Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

We already have a system for that -- taxes. Why would you underpay H1B workers? It seems punitive w/o cause.

1. It is unfair to the workers

2. The H1B Programme is for top talent, for talent you cannot find locally. If anything you should overpay for such valuable talent.

3. High H1B salaries also come back to the country in the form of taxes just like for all workers, which should improve schools.

Schooling is a shared problem for communities and our country, and should be paid for with taxes -- why would you put the burden of that on immigrant workers?

Finally, if despite taxes, we cannot fix our school system, perhaps instead of blaming/punishing immigrants we should be looking at our municipal and state governments.



>Why would you underpay H1B workers?

Employers pay as little as they can. If it's possible to hire someone for minimum wage, you hire for minimum wage.

If it's possible to import and indenture a guy for whom a crowded shared house with an actual bathroom looks like a palace, you'll do that. If you don't, your competitor will.

>why would you put the burden of that on immigrant workers

You don't put it on immigrant workers, you put it on industries whose demand exceeds supply.

Also remember that immigrant workers don't come out of nowhere. You imported 100 nurses, India and Pakistan have 100 nurses less. Vacuuming up the brightest people from everywhere doesn't help global development.


K-12 schooling in America is paid through property taxes, so unless they are living in a area with high property taxes you most likely wont be helping much.

College level school funding (state/federal) has basically dried up in the past few decades with budget cuts. The idea is affordable public college education is not realistic for most people. I believe this is what the commenter is talking about needing more funding.


> K-12 schooling in America is paid through property taxes.

That’s probably not true exclusively anywhere in America, and it's not true predominantly in a number of parts of America.

For instance, in California less than 1/4 comes of K-12 funding comes from local property taxes, and the absolute majority comes from State funds which are derived primarily from state income taxes.


> The combination of state, local, and federal school funding makes it so that the districts attended by poor students are funded 2.5% more than non-poor students. And even within districts, “schools with less advantaged students spend at least as much (and often significantly more).”

...

> Property based funding of schools is not likely to be a very effective target for school reform since our current system does not actually have large differences in the funding of poor students. I think that it is more likely that the dysfunction in the schools is best explained by a lack of continuity and efficiency within the schools that serve poor students. The property tax debate is mostly just an easy but misguided target for explaining the achievement gap. On top of the pure fact that property based taxes have actually still allowed for the progressive funding of schools, we already have examples of states that fund students without a total reliance on local property taxes. Take Michigan. Michigan has a centralized funding source for their students. The state takes an overall tax and then breaks it up evenly across students within the state (there are extra complexities to this that are addressed in this article). Even with these changes in school funding, it does not appear that the reformed funding strategy had any impact on student outcomes. In general, funding is not a good proxy for educational quality.

https://medium.com/@coreykeyser/why-conventional-wisdom-on-e...




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

Search: