasingly the research seemed to show that interventions by government, universities and industry in the US labor market for scientists, especially after the University system stopped growing organically in the early 1970s were exceedingly problematic. By 1998, it was becoming obvious that the real problems of high skilled immigration were actually rather well understood by an entire class of policy actors who were not forthcoming about the levers of policy they were using to influence policy. The NSF/NAS/GUIRR complex appeared to be feigning incompetence by issuing labor market studies that blatantly ignored wages and market dynamics and instead focused on demographics alone.

During the late 1990s I became convinced that in order to orchestrate lower wages for scientists, there would have to have been a competent economic study done to guide the curious policy choices that had resulted in the flooded market for STEM PhDs. For this theory to be correct, the private economic study would have had to have been done studying both supply and demand so that the demand piece could later be removed, resulting in the bizarre ‘supply only’ demographic studies released to the public. Through a bit of economic detective work, I began a painstaking search of the literature and discovered just such a study immediately preceded the release of the foolish demography studies that provided the public justification for the Immigration Act of 1990. This needle was located in the haystack of documents the NSF was forced to turn over when the House investigated the NSF for faking alarms about a shortfall.

The title of this study was “The Pipeline For Scientific and Technical Personnel: Past Lessons Applied to Future Changes of Interest to Policy-Makers and Human Resource Specialists.” The study was undated and carried no author’s name. Eventually I gathered my courage to call up the National Science Foundation and demand to speak to the study’s author. After some hemming and hawing, I was put through to a voice belonging to a man I had never heard of named Myles Boylan. In our conversation, it became clear that it was produced in 1986, as predicted, immediately before the infamous and now disgraced demographic shortfall studies.

The author turned out, again as predicted, not to be a demographer, but a highly competent Ph.D. in economics who was fully aware of the functioning of the wage mechanism. But, as the study makes clear, the problem being solved was not a problem of talent but one of price: scientific employers had become alarmed that they would have to pay competitive market wages to US Ph.D.s with other options.

The study’s aim was not to locate talent but to weaken its ability to bargain with employers by using foreign labor to undermine the ability to negotiate for new Ph.D.s

That study was a key link in a chain of evidence leading to an entirely different view of the real origins of the Immigration Act of 1990s and the H1-B visa classification. In this alternative account, American industry and Big Science convinced official Washington to put in place a series of policies that had little to do with any demographic concerns. Their aims instead were to keep American scientific employers from having to pay the full US market price of high skilled labor. They hoped to keep the US research system staffed with employees classified as “trainees,” “students,” and “post-docs” for the benefit of employers. The result would be to render the US scientific workforce more docile and pliable to authority and senior researchers by attempting to ensure this labor market sector is always flooded largely by employer-friendly visa holders who lack full rights to respond to wage signals in the US labor market.

The correlate of these objectives were shifts in orientation toward building bridges to Asia and especially China, so that senior scientists, technologists, and educators could capitalize on technological, employment, and business opportunities from Asian (and particularly Chinese) expansion. This, in turn, would give US scientific employers and researchers access to the products of Asian educational systems which stress drill, rote learning, obedience, and test driven competition while giving them relief from US models which comparatively stress greater creativity, questioning, independence, and irreverence for authority.

I wrote this up in a study that the National Bureau of Economic Research published. Until a few weeks ago, it was available on their website. With other studies now appearing that are consonant with my conclusions and the Trump administration studying a possible revision of legislation on visas, I am grateful for INET’s encouragement and willingness to republish the study.

Thank you for your societal contributions here. I hope something good comes out of your work.

I forgot to add NSF to my list of agencies that need the h1b chainsaw. NSF, DOL, DHS, USCIS, NIH. It's really that bad. Seriously how can agencies that are responsible for training Americans be so dependent on foreign labor doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.

You're fine with his and Trump's use of H1s, too. Thanks for confirming.

What would you say the purpose of your comment is? Maybe you can recommend a way to get some one more restrictive on immigration, because Democrats sure don't have the answer here. Oh you-trying to weggie the resistance. Got any other insightful comments? That highlight the malaise of the Democrat parties lipzhitz approach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.

You're fine with his and Trump's use of H1s, too. Thanks for confirming.

What would you say the purpose of your comment is? Maybe you can recommend a way to get some one more restrictive on immigration, because Democrats sure don't have the answer here. Oh you-trying to weggie the resistance. Got any other insightful comments? That highlight the malaise of the Democrat parties lipzhitz approach.

