this post was submitted on 19 Sep 2025
35 points (100.0% liked)

Economics

954 readers
1 users here now

founded 2 years ago
 

Donald Trump on Friday signed a proclamation that will require a new annual $100,000 fee for H-1B visa applications, among other changes to the program for highly skilled foreign workers that has come under scrutiny by the administration.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the fee will be $100,000 per year and added that “all big companies” are on board.

H-1B visas are meant to bring the best and brightest foreigners for high-skilled jobs that tech companies find difficult to fill with qualified U.S. citizens and permanent residents. The program instead has turned into a pipeline for overseas workers who are often willing to work for as little as $60,000 annually. That is far less than $100,000-plus salaries typically paid to U.S. technology workers.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TerranFenrir@lemmy.ca 17 points 2 weeks ago (6 children)

I really like how they are destroying themselves lmao. Immigration from a low productivity country to a high productivity country is always an economic net positive. By curbing immigration, these idiots call for an economic recession.

But I mean hey, a fascist state killing itself is always a net positive ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

[–] jonne 14 points 2 weeks ago (5 children)

The H1-B visa was bastardised from a program targeting speciality workers to just importing workers to undercut local ones (as since your visa is tied to your employer, your bargaining options are limited).

Charging $100k/year wouldn't be the change I'd make personally but would probably help with the excesses (I'd personally just abolish it, or mandate a minimum wage of 200k/y, or only allow it for unionised locations).

The thing I worry about with this change is that employers would still exploit the workers and pay them like $40k even if they have to hand $100k to the government for that privilege.

[–] grue@lemmy.world 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

Charging $100k/year wouldn't be the change I'd make personally but would probably help with the excesses (I'd personally just abolish it, or mandate a minimum wage of 200k/y, or only allow it for unionised locations).

The thing I worry about with this change is that employers would still exploit the workers and pay them like $40k even if they have to hand $100k to the government for that privilege.

In other words, you've explained exactly why the kleptocrats prefer charging the $100k fee instead of setting a minimum wage: it accomplishes the racism and graft without the nasty side effect of empowering workers.

[–] jonne 1 points 2 weeks ago

Yeah, maybe the exploitation is what it's really about, no matter how much it would cost them in actual dollars.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)