Sounds like it's still above 0, which means you should be forced to source local talent before you're permitted to source from outside the country.
It's so strange to me that this viewport is controversial, but "Buy Local" (which I have yet to encounter someone who is against supporting local businesses) is not. This is the labor version of "Buy Local".
Because of frictional unemployment, it's neither possible nor desirable for the unemployment rate to reach 0.
>which means you should be forced to source local talent before you're permitted to source from outside the country.
This is already a requirement; H-1B employers must attest that they can't find an employee domestically and have made a good faith attempt to do so.
>It's so strange to me that this viewport is controversial, but "Buy Local" (which I have yet to encounter someone who is against supporting local businesses) is not. This is the labor version of "Buy Local".
Buy Local is not enforced by the jackboot of the federal government. You're free to hire only non-visa workers for your business.
> * H-1B employers must attest that they can't find an employee domestically and have made a good faith attempt to do so.*
How effectively is this enforced? The arguments against these visa is that companies know how to game this requirement. They specifically write job descriptions in a way that’ll fail to find someone locally, so they can hire cheaper immigrant labor.
And cheaper isn’t just lower salaries, they’ll also cause fewer waves and be more accommodating. An employee who depends on your employment to stay in the country is more likely to put up with abuse.
Maybe then easing the restrictions on immigrant employees might be the solution.
Max 60 days of unemployment over your whole career, when many companies need a month to go from offer to starting, makes being fired a fatal affair.
H1B applications being cancelled, if someone switches companies means in the first few years, changing companies is even worse.
Oh, you've been working in the US for 20 years ? Hard luck, you still don't have a permanent residency because of some archaic system. No, your wife can't work in the US either. Also, you can't avail any of the benefits you already pay taxes for. You lose your job and your child is a US citizen ? Hard luck, take them back to where you came from. Because, having immigrant parents is a crime enough to banish even your own citizen.
The visa system is built to encourage abuse. Just because the trade off is worth it, doesn't mean it is fair
or a favor. It is a system built to be of maximal benefit to America. Which is fine, but let's not pretend it
is some sort of gift that is granted to people of other nations. It's the govt. driving a hard bargain because they know they can.
Now, my career does grow 2x as fast and I do make 2x as much by working in the US. I also do not have kids, partners or a life in the US, that it would destroy me to leave the country. I am also fortunate enough to be in a company that doesn't usually fire willy-nilly. So, I continue to stay. But, in 5 or so years, I wouldn't be too sure.
One common tactic is adding more duty requirements to the description. For example, the job description would ask a database admin to manage multiple database products but, in reality, they'd only be managing one.
Finding someone with knowledge of multiple products would be hard, so they list all of them. When they can't find someone with those skills, they ask for a visa to find someone who can.
In reality, that person doesn't actually know and won't actually be managing all those products.
That method is so common, it's listed on the gov't website:
> The H-1B worker is not performing the duties specified in the H-1B petition, including when the duties are at a higher level than the position description.
> This is already a requirement; H-1B employers must attest that they can't find an employee domestically and have made a good faith attempt to do so.
While this is true, what percentage of employers make an actual good faith attempt? I'd be shocked if it was even as high as 50%.
In my experience, companies design job postings for a market where only an H-1B applicant could get the position.
As a private citizen you aren't legally mandated to buy local. I don't begrudge someone for buying local themselves but it's annoying when they want to force that decision on me.
At any rate I think your analogy makes more sense for services procured from outside the U.S. If you hire someone who then relocates to the U.S. they become local by definition.
> I have yet to encounter someone who is against supporting local businesses
I am. I'd rather just pay a higher income tax and have that fund UBI, and save myself the money by buying cheap instead of local.
Asking consumers to spend more money on feel-good slogans is the same as a regressive tax.
Your neighborhood is decaying? It's not because welfare is broken, healthcare is broken, and law enforcement is useless, it's because you, the working-class consumer made the wrong choice.
Also it's an awful Prisoner's Dilemma. If I'm faithful, it makes a tiny dent in the odds of any given business closing. Why not defect, if my vote won't count for anything in the end?
Honestly you should have yo pay a premium for foreign workers. If you can’t hire a local to pick fruit at minimum wage then you have to pay a Mexican temp worker more to do the same job.
The H1b worker should be in the top 20% of the pay scale not the bottom 20% if they are that good salaries should reflect that.
H1B's already need to exceed the prevailing wage, as determined by DoL.
You can argue about where they actually end up, but it's not the bottom 20%. Esp once you figure in immigration related overheads (that's staff, not just fees and travel).
Higher salaries for H1B's would require the right to change jobs easily, unlike now where there's a tremendous risk. And then there's L1's, who have no negotiation power at all.
Of course, problems are complex. Important to whom? Do I care if your business gets someone who is slightly less exceptional if it means you have to hire a fellow citizen? Can you prove objectively the person you're hiring on a visa is more qualified, and that your hiring process doesn't just suck in general (even Google doesn't do hiring well, as has been shown with internal recruiters submitting hiring committee participant packets back to the committee without their knowledge, and the committee wouldn't even hire themselves)? These are important questions when setting public policy.
Clearly, my personal opinion is to prioritize local labor over you as a business optimizing your opinion of "top talent". I will trade some quality over supporting Local, and if that's a decision we make as a country, I would not be opposed and will vote for representatives who support such policy. One person's "nationalism" is another person's labor solidarity.
In any given field, there's a certain base level of applicants who are never hired because they're completely incompetent in their chosen line of work, i.e. a lot worse than slightly less exceptional. Are you okay with your team being forced to carry someone with negative productivity who happens to be "local" over anyone, no matter how highly skilled, who happens to be foreign born?
I have yet to encounter a group work setting where you didn't have to carry weaker team members versus everyone being the strongest in their field. Maximum optimization is a fantasy. Such is life. I have learned to take enjoyment in giving others the opportunity to level up, even if they turn out unable to (I'm paying it forward, many have done the same for me in my career).
So, yes. I'm not only okay with it, I embrace it. Every day is a new day to have the opportunity to try to help someone become a better version of their professional self.
This can be solved so easily. What does countries do when they want to promote their product? They add tariffs to imports? Do the tariffs work? Totally different question but it has a change at the margins.
So you want the best but not necessarily local? At the same time serving the needs of the locals? Introduce a tariff? Not the couple of thousand dollars worth of processing fee, but a 20% tax on the salary earned : every single dollar, salary, bonus, stock : everything. This gives you a free market. No one stops you from hiring an H1, but if gives local talent 20-25% leg up over an H1 talent. [ Numbers are of course negotiable but I do not see any number below 20-30% being effective. ]
==you should be forced to source local talent before you're permitted to source from outside the country.==
Sounds like pretty heavy-handed regulation. “Buy Local” doesn’t force anyone to do anything. It encourages consumers to choose a specific product, but all products are still available. Not really sure how they are similar.
> It's so strange to me that this viewport is controversial, but "Buy Local" (which I have yet to encounter someone who is against supporting local businesses) is not.
“Buy Local” is so controversial in fact that the US government has entered into international agreements limiting it, which is why, e.g., country of origin labels are being removed from meat products. Capitalism and globalization go fist-in-gauntlet.
The fact that one side is overrepresented in empty PR while the other side operates quietly between the economic elites and the politically powerful obscures the disagreement if you don't pay too much attention.
It's so strange to me that this viewport is controversial, but "Buy Local" (which I have yet to encounter someone who is against supporting local businesses) is not. This is the labor version of "Buy Local".