What was the purpose of ^PP's comment on this thread about H1s - "I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.".

maybe MAGA should be mad at Trump for agreeing with Musk about needing H1 visas.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.

You're fine with his and Trump's use of H1s, too. Thanks for confirming.

What would you say the purpose of your comment is? Maybe you can recommend a way to get some one more restrictive on immigration, because Democrats sure don't have the answer here. Oh you-trying to weggie the resistance. Got any other insightful comments? That highlight the malaise of the Democrat parties lipzhitz approach.

What was the purpose of ^PP's comment on this thread about H1s - "I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.".

maybe MAGA should be mad at Trump for agreeing with Musk about needing H1 visas.

MAGA doesn't understand, Wall Street is driving force to have H1 workers, and illegal immigrants too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.

You're fine with his and Trump's use of H1s, too. Thanks for confirming.

What would you say the purpose of your comment is? Maybe you can recommend a way to get some one more restrictive on immigration, because Democrats sure don't have the answer here. Oh you-trying to weggie the resistance. Got any other insightful comments? That highlight the malaise of the Democrat parties lipzhitz approach.

What was the purpose of ^PP's comment on this thread about H1s - "I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.".

maybe MAGA should be mad at Trump for agreeing with Musk about needing H1 visas.

MAGA doesn't understand, Wall Street is driving force to have H1 workers, and illegal immigrants too.

And MAGA also don't seem to understand that Trump courted wall st money to fund him. He gave them huge tax breaks. Does MAGA think he will cut a source of cheap labor for his own businesses?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No more international college students graduating into jobs they should go back

Awwww let me guess, either you or your kid could not get the job you wanted because there was someone smarter and more qualified than you (or your kid) that got it (more/better work/internship experience, higher ranked university etc). And rather than thinking "hmmmm how can I become a stronger candidate" you blame international students for your (or your kids) failure.

Pathetic. How about you try and compete in the market rather than expecting to be handed the good jobs just because you were born here...

This is one area where the maga base and the dem base have a ton of overlap. Not really a ton of people in favor of giving good paying jobs to foreigners, except the tech billionaires. But everyone hates them now.

DP. Agreed. And can someone explain why an American born citizen wouldn’t get preferential consideration in their home country? I mean — doesn’t the federal government give hiring preference to citizens that have already served in some capacity? Why not incentivize corporations to do the same?

Due to visa policies Americans already get preferential treatment by default (1 year Opt that then require H1b lottery, risky to hire).

But more specifically, as someone hiring to fill a need, why would I care if someone is US born or not. I am looking for the best candidate, if that happens to be someone US born, great, if not, that's completely fine as well. Employers want the best candidate, not someone who feels entitled to the job just because they were born here.

Anonymous wrote:
Thanks, I wasn’t aware of the bolded.

I hear your second point—but what’s missing from the perspective in this discussion is the role of corporate responsibility, especially for companies that are headquartered in the U.S. and benefit directly from the legal, financial, and infrastructure systems funded by American taxpayers.

If a corporation enjoys the protections of U.S. law, the use of U.S. infrastructure, and the advantage of U.S. consumer markets—then it stands to reason that investing back into that system by hiring its own citizens should be part of its social contract.

This isn’t about nativism—it’s about balance. A company that avoids paying state and federal taxes while actively bypassing American talent isn’t optimizing—it’s exploiting.

I could understand this logic if we were talking about a company based overseas. But U.S.-based corporations aren’t exempt from civic accountability just because they’re private entities. They’re operating in a public-private ecosystem—and the “public” part matters.

What best candidate means is usually "cheapest" to a corporation. Why should they pay more if someone from an oppressive state will do it for less and even forgo most personal freedoms to do so?

Though we really need to discuss if it is ethical to meet force with force when the globalists are using force to subject their spineless peons and want to move them here so that they can subjugate us in a similar fashion.

Exhibit A: Foxconn riots and Apple, coming to factory near you.

This is called free market economy capitalism.

If you want to force companies to hire more expensive American workers, you need that dirty R word.... regulation.

Read a little please. When the federal government subsidizes foreign labor over our own children , how is that capitalism?

