A 10 per cent payroll tax for each H-1B visa can be reinvested in whatever it takes to get American talent up to the same level.
Interesting comment. Critics of H1B note that it's not actually a skills problem, it's that you can pay an H1B with the same skills less and treat them worse because the threat of deportation hangs over them if they lose their job.
The solution is, if you have X skillset and have been paid at least Y dollars for Z years in your home country (to prove experience), have a visa that isn't bound to a particular employer, and also here is a defined process for getting a green card before that visa expires should you want one.
I've always thought that the H-1B system should be entirely scrapped in favor of an actual skill-based immigration policy. My parents were able to come to Canada years ago based on their education and skills in the tech sector. We had a defined path between landing and citizenship (only takes 3 years) which only made it more attractive. My father is now gainfully employed at over twice the Canadian income average, and my mother has started her own business that has contributed significantly back into the economy. It's a win win for everyone.
If the US is serious about recruiting top talent from the around the world they'd be wise to get on a similar bandwagon. Part of the H-1B problem is the abuse that's so prevalent, since an employee is essentially at a mercy of an employer until he/she gets the green card, which takes, in cases, up to a decade. I'm just about to graduate from college, and I know plenty of extremely smart people who simply aren't willing to throw 10 years of their life into a pit just for the privilege of being American.
Another problem with H1-B is that any coworker you meet who is here on H1-B cannot actually get involved in your startup, if you decide to leave that company or work on it on the side. This actually stifles innovation. I worked with a couple of very bright H1-B coworkers who I become pretty good friends with, and even though they had the time and the inclination to work with me on a startup, they couldn't b/c doing so would endanger their visa status. We consulted a lawyer who told us that even coming over to make coffee on a regular basis could be construed as contributing.
If I had worked closely with people who could actually branch out and work elsewhere that would have definitely accelerated my project, but instead, though I value the friendships I've made, the acceleration to the economy via H1-B only occurs in terms of the work large companies can do.
Startups can't afford to sponsor H1-B and H1-B's cannot start their own companies.
> Startups can't afford to sponsor H1-B and H1-B's cannot start their own companies.
If a person on H-1B is planning to get a greencard joining a startup, even if they can afford to sponsor the H-1B, looks like a bad idea. A GC takes about a decade to get; most startups never make it to that.
Agreed. As a Canadian I sometimes bemoan the fact that startup culture is almost non-existent in this country, and that legally I have no realistic way of participating in an American startup, ever. But them's the cards I've been dealt I suppose.
There is always the TN visa, which is quota-less and hinges only on an existing offer from a company, so I suppose I could work for a startup. The TN, though, is not on a track to a green card.
I completely agree with your statement and find it extremely. sad. I too immigrated to join the "startup spirit" and wished everyone in the world should be able to do their own startups.
But then I actually did something about it, by starting my latest startup, which is dedicated to allowing people outside Silicon Valley have startups "just like here".
Fatality and entrepreneurship are opposite feelings I guess :-)
Are you sure start-ups cannot afford H1-B? It might be a few thousand in lawyer fees, but that might be well worth it, especially if a few key founders need H1-B. Since more than 50% start-ups had some immigrant founders, I'm assuming that a large part of them had H1-B rather than some other visa or green card.
I guess it depends on how early stage the start up is. Once you get some funding, sure, I guess you could spend it on lawyer fees, though there are likely many other places you'd be taking it away from.
Pre-funding though, or at the founder level, H1-B co-founders need a legal structure to transfer their visa to, or they can apply for a 2nd H1-B visa, but both of those options require a ton of redtape and hold an element of risk to their visa status.
Yes, that is true, in the early stage (before the start-up looks like a respectable company from the outside), it's more complicated. Ideally, you would use a different kind of visa, e.g. F-1 OPT if you have a degree from a US school, or TN if you're Canadian/Mexican. But I agree, the system is screwed up, and making it much harder for non-American founders than it should be. Let's hope Obama administration improves something...
The purpose of H-1Bs, while understandable, definitely does cause problems at times. I think the US should be taking a multi-pronged approach:
1. Put together treaties with some countries - Canada and most of those in Europe, for example, or at least with any of those that want to participate, to allow workers to cross over without the need of a visa.
2. For other countries, such as India, China, Mexico, and others, switch to a skills-based immigration policy, and make sure rules are in place to prevent them from being underpaid relative to US workers.
Countries like Canada and the UK, for example, probably have some people who would love the opportunity to work in the States, but it's not like we'd be opening up the floodgates. And using a skills-based scheme for people from developing countries would help make sure that smart people who are likely to have significant contributions to society would also be able to come over and make their mark.
I'd love to see the US and UK sign some sort of pact allowing completely free movement of people, but it'll never happen while the UK's borders are so porous. Historically tho' the UK has never bothered with strong border controls because we're an island, but these days that doesn't matter.
I would consider the use of the H1B being limited to only students that have graduated from a U.S. university so that they can stay here. Otherwise, just use the normal immigration process. I've worked with plenty of developers that have come to the U.S. that way.
> A 10 per cent payroll tax for each H-1B visa can be reinvested in whatever it takes to get American talent up to the same level.
The US doesn't need more low-skills folk. We need high-skills folk.
So, there should be some non-linear component.
One possibility is to auction H-1Bs. We pick a number that we'd like and let companies (and individuals) bid. Or, we could decide how much money we'd like to raise from the program and let companies (and individuals) decide what fraction of the total they're willing to pay.
In both cases, low bids lose.
Another is to simply charge a somewhat large fee, possibly on top of a payroll tax.
Isn't it interesting that this country, which was filled up with everything from very low skilled to very highly skilled immigrants in the 17th, 18th and 19th century, that owes EVERYTHING to immigrants now has such a trouble of letting people from everywhere come in and live their American Dream?
Removing the cap on h-1b visa is a very good first step.
what about all the other people that would not qualify for h-1b but are still very skilled and/or ambitious?
Of course people are afraid of losing their job to foreigners, but if you look at the big scheme of things: every worker is also a consumer. Meaning every immigrant and his family will also buy more American products, go to the hairdresser, pay taxes etc. and thus indirectly create work for other people.
I really hope Obama is free market enough to make the moves in that direction.
According to the Migration Policy Institute (http://www.migrationinformation.org), about 6,195,000 immigrants arrived legally into the United States between 1995 and 2000. I grabbed this pretty quickly off the web. I'd imagine the numbers were even higher between 2000 and 2005.
It always surprises me that people who are ok with a million immigrants a year, but maybe not ok with a whole lot more than that, are accused of being anti-immigrant.
I'm all for "letting people from everywhere come in and live their American Dream", but as a practical matter, I think there have to be limits. Well over a million a year, in my opinion, seems like a pretty generous limit, even for a fairly large country like the US.
> Isn't it interesting that this country, which was filled up with everything from very low skilled to very highly skilled immigrants in the 17th, 18th and 19th century,
One difference is that low-skill workers could make a decent wage until, say, 1950 or so. The current US economy doesn't work that way.
> Meaning every immigrant and his family ... pay taxes etc
Folks who don't make more than median wage don't pay significant taxes. In fact, they're a net-loss, tax-wise.
> what about all the other people that would not qualify for h-1b but are still very skilled and/or ambitious?
If it's not fair that a foreigner can come here and take my job - what about people from other states? Why can someone from Idaho move to Ca and compete with me.
There should be a quota on out of state workers and they should pay a payroll tax to work in Ca.
Interesting comment. Critics of H1B note that it's not actually a skills problem, it's that you can pay an H1B with the same skills less and treat them worse because the threat of deportation hangs over them if they lose their job.
The solution is, if you have X skillset and have been paid at least Y dollars for Z years in your home country (to prove experience), have a visa that isn't bound to a particular employer, and also here is a defined process for getting a green card before that visa expires should you want one.