- [Age] 22-25: +8
- [Education] Foreign BS: +5
- [English] 90th percentile (108 or more on TOEFL ): +11
This amounts to 24 points, needing 6 more to achieve 30. A job offer of 150% the median household income of the state is only +5 points, so the candidate would need a 200% offer. This means, using 2015 data :
- California: $64.5k -> $129k
- Washington: $64k -> $128k
- New York: $61k -> $122k
- Massachussets: $70k -> $140k
The numbers above are, obviously, higher than average, but certainly reachable for excellent software engineers at big companies. (It is unclear to me if other compensation components such as stocks/equity count toward the 200%.)
However, if such candidate reaches the age of 26, earns a foreign MS in a STEM field, or obtains a perfect TOEFL score, thus earning an additional point or two, then she would need a job offer equivalent to only 150% the median household income.
"Anyone with less than a 60th percentile proficiency gets no points. Between 60th and 80th percentile is worth six points, someone in the 80th to 90th percentile range earns 10 points, someone with a 90th percentile proficiency or above earns 11 points, and someone in the 100th percentile range earns 12 points"
1.) you scored at least 900 points.
2.) you did better than 90% of the persons that took the test (That's what I understand by percentile. But it doesn't make sense since mathematically you can't have a 100th percentile. Except if you approximate 99.995 -> 100)
Plus, once you make a name for yourself in India, the rest of the third world is yours for the taking.
FD - See other comment about H1B holder fucking off back home to India to grow my company.
Their reasons could be one or more of these:
- India is messy, idiosyncratic, language is a barrier, it's a tech backwater despite all the BPO/Backoffice work being shipped there, no one cool who doesn't already have roots in India is in India, Indians aren't ready to spend money, Indian money is less valuable because of capital controls, questionable public safety and health standards
What I am seeing are signs of green grass in the barren indian startup landscape -
1. There is HUGE pent up demand internet access as evidenced by the blockbuster launch of Reliance Jio
2. I come from a real small (even by western standards) town in eastern India. People from my hometown are on Tinder! I cannot begin to tell you how shocking this is for how conservative that part of the country is.
3. Lots of in-country migration: Our generation (1980-) has totally upended the way Indians live. They are relocating to different parts of the country, they are marrying people they'd NEVER ever meet a generation ago - its a beautiful sight to behold.
4. they have disposable money for experiential holidays
I'm sure there are a million reasons why Startup Chile or France are more attractive to the average entrepreneur. Give India a look is all I'm saying. You're leaving a billion people on the table when you don't consider the Indian subcontinent in your international expansion plans. Amidst all the craziness and weird English, you'll find people who are grateful your product reached them.
A country whose indigenous population growth is stagnating, whose indigenous population does currently not pick up all available jobs, whose economy is 6x as big as Canada and Australia combined is choosing to turn away immigrants.
From a purely numerical standpoint, an 18T dollar economy built by 330M individuals will start to become unstable if the population starts falling and aging. This is a distinct possibility when you only invite highly educated, skilled immigrants since education negatively correlates to family sizes. Falling population will be another reason to push for more automation (see Japan) leading to wage stagnation.
America, be careful what you wish for. Read this demographic report. It's eye opening. Childbirth rates are 1.82. If you bring in Nobel prize winners, you'll get brainy people who will not beget brainy kids.
Many countries have similar immigration standards. It's only when America does it that people get angry. It's quite difficult for skilled workers to get visas to the EU. Far harder than it is for Europeans to move to America.
And while not a part of the EU, it's quite straightforward to get a visa for Norway if you have a job offer in IT or other professional fields, with the major exception being healthcare, where it can be difficult to get your credentials recognized, and you have to pass an exam showing proficiency in Norwegian.
I for one, am not angry that America is debating this policy. They are entitled to it. I'm adding my voice to the debate with points which favor a liberal, come-one-come-all immigration policy.
We need to start wondering why educated people aren't reproducing and work to fix that, instead of hoping there will forever be at least one impoverished country to do the reproducing for us.
1. 15-20% of the world which have higher education degrees to have enough kids to carry the burden of the remaining 80-85%
2. You're also asking that same 15-20% of the educated world to voluntarily have more children with the knowledge that some of them will have to do less than salubrious work.
Would you take on such a burden yourself?
The current solution is "don't worry just bring in poor people." The problem is as the countries those immigrants come from develop, not only do the birth rates of those countries drop, but those people have less reason to migrate since their home is good enough. It's why Americans don't emigrate. It's why Japanese emigration dropped off a cliff.
Loose immigration is a bandage and people who think otherwise don't realize the long term unfeasibility of what they're suggesting. Maintaining local birth rates is going to be a colossal problem 50 years from now, and immigration to Western countries will be less of a solution as Asian/African economies grow and become more desirable places to live.