Let them eat cake

Federal gov makes it cheaper to hire F1s and OPTs than US citizens. Also employees are effectively slaves to one company

About 10,000 per year subsidy. It is a disgrace , companies do not have to pay Medicare or payroll taxes on opts

Note carefully that OPT did not arise out of legislation. Instead, the executive branch, many years ago, devised it on their own, declaring a post-graduation internship to be part of being a student. The original duration was one year, but was increased to 29 months by George W. Bush and then 36 months by Obama. the idea that someone graduating with a Master’s degree then needs a 3-year “internship” is preposterous.

We take jobs from our own students and give them to foreign students to increase the wealth of elites.

Companies being allowed to hire foreign workers is capitalism because it means the government isn't getting in the way of the company. The only reason why the government has to be involved is because these foreign workers need visas.

If you want to prevent companies from hiring cheaper labor, then you should be demanding more regulation.

Speaking of cheaper foreign workers for elites, Trump and his friends', like Musk, hire foreign workers. And I don't see Trump stopping it anytime soon. Trump also doesn't want to increase the federal minimum wage, and he hates unions. Trump is all about profit. He doesn't care about the workers. What on earth makes you think Trump is your savior on this?

I would be fine with more regulation. Musk and Trump aren’t friends anymore. Trump may not want to be the savior on this but I would love if his base realize what is going on so they stop fixating on 10 trans kids and start fixating on the ways Trump lets workers get screwed over.

Musk and Trump are still buds. They made up.

I would be fine with more regulation, but you know.. Rs aren't. And those are the people now in power.

I agree that MAGA are fixated on the wrong things, but so were progressives.

I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.

You're fine with his and Trump's use of H1s, too. Thanks for confirming.

What would you say the purpose of your comment is? Maybe you can recommend a way to get some one more restrictive on immigration, because Democrats sure don't have the answer here. Oh you-trying to weggie the resistance. Got any other insightful comments? That highlight the malaise of the Democrat parties lipzhitz approach.

What was the purpose of ^PP's comment on this thread about H1s - "I'm fine with Elon's chainsaw approach.".

maybe MAGA should be mad at Trump for agreeing with Musk about needing H1 visas.

MAGA doesn't understand, Wall Street is driving force to have H1 workers, and illegal immigrants too.

And MAGA also don't seem to understand that Trump courted wall st money to fund him. He gave them huge tax breaks. Does MAGA think he will cut a source of cheap labor for his own businesses?

And MAGA will never understand, or simply fooled by T. Biden kicked out more illegals than any other president, and Trump's first term only deported 1.5M, just a third of Biden's.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Damnit I hate when Vance says something I actually agree with. Insanity to still be handing out H1Bs for CS work right now given the layoffs and difficulty of CS majors in finding jobs. Tech firms can do some internal training if they need to bridge skill gaps - just like most other companies do.

https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-issues-warning-h1-b-visa-immigration-2103296?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwY2xjawLu_1FleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHggVzornDQc4-zR77B62fK6CwhsrSFtzDz3qlOpfStRtz8ZMeUVEIw5KIH2C_aem_039eRMW6a8E42zd4am4GBQ#Echobox=1753351866

Vance: "You see some big tech companies where they'll lay off 9,000 workers, and then they'll apply for a bunch of overseas visas. And I sort of wonder; that doesn't totally make sense to me.“

From article…
“Microsoft is facing mounting scrutiny over its use of the H-1B visa program after announcing a wave of layoffs in July that will impact approximately 9,000 employees globally.

The latest cuts, affecting about 4 percent of the company's total workforce, follow two earlier rounds in May and June, which together eliminated around 8,000 positions. In total, Microsoft has laid off nearly 16,000 employees so far this year, out of its global headcount of 228,000.

In the aftermath of the layoffs, social media posts began circulating on X, formerly Twitter, alleging that Microsoft has submitted applications for more than 6,000 H-1B visas since October, the start of the current fiscal year. While that specific figure has not been independently verified, official data shows that Microsoft filed 9,491 H-1B applications during the previous fiscal year, all of which were approved.”

It's one thing to talk about this; another thing to actually do something about it.

There is a very simple solution:

1. Raise the minimum salary for H-1B workers to reflect the fact that they supposedly have extremely rare skills that cannot be found in a nation of 350 million. I think a $250,000 minimum sounds about right. And, in my opinion, it could easily be much higher since these big tech companies routinely pay millions to poach engineers from other companies.

2. Institute a blackout period for layoffs. No H1-B visas should be approved for companies who have laid off workers in the past year, at least not for tech jobs.

+1
I’d support both these