295 comments

[ 2.3 ms ] story [ 119 ms ] thread
All it'll do is replace competent workers who don't have $100k to spare, with incompetent workers who have the money.
False dichotomy. Why would only incompetent workers have the 100k to spare?
(comment deleted)
Doesn’t this just mean less talent? Companies would hire locally if equal level talent was available. I doubt it’s really about saving money when these jobs earn a lot of revenue per employee. Adding this fee means companies may just not find anyone worth hiring. It would make more sense to require H1B salary to be equal to the highest paid local employee of the same role at that company than to just throw an arbitrary $100K fee on.
I wonder how much of this was driven by public/media interest in the H-1B program rather than technical policy concerns.

For instance, there is still no action taken about the L-1B visa classification, which is a lot more open to abuse than H-1B is. It has no cap on how many visas can be issued every year. It also has no obligation to pay the employee a prevailing wage, no requirement for a bachelor's degree to qualify, and it cannot be transferred to a different employer (which means employees are stuck with their sponsor until they qualify for a green card).

Great News!

Now Trump needs to go after all the "founders" scamming the US through their O-1 visa. That shit needs to end yesterday.

It hasn't happened yet. All the big money in America says that it will either never happen or won't last longer than a few weeks.
The cat is out of the bag. Either tension is going to keep rising on their country turning into an all you can eat buffet or something is going to change fast. This is not nothing.
$100K per person, or per company? Does Tata just pay $100K once?
$25K annual fee per H1B worker as opposed to $100K one-time would have made more sense. It would have made even more sense to have employers compete (within their own sector, such as tech, aerospace, etc.) such that whoever offers the highest salary will get the H1B worker.
Mafia behavior continues… (not my observation, but the Texas senator’s Ted Cruz[1]).

$100k is a big pizzo (protection fee)!

[1]: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-09-19/ted-cruz-...

> “That’s right outta ‘Goodfellas,’ that’s right out of a mafioso going into a bar saying, ‘Nice bar you have here, it’d be a shame if something happened to it,’” Cruz said, using the iconic New York accent associated with the Mafia.

Stopped clock, twice a day, etc. H-1Ba are supposed to be for difficult-to-find specialists, not generic tech workers.
So now just outsource to those countries instead??
The white collar version of ICE enforcement.
The latest updates to Windows were just too much for him.
If this is truly per application, the companies that try to boost their chances with the lottery by creating multiple applications for the same person are going to get hit hard. Phantom companies that only exist on paper so people can tweak the probabilities are now liabilities.

We'll see a rebalancing for sure.

> H-1B visas are already costly to obtain, ranging from about $1,700 to $4,500

oof, that's a big price increase.

I don't get the negative points here to be honest. To me, it seems better than lottery to be honest for all parties involved.
IMO, the fee is the wrong thing that needs adjusting. It's the salary that should be adjusted. The minimum salary for an H1B should be $200k. It's something like 50k right now which is ridiculous especially with all the restrictions an applicant is under. It both suppresses wages and abuses the worker.
They arent "trying to fix it" they are setting it up as corruptible, game-able, politically weaponizable
Fantastic news, not so much for Mr... Na .. Na... Not ganna work here anymore. Should add a yearly fee as well.
Boy, that's going to be a popular rule. I'll bet K Street is getting their engines gassed and greased for this.

I'm deeply unhappy about H1B abuse. I've watched it happen, in front of me. It's definitely a real thing. But I also worry about the legit folks, that want to take advantage of it.

Interesting, seems quite steep.

Does the extension also cost 100k?

I don't know the statutory authority under which this is being done, if this is true it will come out in the next few days.

I would have preferred a simple auction, seems like the most reasonable solution.

The way I see it is that US companies cannot simultaneously compete with foreign workers who are as good or better than US workers but are willing to work harder for less money, and also retain a high QoL for US workers. If US companies want to compete on actual merit and cost, they have to let US QoL take a hit. If they want to retain US QoL, they can't compete.

Something's gotta give, and the endless dancing with partial offshoring and H1Bs is band-aiding over two options: a bloodbath for American workers where competing for their jobs is actually opened up to the globe, or a massive, nationalist set of labor protections to stop other countries from bidding on work asked for by the US markets. Making H1Bs more costly is a little stronger than a Band-Aids, but not by much.

I think this is great news for countries like Canada and UK.