The way I read it, the 100k fee is an "investment" in bringing someone over.
You pay it when you get someone in, and it gets recovered over the 3 years that the H-1B is active. Don't know if you have to then fork over another 100k, or if the +3 rollover is covered under the original 100k. After 6 years, presumably the applicant is well on their way to applying for permanent residency, or they've had enough of living in the US and want to go home.
If amortized over 3 years, that's 34k/yr, if over 6 years, that's 17k/yr. Not peanuts, but not an obscene amount of money either.
This would basically be a tariff on foreign workers, I guess? And to your point, yes, it should be indexed to something that doesn't require endless political wrangling to keep at a reasonable market value. At least tie it to inflation, or maybe to a number reflective of the number of US workers attempting to find jobs in the given field...
https://www.theregister.com/20...
"The H-1B program was created in 1990, and presently allocates 85,000 spots annually for temporary non-immigrant workers to come to the US â" ostensibly to fill gaps in the American labor force. Counting other exemptions like those afforded academic institutions, the program awards about 130,000 visas per year to foreign workers, and renews about 300,000 previously awarded visas â" which typically last for three years and can be extended for another three.
The process works as follows: Eligible H-1B applicants, or companies representing them, register to enter the H-1B cap lottery. Some 20,000 advanced degree petitions and 65,000 general petitions get selected. For selected registrants, employers can submit H-1B petitions on behalf of prospective employees. USCIS then processes the selected petitions and those approved can then come and work in the US.
Previously, employers submitted completed H-1B petitions in March and USCIS conducted its H1-B cap lottery at the end of that month to determine which petitions would be processed for the 85,000 slots."
How do you not see this for the obvious publicity stunt that it is? You must have voted Trump.
But it worked, you got enraged and engaged with the content.
Congratulations, you're the problem with the internet today.
Oh, and I am aware of the irony of posting a reply in order to condemn it, so you needn't bother pointing that out.
Do you people really get fifty cents per post? Surely it's more than that by now.
Never seen such a panda hugger since someone pointed out that we should have responded to J6 like China did to 6/4at Tiananmen. It lacks the polish of using the A-10s to turn them into pink mist, but calling out the tanks to turn them into pink mash worked well. Just a remincer: when you want to overthrow the government, bring guns. Lots of guns.
How are we going to replace the concepts of clockwise and counter-clockwise?
They need new words, kids can't read clocks. Heck, my freaking phone and watch both want to show me analong hands despite being digital. Just stop showing a leading 0 on the time, dammit! It's 2:30pm, not 02:30.
You think you hate journalists enough, but you don't. -- Micheal Malice
While I understand that sometimes it's a communication skill, or a habit thing, I wonder if sometimes the lack of an explanation is itself a red flag that whoever opened the PR or made the commit lacks understanding of what they were supposed to do, and what they actually did...
On the other hand, ticking off a checkbox item so that the linter passes by putting in useless information is the same as a garbage test written to make sure there's sufficient code coverage to make a linter pass. A waste of time and further muddying the waters by forcing someone to read through both the code, the documentation, and the test, to determine that there's no additional value to the documentation or the test over the code.
I guess this would be the point in time to discuss how aggressive to be in terms of adopting forced syntax reformatting, pre-commit and commit linters, and tests? And god forbid, checklists for each commit?
You can do more with a kind word and a gun than with just a kind word. - Al Capone