Life is not a zero-sum game.

In 21st Century American society it is easy to get sucked into the mindset of "us against them" or "me against the world" that appeal so much to our basal instincts, including fear of others. Human's penchant for being alert to threat and risk is deeply embedded in our evolution and requires cognitive effort to resist. Additionally, inequality and the precariousness of making a living in modern, capitalistic America leads to many living on the edge and/or fearful of falling from their current economic position.

​This pessimistic economic mindset and mood has negative spillover effects on society. Studies show that increases in economic inequality are associated with political polarization in the Unites States (US) and globally. An adversarial mindset to "the competition" both individually and collectively (ie, "zero-sum thinking") can thus drive both economic and political actions that are harmful to society as a whole. ​

What is "zero-sum thinking"? Essentially it is the belief that benefits to one person or group tend to come at the expense or cost of other persons or groups. The concept is thought to originate from work by the anthropologist George M. Foster who investigated "peasant" societies' view of the world and came to the conclusion that many individuals in these societies have an “Image of Limited Good.” That is to say, many people see all of the desired things in life (food, property, wealth) as existing in finite quantity and limited supply. 

A fascinating paper by Chinoy et al from 2022 found, among other things, specific factors that were related to more or less zero-sum thinking in a survey of 15,000 individuals in the United States. Specifically, they found respondents view the world as less zero-sum if:

• They, their parents, and their grandparents experienced more upward mobility during their lifetimes.
• They, their parents, or their grandparents immigrated to the United States.

While zero-sum thinking is commonly felt and believed, a further investigation into just what this doctrine proports leaves one feeling a different approach is not only needed but warranted. When others win, you can win. A modern nation relies on taxes from its citizens (and immigrants - to the tune of $467.5 Billion in federal and state/local taxes 2019) to fund projects and priorities that benefit others. What becomes tricky to negotiate is who is being taxed and who benefits from the government's actions and interventions. I would argue we all benefit at the most basic level as a growing tax base ultimately leads to more robust services and programs. ​

Despite the fact that the US Federal Government provides useful benefits to its citizens (Social Security, rule of law, security), the "rugged individualism" that is so pervasive in American culture leaves many to feel they have to "got it alone", that the government is not their friend, and that "others" are the competition. In truth, no one succeeds alone.  ​

Ironically, perhaps the most outward manifestation of the combination of American Capitalism and individualism is the reverence for the entrepreneur. The lore of the Silicon Valley start-up that grew from a garage to a global behemoth is seductive if not often the full story. Entrepreneurship is most often predicated on having a sufficient "cushion" of support including family wealth (among other factors) or a partner who is working in a more "stable" position with provided employer-sponsored health insurance, for instance. In some ways, pursuing entrepreneurship in America seems to be privilege inaccessible to many. Perhaps not surprisingly, then, some studies have found a positive relationship between inequality and entrepreneurship across US states, though the relationship between entrepreneurship and measures of a country's overall economic health are nuanced (economies as a whole can benefit from entrepreneurship even if all individuals don't). 

In essence, many American entrepreneurs have in place their own "safety net" to ensure that they can take risks in starting something new and bringing new ideas and products to market. What might be possible for entrepreneurship and innovation in the US, though, if more people were given a sufficient social safety net?

Entrepreneurship is a risky endeavor. One is taking the chance on advancing a new idea, solution, or product that faces a variety of hurdles to success. Some of these hurdles include entrenched interests and firms who seek to maintain market dominance while other challenges include communicating the value of the new idea to potential investors, partners, and ultimately customers. ​

On top of the myriad logistical challenges of entrepreneurship, systems of social support within the United States in particular make striking out on one's own a major challenge. For example, health insurance in the US is often tied to employment and while expansion of health insurance options through government initiatives like healthcare.gov are helpful, the costs of many of the government-backed health insurance offerings are prohibitive. This is perhaps the most salient example of how the robustness of a "social safety net" can affect one's willingness to engage in entrepreneurial activities, which has been demonstrated to be the case in prior work. There are a variety of social safety net programs beyond affordable health insurance that can matter including some form of universal basic income to provide a floor of economic stability and/or childcare subsidies to limit an expensive cost barrier to millions of parents participating fully in the economy. One can imagine more robust government initiatives to lower healthcare and childcare costs alone could make an entrepreneurial path more attainable. ​

There are also arguments that redistribution through the provision of public goods may help reduce both inequality and political partisanship/polarization. These initiatives help individuals, our communities, and our society function better. ​

The injection of stimulus checks to US households during the COVID-19 pandemic provided a mini experiment in the effect of income stabilization on entrepreneurship. We saw an increase in small business formation within the US during this time and while correlation does not prove causation, many speculate increased government stimulus was a key driver of this behavior. 