And it seems you're trying to make it sound like I was saying that the highly educated need to reproduce more than anyone else. That isn't at all what I'm saying. The problem is developed countries as a whole have falling birth rates. We need to find a solution to the whole educated population=dropping population problem and find out how to stabilize it.
Evolution and natural selection would solve that problem: children of people who have more kids - are more likely to have kids themselves.
Aren't U.S. companies responsible for retraining workers to meet their needs? Are U.S. companies entitled to business models that aren't supported by U.S. demographics?
The idea that employers should just import workers doesn't help underemployed citizens. And it doesn't improve wages of employed citizens.
You can't train away reluctance.
In the end, everyone will be eating foods from the least developed area today.
I'm pretty certain you wouldn't want this outcome.
(Edit1 for clarity.)
I'm also pretty sure we are talking about different things here, you seem to be speaking of the natural flora while I am speaking of the agricultural uses. I don't understand your point.
Since you're posting like this after we just asked you to stop using HN for political and ideological battle, I've banned this account.
Low skilled immigrants compete against low skilled workers that are already here and depress their wages. High skilled workers do the same thing but at the top end with the added advantage of generating more tax dollars and GDP (since they have more income).
At its core the question becomes: Is immigration a public policy to benefit those that are here (ie strengthen economy, unify familial bonds) or a charity offered to the rest of the world?
Edit: To be fair - I can see the argument for a supply of immigrant low skill workers potentially keeping wages depressed hitting existing US residents and while it might be good for the wealthy and businesses it might not be good for the majority. I'm in the UK and these arguments are very similar to those covered in the Brexit campaigns and while I voted Remain and I've since come to appreciate more of the arguments on the other side.
Young unskilled workers are a net gain to the economy, especially in an ageing society like the US. It's not charity.
Having said that, I still think you are on point about the American Dream available for everyone willing to work hard. It just starts before you enter the US since green cards are not handed out that easily even though it is called a lottery.
Your odds of winning are something like 0.2%. If you're one of those selected I believe there's still only a 50% chance you will make it through as they select twice as many 'winners' as they have spots available. I applied for about 8 years I think without success. I then stopped after realising I had nothing to gain from moving to the US.
Also, the program is limited to persons from certain countries (for example if you like in England/Scotland/Wales you cannot apply).
If I'm not wrong, both in Canada and Australia you can apply and look for a job there, if you can prove you have enough funds and past work experience, in addition to similar age/education/language fluency requirements.
It's also not that easy to get into Australia or Canada on a Visa to look for work, even if you have sufficient points you are much more likely to be declined unless you have a job offer / sponsorship.
No that does not matter, if you have 60 points (for AUS) and there are open slots for that month you can apply for the visa. Preference is given to people who have highest points.
In most cases having a job offer is the the highest (points wise) score awarding qualification, in the UK currently you cannot qualify for a Tier 2 visa without this (simply won't reach the required points) but in any case in CA and AUS this puts you over anyone else without a job offer pretty much by default.
Hence you are likely to be declined unless you are really over qualified for every other requirement but then it shouldn't be a problem for you to get a job upfront also.
> it shouldn't be a problem for you to get a job upfront also.
That is not true, majority of smart people do not get job in CAN or AUS if they are not in the country. Most HR will simply throw away your resume if you are not in the country.
You can apply for permanent resident visa for AUS and CAN without visiting those countries. Once you get the visa, move to the country and look for jobs.
Isn't this basically ageism, the kind that is outlawed federally?
Perhaps the concern is about the economics of importing people who are harder to provide insurance or pensions for. But for that I could see a requirement for a certain level of insurance. Or a disqualification from entitlement programs for a while.
To go straight to age ranking is disappointing.
If congress didn't specifically include a provision to note that age discrimination laws didn't apply to this, it would likely end up being challenged in court, but I certainly couldn't say what the outcome would be.
Other countries do this as well - it's not right, but the people developing this policy don't have an original bone in their body, so of course they're going to copy what other countries already have!
The principle should certainly apply more broadly, especially when we're talking about legislation.
Excuse my ignorance but what is comparable to a Noble prize ? I can think of the fields medal, anything else?
Five points are awarded if an applicant has a job offer
that will pay at least 150% of median household income
in the state where he or she will be employed. [...]
13 points if it's 300% the median.
100K for a Software engineer might not cut it in SV, but it will allow smaller tech hubs in places where tech salaries are not inflated like i don't know Kentucky for example to attract foreign talent.
The new system will resolve the above problem by selecting applicants with the most points (giving points for skills, etc...).
From person experience H1b lottery is heart-wrenching, and makes it difficult to plan. The Australian system (which is similar to this system), is much better.
There is a market for middle-high income people that buys housing out of their home country just in case the political situation becomes unfavorable.
In fact some countries give you residence if you spend a high amount of money on real estate.
If not then this would shut out the vast majority of non-PhD startup founders who do not already have a green card.
H1b lottery is a broken system which is gamed by outsourcing companies.