 |
|
|
|||||
The Trump administration’s hefty new visa fees for H-1B workers have prompted high-level talks inside companies in Silicon Valley and beyond on the possibility of moving more jobs overseas precisely the outcome the policy was meant to stop. U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday announced the change to the visa program that has long been a recruitment pathway for tech firms and encouraged international students to pursue postgraduate courses in the United States. While the $100,000 levy applies only to new applicants not current holders as first announced the confusion around its roll-out and steep cost are already leading companies to pause recruitment, budgeting and workforce plans, according to Reuters interviews of founders, venture capitalists and immigration lawyers who work with technology companies. “I have had several conversations with corporate clients where they have said this new fee is simply unworkable in the U.S., and it’s time for us to start looking for other countries where we can have highly skilled talent,” said Chris Thomas, an immigration attorney at Colorado-based law firm Holland & Hart. “And these are large companies, some of them household names, Fortune 100 type companies, that are saying, we just simply cannot continue.” About 141,000 new applications for H-1B were approved in 2024, according to Pew Research. Though Congress caps new visas at 65,000 a year, total approvals run higher because petitions from universities and some other categories are excluded from the cap. Computer-related jobs accounted for a majority of the new approvals, the Pew data showed. FIRMS WILL CUT H-1B WORKERS The Trump administration and critics of the H-1B program have said that it has been used to suppress wages and curbing it opens more jobs for U.S. tech workers. The H-1B visa program has also made it more challenging for college graduates trying to find IT jobs, Trump’s announcement on Friday said. The visa previously cost employers only a few thousand dollars. But the new $100,000 fee would flip the equation, making hiring talent in countries like India where wages are lower and Big Tech now builds innovation hubs instead of back offices more attractive, experts and executives told Reuters. “We probably have to reduce the number of H-1B visa workers we can hire,” said Sam Liang, co-founder and CEO of popular artificial intelligence transcription start-up Otter. “Some companies may have to outsource some of their workforce. Hire maybe in India or other countries just to walk around this H-1B problem.” BAD FOR STARTUPS While conservatives have long applauded Trump’s wide-ranging immigration crackdown, the H-1B move has drawn support from some liberal quarters as well. Netflix co-founder and well-known Democrat donor Reed Hastings who said he has followed H-1B politics for three decades argued on X that the new fees would remove the need for a lottery and instead reserve visas for “very high value jobs” with greater certainty. But Deedy Das, a partner at venture capital firm Menlo Ventures that has invested in startups such as AI firm Anthropic, said “blanket rulings like this are rarely good for immigration” and would disproportionately affect startups. Unlike large technology companies whose compensation packages are a combination of cash and stock, pay packages of startups typically lean towards equity as they need cash to build the business. “For larger companies, the cost is not material. For smaller companies, those with fewer than 25 employees, it’s much more significant,” said Das. “Big tech CEOs expected this and will pay. For them, fewer small competitors is even an advantage. Its the smaller startups that suffer most.” INNOVATION AT RISK The policy could also mean fewer of the talented immigrants who often go on to launch new firms, analysts said. More than half of U.S. startups valued at $1 billion or more had at least one immigrant founder, according to a 2022 report from the National Foundation for American Policy, a nonpartisan think tank based in Virginia. Several lawyers said startups they represent are pinning hopes on lawsuits that argue the administration overstepped by imposing a fee beyond what Congress envisioned, betting courts would dilute the rule before costs cripple hiring. If not, “we will see a pullback from the smartest people around the world,” said Bilal Zuberi, founder of Silicon Valley-based venture capital firm Red Glass Ventures, who began his career in the U.S. on an H-1B visa. Additional reporting by Krystal Hu Aditya Soni and Echo Wang, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump’s contentious relationship with U.S. news organizations has led to a host of legal battles and disputes, the latest of which came with ABC’s suspension and days later return of the “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” show.Trump had celebrated the suspension of Kimmel, a veteran late-night comic and frequent critic of the president and his policies, calling it “great news for America.”Kimmel was pulled last week after a monologue included a reference to the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, and compared Trump’s grief to “how a 4-year-old mourns a goldfish.”FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, a Trump appointee, said his agency had a strong case for holding Kimmel, ABC and its parent company Walt Disney Co., accountable for spreading misinformation. Nexstar and Sinclair, two of ABC’s largest affiliate owners, said they would pull the show from their stations.But by Monday, ABC said the show would be back on starting Tuesday.Here is a look at some of the key disputes Trump has had with media over his second term:Sept. 22: ABC reinstates Kimmel’s late night show ABC said in a statement that the decision to reinstate the show came after days of “thoughtful conversations” with Kimmel, who has hosted