Regardless of the exact causes for the spike in new businesses, these trends are quite different than prior years where entrepreneurship was on the decline. And while entrepreneurship in the US is climbing post-pandemic, it remains uncertain whether the new businesses formed will result in an increase in employment (ie, businesses that ultimately hire employees to grow).​

It is often the case that for a new business to grow and expand it must be in some way innovative, bringing new products and solutions to market. And innovation at a macro level is critical to the growth and development of large economies. So, where does innovation stand today? 

Recent data suggests declines in US innovation over the past several decades. A January 2023 paper published in the journal Nature found that from 1945 to 2010 scientific papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. While some work suggests the key measure in the aforementioned Nature paper, the disruption index, may be biased by citation inflation or a growth in publication rates, the study prompted many to ask if our current systems and incentives are hindering true scientific innovation. 

There is a twisted irony to the fact that a concentration of resources and power in a hyper capitalist "winner take all" system ultimately can stifle innovation and progress. Established power players (think big technology companies in the US) become entrenched and work hard to maintain their market dominance. 

The concentration of resources also occurs in various societal structures and working environments. Even those institutions deemed a societal good can succumb to market forces. Higher education, especially in the United States, is an interesting example where there truly are "elite" institutions whose resources dwarf others, leading to higher levels of research productivity (through graduate student and postdoctoral research labor advantages) and placement of their alumni into faculty positions. Cumulative advantage takes hold, ensuring those considered the "winners" in their spaces continue to win. 

We must ask if all this concentration is good for our society as a whole, especially as innovation drives economic growth. ​A paper by Nicholas Bloom and colleagues (Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?) posits that economic growth arises from people creating ideas and can be captured by the product of research productivity x number researchers. Their paper finds that while research effort has risen substantially over the past few decades, research productivity is declining sharply. 

How might we advance research and innovation further? A more thoughtful distribution of resources to ensure funding is not overly concentrated would help. Furthermore, increasing access to opportunity will help bring diverse perspectives, skills, and ideas to the table.
​And so we come to the importance of improving immigration to the US to help in these areas. 

The US is a nation of immigrants and data show embracing more accessible immigration practices can assist us as our current population ages and in the process help grow our economy. In addition, immigrants drive American research and innovation, making our economy more dynamic. An important study released in December 2022 found that while immigrants represent 16% of all US inventors, they produce 23% of total innovation output (which was measured by number of patents, patent citations, and the economic value of their patents). The study also found that immigrant and native-born collaborations drive additional innovation through the mixing of ideas and perspectives. 

Another study released in 2022 has shown immigrant entrepreneurs play a large role in founding or co-founding successful US companies. Specifically, over half (55%) of America's start-up companies valued at $1 billion or more had at least one immigrant founder. That percentage rises to 64% if founders or co-founders who are the children of immigrants are included. ​

What is amazing about the impact of immigrants on US innovation is how difficult it is for many highly skilled individuals to successfully work in the US. Current caps on H-1B employment visas for the private sector and various backlogs in the review of applications for green cards makes the recruitment and retention of foreign talent to the US challenging. ​

And while fears of immigrants taking US Citizens' jobs and opportunities are certainly understandable, they are often unwarranted based on the data. 

Importantly, data show an increase in H-1B science, technology, engineering and math (ie, STEM) workers in cities is associated with significant gains in wages for natives. A recent study, published in March 2023, found evidence that large multinational companies based in the US were likely to replace skilled visa rejected employment with "offshoring," ie, employing a skilled worker outside the US, implying that US companies cannot necessarily get talent from current citizens in all cases.

The evidence that H-1B employment is not detrimental for native employees is somewhat conflicting, however. An October 2022 study looking at US firms who "won" versus "lost" the H-1B visa lottery (ie, were able to obtain H-1B visas for skilled, immigrant employees, or not) found some evidence that additional H-1B employees "crowd out" other workers at the firm. Furthermore, this study found some evidence that additional H-1Bs increase firm profits and decrease payroll costs per employee. From a purely economic point of view, one could argue that these data are supportive that the H-1B program improves firm profits even if it potentially hurts the employment prospects of some native employees. 

