Saying the pool is too small or calling something a labor shortage is trimming away a bunch of relevant detail. There cannot be a shortage, only a shortage of people 1) qualified to do the work for 2) the compensation and 3) conditions you are offering. That's 3 levers to pull: Train more, pay more, offer better conditions (remote work). Particularly compensation, I have been told that's how supply and demand work.

Are you selecting based on a holistic view of merit (projects, personality, capacity to grow in a role) or are you gating based on the same-old LeetCode brain teaser exams? In the latter case there is no shortage of H1B grinders who’ve spent every day for the past 6 months memorizing the puzzles to pass your screens, even if they say nothing about raw ability.

By the time a “qualified” candidate is sitting across from you, you have already created a sampling bias simply because the population of India and China are staggering compared to the US. Wow, there are so many eager candidates from India, we must have a labor shortage in the US!

Why does "qualified" always mean someone who commands an inflated salary and can do the job from day one?

Why couldn't it mean someone young, with a reasonable education, who's willing to work at half the price and be trained over the course of years?

Yeah, that's been my experience as well.

I never really understood the idea of gatekeeping jobs -- especially those at the very high or the very low end.

On the very high end, wouldn't you want to poach the most intelligent folks from around the world and bring them into the US? That pool of high-performers is not a big one and you're directly removing competition and silo-ing all the best people under your control.

On the very low end, those are jobs that are non-competitive and enable the low-mid-high level jobs to exist (and for those workers to be compensated better and so on). If you're looking at the US right now, a great example is to look at the agriculture industry. Farm bankruptcies increased by almost 50% in 2025 and 2026 is looking even worse. These bankruptcies in 2025 happened before diesel prices spiked by 30-40% and tariffs killed international ag-trade. A lot of those bankruptcies can be attributed to the the lack of farm workers which either cause farms to not be able to generate revenue and/or have dramatically reduced margins.

Edit: Wow, in the few minutes it took me to write my comment, there have been quite a few comments that are making the point that:

1. Companies need to pay more to get better talent.

2. The hiring process is broken and not surfacing high-quality domestic workers.

I guess my response is that I've offered and been offered compensation packages that seem to be quite strong. I worked with and know folks who have received similar or better packages and the quality of work seemed to be a bit of a crapshoot. Just "paying more" doesn't guarantee better workers (if that's even feasible or doable for the company). I'm sure that there is some sort of correlation between higher pay and better/more efficient productivity, but I don't work HR for Google or whatever so I don't have the data to specifically make a point. Empirically, my experience has been that there is a weak correlation and when factoring in $$ per work product, it becomes inefficient.

The hiring process being broken is very true. I'm not smart enough nor knowledgeable enough to even offer a fix to the problem. All I can say is that employers spend a lot of money trying to hire the best people and they still get burned/can't find a good candidate.

What exactly are you paying, do you offer remote work, do you offer training? You can find plently of excellent devs in the USA.

Are you hiring for in office or remote?

>But empirically

Ok you said it. Where's your empirical evidence?

Then pay more or modify your requirements. Stop chasing unicorns.

You’re simply outcompeted by other employers. Get good.

This is a load of shit. There are millions of people out of work in the US and it's likely that tens of thousands of those are perfectly qualified developers. Assuming your expectations haven't been completely warped, your real problem is that modern hiring as a process is completely broken as a result of multiple factors.

You’d get more qualified Americans applying if you offered more money.

The solution is staring you right in the face: Move your business to a country where these "qualified people" live, hire there and serve that market instead.

for interviewing 10+ candidates a week, that is just a BS claim - USA is nowhere that small

There's never a labor shortage, only a compensation shortage.

If you're doing 10+ interviews a week, likely you work in Big Tech. And that means several things have happened before you even interview a candidate, specifically screening by ATS, AI systems, recruiters and hiring managers. There are perverse incentives (eg recruiters putting people in the pipeline to boost their numbers) and there's also massive discrimination, particularly age discrimination.

Tech companies in general want to hire grads or near-grades in vast quantities, particularly from the more prestigious US colleges. You get to 40 and suddenly you don't make it through those initial pipelines before you get to interview the candidate. They're not suitable in some way. And over 50? Forget about it.

And if you do make it through these filters, you may still get filtered for not being a "culture fit", which is just code for "not like me". And if the employee pool already skews young, male and from those same colleges, "culture fit" is just a thin veneer that reinforces discrimination.

That sounds like a serious systemic issue. What are US candidates lacking that you find in candidates elsewhere?

When I see a comment like this, all I can say is that I don't believe you. You are a liar.

"qualified" : adj , willing to work for 60% of market rate.

I don't buy your claim of "high-paying". If you don't pay as per US resident and urban standards, good domestic candidates obviously won't bother applying.

look harder.

doubt.