The circulated occupational comparison is useful precisely because it is not uniform. It reports software-engineer pay of $129,802 against a $161,826 median comparator, but data-scientist pay of $120,429 against $108,020. It also shows higher H-1B figures for hardware engineers and project managers. These are the graphic’s reported inputs, not an independent matched-worker study. Its complete values are retained in the data register so the inconvenient positive gaps do not vanish from the argument.
| Necessary comparison | What it prevents |
|---|---|
| Same occupation and skill level | Junior staff being compared with senior staff |
| Same labour market and period | Location and inflation differences masquerading as nationality effects |
| Same compensation definition | Base wage being compared with salary, equity and bonuses combined |
| Payroll rather than duplicated paperwork | Applications being mistaken for unique employees |
| Recruitment and vacancy records | An aggregate wage gap being mistaken for proof of a particular unlawful replacement |
The mechanism worth investigating is leverage. If changing employers is administratively difficult or a worker believes leaving will jeopardise a residency case, the employer may gain negotiating power even where the nominal wage looks attractive. Conversely, lawful job transfers complicate claims that every visa holder is literally bound to one employer. David Bier’s supplied counterclaim about more than 1.1 million job switches since 2005 should be treated as an attributed argument, not silently substituted for an independently checked series.