his show on ABC since 2003.Andrew Kolvet, a spokesperson for Turning Point USA, the organization founded by Kirk, said in a statement on X: “Disney and ABC caving and allowing Kimmel back on the air is not surprising, but it’s their mistake to make. Nexstar and Sinclair do not have to make the same choice.”Sinclair announced on X on Monday that it plans to replace the show with news programming, saying that “discussions with ABC are ongoing as we evaluate the show’s potential return.”Nexstar and Sinclair did not immediately respond to messages from The Associated Press seeking comment.Word of Kimmel’s return came after hundreds of movie, TV and stage stars as well as comedians, directors and writers added their names to an open letter Monday from the American Civil Liberties Union that says it is “a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation.”Sept. 19: Judges tosses Trump’s lawsuit against New York Times A Florida federal judge tossed out a $15 billion defamation lawsuit that Trump filed against The New York Times. U.S. District Judge Steven Merryday ruled that Trump’s lawsuit was overly long and was full of “tedious and burdensome” language that had no bearing on the legal case.“A complaint is not a megaphone for public relations or a podium for a passionate oration at a political rally,” Merryday wrote in the order. “This action will begin, will continue, and will end in accord with the rules of procedure and in a professional and dignified manner.”The judge ruled that Trump has 28 days to file an amended complaint that should not exceed 40 pages in length.The lawsuit targeted four of the newspaper’s journalists, a book and three articles published within a two-month period before the 2024 presidential election.The book and an article written by Times reporters Russ Buettner and Susanne Craig focused on Trump’s finances and his pre-presidency starring role in television’s “The Apprentice.”Trump also cited an article by Peter Baker last Oct. 20 headlined “For Trump, a Lifetime of Scandals Heads Toward a Moment of Judgment” and a Michael S. Schmidt piece two days later featuring an interview with Trump’s first-term chief of staff, John Kelly, headlined “As Election Nears, Kelly Warns Trump Would Rule Like a Dictator.”The Times has called the lawsuit meritless and an attempt to discourage independent reporting. July 18: Trump sues The Wall Street Journal Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against The Wall Street Journal and media mogul Rupert Murdoch whose News Corp owns the paper. The move came a day after the Journal published a story reporting on his ties to financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.The article described a sexually suggestive letter that the newspaper says bore Trump’s name and was included in a 2003 album compiled for Epstein’s 50th birthday.The Justice Department had earlier asked a federal court to unseal grand jury transcripts in Epstein’s sex trafficking case. The Trump administration had announced it would not be releasing additional files from the case. July 18: ‘The Late Show With Stephen Colbert’ canceled CBS announced it would cancel “The Late Show With Stephen Colbert” next May. Colbert is one of Trump’s most prominent and persistent late-night critics. CBS said “Late Show” was canceled for financial reasons, not for content. However, the announcement came three days after Colbert criticized the settlement between Trump and CBS parent company Paramount Global over the “60 Minutes” story. July 2: CBS owner agrees to settlement with Trump Paramount Global decided to pay Trump $16 million to settle a lawsuit regarding editing of a CBS’ “60 Minutes” interview with then-Vice President Kamala Harris last October. At the time Harris was the Democratic candidate for president.Trump’s lawyers claimed he suffered “mental anguish” following the interview and sued for $20 billion. The company was hoping to put the issue to rest as it sought administration approval of a merger. Paramount, which owns CBS, said the money will go to Trump’s future presidential library and to pay his legal fees. May 1: Trump slashes funding for PBS and NPR Trump signed an executive order aimed at slashing public subsidies to PBS and NPR and alleged “bias” in the broadcasters’ reporting. His order instructed the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and other federal agencies “to cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS” and further requires that that they work to root out indirect sources of public financing for the news organizations.Later that month, NPR and three of its local stations sued Trump, arguing that the order violated their free speech and relies on an authority that he does not have. This summer, Congress approved eliminating $1.1 billion allocated to public broadcasting. Feb. 12: Trump removes the AP from White House press pool Trump decided to remove the AP from the White House press pool. That meant AP journalists no longer would have access to theOval Office, Air Force One and other events not open to a full press corps. The move was in retaliation for AP’s decision not to follow his lead in changing the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America in all instances.The AP Stylebook calls for referring to the body of water by its original name while acknowledging the new name Trump chose. The reasoning is that AP disseminates news around the world and must ensure that place names and geography are easily recognizable to all audiences.The wire service later sued Trump and a district court sided with the AP in April, affirming on First Amendment grounds that the government cannot punish the news organization for the content of its speech. A federal appeals court in June stayed that decision. December 2024: ABC agrees to settle defamation lawsuit ABC News agreed to pay $15 million toward Trump’s presidential library as part of a defamation lawsuit settlement over anchor George Stephanopoulos’ inaccurate on-air assertion that the president-elect had been found civilly liable of raping writer E. Jean Carroll. The network also agreed to pay $1 million in legal fees.The settlement agreement described ABC’s presidential library payment as a “charitable contribution.”Trump sued ABC and Stephanopoulos in a Miami federal court in March 2024 after the network aired the segment in which Stephanopoulos repeatedly misstated the verdicts in Carroll’s two civil lawsuits against Trump. Neither verdict involved a finding of rape as defined under New York law. Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Last week, the online freelance marketplace Fiverr generated a flood of headlines after it announced an effort to reimagine itself as an AI-first” company. According to a published memo from CEO Micha Kaufman, the new-and-improved Fiverr will be leaner, faster,” with modern AI infrastructure, greater productivity, and “far fewer management layers. The change will also require a painful reset, Kaufman added, that will see 250 people lose their jobs. Fiverr is just the latest tech company to loudly proclaim its embrace of artificial intelligence this year. It joins Duolingo, Klarna Group, Shopify, and a number of others that have said they are moving at breakneck speed to get ahead of the transformational technology. In many cases, these companies have employed a similar mix of buzzwords and superlatives to publicly convey the dire urgency with which they believe they must act. Being AI-first, it seems, is an existential rallying cry for an adapt-or-die moment. But what does it actually mean? If you find yourself unsure, youre not alone. Despite endless discussions around AI at many workplaces today, close to half of professionals with some knowledge of top company strategies have never even heard the term AI-first, according to a new survey conducted exclusively for Fast Company. And many who do hear it are likely to be skeptical. Although around a third of the surveys respondents said theyd perceive an AI-first company to be more innovative and efficient, 27% said theyd expect such a company to feel less human, while 25% said being AI-first would probably result in a less enjoyable customer experience. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); Concerns about job losses, privacy, and slop The new research was led by FutureBrand, a brand strategy and design agency, and involved interviews with more than 3,000 informed professionalsmeaning people who have some degree of awareness about seven or more of the biggest companies ranked by PwC. The data will be included as part of the forthcoming FutureBrand Index 2025, which launches next month. The interviews, conducted in June, included a question that defined AI-first in a very specific way: a strategy that mandates the integration of AI tools across the workplace, adopted by companies that only hire employees who do work that AI can’t. Presented with that definition, respondents further expressed a range of concerns around AI-first strategies, including the potential for job losses, data and privacy risks, and the reduced creativity that inevitably comes with AI-generated contentaka AI slop. Other respondents viewed AI-first announcements as a signal that companies are prioritizing efficiency over ethics, while still others merely saw them as marketing spin. The findings indicate that for even the most knowledgeable consumers, AI-first announcements risk causing confusion, misgivings, or even fear, particularly if they are not clearly defined. Right now, the phrase AI-first is being used by companies with great enthusiasm, but limited clarity, Jon Tipple, FutureBrands chief strategy officer, said in a statement to Fast Company. !function(){"use strict";window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if(void 0!==a.data["datawrapper-height"]){var e=document.querySelectorAll("iframe");for(var t in a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var r,i=0;r=e[i];i++)if(r.contentWindow===a.source){var d=a.data["datawrapper-height"][t]+"px";r.style.height=d}}})}(); Where do we go from here? Perhaps no company is more familiar with this tricky new terrain than Duolingo. In May, CEO Luis von Ahn shared a memo in which he proclaimed that the language learning app was going AI-first. The announcement sparked sustained backlash, particularly von Ahn’s assertion that Duolingo would gradually reduce its reliance on contractors who do the types of work AI can do. For months, the company’s social media posts were flooded by trollish comments, with critics often ribbing Duolingo for what they’d perceived as a betrayal of the app’s human translators. Investors, by contrast, rewarded the move, with Duolingo’s stock soaring 24% after its August earnings report showed eye-popping profit and user growth, an indication to some observers that its bet was paying off. Still, von Ahn has sought to distance himself from his memo’s least generous interpretations. Speaking at the Fast Company Innovation Festival just last week, he reminded the audience that Duolingo has “not laid off a single full-time employee.” FutureBrand’s research, which includes responses from people in North America, Latin America, Europe, the Middle East, Africa, and Asia Pacific, suggests that opinions about AI-first companies are still very much divided, to the extent that they have been formed at all. For companies looking to draft that next AI-first memo, the findings could be seen as an opportunity or a warning. “For some, it signals progress through modern thinking and streamlined operations,” Tipple said. “But for others, AI-first means something colder: the removal of human connection, empathy and even a job threat.
Category:
E-Commerce
All news |
||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||