In my opinion PG does his article a disservice by not being more specific about the great programmers should be let into the US.

For example he could touched on the O-1 visa for "Aliens of extraordinary ability".

Instead the conversation has devolved into the costs and benefits of H-1B visa.

PGs goal is to bring more great programmers to the US, however the H-1B visa is specifically targeted to good programmers, not great programmers.

From wikipedia:
> The law requires H-1B workers to be paid the higher of the prevailing wage for the same occupation and geographic location, or the same as the employer pays to similarly situated employees. Other factors, such as age and skill were not permitted to be taken into account for the prevailing wage.

Here are some other points of confusion:

1) Some people are hung on the term "programmer", I think what is meant by this term is someone who is A) deeply technical, B) codes, C) contributes to product fit, and D) contributes project planning.

2) Some people are hung up on the term "great" programmer". Good programmers get their work done on time and with high quality. Great programmers contribute key insights that transform the product or team in ways that that directly lead to accomplishing the team's goals. Personally I've found that it is often possible to distinguish between good and bad programmers. It has been much harder to distinguish between good and great programmers.

3) Some people are hung up on the fact that great programmers are frequently not paid 10 or 100 or 1000 times what good programmers are paid. There are three very good reasons for this. A) A great programmer has to be in the right position to be commensurately rewarded. (The world's greatest fly fisherman will receive a normal wage on a commercial fishing boat.) B) A great programmer is making decisions and taking actions that will result in raised profits. They don't get paid up front because the money isn't there yet. C) Many people have never worked with a great programmer. The programmers that they think are great are only 1.5X or 2X or 3X. That isn't.

4) Some people are hung up on the fact that PG seems to make either A) the assumption that H-1B recipients are great programmers, or B) the assumption that if the US grants more H-1Bs annually that there all the additional recipients will be great programmers. I don't think he's making either of those assumptions. There is a curve of capability and potential for H-1B recipients just like every other population. PG is saying that any increase in the number of great programmers in the US is good for the US.

5) The final question is what does it mean for something to be good for the US?
A) If an H-1B recipient starts the next facebook is it good for the US? It will be great for angels, VCs and institutional investors. It will be good for the US because the US will tax everyone's personal compensation (although any eventually corporate profits will likely be tax sheltered). It will be good for the US because jobs will be created (although there might be fewer jobs at the companies being disrupted.
B) If the H-1B recipient only winds up doing good job at a corporation then the corporation did not need offer a more attractive salary to a US citizen or train a US citizen to do the job. This is good for the corporation because their costs are lower (assuming the cost of the H-1B application process is lower than the cost of offering a more attractive salary or training an individual with potential). This is bad for the individual who might otherwise have been trained or received increased compensation. However if the role is truly a role that would not otherwise have been filled then there is no individual who is negatively impacted by hiring an H-1B applicant.

Here is something to think about:
1) The company is willing to compensate a programmer $COST for a role.
2) The company expects an increase in revenue of $REVENUE as result of the additional headcount.
3) The company has a return on investment goal of ROI for the year. It might be an internal figure or something promised to its investors.
4) The company can only hire a candidate if (REVENUE-COST)/COST > ROI
5) There are two reasons for hiring H-1Bs A) because the company can not find anyone else who will accept a compensation that makes the equation work or B) because the company can not hire anyone for the role (perhaps they or their industry has a negative reputation or no reputation).

There are certainly things that complicate this equations:
1) Perhaps the company is forward looking enough to hire in advance of expected attrition.
2) Perhaps the individual is in a role that supports revenue creation by another individual.
3) Perhaps the company has an "up or out" approach and they are hungry to find stars.
4) Perhaps the revenue that the new hire would bring in is very hard to predict. In this case the up front compensation would be reduced to account for the risk. Typically the role would come with the potential for increase compensation in the form of a bonus, stock options or commission.