The Economic Innovation Group, a bipartisan public policy organization, has published important data on the topic of immigration and innovation, among others. They also surveyed the American voting public in 2022 on their perspectives on skilled immigration in the United States. They find that most US voters do not have strong opinions on the economic impact of immigration on the country or are split in its effects being economically net positive (38%) or negative (37%), despite evidence that skilled immigrants boost a variety of economic metrics. When the survey administrators better gauged support for specific skilled immigration programs that would boost the US economy and innovation, support was over 70% overall and over 60% in registered Republicans, who are politically more likely to oppose immigration. Thus, there are signs that immigration reform can be a winning political position, especially if it is framed as an economic and innovative "win" for the country. 

In closing, to grow entrepreneurship and innovation in the United States we need to make opportunity more inclusive to our citizens and support more effective immigration pathways for skilled workers. We need to have an abundance agenda - more social safety nets, more community support, more inclusion, and more access to education, opportunity, and employment in America. 

Scott Galloway echoes this abundance notion in a piece on greater accessibility to higher education. Knowledge itself should not be a scarce and expensive resource to obtain. Increasingly, with the proliferation of data and content on the internet, finding information is easy even if extracting knowledge is not. One could even make the argument that it is precisely due to the overwhelming amount of information available online that finding true knowledge has become more difficult. Our higher education institutions have a role to play in helping turn data and information into knowledge and producing individuals with the necessary skills and values to grow our economy responsibly. The US is in a unique position to provide opportunities and freedom of thought and expression to our citizens and future citizens (ie, immigrants), which allows them to innovate and make the world a better place. Higher education is and can remain our "front door" to the some of the best and brightest young minds who come to America to learn, live, and prosper, while positively impacting our economy. But we can't take international students and scholars for granted. 

In order for the United States to reach the ideals expressed in our founding - "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" from the Declaration of Independence - we must recommit to being a welcoming nation. Expanding immigration pathways for highly skilled workers who want to live and work in the US and contribute to our economy while advancing their own well being should be a win-win for these individuals and our country. We must get past our zero-sum thinking and remind ourselves that in a truly inclusive and democratic society, when our neighbors are allowed the freedom and opportunity to leverage their skills and expertise to their economic benefit, our economy as a whole becomes more robust and we all prosper. 

To innovate, people must be allowed to think, speak, publish, associate, and disagree.
They must be allowed to save, invest, trade, and profit. In a word, they must be free.
- From ​Superabundance 

The diversity of our nation presents challenges and opportunities. As a nation of immigrants, cultures and beliefs collide and mix here like almost no where else on Earth. ​

The American entrepreneurial spirit, commitment to capitalism (greed is good?), and our "rugged individualism" are all assets and, sometimes, liabilities. How we leverage and refine our current systems and beliefs will ultimately determine whether our future is bright or diminished. Through caring and compassion for our current citizens and those who want to join us (immigrants) I think we can achieve a more prosperous future for all of us.   

Perspective Piece, Opinion (Part 2 of 2)

Last week, I discussed the effects of temporary visa holders in the academic workplace. This week, I turn to discuss the H-1B visa system in more detail and how for-profit employers utilize this mechanism for better and worse. ​

UPDATE January 2021: I highly encourage readers to explore recent work in Science on Rethinking Immigration Policies for STEM Doctorates.

H-1B Visa Overview
The majority of advanced degree holders working in the United States (US) are sponsored under an H-1B visa for "specialty occupations". The program is administered through the United States Citizenship & Immigration Services (USCIS) and a job must meet one of the following criteria to qualify as a specialty occupation:

• Bachelor’s or higher degree or its equivalent is normally the minimum entry requirement for the position
• The degree requirement for the job is common to the industry or the job is so complex or unique that it can be performed only by an individual with a degree
• The employer normally requires a degree or its equivalent for the position
• The nature of the specific duties is so specialized and complex that the knowledge required to perform the duties is usually associated with the attainment of a bachelor’s or higher degree.

​Currently there is a "cap" on H-1Bs granted each year to for-profit companies and a lottery is used to allot the 85,000 visas available to advanced degree holders. The H-1B pool open to all applicants is 65,000 with an additional 20,000 visas available only to those with at least a Master's degree.

The success rate of "winning" the lottery hovers around 25% to 35%.
An employer who seeks to hire a foreign worker on an H-1B visa, then, must literally take a chance on them by entering a lottery to be assigned a visa for said employee. Even then, a company's paperwork might be filed improperly and the H-1B denied (a more common process in recent years as these visas have been scrutinized in more detail). All these steps require time and money to navigate, which dis-incentivizes companies from pursuing this path for a potential employee. 

However, university and nonprofits are exempt from the H-1B cap (see last week's post for more on this), encouraging many nonimmigrant advanced degree holders to occupy positions in these institutions after completing their schooling. 

Changes to H-1B Selection Process for Fiscal Year 2021
USCIS has taken some action to make the H-1B application process more efficient. This includes allowing employers to pre-register for a potential visa without the full paperwork being required until they have been notified whether they have been selected in the lottery. This change took effect for fiscal year 2021.
​Another significant change for this fiscal year includes one that seeks to increase the odds for advanced degree (Master's or Ph.D.) holders being selected.

• The 65,000 general visa pool will be drawn first
• Followed by the 20,000 advanced degree pool draw

This order is the reverse of the previous process and USCIS estimates that it will result in an increase of up to 16% (or 5,340 workers) in the number of selected petitions for H-1B beneficiaries with a Master’s degree or higher from a US institution of higher education.  

Immigrants & the Economy
The main goal of the US's H-1B program is to fill gaps in the US workforce. 

There is certainly debate around whether encouraging more advanced degree holders to enter the US has a positive impact on the economy. Some reports make a strong case for the value of advanced degree immigrants: showing they contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits and their presence correlates with a higher number of American jobs. Others refute the interpretation of these data.

Indeed, there are many reports of how the H-1B visa program is being used to supplant American workers with visa holders, often with a cost savings to the employer.  

H-1B Prevailing Wage and Fair Compensation 
H-1B sponsored employees must be paid the "prevailing wage" for their work ​area, level of expertise, and geographic location of work. This presumably prevents a company from using the H-1B visa as a source of cheaper labor than hiring a US citizen. However, this determination of prevailing wage is open to much interpretation and abuse. In fact, some have argued and data have shown that H-1B employees at for-profit companies make lower salaries than their peers and that this mechanism is used to, potentially, suppress wages for all employees.

Furthermore, outsourcing Informational Technology (IT) consulting companies including Infosys, Tata Consultancy Services, Deloitte Consulting, and Cognizant are often used to circumvent some of the prevailing wage rules that apply to H-1B visas. And these consulting firms employ large numbers of H-1B visa holders (though mostly those holding a Bachelor's Degree). In the most recent 2019 H-1B data, the four aforementioned consulting firms employed 32,357 H-1Bs...the top four other for-profit employers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, & Facebook) employed 22,202.  
 
So, how much are H-1B holders being paid?
​Data from NSF's Science & Engineering Indicators 2018 reports median income of H-1B visa holders for initial employment obtained from USCIS. Below are data taken from USCIS for fiscal years 2016 & 2017.

The relatively low earnings of life scientists probably reflects their presence in postdoctoral positions at universities...~60% postdocs are in the life sciences (see Fig 2-2 in this report). While universities and other nonprofit or governmental research institutes are exempt from the H-1B cap, they still must report H-1B information for those they employ to USCIS. Thus, this and the following data also contain salary information for H-1Bs employed at universities, non-profits, and government research institutes. 

Diving into 2019 H-1B Data from USCIS
USCIS has extensive data on those receiving H-1Bs over the past several years on its website.
Below, I present some details from the "Approved H-1B Petitions by Employer" data from 2019. First, the cap-exempt nature of nonprofit institutions, which includes universities, academic medical centers, hospitals, and government institutes and labs, results in these employers representing a majority (75%) of Ph.D. H-1B employers in 2019 data.

The USCIS H-1B data also requires employers to report median salary of the H-1B-sponsored employees. Note, this averages earnings over the full population, including those with Bachelor's degrees, Master's degrees, and Ph.D.s. Looking at these data, you can see median salaries are much higher in those working at for-profit companies.

The lower salaries for H-1B employees at university and nonprofit/governmental agencies could be the result of a a variety of factors. The most likely is that this population is heavily enriched with postdoctoral researchers, whose salaries hover around $45,000-$50,000 at most universities. 

And as most H-1B holders in for-profit companies ("industry") are working in the computer science and engineering space (~60% of all H-1B holders, see report) where salaries are rather high, it is unsurprising that their industry salaries are well over $100,000 (where the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports mean annual earnings of ~$94,000 and ~$101,000 across all employees in the computer/mathematical and engineering sectors, respectively). 

Interestingly, and supportive of the notion that job outsourcing companies may be used to suppress wages, the average median salary of H-1B holders employed by Cognizant, Tata Consultancy Services, Deloitte Consulting, and Infosys was $90,798 (+/- $14,340) versus $139,358 (+/- $8,407) employed at the four largest other for-profit employers (Amazon, Google, Microsoft, & Facebook). Note, this is not a perfect comparison as the 4 outsourcing/consulting companies rarely employ Ph.D.-holders. 

Which for-profit companies employ the most H-1Bs with Ph.D.s?
Relevant to my work supporting postdoctoral researchers, who all possess Ph.D.s, I wanted to better understand which for-profit companies employ Ph.D.s on H-1B visas.

The list is dominated by big-tech (see chart, below). In fact, Google, Intel, Apple, Amazon, and Microsoft employ ~56% of ALL H-1B holding Ph.D.s in for-profit companies (of those sponsoring at least 100 visas) in 2019.
​
​Indeed, an earlier report looking at occupational groups by H-1B cap status in 2010-2011 found that computer science related occupations represented ~51% of all capped (for-profit) H-1B employees, followed by those occupying engineering roles (~9%) or working in financial services (~6%). This distribution differs when looking at H-1Bs awarded in the cap-exempt category utilized by universities and nonprofits: life scientists (~28%), postsecondary teacher (23%), health practitioners (14%), and physical scientists (7%) were the most common categories.
​
Clearly, roles that focus on computer science, technology, and engineering are disproportionately represented in for-profit H-1B sponsorships. So, if you are an international student or postdoc seeking employment with a company in the United States, you should work on developing your data science, coding, and other analytical skills that are in demand.

​See these pieces and personal accounts of those who successfully transitioned to a career in data science. 

However, as a fraction of all H-1Bs employed, the Ph.D. labor pool is rather small at some of these companies. For example, only ~9% of all H-1Bs employed by Google in 2019 hold Ph.D.s and that percentage at Intel and Apple is 14% and 10%, respectively. Looking at which company H-1B employee pools are most represented by Ph.D. holders, we get a slightly different group of employers.
​
Kelly Services, which contracts with the federal government to staff a variety of roles in government agencies, has the largest percentage of its H-1B workers occupied by those with Ph.D. degrees. Several pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies (Bristol-Myers Squibb, Abbvie, Genentech) appear on this list as do some companies that might be less well known to the casual Ph.D. student or postdoc: KLA Tencor and Global Foundries. 

​H-1Bs, For-Profit Companies, and Labor Market Effects
What effect does utilizing H-1Bs have on their sponsoring employers and co-workers' earnings? 
​​Much commentary has called into question whether the H-1B program is a net benefit or detriment to labor markets with some researchers describing a reduction in estimated wages and domestic employment in high tech sectors without the program.

Data looking at the effects of H-1B workers in for-profit companies suggest that payroll per employee may be slightly reduced for those companies who "win" the H-1B lottery. In addition, corporate profits are higher in those companies employing H-1Bs. Indeed, one report estimates usage of skilled H-1B holders placed in discounted prevailing wage levels, which the employer is allowed to select with little oversight or vetting, can save employers around $40,000 per employee per year (see details here). And stories of H-1B holders replacing US domestic workers in tech are plentiful. 

Whether companies actively use the H-1B program to curtail labor costs, among other complaints, is a complex question to answer, especially when comparable salary data for positions at for-profit companies is unknown. Some work has tried to address the issue, though. 

A study comparing computer scientists and electrical engineers previously on F-1 visas versus domestic workers found a reduction in salary of 6% in visa holders working in computer science but no difference in salary in the electrical engineer group. Others have found H-1B holders earn higher salaries and occupy jobs that are difficult to fill.

That study went on to show that Information Technology goods prices and output benefited from immigrant labor by between 1.9 and 2.5%, benefiting companies and consumers. This finding highlights the possibility that immigrant labor and work visas may be a net benefit for the US economy while being detrimental to the visa workers themselves. 

Paths to Citizenship & Needed Reforms
Many temporary workers on H-1B visas wish to transition to permanent residency status in the US (i.e., obtain a green card). Many for-profit employers will sponsor green card applications for their H-1B employees. Those with advanced degrees can purse the EB-2 "exceptional ability" employment-based immigration path to permanent residency. However, country-specific caps make queuing for one of these immigrant visas a long process. ​

While H-1B reform often has bipartisan support, the politics and special interests behind visa and immigration reform are complex. However, most would agree the current system doesn't work as intended and is subject to some abuse.
​
Big tech and business interests are often involved in shaping the visa and immigration reform conversation via groups such as FWD.us. The large IT outsourcing firms that employ H-1Bs have also engaged in lobbying​ to prevent changes to the H-1B system. Certainly some of these business leaders, at least partially, mean well in their efforts. But to pretend there are not vested financial interests in ensuring a steady supply of often under-paid immigrant labor, who then depend on being "in good standing" with their employer for green card sponsorship, would be naive to any impartial observer. And the long backlog for green card processing for some groups, especially Indian workers, has also been suggested by some as another way companies may "lock in" their employment for many years. These workers have little career mobility and negotiating power as they wait on their employer-sponsored green cards to process...which can take over 10 years to occur, even for those in the exceptional ability EB-2 category.  

With all this said, perhaps it is unsurprising that some have likened the current work visa system to modern-day slavery or indentured servitude (see also) as the workers' ability to remain in the US depends on their current employment with a set employer. This employer-employee power imbalance is highly problematic and may prevent visa  workers from raising any employment concerns with authorities for fear of their sponsorship being revoked. ​Reforms clearly are needed. 

Looking Toward the Future
Clearly, balancing the positive impact of temporary and immigrant workers on firm productivity and innovation with their potential negative effects on US labor markets and the well-being of the visa workers themselves is a difficult task. Diversity has been linked to greater creativity and innovation. However, the accounts referenced in this post suggest some for-profit entities utilize the H-1B and future citizen sponsorship to lock immigrant workers into roles that are underpaid with little room for advancement. 
​
While the current political climate in the US has resulted in serious changes in how the H-1B visa system operates (for better or worse; see also), most would agree that the spirit of this system is a good one: encourage high-skilled workers to bring their talents (and associated spending and tax base) to the US.

Certainly some recent changes to how H-1B visas are reviewed and approved have been good. For example, there has been a decrease in the number of H-1Bs awarded to IT outsourcing consulting firms (traditionally, the bad actors in the system) and subsequent rise in those awarded to large tech companies in recent years. 

More needs to be done to improve our H-1B visa and immigration system.
The economic and demographic consequences of not doing so are many. This includes the important effects of immigration on US population growth and workforce participation, while saying nothing about their effects on technological innovations and discoveries in STEM.  

Is America Still the Land of Opportunity?
America bills itself as the land of opportunity and many highly skilled and educated individuals from across the world come here to better their lives - to pursue the proverbial American Dream.

In addition, most (78%) Americans support high-skilled immigration to the country. However, we as a nation must do better to provide true opportunity to those who come to the US to study and work and ultimately wish to contribute their talents and abilities to the US workforce. We must also resist the influence of corporate interests and political operatives who seek to shape the work visa and immigration process to serve their own needs.

Our current processes negatively affects highly skilled and motivated individuals who have frequently trained for advanced degrees at US institutions. We as a nation have invested in these individuals and stand to gain financially for allowing them to live and work here. International trainees and workers have also made the often difficult choice of coming to this country to better their lives and, in the process, the lives of others including their current or future children and American citizens. The least we can do is create a system that helps them do so.  

Only then can we fulfill our full potential as truly the land of opportunity to all. 
​

For Further Reading
The H-1B Visa Program: A Primer on the Program and Its Impact on Jobs, Wages, and the Economy

The H-1B Visa Issue Explained

The H-1B Visa Debate, Explained

U.S. Degree? Check. U.S. Work Visa? Still A Challenge

The Pandemic’s Effects on Recruiting International STEM Trainees

Are foreign students the ‘best and brightest’? Data and implications for immigration policy

​Guestworkers in the high-skill U.S. labor market. An analysis of supply, employment, and wage trends

Is There Really a Shortage of Skilled Workers?

STEM crisis or STEM surplus? Yes and yes

The Skills Gap: Is it a Myth?

Paying Skilled Workers More Would Create More Skilled Workers

Upcoming H-1B lottery gives US-based advanced degree candidates an edge over foreign degree ones

RESOURCES
USCIS H-1B Employer Hub (search for companies who have sponsored H-1B visas)
​Additional H-1B Data

​US Department of Labor H-1B Willful Violator List
              What is a willful violator?