Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rayiner's commentslogin

> Every single H1B I worked with was brilliant in their field - and paid extremely well often in excess of $400K. I know several that are earning well past $500K. If you claim these are generic Jira pushers, well you are showing ignorance.

It's a lottery system. Yes, by random chance, some of the visas will go to people who can otherwise get a job at FAANG. But most of the industry is "JIRA pushers," and that's where most of the visas go.


Remember H1B is a lottery. So yes, some of them will have the qualifications to get hired at places like FAANG. But many (most?) are pretty mediocre. There's also an extra allocation for people who get "advanced degrees" from a U.S. university. That's also a lottery, so most of the spots go to graduates of diploma-mill Master's programs. These programs are very lucrative for third-tier schools.

My uncle is a skilled immigrant to Canada (electrical engineer) and was never able to find an engineering job. They live in an immigrant-heavy subsidized housing neighborhood full of people in the same situation.

Plus one. My parents experience as well in Montreal. My dad could not understand why Canada bothered to move him and his family and the keep him on welfare. BTW - life on welfare in Canada was 5 times better than life as an electrical engineer in România. My parents never stopped thinking it was a really good idea to migrate to Canada.

I know it's not exactly the same. But would he consider becoming an electrician? Trade jobs are definitely getting more and more in demand, and the pay once established is definitely not worse than most engineer positions. Electricians in major canadian areas (e.g. Vancouver) charge 200$ per hour and more.

That's a good idea, but he's almost retired now. They immigrated during the good economy of the early 2000s, when Canadian GDP per capita was closely tracking the U.S. They still came under an education- and skills-based system (I think the 2002 system), but I think the system doesn't really account for the low value market value of college degrees from the third world. Maybe the 2015+ system works better.

How do people get by when that happens? If you have no job after a period of time, what are your options?

He tutors math and science, my aunt (who also has a graduate degree) works in a daycare. Canadian welfare is also quite generous.

Their son is doing well, but I don’t see how it makes economic sense for Canada at that point. It boils down to a circuitous and expensive way to direct government dollars to smart people who are likely to have smart kids. You could save yourself a step and just give lower income kids in Canada IQ tests and throw money at the promising ones.


That would make sense if the purpose of the program was to get the most valuable top talent. How do we decide who is the most valuable? We let the market decide. But that would cause upward wage pressure, which would undermine the real purpose of the program.

That's an insufficiently granular question. How much of the talent in frontier labs has an H1B rather than an O visa? Out of the people who have an H1B, how many employers would be willing to eat the $100k fee because those employees are so valuable?

The H1B debate has a lot of factions, but one thing is clear: AI is going to be replacing some to a lot of entry level knowledge jobs. Even if it doesn't get any better than what we have now, it'll create a pipeline problem where senior engineers are more valuable than ever and we'll have to figure out how to make room for junior engineers so that eventually they can become senior engineers. Given that, it seems prudent to pump the brakes on H1B--which has become a way to get bodies for entry level work (while top talent has shifted to O visas and the like).

Your first point is correct, but your second point doesn't follow. Lack of protectionism is based on the notion that the U.S. will always be technologically one step ahead of China because China can only copy. That's what has gotten us to where we are. Note that China itself is a protectionist economy. So in some sense protectionism is recognizing that China has a pretty good industrial policy and copying it.

> Note that China itself is a protectionist economy. So in some sense protectionism is recognizing that China has a pretty good industrial policy and copying it.

China's protectionism is emplaced to support long-term goals. Amodei's policy suggestion is explicitly in support of short term goals (1-5 years), a time window he claims to be "critical" without evidence. A cynic may link that window to forthcoming AI IPO's, and allowing current CEOs to secure ridiculous golden parachutes before leaving the mess of how to deal with the unpaced Chinese frontier models to their successors and future US legislature.

Letting AI companies set your foreign policy (voluntarily ceding global primacy to maximize domestic[1] profits) may have awful higher-order effects for the US. What's hilarious is the shameless about-face: for years, the same companies have been declaring that it is vital American AI innovation not be encumbered by new laws. Until the Chinese models glided to the frontier.

1. Maybe they hope to browbeat Europe too, like how they pushed out Huawei equipment from Euro telecoms. An alternative reading is that the loss of primacy is involuntary, so they may as well spin the reality, and salvage a win by colluding to eliminate better, open-weight models from the markets in "democracies" with the excuse that they are unpaced and therefore dangerous. What will predictibly happen is there will be `Qwen-8.1` for RoW, and a lobotomized `Qwen-8.1-paced` for Americans.


Underestimating China's capability to make homegrown technology is a mistake I could understand 20 years ago. Now it's just a sign of poor judgment.

A “one time tax” is pure third worldism. It’s like Chicago trying to close its deficit by selling off its parking meters. But Brin should propose an alternative tax that is sustainable.

CA’s spending, including Federal funds, was $183B 20 years ago, before the GFC.

Today it’s $539B. Total inflation has been about 64%, California’s population has grown by only about 10%.

California has a spending and state capacity problem, not a tax problem.

https://dof.ca.gov/media/docs/budget/historical-budget-infor...


We’re like, a lot richer than before the GFC in California though.

Keep telling yourself that you are richer because the number is bigger. If you want to be even richer move to Zimbabwe where everyone is a zillionaire.

We are all poorer than 20 or 30 years ago. Most cities are filled with people chained to work, very few people are actually enjoying time off.

Roads, parks, beaches, rivers, the nice places people should be enjoying with family and friends are mostly empty but the roads and workplaces are overflowing.


Then why the need for new taxes? You’re right that California tax revenue is way up, too.

fairly certain the sustainability problem here is the spending problem, not a taxation problem.

Sounds like he wants to avoid the race to the bottom in terms of pricing that is resulting from AI becoming a commodity.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: