Slashdot Mirror


AFL-CIO Proposed Reforms for the H1B Program

Alien54 writes "[I first saw this link over on RFN]. The AFL-CIO has announced a series of proposed reforms for the H1B Program. The proposal is very thorough, and covers eight different problem areas of the H1B laws."

371 of 922 comments (clear)

  1. I might be ... by craenor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Totally off base here, if so, offtopic mod the hell out of me.

    But instead of being so concerned about the number of jobs being grabbed in this country by foreign nationals...

    I think more concern should be paid to the number of tech jobs being farmed out to foreign countries. Did you know the helpdesk for the State of Missouri is served from India?

    1. Re:I might be ... by digitalsushi · · Score: 2

      Don't worry, I'm sure other countries will start getting so full with our jobs that they'll send theres over here. Then we'll all be haaaaaaapppppyyyy

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    2. Re:I might be ... by Malicious · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Canadian companies make a lot of money, supporting Compaq, IBM, and AOL products.

      Canadian Dollar=Cheap
      Out of work Canadian Technicians=Plentiful

      It's good business

      --
      01101001001000000110000101101101001000000110001001 10000101110100011011010110000101101110
    3. Re:I might be ... by override11 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, as long as it is economically sound to hire foreign workers than USA workers, it will continue to be like that. Think of the choice, pay 100 US employee's an average of, say, 25 - 30K / year plus heath benifits, workmans comp, etc., or pay a foreign worker less than minimum, no health benefits, and not have the US laws to contend with?

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    4. Re:I might be ... by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2

      Actually if I were for free trade Canada would be one of the nations that would be ok. While the loon might be weak they have a high standard of living..

      --
    5. Re:I might be ... by EricWright · · Score: 5, Informative

      Define economically sound. I left my last company in part because they were starting to ship a large portion of the development tasks to India. That left fewer positions in the US, and those positions were turned into "analysts" and "customer interaction specialists", in other words, requirements gatherers and writers of tedious documents.

      I saw some of the work that came back from India, and frankly, it sucked. GUI design was non-existent, as were coding standards. There was a distinct lack of understanding of any non-M$ developement tool/language. Many of "sys-admins" had no idea what a port was, much less how it could get hijacked, broken into, etc. One of our US admins did a port scan on one of their main servers and found an unknown program listening on port 31337. Uh huh... good job guys.

      Furthermore, we had significant communication issues with the Indian offices due to the 14 hour time differential. The requirements people in the US could interact with our customers on a given day, it would take until the next day for the overseas "developers" to get the requirements. Issues, misunderstandings, etc. took one or more days further to resolve, etc. Time wasted is money wasted.

      My point is that, although Indian labor may be cheaper on an hourly basis, how many more man-hours does it take to get the job done? By the time I left, the amount of money saved through overseas development was little to none. All that had been accomplished was a 50% staff attrition through layoffs or people, like myself, who saw the impending doom and jumped ship before the axe fell.

    6. Re:I might be ... by cayenne8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I find this to be true of the work of many of the HB-1 contract workers I've dealt with...and yes, most were from India. They did not seem to be able to use creative, independent thought for most projects assigned to them. If it was just rote, repetative coding...they were just fine, but, if you told them to go research on the net, and put something together from imagination...this seemed to ellude them. I've also seen layoff's of US citizens, and the keeping of the HB's...and it sure can't be for the quality of work...has to be the low, low salaries they get. The contract houses keep a LARGE majority of their bill rate..so, they make them more money. I'm not saying that all Indians for HB's fall into this category, but, the majority I've had experience with do...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:I might be ... by Tackhead · · Score: 5, Interesting
      > My point is that, although Indian labor may be cheaper on an hourly basis, how many more man-hours does it take to get the job done? By the time I left, the amount of money saved through overseas development was little to none. All that had been accomplished was a 50% staff attrition through layoffs or people, like myself, who saw the impending doom and jumped ship before the axe fell.

      Economic Darwinism in action. It's what happens whenever a company abandons the merit principle in hiring.

      If we had easier permanent immigration ("green card"), employers wouldn't need the H-1B as a stepping-stone to being able to bring a talented worker in on a permanent basis.

      Also, if we didn't have the H-1B stepping-stone mentality, employers wouldn't put up with the hassles. They'd hire the best person - American or otherwise.

      Likewise, wage devaluation wouldn't be a factor, as foreigners would be able to demand wages comparable to Americans, because any employer that failed to pay real market wages would soon find itself unable to hire.

      Americans win. Foreigners win. Companies win. Pity that free labor markets will never happen, but hey, it's nice to dream.

    8. Re:I might be ... by cybermace5 · · Score: 2

      In addition, the technical and engineering community shot itself in the foot, by also abandoning the merit principle.

      Engineering and IT became a place to get a little knowledge, make a quick buck. New engineering students were there for the money, and skated by on frat note files and smart friends. They were virtually guaranteed a high-paying job after college.

      Suddenly employers noticed that all of their new American employees weren't getting the job done. Foreign workers provided a huge talent pool to skim for the best. The companies that could sponsor, did. The companies that couldn't or wouldn't, suffered with below-par workers and went into the red.

      I have a 2002 degree in electrical engineering, and saw this happening during my last years of school. I was in it because of a genuine interest and desire to do engineering as a career, not because of the money. I busted my tail to get through the most challenging engineering school you'll find in the U.S. I'm still sitting with a temporary job unrelated to EE, and losing more of my engineering knowledge every day. If you don't use it (and I try to squeeze in hobby projects), you will lose it.

      You can't force companies to hire substandard employees. At the same time, companies shouldn't write off all American engineering graduates because about two-thirds of them are opportunistic carpetbaggers.

      --
      ...
    9. Re:I might be ... by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Fine, then get them green cards.

      Otherwise, you would merely be perpetuating a beautified version of slavery and demeaning the rest of the perfession.

      LESS available "slots" with a "higher bar" should not harm the prospects of genuine foreign talent.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    10. Re:I might be ... by cybermace5 · · Score: 2

      Median starting salary from my school is supposed to be in the $56k range. I really consider that to be pretty good, considering most non-engineering people I know worked about 15 years to get to that level. Even two years ago, the average salary of IEEE members was about $91k. Right now, I'd be happy to take a job for less than $45k...no family, just me and my student loans.

      I'm not sure where you get turned off by "the extra work" engineers have to do. See, my interest wasn't an "ooh, cool toys" interest, more of a "hey, I like doing this stuff and might do OK making a living out of it" interest. And the future upside is huge, you can do extremely well in consulting, and it only takes one timely patent.... Not to mention around half the graduates of my school are in management within ten years. Then you get to see the big picture, relax just a little, run a few projects or a side business at home, and put your kids through college.

      Engineers make less money than lawyers and doctors on average. But tell that to Bernie Vonderschmitt, who graduated from my school, then went on to invent the FPGA and started Xilinx. Then he bought us a cafeteria, which I hope I never have to eat at again. Or Mike Hatfield, a 1985 graduate who just shelled out ten million dollars to build a performing arts center (performing arts? engineering? anyone's guess).

      So the potential is, or was, there. But I'd still be happy with $45k/year engineering job.

      --
      ...
    11. Re:I might be ... by cybermace5 · · Score: 2

      *closes italics*

      I hate that.

      --
      ...
    12. Re:I might be ... by leandrod · · Score: 2
      > if I were for free trade Canada would be one of the nations that would be ok.

      Canada free trade? Are you kidding? Ever heard of protection & subsidies to farmers and airplane manufacturers?

      --
      Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
      DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
      GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  2. Prevailing Wage? by jasonditz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Doesn't it seem like letting the employer and employee work out how much money the job will pay is a much better system than having some bureaucracy decide what the prevailing wage is and binding everyone to that? Or is there something about being born outside the borders of the United States that makes wage negotiations inherently evil?

    1. Re:Prevailing Wage? by I'm+a+racist. · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The problem is, from the foreigner's point of view, just getting to be in America (and out of their own hellhole), is a huge benefit. Therefore, they are willing to accept a low standard of living (by American standards).

      The end result of this is an overall lowering of the standard of living, because if Americans want to be competitive, they have to sacrifice their standards.

      --


      Down with Saudi Arabia!!!
    2. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Glock27 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Doesn't it seem like letting the employer and employee work out how much money the job will pay is a much better system than having some bureaucracy decide what the prevailing wage is and binding everyone to that? Or is there something about being born outside the borders of the United States that makes wage negotiations inherently evil?

      What it means is that, in a very narrow range of professions, you get to compete with hundreds of thousands of people who'd be THRILLED to be making $20,000 a year in their homeland.

      There was never any meaningful shortage of labor if the employer was willing to pay enough. Its called "supply and demand". And guess what, if tech jobs paid more, more graduates would go into tech jobs! What a concept. The entire point of H1-B visas is cheaper labor. Funny how CEO positions are never filled with H1-B folk though...

      I have to say its disgusting that the AFL/CIO is the one doing the whistleblowing rather than, oh, say, the current executive branch! Strange bedfellows indeed...

      --
      Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
      Score: -1 100% Flamebait
    3. Re:Prevailing Wage? by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That sounds good on paper but an employee and an employer are rarely equals. If you think a common person with no assets or resources or regulated standards is going to be able to negotiate a fair wage vs. a huge corporation with its army of lawyers, strategists...etc then you are just living in a dream world. Consider that the US is pretty much the most unregulated economy in the Western World (comparisons to Japan and Europe here) and I think the businesses here have enough of a free hand to do what they need/want to do.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    4. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, wage negotiations (in any country) are not inherently evil. The problem is that, in the current setup, they're inherently unequal. The whole concept of negotiations pretty much depends on the idea of the negotiating parties having, if not equal power, at least comparable power. Right now, the balance of power is tilted so far in favor of the employer that employees have basically nothing to bring to the table. The whole idea of unions is to bring the balance of power closer to something to which the word "balance" can reasonably be applied.

      Sometimes this happens without collective bargaining, but only in unusual economic conditions; the height of the dot-com boom is an example. And the often hysterical denunciations coming from the corporate world of the techie work culture at the time shows how seriously the suits take this threat to their power -- as does the anti-union meme which has been successfully implanted in American culture among otherwise intelligent people (e.g. techies.)

      Look, when you go in to try to get a job, or ask for a raise, or whatever, you're sitting across the desk from someone who has the collective power of an entire corporation behind him. You, on the other hand, have ... just you. Unions, labor laws, etc. are a way to address this imbalance. What's the problem?

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    5. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, there is. Due to conditions inherent in our first-world economy, which are absent from India's third-world economy (like child labor laws, health care, social programs for the indigent, anti-pollution laws, etc.), things which make this country a nice one to live in instead of a polluted poverty-stricken hellhole, it's simply not possible to survive on a $2,000 per year salary. Unless we want to turn the clock back and become like a third-world country, we should have protections.

    6. Re:Prevailing Wage? by msobkow · · Score: 2

      While negotiations are a good idea in theory, the reality is that most H1B's are "captured" by their employer. It is far from uncommon for an H1B's salary to be negotiated down after the H1B is in place and proven to be a satisfactory employee. The crux with H1Bs is that they're willing to take a lower rate than their American counterparts, because they're either used to a lower quality of life, or because they're willing to put up with it while their Green Card is in process.

      I've tried twice to get my Green Card in the US, working through TN/TC visas for the first year, with a subsequent upgrade to an H1B. As a Canadian, I am not willing to work for an insulting salary, so both times the GC has been abandoned before completion.

      I won't be trying again. If I opt to take any more US-based contracts, they'll be under 1-year TN/TC visas. I am no one's slave, and permanent residency is not worth allowing myself to be treated as one.

      Unfortunately for the H1B and GC processes, there are hundreds of thousands of workers out there who are quite willing to put up with insulting pay rates to get their residency. If companies and consulting agencies were forced to pay equivalent salaries to H1Bs that their American counterparts receive, you'd soon find they weren't anywhere near as interested in getting H1Bs on staff.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    7. Re:Prevailing Wage? by JoeBuck · · Score: 2

      But under the H1-B program, the foreign worker has very limited power. He is basically an indentured servant. If he pisses off the company he gets kicked out of the country. Negotiations when all the power is on one side turn into take-it-or-leave-it offers.

      I find the AFL-CIO proposal one-sided because it doesn't address the abusive conditions that some (not all) H1-B program workers are forced to put up with.

      Now, if you want the prevailing wage in the US to descend to the same level as the prevailing wage in China, just let us know.

    8. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      > Doesn't it seem like letting the employer and employee work out how much money the job will pay is a much better system than having some bureaucracy decide what the prevailing wage is and binding everyone to that?

      Hallelujah, someone finally sees the light!

      The sick thing is that H-1B "prevailing wage" determination is a walk in the park compared to what's required for a green card - that is, real immigration.

      For an H-1B, you fax DOL and say "We're paying him $X. What's the prevailing wage?", and if they say "under $X", you can hire him. (Well, you can hire him in a few months when INS gets around to taking your paperwork off the shelf.)

      For a green card, you go through a "recruitment" process. Due to a stupid law passed for political purposes (but I repeat myself), the "fast track" is nearly as slow as the "slow track" - an employer can expect to spend at least six months, and more likely, over a year, before being able to prove to the Department of Labor that there are no Americans qualified to take the job. Then it's another 6 months with INS, and another 6 months with a consular office, before the worker can actually get his/her green card.

      Total time from "we want to hire this d00d" to "d00d gets his first paycheck as a green card holder" is typically 2-3 years.

      > Or is there something about being born outside the borders of the United States that makes wage negotiations inherently evil?

      What you appear to understand, and what the government fails to understand, is that if any employer is willing to put up with all of the above -- and $1000-$3000 in fees to the government plus another $2000-5000 for the services of an immigration lawyer -- they've already decided that this person is the best for the job.

      So why then, do we have things like "no qualified Americans" (leaving aside the absurdity of demanding, by law, that a company prove a negative) being found in multi-year hiring practices? Well, because in the green card biz (as opposed to the H-1B biz), you as an employer are not allowed to hire the best person for the job. If the job says "requires degree", an American with an MCSE and a B.Sc. with the ink still wet on it, gets the job - even if the guy you want to hire has 10 years experience. The merit principle is turned upside-down. (Which is just fine if you're an AFL-CIO union goon, but kinda sucks if you're an employer who wants some talent.)

      So green card processing times for talented folks are prohibitive. (The government's own swivel service hiring procedures take over a year, so I suppose they figured that was good enough for the tech industry. Idiots.) As a result of prohibitive green card times, employers demanded something a little more realistic, and as such, the H-1B process came in - most H-1Bs and their employers view the H-1B as a stepping stone to the green card. It allows the employer to get some work out of the prospective hire, and the employee to get paid, while they spend the next 2-4 years waiting for the green card.

      But as soon as everyone viewed an H-1B as a stepping-stone to a green card, the abuses started, on both sides: employers using H-1Bs as "cheap" labor (because the "prevailing wage" was being raised in "government time" while market salaries were being raised in "internet time"), and employees used H-1Bs as stepping stones - with the intent of leaving their (dirty rotten evil using-me-for-cheap-labor) employer as soon as legally permissible after getting a green card.

      The H-1B and green card debacle can be explained very simply as yet another case of governments boldly passing interventions in the free market that encourage yet more problems that require yet more government intervention.

      While I'm not an immigration hawk, and I deeply loathe the AFL-CIO for its anti-capitalist stance on almost everything, the H-1B program serves the purposes of no one.

      Scrap INS. Scrap the H-1B. Scrap labor certification. If Apu Sixpack can do the job better than Joe Sixpack, and Apu is being paid the market wage for his geographical area, and Fred CEO wants to hire Apu, let him hire Apu.

      No 3-year, $5000 processes involving lawyers and three layers of bureaucrats. Why can't the government learn to keep its fucking hands off private businesses so they can do what they were designed to do - making profits for their shareholders by hiring the best people for the job?

      Word to the government - the taxes you impose on our profits are what you need to keep yourselves fat and happy. You need us more than we need you. (And to bring it back to immigration policy -- that, more than anything, is why jobs are being outsourced to India.)

    9. Re:Prevailing Wage? by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 3, Insightful
      No, wage negotiations (in any country) are not inherently evil. The problem is that, in the current setup, they're inherently unequal. The whole concept of negotiations pretty much depends on the idea of the negotiating parties having, if not equal power, at least comparable power. Right now, the balance of power is tilted so far in favor of the employer that employees have basically nothing to bring to the table.

      Yes, that's why everybody except union members make minimum wage. Oh, wait, only 5% of workers earn that little. Hmmm, I earn about six times minimum wage, plus benefits (also not mandated by law). That's a little hard to explain by your theory, isn't it?
    10. Re:Prevailing Wage? by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 2
      Yes, there is. Due to conditions inherent in our first-world economy, which are absent from India's third-world economy (like child labor laws, health care, social programs for the indigent, anti-pollution laws, etc.), things which make this country a nice one to live in instead of a polluted poverty-stricken hellhole, it's simply not possible to survive on a $2,000 per year salary. Unless we want to turn the clock back and become like a third-world country, we should have protections.

      Well, all these laws also apply to H-1B workers, so I guess you're talking about foreign trade, not H-1B. However, economists agree that the main reason we are not a "poverty-stricken hellhole" is because of our high productivity, not "protections." Yes, 90% of economists agree that foreign trade is beneficial to the vast majority of citizens.
    11. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Tackhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
      > Look, when you go in to try to get a job, or ask for a raise, or whatever, you're sitting across the desk from someone who has the collective power of an entire corporation behind him. You, on the other hand, have ... just you. Unions, labor laws, etc. are a way to address this imbalance. What's the problem?

      I'll bite.

      I have... just me. My skills. My experience. My mind. Umm... whoa, dude, maybe I'm not that powerless after all!

      I wouldn't be sitting across the desk from that guy unless I had something he wanted. Something he needed. Otherwise he'd be doing something else, something more profitable than talking to me.

      I wouldn't be sitting in that guy's cubicle now if he didn't have something I wanted.

      I'm coming from the capitalist side, but you can look at it from the view of left-wing politics if you like -- the tech industry is probably the first time in history in which the workers can truly say they own the means of production, namely the individual globs of grey stuff in their skulls.

      The problem for wannabe-Marxists (I'm not implying you're one, just pointing it out) is that the grey stuff doesn't belong to a collective - it belongs to individuals. The proof of that comes every time you look at the wide disparities of productivity between programmers - some suck, some are adequate, some are great, and some are gurus.

      To me, those factors lead me to conclude that individual bargaining, not collective bargaining, the "right" (in both the moral and the practical sense) way to negotiate wages, at least in the tech industry.

    12. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I'm really referring to the idea that we should compete for our wages with people living in other countries, such as when US companies open up branches in third-world countries because they can hire engineers there for $2000/year. This also partially applies to H1B in that these people will work for lower wages since their goal is to save money and go home, not to live a comfortable life here as a citizen.

      Your "90% of economists" statistics is out-of-context BS, and of course has no source listed. Foreign trade IS beneficial to every economy, but not without restrictions. Having easily manufactured products made in cheaper countries generally helps people in high cost-of-living countries as long as they have better, higher-wage jobs to move to. Trading with countries which have economies and costs-of-living similar to our own is always beneficial since we can't do everything ourselves, or do it all the best way (i.e. improved competition). But bringing in indentured servants doesn't help the economy at all, nor does farming out high-wage technical work to low cost-of-living countries. This is why we need protections, to prevent large companies here, which the economy rests on, from abusing the system and doing this.

    13. Re:Prevailing Wage? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      so... how's your pension?

      and your job security?

      oh, you can be fired at a drop of a hat with no severence?

      wait until you get to the point where you are too experienced and get shitcanned.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    14. Re:Prevailing Wage? by avdp · · Score: 2

      This also partially applies to H1B in that these people will work for lower wages since their goal is to save money and go home, not to live a comfortable life here as a citizen.

      You're partially correct since it's the theory behind H1-B, but for most foreigner, the H1-B visa is first step in becoming a permanent resident and/or citizen. Many companies will sponsor H1-B for their greencard applications. So, for those H1-B workers - a great deal of them, although I don't stats to quote - yes, they want to make a comfortable life in the US.

    15. Re:Prevailing Wage? by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 3, Informative
      Your "90% of economists" statistics is out-of-context BS, and of course has no source listed.
      "Surveys have consistently shown strong support among economists for free trade policies. In a 1990 survey of economists employed in the United States, Alston, Kearl, and Vaughan (1992) reported that more than 90 percent agreed generally with the proposition that tariffs and import quotas usually reduce general economic welfare."
      http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review /02/01/1-22Coughlin.pdf

      Reference is to:
      Alston, Richard M.; Kearl, J.R. and Vaughan, Michael B. "Is There a Consensus Among Economists in the 1990's?" American Economic Review, May 1992, 82(2), pp. 203-9.

    16. Re:Prevailing Wage? by avdp · · Score: 2

      You're not "bound" that the prevailing wage. It's merely a minimum. It's perfectly OK to an employer to offer more. Mine did back when I was an H1-B.

    17. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most of the ones I meet have the goal of saving money here and moving back to India so they can live like kings, and also because they don't like the culture here.

    18. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Ok, WTF does this have to do with guest workers or farming engineering work out to other countries? This quote is specifically about tariffs and import quotas, which only deals with the importation of goods, and has nothing to do with labor.

    19. Re:Prevailing Wage? by MKalus · · Score: 2
      Funny how CEO positions are never filled with H1-B folk though...

      I am not sure but I would wager a guess that the guy who heads up Crysler (and who is German BTW, Dieter Zetsche(sp?)) is most likely on an H1B in the US. I don't think he gave up his German nationality to get a green card.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    20. Re:Prevailing Wage? by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 2
      Ok, WTF does this have to do with guest workers or farming engineering work out to other countries? This quote is specifically about tariffs and import quotas, which only deals with the importation of goods, and has nothing to do with labor.

      It has nothing to do with guest workers, but neither did your original post about "child labor laws, health care, social program for the indigent, anti-pollution laws, etc."


      Come to think of it, I don't think your complaint applies to farming out engineering work either, unless you expect there to be children working as engineers, computer programmers creating a lot of pollution, etc.


      Economists don't see any big difference between importing goods and importing services. Try taking a few economics classes sometime.

    21. Re:Prevailing Wage? by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      yeah, and let us all know so we can laugh at you as you starve on the street! (the grandparent that is)

    22. Re:Prevailing Wage? by jafac · · Score: 2

      that's a head-in-the-clouds attitude, because there's a HUGE difference between importing goods and services.

      Shipping a can of beans to another country is one thing.

      Shipping a JOB to another country has a direct impact on your own economic base - because the country that just lost a job is the "lucrative market" you're trying to sell your product to. And if you lower the standard of living in your own country, you're just pissing in the well.

      And there are REAL effects to this that aren't so easily measurable in dollars. You put a man out of work, and then he's got to default on his home loan, his wife may have to go to work, his kids won't get as much attention at home when previously, one parent was working 50 hr weeks, now BOTH are working 60 hr weeks just to make it by - the kids won't be going to college, and may turn to a life of drugs, crime, and prostitution. They parents may begin to argue about money, maybe one will shoot the other. Maybe one will become severly ill and not able to seek treatment because they're now uninsured. Any number of bad things are much more likely to happen to a family when the job gets shipped overseas that would not have otherwised happens. And you can say that it's just too bad for Larry, getting laid off, because he wasn't as smart as Abib. But these things, when they happen to tens or hundreds of thousands of families will tend to have a negative impact on the overall well being of the nation as a whole. As certainly as a terrorist attack or a war.

      IMO - CEO's that make such decisions (and economists who try to justify them) are no better than "enemy combatants" and should be treated as such.

      --

      These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
    23. Re:Prevailing Wage? by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 2
      Shipping a can of beans to another country is one thing.


      Shipping a JOB to another country has a direct impact on your own economic base - because the country that just lost a job is the "lucrative market" you're trying to sell your product to. And if you lower the standard of living in your own country, you're just pissing in the well.


      Naive economic thinking says that anytime you buy a good or service from somewhere else you are "exporting a job" because someone here could do it. But guess what? The number of jobs is not fixed. 150 years ago, 90% of Americans were farmers. Now less than 2% are farmers. That doesn't mean 88% of people are unemployed. Once the population of this country was 140 million. Now it's twice that. That doesn't mean that half the country is unemployed.

      IMO - CEO's that make such decisions (and economists who try to justify them) are no better than "enemy combatants" and should be treated as such.

      Economists have studied the question for over two hundred years. You haven't. Perhaps you should try learning about it before you decide they are traitors.

    24. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Tackhead · · Score: 2
      >There were IDMS/Natural programmers in the 1980's who had a similar attitude. They knew the hot technology of the day, commanded top salaries, and believed it was all due to their inherent skills in negotiating these top salaries.
      >[...]
      > If all you have is the "grey matter between your ears", you are just another mass of unemployed protoplasm once your skills are obsolete. What is so valuable now will soon be worthless. The fact you are so good at it now makes you LESS trainable in the next new technology.

      Last time I checked, the grey matter between my ears was capable of assimilating and storing data about new technologies, not just rehashing the technologies with which it grew up.

      When I spoke of my "skills" and "grey matter", I didn't mean my mad buzzword-of-the-day skillz, I meant my brain's ability to acquire new skills and solve problems.

      Sounds like the IDMS/Natural programmers of which you speak failed to use their grey matter properly, because they failed to realize what it was for.

    25. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Fjord · · Score: 2

      You don't have to give up nationality to get a green card (or EB visa). However, you're right in that said CEO was probably an H-1B before getting an EB (as is the common progression towards a greencard). You parent is very wrong about CEOs being filled by H-1Bs, it occurs frequently, although less so than jobs lower in the ladder as a company typically only needs one or two CEOs per country.

      --
      -no broken link
    26. Re:Prevailing Wage? by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      I am not sure but I would wager a guess that the guy who heads up Crysler (and who is German BTW, Dieter Zetsche(sp?)) is most likely on an H1B in the US. I don't think he gave up his German nationality to get a green card.

      Highly unlikely, since H1B is specifically for tech workers. It's most likely an L1 (interoffice transfer visa) or a B1 (business entrepreneur). I used the waiver and reentry when I worked in the US a couple of years ago, but if I'd stayed, it would have been on an L1. They're much easier to get if you have a company behind you, altho' they're marginally less flexible than the H1.

      BTW, special rules apply if you are a foreign national who a) employs more than 10 Americans or b) invests over $1M in a US business - you can skip many of the stages of the visa process.

    27. Re:Prevailing Wage? by MKalus · · Score: 2

      Okay okay, you got me there, but in the end the point I tried to make was that he definetly didn't become an american or naturalized just to work in the US.

      Of course at the end of the day there are less CEO's on such provisions as there tend to be a lot fewer job openings.

      M.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
    28. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I think the "first-world" and "third-world" terms have changed a little over the years, especially now that the Soviet Union no longer exists.

      What I mean by "third-world economy" is an economy like that of many undeveloped, poverty-stricken countries.

    29. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Fesh · · Score: 2

      "Why can't the government learn to keep its fucking hands off private businesses so they can do what they were designed to do - making profits for their shareholders by hiring the best people for the job?"

      Because for the most part, our geeky ideal of meritorcracy isn't reality. You seem to be equating "best person for the job" as "best at doing the job". And though I agree that that's the way it should be, I have to recognize that there are people in power for whom that would mean "best caucasian able to do the job" or "best male able to do the job". Private businesses are run by individuals with their own biases on what "best person for the job" means, and government standards are at least a little more equal than what you'd see if it was left up to an individual decision on who's "employable".

      Do I think merit should be the main qualifying factor in determining whether to hire someone? Absolutely. Do I believe for a second that that's the way it really is? Hell no.

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    30. Re:Prevailing Wage? by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      If your country has all the horrific problems you listed, it's your responsibility to fix them. Your government is your own responsibility, and if you don't like it, it's up to you to start a revolution and create a better government. You can't blame other countries for your own mess, and jealousy will get you nowhere.

      As for international markets, I don't see your problem with importation; it's not going to be any more expensive for you to buy imported goods than for any other country. Unless your own government has implemented import tariffs, which again is your own problem and you need to take it up with your government.

      I can't really address any exportation problems without knowing of some examples. Generally, countries impose import tariffs to protect their own industries, but I have no idea what Congo would have to export that would compete with a country's local industry (agriculture?).

      And as for unheard of salaries, no one earns unheard of salaries for cleaning houses here. It only seems that way to you because you're comparing the direct exchange rate of US versus Congo currency, but you're forgetting the cost of living difference which is huge. That house maid still has to pay for food, housing, and transportation, which cost far more than it a 3rd-world country. The cost of one meal for her, even if she buys it at the grocery store and prepares it herself, will be far more than what it costs a Congo resident to buy similar materials. Due to all those things that make the US a clean, safe country to live in, the cost for everything is much higher, so people have to make correspondingly more money to live here. So comparing the amount a beggar gets here to the average Congo daily income is really irrelevant.

    31. Re:Prevailing Wage? by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      Either you have:
      A) The wrong degrees
      B) Bad reviews from previous employers
      c) A place in a cheaper area (not New York City)
      D) A janitor degree, and a master of janitor
      e) Something else

      20k a year is below poverty level- where the heck do you live that this would be acceptable?! Just my rent would take 1/2 of that (2 hrs from NYC)

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    32. Re:Prevailing Wage? by jasonditz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I have:

      A) B.S. in Mathematics and B.S. in Optical Physics
      B) Previous employer has nothing but good things to say about me
      C) True, you'll find most people in the world, or even in the U.S., do not live in New York City

      The 2002 Federal Poverty Guidelines put the poverty line at $8,860 for the lower 48 states. $20k is far from poverty (unless you've got half a dozen kids). Hell, last year (my first full year out of college) I made just a little over $11k, and I got along.

      This really centers us properly on the true issue here, that the IT industry has been overpaid for so long that many of you guys have lost any inkling of how the "other half" lives. $20k isn't exactly the lap of luxery, but I know people around here who manage to raise a family on less than that. What they really need to lose is this view that somehow anyone willing to work for less than 6-figures is somehow ruining the market and playing into the hands of the rich, or the capitalists, or whatever.

  3. The sooner the better by oldstrat · · Score: 4, Interesting


    I currently work for a VERY large, VERY well known, almost universally hated telecommunications company, which for obvious reason I cannot name.

    The sooner H1B gets put under control the better, not only is it preventing upward movement within the company, increasing domestic unemployment, and brain drain from developing countries... It hurts development efforts within the company.
    In a project ended several months ago, only 2 of the 30 plus people involved spoke english as a native language, the non english speakers, spoke 7 different languages, with only english in common.

    The two who spoke english were the process manager, and an end user.

    My estimation is that a project that should have taken 3 months instead took 3 years (and produced a product that should have been retiring at the time it was introduced).

    The bottom line should not be in dollars, it should be in results.

    1. Re:The sooner the better by splattertrousers · · Score: 4, Insightful
      My estimation is that a project that should have taken 3 months instead took 3 years

      Do you think the project took so much time because the people didn't speak English as a native language?

      I've been on a number of failed projects, many of which had foreign workers, and I wouldn't attribute any of the failures to those workers' countries of origin. I'd attribute the failures to the managers' and team leads' lack of experience running successful projects.

    2. Re:The sooner the better by LordYUK · · Score: 2

      "almost universally hated telecommunications company, which for obvious reason I cannot name."

      hmm...

      You work for AT&T dont you?

      --
      This is my sig. Its pathetic.
    3. Re:The sooner the better by oldstrat · · Score: 2

      "Do you think the project took so much time because the people didn't speak English as a native language?"

      Duh!?
      Did you read who did and didn't speak english, natively?

      I came in (non management) near the end of the project and pulled what I could together.

      It's not about, race, heritige, or nationality it's about communications and culture.

      When you have to reference every sublty by line number, page number and redefine coma, semicolon, and period in a printed display 5 times it tends to slow thing to a crawl.
      Think about hearding cats, now think doing it blindfolded, with the cats blindfolded also.

      Purpose got completely lost in a quagmire of communication.

      How did I pull something out of it?
      I speak english a primary language as did the process eng. and the end user, I speak bits and pieces of 4 of the other 7 languages, I have lived and travelled enough that I can listen with an accent, and I program, understand the hardware.

      Probably on top of all of that I didn't bring my bruised, unpromoted ego to the project, just my get the job done, don't hurt each other attitude.
      Some of the other cultures in the project only allowed for winning, and losing.
      As far as everyone was concerned in the end, they had won (and those who had to be winners thought everyone else lost).

    4. Re:The sooner the better by steffl · · Score: 2, Insightful

      we have a lot of people who do not speak english natively where I work (a very large telecom company:-)

      I have completely different experience though - what is important is intelligence and skills, not language. We get into language related problems from time to time but overall it has almost no effect, certainly neglibile compared to problems caused by incompetence of some people (some of them speak english fluently some of them don't).

      from my personal experience I much rather deal with people who know what they are doing and don't speak english that well (it might mean that the meeting will take 10 minutes instead of 5 but the actual work will be done on time and the result is good code) than people who speak fluently but don't know what they are doing (the meeting will take forever because they don't understand what's going on and the work is either never done or the result is very poor code).

      disclaimer: english is not my first language.

      erik

      --
      ...all excited, don't know why...
    5. Re:The sooner the better by Surak · · Score: 2

      I think what the previous poster is saying is that the most of the people involved couldn't communicate in English *effectively*.

      I worked for General Motors which has proportionately high number of H1-B workers at its Technical Centers. I've worked with foreign workers who could speak English as fluently as any average American (actually probably MORE fluently than many average Americans. :-P) I've also worked foreign workers who could barely speak a word of English.

      Let me tell you, it's a WHOLE LOT HARDER to work with someone who can barely speak your native tongue... Slashdot readers from outside the U.S.: remember most Americans can only speak ONE language with any proficiency and that's English. And it's not our fault, either, because foreign languages are not being taught in the school system the way they are abroad. :-P It's not like in Europe where most people know at least 2 languages. What takes me 5 minutes to communicate to a native or fluent English speaker can take 20 or 30 minutes or even an hour to communicate to someone who doesn't speak English well, and even then I may have no idea if I really got the point across or not.

    6. Re:The sooner the better by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 2


      What do managers and team leads do? They COMMUNICATE. They faciliate communication.

      If everyone on the team doesn't speak the same language (this can be taken literally OR figuratively), the managers will not be able to manage as effectively, and the project will not be as successful.

      I'm not saying that American companies should hire only American citizens. There are plenty of workers from other countries that are more fluent in the English language than homegrown talent. What I'm saying is, bean-counters need to take these increases in communication margins into consideration when they decide it's cheaper to farm out some portion of operations to Elbonia rather than pay for American employees' standard of living.

    7. Re:The sooner the better by lactose99 · · Score: 2

      I am betting on Verizon myself.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    8. Re:The sooner the better by beta21 · · Score: 2

      Often lots of times I wonder if the articles on slashdot are in English.

    9. Re:The sooner the better by Surak · · Score: 2

      It's our government which has gotten so incredibly out of control that we, the American people, have no control over it anymore, despite the fact that we have a Constitution that says that we do. Due mostly to the deluded people who vote for the same powers that be year after year. These are the same people that think it's written into the Constitution that we have a two-party political system.

  4. My proposed reform by Otter · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Lawyers routinely earn six figures straight out of school. Same for MBAs. Programming and IT aren't nearly as lucrative, and basic science barely pays above the poverty level until you get a faculty position.

    The most basic understanding of economics suggests that the "need" for lawyers and managers is clearly much greater than the "need for technical workers" that drives the H1-B program that singles out engineers and scientists for increased worker supply. When are we going to see an H1-B program for lawyers and MBAs?

    Of course it will never happen because those professions have enough sense not to cut their own throats. H1-B targets the people who may have high IQ scores but are too freaking stupid to organize, lobby or even realize what 100,000 people competing for their job does to their lives.

    Actually, my position is this: immigration numbers should apply across the board. If I have to face competition from an infinite number of Chinese scientists, I should at least reap the cost savings from having that competition across the economy.

    1. Re:My proposed reform by akintayo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lawyers do not earn six figures straight out of school, neither do MBAs. Most of these people are hard pressed to find jobs that cover the cost of their education.

      Also, the H1B program does apply to these fields. It applies to all professional fields, with special consideration due to some e.g. nursing.

      --
      Woe be on to them, all who rise against poor people, shall perish in a the end. Buju Banton
    2. Re:My proposed reform by seichert · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Actually, my position is this: immigration numbers should apply across the board. If I have to face competition from an infinite number of Chinese scientists, I should at least reap the cost savings from having that competition across the economy.

      Actual competition would probably also raise wage rates within your profession. A problem with H-1B or any other restrictive immigration program is that the foreigners are on unequal footing. If the foreigner cannot find a job or does not accept a job at low pay they will have to return to their home country. This leads to foreigners driving down the wage rate. Think about it, when you go out and look for a job you can turn it down if the pay is too low, the benefits are inadequate, or reasonable safety standards are not exercised. You will not get tossed out of the country and can continue looking for work. You can also take the time to negotiate with potential employers, form unions (which I do not recommend), start new companies, etc.

      If foreigners had the same freedom to pursue these activities I think you would see a much healthier job environment for native born American workers. New companies created by foreigners would also provide job opportunties to Americans. Protectionism ultimately results in poverty for everyone. True competition (without barriers to foreigners) will result in prosperity.

      --

      Stuart Eichert

    3. Re:My proposed reform by NearlyHeadless · · Score: 3, Informative
      When are we going to see an H1-B program for lawyers and MBAs?

      The H-1B program is not limited to technology. Law is pretty rare since the law is specific to the United States (or even individual states). Only 0.5% of H-1B visas were law-related in 2001. But there were almost 24,000 visas for "Occupations in administrative specializations". Admittedly, that's still pretty small compared to the 191,100 for "Computer-related occupations.
      See Report on Characteristics of Specialty Occupation
      Workers (H-1B)
    4. Re:My proposed reform by Wateshay · · Score: 2

      Well, if you look at one of the other posts above, you'll see that both law and "business specialties" are in the list of possible H1-B areas, so I think there is an H1-B program for lawyers and MBA's. Also, last time I checked, neither one of those professions were unionized any more than programmers are.

      --

      "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for everyone else."

    5. Re:My proposed reform by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 2
      The reason you won't see this is that lawyers and MBAs deal with social interactions, so they need to be very familiar with the culture that they are working within.

      Programmers and scientists mostly work with concepts that follow unvarying physical and logical laws. These laws apply equally in any country.

      The ultimate limit on the salaries of lawyers and MBAs will come when we've shipped all productive jobs overseas and there will be nobody left here to generate any capital with which to pay them.

    6. Re:My proposed reform by Otter · · Score: 2
      Thanks for clarifying that. I posted hurriedly between data collections -- got to stay on my toes before some foreigner takes my job!

      1) As you point out, though, "computer-related" dwarfs the rest of the H1-B positions, especially given the total size of the work force. But if you look at the more detailed breakdowns in the report, Table 12 (page 16) for instance, those "administrative specializations" are almost all in technology, as well. Sure, there are 809 fashion models (can we get more of those?) but you don't see bond traders or Washington lobbyists appearing in those lists.

      2) Also, H1-B is only part of the story. There are tens of thousands of scientists, for instance, here on student visas or other classifications that fall outside the H1-B umbrella. Again, I was inaccurate in my initial post.

      Anyway, the bit about lawyers was a Modest Proposal type thing. My point is that technical workers face vastly disproportionate competition for jobs as a result of systematic targeting through immigration policy and that it's their (our) own damn fault for letting it happen. Other professions would never be so stupid.

    7. Re:My proposed reform by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2

      Technology jobs are easy to export because it is a field that lends itself very easily to telecommunication. Its not because of a lack of organization on labors part. HB-1 Visas are just the beginning. How do you prevent a company from just setting up shop in a foreign country?

      You can't.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    8. Re:My proposed reform by smagruder · · Score: 2

      Also, last time I checked, neither one of those professions were unionized any more than programmers are.

      No unions, that's correct. But they have guilds, one called the ABA and the other the AMA. Programmers are working on their own professional guild.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  5. Will reducing H-1Bs help? by splattertrousers · · Score: 5, Insightful
    My understanding of the article's position: foreign workers work too cheaply; therefore the US should let fewer of them in so that American workers can get those jobs, but at a higher salary.

    If you were a company and had a lot of lower-paid foreign workers, and then the government stopped letting you hire such workers, what would you do? Hire more highly paid American workers? Or just farm the entire project/department out to a foreign country?

    The latter would save the company money and result in fewer American jobs and less income tax revenue for the US. It would create more jobs for foreign companies and more income tax revenue for those countries. Probably not what the AFL-CIO wants to happen.

    1. Re:Will reducing H-1Bs help? by br00tus · · Score: 2
      What kind of workers? System administrators? Network administrators working with Ciscos? Anyone in these fields long enough knows how silly the idea that these jobs will get farmed out soon is. Hell, in some cities PNAP's have trouble getting outside of one BUILDING, never mind T-3's and whatnot going to India or through the great firewall of China. How much you have to worry about this depends on your job - as a sysadmin, I have very little to worry about this, and very much to worry about H1-Bs.

      Of course people can listen to your idea and cringe like babies at the thought of jobs moving elsewhere and bending over and taking whatever is given them. Having known many IT workers who were probably dorks who were beaten up through high school, it doesn't surprise me they carry this wimpy attitude into adulthood. Norm Matloff responds to your question in a very detailed manner, as well as other H1-B questions for anyone interested.

    2. Re:Will reducing H-1Bs help? by EnderWiggnz · · Score: 2

      if you're good enough, do what i did and cross the line from IT to "engineering".

      Why would you stay in a career that has a shorter average career length than an NBA player?

      and with that in mind, why are IT workers so damn adamant about not unionizing? christ, these companies use abuse and wear you out.

      --
      ... hi bingo ...
    3. Re:Will reducing H-1Bs help? by smagruder · · Score: 2

      why are IT workers so damn adamant about not unionizing?

      Maybe because corporations have been so good at weeding out the older, more experienced (and yes, less energetic) workers in favor of the young'uns. The young'uns, are, of course, too young, too inexperienced and too much in good health to realize fully how much they're being screwed.

      I'm probably one of the oldest, still-working programmers at the geezer age of 36. :) (hmmm...maybe I shouldn't be smiling)

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
    4. Re:Will reducing H-1Bs help? by shemnon · · Score: 2

      It's not that they work too cheaply, it's that they are, for all intents and purposes, indentured servents sold on the idea that they have to pay back the company they are working for sponsering them. It's the green card process that feeds into this as well, which H1-Bs feed.

      Too many H1-Bs (including the whole shop of consultants that basically staffed a company I worked for) are either forced to sign a (unually non-enforcable) contract limiting mobility, are mis-informed of their rights of mobility, are coerced into not moving on, or are cheated out of their salary by bad/absent bennies or by bogus (and sometimes illegal) fees. All of these prevent the free market from working it's natural way on their salary.

      What is causing all of the low pay/cost for H1-B workers is all of these rediculous restrictions for them, and the companies are exploiting. Why do immagrants with green cards see their salaries jump within a year of the green card? They are playing on the same field as citizens, unlike before. Rather than imposing all of these effort to try and make the restriction on guest workers behave more like a free market I feel the real solution is to get rid of the concept of a guest worker, and relax general immigration os that these immigrant workers work on the same field with the same reatrictions and protections as native workers, only then will true pay equality occur, until then they will always be notably cheaper or economically unfeasable.

      --
      --Shemnon
  6. don't reform it, scrap it by mxs3549 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I think the whole H1-B program is flawed. The fact that the visa is tied to a specific company sponsor means that the employer has the implied threat of deportation to use in any wage negotiation. This has to be a big factor in the lower wages paid to H1-B workers. I would rather see increased numbers of immigrants on a permanent resident/citizenship track than a reformed guest worker program.

  7. dont care if they work cheap by dnoyeb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My problem is not that other people work cheaper than me, eventhough this threatens my job. My problem is that the savings is absorbed by the CEOs and shareholders, it never finds its way to the laborers.

    Therefore, its typically fueled by greed and not economic needs.

    1. Re:dont care if they work cheap by Drakonian · · Score: 2

      Umm... if it found it found it's way to the labourers, then they wouldn't be working for cheap anymore would they?

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    2. Re:dont care if they work cheap by splattertrousers · · Score: 2
      My problem is that the savings is absorbed by the CEOs and shareholders, it never finds its way to the laborers.

      If you are interested in money, become a CEO or shareholder, not a laborer. Being a laborer has never been particularly profitable.

  8. The proposal sounds to me like... by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It seems to actively discourage immigration. Nothing more, nothing less. Three year terms (with no renewal) is not much of an incentive for anyone to come to US to work. It is a thinly veiled attempt to say "no H1's", without the courage to say so.

    If such proposals go on, with no foreign workers to work in US, and US people complain about outsourcing of jobs to other countries, US is heading towards becoming a protectionist and reclusive country.

    S

  9. They have no idea about current laws by aralin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Hi, I am on H1b and all the points in their proposed reforms are either in the current laws already in even stricter form or (the change of limit from 195 000 to 65 000) bound to happen as some extensions expire soon. From reading the article they have absolutely no clue about both the current environment and the current laws. The limits of H1b visa are not even reached and in the current market is almost impossible for a company to obtain a DOL certification for their recruitment on the position anyway. This is just someone trying to solve problem that does not exist.

    --
    If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
  10. H1B not the issue now that it was 3 years ago by poopie · · Score: 2

    3 years ago, companies were starved for specific talent and they filled those gaps with H1B visa workers that they brought to the US.

    Today, there is no US talent shortage, and H1B is not nearly the issue it used to be... US Companies are hiring skilled foreign nationals in their country of origin as opposed to bringing them to the US.

    It works out to be good for the companies, but bad for US workers (many of whom are still caught up in H1B visa issues and haven't realized that our beloved corporations are shipping the "US jobs" overseas at a rate that makes the H1B visa hires look miniscule.)

    As a shareholder for some large tech companies, I fully support the reduction of costs by moving jobs outside one of the most expensive places to do business in the world (the bay area).

    I do have to wonder wonder what jobs will be left in the bay area for the next generation of workers, though

  11. tech unions? by Alien54 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The AFL-CIO has put together that whole Techs Unite webpage, which includes a number of interesting thoughts, like a union for Techs.

    Of course unions, etc have not been a traditional alliance for geeks. I can just imagine the flamewars over this.

    The proposed reforms validate many if most of the concerns of IT workers, but I am not sure if these are the best solutions. I have seen suggestions that advocate the all out abolition of the H1B program. This might be the way to go, if the the thing H1B fixed did not in fact fix anything in the first place.

    The last thing we need is the US to become the equivalent of Detroit with urban burnout across the whole country.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
    1. Re:tech unions? by Dr+Caleb · · Score: 2
      It's been my experience in other jobs I had leading up to my being in I.T.; that Unions are not good for workers, they are only good for Unions.

      Unions only care about their next contract negotiation, so they can charge their members fees that the company takes directly off your cheque. So long as they are collecting that fee from the membership, they couldn't give a rats anus about you, Joe Individual, or your problems with the company.

      --
      "History doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme." Mark Twain
    2. Re:tech unions? by br00tus · · Score: 2
      A union means a majority of workers somewhere agreeing to bargain collectively. It is not a seperate entity from the workers, it IS the workers at a company. They can join a national union if they want to, or not, or can affiliate with some unaffiliated locals, or whatever they want to do. You're speaking as if a union was alien to workers. A union is the workers, and the decisions they democratically make. As far as members fees, they are determined by the membership. If you are unaffiliated, it is determined solely by you and the people you work with.

      In the United States, "business unions" were encouraged throughout history when labor unrest grew. Business unions are what you are talking about - a bureaucracy that doesn't care about much aside from members fees. These unions were the ones that were praised by business during periods of labor unrest because management would rather have workers at those crappy unions then at militant rank-and-file unions. The militant unions run by the rank and file would be called radicals, communists, anarchists, whatever. Anyone who has read labor history knows what a joke what you are saying is, management does everything in it's power to try and favor corrupt lazy unions over militant rank-and-file unions, and then if a union that only cares about dues comes along, they complain about that which they have spent years trying to get. What a joke.

    3. Re:tech unions? by swb · · Score: 2

      In an ideal world with ideal management philosophies, unions aren't necessary. Employers constantly strive to have the best work force -- good policies, active employee development, sound management.

      In the real world, management is avarcious and mendacious towards its work force and instead seeks to exploit it at every opportunity for their own gain.

      I'm not sure that tech unions would be all bad. Yes, unions have some inherent problems, but in some cases they actually seem to be valuable. I've spent a fair amount of time working directly with union commercial electricians (IBEW) and the union gives them perks and benefits I don't have as a long-term management employee. The union also does a lot to ensure that the people in it are actually able to do what they claim to be able to do (ie, work with and install electrical systems).

      I'd see a tech union able to (a) help employees find work, (b) mitigate crazy, death-march type tech projects by requring pay for extra work, and (c) provide talented people that are what they claim (no paper MCSEs, thanks), all while ensuring that wages and benefits are fair.

      We tech workers had these kinds of benefits in the 90s due to demand and previously due primarily to the scarcity of talent to do a complicated job. Now that jobs are scarce, talent isn't and we're competing against phonies for jobs where we're required to work after hours or extra hours with no pay, a union doesn't seem to bad anymore..

    4. Re:tech unions? by Lumpy · · Score: 2

      The problem is that Unionization of Tech, espically programmers or It workers is almost impossible due to the sheer number of prima-donnas and Ego strokers that gladly stab each other for fun and profit. Look at the brightest computer people on the planet, the linux kernel, apache, KDE and Gnome guys.. the amount of infighting, Ego stroking and plain old "F**K YOU" attitude between each other based on stupid things (Using GTK versus QT for example) you can NEVER get these kinds of people to unite and agree on anything. Hell they rarely support each other or what they believe in (I hear tons of bitching about every new IP and tech law... do I see masses of techs and programmers marching on the whitehouse or steps of congress? nope.. too lazy for that.)

      Detroit Auto workers unionized in a big way because they saw that it was the only way to teach ford and chrysler a lesson. They were treated like crap, ford was notorious for being an evil man toward his workers and that one bit of unity coupled with a bit of mob-muscle and ingenuity... created the UAW and AFL-CIO. Unity, the balls to stand together and strike ACROSS the nation, and the guts to stand up for what you believe in are required for Unionization, fueled by bad working conditions.. Tech's are used to the unrealistic pampering of the 1990's and the reality of $32,000 to $50,000 for IT and a bit more for a code monkey are something we all are going to have to get used to. Tech was horribly overpaid and horribly overstaffed with fake and bad talent. it's in a shakedown now.. and it will become a blue-collar job at the end of this decade...

      --
      Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
    5. Re:tech unions? by mcwop · · Score: 2
      Not all union situations end up badly or are all unions completely corrupt, but there is evidence that many union members get screwed regularly by union management. The net effect may not be positive for union members. Unions may suggest what appear to be sound solutions to IT workers concerns, but execution is another story. Plus there is the fact that you don't make 100% of your own decisions anymore. Many decisions are made by union bosses and your peers as a group. The mob mentality can be a whole different dynamic.

      Additionally, unions have helped destroy entire industries and drive those jobs overseas by not being flexible with work productivity rules. Steel comes to mind. Another example, a union crew at Southwest Airlines turns around 10 planes in a day compared to a union crew at USAirways that turns around 3. No wonder why USAirways is in Bankruptcy.

      Some unions have squandered member pensions or other money through corruption, which occurs too frequently for organizations that tend to demonize everyone not on their side. Textbook Examples:

      If the tech industry goes heavy union, then many jobs may go overseas. This is because unions come with too many headaches. Unions are using the visa issue only to gain members and power by preying on people's fears.
      --

      "I don't think it's selfish, to eat defenseless shellfish." -NOFX

    6. Re:tech unions? by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      The AFL-CIO has put together that whole Techs Unite webpage [techsunite.org], which includes a number of interesting thoughts, like a union for Techs.

      How unexpected: a union which is facing declining private-sector membership is proposing to unionize traditionally non-unionized workers. Who'd a thunk it?

      It might be a good idea to organize, but let's look at the folks who make the big bucks: MD's and lawyers. They have associations which act as gate keepers (AMA and ABA). If you don't get permission from the AMA, you won't practice medicine. For the state medical exams, and for the state bar exams, the relevant association sets the standards, and they keep them high enough to safeguard the incomes of the ones who've laready made it through. Any ``protection'' which the public gets is is a happy accident.

      Plumbers and electricians have similar deals with state licensing authorities, and are also fairly well paid. The important thing isn't collective bargaining (MD's and lawyers don't have it, plumbers and electricians do), but keeping out the ravening hordes who would run the wage down to the subsistance level.

      My point? It might be better to avoid the AFL-CIO, and start an AMA/ABA/IEEE-style professional association, and lobby for compulsory state standards and examinations for professional coders.

    7. Re:tech unions? by smagruder · · Score: 2

      Why go as far as starting a union, when we already have good examples set by the legal and medical professions? Programmers need a strong, political, professional guild. Unionizing is anachronistic, and doesn't apply well to intellectual professions.

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  12. Hunh? by mindstrm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So.. they all speak different languages natively.. SO WHAT? You said.. they all speak english in common. Isn't that the point?

    I'm not saying it's great to have lots of foreign work.. but bringing up the fact that they don't natively speak english is kind of, well, bigotry.

    1. Re:Hunh? by EatHam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Insisting that your employees speak a common language is not bigotry. I would insist that my employees speak English natively or speak it well enough that I can't tell they are not native speakers.

    2. Re:Hunh? by micromoog · · Score: 2
      I would insist that my employees speak English natively or speak it well enough that I can't tell they are not native speakers.

      You basically just said "no foreign accents". That's bigotry.

      "Well enough that they can communicate effectively as per their job requirements" is more like it.

    3. Re:Hunh? by br00tus · · Score: 2
      I love how when someone mentions H1-Bs, someone says being against the high caps is "bigotry" or "racism".

      The H1-B cap was pushed up to 195,000 due to lobbying in the press and Congress by the ITAA. The ITAA is financed by Microsoft, IBM and Intel. Why did they pass this law, how do they justify the millions in expenses to their shareholders? Are they doing it for benevolent reasons, out of the goodness of their corporate structures heart? Or is it for financial reasons? Yet when someone thinks the recent law they changed pushed the number up to high, they're not concerned that the number is so high it is driving up IT unemployment and driving down wages, they're just racist bigots. How about we change the H1-B visa so it's not just people hurting the IT profession allowed in but anybody. Then it's no more bigotry, right? What a lot of BS.

    4. Re:Hunh? by Cheeko · · Score: 2

      Just because they all spoke english does not mean they spoke it well. I've had personal experience with project were understanding people who's native language was not english, was very difficult. This can be even worse in a setting involving a great deal of phone conversation.

      Also, this is the reason many graduate programs are begining to require spoken-english tests for people applying for TA positions. Simply because someone can speak english, when it is not their native language does not make it easy to communicate in english. A prime example is that TA many of us had in college, who nobody could understand, and became very frustrated with.

    5. Re:Hunh? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      No, that's not what he's saying. What he's saying is that he should be able to as effectively communicate with them as with any other native speaker.

      I have run into this MANY times and I can tell you it's a MAJOR problem. This is not bigotry. It's a simple fact that ANY barrier to communication (work or life) cause problems and confusion.

      How many times do you see job adds which read, "must have excellent communication and presentation skills". Is that bigotry? Of course not. It's people looking for other people that are not going to further complicate the job they need filled.

      Communication the most basic skill required to effectively work. Period.

    6. Re:Hunh? by erroneus · · Score: 2

      Have you ever had to wade through various forms of English in a busienss setting? It's hard enough if the people are from a wide variety of American locations. If they're coming from a variety of companies with varying degrees of English ability, it creates a chaos of understandability that you have likely not witnessed.

      It's not bigotry to complain about very real problems in communication. When communication problems occur, it costs time... lots and lots of time. Time is money and timing is everything in business. Furthermore, teamwork has value at a human level and when communications are difficult to maintain, teamwork suffers.

      It's a real problem and thank you for calling it "bigotry" as you so clearly illustrate my point. We cannot fix our problems while we are fighting each other over political issues. If we want to feed more Americans, we're starving the people of other nations. If we want to lower our unemployment rate and raise the wages of our citizens, we're discriminating against foreigners.

      We're "bad" no matter which way we go, so I vote that we be "bad people" by taking care of our own first and others second. We're not "one world" yet and we've got a lot more to lose -- we haven't hit bottom yet.

    7. Re:Hunh? by gimpboy · · Score: 2

      quoting what you are talking about, with my emphisis added:
      I would insist that my employees speak English natively or speak it well enough that I can't tell they are not native speakers .

      no what he's saying that i shouldnt be able to tell they are not native english speakers. this is very different from ..being able to effectivley communicate with them as with any other native speaker.

      i have indian friends whom i understand perfectly-they have accents, but i have no trouble understanding them. under the parents conditions they would not be acceptable, under yours they would be.

      --
      -- john
    8. Re:Hunh? by swillden · · Score: 2

      I'm not saying it's great to have lots of foreign work.. but bringing up the fact that they don't natively speak english is kind of, well, bigotry.

      Interesting. I see this exactly oppositely.

      I have no problem whatsoever with lots of foreign workers. If they can do the job and can do it more cost-effectively, I see no reason why they shouldn't have it. If Americans can't compete, well, boo-hoo for us.

      OTOH, I've seen teams like the OP described -- it's not that English is their second language, that's well and good, but when none of them can speak it very well, and they all have *different* idiosyncracies in their speech, communication is severely hampered. I once had the experience of sitting in a room with two other people, one German, one Chinese, neither very proficient with English (their only common language) and listening to them try to communicate. If the meeting hadn't been so important, I would have been rolling on the floor. As it was, I had to step in and "translate" for them.

      In my experience, a well-educated native speaker of a language has a substantially easier time understanding various deformations of that language because he or she has such a full grasp of the underlying tongue. For example, he or she can immediately recongize transliterated idioms, simply by the fact that no native speaker would say that, whereas another non-native speaker (with little knowledge of the first speaker's language or culture) is much more likely to accept the statement at face value. Another example is the ability of a native speaker to recognize severely deformed words instead of thinking that the word is one that he or she simply does not know. There are others.

      Of course, none of this applies to non-native speakers who do have a very firm grasp on the language they're using, but it's worth pointing out that even a very competent a non-native speaker is likely to have a great deal of trouble understanding a native speaker who uses a very non-standard dialect. I once saw a competent German speaker of English try to communicate with a poorly-educated man from Louisiana, to no avail, even though I could understand both of them.

      So, IMO, foreign workers are just fine, but you need to ensure that the "team" language is one which is *competently* spoken by everyone. I'm a little bit sadistic, perhaps, but I think the ability to read and explain passages of Shakespeare would be a good test :-) (might filter out some less-desirable native speakers as well!)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:Hunh? by GooberToo · · Score: 2

      Oh brother!

      Pick the text apart all you like it makes ZERO difference. I think his intent was rather clear. If my interpretation differs from what HE meant, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

      In the mean time, you need to accept that people don't always say (write even) EXACTLY what they mean.

      I've worked with many Indians and I must say some were a pleasure to work with. The others were a horrible experience because of the language barrier. Worse yet, I was one of the leads on a very large project. Long story short, with the ones that I had even minor communication issues with, I *NEVER* knew what I'd get back from them. Sometimes it was spot on. Other times, what I got back had absolutely nothing to do with the project and you're left wondering why it didn't raise a flag with them in the first place.

      That doesn't make them bad people or even bad workers, it just highlights that ANY language/communication issues are SERIOUS problems. It alone can doom any project regardless of the nature of the problem (comprehension skills, poor transfer, accent, or even different native languages).

    10. Re:Hunh? by SecurityGuy · · Score: 2
      There's speaking English and there's speaking english with enough proficiency to be productive.


      I'm working with a number of non-English speakers. Some speak excellent English, some speak deplorably bad English, to the point where I've considered learning *their* language, because they sure as hell haven't made any strides learning mine in the 2+ years we've been working together. The ones who speak both languages well act as glue. The problem is, they're not always around and in general, it's harder to communicate with someone when you have to have it translated back and forth. It's not bigotry at all. It's a simple fact. We have difficult problems to overcome, and it's a PITA that those problems are compounded by language barriers that my cow orkers aren't overcoming.


      If it makes you feel better, I vow to learn the language if I ever go to work in their country.

    11. Re:Hunh? by afidel · · Score: 2

      Ummm no he's not talking about just accents, hes talking about people whos accents are so thick that no one can interpret what he or she is saying reliably. Out of about 40 foreign born individuals working in my office there is only 1 whos accent is so bad that I have trouble communicating with him, this individual despite being smart is at times a liability on his team because communicating with him can slow the flow of ideas. I have a similar problem when I call our helldesk in India, their accents are so thick it is difficult to communicate, add in bad trans-Atlantic phone quality and it becomes almost unbearable. But many Indian individuals that I work or study with have no problems communicating. What I am saying, and I believe the origional poster was saying is that an inability to communicate effectivly greatly reduces the value of an employee to the point of making it not worth the effort to hire them.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    12. Re:Hunh? by micromoog · · Score: 2
      Pick the text apart all you like it makes ZERO difference. I think his intent was rather clear. If my interpretation differs from what HE meant, I'm sure we'll hear about it.

      GooberToo got it. Again, more clearly:

      • Employees must speak English "well enough that I can't tell they are not native speakers." = BAD
      • Employees must speak English "well enough that they can communicate effectively as per their job requirements" = GOOD.
    13. Re:Hunh? by nolife · · Score: 2

      but bringing up the fact that they don't natively speak english is kind of, well, bigotry.

      I do not agree with the bigotry part. I am an American that speaks english. I was in the Gulf War for this country, my dad was in Vietnam for this country (regardless of the actual reason, he was representing the US), my grandfather was in WW2 and my great grandfather was in WW1. I'm sure some of my other relatives before this were equally part of American history in some way shape or form. Americans high standard of living and mere existance is because of the previous Americans sacrifices. I do not believe it is acceptable to allow anyone and everyone to come into this country and milk off our past successes and sacrifices with little or no sacrifice done by themselves. If you want to play, you should have to pay. The situation that makes United States a desired place to work is because of what previous Americans sacrificed for future Americans. I don't consider this viewpoint bigotry or a troll but I doubt it is the popular opinion here on /.

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    14. Re:Hunh? by protohiro1 · · Score: 2

      Go work in a foreign country. Come back. See how you feel about this issue. Language skills are a catch 22, you need to be living and working in the new language to reach true fluency, and its difficult to get a job without it. BUT, having both been the foreign worker and worked with them, it takes about three months for anyone with fairly good "school learned" language skills to become fluent enough to be effectivly the same as a native speaker (not in writing, but in speaking, you don't need to worry about them understanding you or being understood anymore than a native).

      Language is easily aquired. It will come for anyone. It is not a good reason to pass someone over. If they have real job the skills, the language will come easily in a few months. I think the language issue is really more of a race issue...but I'll let other people fight that one out.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    15. Re:Hunh? by TheConfusedOne · · Score: 2

      Well, fill up the jerry can with some petrol and throw it in the boot!

      How about: hero, grinder, sub, hoagie
      Do you drink soda or pop?

      Frankly if that's your stand on things then you're going to miss out on dealing with some incredibly intelligent people. Though I suppose you're allowed to think that.

      Personally, I'm gonna nip down to the local and toss a couple of jars down my neck.

      --
      --- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
  13. We need to increase immigration by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Lest we want to happen to us what is now happening to Japan and Europe. Due to lowered levels of immigration those regions are experiencing an aging of the population. This busts the social security systems. With less people paying in, less money can be sent out.

    We need more people. Not less. Immigrants add to the economy. They add workers, and consumers. What they bring to the economy more than outweighs what they take out via usage of social services.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:We need to increase immigration by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You're missing something: H1B's aren't immigrants, and instead of adding to the economy, they take away from it. They stay here a short period of time, are bound to one employer (so they can't change jobs if the employer treats them badly), then go home. How does this add to the economy?

      This AFL-CIO proposal has nothing whatsoever to do with immigration (which is the act of someone moving to this country permanently); it's about foreign guest workers.

    2. Re:We need to increase immigration by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      This is a pretty sad argument. Social Security payments are based on how much you (not someone else) paid into the system, so while payments from someone who can't withdraw from it later do help prop up this slowly-failing pyramid scheme somewhat, it doesn't help someone who's displaced from their high-wage job because of that person.

      McDonald's burger-flippers also live here and spend at least some money here, but overall they really don't help the economy a whole lot because their wages are so low. It's good if you're a teenager or college student, but if most people had nothing better to look forward to that that level of earnings, then our country's society and economy would take a big downward plunge.

    3. Re:We need to increase immigration by benzapp · · Score: 2

      Lest we want to happen to us what is now happening to Japan and Europe. Due to lowered levels of immigration those regions are experiencing an aging of the population. This busts the social security systems. With less people paying in, less money can be sent out.

      We need more people. Not less. Immigrants add to the economy. They add workers, and consumers. What they bring to the economy more than outweighs what they take out via usage of social services.


      Listen jack, I am something of a radical in a lot of ways. But Social Security systems are just bogus. What you are describing is the problem found in ANY Ponzi scheme.

      And the problem will continue forever. Are we supposed to ship the entire worlds population to Europe ad infitum in order to maintain their social security system? There are other ways, better ways. We don't need more people. We need less on this planet and we need a government that doesn't just redistribute wealth but actually directs the meaninful creation of a civilization.

      Wealth redistrubtion does not work. Pay people to pick up TRASH on the street at least. There is PLENTY of work that needs to be done in this country, but don't just pay people to do nothing.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    4. Re:We need to increase immigration by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Sure, they're helping the economy currently, but my point is that if everyone here worked burger-flipper wages, no one would be able to afford the burgers. Sending high-wage jobs overseas will accomplish just this, and leave us with economic collapse.

    5. Re:We need to increase immigration by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You seem to forget that a first-world economy doesn't stay that way by having lower wages than other countries. If everyone got minimum-wage jobs, the tax base would plummet and suddenly we wouldn't have all these nice things like good roads, health care (McD's doesn't pay for health care for those part-time workers), police, fire departments, etc. which our taxes go towards. If you want an example of how well this type of system works, look at the former Soviet Union. Notice they don't exist anymore, because everyone earning peanuts doesn't make for a viable economic system.

    6. Re:We need to increase immigration by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      ... Japan and Europe. Due to lowered levels of immigration those regions are experiencing an aging of the population.

      Hate to pop your bubble, but it's due to low birth rates. The selfish buggers aren't even replacing themselves. Japan is xenophobic enough that they have NEVER had much immigration. Europe is experiencing a lot of social unrest because they have high immigration to make up for the low birth rates.

      Immigrants add to the economy. ... What they bring to the economy more than outweighs what they take out via usage of social services.

      Probably true.

    7. Re:We need to increase immigration by diaphanous · · Score: 2

      Lest we want to happen to us what is now happening to Japan and Europe. Due to lowered levels of immigration those regions are experiencing an aging of the population.

      No, that's not true. These countries are experiencing an aging of the population because their citizens are having to fewer children. See this recent article in the NY Times, and this table of the fertility rates around the world.

      ~Phillip

    8. Re:We need to increase immigration by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      I have no argument about the burger-flipping machine. But burger-flipping, and high-wage jobs requiring extensive education are a little different. Forget just programmers; think of the entire engineering profession drying up and leaving the country. Where will that leave us technologically? If we have to farm out our aerospace engineering for our fighter jets and missiles to other countries, we won't exactly be at the top militarily anymore. The US has long been a technological leader, but this is impossible if you don't have engineers. Then what if you started farming out other jobs too, like sales, marketing, finance, accounting, etc.?

      Sure, if you replace the burger-flippers with a machine, those people can learn a new skill. But burger-flipping is a job (not even a "trade" or a "profession"). What happens when there's no more positions for professionals? You can't sustain a first-world economy without high-grade careers like that.

    9. Re:We need to increase immigration by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      You just don't get it, do you? If skilled occupations get swamped by low-cost foreign labor, then that takes all the money out of our economy, and eliminates any incentive for Americans to go into those positions, eliminating our skill base. Engineering is already going down the drain for various reasons. If you are or have recently been an engineering student, you'll know that very few Americans even go into the field any more. How exactly are you going to buy F-16s if no one wants to sell them to you? That's why you need to keep technical talent in the country, not depend on others for it.

      So without a medical profession or engineering, what exactly do you propose for Americans to do for high-wage positions? If it doesn't pay any better to be a professional than to be a tradesman or other position which doesn't require hard work and an education, people won't bother pursuing that profession. Sure, some things will be cheaper in the short term, but with people making less money (read: recession), there won't be as much money floating around to pay for these things in the first place.

      BTW, judging by the health care standards the 3rd world has, I'd much rather have an "expensive" American doctor working on me.

  14. Same with programmers by Billly+Gates · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Programmers too. I had to leave the tech field when I lived in New York because all of the finaincal companies(yes the ones who hold the majority of the worlds money) are outsourcing all of the programming jobs to India and Indonesia for 7/hr! I guess the CEO's do not have enough money.

    I was even willing to work for 7/hr like the Indians because I became so desperate and was ready to work at a McDonalds or retail store. I guess I was still viewed as too expensive or not dispensable enough. I ened up moving back in with my parents, selling all of most of my stuff in my apartment, lossing my girlfriend because she wanted a man with money, and working at a staples for 7/hr.

    Infact go read this article here on how sun is under investigation for firing half of its staff and replacing them with Indians. Its disgusting and this really pisses me off! What the f*ck did we do to deserve to be treated like this? I advise most workers to work for a small bussiness who actually care about there workers. Big companies just want to rape us. I am back in tech working for a small consulting company outside of the big cities. I advise those who are looking for work in New York, Silcon Valley, or San Fransico to leave and move to a place like Phoenix, Las Vegas or Ohama where small bussinesses are rampant and rents are low.

    1. Re:Same with programmers by FatherOfONe · · Score: 2

      Or Indiana.

      --
      The more I learn about science, the more my faith in God increases.
    2. Re:Same with programmers by /dev/trash · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What the f*ck did we do to deserve to be treated like this?

      Maybe high wages, lots o benefits and other costly things?

    3. Re:Same with programmers by benzapp · · Score: 2

      But he was a US citizen.

      This is not a racial or ethnic debate, but one of citizenship. India just happens to have a lot of capable programmers, but the debate would be similar if it was Russia which was the source or even someplace like Italy.

      US Citizens come first. Our government exists to protect us.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    4. Re:Same with programmers by benzapp · · Score: 2, Troll

      Nonsense. We are involved all over the world, but the State refuses to close the southern border.

      Do you think I agree with that? The military of today is a result of the military-industrial complex created in the 1950's. We need to ship our army all over the world because it is a foundation of our modern economy but more importantly, if the enter US military was centered in the contintental US, they would unite and start a revolution.

      Revolution IS just around the corner. Foreign games will only delay the inevitable.

      Then, we can close the southern border. A nation without borders ceases to be a nation.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    5. Re:Same with programmers by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In some places, notably the ones where tech companies tend to congretate, a six figure salary is MERELY a decent living. Expecting to be paid 150K in LA, New York, SFO or the Valley is not at all unreasonable if you are reasonably talented.

      Perhaps companies should start moving to places where real estate isn't subject to bidding wars.

      The fastest part of the tech industry tanked because people were starting companies without giving any thought to how these companies were going to MAKE MONEY.

      As for the rest of the economy: the fat cat's just don't want to share the profit that is enabled by effective software development or IT.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    6. Re:Same with programmers by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      The casinos in Vegas are growing. This is fine if you want to work for the casinos. Vegas is a great place if you are a high school dropout and want to make decent money dealing blackjack. Otherwise, you will likely find it to be an only barely tolerable backwater.

      Vegas is a podunk town with abombinable infastructure and poor professional services. There's a medical malpractice crisis because of incompetent medical personnel (I can attest to this personally) in Nevada and the same appears to be brewing for the construction industry.

      If you want to get away from the urban grind of SFO or LA, you would be better off widening your search to include small towns in more rural areas of the midwest, east coast or even california.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    7. Re:Same with programmers by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      interesting angle. I'll have to think about that.

    8. Re:Same with programmers by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2
      Actually reality, law firms, construction, and small consulting companies are doing quite well due to rampant growth and is where most of the jobs are at. Las Vegas is the fastest growing city in North America. Where I work I do computer and copier support and not one of my calls have ever been for a casino. I have only 1 customer who works in a casino and runs their bussiness services for hotel guests but its a seperate company from the casino itself.

      The health crises is due to lawyers which are eveywhere here and liberal laws that make it easy to sue for malpractice. 10 other states are shuting down ER rooms as well all thanks to lawyers and assh*les who think they are holding lottery tickets. I admit some of the infastructures are poor but if you do not have a college degree or want cheap housing then Vegas is the place. Public transportation is not bad either for a western city.

      But yes the pay is shit compared to New York where I use to live. This is the tradeoff.

    9. Re:Same with programmers by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      all of the finaincal companies(yes the ones who hold the majority of the worlds money)

      The money doesn't belong to the banks, it belongs to the investors - if you have a 401(k) or mutual funds, you are an investor. The banks have a duty to use the money as efficiently as possible (I will admit that they don't always do so) and that means keeping costs down.

      I was even willing to work for 7/hr like the Indians

      The Indians are not working for $7/hr! They are getting paid - and spending - their local currency, the rupee. The fact that the rupee is a very weak currency means it's cheap for dollar-based companies to use them, but you can't compare directly. The Indians aren't paying half a day's wages for a $4 coffee from Starbucks!

      Its disgusting and this really pisses me off! What the f*ck did we do to deserve to be treated like this?

      Frankly, many self-proclaimed "hackers" bring it on themselves. Instead of understanding the business and being proactive about adding value, they lock themselves away in the server room, doing their precious "geeky" things, dressing in jeans and sneakers, sneering at anyone who can't fix their own computer. The business managers wonder, what are we paying these people for? We never see them anyway, why not outsource them!

      Buy a suit, adopt the attitude that IT is there to support the business not an end in itself, and make sure your manager knows how much money you make/save for the company every quarter.

    10. Re:Same with programmers by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Bullsh*t.

      Before the recent "tort reform" bill passed, Nevada actually had a quite rigorous malpractice review process that ELIMINATED 90% of claims immediately. If anything, whining from twits like you is going to INCREASE malpractice litigation in Nevada by making it a low stakes game.

      Now, any sheister with a 3rd tier law degree can cheaply start shaking down any doctor in the state with penny ante frivolous claims.

      It's like auto insurance here. It's triple what it is in similar sized midwestern cities. There are simply more idiots "practicing driving" here. The same is true of medicine and construction. The people that need to have their licenses pulled, aren't.

      That leads to a higher rate of auto accidents, botched medical procedures, and failing down houses.

      Just think of it in terms of gambling. Gambling isn't bad in that it attracts crime. The problem with gambling in a city is that it attracts people who have no sense of consequences. It attracts idiots. That idiocy spills out into daily life and undermines the quality of everything.

      If you're more than just a PC consultant charlatain, Vegas will quickly lose it's charm.

      There are towns with cheaper houses, better salaries and more tech jobs. Pretty much any city the size of Vegas would.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    11. Re:Same with programmers by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      you lost me at the suit. no human being should be forced to wear a suit daily. Note that the qualifier of human being means this does not apply to salespeople and marketeers.

    12. Re:Same with programmers by leshert · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is a chicken-and-egg problem, at least in the Bay area. Real estate prices were high, but not stupid-high, before the tech boom. When tech people became scarce due to the tech explosion there, companies started paying silly money to qualified people from out of the area in order to entice them to move. This caused a mass influx of people with good amounts of disposable income and lots of competition for scarce housing. Low supply, high demand: prices go up. It's Economics 101.

      Now real estate prices generally (but not always) fall much more slowly in a recession than they rise in a superheated market. So now we have a situation where housing prices remain high, but the jobs are far less plentiful and you still have a large number of people chasing them. Higher supply (of labor), low demand: prices go down.

      You remark that companies should move to where real estate isn't subject to bidding wars. They are--it's just not a place in the U.S.

      Also, you could say the same things about those who complain about high real estate prices compared to their salaries: go somewhere with a decent tech economy and a non-inflated real estate market.

      Yes, there are cities in the U.S. that fit this description.

    13. Re:Same with programmers by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      Revolution IS just around the corner. Foreign games will only delay the inevitable.

      Sorry, the revolution has already happened. And we lost. It was sown with the conservative response to the 1960s counterculture and was reaped with the election of a CIA chief and now his son. Hate the break the news to you.

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    14. Re:Same with programmers by benzapp · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Sorry, the revolution has already happened. And we lost. It was sown with the conservative response to the 1960s counterculture and was reaped with the election of a CIA chief and now his son. Hate the break the news to you.

      Oh yeah, I was wrong. Thanks for that important tip. What was I thinking?

      Did you not read my original post? When I say revolution, I am not referring to a bunch of pussy hippies listening to shitty music and getting stoned on weed. I am talking about the real deal.

      Guns, tanks, death, amphetamine, heroin, Wagner, Sousa. Violent revolution, real drugs, and real music.

      If you think in the entire history of human civilization, the 1960's is at all relevant you really need to read up more.

      The point of my post is the Military-Industrial complex was foisted upon the nation as a foundation of our economy, but the end result was a huge military was created. To prevent that military from causing trouble here in the United States, they were spread all around the world. That way, more guns weapons, and people could be employed by that System without fear of revolution caused by that military machine.

      Between the millions of veterans, national guardsmen, reserves, and active duty personal we have a huge cadre of personal trained and ready to wreck havoc.

      As the world economy collapses, the civilized order which allowed hippies to march freely on streets in the 1960's will cease to exist. Violent confrontation will become the norm, as it has been for virtually all of human existence.

      Revolution will come out of necessity, because the existing government will cease to maintain a civilized society.

      When that day comes, people will care more about carrying an automatic rifle than a pipe. No one will smoke marijuana, but amphetamine and morphine will be necessities. Speed to keep you fighting, narcotics to dull the physical and emotional pain of war. Souless pop music will fail to impress those who experience true bloodshed. We will return to more complex music, especially militaristic music.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    15. Re:Same with programmers by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
      Did you not read my original post? When I say revolution, I am not referring to a bunch of pussy hippies listening to shitty music and getting stoned on weed. I am talking about the real deal.

      The 1960s were the closest this country has come to revolution since the civil war. It is my argument that it peaked with the resignation of Nixon. Not all revolutionaries were 'pussy hippies' Maybe you should read up on the Weathermen or the Black Panthers.

      If you think in the entire history of human civilization, the 1960's is at all relevant you really need to read up more.

      It was in the 1960s that the current conservative moment coalesced, leading to Reagan, Bush and the current Republican persona dramatae. Furthermore, it was during this decade that many of those people were 'formed' politically and philosophically.

      The point of my post is the Military-Industrial complex was foisted upon the nation as a foundation of our economy, but the end result was a huge military was created.

      You're confusing cause and effect. The large military was required in response to the second world war. The military-industrial complex is the product of this war. It continued strategically in response to the soviet threat, but economically as a great Keynesian support to the economy.

      To prevent that military from causing trouble here in the United States, they were spread all around the world. That way, more guns weapons, and people could be employed by that System without fear of revolution caused by that military machine.

      I disagree on two counts. First there was a perceived threat from the Soviets and the communist Chinese both directly and by proxy through their client states. Second, military presence, particularly naval presence helps to open trade and to minimize the costs associated with it. A prime example of this would be the tanker war of the 1980s.

      Summary: the primary motivation for forward deployment is strategic and economic, not to forestall revolution.

      Between the millions of veterans, national guardsmen, reserves, and active duty personal we have a huge cadre of personal trained and ready to wreck havoc.

      A population of which I am a member. There are numerous problems with your hypothesis for revolution from amongst the military and/or veterans. Among them, only a fraction of servicemen are directly in combat arms. It takes alot of supply sergeants and desk lieutenants for every infantry platoon. The closest perhaps to your idea might be the Marine Corps, where "Every Marine a Rifleman." Even still, a tiny minority are what might be called hardened combat veterans. Also, a majority of servicemen and veterans are 'conservative'. In that i mean interested in maintaining the status quo as far as the government is concerned. It is the foundation of that government, the constitution, that these servicemen swore to uphold and defend.

      As the world economy collapses, the civilized order which allowed hippies to march freely on streets in the 1960's will cease to exist.

      You assume that it will. Regardless, let's run with your assumption. If the economy collapses, the political institutions will still exist and have an enormous imperative to restore what prosperity might have previously existed. In a world-wide scenario, this would likely manifest as national competition for scarce resources leading to open warfare. Economic collapse and warfare can lead to revolution as evidenced best by russia, but in the modern, nuclear proliferated world, the consequences are much more grave than lenin and trotsky.

      Your preparations for revolution are best spent in digging bombshelters in cheneyesque undisclosed locations, not in target practice with your AR-15 and rereading that dogeared copy of "The martyrdom of randy weaver"

      --

      Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

    16. Re:Same with programmers by Fesh · · Score: 2

      Note to moderator:

      Parent comment was a low blow and totally out of line. Moderating it as funny is adding insult to injury, and has to be one of the most callous, unthinking things I've seen on /. since I started reading regularly three years ago. (Ok, so I browse at 1+. Sue me.)

      Shame. *frown*

      --
      --Fesh
      Kill -9 'em all, let root@localhost sort 'em out.
    17. Re:Same with programmers by composer777 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a good point, we are all dependent on each other. One becomes rich off the hard work of others, there is no such thing as a self-made millionaire, unless one believes that the owner of Ford Motor Company actually assembles all the cars himself or Bill Gates wrote DOS, much less windows. Given this truism, can you explain why we should support the huge differences in wealth that we have? If it's about freedom, then what kind of freedom are we defending that allows a select few vast amounts of economic power and control, and the rest of us are relegated to positions of servitude? Why should someone else's "freedom" to have 1,000 men working under him supercede our expectations of just rewards for our labor?

    18. Re:Same with programmers by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      you lost me at the suit. no human being should be forced to wear a suit daily

      You know, in a world of people starving to death, of a lack of clean water, of sanitation, of housing, and of power over much of the world, this comment comes across as marvelously out-of-touch.

    19. Re:Same with programmers by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Guns, tanks, death, amphetamine, heroin, Wagner, Sousa. Violent revolution, real drugs, and real music.

      So...Lockheed-Martin is going to collapse, resulting in Wagner becoming popular. I'm dubious.

      What literature are you basing this on, anyway?

    20. Re:Same with programmers by benzapp · · Score: 2

      So...Lockheed-Martin is going to collapse, resulting in Wagner becoming popular. I'm dubious.

      What literature are you basing this on, anyway?


      It was a tongue in cheek response. The military-industrial complex is not so important because of the straight industries which rose to support it, but for the fact we operate in a command economy where demand is artificially created. Read my previous post to see how the educational establishment was created first in a militaristic style modelled on the Prussian system of indoctrination. It was this system which then allowed for the mass direction of the people towards a military goal. Schools as we know them, were engineered to foster obedience. Today, if you combine the number of people employed by the military, the government bureauocracy supporting the military, and military supporting industries, and the educational system it is nearly half of all jobs in the country. Read this book to see a pretty good history of how exactly the modern school is essentially militaristic in origin.

      The system is going to collapse because the average young American is not a part of that system and his future is bleek. Rather repeat myself, I believe the situation today is much as it was in France in 1800. Large numbers of well educated literate people have no real place in their society and hav no problems rebelling against it.

      Music, well thats my personal opinion. I happen to hate "pop" music and blame the trivial nature of our society for allowing its popularity to rise. The sort of feelings which come with wholescale war, dread, the thrill of victory... they make people like more emotional music. It is my belief that even music like modern rap music is militaristic in the sense it is stark, and has a regular harsh beat perfect for marching. This is a subject I have wanted to study further, its just my personal musings.

      As an avid fan of Nietzsche, he would say that Wagner's popularity was due to militaristic nature of German society at the time. The relationship between Nietzsche and Wagner is quite fascinating. This book contains many of the works by Nietzsche placing Wagner in the historical context of the first Reich. As for our current economic situation... Look at Japan or any other self professed command economy. Stagnation is the rule, and so shall it be for us.

      As far as drugs, the classic 60's drugs have nothing to offer a revolution. Marijuana and LSD will be completely marginalized. But the US military today stockpiles massive quantities of morphine and methamphetamine. I admit, I said heroin because in tough times, its so easy to mix vinager with your morphine to get heroin and double the amount of useful drug you have it will happen. The reality is amphetamine and narcotics are quite useful in war time. Amphetamine keeps you awake and makes you aggressive. Narcotics make the pain of war, both physical and psychological, more tolerable. Even in vietnam there were far more heroin addicts than regular marijuana users. For good info on how the militarism is the source of most modern drugs of abuse check out this site. There are tons of references there.

      Germany gave us most of them. They first isolated morphine from crude opium, cocaine from coca paste. Bayer created heroin. All amphetamine analogs were created in Germany, mostly by Merck. Methamphetamine was created specifically for military uses. When opium was no longer accessible to Germany during WWII, they manufactured methadone the first synthetic opioid.

      Anyway, check it out.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    21. Re:Same with programmers by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      but for the fact we operate in a command economy where demand is artificially created

      If that's the core of your argument, the almost every country in the *world* would go long before the United States.

      It was this system which then allowed for the mass direction of the people towards a military goal.

      I'm dubious. At one point in time, perhaps to a small degree...nowhere near the order of, say, early 1900s Germany, which fell to external, not internal forces.

      Today, if you combine the number of people employed by the military, the government bureauocracy supporting the military, and military supporting industries, and the educational system it is nearly half of all jobs in the country.

      A bogus statistic. Sure, Dow Chemical has done military-related contracts, just as Boeing has. The bulk of their business, however, is non-military, and the bulk of our government employees cannot be considered to be directly pursuing military ends. Furthermore, the size of our armed forces have been shrinking since the end of the Cold War.

      The system is going to collapse because the average young American is not a part of that system and his future is bleek

      By what sort of twisted metric do you get that? The average American (actually, forget average...you probably mean typical, which is still easily enough to argue my point) has a *far* higher standard of living than almost anyone else on the *planet*. How do you justify a lack of internal revolution in, the other 99% of the world where futures are *far* more bleak?

      Rather repeat myself, I believe the situation today is much as it was in France in 1800. Large numbers of well educated literate people have no real place in their society and hav no problems rebelling against it.

      Doesn't begin to compare. Our rulers aren't dicking around, completely ignoring what's going on (granted, Bush could pay more attention to the economy, but this is on a totally different scale). Our tax system doesn't make the little guy pay a higher ratio of his income than the big guy, we haven't run out of money, and the wealthy do not have hereditary legal rights. Our country's wealthy are more like a string of merchants than titled lords. By French standards, they are wealthy Third Estate.

      I can't see the financial unrest that you're claiming. Oh, there are some people on Slashdot complaining about the current recession hitting the tech market, but that's a joke. It isn't a sliver of the Great Depression, and it isn't anything like the French situation. The only reasons I can see people have for being upset that you've cited is poor music and an inability to indulge in illegal drugs, which I do *not* see starting a revolution (if it didn't in the '60s, when there were more substantial political reasons , it isn't going to happen now).

      Music, well thats my personal opinion. I happen to hate "pop" music and blame the trivial nature of our society for allowing its popularity to rise.

      God, to people in Cambodia or something we must come off as spoiled princes or something. Okay, look. No one is forcing you to listen to any music you don't like, pop or otherwise. I mean, hell, I don't really care much for football, but I just don't watch the thing.

      The sort of feelings which come with wholescale war, dread, the thrill of victory...

      You know, music in times that saw far more military conflict than our own (the Dark Ages, the fighting across Europe in the first half of the last century) totally failed to become nihilistic. It tended to be much more upbeat than rap or the things you've mentioned.

      Look at Japan or any other self professed command economy. Stagnation is the rule, and so shall it be for us.

      Look, if you're going to call the United States a command economy, you're going to have to call the rest of the *world* a command econonmy.

      The reality is amphetamine and narcotics are quite useful in war time. Amphetamine keeps you awake and makes you aggressive. Narcotics make the pain of war, both physical and psychological, more tolerable.

      The reality is that this is marvelously unsustainable, because you end up with a bunch of heroin addicts. Why do you think governments today didn't take a page from Hitler and dope up their troops (I'm talking about other than painkillers)?

    22. Re:Same with programmers by benzapp · · Score: 2

      I'm dubious. At one point in time, perhaps to a small degree...nowhere near the order of, say, early 1900s Germany, which fell to external, not internal forces.

      Listen, I could sit here and list off many 20th century sources which indicate how precisely the entire system of mass forced schooling was designed from the beginning to instill obedience and submissive behavior, but I have already given you the best one which discusses many of the chief sources. All I can say is you are wrong. Once you see ths studies and works published by prominant folks from Indiana University to Columbia, and statements from early heads of the department of education you will see. The connection between the educational establishment and the military is astounding both in terms of similar psychological mechanisms employed today and the near parallel rise of the modern military machine with the entire concept of compulsory schools.

      The command economy is not simply directing production and artificially creating demand and utilizing wealth redistribution, it begins with forced schools making people content to live their lives as pawns of the state. That is the key, look there and you will understand. Read the first book I referenced in the last post. What more can I say? This concept of the psychology of social structure is a huge topic which began with Nietzsche 140 years ago. Just as religion was the tool of control, the educational establishment and our illusory meritocracy today is the new religion.

      Doesn't begin to compare. Our rulers aren't dicking around, completely ignoring what's going on (granted, Bush could pay more attention to the economy, but this is on a totally different scale). Our tax system doesn't make the little guy pay a higher ratio of his income than the big guy, we haven't run out of money, and the wealthy do not have hereditary legal rights. Our country's wealthy are more like a string of merchants than titled lords. By French standards, they are wealthy Third Estate.

      This is a little more difficult to explain. All I can say is freedom died once every citizen was raised by the state in the educational system. The revolution of tomorrow is not going to result from the obvious infringements on freedom, it is going to arise because the existence we have today does not fit with human nature. Humans by nature are free. Part of the service economy is to SERVE, and servitude is something for slaves. When real meaningful work is obviously not something the average person can do, nihilistic tendencies will manifest. The revolution will not be large and organized, rather it will be violent unrest. Violence is one of the most effective ways to feel alive.

      It is this view of the future which prompted Nietzsche to write Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy for the Future

      This was written when German idealism ruled Prussia. The german work ethic was insufficient for the future because work is a small part of human existence. In the future, technology will make this ever more apparent and without that Philosophy for the Future, decadence and decay would become the dominant feature of society. Nietzsche never truly discovered what the future philosophy was, but you would very surprised how accurate his depictions of the future are.

      So to summarize, revolution is not necessarily related to economic statistics. Human existence and nature is not related to economics, it is the government which seeks to control human nature for economic ends. Someday, the dichotomy which exists between the two will lead to violent conflict.

      The only reasons I can see people have for being upset that you've cited is poor music and an inability to indulge in illegal drugs, which I do *not* see starting a revolution (if it didn't in the '60s, when there were more substantial political reasons , it isn't going to happen now).

      you missed the parent post which said it happened in the sixties. I posited the view the revolution in the sixties was nothing more than that. However, the existential question will be the root of revolution. Read above.

      God, to people in Cambodia or something we must come off as spoiled princes or something. Okay, look. No one is forcing you to listen to any music you don't like, pop or otherwise. I mean, hell, I don't really care much for football, but I just don't watch the thing.

      Yes, people in oppressive countries probably would not understand. But, an Athenian from 600 BC probably would. Art is very much a part of advanced civilization because only with technological advancement do people have time to do something as unnecessary for survival as art. Again, I brought up music in part to be flippant, but also because I have been a musician since I was five. Because virtually all work today is created simply to maintain the illusion of an economy and to keep the masses busy, they lose out on artistic expression. I am not going to make this an aesthetic debate, but if you think the world is MORE artistic than it was 100 years ago, I implore you to seriously start studying some art history.

      Look, if you're going to call the United States a command economy, you're going to have to call the rest of the *world* a command econonmy.

      I do. The popular discontent of which I speak is happening virtually everywhere outside of western europe and the United States, and I suppose Canada.

      The reality is that this is marvelously unsustainable, because you end up with a bunch of heroin addicts. Why do you think governments today didn't take a page from Hitler and dope up their troops (I'm talking about other than painkillers)?

      Well, this unfortunately isn't true. You are right about narcotic pain killers. Heroin is nothing more than diacetylmorphine. Bayer was the company to sell it and Heroin was their brand name. It was one of the first mass produced, marketed, and branded drugs ever. The other was Aspirin. Its just morphine and vinager. The military can still use heroin as necessary, as it has many properties which make it superior to morphine.

      Amphetamine is another story. This is still used extensively by the military, with little trouble. It is no longer used by the army, but naval and air force pilots still use it. The US airmen charged in that friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan just claimed their error was caused by them using amphetamine at the time. Just read about this a few days ago.

      But never mind, I am not advocating drugs. Its a part of life. The 1960's was all about drugs however, and I think it was bullshit. Drugs are not about "revolutionary", they are functional tools. Amphetamine and heroin were the pinnacles of modern medicine in 1910. New drugs are being developed without the same side effects.

      One of those most sad examples of the new opiate is the incredible usage of antidepressants today. If there is anything which indicates the masses are not happy with their existence its that. In many ways, I wish heroin or opium were legal so we could simply see how many people are truly unhappy. If we said 25% of our population took opium daily instead of prozac the public might be a little more aware of the problem at hand.

      So, the people at home are on drugs which artificially make them feel contented and your military is on drugs which increase aggressiveness and enhance physical strength and mental stamina... As most people who have taken anti-depressants or even drugs like heroin or cocaine or amphetamine, the effects are difficult to quantify. After a while you begin to accept those feelings as "normal".

      Interestingly, I am home sick and jacked up on codeine cough syrup as I write this.

      --
      I don't read or respond to AC posts
    23. Re:Same with programmers by kin_korn_karn · · Score: 2

      You don't have to like something to find it useful.

      i.e. I would hate being a dentist, but I know I need to go to one regularly.

      I hate cows (grew up on a farm). I love beef. *shrug*

    24. Re:Same with programmers by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Listen, I could sit here and list off many 20th century sources which indicate how precisely the entire system of mass forced schooling was designed from the beginning to instill obedience and submissive behavior, but I have already given you the best one which discusses many of the chief sources. All I can say is you are wrong.

      Let me give a quote.

      "American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century."

      It was designed by *Jefferson*, for chrissake, the guy libertarians get all Bambi-eyed over. This is the guy who said "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (Timothy McVeigh was carrying this quote around, BTW.) I mean, I cannot think of a *single person* that you can less reasonably accuse of designing a system to suppress the individual. That's nuts, and if someone at Indiana University thinks so, they're going to have a tough argument feeding it to me.

      The command economy is not simply directing production and artificially creating demand and utilizing wealth redistribution, it begins with forced schools making people content to live their lives as pawns of the state.

      *My* public school history textbook talked about United States exploitation of Panama, the fact that the Spanish-American war was almost certainly started by an accidental coal dust explosion and deliberately manipulated US mass media, and the fact that President Polk probably attempted to provoke the Mexican-American war by crossing Mexico's borders with troops. It covered illicit napalm use in Vietnam, the fact that the US's greater economic ties with the Allies were a factor in its decision to side against the Axis powers, and the fact that many Americans were unwilling to do much for Germany for the sole reason of helping Jews. Custer was covered. If there's a conspiracy to glorify the US's military actions and promote mindless adherence to US policy, it seems to have missed my textbook.

      Read the first book I referenced in the last post.

      Buy the thing and read it just for a single argument? :-(

      Just as religion was the tool of control,

      That I won't argue with -- Nietzsche was spot on in attacking Christian structure and dogma, IMHO. I just don't buy that you can simply reapply his conclusions to the modern world, substituting "public school" for "Christianity".

      All I can say is freedom died once every citizen was raised by the state in the educational system.

      What, so viewpoints engendered by uneducated and ignorant farmer parents colonizing the United States were somehow more valid? Were the Puritan views less manipulated? I can't accept that.

      The revolution of tomorrow is not going to result from the obvious infringements on freedom, it is going to arise because the existence we have today does not fit with human nature.

      Most people in the world were manual laborers for thousands of years. Does *this* fit more precisely with human nature than being a plumber or a lawyer?

      Humans by nature are free.

      Okay, *that* doesn't hold significant meaning. It sounds nice, but what are you trying to claim? That if you take a person out of a society and isolate him, put him in a wilderness by himself, he's not subject to social guidelines set by society? So what? If you drop a weight on my head, I go "squish". Is it my nature to go "squish"? You can't say "alter component foo of human nature, and you will see that they act in a bar manner, therefore bar is human nature". Heck, I could just as easily say that the fact that humans tended to glom together into communities instead of running around on their own on the plains means that it's human nature to be restricted by a society.

      Part of the service economy is to SERVE, and servitude is something for slaves.

      That's silly, a play on English words. What's the magical difference between someone *not* in the service industry (say, a factory worker producing bolts) and someone in the service industry (a consulatant or a burger-flipper or a lawyer)? The "service industry" happens to have a bunch of contracts that are slightly different -- instead of "I will grant you property rights to these bolts", it's "I will ensure that this building is modified in such a way by this date". You could manage to twist things to the point where painting companies buy structures, paint them, and sell them as a product with improved value. From the point of view of the individual worker, there's no difference.

      When real meaningful work is obviously not something the average person can do, nihilistic tendencies will manifest.

      When people are *poor*, nihilistic tendencies will manifest. WWII seems to be a situation that exposes the goverment military control and propoganda that you're afraid of so much...and yet, nationalism was *highest* then. People felt like they were doing something, improving the world. You didn't have discontent. You had scattered talk of revolution during Vietnam because were were *losing*.

      So to summarize, revolution is not necessarily related to economic statistics.

      See above.

      However, the existential question will be the root of revolution.

      Name one revolution that was founded on philosophical concepts, where the average person involved gave a shit (not associated with it like Hitler or taking an approach to revolution like Ghandi). All the "Islamic" revolutions and other religious fights (Ireland, the Crusades) that I can think of are fights grounded in ethnic issues that hold up ideals as a neat justification for their actions.

      Art is very much a part of advanced civilization because only with technological advancement do people have time to do something as unnecessary for survival as art.

      That justification applies to pop music as much as any other type.

      I am not going to make this an aesthetic debate, but if you think the world is MORE artistic than it was 100 years ago, I implore you to seriously start studying some art history.

      I don't buy it. There's less famous art and artists now than 100 years ago because it *takes* a while to become famous and be judged. I'm sitting in front of a web browser...a portal into a *huge* collection of art and expression that dwarfs any other library ever in existence on earth, the majority of which has been created in the last few years. Hell, I don't know you, where you are, and would almost certainly never have directly interacted with you had we not had the Internet...and yet here we are, having a philosophical argument, and adding to a huge book that anyone with Internet access can read.

      I do. The popular discontent of which I speak is happening virtually everywhere outside of western europe and the United States, and I suppose Canada.

      And I'd like to point out that it's *because they are poor*! Doesn't it seem a simpler explanation to you? You're claiming that a worldwide revolution is coming (hell, Marx already tried that one and struck out) because the world is pissed off at command economies, I'm saying that the rich are happy and the poor aren't. Sure, in some places they overlap, and it others they don't.

      Furthermore, it's not like this is a new thing. People have been oppressed by various rulers for *ages*. We happen to live in a pretty pleasant environment -- you won't find many patches as bright in history.

      Furthermore, I argue that the propensity to revolt is slowly diminishing worldwide, as the worldwide standard of living ever so slowly creeps up. I mean, we talk about how badly off Africans or Chinese might be...but you can get better medical care, you can get machine-woven fabric, you have broader and broader access to talk to your family through spreading global telecom networks...

      The other was Aspirin. Its just morphine and vinager.

      No, it is not.

      Amphetamine is another story. This is still used extensively by the military, with little trouble. It is no longer used by the army, but naval and air force pilots still use it. The US airmen charged in that friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan just claimed their error was caused by them using amphetamine at the time. Just read about this a few days ago.

      So? There are *tons* of things that are amphetamines. Ritalin is one. There's a world of difference between people taking heroin and Ritalin.

      One of those most sad examples of the new opiate is the incredible usage of antidepressants today. If there is anything which indicates the masses are not happy with their existence its that.

      Umm...how about the fact that Zoloft wasn't available during the Great Depression or the Black Plague? I say that people almost *always* are willing to grab antidepressants, given sufficient resources to purchase them. Why not? It makes them feel better.

      In many ways, I wish heroin or opium were legal so we could simply see how many people are truly unhappy. If we said 25% of our population took opium daily instead of prozac the public might be a little more aware of the problem at hand.

      If 25% of our depressed people blew out their brains, we'd have a similar effect. Anyway, he only way you could make test of this would be to make Prozac available (and affordable) to the masses hundreds of years ago.

      So, the people at home are on drugs which artificially make them feel contented

      So if the government is trying to keep everyone down through this, why wait until antidepressants were introduced? Why not let people just take the opiates that predated them, instead of designating them controlled substances?

    25. Re:Same with programmers by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      Practially speaking, it is the employeers that have all of the real power in a labor market. While there are cities that offer a balance of employment opportunities versus cost of living, those are still dwarfed by the larger concentration of tech companies.

      Prices in the Bay area were always "stupid high".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  15. Re:H1B not the issue now that it was 3 years ago by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    Today, there is no US talent shortage, and H1B is not nearly the issue it used to be... US Companies are hiring skilled foreign nationals in their country of origin as opposed to bringing them to the US.

    thank you very much. the flip side of this is that we also have at least a half million unemployed geeks who cannot get work, and who wind up working out of their field just to put food on the table.

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  16. And what if, on the world scale, . . . . by kfg · · Score: 2

    their "standards" are unrealistic and inherently *based* on taking advantage of other nations?

    KFG

    1. Re:And what if, on the world scale, . . . . by Skyshadow · · Score: 4, Insightful
      their "standards" are unrealistic and inherently *based* on taking advantage of other nations?

      Then that's a little something we call "reality". It may be a foreign concept to most /.'ers, but our entire fucking world is based on the idea of outcompeting others.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    2. Re:And what if, on the world scale, . . . . by kevlar · · Score: 2

      Agreed, BUT America is only screwing American's by letting in cheap intellectual labor. Some people have $100k worth of loans for a degree that they cannot get a job with simply because Congress allowed floods of H1B's. The degree no longer pays for itself by a wide margin. Out sourcing shit to India is BAD, BUT H1B's are WORSE because they take away a job from an American right here on American soil. Atleast with out sourcing, you still have Americans running the project and usually integrating with the deliverables.

    3. Re:And what if, on the world scale, . . . . by espo812 · · Score: 2
      Some people have $100k worth of loans for a degree that they cannot get a job with simply because Congress allowed floods of H1B's. The degree no longer pays for itself by a wide margin.
      Well perhaps that was a poor choice in University and degree program if it was so expensive and no one wants to hire you after graduating from it. That is hardly the H1B's fault.
      Out sourcing shit to India is BAD
      Because it gets the project done for less?
      BUT H1B's are WORSE because they take away a job from an American right here on American soil. Atleast with out sourcing, you still have Americans running the project and usually integrating with the deliverables.
      Well maybe those Americans that are displaced should consider a different field. Who is winning these projects that are being worked by H1Bs? Who is profiting the most from it? Whose buisnesses are expanding by allowing them a greater profit margin on labor (allowing them to hire more workers and invest in new technology or research)? Here's a hin: it's probably not the H1B workers.
      --

      espo
  17. Strange things said about H1B workers by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work near Silicon Valley and have many friends working in and around SIlicon Valley in high tech jobs. Many have H1B visas. They all seem smart, often much smarter than the Americans around them, and this is reflected in the fact that they often become promoted fast within their companies. In fact many high tech companies (employing Americans) seem to be built on technology developed by immigrants. They all seem to be paid damn well to me. I frequently have to recruit workers on H1B visas because many US schools seem more interesting in boosting people's self esteem than teaching students anything useful. I wouldn't entertain, even for a second, the idea of paying them less than Americans.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    1. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by kisrael · · Score: 2

      I work near Silicon Valley and have many friends working in and around SIlicon Valley in high tech jobs. Many have H1B visas. They all seem smart, often much smarter than the Americans around them, and this is reflected in the fact that they often become promoted fast within their companies.
      Your experience doesn't match mine, then. I'd say about 1/4 to 1/3 of the H1Bs I know (or at least that I recognize as likely to be such) are some of the best and brightest that I know. The others are strikingly inept, with knowledge that comes nowhere near the experience that it seems they should have according to their resume. (There's also a correlation between language skills and level of ability(there's a chance that that lack of strong English skills makes me think they're less skilled than they are, but I have at least tried to compensate for that by giving them the benefit of the doubt.))

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
    2. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by br00tus · · Score: 2
      Well it's great that "[you] wouldn't entertain, even for a second, the idea of paying them less than Americans" since this is the law that you are supposed to follow anyway, but that one or two people like you pays the prevailing wage, while for the rest of the industry the law is not followed, which even the government reports (INS, Department of Labor) plus academic studies and even the business press (Forbes and Wall Street Journal) admit.

      The law says they have to be paid the prevailing wage, but the law has no teeth, so they aren't, and they in simple supply and demand, plus witht he green card applications and other things that make them vulnerable, put their wages down and have helped drag our wage down, which is why IT wages have fallen for the first time in a decade recently.

    3. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by glwtta · · Score: 2

      I'm a little confused, why the 'sic'?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by dvk · · Score: 2

      Well, in some ways it is true (but not always :)
      As a particular example, an average CS person educated in Russia would have a LOT better math background than US counterpart, simply because of the way the education was structured.

      Also, you have to remember that in order to get a job in the (or immigrate to) US, one has to pass through a selection process (competing aming their countrymen), so when you compare foreign-ediucated workers and US-educated ones, you are comparing average Americans with above-average furriners.

      As always, there are angles and more angles when you look at any issue :)

      -DVK

      --
      "The right to figure things out for yourself is the only true freedom everyone shares. Go use it"-R.A.Heinlein
    5. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by JWW · · Score: 2

      The original said interesting instead of interested...

      sic referes to editorial changes made when quoting someone to correct for grammatical (or other) errors.

    6. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2
      No actually. It's built on experience. I get resumes all the time listing projects that American students worked on. Frequently when I ask about such projects I get responses like "Uh...well...really I helped someone else do that..." and it kinda dissolves out of the interview. I rarely have such issues with candidate immigrant workers who generally seem to be pretty honest about their achievements.

      I'm not really that interested in what the media want me to think and if by chance my own thoughts happen to be the same, so be it. I can see with my own eyes how a Russian or British degree in mathematics, say, compares with an American one.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    7. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 2

      You don't have to give me exact details. Very roughly where are these people working at what do they do? This isn't my experience at all. I wouldn't hire a less than good H1B worker because of the money, hassle and the time involved.

      --
      Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
    8. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2

      There's no way with an honest face you can tell me that US educated IT workers are even on par with our foriegn counter-parts. It just isn't the reality.

      --
      Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    9. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      sic referes [sic] to editorial changes made when quoting someone to correct for grammatical (or other) errors.

      No. It is used to indicate that the error is in the original, to show that you didn't introduce the error while copying. By the way, lucky that you had that typo so I could demonstrate!

    10. Re:Strange things said about H1B workers by kisrael · · Score: 2

      You don't have to give me exact details. Very roughly where are these people working at what do they do? This isn't my experience at all. I wouldn't hire a less than good H1B worker because of the money, hassle and the time involved.
      Most were consultants from India, for high tech dot com and post dot com stuff.

      I dunno, there's a chance that they weren't H1B, I don't know what the visa/legal arrangement is in all of those situations.

      --
      SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
  18. The H1B program is fundamentally flawed by MalleusEBHC · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I think the whole idea of the H1B should be rethought seriously. I guess some people would say we need them to cover a shortage of workers, but especially considering our economic times right now we don't need 200 thousand of these people taking jobs from Americans. The H1B program should be scrapped to almost nothing. Make a provision allowing for a temporary allowance of a limited number of H1B's when unemployment is at a certain low level, but other than that cut them all off. You want to come to America? That's fine, do it like all the other people who immigrate, get green cards, etc. Don't do it by coming over, taking an American's job for a few years, then taking that money back to your homeland when your 3 or 6 years are up.

    1. Re:The H1B program is fundamentally flawed by spectecjr · · Score: 2

      Hell, while we're at it - microchip all non-citizens in the country so we can keep track of them. They're not US citizens and should't be guaranteed certain rights at the expense of the safety and welfare of those of us who are citizens...

      You can microchip me when you change the law to let me become a citizen without having to wait 7 years. That's 7 years *after* getting my green card, bub.

      If you don't agree to that? Tough shit. You're not coming near *my* body with anything, unless I get to do the same thing to you with my dick. Capice?

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    2. Re:The H1B program is fundamentally flawed by glwtta · · Score: 2
      That's fine, do it like all the other people who immigrate, get green cards, etc.

      You are aware that you have to live in the US for 5 years before you can apply for a green card? And how are you usually allowed to stay and work for that period? You guessed it - H1B. H1B's is how "all the other people who immigrate" do it.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    3. Re:The H1B program is fundamentally flawed by glwtta · · Score: 2

      need a small clarification - I am a "naturalized" citizen, do I get rights or microchipped?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    4. Re:The H1B program is fundamentally flawed by spectecjr · · Score: 2

      Maybe we shouldn't let your type (read: obviously easily angered) into the country to begin with. Not born on American soil? Guess what - you're not going to be a citizen.

      Go back to France, you whimpering fsck.


      Maybe we shouldn't let people who obviously aren't fit to be citizens become them by accident of birth.

      Come back and tell me I'm not going to be a citizen when you personally have to fight for that right.

      I have to fight for that right. You get it handed to you on a silver platter. Get on the clue train -- I deserve to be a citizen more than you, because being American means a hell of a lot more to me than it does to you.

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    5. Re:The H1B program is fundamentally flawed by glwtta · · Score: 2

      well, took me about 10 years (from working visa to citizenship), and I was fairly lucky.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    6. Re:The H1B program is fundamentally flawed by glwtta · · Score: 2
      I resent that someone coming here for a few years sending half their meagerly pay back to the home country that I have to be competing with for jobs based on "years of experience" and "number of full-cycle projects you've been on".

      Ok, refugee/asylee (well, the INS seems to think that's a word) status is a bit different from a visa, and I'm sorry, but you just don't get to resent things based on this.

      You seem to have assimilated American culture rather well - why shouldn't you compete with others trying to do the same thing you have done, based on rather reasonable criteria? Why are you somehow different?

      btw, out of the H1B's I know, none send half their salary back to the home country, nor is that wage something you could call meager.

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
  19. H1B != Immigration by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Your argument is basically flawed. The H1B was designed as a work visa, not as a method of immigration. If you want to move to the US and become a naturalized citizen, there's already a process for that.

    Of course, for software developers, this whole arguement is moot: It's probably too late to save the jobs of most US software developers, anyhow. Their jobs are going to get shipped to a dozen different countries where the cost is a mere fraction of developing in the US, and I don't see how you can stop that short of having Congress pass some kinds of taxes on it (which they certainly won't do in the current pro-business climate).

    Were I a mid-level developer in the US, I'd think that it's time to either (a) go back to school and get a specialized advanced degree or (b) figure out what other field I'd like to be in. The party's over.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:H1B != Immigration by MightyTribble · · Score: 3, Informative
      Your argument is basically flawed. The H1B was designed as a work visa, not as a method of immigration. If you want to move to the US and become a naturalized citizen, there's already a process for that.

      It may not have been designed as a method of immigration, but the fact of the matter is it is used as a transitional method for skilled workers to immigrate. I know, because that's what I'm doing. I have a current H1-B, and an almost-complete green card app.

      I am a skilled, well educated, English-as-native-language IT worker, with both US and UK degrees. I want to live in the US. The fact of Green Card immigration is simple: unless you win the lottery, marry an American citizen, have $500,000 around to buy one (a green card, not a US citizen, although I hear senators are pretty cheap), or are a Nobel prize winner, you cannot just ask for a green card. H1-B is a necessary first step. I'd like that to change.

      By the way; despite the fact that I'm a 'temporary worker', and can make no claim against Social Security or Medicare, I still must pay SS and Medicare taxes. I wouldn't mind paying if I could claim, or not paying if I couldn't, but the current model is precisely the worst solution. Very unfriendly, if you ask me. ;-)

    2. Re:H1B != Immigration by Skyshadow · · Score: 2
      By the way; despite the fact that I'm a 'temporary worker', and can make no claim against Social Security or Medicare, I still must pay SS and Medicare taxes. I wouldn't mind paying if I could claim, or not paying if I couldn't, but the current model is precisely the worst solution. Very unfriendly, if you ask me. ;-)

      Truth be told, all Americans under 45 right now are probably in the exact same boat with Social Security... We've been paying our whole lives and will probably never see a dime -- the whole thing's a pyramid scheme, and we're at the bottom.

      --
      Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    3. Re:H1B != Immigration by MightyTribble · · Score: 2

      Yes, indeedy. But I can't even claim unemployment. If I lose my job now, and I can't get a new one in two weeks, I'm deported. So I'd wager us H1-Bs are in a slightly worse boat than most Americans in that regard. :-)

      Still, if I manage to stay in the US and become a PR or Citizen, I'm not planning on Social Security for anything. Got my own 401K, disability insurance, and starting up an IRA...

  20. Pure Xenophobia by etymxris · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Judge me by my merits, not by my nationality. If someone from India has more experience or skill than I do, then they should get the job.

    Yes, the market is tight. But people with H1-B visas are people to. Reading the article made me envision "Attack of the Clones". Everyone is struggling for jobs, not just people here. Have a heart, have a brain, judge yourself and others by your merits, not nationality.

    1. Re:Pure Xenophobia by tweek · · Score: 2

      The problem is not xenophobia. It's unions. Unions exist slowly to cater to the lazy worker. The one who doesn't want to do more than he has to to get by.

      If the AFL-CIO had it's way, I would be out of work. Why? Because I wouldn't be able to wear many hats. I wouldn't be able to do more than was explicitly set down in my job description.

      If I needed a piece of patch cable, I couldn't make it myself. That would be up to the cable guy.

      Unions MIGHT have been a good idea back in the day. Nowadays they exist purely to make money for the shop stewards and up. Look at UAL. The head of the mechanics union said he would rather see UAL go bankrupt than work with the company to help them through the financial problems.

      I can't understand why ANY tech worker would be a member of a union. It runs contrary to the achievement mentality of the average geek. The attitude of bettering yourself personally and professionally.

      I'm not a fan of the H1B program but did anyone ever stop to think that maybe salaries are FINALLY coming in line with market conditions? I personally think the quality of work that we've dealt with coming out of overseas tech markets has been less than stellar. Eventually the companies that continue to produce shitty product/service will realize that cost isn't everything and quality will take a front seat again. It's been going this way for years.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    2. Re:Pure Xenophobia by EricWright · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that, it the company can hire 2 foreigners who produce at, say, 75% of your ability for the same amount of money they pay you, which scenario is more likely to happen? You get the $X000 job, and produce 100% of your output, or the two foreigners get the $(X/2)000 jobs, and the company gets 150% of your production?

      Remember, many of these people come from very poor countries, and are more than willing to pound out C++ code for $30k/yr, working 16 hours a day, simply because that is a small fortune to their families. Would you take that job? More to the point, would you want to be in a position where you HAD to take that job?

      I have nothing against people from other countries coming here with hopes for a better life. That's what America is all about. What bothers me is that, by being willing to work for far less money, companies will prefer them over me, even if I am better qualified for the job.

      A corporation's only responsibility is to make money for their owners/shareholders. If they can do that by hiring more people for less money, that's what they will do.

    3. Re:Pure Xenophobia by Visigothe · · Score: 2

      While I completely agree with your statement, the problem is reality seldom works that way. I have no problem getting passed for a position because the other candidate[s] are more qualified.

      I *do* however have a problem with hiring someone who is less qualified but will either work for less money [often the case in H1-B visa] or is of a "minority" [blacks, women, etc] because the company has a hiring quota. I've been in both positions, and I must say, it sucks.

      Every bit of legislation that tries to "even out" the playing field for workers has another side, one that is often overlooked, and detrimental to the advancement of the company, although not usually to their books.

    4. Re:Pure Xenophobia by br00tus · · Score: 2

      If this is xenophobia, then how come the borders aren't opened up so anyone can come in, how come it is only people who can come in to destroy the American IT profession? The law was lobbied with millions of dollars by Microsoft, IBM and Intel, was it because they are tolerant, benevolent, magnanimous do-gooders? Give me a God-damn break, *American* IT workers are concerned about this because it affects their wallet. Every other profession in the world is organized to some degree (lawyers - ABA, actors - SAG, doctors - AMA). You are not a profession unless you're organized, which is why this so-called profession is going to be like the blue-collar unionized auto-workers that anti-union bozos so despise soon.

    5. Re:Pure Xenophobia by spectecjr · · Score: 2

      I *do* however have a problem with hiring someone who is less qualified but will either work for less money [often the case in H1-B visa]

      Really? If you had such a problem with it, why didn't you call the INS and tell them? I mean, after all, that's actually illegal for the hiring company to do.

      Oh, you didn't do that? Why? No proof? No evidence? All supposition? Shame.

      Simon

      --
      Coming soon - pyrogyra
    6. Re:Pure Xenophobia by etymxris · · Score: 2
      Remember, many of these people come from very poor countries, and are more than willing to pound out C++ code for $30k/yr, working 16 hours a day, simply because that is a small fortune to their families.

      I'd have to disagree. In the three companies I have worked for, the H1-B's made more than I did. If they live in the US, then they will have to pay the same cost of living as I do. You cannot hire an H1-B in NYC for 30k, that wouldn't even pay for a studio!

      But even if they wanted to and did work for so little, I think the situation would be different than you describe. Maybe the job that we do simply isn't worth as much as we would like it to be. Look at teachers. They make diddly, and there is hardly an H1-B influx of teachers to this country. When you start making less than a teacher, then you can start complaining.
    7. Re:Pure Xenophobia by m1a1 · · Score: 2

      This doesn't address the real issue. If someone from India wants to come work in the United States I am all for it. Let them immigrate, let them naturalize if they want to, but don't let them stop by and take an American workers job for a couple of years while shipping every cent they make out of our economy and back to India. That hurts everyone.

  21. This is great news by 0123456 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a non-American, this is really great news. If the American companies aren't allowed to bring foreigners to America to do the job for less than pampered American workers, they'll export the job to cheaper nations, which means more jobs for us and less taxes for the US government.

    This is just brilliant! I'd like to give a big thank you to the US government for putting the welfare of us foreigners over that of your own nation.

    1. Re:This is great news by Ratbert42 · · Score: 2
      Yes yes yes. This is exactly the comment I would make.

      People that worry about losing jobs to H1Bs making 80% of the salary of a citizen need to worry more about losing the jobs to offshore workers making 10% of the salary of a citizen. Two companies ago, we (Americans) were the cheaper offshores for a large German company. My last company farms quite a bit of work out to India. It's only a matter of time, especially for Java-based development.

  22. Bad accents in phone support by phorm · · Score: 2

    their grasp of the english language is shit

    This is one area where I would have to agree. There are a lot of from other countries (India, China) who seem to be working phone support, and they really suck.

    Before you flame me, listen to my reasoning. These people can be hard workers, and smart, etc, however their grasp of the english language is oftimes poor and their speaking skills or accent atrocious.

    Awhile back I was bored and decided to participate in a phone survey. For several questions, I had to have the question restated several times because the accent of the questioner made it very difficult to hear/understand. In addition, she sometimes had difficulty understanding my responses until I reworded them into less complex english.

    I have the same problem with tech-support lines for many companies. They tend to hire these out-of-country workers because they're desperate for a job and will work for cheap pay, and completely disregard the lack of speaking skills (which are a necessity for such a position).

    Americans should get to keep American jobs, period

    I differ slightly in this opinion, and move towards less foreigner-bashing. Competent people should get to keep jobs, not just cheap workers (of which foreigners are often in more abundance in the upper-age groups). I remember that when talking to some techs for the local calling card company, I talked to various few Indian (from India) gentlemen who spoke english very well and with little accent. These gentlemen also were very polite and the phone, and extremely helpful. It also seems to me that accent-wise, Indian males are easier to understand than female, and Chinese females easier to understand than males (due to pitch of voice combined with accent).

    So, in other words, don't hire foreigners for jobs because they're cheap and (generally somewhat) smart - unless they can actually speak the language. I'd also say the same for hiring a white guy who couldn't pass an 10th grade grammer course.

    Oh, and I'm Canadian, but a lot of the companies I've been in contact with are American - and there's no real big difference anyhow.

  23. Sweet by Pinball+Wizard · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Its nice of the AFL-CIO to take a stand for us largely non-unionized geeks. It used to be the prevailing wisdom was, the manufacturing jobs would be replaced by computer jobs, so if you lost your job at GM, with some retraining you could work in IT. Perhaps thats why they are taking up this issue?

    Its too bad there isn't the level of unionization in the IT industry as there is in other trades and professions. Only in a booming economy do you(individually) have any real bargaining power with big corporations. In today's market, a widespread union would be a big help. The practice of hiring cheap foreign labor and shipping jobs overseas is quite damaging to our social fabric, and I would think would dissuade those who are considering entering the field. A union could make sure corporations are hiring qualified individuals within the community before looking outside for help.

    --

    No, Thursday's out. How about never - is never good for you?

    1. Re:Sweet by br00tus · · Score: 2
      Industry wages have fallen for the first time in a decade recently. I would call that my livelihood being dragged down.

      I feel sorry for the socially retarded Farscape marathon watching dorks whose only shred of self-respect is that they are in their minds a "high-achieving" genius programmer. This profession is awash in unkempt dorks who think they're a better programmer than most of the other unkempt dorks they work with. Most salesmen or whatnot just take the higher salary for their skills and be done with it, but since this is the only piece of self-respect for these losers with no social lives, they need to maintain their self-delusion that they are special, even if it means their so-called profession's wages get cremated.

    2. Re:Sweet by tweek · · Score: 2

      I see.

      Are you saying that *I* am a socially retarded Farscape marathon watching dork? I don't consider myself socially retarded but I have been known to watch farscape occasionally. I'm not that unkempt though.

      You seem to be of the opinion that you are ENTITLED to a specific wage. I don't really remember that part of the Constitution.

      It bascially sounds like you are scared. Scared that you can't have the things you want. Scared that you are becoming irrelevant.

      I have no delusions, sir. I realize that if I want ANYTHING in this world, I have to work for it. I have to earn it. I can't rest on my laurels. I have to continue to improve myself and make myself marketable. If I can't do that, then I can't have those things.

      You see, I don't make alot of money. I probably make a bit less than the average sysadmin (according to some salary polls I've read) but you want to know the interesting fact?

      When my co-worker was laid off, I got worried. I went into my boss' office and asked him about it. I said that co-worker was a good worker and I wish we could have kept him. I also asked how far off *I* was from the chopping block if we had to let go such a good worker. You know what he told me?

      Co-worker was a dime a dozen. He WAS a good worker and knew his job. But that was all he knew. He had no skills other than those that the company could use elsewhere. He wasn't making a difference and offered no value-add. Myself, on the otherhand, I was told that I continued to explore various cost-saving avenues and ways to make the company more productive through IT. I had made myself a valuable member of the company.

      That was two years ago. I still have a job. We haven't replaced that position yet but I'm still here.

      If you feel like your livelihood is being dragged down by people like me, then maybe you need a lifestyle change.

      --
      "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
    3. Re:Sweet by br00tus · · Score: 2
      "You see, I don't make alot of money." Perhaps if you learned English better and realized "a lot" is two words you might.

      As far as entitlement, having to work for it, earning it, not resting etc., there is a huge class of people like this in the USA. They are the company owners. If you look at the Forbes 400 richest Americans, as UFE did a few years back 43.35% of them inherited their way directly onto the list (with the other 56.65% inheriting up to $300 million). The workers in a company create all the wealth, the owners and shareholders do not do any work, they simply take the wealth created by the workers as an entitlement, not working for it, earning it, and resting while doing it. According to the federal reserve, 42.2% of all stock is owned by the richest 1% of Americans, with the poorest 90% of Americans owning only 15.6% of it.

      Perhaps the difference in approach is you are only looking at your only situation and I am looking at a bigger picture. Over the past thirty years according to the US government Bureaur of Labor Standards, the average US inflation-adjusted hourly wage fell. Workers make less today in the US than they did thirty years ago. Go to the BLS site and look it up. American workers work over 100 more hours per year now than thirty years ago. During this time there has been enormous productivity gains, which means workers are more skilled and creating more wealth per hour. How much of this did workers get? Nothing. Nada. Zip. All of the self-improvement they did had absolutely 0 benefit to them, in fact, since wages dropped, they were actually punished for this.

      The reality is that if over the past thirty years productivity boomed, which it did, but inflation-adjusted wages fell, which they did, then all of that improvement has not benefited American workers at all. They're actually worse off - not because they're more skilled but because they weren't as well-organized as the owners and thus were not able to share in any of those benefits. Instead they are running scared, repeating the bosses mantra that they should be running scared, increasing productivity even MORE. They have to compete with each other to work faster and faster and do more. Of course, this is borne out of a tech industry with no competition - where ENIAC and Crays and ARPAnet (the Internet) were funded by government to defense contractors. The owners don't have to compete, only workers have to compete, with each other, to make their boss more money, with no benefit to themselves except that they won't lose their seat when the music stops in this round of musical chairs. I'm sorry, I just don't buy into this submissive, running scared mentality.

    4. Re:Sweet by br00tus · · Score: 2
      "I would like to think that I can leave the fruits of my labor to my children. I earned it and I should be able to do with as I wish."

      This is not reality however. First of all, the very rich own most of the capital, at least according to the Federal Reserve (the link of which is posted above), so it pertains to them mostly. Where does an heir currently get his money? Well, I go to work and create wealth, say I bang $5 pieces of wood together in a factory and make $30 tables out of them. My work creates $25 of wealth. I get $15 of that in wages, and $10 of that wealth I created goes to some heir who owns a mutual fund that has stock in the company that owns the factory which the heir is probably unaware of it's existence. The patriarch you refer to is six feet under and being fed on worms to use the other fellows phraseology, the current reality is that the wealth is not coming from the work of some ancestor, but is being taken from the work of someone currently working and creating wealth. I'm less concerned of this being "wrong" or "right" than I am of stating what the situation is, what the economic data is, and so forth. The dead ancestor is not in the picture any more, what remains is one person who works and creates wealth, and another who parasitically takes wealth off the other, while doing no work of his own.

      Then you say "You seem to be missing a big thing here. You can change all of these things you are complaining about. It's a fairly simple process. Become a CEO. Become a shareholder. Become one of the people you seem to villify with class warfare at every turn. I have a feeling you'll think differently when you get there". Again, you are looking at this at an individual level while I am describing the big picture, which is apples and oranges. What I am saying is that the big economic picture is bad, especially for workers, one being that while the employers are well-organized in the ITAA and whatnot, the workers are barely organized at all. When I speak of the macro-economic picture you begin questioning whether I, individually, want higher wages or not. Well, this is the oldest debating trick in the world. My motivations and whatnot have very little to do with the macroeconomic picture, much of it I learned from other people who researched it, perhaps you should ask them about "becoming a CEO" or whatever since I'm simply relaying what I have learned from them. What you are saying sounds a lot like the pep talks and Horatio Algers where CEO's blow smoke up their workers asses once in a while. I can assure you that the lawyyers and managers at the IT companies that fund the ITAA do not sit around and talk about working hard and all this bullshit, they are working on changing the laws to benefit them financially. When IT workers organize to counter this they here a lot of BS from people who have watched one too many Anthony Robbins seminars. This is a wallet and pocketbook issue, not an opportunity for you to boast hubris and that you're your bosses pet.

    5. Re:Sweet by Dannon · · Score: 2

      Its too bad there isn't the level of unionization in the IT industry as there is in other trades and professions.

      Be careful what you wish for. Not all unions are created equal. I've walked the Grocery Clerk path in high school, the Engineering School path in college, and the Stage Actor path as a hobby, and from what I've seen, profession-related organizations can fall generally into three categories.

      First, there's the 'collective bargaining' unions, the Tradesters, the Food Workers, the Airline Pilots, and so on, where you join, pay some dues (which often as not end up in a politician's pocket), and theoretically get some benefit with regards to employer relations. In my state, no union can push an employer to sign a contract locking non-union employees out of work, but that varies from state to state. I've seen more harm from these unions than good: For example, United Airlines has very recently been screwed over by their Pilot's union deciding that they'd rather drive the company into bankrupcy than accept cost-cutting measures. The problem is that these groups, more often than not, work only by threatening the employer with strike-threats. They offer the employer nothing but what the employer had before the union existed: workers.

      Then, there's Professional Trade Organizations. I'm thinking here of groups like IEEE. They provide nothing with regards to employer relations, but if your potential boss see's that you're in IEEE, that's a point in your book. They define profession-related standards and provide continuing education, certification, seminars, and other things that are of importance to Professional Engineers. And the types of people who join this type of professional organization are generally people who see no personal benefit to unionization.

      The stage actors I know of have a very different situation. The Stage Actors' Unions are really organizations that I would consider to be 'Professional Guilds', to use a very old term. And these organizations provide services that are useful to both employers and employees. Union members are eligable for things like credit union membership and health insurance through the union, services that most people get through their employer, but since stage actors are employed seasonally, it's not so easy for them. The Guilds not only provide continuing theatrical education, but require that members must fulfill a certain requirement for taking part in it. And, yes, they require that employers meet certain contractual obligations to employ union-qualified actors, but then, the employer gets the benefit of knowing that their employees had to reach a certain level of competence just to join the union.

      So, which union type did you have in mind?

      --
      Good judgment comes from experience.
      Experience comes from bad judgment.
  24. Give the H1-B Workers More Freedom by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The reason many employers like H1-B workers is that they can treat them like shit, and there's nothing the worker can do about it. If they quit they stand to lose their H1-B status (or so I'm told) so they take it.

    If the employers had to treat the H1-B workers with respect, they would hire fewer of them, and the problem would take care of itself. The H1-B workers would shop themselves around, salaries would equalize, the language barrier would be a significant downside, yet the good ones would still succeed.

    Giving people more freedom is usually the right answer.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    1. Re:Give the H1-B Workers More Freedom by br00tus · · Score: 2

      I agree, the H1-B law is being ever-changed, but there are and have been stipulations in the law that allow employers to abuse workers by being a threat to green card applications and so on. I am in favor of these things being changed. I also don't understand why H1-Bs like the current cap - they're already here, what do they care if the cap is lowered? It means less H1-Bs competing for a green card with them.

    2. Re:Give the H1-B Workers More Freedom by spludge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hear, hear!
      This makes a lot of sense. The conditions that possibly make companies hire H1-Bs over normal workers are artifical conditions created by the current laws that are *too* restrictive. Reduce the restrictions and allow the H1-B workers to move more easily between jobs and to compete on wages, companies will then have to hire based on ability only.

    3. Re:Give the H1-B Workers More Freedom by Skapare · · Score: 2

      How about totally dropping the H-1B program altogether, and replace it with a program to expedite green cards for certain people specifically qualified.

      If America wants to retain its technological lead in the world (which is rapidly slipping away right now), then it should take the best and the brightest ... that want to come here to stay ... and keep them, instead of bringing them in on what amounts to a government sanctioned program to train foreigners (taught for a couple weeks by the people who they are replacing). This would certainly eliminate the abuses of people that many employers are doing, and give them as much right as anyone else to shop around for a better job, better pay, better working conditions, and basic human respect (something that is lacking in a lot of jobs these days, especially those in larger corporations).

      I was once approached by a company in Germany to go work for them on what was roughly an equivalent program there. While that did in fact sound interesting, I also knew I had no interest to permanently emigrate to Germany (they weren't expecting me to). My thought was, why not hire someone from Germany who would want the job. I'm sure there was someone who would. I suspect one reason they were hunting for people over here is a perception that we only take 2 weeks holiday instead of 6-8 weeks as I hear is common over there.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  25. And also by phorm · · Score: 3, Funny

    A tendancy to have better english speaking skills than other countries where english is not the primary language.

    Welcome to tech support, eh! - phorm

  26. Re:This is reasonable, and should work... by sdjunky · · Score: 2

    I'll ignore your username and address some of your points in as much of a non-biased way as possible. This of course isn't totally possible as I'm a tech worker and have seen the effects of companies moving their workforces overseas.

    "What gets to me is the stinking Indians and Chinese that come here and undercut American workers".
    I don't believe that people coming here to work are the real threat in that they have to make the same basic living as you and I ( e.g. our economic cost of living etc ) however, I will note that in some extreme cases there has been people who will work for less in that they'll share living quarters or other expenses with larger groups of people and in so doing decrease their costs.

    "time to curb immigration, it has served its purpose"
    Is the only reason for immigration to "fill" our country with people that have certain skills as to stabilize our workforce? Is there no inherent advantage to an influx of "culture" as well? Do we not gain anything from people of different nationalities that come here? And if so does a family whose ancestors came to the US 150 years ago have the same "cultural" strength of one that came 5 years ago?

    "Besides, the majority of immigrants now are much lower quality than they were 100 years ago (Irish vs. Pakistani)"
    And how would somebody rate the "quality" of an immigrant? Skin color? Work ethic? I don't really see any relevance to this statement to your point besides to perhaps start a flamewar.

  27. This is great by br00tus · · Score: 2
    I was already aware that CESO, a confederation of engineering labor unions, has been pushing against high H1-B caps and other bad legislation that hurts IT workers.

    In my view, any type of organization of IT workers to fight against this stuff is good. And the AFL-CIO technical unions have been fighting for it from the beginning, and have actually been doing the type of stuff that gets results, including lobbying in Washington DC and so forth. I know people who want IT workers to organize to work on issues like this or certification but are anti-union, and not much have come out of their efforts thus far. At least they're better than people who don't want to organize at all and be "independent". The employers are of course much smarter than those people, Microsoft, IBM, Intel etc. have been well-organized and well-financed for a long time, funding organizations like the ITAA to do away with overtime for IT workers (the FLSA revokation), bringing in tons of H1-B workers which even government reports admit depress wages - which is why IT wages fell for the first time in a decade recently, changing section 1706 tax laws so that IT workers have mroe difficulty contracting independently. The people running the show are more organized than anybody, funding the ITAA to the tune of millions a year, which then goes and lobbies in Washington, puts out bogus reports that even get reported on Slashdot as verity, and blitzing the rest of the press that there is a shortage of IT workers, and nowadays forever releasing papers saying there is going to be an upturn in IT right around the corner so no laws changing the H1-B visa need to be done. These socially retarded programming "geniuses" are seeing industry wages depressed in the midst of employer organization, but they are way too brilliant to become organized themselves, and thus industry wages have fallen as a result. Be smart - hook up with one of the technical unions. And if you don't want to organzie in a union, at least join a professional association funded by members (not by the employers like the IEEE is funded - which shows in how they do things).

  28. Enough is Enough by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2

    Unions already have enough power in the United States. We don't want to see our economy crippled with high unemployment and low GDP growth due to a company's inability to fire people when necessary like what happens in Europe and Japan.

    Lets continue to value US Job Availability over Euro/Nippon Job Security.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
    1. Re:Enough is Enough by br00tus · · Score: 2

      Low GDP growth? Europe's GDP growth has been WAY over the US's GDP growth for the last few decades. You are really talking out of your ass. This is a fact that is easily proved as nonesense, everything else you say is nonsense as well. Unions have virtually no power in the United States, which is why workers in Europe have been living the high life for decades while dorks sit in their cubicles until 10PM, having their wages undercut by H1-Bs and then they go home and get beeped at 1AM and go running back to fix something that went wrong. Very sad.

  29. BINGO! by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This poster makes an excellent point:

    The thing most often passed over in this sort of arguement is the real-world fact that some people (Americans like myself) live in a first-world environment, and it's certainly in our own self-interest to perpetuate that.

    It might sound unfair to say, "I want to continue living in better circumstances than 98% of the rest of the world, and I will therefore have my government pass laws which favor me and my country to do so", but to expect me to say otherwise is both self-centered and naive.

    So, yeah. The US ought to discourage sending jobs overseas and tax companies that use foreign workers. The US ought to heavily discourage companies from hiring foreign workers who'll go back to their countries after X number of years (if they want to make money and stay in the US to spend it, that's something else, but that's not what H1B's are). The US should try to raid the best and brightest from other countries to improve the average IQ level in our own country.

    But that's not what we're doing. Instead, we're acting in the next-quarter interests of specific companies, and that's a Bad Thing(tm) for everyone concerned.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:BINGO! by GreyPoopon · · Score: 3, Interesting
      But that's not what we're doing. Instead, we're acting in the next-quarter interests of specific companies, and that's a Bad Thing(tm) for everyone concerned.

      Absolutely agreed. And what the greedy companies who follow this practice don't seem to realize is that they are effectively taking money out of the hands of the very people who would be buying their products. Look at the current trade deficit for the United States. The vast majority of consumers of US products live in ... the US. If you stop handing them the money they need to buy your products, you'll eventually start losing money. I'm not sure how long that process takes, but it's virtually guaranteed happen.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    2. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      It might sound unfair to say, "I want to continue living in better circumstances than 98% of the rest of the world, and I will therefore have my government pass laws which favor me and my country to do so", but to expect me to say otherwise is both self-centered and naive.

      I may be naive, but I think you *should* say otherwise. I'm an American and I like my lifestyle, but I don't think that I should be entitled to it at the expense of the rest of the world (and, no, I'm not implying some sort of zero-sum game crap, and I don't believe that our wealth comes from exploiting the rest of the world, but I do think that we shouldn't artificially restrict their opportunities).

      My attitude is pretty atypical, and I didn't always feel this way. It was during the two years I spent living in Mexico, when I met and became close friends with a great number of intelligent, educated, hardworking and severely disadvantaged people that I began to realize that I'm human *first* and American *second*. I don't believe in giving people handouts; experience shows that just makes the giver poorer without really helping the recipient and, in fact, it's not necessary -- if you just allow people the opportunity to compete, many of them will. That's the whole basis of the American Dream, in fact: let 'em in, let 'em work, let 'em fight their way up the ladder. Open, free, fair competition.

      Not that the H1B program provides open, free, fair competition; I agree with that part of your post.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      They're not entitled to them; any we give to them are basically a gift.

      Very concisely stated.

      I'll try to be brief as well: Governments cannot grant rights, they can only guarantee them, ignore them, or take them away.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    4. Re:BINGO! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      This only applies to citizens of the country. People who aren't citizens don't get any of the rights a citizen gets. Otherwise, what's the point of having a country?

      You seem to be missing something here: the government of the US is by the people, of the people, and for the people, and by "people" we mean the people of the US, not the people of other countries. We have absolutely no obligation to make other countries' citizens' lives better, or to provide them with anything at all. If those people have crappy lives and no opportunity, that's not our problem, that's their own (and their government's) problem. If they don't like their lives, they need to get themselves a better government and fix it, not whine about how Americans have it so much better. If those other countries wanted to become US states, maybe we could do something for them, but I don't see them asking for that.

    5. Re:BINGO! by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      And what the greedy companies who follow this practice don't seem to realize is that they are effectively taking money out of the hands of the very people who would be buying their products.

      What those greedy companies know that you don't seem to is that many of the people who would be buying their products (if only they had jobs) are living outside the US. By exporting those jobs, they might (in the short run) be reducing their market in the US, but they are (in the short run) expanding their market outside the US.

      This is hard on us in the US (in the short run) but it will make the entire world richer, us included, in the long run.

      An earlier post post pointed out that when the US was essentially a large, self-contained free-trade zone, life was good. There are some quibbles which could be made with that argument, but the point is a good one: if you let labor and capital compete freely, the results are good. Imagine how much better off we would all be if the entire world had that sort of free trade; the sort which exists between the states. It can't happen until the rest of the world catches up to the US, economically and politically. When that finally does happen, our descendents will think all these problems were worth it.

    6. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 3, Informative

      People who aren't citizens don't get any of the rights a citizen gets.

      The founding fathers of the United States disagree. Ever heard of the Alien and Sedition Acts? They were the cause of the first major constitutional crisis in this country and the crisis boiled down to exactly this question. The answer was: aliens have all of the same rights and privileges a citizen does. Of course, that only applied to people *in* the country, whether citizens or not, but that was because the US government only had the power to uphold (not grant!) or deny the rights of people within its borders, not because the philosophy was assumed to apply only to this geographic region.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:BINGO! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      No, aliens do not have all the priveleges citizens do, otherwise we wouldn't have the terms "alien" and "citizen". For one, aliens can't vote. Sounds like a privelege to me. Also, aliens can be deported. Constitutional protections, like right to speedy trial, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment are maintained for aliens (which are rights), but they don't get all the priveleges of being a citizen.

      What exactly are you arguing for anyway? It seems like you want us to basically open the borders and let anyone in who wants to come.

    8. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      Only within their borders.

      That is brief... but you missed the point, so perhaps I was too concise.

      The right of a person to contract for hire belongs, fundamentally, to all people. The US government has chosen to take a portion of that right away from most of the world's population (all other governments do this as well, but we're the ones who beat our chests about freedom).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    9. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      No, aliens do not have all the priveleges citizens do, otherwise we wouldn't have the terms "alien" and "citizen".

      You're right, I should not have used the term "privilege". Aliens do not have all of the privileges of citizens, in particular they aren't allowed to participate in our governmental processes. I think it's also perfectly reasonable to deny them other privileges, such as welfare (of course, I think we do too much of that for citizens, too).

      Constitutional protections, like right to speedy trial, trial by jury, no cruel and unusual punishment are maintained for aliens (which are rights), but they don't get all the priveleges of being a citizen.

      Yes, but be careful that you don't presume that those rights are granted by the government. At least in the philosophy of the founders (if not in practice today), the Bill of Rights was only an enumeration of some of the key individual liberties that they wanted to make absolutely sure would not be trampled. Some (like Franklin) argued that the Bill of Rights was a bad idea, because people might get the idea that they contained an exhaustive list of our rights, or that the government "gave" those rights to people.

      Finally, there was one statement in your previous post which I didn't address. You asked: "Otherwise, what's the point of having a country?" The point is that you're going to have a government anyway, so you might as well make one which recognizes and attempts to uphold your rights.

      What exactly are you arguing for anyway? It seems like you want us to basically open the borders and let anyone in who wants to come.

      Yup, that's pretty much it. I do think it's reasonable to exclude people who pose a threat, such as those with communicable diseases, or those who have no prospect for supporting themselves in a legal fashion, but I see no reason to exclude anyone who is able and willing to contribute.

      Yes, I fully realize that this is an unpopular viewpoint. Sorry. As I said, I see myself as a human first, and an American second.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    10. Re:BINGO! by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Not only is it an unpopular viewpoint, but it's an incredibly naive and stupid viewpoint too. How old are you anyway?

      The US has 260 million inhabitants currently. India has 1 billion, and China has 1.2 billion. Various other 3rd-world countries have several billion put together. What do you think would happen if 3 billion people showed up at our ports tomorrow? What effect do you think this would have on the economy or to stability? There is no possible way any economic system can handle an uncontrolled influx of immigrants. This is why we have immigration laws, to prevent immigration from causing damage to the people already living in the country. Just because you're saddened by the plight of people in crappy countries doesn't mean the US has the resources to make their lives better. Why can't they fix their own governments instead of looking to us?

    11. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      If these resources were divided evenly, you would be living in a tin shanty without plumbing or electricity.

      I never asked for equal division of resources, only equal access to opportunitites. Look at the distribution of wealth in our nation and you'll see that they are not the same at all (some would argue that we don't have equal access to opportunity either, but the number of self-made wealthy men makes clear that even if it's not completely equal, it's pretty good).

      It's dog eat dog.

      "Dog eat dog" means that competition is intense, which is exactly how it ought to be.

      America needs to exploit other nations for their resources in order to maintain its wealth... so you can have your PT cruiser, aquarium-style soft soap, and sponge bob pillows.

      I don't believe this is true, but if it is then we should not have these things(*). I'm not offering to give away what I have, but I do think that everyone else should have an opportunity to compete with me for it.

      As I said: I'm a human first, and an American second.

      (*) Actually, I don't have and wouldn't want any of those things. ;-) Replace with: Dodge Durango, large home and disposable income and leisure time for such activities as SCUBA diving and snowboarding.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    12. Re:BINGO! by GreyPoopon · · Score: 2
      What those greedy companies know that you don't seem to is that many of the people who would be buying their products (if only they had jobs) are living outside the US. By exporting those jobs, they might (in the short run) be reducing their market in the US, but they are (in the short run) expanding their market outside the US.

      That's an awfully big gamble for a company to take, and I doubt that they've really thought it out that far. Let's look at the potential flaws with your argument.

      1. There is absolutely no guarantee that the markets to which jobs are transferred will choose to buy their products from US companies. It's actually more likely that some company in their own country will start producing a similar product at a significantly lower cost.
      2. Building up a market in another country takes time -- probably more time that it will take for Americans to stop buying your product due to lack of affordability. It's likely that your company will go out of business before seeing the fruits of their labor.
      3. Even if a foreign market is quickly established, the lower salaries (which prompted your company to move jobs there in the first place) will force you to sell you product at a lower cost in that country. Add on the extra cost of managing a remote operation, and you'll see that your net gain in revenue quickly becomes negative.
      No, companies who think they'll create additional markets and profit off of it are only deluding themselves. An honestly, I don't give the pointy-haired bosses that much credit for thinking ahead. I believe it's far more likely that they are merely trying to get their product out the door for a lower cost than their competitors, and thus focusing on short term profit.

      Imagine how much better off we would all be if the entire world had that sort of free trade; the sort which exists between the states. It can't happen until the rest of the world catches up to the US, economically and politically.

      I agree that free trade within the world will ultimately be good for everybody, but I don't think you can have truly equitable and free trade until countries share similar labor laws and social regard for their people. It only makes sense to have free trade with a country that has managed to create its own viable economic system.

      I think you and I probably agree on the end result, but disagree on the means of getting there.

      --

      GreyPoopon
      --
      Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?

    13. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      How old are you anyway?

      I'm not sure why that matters, but to forestall future biographical questions I finally put up a bio (here). I think that should cover it. Feel free to point out why my life experiences leave me unqualified to comment on this issue.

      What do you think would happen if 3 billion people showed up at our ports tomorrow?

      Now who's naive? The fact is that only a very tiny percentage of the world population even has the resources to get here. Further, the majority of those people who can come here have no interest in doing so, except perhaps on vacation. The remainder is still a large number of people relative to our tiny population, sure, but that just makes the inequity of our position clearer.

      There is no possible way any economic system can handle an uncontrolled influx of immigrants. This is why we have immigration laws, to prevent immigration from causing damage to the people already living in the country.

      Who advocated uncontrolled immigration? Not me. In particular, I said that it was reasonable to restrict immigrants to those who have a prospect of supporting themselves through legal means.

      You've got to admit that's a more rational standard than our current one (currently, most immigrants obtain their resident alien status through lottery drawings, with the number of available "slots" allocated based on the vagaries of our current relationship with their government in an odd and counterintuitive fashion).

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      If no limits were in place, we would see significant re-distribution of wealth on a global scale.

      We're seeing that anyway, in the form of a massive trade deficit. More open immigration and work policies would accelerate it, true. OTOH, wealth and democracy are powerful stabilizing influences and, ultimately, educated, automated societies are more productive than poor ones, so I don't think the effect will lower our standard of living as much as you might think by just looking at the world's total wealth and dividing it by 6 billion. We'll get poorer, but the world, as a whole, will get significantly wealthier.

      It's all well and good for rich Americans to claim they want to do good for the poor of the world, but when they realize it means giving up their houses, land, toys, and access to food (what exploiting the rest of the world gives us), they shup up pretty quickly.

      I'm a "rich" American (rich by the lights of the rest of the world; moderately comfortable by American standards), and I fully understand that free and fair labor competition with the rest of the world would probably reduce my standard of living, and would certainly reduce my children's. I'm okay with that.

      I advocate other changes in the name of fairness and freedom that would also cost me, personally, more than they would benefit me, personally.

      Maybe I'm insane?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    15. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      Then I missed your point, apparently. Feel free to amplify, if you're so inclined.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    16. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2
      No. See my other replies in this thread. I think that the policies should be much, much more open than they are, however. In an ideal world, I'd open them completely. In practice, moderation is necessary.

      What I disagree with is protectionism; setting policies specifically intended to give the jobs preferentially to Americans.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    17. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2

      What this vaguely means is that in a totally free labor market, you'd see an 83% reduction in standard of living.

      And that's precisely the sort of calculation I said you should not use, because it's not a zero-sum game. Increasing the wealth of the rest of the world (by permitting them to obtain it through their own efforts, given the required opportunities, not by gifting it to them) will also increase productivity around the world. How much of an increase is impossible to predict, however, which makes this whole game kind of pointless. It's not unreasonable to presume that the average productivity will triple (look at the last century's productivity gains in the US for comparison), which would mean that our standard of living would decrease by roughly 50%.

      I could maybe afford a run-down trailer house. I'd be living on potatoes and walking to work.

      I think you'd have a small home (maybe the size of those common in the early part of the 20th century), be eating reasonably well, but have to prepare your food rather than buying prepackaged and driving a small, efficient car or riding the bus.

      But I may be hopelessly optimistic... Regardless, I think it's what's right, even if it's not convenient or comfortable.

      So yes, you are insane

      Actually, I already knew that :-)

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    18. Re:BINGO! by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Well, once you agree that a state has a right, and responsibility to control who enters its borders, I don't see how you can interpret refusing to grant someone the right to enter a country as a violation of their rights.

      It comes down to positive rights and negative rights; a state is obligated to respect people's negative rights (i.e. not to interfere in certain spheres), but not all positive rights (i.e. the obligation to proactively do something).

      In this case the US is not transgressing against the prospective visa holders negative rights--it's not sending officials to India or wherever to actively prevent the holder from doing certain things. It is, however, not under any obligation to proactively GIVE away the visas. Ergo, no rights have been violated.

    19. Re:BINGO! by swillden · · Score: 2
      Touché. You appear to have caught me between my idealism and my pragmatism.

      However, the contradiction exists only if you insist on absolute terms, which almost never work in the real world.

      Ideally, there should be no barriers to immigration, nor to the right to work in another country, because it *is* a restriction of peoples' natural rights. In practice, systems don't do well in the face of large changes (such as, say, 100 million immigrants). This pragmatic concern does not invalidate the theory; good ideas, if applied too abruptly, don't necessarily produce good results in the short term. For example, many Russians currently think that capitalism is a bad idea, in spite of the fact that it's been proven superior to central planning.

      Re: negative vs. positive rights: Yes, but you presume that granting of visas is an overt act It needn't be, and hasn't always been. Assume that it is not and that argument turns on its head.

      How to balance the ideals and practicalities? Simple: Pursue the ideals insofar as practical (finding the balance isn't simple, but much of private and public life consists of such balancing acts). Many slashdotters (and many, probably most, Americans) prefer a policy of xenophobia and protectionism. I see that as just another example of the continuing erosion of the ideals of liberty established more than two centuries ago.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    20. Re:BINGO! by nomadic · · Score: 2

      Re: negative vs. positive rights: Yes, but you presume that granting of visas is an overt act It needn't be, and hasn't always been. Assume that it is not and that argument turns on its head.

      It IS an overt act. I have no problem with immigration per se; in fact, I'm more pro-immigration than the vast majority of Americans. It would be nice if we could open the borders completely, but as you said, we have to take into account the social cost of doing so. I will say I would prefer that the visas (all types) go to people who are coming from places where effectively the state has completely failed, rather than just places where it's not that easy to get a good-paying job.

      My problem with the H-1B visa problem is how it's been turned into a tool that employers can use against employees, both native and foreign. They're effectively using the visa program to depress statewide salaries, and lying to the government when they do it (don't tell me you can't find people with these skills here already).

  30. Dear Dept. for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO by dgenr8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Dear DPE,

    I read with enthusiasm your proposals for H1-B reform. However I think many of the suggestions will be difficult to implement, and they only attack the problem indirectly.

    The problem with the H1-B program is that foreign workers should be sponsored by American WORKERS, not American companies.

    Each H1-B Visa should bear the signature of an American worker who was offered the job at his or her current pay level, and refused it.

    Please see that the authors of your excellent proposal on H1-B reform are aware of this enforcement option.

    Sincerely,

    1. Re:Dear Dept. for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO by nojomofo · · Score: 2

      This isn't what we're really trying to achieve here, I think. Your proposal would allow us to bring menial laborers in. The point of the H1-B program is to bring in people of high talent, so that companies can fill positions that they wouldn't be able to fill with Americans.

      Seems to me that your proposal would merely allow us to give the crap jobs that nobody else wants to foreigners.

  31. Excuse me, sir... by Temporal · · Score: 2

    "Sir, if the VP is such a VIP, shouldn't we keep his PC on the QT? If it leaks to the VC, he could become an MIA, and then we'd all be put on KP."

    (Sorry. I've been up all night coding again.)

  32. The biggest problem with H1-B is... by Ironica · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ... that it's tied to a specific job.

    Put simply, if the government perceives a labor shortage and imports workers from countries that have a surplus in that area, then the government should be the one importing and placing them in jobs. An H1-B visa should be for a specific term, with possible renewal, with no possibility of deportation during that term (unless the visa holder violates US laws).

    Furthermore, the government should be telling the companies how much that job pays (the "prevailing wage" that we hear so much about) for that location... basically setting the price. If the company doesn't want to pay it, they're welcome to try to find US workers more cheaply. If it happens to be lower than they've been paying, well, more power to them.

    If H1-B is intended to fill a gap, then let's take out the advantages for employers in hiring guest workers. If anything, let's make it a disadvantage; if their visa expires and the DoL doesn't feel it should be renewed, boom, they're gone. They may not speak English as a native language, they may not have the same educational background. Right now, these are small prices to pay for having workers that you have a great deal of leverage with. Just take away that leverage, and this will all solve itself, I bet.

    Me, I have a friend who got married a couple years ago. He was engaged, but they hadn't planned to get married so soon... then he found out he was getting laid off, so it was get married or get deported. Why does anyone think it's a good idea to create these situations?

    --
    Don't you wish your girlfriend was a geek like me?
  33. Huh? by The+Pim · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You're saying your company can't manage a project for crap, so the H1B program needs reform?

    --

    The evaluation of an action as 'practical' . . . depends on what it is that one wishes to practice.
  34. Re:H1B not the issue now that it was 3 years ago by poopie · · Score: 2

    Regardless of wheteher people see my point as 'flamebait', it's happening -- and the Internet Boom and failed startups in the bay area worked dilligently to develop technologies that enable companies to not need workers to be close to a company headquarters.

    Facts take their toll, no matter how hard we try to ignore them.

    Just go to the job sites of the companies in the Nasdaq 100 and look at how many job posting are not in the US.

  35. Re:H1B not the issue now that it was 3 years ago by /dev/trash · · Score: 2

    Whoa, wait a second. You can get a job? How?

  36. They changed that by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    That used to be a problem, but 1-2 years ago they changed it so you can start working for a new company 2 weeks after you quit the old one. The visa still takes 3-6 months to process, but you can work while they process it.

    In theory they could deny the visa and you get deported after those months, but since you already have one H1B, it would take a lot for them to deny you a new one, since you are the same person with the same credentials.

    I'm an H1B since 5 years, and I have never seen those lower wages everyone's going on about. I'm sure they exist somewhere, but in the companies I and my friends have been at H1Bs are treated just like everyone else.

    1. Re:They changed that by Dionysus · · Score: 2

      Actually, my understanding is that they changed the Green Card process. One, the Green Card process can be transferred between companies after you get your Labor certificate (which usually take a year), and two, you can stay and work in the US as long as you received your Labor before your H1B ran out until your Green Card application is done.

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
  37. Anti Immigrant crapola by terrymr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do I mod the story as flamebait - these arguements have been dredged up over and over again. Reality check guys - the numbers of H1B visas issued this year are drastically down because market conditions mean there are enough US workers to go around.

    As for some of the goofy proposals requiring limits of 2 years on viasa how frustrating would that be for an employer to have to replace people every 2 years.

    I get tired of hearing about how foreigners are taking all are jobs, women, sponging off the state etc.... Although sponging off the state and stealing are jobs seems to be mutually exlusive.

    1. Re:Anti Immigrant crapola by terrymr · · Score: 2

      I get tired of hearing about how foreigners are taking all are jobs, women, sponging off the

      Oops - an example of when spell checkers can't help you - thought our and typed are.

      Comments about immigration are relevant to H1B discussions as H1B is a dual-intent visa i.e. even though you are admitted as a non-immigrant you are allowed to enter with immigrant intent. If you can find somebody to sponsor you for a green card while you are here (employer, wife, relative who is a US citizen) then you can stay permanently.

      Personally I think the failings with the H1B system are that they give the employer too much power. H1B workers are only allowed to remain as long as they are employed by the petitioning employer. You have 10 days to leave (or find another employer willing to file an H1B for you) if you lose your job. Consequently employees wind up having to accept whatever terms the employer imposes. I've even heard of employers demanding that the H1b worker repays most of his salary to the employer or be fired. This is illegal but what can the worker do ? If he reports it he'll have to leave the country.

      Certainly I agree that there needs to be better oversight of the system but I don't agree that foreign workers are inherently a bad thing like the article seems to suggest.

      We do have a process where people (with exceptional skills) can get a green card through employment rather than an H1-B but it takes around 2 - 3 years from filing to the propsed employee being allowed to enter the US. This is basically unworkable unless the employee is already here on an H1-B.

      Feel free to correct spelling etc :-)

  38. Evidence of prevalent fraud by erroneus · · Score: 2, Flamebait

    The evidence of fraud that seems to be prevalent in this area leads one to believe that H1-B is being misused. From what I see so often, I believe this to be the case. It's popular to "save money" and too easy to cut jobs in order to do that.

    Bean counters have no interest in respecting the quality of product or labor until a disaster strikes and they are unable to deny that buying the more expensive brand is better for the company. It's perfectly logical and understandable that they would feel that way. What's wrong is that these people are running the companies of the US instead of the people who actually RUN the companies. For example, a skilled shoemaker makes a damned good shoe. His business grows because of quality and reputation. He hires more people... he incorporates. A bean counter wins a position as leader of the corporation and suddenly, the neighborhood business is shipped overseas to have the work done cheaper... cheaper supplies are used and the cost of the shoes goes higher. Now we have the same name but and entirely different product and success goal.

    This is the story of thousands of successful companies in the U.S. And to this day, I am still amazed that people prefer to buy "names" over quality and ignore the way various companies conduct business.

    It would be nice if we could spin the current "xenophobia" to embrace each other as Americans and quit selling each other out. "Look for the Union Label" was a pretty important campaign... what ever happened to that? Oh yeah, anything that promotes "Americans" gets slapped down with politics by labelling them as "hate groups" and racists or nationalists. We're profiling against the world's population...

    What's so WRONG with wanting to feed your children before you feed your neighbor's? And what's wrong with wanting to feed your neighbor's before you feed those who aren't?

    There are lies and flawed perspectives afloat today but no one can deny that the U.S. is in serious trouble and we should be looking to correct the problems. People won't stop buying from Nike if they were once again made in the U.S.A. instead of by slave labor. But they might have to accept 'less profit' if they did. Undoing the damage will definitely hurt, but consider it as "withdrawls" experienced after getting off drugs. It HURTS to get healthy sometimes.

  39. economic suicide by g4dget · · Score: 5, Insightful
    For the US to try to give these jobs to Americans at above world wages for skilled labor is economic suicide: if the foreign workers can't move to the US to do these jobs, the jobs will simply move out of the US, and the US will lose the tax revenue.

    Unlike service sector jobs, or even manufacturing jobs, software and biotech jobs are highly mobile because they don't require a lot of equipment, all they require is skilled people. You might ask: if these jobs are so mobile, why do they all come to the US? That's probably mostly due to the preferences of the foreign workers themselves: people with a good education and skills tend to live well here. A US job is a perk for foreign workers. But if they can't get that perk because of visa restrictions, they are going to do the same job from overseas.

    And think of it this way: do you really think that Europe, China, India, or Japan like it that their nationals come to the US to work here? Far from it. They call it the "brain drain" and are complaining bitterly about it. Some would dearly love to charge the US for the educational expenses of those who leave. The deal that the US has been getting out of the H-1B program is particularly sweet for the US because those are skilled workers, educated and raised at the expense of taxpayers of other nations. Europe, China, and Japan would love to see nothing more than to see the US H-1B programs restricted.

    1. Re:economic suicide by br00tus · · Score: 2
      First of all we're not all programmers (I'm not). The jobs of sysadmins and network admins is going nowhere soon. Network connections to India and China are pathetic, never mind the great firewall of China that would have to be contended with. And the network connections are necessary not just for the Internet but for Fortune 500 companies as well - will Wall Street trading be done in India? No.

      Norm Matloff gives a very detailed analysis of why the fear of jobs leaving is bogus.

    2. Re:economic suicide by g4dget · · Score: 2
      System administration, network administration, and even telephone and product support can and has all been moved overseas. Some places in China or India will even carefully train their employees to speak with an American accent.

      Network connections to India and China are pathetic,

      Well, what an incentive to improve them, then. Besides, the Europeans are eager to hire skilled Indian and Chinese workers and they are having trouble finding them. If the US stops scooping them up, they'll go to Europe, and Europe's infrastructure is first rate. Besides, if entire operations are moved overseas, the bandwidth required to the US becomes much less.

      Norm Matloff [ucdavis.edu] gives a very detailed analysis of why the fear of jobs leaving is bogus.

      Matloff starts with the incorrect assumption that companies bring skilled workers to the US because face-to-face interaction requires it. But face-to-face interaction is just as easy when entire teams move overseas.

      The primary reason companies bring skilled workers to the US is because the skilled workers themselves demand it. If the US doesn't let those people in, do you think they'll start carving wooden figurines instead of doing IT work? Not a chance. Either they'll work for multinationals in their own countries, or they will found small, nimble, and efficient companies themselves and compete even more aggressively.

    3. Re:economic suicide by g4dget · · Score: 2
      Perhaps they don't. If not, then why aren't they actively encouraging the best and brightest U.S. nationals to come to THEIR countries to work?

      Sure they are. Trouble is, they aren't coming: given a choice, people prefer coming to the US. Language, social norms, political systems, and cultural attitudes are big obstacles for skilled foreign labor moving to places like Europe, India, or China.

      Except all those countries won't let us in... will they?

      Just like applying for H-1B visas, if you speak the local language, have a technical degree, and manage to get through an interview, many of them will. Germany, for example, has made 20000 H-1B work permits available recently (confusingly called "green cards"):

      http://www.green-card-germany.com/germ.html

      If you are out of work, I encourage you to consider it: Americans really need more experience abroad. But it won't be easy: German companies, for example, really usually are as conservative and stuffy as you probably think they are. And many European languages are a b*tch to get fluent in.

  40. There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now! by InterruptDescriptorT · · Score: 5, Interesting

    People complaining about the H1-B quota being so high mention that in today's badly bruised IT economy, so many American IT professionals are out of jobs, so the H1-B program should be scaled back to give these people jobs.

    Bullshit.

    I'm a Canadian on an H1-B visa and I've conducted recent interviews for software developer-style positions. The US talent is embarrassingly bad. I saw no less than five candidates who could not write a simple C routine to traverse a linked list. And this was one of the simpler questions.

    This is why they can't find work, not because of foreign competition.

    I'm tired of poorly-qualified or schooled native IT people complain that they ought to get the job because they're citizens or permanent residents. It doesn't work like that! If you don't know how to code, or explain the difference between an abstract base class and a regular class, then you don't deserve the job.

    Stop blaming H1-B candidates and start brushing up on your skills, because it's your lack thereof holding you back.

    --
    Karma: Excellent Birds (mostly as a result of listening to Laurie Anderson)
  41. To What Ends . . . . by actappan · · Score: 2

    It seems that as soon as there is a decline in the US Economy, some organization or another will immediately call for a reduction in immigrant workers. Sure, in the past there have been myriad abuses of the system. I'm certain that there are cases where domestic workers have been laid off in favor of "guest" workers.

    However, the proposed solution here almost universally put the burden of this abuse on the workers, when in fact it belongs entirely on the employer who's unethical practices led to the "need" for such reforms.

    In addition, I have to object to the idea that strengthening academic requirements would in anyway improve the efficiency of the programs.

    I work for a mid sized software company. Like most companies in our sector, from time to time we've had H1B workers. We've also traditionally had a worker base made of of those who might best be described as "hackers" in the old sense of the word. Very talented, very effective engineering staff, who are none - the - less almost ENTIRELY self educated.

    In what was does improving the educational standards ensure that the individuals have the "special skills" needed?

    my $0.02

    --
    \Drew National Data Director, John Edwards for President
  42. AFL-CIO stands for... by LowellPorter · · Score: 2

    The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations

    For those who don't know, it's an organization of labour unions.

  43. The salary expectations are a big deal too (OT) by sisukapalli1 · · Score: 2

    I believe the practice of software development is being commoditized. E.g. it doesn't take a lot more training for a person to do simple tasks of software testing as it would be needed for training someone in testing cars. The 100k salaries for people sitting in meetings sipping coffee and coke while browsing and checking email/stock portfolios or IM'ing friends over their wireless laptops is difficult to sustain.

    The complexities of software development (for many tasks) is approaching the complexity of repairing cars and such things. Likewise, the salaries/jobs, etc.

    The added effect is that the jobs can be outsourced to anywhere -- some guy on a boat in Hawaii could fix your "e-car" as easily as a guy in a cubicle farm down the street. That is not the case with Chefs, repairmen, barbers, etc.

    The new tools and toolsmiths can work from afar. And anyone can become a toolsmith with some basic math/logic education (sadly that is a problem in US education).

    S

  44. Why would people bother? by verloren · · Score: 2, Insightful
    (Disclaimer: I'm on my second H1-b, and have no problem with the government delaying or changing the program as they see fit - their purpose is to protect and promote the welfare of Americans, not provide nice jobs for foreigners like me)

    One of the measures listed is
    Restrict this "temporary" guest worker program to one, two or three year (non-renewable) term.


    I'd guess that a great many people wouldn't bother. Visa processing can take 3-6 months (and maybe more under these new suggestions), then I get to pack up my life at home, leave friends and family, potentially put my existing career on hold, all to spend a year in another country. Sure it's nice, but I'm not sure the incentive is there.

    In my situation I knew I could spend a few years here (maybe even get citizenship if I liked it that much), which made it well worth the upheaval. And of course I'm helping my company prosper, and paying lots of taxes without access to the corresponding benefits.
  45. My own experience with H1B by Helmholtz+Coil · · Score: 2

    I'm here in the U.S. on the H1B. What follows is just my personal situation, i.e. probably different to a large degree to most everyone else on the visa.

    I'm not in IT, I'm in physics, in a very un-glamourous branch of materials science. I went to grad school for this, and off the top of my head I can think of about 2 other graduate-level programs worldwide for my particular brand of voodoo. There's plenty of technician level people in the business, but not very many in R&D.

    My job is basically involved with improving public safety, for which I get paid the same as my American coworkers with similar degrees and seniority, and I get the exact same benefits.

    Anyway, I guess I said all that to say this: H1B has flaws, granted, and it might very well need reformation, but the program does reach into other industries and it's worth considering the impact on them as well.

  46. Under These Proposals I'd Never Have Qualififed by szyzyg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For example - they suggest that work experience is inadequate and that a degree in the field of work is required. Well... I spent 10 years getting various degrees in Astronomy and Physics before getting bored and writing internet radio software (icecast, mp3serv, mp3mixer). When a company in the US recruited me to architect their mp3 streaming system I could demonstrate that I'd been working in mp3 streaming for longer than anyone else.
    Even then there was some worry that my degrees never really said much about computer science despite the fact that I'd been hacking code for 20 years as an 'amateur'. But my Masters did have the phrase 'computational physics' in it, so that was enough to get me in back in 2000. Probably not any more.

    Really, what the visa program should be about is determining whether a potential applicant will make the US a better place. Skilled workers benefit the economy regardless of their nationality. With H1 visas there is this notion of taking jobs away from 'qualified' US workers, well everyone I've seen that was as qualified as myself is either in a job or choosing to take time off.

    Of course... if you cut down the number of tech workers US companies can import then you might start to find that more work gets outsourced overseas - moving money out of the country and weakening the economy.....

  47. Point of Order! by jabber01 · · Score: 2

    In fact many high tech companies (employing Americans) seem to be built on technology developed by immigrants.

    America itself is built by immigrants, both through the technology they developed, and the physical work they did. In all aspects.

    In fact, it continues to be so.

    --

    The REAL jabber has the user id: 13196
    What you do today will cost you a day of your life

    1. Re:Point of Order! by Cheeko · · Score: 2

      The difference here is that these are only temporary residents. If a person intended to immigrate and become a citizen or permanent resident, then they would obtain a different visa, and green card. These visas are intended to help fill gaps, until they can be filled with a suitable US applicant, but as the law is no nearly as strict as it should be on the enforcement, this is not how they are used.

  48. Just say "No" to Tech unions by tstoneman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Please, please, please no one ever join a tech union. Let's keep some sanity and let us be judged by our merits, and not by our seniority. High Tech is the last bastion of hope when it comes to working hard and getting recognition.

    I've worked in union environments before (during college), and the only reason why unions are set up is so that the union leaders can make a shitload of money.

    Think "economies of scale". If a union gets union dues from everyone as a company, even if it's a small amount of money, they will reap shitloads. This is why they go around trying to enlist as many companies as possible... because they get the union dues of thousands of workers with little additional capital because they have already set up the infrastructure. It's exactly like the business model of Amazon.com for crying out loud!

    So, by loading these guys up with money, us peons get stuck in stagnating jobs where the paperwork and red tape to go up just stops us from doing anything.

    If you're good at what you do, you have no reason to join a union. Please, just say "No".

  49. He's saying... by raehl · · Score: 2

    That they don't have GOOD english in common, they have CRAPPY english in common.

    There are foreigners I've worked with who have outstanding english, and there are foreigners I've worked with who know english, but not nearly well enough to communicate effectively with the team, and that hurts a project. This has been true ever since freshman year in college.

    Workers who speak english very well are more qualified that workers who do not, period.

  50. Pure economics by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

    Companies hire H1-B people because they are cheap, not because they are good.

    Why do you think companies lobby the government for H1-B quota increases while millions of highly qualified Americans are unemployed and would love those jobs?

    An American employee needs an American wage commesurate the cost of living here. Someone coming from a country like India where salaries are so low in comparison isn't viewing their H1-B employment in the same way - to them it's an investment in the future when they'll attain a green card and then be able to get a normal salary.

    American companies realize they have H1-B employees by the balls, which is why they can get away with paying them 50% of the going rate, and why they want them even when unemployment is bad, as it is now.

    1. Re:Pure economics by tc · · Score: 2
      Companies hire H1-B people because they are cheap, not because they are good.

      Is that just an opinion, or do you have data to support that? My own anecdotal evidence is that this is not the case. I am a manager at a large American tech company. Last year I interviewed dozens of people for positions in my group, and hired 8 people. I have two people on H1-B visas in my team, and I can assure you that they must have been hired because I thought they were good, since they are certainly not cheap. They are paid at least as much as others with comparable roles and experience.

      As others have noted, hiring an H1-B is a pain the ass. They take months to arrive, because of all the paperwork, and there is significant extra expense, especially if relocation is involved. All else being equal, I'd hire an American because it's cheaper and less hassle. If I hire an H1-B, it's because I can't find an American that would be as good at the job.

      If I could find quality candidates that would work at 50% of the going rate (as you ludicrously suggest), then bring 'em on. However, I've yet to encounter these mythical individuals.

    2. Re:Pure economics by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

      Look at the tech job market, and the experience of everyone here on slashdot... H1-B's are only meant to be hired in cases where you are unable to find a qualified American candidate. But we all know how it really works - you decide you want to hire an H1-B for whatever reason, then the lawyer handling the visa application will make sure that the legally required job advertizement (for the position for which you've already illegally selected the candidate) is placed in some obscure place where it has no exposure, and worded such that only the desired applicant fits.

      While there may be plently of unemployed tech workers now, as well as last year when your hired these H1-B's, that are unqualified (the johnny come lately .com boom $70K/yr html coders), I do not believe for a second that you couldn't have found qualified Americans (as the law requires you try to) in place of those H1-B's. Recent news letters I've had from head hunters rather than offering jobs as they did a number of years ago are now offering 10% referral fees if you can find them a position to place one of their mass of qualified candidates into.

      What steps did you take (as law requires) to try to find American candidates before taking the H1-B's? Did you consider candiates willing to relocate (many nowadays will do, even at own cost)?

      It's people like you, one at a time, that are ruining the tech market for Americans.

    3. Re:Pure economics by tc · · Score: 2
      Sure, once I've decided to hire an H1-B, the legal folks are quite good at making sure I get my guy. However, you've entirely missed my point: why the decision to hire them was taken. I can absolutely assure you that cost had fuck all to do with it, because they are more expensive than their American counterparts.

      Let me repeat that last part for you again, because you seem to have missed it: they are more expensive than their American counterparts.

      The reason they are more expensive is that we pay them at least what we pay the Americans, and there are all sorts of additional costs associated with hiring them (e.g. legal fees for visa applications, international relocation costs). On top of that, it takes a while to get all the visa paperwork done, so you don't even get someone who can start right away.

      So, as a matter fiscal responsibility, I should hire an American if I could find one to do the job. However, I just couldn't. And it's not as though I didn't try. We did an extensive search for candidates, and saw quite a few of them. Many of them had on paper qualifications that looked quite impressive, however there were plenty that performed terribly in interviews.

      In particular, I needed people with strong math skills (speecially vector math). It's something that's taught very poorly in American high schools (and many American colleges too), so lots of otherwise promising looking American candidates just didn't make the grade. Since hiring someone who can't do the job is an expensive and difficult to rectify business mistake, I instead chose to hold out for candidates who knew what the fuck they were doing.

      Many of the positions were open for several months, without being filled, because these were hard positions to fill. We advertised in relevant trade journals, posted the position on our website, and engaged recruitment agencies. Short of getting TV spots, it's hard to see what else we could have done - a far cry from your alleged 'obscure' placement. Getting candidates was easy. Getting candidates who looked like they might be qualified was moderately easy. Finding candidates who met our quality bar was very hard. When someone came along that met that bar, we offered them the job, and offered very competitive compensation packages. Mostly they were Americans, but sometimes they weren't.

      Understand that I needed to fill these positions, as quickly as I could, but it would have been dumb to hire people who couldn't do the job. It was absolutely not in my interest to hire an H1-B who might take an extra couple of months to turn up, at great expense, if I could find an American to do the job.

      If I'm "runing the tech market for Americans" by refusing to lower my quality bar, then I make no apology. Perhaps your wrath should be directed at the failing education system which means that I can find better (not cheaper) candidates in other countries?

    4. Re:Pure economics by SpinyNorman · · Score: 2

      Well perhaps I owe you an apology for unfair accusation as it does sound as if you had a specialized position that you genuinely had difficulty filling. However, from my experience that is far from the common case - the scenario I outlined where an easy-to-fill position is filled with a cheaper H1-B rather than an available American is much more the norm.

      Additionally, H1-B's may be here legitimately because of initial circumstances, but if the job market worsens (such that more qualified Americans are looking for work) and an H1-B is laid off or wants to switch jobs then the legal fees are a non-issue. In a bad market (such as now), an H1-B looking to stay in the country will certainly accept a salary at a saving to the hiring company more than the lawyer fee.

      Companies claims not to abuse the H1-B program would be much more plausible if they didn't continue to lobby congress for H1-B quota increses even during times of massive tech worker unemployment.

      H1-B hiring and overseas outsourcing don't just deprive Americans of jobs, but screw the entire economy as cash is just siphoned off it and sent overseas (either directly or via paychecks sent back home).

      Anyway, apologies if I accused you unfairly, but it was more of a general rant against typical practice!

  51. Re:H1B's are bad for Americans by ba_hiker · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Well my experience in high tech is there are't enough american born and trained engineers. Period. To deny foreign engineers a job in the US it to ensure that the work that the do will be done elsewhere. I have held jobs open for almost a year and not gotten a single qualified US born engineer to apply. And I cant spend 5 or 6 years to train a beginner. Thats what college is for. Big multinational companies can arange to do the work where ever is handy. Outsourcing is simple and a fact of life. H1B visas are just a way to allow the high tech industry a way to grow faster than the educational system can provide grads. Companies can move the jobs overseas, and will if the alternative is dropping services. The state help desk in India is a good example, you choose which you would prefer: 1) move the help desk back to the US 2) cut medical benefits in the state or something or the cost of education 3) raise taxes? In another sense H1B visas are the only way that we remain shielded from the poor quality of many our schools and the limited output of the better ones. At one point durring the high tech boom, in the bay area there were more unfilled high tech jobs than the entire number of people that would graduate, the next year, with approprate degrees (or so it was reported in the local news rags). I beleve it, i could not heir qualified people. It allows us to import the best and brightest from overseas. there are surely abuses and problems with the H1 program and they should be fixed, but theis seems like a way to guarentee that more and more high tech work moves overseas.

  52. Newsflash: Cheapest ADEQUATE solution wins!! by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No one cares if the outsourced company attains your notion of "excellence" (which you had probably overestimated in any case). In the world of business, the cheapest adequate solution wins.

    That means if someone can do a minimally acceptable job for less money than you, you're out. I'm not offering this as knee-jerk cynicism, simply observations from years in business. Costs matter, and the corporation left standing is typically the one that has ruthlessly slashed costs everywhere possible. This is why United Airlines is bankrupt and SouthWest is not. This is why most manufacturing is now done outside of the US. This is why outsourcing exists at all.

  53. Slavery of 21st centure by axxackall · · Score: 2
    The current H1B laws protects the slavery of 21st century. New changes will only make things even worse.

    The main problem of H1B laws is that the laws does not treate H1B worker as equal human beings. It treates them as salary paid robots. The human life is not only about salary. Among other thing the concern of long term planning should not be ignored.

    If the US agrees that the worker is valueable for US economy it should appreciate his wish to stay in the country. Otherwise - don't even bring him here. Look, you bring him, you exploit him, and when economic situation is changed - you throw him away as a used garbage. You can do it with your vacuum cleaner. But you should not do it with a human person.

    If you disagree with me then go and tell all this story to your samll children. You cannot? You want to protect their souls? That's right - you know yourself that what you are doing is a human crime. The test was simple.

    I don't think that the new laws will protect the US economy. All proposed changes are made with one thought in mind: to protect US citizens from being infested by new coming immigrants. The irony is that many US citizens are first or second generation immigrants. Many of others are grand-grand-children of european immigrants, who came to this land and litterally killed many originally living nationalities here.

    It's sad to see how many americans forgot their history and think about the rest of people as about coacroaches and rats.

    Another irony is that the new changes won't be so bad for foreign workers, who won't come to US and thus avoid of being the slave of the richest economy. The hanges won't be so bad for them as they will be bad for US people, specifically for their souls. But I don't see americans care about it. Too sad.

    --

    Less is more !
    1. Re:Slavery of 21st centure by axxackall · · Score: 2
      In the ancient Rome there were three classes of people: those who can change the employer and can elect, those who can change the employer but cannot elect, and those who cannot change the employer and cannot elect.

      The last class of people was called slaves.

      Do you like it or not, but H1B workers cannot change their employers unless INS approves it.

      In some countries free people live in poverty, not only slaves. In USA both slaves and freemen (citizens and GC) have not a bad salary and some social protection (H1B slaves have it less, of course). But it doesn't make any difference. The slave is slave, if he cannot go free to another employer even if the other employer agree to hire. Consulting companies, re-selling the work time of their H1B slaves (often even without any contribution from a management side - just pure hours), make the picture even more clear.

      If you don't really like the word slaves, then use another word - coacroaches, rates or parasites, that what americans mean anyway when they want to protect US job market from being infested by immigrants.

      After a brief search here is one article and another one (both old, cannot find newer quickly) showing how the US export of cheap products kills the local industry and creates the stream of illegal immigrants flooding the US job market.

      It's a perfect illustration: US wants to play the globalization game when it comes to US product export, but wants to close the border when it comes to the international job market response. That's not fair.

      --

      Less is more !
  54. Fixing the H1B visa problem is easy by haplo21112 · · Score: 2

    Throw them all out of the country....start over!
    Employeer's must absolutely prove that they need an alien worker to do a job...Employee's of a company must be allowed to anonymously file a grivence if they believe that an Alien was hired when an american worker was available. Employeers should be forced to publish in public records an H1B hires and justify why there was no american worker to fill that postion. This justification should include records of all American workers interviewed for the Postion and why they were unsuitable. These Interviewees shoul again be allowed to file grivences. Heavy fines should be imposed for violations. Corporations should get incentives for hiring American workers who might be under qualified at the interview point and training them up.

    --
    Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
    1. Re:Fixing the H1B visa problem is easy by glwtta · · Score: 2

      why?

      --
      sic transit gloria mundi
    2. Re:Fixing the H1B visa problem is easy by minard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      oh no, not this one again. Every time this comes up (on many message boards, I might add) I post the same argument, and as far as I know, nobody has ever replied.

      Here it is - what makes you think that just because an "alien worker" is working somewhere else in the world, they aren't competing with Americans for jobs? The economy is global, and much of the global market is outside of the US. Much of it, for many products, is in China, the rest of Asia, and Europe. This whole pseudo-economic argument that typically gets presented as a justification for "keeping aliens out" or, more and more frequently, "sending all the foreigners home" is nothing more than xenophobia. It has nothing to do with economics. If America chooses to become more isolationist, and stop its current policy of bringing in the best people it can find to work here, America will go backwards, not forwards. The biggest single threat to American engineering jobs is the (approximately) 10:1 ratio of new engineering graduates in China and the US. You will not do any service to US engineering jobs by restricting the supply of engineers in the US. Maybe this will help short term, but long term it's very bad news.

      One more thing - the constant references to H1-B holders as "temporary" or "guest workers" is strictly correct, but otherwise misleading. None of the H1-B holders I know (and in case you hadn't guessed, I'm one too) have no intention of turning up in the US for a few years and then "going home". It's simply the only immigration route available. You have to get an H1-B and be resident in the US in order to apply for a green card, and eventually citizenship.

      So is anybody going to refute this?

  55. Xenophobia disguised as economics. by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Time to burn off some karma.

    I hate the whole issue of H1B reform, because rather than being framed in terms of fair treatment for H1B workers, it is framed in terms of "protecting American jobs." And any time that phrase comes up, it is a red flag for me.

    Why does Patrick Buchanan want to build a wall around the USA? "Protecting American jobs." Yeah, I'm sure there are tons of Americans trying to get those high-paying home construction, hotel maid, and grape-picking jobs.

    So when I see the AFL-CIO making noise about revising the H1B visa program in the name of "Protecting American jobs," I'm already suspicious.

    This list is playing with people's emotions in a down economy to put forth a "keep all those brown-skinned people out!" agenda.

    The real problem with the H1B visa program is that it essentially makes indentured servitude legitimate. It provides no way for laid-off immigrants holding H1B's to stay in the country. People here on H1B's (the list DOES mention this, but it's buried among all of the hate-mongering) are paid less than most workers.

    What it does do, on the other hand, is ensures that the best and brightest people of the world become Americans, which makes America stronger. People on H1B's don't come here for brief periods -- they come here to stay. And that's a GOOD THING. Everyone in the USA benefits when immigrants come to this country, although they may not benefit in the short term or see the benefits immediately. Yes, that person with an H1B visa may have denied you that job, but that person is now producing for the USA and not for some other country, that person is keeping our culture lively by bringing hers in to mix with ours, and will start her family here, raising her children as Americans. She will work hard because it will be the first time she will be in a place where she will be valued for her hard work, and not for what caste she was born into.

    And that hard work directly translates into a healthy economy, which means more jobs for people like you and me.

    So ironically, immigration -creates- jobs.

    If you're going to fix H1B, fix it properly. Make sure H1B visa holders have wages that are as high as those for citizens. But don't use the H1B problem as a front for racism and xenophobia the way the AFL-CIO does here.

    1. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by minard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I really can't agree with that. As stated in another post, the H1-B program is the only available route to immigration. As an H1-B holder myself, you can guess I know many others, and what you describe doesn't apply to anybody I know. If you think what you state is a problem, we should be campaigning for an alternative route to immigration that doesn't require the artificial "temporary worker" intermediate step.

      As you say, I pay taxes, and much of what I earn gets returned to the local economy. I own a house in the US. My family and I are heavily involved in the local community. The characterization of myself and others as "not contributing to the social framework" and "harming the economy" by "transferring wealth and experience outside the US" is wrong, and frankly, pretty offensive. It sounds plain racist to me...

    2. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by minard · · Score: 2, Insightful
      you're missing the point of what I said. Here's the bit I object to:

      The harm comes if/when you leave, transferring the experience you have gained and the finances you've earned with you

      The problem I have is the assumption that I intend to leave. I don't. And I brought a large amount of experience I gained from elsewhere (two masters degrees, 8 years experience) and finances I earned (enough for 50% of a house) with me.

      There is another purpose in the H1-B program, and it is explicitly stated by the INS. It is for permanent immigration. Not only is it intended for the purpose, but it is the only mechanism there is. That's really why I object to the characterization you wrote.

    3. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by Rimbo · · Score: 3, Interesting

      In theory, rdean400, what you say is dead on. In practice, however, most of the H1B's I know are looking to use it as a stepping-stone to permanent citizenship -- 6 years is plenty of time to find a spouse, for example.

      For most immigrants, the hardest part about getting to the United States is just simply getting to the United States. The lottery is packed -- it takes DECADES for people to get over here on a regular immigrant visa. The H1B is a fast way to get your feet on American soil, and once here, hopefully get established enough to be able to stay through other means.

      H1B's do not WANT to go back, see. If they did, they wouldn't come here in the first place.

      So you're right about the theory of H1B visas, but the reality is different. The reality is that the H1B is a "gateway visa" to finding permanent resident -- or better, citizenship -- status.

    4. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by friday2k · · Score: 2

      There is only one thing I can add to this excellent posting: Not all H1's are "brown skinned" or anything like this. And it does not matter. We (and I am one of them) are just humans. Working in another country than their home country. Period. None of the larger companies would hire H1's for lower wages. It will just bite you in the end. You seek the best talent for the job. And if this guy happens to come from another country, well, so be it.

    5. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by Rimbo · · Score: 2

      Mr. AC,

      You are absolutely right that it's unfair, IF THE PROGRAM BENEFITS FOREIGNERS AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICANS.

      The facts are that these foreigners typically use H1B's as a way to get to the USA permanently, and do not go back home. Their expertise and hard work helps the overall economy, making more jobs here for everyone. Which means that this program benefits Americans more than it hurts us.

      Now I've glossed over a lot of the supporting evidence for these facts because I'm busy, but if you do some research and keep an open mind, you'll discover that the evidence supports this conclusion overwhelmingly.

      What's happening is that a large number of people really ARE xenophobic or racist (although not you obviously) and because of this they're unwilling to accept the evidence, or outside of facts, they will always choose to believe that immigration poses a threat rather than a benefit.

      The AFL-CIO represents this point of view: The goal of the proposed "reforms" is not to reform, but rather to impose tighter restrictions on immigration. The problems with H1B visas are just an excuse to pursue the AFL-CIO's continued xenophobic agenda.

    6. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      I hate the whole issue of H1B reform, because rather than being framed in terms of fair treatment for H1B workers, it is framed in terms of "protecting American jobs." And any time that phrase comes up, it is a red flag for me.

      It sseems to me that the concept of bringing highly qualified professionals to the US where there are cases that the skills are not available from native workers is a policy that has real merit to it. Surely the situation where you cannot compete because you can't find the workers with the skills you need is a very serious issue.

      The problem arises when companies abuse the process in a variety of ways including firing current employees with the required skills in order to replace them with workers with lower pay expectations, or fail to look for native workers with any sort of good faith. There is a social cost associated with a worker displaced from his job. Worse you have a case of corporate malfeasence - the corporation is not acting in good faith according to the intent of the enabling legislation When this occurs the legislation must be adjusted. This is what the AFL/CIO is suggesting.

      I have had my personal fortunes affected by this - but in a sense not typical to the IT market. My last employer was a French company, with operations in the US. Because of employment laws in France vs. the US it was much less expensive for them to lay off an American worker than a French worker. Therefore when cuts were needed my job and project went to France - not because of any cost savings, but because the French government was doing a better job of protecting their workers than the US was.

      Now what should I feel about this? Other developed countries are protecting workers, while the US seems to be intent on discouraging it's own workers.

    7. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by Rimbo · · Score: 2

      "This is what the AFL/CIO is suggesting."

      Yes, and I understand the need for H1B reform. What bothers me is not that it needs fixing, but how AFL-CIO suggests we fix it.

      "Other developed countries are protecting workers, while the US seems to be intent on discouraging it's own workers."

      Those other countries are not having the long-term economic success and innovation that our country has, so that suggests to me that we're doing the right thing.

    8. Re:Xenophobia disguised as economics. by khallow · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Mr. AC,

      You are absolutely right that it's unfair, IF THE PROGRAM BENEFITS FOREIGNERS AT THE EXPENSE OF AMERICANS.

      This sentence is wrong in a couple of ways. First, it does benefit foreigners at the expense of Americans. That's what happens when you replace some US labor with some foreign labor. But that doesn't mean that it is inherently fair or unfair on that basis alone.

      The main reason I consider the program unfair is that H1B workers don't have the same job mobility that a US resident (citizen or green card) has. Hence, the employer has much more power over the employee. Another way to look at it is that an H1B applicant would have an enormous advantage over a US resident even if all costs were the same since the employer knows the H1B worker can't leave.

      The facts are that these foreigners typically use H1B's as a way to get to the USA permanently, and do not go back home. Their expertise and hard work helps the overall economy, making more jobs here for everyone. Which means that this program benefits Americans more than it hurts us.

      Now I've glossed over a lot of the supporting evidence for these facts because I'm busy, but if you do some research and keep an open mind, you'll discover that the evidence supports this conclusion overwhelmingly.

      I simply don't believe this. While H1B may improve the efficiency of labor markets (which would be a dubious claim), it brings its own inefficiencies - namely employers that are dependent on the pool of immobile H1B labor. Further, as others have pointed out, this reduces the number of US citizens who stay in high tech employment which IMHO outweighs any market efficiencies gained by the current version of H1B.

      For example, I went to Silicon Valley back in 1999 and was introduced to a crowd of about 10 or so contractors in a variety of programming and administrative jobs. At the time, all but one was directly in a high tech job. Now, three currently are. These aren't the same three who remain in the Silicon Valley area.

      Another example. I worked for a while as a trainer for certain immediate US government needs (not going to be more specific, sorry). The company that hired me also hired a number of surprisingly competent people from telecoms, military, police, etc. Some were high level managers or very competent high tech employees in their past life. The job involved considerable travel and other unpleasant demands though pay was decent (around $25 an hour and you could live practically anywhere in the country).

      The point is why are we pulling in so many H1B's when there's such a large pool of native labor to chose from? It's because the H1B worker can't leave when the company gets sicker or the economy improves.

      What's happening is that a large number of people really ARE xenophobic or racist (although not you obviously) and because of this they're unwilling to accept the evidence, or outside of facts, they will always choose to believe that immigration poses a threat rather than a benefit.

      Let me be blunt here. In a number of xenophobic societies, immigration is purely a threat. Ie, the benefits as you perceive them are irrelevant. Instead, the costs imposed on the society are willingly embraced. In the distant past, there must have been some advantage to xenophobia otherwise so many societies wouldn't have evolved with it present. I personally don't see what your problem is since you don't have to live in one these days. Further, I wouldn't change my views because you happen to accuse me of being xenophobic or racist. I'm a pretty rational being with a decent understanding of how my self-deception manifests and trust myself on this matter.

      The AFL-CIO represents this point of view: The goal of the proposed "reforms" is not to reform, but rather to impose tighter restrictions on immigration. The problems with H1B visas are just an excuse to pursue the AFL-CIO's continued xenophobic agenda.

      Perhaps the members of the AFL-CIO are xenophobic. However, the current large amount of H1B visas was implemented with the labor union's tacit approval in the past. It is just another organization with ulterior motives. In this case, they've decided that the new stance (which is more anti-immigration) is more beneficial to the organization (and perhaps to its members). Characterizing their agenda as "xenophobic" doesn't capture the purpose of this agenda.

  56. Indian taking your job? That's because you suck. by raehl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Alright, if you're an American, with a 4-year degree from an American college, and some guy from India, overcoming all of the inherent obstacles in India, can do your job better than you do, he deserves your job. You started with all the advantages.

    The intent of the H1B program is good, and I think the AFL-CIO is addressing what's wrong with it: They're not saying the program's goals are bad, they're just saying that if the workers coming over here are being paid less than the workers who are here, then by definition they are not doing a job H1B was designed to fill.

    Thier position, and I agree, is that if a company is willing to pay the same wage to bring over a foreigner instead of hiring a US worker, then they probably need to hire a foreigner (otherwise they wouldn't bother.) If they're paying a sub-standard wage to bring over a foreigner, then they're just abusing the H1B system for a purpose it wasn't intended for, and THAT's what needs to stop.

    H1B's good, abuse of H1B's bad, and wages paid is a good indication of whether H1B is being abused in a particular situation.

    As for whether H1B is right or not - Open immigration. If immigrants can do your job for less, tough crap for you. If companies hire a bunch of immigrants to work for less and it turns out they can't do the jobs, tough crap for the company when it has a crap product and goes out of business.

    Americans need to secure their employment by being the most qualified people to do the jobs, not by setting up a legislative barrier to simply block out people who are qualified.

  57. As a foreiger myself (chinese in exact) ... by didiken · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Well as a electrical engineer wannabe myself, I feel like the clones (the foreigner) and the majority human races (American) are against us ;).

    First, let's put it this way, remember that most Americans (unless you're Indian American) are also immigrants decendent that their ancestors stepped off the boats earlier than the foreigner.

    And frankly I am not worrying a whole lot about these H1B visa issues. If you're good, you'll be okay anywhere. Take the inspiration from the earlier Slashdot thread What Should I Do With My Life?.

    I guess many slashdot readers might still have the perception the mad Chineses or Indians or Russians (and many other countries) are the 'engineers' or the 'programmers' that are underpaid and stuff, and therefore steals poor American jobs. My opinions are the H1B visas are the scapegoats because so many laid-offs.... economy downturns and we're still waiting for the next-big-thing, so foreigners should be kicked out and give jobs to Americans. The real story I can tell you is, it is damn hard to get a part-time programming job in university, let alone H1B visa if you're foreign students (at least at my university). It is damn more expensive sometimes to hire a foreigner... think about the paperwork and stuff. If a foreigner can get a job in America, he is surely the best-of-the-best. Get real, cheap != efficient okay.

    Actually I am more than happy if AFL-CIO manages to scrap H1B. You're just kicking them back to their countries, helping them to solve their brain-drain problems ;). Well guys you're going to lose another round on globalization, sending the best and the brightest trained from the most adavanced and technological nation, back home. I'm sure many Chinese and Indians are great entrepreneurs, and by then you'll hear US companies outsourcing MORE to these ex-H1B folks. Not a good strategy either.

    Remeber, the truth is in you. Whoever innovate wins go fuck the prom queen. Losers go under the food chain. That's exactly how the economy should work, right ?

  58. Why Open Source is YOUR friend by Idou · · Score: 2

    "Of course it will never happen because those professions have enough sense not to cut their own throats. H1-B targets the people who may have high IQ scores but are too freaking stupid to organize, lobby or even realize what 100,000 people competing for their job does to their lives."

    No, I don't think you tech guys are really stupid. I just think you are out of your league when it comes to Microsoft controlling your profession. Lawyers and accountants have open standards that no company controls. This keeps their profession pure and free of manipulation.

    Microsoft basically OWNS the techie profession. Their goal is to sell more software, so when I hear the word "techie" I can picture either a Linux God or a clueless MSCE. Your profession has been polluted by MsDonald workers, which brings down the credibility of the entire profession.

    If I were you, I would become an accountant (I am me, and I am doing that). However, if you care about your profession and are willing to stick with it, here are the steps you need:

    1. Start backing open source and its non-corporate maintainers. It is not so much that you can read the source code but that no one company can CONTROL the source code. Standardizing on this is comparable to standardizing on Common Law (Lawyers) or GAAP (accountants). These standards are free from some company willing to extort standards in order to sell more software (with a cheaper TCO, because you work harder for less).

    2. Unify the certifications of Open Source. I have read about the history of Accounting certification, and I must say that it is very similar to, say, Linux certification. There use to be many different accounting organizations in America. They all swallowed each other up because it made sense. It makes sense with open source, and you should get to the point that you are only certifying "administrators" and "programmers" and nothing more specific that that. The more general the credentials, the more powerful the certification. However, you won't get anywhere if you base your certification on closed standards, controlled by some software selling company.

    3. You lobby for government to require your professionals in certain regularly occurring situations. Whether it is auditing the computer systems of government agencies or being deployed by accountants to hand count the number of systems, it doesn't really matter. Only Lawyers can represent others in trial and only CPA's can audit financial statements of public companies. Most Lawyers and CPA's never exercize these priviledges, but it is this priviledge that justifies all of their big, fat salaries. The easiest way I could see this occuring for tech professionals is to require the government to use open source software in certain circumstances and require only "certified" engineers, certified through your own professional organization (i.e., not MS), to audit the integrity of the system and code. If you had this, I bet all CPSE's (certified public software engineer), even the one's not working for the government, would make just as much as lawyers, if not more!

    In conclusion, no, I do not think you techies are stupid. This industry is still new, and it took centuries and centuries for accountants to standardize their profession. However, much more technology is available, and Open Source software has completed the majority of the task for you already. So I think it is high time to get your cr@p together and make yourselves a legitimate profession. If you do, I will waste no time to getting CPSE (or its equavalent) added to the end of my name.

    Furthermore, you will no longer care if foreigners are getting jobs in your profession because, there will be enough jobs to go around! H1-B visas apply to accountants and lawyers too, you know. The reason you never hear them complaining is a true profession is able to protect its members GLOBALLY.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
    1. Re:Why Open Source is YOUR friend by smagruder · · Score: 2

      Sorry for the simple reply, but A-freegin'MEN!

      --
      Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
  59. Re:H1B not the issue now that it was 3 years ago by Alien54 · · Score: 2
    Whoa, wait a second. You can get a job? How?

    First you have to have an H1B visa ....

    --
    "It is a greater offense to steal men's labor, than their clothes"
  60. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by Rimbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm agreeing with you, but I'm not an h1b holder, I'm an American citizen.

    The USA has tons of talent. But none of it is developed, and you have too many people in the tech industry (still) who are there not because they like tech, or work hard, but because they think it's easy money. On the radio, you hear the ads: "Come to the Crapola Institute, and graduate with a degree that will get you a high-paying job in the exciting tech industry!"

    I'm glad to see that most of the posters here on Slashdot seem to be agreeing with the point of view that this proposal fails to identify real solutions and real problems, and is really just xenophobia disguised as economic reform. At least Americans appear not to be culturally ignorant... maybe all that "multiculturalism" stuff they forced down our throats in the early 90's actually had some value?

  61. Re:Talent comes at a price by tweek · · Score: 2

    The problem is that they CAN'T jump to another company for better pay. The current H1B program is modern slavery. If the companies knew that the work they just brought over could leave at a moment's notice and go elsewhere for better pay, they might actually pay them a competitive salary.

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  62. It's a market failure by TopShelf · · Score: 2
    The problem there is one of a market failure - the actions of each individual corporation, no matter how large, don't have a significant impact on the overall health of the US consumer. But taken together, such layoffs could have a deliterious effect. Thus, each corporation, acting in their own interests, can result in harm to the overall economy.

    Bottom line: don't expect ever again to see a demand-creation scheme on the scale of Ford's famous $5 a day plan.

    --
    Stop by my site where I write about ERP systems & more
  63. Declining population already by heroine · · Score: 2

    As far as I know, the US population has been declining for the last 15 months and is expected to decline dramatically for the next 3 years. Anyone who wants a job is moving to Asia. H1B reform feels good but economics have already taken care of most of the issue.

  64. a "common"market by zogger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    --we HAD a huge common market. No visas required to travel, a common currency, the members traded with each other, and the money "made" inside this common market remained mostly inside, thereby getting spent and respent and respent and respenty. It created the worlds largest and most successful middle class. That was called the united States. A single blue collar job could pay for a family with several kids, a home, a car or two, and that worker had a good chance of having full benefits and a retirement pension. Ain't that way no mo. It was a success. 50 soverign states that traded with each other, a slew of differing languages spoken but one language as the default business/governmental language. It was large enough to do this. Neighbor helped make neighbor prosperous. We still had foreign trade but the sheer greed and stupidity hadn't taken over as bad as it is now. It was a system that "just worked" pretty much.

    But no, couldn't keep doing that, had to have that one percent of the population that was already "rich" want to be "richer".

    Here's just a basic law of economics, when you move a job away from your border, and the person who loses his job loses his spendable income, that money is lost to the tune of 7 to 1 roughly. If the replacement job-if it even exists-pays less, with less bennies, then it pays less with less bennies, that person and the economy is worse off, not better..

    The US corporate "model" now is just destroying the already existing middle class to create a slightly larger and extremely wealthier upper class, and a much larger bottom tier class, like the model in most second and third world countries. As long as someone still has their own personal good paying job they won't hardly care, as they are enjoying the extremely temporary cheaper prices on their goods and services. The "other guy's" predicament is just a news blurb. As soon as they become a statistic instead of a spectator to the phenomena, they "won't get it". And I am not talking about "buggywhips" being phased out, I am talking about "jobs" that are still "being done and needed and useful".

    This current globalization is a complete and total scam. IF it worked as advertuised and promulgated by the governmental and 'stock market expert" shills, we wouldn't have a 500 billion a year balance of trade deficit.

    The US in two and half decades has gone from the world's largest creditor nation economically to the world's largest debtor nation, the exact same time span that massive globalization has been pushed at all high governmental/corporate levels. We wouldn't have personal bankruptcies at an almost 30 year high, we wouldn't have the percentages of unemployment we have, we wouldn't have home mortgage defaults at a 30 year high.

    Now anyone might call this a mere "coincidence", or series of coincidences, but I call it a long range loose plan by certain international loyal to no one uber connected rich ones/cartels/groups with both a political and economic agenda that is going to be proven to be *not nice* in the near and medium future, let alone from a long range historical view..

    This is IMO and I also see nothing to dissuade me from this opinion. I look at actual tangible and verifiable results, not rhetoric and large scale hucksterism.

    Globalization for the united States middle classes, the true productive people in our society and the true "wealth creators", as opposed to the "wealth re-arrangers", is pure economic vaporware, it is only a "success" for the ones controlling the agenda.

    1. Re:a "common"market by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      Here's just a basic law of economics, when you move a job away from your border, and the person who loses his job loses his spendable income, that money is lost to the tune of 7 to 1 roughly. If the replacement job-if it even exists-pays less, with less bennies, then it pays less with less bennies, that person and the economy is worse off, not better..

      But what about all the Americans who bought Japanese cars? Were they disloyal? Or was it just that the Japanese cars were cheaper and more reliable than their American counterparts?

      The US corporate "model" now is just destroying the already existing middle class to create a slightly larger and extremely wealthier upper class, and a much larger bottom tier class, like the model in most second and third world countries.

      Economies change all the time. What you describe is nothing new. Think of all those stablehands and boilermen who were put out of work... but that's what happens when cars replaced horses and airliners started taking the place of trains. It was the industrial revolution that created the middle classes... maybe the middle class is on the decline now, but it will be back again, that's the nature of the economic cycle.

      This current globalization is a complete and total scam. IF it worked as advertuised and promulgated by the governmental and 'stock market expert" shills, we wouldn't have a 500 billion a year balance of trade deficit.

      It does work. For ever American that's worse off, there are many that are better off from having cheaper prices and higher quality driven by competition.

      Now anyone might call this a mere "coincidence", or series of coincidences, but I call it a long range loose plan by certain international loyal to no one uber connected rich ones/cartels/groups with both a political and economic agenda that is going to be proven to be *not nice* in the near and medium future, let alone from a long range historical view..

      The evidence simply isn't there. If anything, it's the middle classes voting with their wallets for cheaper imports that have resulted in job moving overseas.

    2. Re:a "common"market by cybermace5 · · Score: 2

      If one of India's one billion people takes a half-rate job away from one of America's 300 million people, I don't see how that helps the country of India. That's an awful lot of people that unemployed Americans have to support under your theory.

      If they are so concerned with bettering their country, then they should stay in India and work on technology to improve their own country's economic status. At least the benefit of their work would stay in India, rather than going to a large American corporation.

      They have no lack of schools in India, right? All those people coming into America are so very skilled and experienced, right? If so, shouldn't they feel at least some loyalty to their own country? I'd say the best thing we could do for India is toss back all the skilled professionals we stole.

      --
      ...
    3. Re:a "common"market by jslag · · Score: 2
      For every American that's worse off, there are many that are better off from having cheaper prices and higher quality driven by competition.


      This is demonstrably false - check the distribution of wealth over the last 30 years (adjusted for inflation). More and more money is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

    4. Re:a "common"market by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The biggest problem was when greed set in. Greed used to be looked down upon in society....then society changed, and we got overrun by wankers complaining about others imposing their morality.

      Suddenly, without morality or a good value system...other things turned to shit. Greed became 'ok' along with just about any other generally undesirable trait and naughty pleasure.

      To those wankers who wanna cry about people imposing their morality...thanks a fucking lot. You've got yourselves to blame.

    5. Re:a "common"market by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      No visas required to travel, a common currency, the members traded with each other, and the money "made" inside this common market remained mostly inside, thereby getting spent and respent and respent and respenty.

      That, of course, ignores the fact that a major reason that we could have this kind of economy was the centralization of production. Which depended on cheap transportation, which was only possible because of cheap oil. Which we import, after keeping the Middle East under serious military threat and keeping things as divisive as possible to avoid a coalition raising prices.

      Not quite Camelot.

  65. Program was never needed in first place by ToasterTester · · Score: 2

    There was never a shortage of workers, it was about corporations wanting cheap labor. I remember when the program first started, there was a lot of unemployment in tech industry. When program was renewed same thing. Maybe now that the tech industry is in a major slump with higher than average unemployment they might get rid of the unnecessary program.

    Corporate America thinks employees are like Kleenix to use when necessary and toss away. Quality and loyality mean nothing only paying the lowest salaries they can. All this has done is make employees the same way. Its a vicous cycle.

  66. Re:Indian taking your job? That's because you suck by rdean400 · · Score: 2, Informative

    >Alright, if you're an American, with a 4-year degree from an
    >American college, and some guy from India, overcoming all of the
    >inherent obstacles in India, can do your job better than you do,
    >he deserves your job. You started with all the advantages.

    India has a government-paid technology training program, and I've just paid for 4 years of college. Who's *really* got the obstacles?

  67. I RENOUNCE MY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP! by t0qer · · Score: 5, Funny

    Yes folks, I have realized, as an american citizen I stand NO chance of getting a tech job right now. So I put my plan into action.

    I'll renounce my american citizenship, fly to india, marry a native woman (to gain indian citizenship) and change my last name to Ha-beeb. Then, and only then will I apply for an american job under H1B visa laws. AND I'LL GET THE JOB WOOHOO!!! Oh and let's not forget, I'll need to bring 8k with me for that phony CS degree.

    Boy will my bosses be surprised when they see toqer Ha-Beeb is really a white dude that speaks perfect english! They might even sponsor me to become an american citizen again! /end satire

    1. Re:I RENOUNCE MY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP! by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      ... and change my last name to Ha-beeb

      No, no, no. That sounds sort of Arab, and will get you put on a terrorist watch list, and abducted by aliens^H^H^H^H^H^H the US government. What you want is a name with ten syllables, like Pajamaramalamadingdongkadarian. That sounds non-threatening; no terrorist could even say that.

      Oh and let's not forget, I'll need to bring 8k with me for that phony CS degree.

      Man, if you could get a degree at one of the Indian Institutes, you wouldn't have any trouble getting a job here. Those places are good, and they turn out great grads.

    2. Re:I RENOUNCE MY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP! by infinite9 · · Score: 2

      What you want is a name with ten syllables, like Pajamaramalamadingdongkadarian

      Except one from Armenia. :-D

      Man, if you could get a degree at one of the Indian Institutes, you wouldn't have any trouble getting a job here.


      Yeah, they're funded by microsoft!

      --
      Disconnect your television. Do your own research. Draw your own conclusions. They're probably lying. Don't be a sheep.
    3. Re:I RENOUNCE MY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP! by RealAlaskan · · Score: 2
      What you want is a name with ten syllables, like Pajamaramalamadingdongkadarian

      Except one from Armenia. :-D

      It doesn't matter. By the time anyone gets close to the end of that one, their eyes will have glazed over.

    4. Re:I RENOUNCE MY AMERICAN CITIZENSHIP! by t0qer · · Score: 2

      Trust me I know where India is, without even looking on a map I know it borders pakistan, the hindu religion and indian culture has influenced countries such as malaysia, where 1/3 of the population speaks indian.

      Also to note, India has had quite and interesting history to boot. It's the birthplace of ghandi, despite having a tech boom right now, it still has one of the worst problems with homelessness. Serious, there are beggars all over the streets. The murderous kali cult that was hunted down by the british was pretty interesting bit of history too.

      Unfortunately you missed the entire point of my satire, it's funny, laugh at it. Too bad your sense of humor isn't as sophisticated as the moderators. :(

  68. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by Fizzlewhiff · · Score: 2

    If you don't know how to code, or explain the difference between an abstract base class and a regular class, then you don't deserve the job.


    The problem is we're too busy laughing when you ask "Tell me a boat an abstract class and tell me a boat a regular class.

    This actually happened to me during an interview. I was being interviewed by an Indian and he asked me about "ice uh" and a "hass uh" classes. I looked at him like he was from the moon. I asked him what he was talking about. He spelled it out. I-S-A and H-A-S-A. He had me stumped. I went back to the office and asked a few people what an ISA and HASA were. Finally one guy smacked himself in the forehead and said "oh, do you think he was asking about 'is a' and 'has a' relationships? I got a damn good chuckle from that and still do.

    --

    'Same speed C but faster'
  69. AFL-CIO should unionize India instead by Colonel+Panic · · Score: 2

    The best way to help the US Engineer/IT worker would be for the AFL-CIO to go unionize India.

    Those Indian programmers deserve more pay, more benefits, more time off! Programmers of India unite!

  70. "overall lowering"?? by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    The scenario (which I think is mostly bogus, but that's an other issue) only lowers the overall standard of living if you don't include the foreigner, who gets a highly increased standard, in your calculations.

    Or in other words it is based on the idea that non americans aren't people.

  71. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by RalphSlate · · Score: 2

    The US talent is embarrassingly bad.

    I'm not buying your argument. The IT field is somewhat of a unique animal because there are so many quantifyable skills -- dozens of programming languages, operating systems, databases, and industries.

    When jobs get posted, the ad usually runs like this:

    Wanted: programmer. Must know Java using JDBC interface to Oracle 8.1.2 running on Solaris v2.1.2, in conjunction with Bea TP system, 10+ years in the insurance sector doing fixed asset reinsurance in the UK. XML a plus.

    You don't usually see that type of ad for other professions. Sure, there's specialization, but not to the degree possible in IT. I think that IT job requirements are insanely narrow. Yes, it helps to hire someone who has done the exact job you're looking for in a previous life, but with a solid foundation 75% of the IT force can perform jobs outside of their direct experience. Yet no manager is going to take the risk, because if they hire someone who fits the description and that person fails, they don't look bad, but if they hire someone nontraditional and that person fails, it can be their head. The reward isn't worth the risk to them.

    Addressing your original point, unless someone is going to be doing some very hardcode C programming, and the job is for dedicated C coding projects, why would they need to write a routine to traverse a linked list? Sure, it would be helpful for them to understand the theory behind the question, but why do they need to reinvent the wheel?

    I'm looking at a job posting for my own company, for a senior DBA. Look at it:

    "This position requires 3 to 7 years of experience in the areas of general database administration, DBA experience in Oracle 8, 8i and 9i releases, and experience with Oracle Parallel Server or Real Application Clusters and Oracle Advanced Replication. The ideal candidate will have 2 to 5 years of programming experience in C, SQL, PL/SQL, Oracle Developer or similar, and familiarity with Oracle 8, 8I, 9I and GUI development tools. Strong written and verbal communication skills are required. A Bachelor's degree in Computer Science, Engineering, or Mathematics (with Computer Science focus) is required."

    We don't use C in this company -- at all!. We don't use GUI development tools either. This job description was likely taken from some HR magazine or something.

    If IT hiring was a bit more creative, and the IT profession was a bit less "throw the employee away when the technology changes", we probably wouldn't need H1B employees.

    Once, in this country, companies were expected to train their employees to keep their investements up to date. Now, employees are expected to work 60+ hours a week and are supposed to train themselves in their free time. The fruits of this method are just becoming evident; tens of thousands of "obsolete" IT people, and tens of thousands of H1B imports. That's a shitty national policy, something that will derail this country's economy.

  72. With accruing experiences in outsourcing... by crovira · · Score: 2

    The issue of H1-Bs is becoming moot.

    Why import them here where the cost of living is ridiculously high when you can have one or two middle managers here coordinating the development and maintenance of systems over there where the cost of living is ridiculously low.

    You can pay them peanuts and they're still happy because peanuts over there makes for a good standard of living.

    --
    MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    1. Re:With accruing experiences in outsourcing... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

      Why import them here where the cost of living is ridiculously high when you can have one or two middle managers here.

      White men leading the native troops into battle?

      The fact seems to be that there are starting to be talent shortages in India's IT market. This will drive salaries up.....

      http://www.wired.com/news/infostructure/0,1377,5 61 67,00.html

  73. There is no "shortage" on a free market by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    You're right in a way. Shortages only occur in planned economies. On a free market there are no surpluses or shortages, there are only price changes.

    So there is of course no shortage of any kind of employee in the US, at least to the extent that the labor market is free.

    OTOH, the labor market can't be said to be really free unless it is open to everyone regardless of nationality.

    1. Re:There is no "shortage" on a free market by bryan1945 · · Score: 2

      "On a free market there are no surpluses or shortages, there are only price changes."

      Either you realize that the US market is not a true free market, or you failed economics 1 in high school. I'm hoping for the former.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  74. Re: Ever hear of hubris? by benzapp · · Score: 2

    The reality is your tech skills are basically irrelevant in the grand scheme of human civilization. The pride you derive from posting on /. is nothing but a fantasy, a fiction. A generation from now, let alone a millenium, and your feeble existence will be forgotten except by a few scarabs feasting on your putrid remains.

    You serve a purpose NOW at this moment, but with the speed of technological advancement even modern wrench monkeys such as yourself will be have little to offer society. People ARE a dime a dozen. Do you really think we need 300 million people in the United States? Even if they are not contributing anything of value, what CAN they contribute?

    Better yet, you should be looking at what YOU contribute. Trust me, it is YOU who not only need a lifestyle change but are going to experience one unwillingly very soon. When the civilized society you enjoy collapses you will not be able to function in meaningful way. Perhaps you will be a prostitute, some will pay a pittance for a little ass raping here and there. "Squeal like a pig!"

    You may think you are a valuable member of your company but you are hardly a valuable member of the society that protects your worthless way of life. When the protection you are afforded disappears, everything you hold dear will be wiped out.

    So I suggest you get that fat ass into shape, stop leeching off your parents, and get used to physical pain. When the revolution comes you will either fight and survive, with some scars to keep your mind clear or you will be buying massive quantites of K-Y.

    Your arrogance reeks of ignorant hubris. If you want a place in the new world, I suggest you get over it.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  75. I am one of these evil H1 guys by friday2k · · Score: 2

    Just some points on H1: First of all, being German, having a degree in CS from a German University and more than 7 years of experience on top of that does not seem to fit the profile that many of the posters here shoot for, but maybe it is still relevant. I came to the US on top of the Technology boom and, guess what, the start-up I joined was later sold, people were laid off, etc. etc. Well known story. I then, within one week, joined another, this time very large, software company. The practice in this company is that the interviewers do not know and are not allowed to ask about an applicant's visa status. Evaluation is based only on the applicant's experience and ability to do the job. H1's are not paid any different than US citizens and are not preferred etc. etc.
    I personally think that the US benefits from the H1 (at least most of them) candidates. I was educated in another country, after school I went through my "learning years" at different companies in Europe, and then I decided to come to the US. So what you got is a guy in his 30s, educated without the US paying a dime for it, specializing in a field that is in high demand (Security and Cryptography). You forget that people like me help US companies to stay ahead and therefore create jobs for Americans.
    Another example: Recently we had 3 positions open in my group (same skills needed) and it took us more than 4 months(!!) to fill these positions. And this is not because we would pay badly. We had way too many candidates with skills like "car sales man turned HTML Front Page author and wants to do Security now". So where are all the high skilled Americans?

    1. Re:I am one of these evil H1 guys by friday2k · · Score: 2

      Natural Language Interpretation is, afaik, a pretty narrow specialization, but that should not stop a well rounded individual from finding work. Do you think that the issue for you to find a related job is because of pay or because of applying to jobs where you find other, more qualified, candidates competing for the same position? I am sure if you have the skills and maybe are willing to move to another city/state you can find a job.
      Leaving that aside, the company I work for actually might have a position open in your field. Please leave me a way to contact you here.

    2. Re:I am one of these evil H1 guys by MKalus · · Score: 2

      You are aware though that in general the market is down right now and that there are more than enough people who take pay cuts?

      A contractor I know made $100 an hour, when his contract came up for renewal it went down to $60. Why? Because there are a lot of other people out there who are looking for a job.

      So in the end that they make less right now than you do 7 years ago, fresh out of college, doesn't really proof anything.

      I think there is the wrong idea that the older you are the more money you should be able to make (just because you're old), that doesn't really apply and much less so (unfortunatly?) in the IT field where "young is gold".

      Just an observation.

      --
      If you want to e-mail me, use my PGP Key.
  76. No More H1B by teetam · · Score: 2
    I am a worker on H1B and here is what I think

    We should abolish all H1Bs! But, before you jump all over this, let me explain. Instead of H1B visas (which are given to the companies and NOT the foreign workers, FYI), INS should either accept people as permanent residents or outright reject them.

    The current system is very inefficient and stressful, not just for the workers but also the companies. Everyone knows that H1 workers are people of indentured servitude - I don't want to use the word slave because it has other contexts in USA. But, people don't seem to realize how painful it is for companies to hire a H1 worker.

    Most project cycle in software are very short (a few months). So, if you interview someone for the project, you would like him/her to start ASAP. Unfortunately, INS can take months to approve the H1 visa (in spite of the recent improvements)! Plus, there are legal fees and INS fees and so on.

    After all this, if companies still hire H1 workers, it is only because there is a shortage of skilled technical workers in USA. If my recommendation are followed, immigration workers will be more secure and will demand as much pay as US citizens. That will fix most of the problems. Companies will not hire H1 workers just for the (perceived) lower costs!

    --
    All your favorite sites in one place!
  77. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by eyeball · · Score: 2

    I'm a Canadian on an H1-B visa and I've conducted recent interviews for software developer-style positions. The US talent is embarrassingly bad. I saw no less than five candidates who could not write a simple C routine to traverse a linked list. And this was one of the simpler questions.

    Probably because all the good C programmers aren't out looking for jobs. But I do kind of agree. I too have interviewed many horrible Americans (I'm also an american), and find 9 time out of 10 a "programmer" turns out to be someone that put a CGI script on their personal web site once.

    --

    _______
    2B1ASK1
  78. Re:Good Start. We need to throttle H1-B program ba by squiggleslash · · Score: 2
    Why don't you just open up the program to politicians? Abolish that crap in the constitution about the President being a natural born citizen, and hire a foreigner to do it for minimum wage?

    The world is, after all, full of qualified individuals, and America clearly has a shortage - I mean just look at the last six or seven people who ended up getting the President job. The current one can't even speak English. Meanwhile people who'd do an excellent job from Nelson Mandela to Mikael Gorbachev are sitting on foreign dole queues, their talents wasted. And that's assuming you don't want to do some serious head hunting (and I'm not talking Idi Amin!) - you can probably get Blair or Putin for a song. Britain has a parliament full of potential rowdy loudmouthed pseudo-serious senators, if only you'd look, and faceless nonentities can be picked up to fill Congress from Canada.

    Plus, with a six year limit on H1Bs, you will have no problems with career politicians defying term limits.

    It's got to be worth considering, surely?

    --
    You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  79. That's my expereince too by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    As one of those Silicon Valley H1Bs, that is precisely what I have seen over 5 years.

    I guess there has to be some reality behind all the stories that there is an other H1B market out there that runs Indian programmer sweatshops of some kind, but I haven't seen any of it.

    Also, I'm sure there are many angry unemployed US engineers who think they are the smartest thing since Einstein, but are really just one of those intolerably arrogant and combative nerds (of any nationality) that we have all had the misfortune to work with. Blaming H1Bs must be very natural to them when they fume their days away on Slashdot, since there can obviously not be anything wrong with themselves.

  80. Funny anti union story (true) by markwusinich · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I was arguing pro union and the guy in the next cube was anti-union. His argument went like this:

    Him: My wife has to pay something like $50/month to the union out of her own pay, and in return she gets nothing!

    Me: What job does she do?

    Him: She teaches in Upper Darby. (He then went on to rant about how it's worse in Philadelphia)

    Me cutting him off: Why doesn't she work for one of the private schools. She would have a better working environment and would not have to deal with unions.

    Him: But she has to work for the public schools. The private schools don't pay squat.

    At this point, I figured he made my point. But he did not get it. The union, not the public school got her more pay.

    Also the union, not the employer has bosses that the members vote on. If you don't like the way the union is going, then run to become a leader.

    It should also be noted that in many companies where union workers are. The best of the workers quickly become management. Their pay is not tied to the union wage.

    Even if you don't become management there are very few unions that dictate a maximum pay. So if you can argue that you are worth more, argue it and get it.

  81. Re:Indian taking your job? That's because you suck by taxman_10m · · Score: 2

    He's one of those wordly people that think all Indians live in abject poverty.

  82. Re: Ever hear of hubris? by tweek · · Score: 2

    While I wouldn't normally feed a troll, I figure it might be fun for once.

    My tech skills ARE basically irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. I'm simply a cog in a machine. I can be replaced at anytime. I'm fully aware of that. The best I can do is prolong that replacement.

    I will, however, disagree that I make no difference whatsoever to someone else in the world. I make a difference to my family and the family of the girlfriend I have and will marry. I will make a difference to my children. They will make a difference to the people they love and interact with in life. The cycle will continue as long as my family line does. Did my grandfather make a big difference in the world? Nope. He did however marry my grandmother which spawned my parents. I also have an uncle from that same family line who fought in the Gulf War and was a high ranker in the USMC.

    I'm also a valuable member of my local society as someone who not only spends money in his local economy but also does his part in helping the environment by recycling. Again, it's small potatoes but every little bit helps.

    And it seems I've made a contribution in your life as well. I made enough of a point that you felt compelled to respond to it!

    Considering my parent's leech off me (which I don't mind considering I leeched off them for the first 18 years of my life), I don't really see what the last part of your post has to do with anything.

    By the way, I don't post on slashdot often enough to derive any pride. I'm actually not a prideful person at all considering everything I've done in my life. I could probably be even more arrogant but I think I'll just sit here (on my "fat ass" as you call it) and enjoy the fact that I'm happy!

    --
    "Fighting the underpants gnomes since 1998!" "Bruce Schneier knows the state of schroedinger's cat"
  83. Get rid of the H1B program... by Bobzibub · · Score: 2

    Replace it with free labor markets in North and South America!

    If an Irishman can work in 14 other EU countries (perhaps 25 when it is enlarged), why can't we get our crap together and do the same?

    All this BS with government restrictions is wasteful. It creates employment alright: lots and lots of government workers to stamp stamps and push paper and allow politicians to pretend that their citizens are somehow safer. It also keeps families apart, pushes people underground, and enriches the pockets of immigration lawyers.

    The notion that a border makes you safe is preposterous. The notion that a border makes a society rich is silly. Anyone can work & live in any country now with sufficient cash. It is time to free every citizen from his or her borders.

    -b

  84. screw the jobs, THEY'RE STEALING OUR WOMEN!!!! by Kunta+Kinte · · Score: 2

    It's true, most of the H1B's I know have **mad skillz** with the ladies. I don't know if they take classes for that shit over there but man, those guys get laid 5,6, hell 100 times more often than I do.

    And by better looking chicks!

    It seems they're willing to put more effort into getting nookie. And that ain't right.

    There I am putting down some smooth lyrics on a honey, chilling on campus, you know the deal. When out of nowhere this arabian guy drives by with a sup'ed up navigator with oversized chromes.

    oversized fuckin' chromes! How the hell am I suppose to compete with oversized fuckin' chromes!!!

    I'd say to hell with the job market, sharing with a roommate aint bad. As long as he pays the rent and stays out of my room at night ( I still don't buy that sleep walkin' story ). Just keep those guys away from our freakin' women.

    PS.: TechsUnite and the rest of you guys sound as ridiculus as I do.

    --
    Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
  85. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by Naum · · Score: 2

    If IT hiring was a bit more creative, and the IT profession was a bit less "throw the employee away when the technology changes", we probably wouldn't need H1B employees.

    Once, in this country, companies were expected to train their employees to keep their investements up to date. Now, employees are expected to work 60+ hours a week and are supposed to train themselves in their free time. The fruits of this method are just becoming evident; tens of thousands of "obsolete" IT people, and tens of thousands of H1B imports. That's a shitty national policy, something that will derail this country's economy.

    Amen brother.

    It irks me to hear that "We can't find talented programmers" B.S.. Most typically, upon further inspection, it's revealed that the combination of improper and overdone narrowcasting of the postition requirements, "lowest bid" for the spot mentality and other contract arrangements (i.e., very short term, preferred vendor only, etc.) is what truly hampering the candidate search.

    For example, at a recent assignment, a cube neighbor lamented that he was having great difficulty in filling a slot for a GIS programmer. After talking to him for a little bit, it struck me that it wasn't the supply that was in question, but the filtering mechanism employed -- it had to be from vendor X or vendor Y, it was a short 3 month term AND the billing rate offered was below the present market level. Hello, McFly! Another example: I obtained a recent contract term assignment solely on the merit of a networked contact. But my resume did not fit the HR/contract procurement office stipulated qualifications whatsoever. However, my skill set was precisely what the group needed.

    I'm experienced enough to remember the days when most all US IT workers were native and when there was a "shortage", slots were opened up to arduous opportunity seekers from other business areas. They would be tested, weeded out and required to complete a rigirous training course on their own time. The lucky few that passed would be granted an opportunity in Data Processing and get a chance to hone their newly developed coding skills.

    My, how times have changed. First, companies dumped the trainee programs and resorted to importing H1Bs. And now, corporate IT management is ruthlessly dumping existing employees, cutting native contractors and proceeding full force on the H1B importing and offshore relocation of systems support and development. Moreover, I read some glitzy trade journal PR that advises computing professionals to focus on systems architecture or business analysis functions to ensure the blossoming career. What a load of claptap - how the hell does an aspiring programmer become a skilled architect without getting his hands in the nuts and bolts of software construction? I'd say the "building" metaphor has outlived its usefulness.

    --

    AZspot
  86. We did it to ourselves by jafac · · Score: 2

    By not wanting to fix our busted-ass educational system, by prefering instead to spend our collective tax dollars on $400 toilet seats and corporate bailouts and corporate welfare - the US has given nearly all of it's brainpower lead to competing nations - where students have a real drive to succeed, because they see what life is like around them in their native countries, and they'd rather live like Americans. They work hard, and those native countries invested dearly into an educational system. US Students, by comparison seem much more concerned about how they're going to save up for Spring Break (TM) in Daytona Beach.

    It's really no suprise. Has nothing to do with racial superiority or inferiority, and every thing to do with cultural decadence.

    --

    These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
  87. What makes America Great? by gabbarsingh · · Score: 2

    I came to USA on an H1B visa. All Indians and I am sure other immigrant communities are obsessed with the question - "What makes America Great". Most say - "oh they had vast resources to begin with". I contended myself with that for a month until I familiarised myself with the geography and realised that south of Texas everything was in similar shape as India. So that didn't make any sense.

    While in engineering college in India, I read about Steve Jobs, Woznaik, Atkinson, Hewlett, Allen, and yes Gates. (Bill Gates is soon going to get a temple and a denomination amongst Hindu gods). I was amazed by their contempt of authority and yet having the guts to go out on a limb and create great things. These stories of Edison all the way to Carmack were sometimes the only threads from which a true techie could hang his belief.

    I did see the westerns, atleast the popular ones - the spaghetti trio, few John Waynes, Tombstone and even in the age of cable TV, I could not help but be mesmerised by Wyatt Earp and Doc Halliday.

    The Wild West. It all made sense. That is the cornerstone of this Great Country. In the Wild West even a thug could be deputized as long as he had the skills. The undercurrent being a safe place for business, growth, raising family driven by the Protestant Ethic.

    If you read Peter Drucker's book on innovation, the British treated innovators as tradesmen, inline with blacksmiths, cobblers etc. The innovators could never become gentlemen component of the society. And America never cared for that kind of classism. With the Industrial Age fueled by war demands the innovators and scientists (including, Oppenheimer, Rutherford, Einstein) found home in USA. Why? They were the fastest guns in their business and they were deputized to take care of the situation.

    America wants, America gets, not because it snatches from others, but because it guarantees respect and freedom. I'd actually call it - willing to cut a fair deal. Are H1Bs the fastest guns? Are Mexican immigrants the best gardners, mechanics, Taco Bell cashiers? I don't know. But to kill a deer you don't need an assault rifle.

    I think it is wrong of H1Bs to expect getting a green card or any other residency, employment guarantees. Certainly the H1B program is rife with abuse. People get their relatives in by forging their credentials, people are harassed to work in bad conditions (low pay, no benefits, ethnic abuse - caste etc bullshit). This program needs a hard look and reform. There is a need to get the brilliant people to USA and address labor shortage. If the problem goes away, so should any non-contributing components. No point keeping the 'gcc-build' directory around after a successful 'make install'. Fair deal.

  88. Because... by halfelven · · Score: 2

    ...if you're on an H1B and you want to switch jobs, you basically have to get another H1B.
    That kind of visa cannot be transferred from one company to another. Go to a different company, and you loose your current H1B, so you must apply for another one.
    If approved, this proposal will increase enormously the pressure on the H1B holders. In a nutshell, it's going to make them slaves to their current employer.
    The cap, if any, should be put on H1B visas offered to people who are not already H1B owners.

  89. Geeks getting money's worth by release7 · · Score: 2
    The geeks don't pay one red cent in union dues but here's the AFL-CIO, an international organization made up of union members, going to bat for their apolitical asses.


    And this despite the fact there is constant union bashing going in these /. forums. It's a real shame that unions are probably one of the most misunderstood disparaged institutions in a America because they have done the most to raise the standard of living not just for union members, but for working people everywhere.


    Do you like vacations?
    Sick time?
    Overtime?
    Family Medical Leave?
    Pension funds?
    Health coverage?


    All this and other good work benefits are all thanks to working people who stood up, spoke out, and demanded better compensation for their hard work. Sadly, as the strength of unions decline, we see a correpsonding decline in all of these benefits.


    And geeks, don't be foolish enough to believe it can't happen to you because you're smart or your job is somehow different that "blue collar" jobs. That's just elitist bullshit. There's no doubt your own self-interest is best served by joining with others who share your concerns. Get political and get engaged!

    --

    <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

  90. Good point by halfelven · · Score: 2

    The proposal is way too much biased towards "academic credentials = talented people".
    There are many people who are extremely skilled, and yet they sometimes don't even have a BS.
    At most, if any, the requirement should say "must have a college degree", but don't limit it to "if you work in IT, you must have a degree in computer science".

  91. Thanks for the link to the Programmers Guild by Idou · · Score: 2

    Looks like things are progressing more quickly than I thought.

    Interesting that they are against software patents, and they attribute Microsoft behind the push for more H1B visas:

    "The 2000 election results contained some big victories for the programming profession. The "Senator from Microsoft" Slade Gorton and Rep. James Rogan, both big supporters of replacing American programmers with foreign guest workers, were defeated."

    I am seriously considering becoming a member . . .

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  92. Re:Bout time send them all back by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2

    Since you served in the military I'll give you some forgiveness due to your almost certain lack of forbrain capacity but this still must be asked:

    Are you ready for the price of everything to go up?
    Are you ready for the US to fall behind in engineering because we cannot hire the foreign talent that we need?
    Are you honset with yourself about the fact that US IT professionals are piss poor compared to just about everyone around the world and that without foreign scientific talent the US would not be where it is today?

    Just a few questions.

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  93. Re:How not to be taken seriously by NDPTAL85 · · Score: 2

    Was the name of the book Fools something? A SCI-FI book about AI's that were using human bodies to exist in the real world?

    --
    Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
  94. Why open source is essential to this by Idou · · Score: 2

    What if lawyers were only expected to be trained in logic, debate, and reading skills. How about accountants only trained in math, problem solving, and reading skills? Without training of VERY specific and technical skills, the profession does not exist and can easily be replaced with a general degree, in which case you lose the benefits of the profession. Certification MUST be specific to a certain skill set so that the profession remains pure and companies will know what they are paying for. That is why a standard set of tools must exist (Common Law, GAAP, and, perhaps, LAMP, for CPSE).

    The only reason this hasn't happened yet is due to MS's control over the computer industry. The most "useful" technical skill you cant test for is built on a standard controlled by MS. MS is 100% for infinite H1b visas because it means lower TCO for their software.

    With out Open Standards (Open Source), CPSE will never exist. Closed (asymetrically controllable) standards is the only difference between techies and well payed/employed lawyers and accountants.
    This doesn't mean that all tools of CPSE's should only be Open Source, but you would only be able to certify the Open Source ones.

    --
    Sdelat' Ameriku velikoy Snova!
  95. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2
    I learned very quickly that if I were to apply the same criteria as a the ones I used to use 'back home', most of the candidates failed miserably.

    That statement is utterly meaningless. What are your criteria? "Must recall basic details of functional programming" is one thing, but "was able to answer the question in my country's native tongue" is entirely different. By what criteria are we Americans so poorly qualified?

    Go ahead and explain this. If you're willing to generalize us as "having 'enjoyed' a low standard mathematical education", then be prepared to back up your assertion.

    --
    Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  96. The proposal does not address the problem by njdj · · Score: 2

    This proposal does not address the problem. Instead it takes the typical union approach of trying to fix wages, combined with a populist "bash the foreigners because they're to blame". For example:

    Laid-off H-1B workers must return to their country of origin within 60 days of their unemployment

    Typical screw-the-foreigners mentality: what about the H1B worker who's bought a house? You can't usually sell a house in 60 days.

    The real problem is simple. It's that companies are allowed to bring in H1Bs when there are already more workers than jobs - as now. With the tech job market the way it is today, the H1B quota should be zero.

    A country has the right to limit the number of immigrants. But it does not have a natural right to let people in, then treat them like shit. Of course the INS already does that, but the AFL-CIO proposal seeks to make it even worse.

  97. Political Power for American Software Developers by nero_thefiddle_playe · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The real problem is that American Software Developers have no political say. The inventors of the H1-B program the ITAA make tremendous campaign contrubutions to the sponsors of their program. Faced with this threat it is clear that American IT workers need to have political power ,as other occupations do, but how to get there. Unions represent blue collar workers well but there are problems with wage standards, corruption. Doctors are represented by the AMA, Lawyers by the American Trial Laywer association, etc. Currently there is the Programmers Guild, ( www.programmersguild.org ) a potential political source of representation in the future. Today however the AFL-CIO has tremendous political power. Upon pulication of this memo many represenatives are finally given a truthful explanation of the H1-B program as opposed to the propaganda industry has painted for years. The H1-B program is destructive to the American economy. It is well known that more qualified Americans are being bypassed because of cost not skills. 750,000 American IT workers have been displaced by this program. At an average wage of $60,000/yr the American economy has taken a hit of 45 billion dollars taken out of the consumers hands. The head economist at Morgan Stanley Steven Roach has commented that cheap labor from China and India is the number one threat to the U.S. economy today. Another point is H1-B's and outsourcing are not mutually exclusive. A large number of H1-B's are facilitators for outsourcing. They work a few months in the U.S. learning the sytem in question then return to their home countries to continue the work. In sheer numbers of American IT workers displaced the H1-B program is on a factor of several to one over outsourcing.

  98. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by DrCode · · Score: 2

    Funny. The company that just hired me asked me that question in an interview (and, obviously, I was able to do it easily).

    But during the 4 preceding months, I applied to over 50 jobs, and only got one phone interview (which didn't ask any technical questions). Being a C/C++ programmer with > 12 years experience, and also being a highly active open-source developer, I was more than a little frustrated.

  99. Idiots. by Axe · · Score: 2

    Any government sunctioned restriction on competition has been proven detremental in the long run.
    Instead of getting all those jobs nasty foreigners got, work will be farmed out of the country altogether, growth will stagnate, and american professionals will end up with less jobs.
    If you want improvement - kick out all that Mexican freeloaders on welfare. But we can not - because of the latino vote.
    Stupid.

    --
    <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
    1. Re:Idiots. by Axe · · Score: 2

      You either missed my point, or was too emotional to get it.
      Hiring a highly educated worker creates more middle class jobs in the economy, then it takes away. H1B are, usually, a healthy middle class. They pay taxes to U.S. government, unlike overseas contractors.
      Shipping work overseas, which will inevitably happen due to competitive pressure, destroys middle class jobs. Income gap is getting wider.
      Preserving a healthy middle class is exactly my concern.

      --
      <^>_<(ô ô)>_<^>
  100. Myth: Unions = no merit pay by TechsUnite · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A number of postings here make reference to unions basing compensation solely on seniority, no reward for merit, etc. So why would any techie worth his or her salt want to get roped into that BS, and get paid the same as some lame non-performer with half the talent?

    Good question. Answer: When you bargain collectively as part of a union, you negotiate over the issues that you care about. If you don't want seniority-based wage ladders, you don't propose them! Simple as that. Union contracts can, and often do, include provisions for merit pay. In those cases, they establish base minimums for various categories. In many white collar unions, such as the Newspaper Guild, many union members earn merit pay well above the negotiated base for their job title.

    It's also not true that union contracts prevent non-performing employees from getting fired. If you are not, or cannot, do the job you were hired to do, you can get fired from a union job like any other. The difference is, the firing will not be random or capricious, or based on the fact that some manager does not like you. Your contract will, or should, outline a negotiated process for discpline or terminations. Any firing will therefore come as the result of a process that documents your non-peformance, and in which you can appeal or contest any unsubstantiated allegations about your performance -- not out of the blue.

    Same with layoffs -- and layoff notice.

  101. Racist gibberish moderated as insightful by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is the last refuge of a beaten culture. To characterize all Indian engineers as being "dumb" (which you were indirectly doing, just admit it), is ridiculous, wrong, and ignorant.

    Look around major tech companies and you will see people from all over the world holding various positions. Some are smart. Some aren't. By the same token, presuming that all American programmers are intelligent is equally inane. The fact that this gibberish was moderated up just shows you how ignorant and reflexive the users here are .

    1. Re:Racist gibberish moderated as insightful by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      If that were true that he would be complaining about all immigrants, not just a subset of them from a particular culture.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    2. Re:Racist gibberish moderated as insightful by composer777 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with what you have said. It also begs the question,"Who beat us?". Some might say that the Indians have won, but a quick trip to India will tell you that many of them are living in poverty and have a lower standard of living than average Americans(to say the least), so if we use the definition of average living standard as a measure of success, then clearly this is not the case. My answer is that the ones that are winning are the top 1% of the US population, which owns these businesses and is able to shift the balance of the market to their advantage. In the process, India and other countries are getting robbed of their best and brightest and American engineers are forced to compete with them. What all people of the world need to be reminded of is who the real enemy is. It is those who seek to tilt the "free" market (which upon close examination isn't free at all) in their favor, at the expense of the rest of us. The current theme of globalization seeks to do nothing more than drive the wages of US citizens and all people in the world down to the lowest levels. One might argue that the elite members of US society are shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their ability to maximize profits. One only holds this naive view if he believes that profits are what a billionaire is really after. Once you get to that level, profits are only part of the equation. If one has to give up profits for a few years in order to consolidate power and wealth, then this is seen as a small price to pay. An example of this is when Microsoft gave IE away for free in order to drive netscape out of business. It happens all the time. So, it's a shell game being played against the rest of us, for the remaining bit of wealth that we do have. If we keep going in the direction that we are, we may quickly find ourselves in a society where the majority of people do not own land or any appreciable wealth of any kind and are relegated to a kind of wage slavery. In fact, I would say in the US, with the majority of homeowners over-leveraging their mortgages, we are quickly approaching that day, if not already there.

    3. Re:Racist gibberish moderated as insightful by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      only speaking from my personal experience with the ones I've worked with....This is also the response I've gotten from many of the other people I've worked with at other jobs/contracts, and on a number of IT related email lists I've been on.

      As it happens, I've found that some of the best CS students at Carngie Mellon University are Indians. I spent last summer living with a bunch of Indians (I'm not Indian).

      Aside from a peculiar affinity for a particularly awful game called cricket ( :-) ) and a love for boy-meets-girl, family-of-girl-doesn't-like-boy, boy-gets-girl movies, I've been pretty impressed with Indian techies.

    4. Re:Racist gibberish moderated as insightful by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      Except that said immigrants are the greatest threat, currently.

      Britain went through an I-hate-damn-wogs phase too, because Indian immigrants were outcompeting lots of British workers. Same for Germany. It went away eventually.

      People dangerous to another will always breed hatred.

    5. Re:Racist gibberish moderated as insightful by jedidiah · · Score: 2

      They're NOT immigrants, they're indentured scabs.

      A man can hate a scab for being a scab without being a racist.

      You're allowing some politically correct knee-jerk reaction to cloud your judgement.

      This scab system very likely creates a situation that causes scum to rise to the top. Kinda like politics.

      My personal experience with Indians that are actual immigrants (or decendents thereof) has been remarkably better than my experience with the H1Bs.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  102. The knife cuts both ways! Deal with it by Ars-Fartsica · · Score: 4, Insightful
    No one in the US complained about trade when the first world powers were exploiting cheap labor for huge windfalls. Now that these nations have bootstrapped themselves and are taking ownership of their own labor, Americans cry protectionism.

    Money knows no borders. Deal! If you think the wealthy feel a special affinity for you because you were born in the same country as them, forget it! You are simply naive. These people control the government so you can forget about Uncle Sam bailing you out. Why do you think free trade is at the top of every Federal agenda for the last two decades regardless of the plight of American workers????

  103. Re:Bout time send them all back by codepunk · · Score: 2

    So lets throw the shoe on the other foot, how about I go to germany and take your brothers programming job. See how that works????

    --


    Got Code?
  104. 100% Agree by Featureless · · Score: 2

    I don't see the benefit in having folks come and visit for a few years, undercut the locals in the job market (slighlty or moderately), and then split, taking their expertise back to whever they came from. It's wrong in every possible way.

    I figure we want these guys to stay here just as much as they want it. The alternative is that they return home to populate the 3rd world economy they came from with competition that doesn't get paid in dollars.

    If Ford makes a car overseas, (in the theoretical, alternate universe where big business still pays taxes, that has little relationship with reality anymore) they have to pay a "tariff" to bring it back into the country in order to drive it or sell it here.

    The problem with software is that there's no there there. There's nothing to tax - it's a bunch of bits of indeterminate value. Poof. And even if you tried to tax it, electronic "smuggling" is so easy we wouldn't even dignify it with that term.

    Add to that the fact that the communication and quality problems with foreign work that everybody whines about are about 50% veiled racism, 45% exaggeration of special-cases, and 5% truth. What will you get? The domestic software industry of the first world has no future. Period. It's just too easy and too cheap not to go to India. And everyone already is. Perhaps many American programmers will as well - if you don't mind the weather, at least you can live more comfortably there on what the work is worth.

    The only thing forestalling that is actually the reverse of what everyone is claiming - a shortage of skilled workers outside the United States. It won't last, of course... and especially not with the H1-B program exporting so many talented folks back to their homes.

    I think the interest of the American technology worker lies with the mythical "brain drain" of America - sucking in the best and the brightest from elsewhere in the world, and actually keeping them here.

    Or let me put it another way: would you rather compete with new immigrant workers who will undercut you by 10-20%? Or foreign firms who will undercut you by 75%?

  105. Let's cry "racism!" by nurightshu · · Score: 2

    Or in other words it is based on the idea that non-Americans aren't people.

    Actually, it's based on the idea that a nation's first duty ought to be the enrichment of its citizenry first, before dispensing its benefice upon the citizens of other nations[1]. I don't see a Bangladeshi, a Nigerian, or a Swede as a non-human. However, that said, I would choose to improve an American's quality of life before I'd improve theirs. I'd also hope that the Bangladeshi, the Nigerian, and the Swede would look to their fellow countrymen first were they in the same hypothetical position in which I just put myself. It's one of the responsibilities of being a citizen of a nation-state that you work to raise your fellow citizens to a higher quality of life.

    It seems to be en vogue of late to trounce every American for being racist, isolationist (if we don't get involved in a Third World pissing contest), or imperialist (if we do). Fact is, though, we're just a powerhouse nation[2] -- vid. all the H1B and other immigrants who are looking to come here -- and we try to do the best we can. We screw up sometimes, but people seem to be more willing to attribute the screw-ups to malice than incompetence (to steal the oft-repeated quote).

    I don't have anything against H1B workers; I do have something against a hiring system that gives them preferential treatment over equally-qualified Americans. To be sure, if Americans were to enter another country's labor pool en masse, I get the feeling that many of the readers on this website would say, "This is nothing less than an invasion! You bad old Americans should just go home -- Paraguayan jobs are for Paraguayan workers!"

    --||--

    [1]. Please note that I'm not saying that government should be handing out livelihoods to the people. I'm speaking in the ever-popular vague generalization mode.

    [2]. I said a powerhouse, not the powerhouse. Take a deep breath and relax -- you're a powerhouse too, Upper Revolta.

    --
    They that would sacrifice their .sig space for that cliched Franklin quote deserve neither.
  106. from the H1-b's mouth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As a "guest" H1-b employee, I feel there is a need to dispel a few misperceptions.

    * All H1-b workers are not paid just 30K a year. I for one, am paid more than twice that amount. And remember, even we pay taxes and falling in the 20+ % tax bracket, we do contribute significant amounts of revenue to the state.

    * Sure there are cases where some under-qualified workers sneak in but most are well qualified, many with advanced degrees (sometimes from US universities). And then nothing prevents a company from firing an incompetent (or under qualified) worker. So it should be the prerogative of the company to decide what is the right qualification and not that of the INS.

    * Speaking for the typical Indian H1-b, our english skills are good enough to communicate well with co-workers and with the society in general. Believe me, many of these engineers would have read more english literature than the average American.

    * And all this comes at a huge cost to the native country in terms of brain drain and tax revenue. The Economist in a recent survey on Migration
    ( http://www.economist.com/surveys/showsurvey.cfm?is sue=20021102 ) says -- "Not only does emigration deplete a country's intellectual capital and energy, it undermines the tax base too. A recent study of the fiscal impact of India's brain drain to America, by Mihir Desai of Harvard University and two colleagues, found that the very best people were most likely to leave. There were 1m Indians living in the United States in 2001, and more than three-quarters of those of working age had a bachelor's degree or better. The earnings in the United States of a group that adds up to 0.1% of India's population are equivalent to an astonishing 10% of India's national income. The net fiscal cost to India of losing these prime taxpayers, say the authors, was 0.24-0.58% of GDP in 2002. "

    * Movement of labour is one of the effects of a globalising world. Whether it is through "body shopping" or "Out-sourcing", work will move to people who can provide it for a lesser cost. We better get used to the idea.

  107. Re:Globalization: GET USED TO IT. by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    H1B's are NOT immigrants. They are indentured servants. This issue has NOTHING whatsoever to do with immigration.

    REAL immigrants are at no handicap when it comes to negotiating raises and fleeing abusive employers.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  108. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by t0qer · · Score: 2

    I'm going to ask you a straight question, I hope you refresh your slashdot page soon enough to hit me back with a reply.

    Do you want to become an american citizen? Because America the meltin pot is what USED to make us great.

    True, we have a lot of terrible talent in our country, but since the days of "green card" labor we have allowed ourselves to say "It's cool to devaluate humans"

    Basically, a green card, or H1B visa is wrong on so many different levels if you are an american with a biased opinion. I doubt you would speak with a harsh tone in your voice if you had citizenship.

    It doesn't work like that! you don't deserve the job.

    So you don't deserve a right to become United states citizen, yet you welcome us to pay you a measly severance, with no benifits simply because you see an oppertunity to make money? Bub, you got no Social Security checks coming to you, you can't vote on policies or new laws. You can't help elect officials by vote, or participate in our judicial systems of jury trials.

    Yeah, we did this 200 years ago, Americans used to crate large sailing ships full of Africans. When they got here they had no rights either. They couldn't participate because they were property, 0wn3d if you will. Eventually we figured out that it was bad to attatch a peice of paper that announced 0w3rship over another human and those bad things we used to do stopped.

    But now, instead of having slaves with no human rights and no citizen rights, we have slaves with no citizen rights. Still think H1-B is great?
    Again, you cannot vote, you can be deported in a blink of an eye (good luck finding a job if you get canned) You are living a lie by telling yourself this is a good thing. Quit deluding yourself into thinking it's anything but that.

    Basically you are a foriegn letch on our system. You take up space yet you don't contribute to the american way of life. If everyone in america was H1-B basically all occupants (since they are not citizens) would lose all rights to the very democratic system that grants us our freedoms to vote and such as americans. Pretty fucked deal if you ask me.

    On top of that, you still recieve benifits from your country of origin. Last time I checked canada has a pretty rocking health care system.

    I don't believe what you said about underqualified american canidates. I live in silicon valley. Stanford, San Jose State, USF, and despite rumors of being dead Berkley has the highest concentration of computer geeks in the world. Despite what you say about there not being enough canidates, I can point you to at least 5 guys that could explain the difference between an abstract base class and a regular class that can't even get a fucking job at Albertsons bagging groceries. Any drive up the 101 will show you all the empty office space.

    Yeah, I've worked with a few Canadians. Definetly some of the smartest people I ever knew. But don't go fooling yourself into thinking H1-B is good for america because it's not. Personally i'd rather have you naturlized as an American than being corporate equivelent of a disposable slave.

  109. Silly question by Guppy06 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Something about out-sourcing jobs to foreign labor has been bugging me for quite a while now, and it seems obvious enough to me that I'm wondering why nobody else is thinking along these lines.

    Mattel in recent years closed down a number of US factories and moved most of its manufacturing to Asia. In laying off the US laborers, they have effectively eliminated several thousand (potential) customers. Their employees no longer have a job and can't afford to purchase Barbie's Malibu Beach House. Even if they do get new jobs elsewhere, they'll probably avoid Mattel products out of spite.

    So then we go look at the new Asian labor. They're paid a small fraction of Mattel's former employees, and the price of Barbie's Malibu Beach House resembles what each one makes in a month. Suffice to say that these new laborers are a long way off from being potential Mattel customers.

    So while Mattel's labor costs have gone down, they've also trimmed their potential customer base. They could try to compensate for the loss of sales by passing on their savings labor costs on to the customers, but then they'll end up with no net gain in profit. And this doesn't even begin to figure in loss of sales due to bad press from laying off so many US workers to begin with.

    How does this help Mattel? Even Henry Ford knew enough to pay his laborers enough to afford their own Model Ts.

  110. You can't find the real numbers, it's a guess by zogger · · Score: 4, Insightful

    --coupla things about official and corporate statistics the past few years.

    First one is, the "official" unemployment stats do NOT include people who are long term unemployed and have dropped off the unemployment insurance rolls. Just this week, on january first, 780,000-3/4 of a MILLION people, bill paying, mortgage note paying, credit card holding and paying people, people who shopped locally, spent money in stores around their neighborhoods, maybe trying to put their kids through school, etc, GONE off the stats, US workers off their last incomes, those unemployment checks which were already much smaller than their "normal" pay. But officially now, those numbers aren't totalled into the 6%. They are now the economic "dissapeareds". They are gone, not counted. And the numbers also don't include people still working but in a severely reduced pay scale job and/or at much less hours a week, the term used is the "chronically underemployed".

    My best guess is, and I've seen some pundits mirror this, is that *true* unemployment in the US right now is actually almost double the official stats, call it 10% to be conservative. The US lost roughly 2 million jobs last year, that's after factoring replacement (and mostly lowerpaying) jobs, and there's a lot more coming, see the other post on the thread the lost jobs in milwaukee. And this isn't just dotcom boom years jobs, a lot of these are jobs in manufacturing that existed for generations in areas, reguylar oldsolid blue collar jobs for 'stuff" everyone still needsand wants, not buggywhips.

    If you follow the news the past year, almost daily you can find layoffs or firings or whole factories relocating offshore, it's running dozens to one on "new" factory announcements. It is literally an economic hemorrahge, to revisit the balance of trade deficit point I made earlier.

    One "quality of life" measurement-the basic consumer price index- had energy costs and food costs removed from the tally to make the numbers "look" better a few years ago. If one was to re-calculate this, it wouldn't look as rosy generally speaking.

    Your neighbor losing his job is a recession, anyone "you" losing their job is a depression, with all the ramifications of that.

  111. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by Rimbo · · Score: 2

    Actually, what makes the USA special is that immigrants DO want to come, regardless of whether or not someone will hire them, simply because of the American Dream. An attack on America is an attack on the rest of the world, because we -are- the rest of the world -- there are no "native Americans" except for the true native Americans, who themselves just happened to be the first immigrants.

    The USA represents people of every nation in the world. And as the face of the world changes, the demographics of the USA change.

    We citizens of the USA are responsible, in my opinion, for jealously guarding that dream as much as possible, to ensure that it is available to others. When I discuss politics with anyone about anything, this is my goal: To defend the liberties and freedoms that give people opportunities here at home, and to support actions abroad that will encourage the same to occur elsewhere. These liberties are those that we put in the Bill of Rights, keeping markets competitive so that there are new opportunities, and most importantly, allowing as many people who want to immigrate to this country to immigrate as is possible.

    Right now, we're too quick to give up freedoms for illusory security, too quick to restructure regulation in ways that preserve the status quo, and dishonest with ourselves about our purely racist intentions when we restrict immigration even further.

    In other words, we the citizens on the whole are far too interested in jealously defending our short-term gains at the expense of long-term benefits. Yeah, supporting that dictator might help us now, but what happens when he starts using the weapons we gave him to attack us? Yeah, you might save your job today, but you're going to hurt the economy in the long run, and then when you get laid off five years later, and your kids graduating college can't get jobs, and everything gets more expensive while wages go down, you realize you'd only delayed the inevitable, and in fact made the future worse.

    yup

    buy now pay later does not work folks

  112. Re:Let's cry "nationalism!" by Gorimek · · Score: 2

    Yeah, I understand the idea, I just don't share it. I hope people do well wherever they are and whatever nation they're citizens of. I give my friends preferiential, but beyond that, I don't know why I should favor some fellow national I've never met over a foreigner I've never met. Were I to choose whose quality of life to improve, I would chose whoever I thought needed or deserved it most, regardless.

    And in this instance when some of the highest paid groups in the richest nation in history are crying over losing some fraction of their wealth to the much much poorer, I just find it appaingly greedy.

    Not that my fellow Swedes are any better at these things even though they talk more about it. It's the same mentality there and here. And I oppose it on both sides.

    If you think H1Bs are given a preferential treatment over Americans you are very mistaken. Being on H1B is a fairly big handicap when job hunting. I know, I've done it several times. Half the companies won't even talk to you.

    And yeah, people will complain over America, justly and unjustly. You're the ruler of the planet, the richest and most powerful nation in history. Complaints from the less fortunate comes with the territory. Just try to not whine about it, it really doesn't look good from the outside.

  113. Wow ... by SuperDuG · · Score: 3, Insightful
    So I'm reading the +2 and above posts from highest to lowest threaded. (so you know where I'm coming from here)

    So why don't we make just bomb the hell out of the countries that jobs are outsourced to, close our borders, and purify our nation once again.

    You are all sounding a little too much like some other not so popular websites. If you suck at your job or someone can do it cheaper or better, then you're not going to keep your job. Blame whoever you want to, ever think maybe it was YOU who was YOUR problem?

    --
    Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
  114. yes and no by zogger · · Score: 2

    --yes and no. We never had a full equal free and fair trade in the auto industry with japan. go back and revisit what the hoops where to import US cars into japan, and also check the tariff levels. also, check the laws as pertaining to ownership of real property in japan, and then the US. US people don't "own" property in japan, it's illegal. There's never been a quid pro quo.

    As to whether or not this is a good thing, here's a test, actually find some US workers who havelost their non-buggywhip jobs to having them shipped overseas or replaced by 'guest workers". Stare them in the eyes, tell them you don'tcare, tell them they didn'twork hard enough or smart enough and it'sall their fault. Tell them you don'tcare if they lose their equity, or if they lose their cars, because 'oh well, it'll all sort itself out eventuallylike in the olden days". Honest, just try it, take it beyond academic posting on a forum.

    I'm a blue collar guy, it's-this scam globalization deal- "hit" me several times in a row now. I will assure you once it leaves the realm of interesting academic discourse, it changes your viewpoint tremendously.And I'll agree with you, I see just as much hypocrisy in the middle classes as in any other "class'. clueless, no idea how their buying habits will effect them down the road. most people I know can tell you almost every player on their favorite "sports" team, but cannot tell you the name of their representative. Everyone is waiting for this "they" guy to "fix things", deal is, there is no "they" guy, they is us.

    One person can make a difference, when they try. One of the ways I personally try is by posting on the internet, where perhaps some important information may be discussed. Not a lot but it helps. Along with all my other activism, I see it as at least an attempt, best I can do now. It's reality, I don't want to see the US reduced to second world technofeudalism, it's really that simple. The current people here can't wait 50 years for 'things to sort themselves out", if they even do then, which I doubt. My personal belief at this time is this is a controlled implosion of the US economy for a long range political agenda, but that really is another topic and is quite complex.

    p.s. just an anecdotal, means absolutely nothing really, but for grins, I own a 75 chevy van, got over 300 thou miles, it don't smoke, original engine and tranny. I change my oil a lot, that's it. It's reliable enough. I also have a chevy car and a dodge framed RV, all still work just fine. girlfriend owns the jeep, that works fine too. So I guess we at least "try". I'd love to buy an all USA made computer, wouldn't bother me a bit my money went to US workers even if it cost more, deal is, can't buy one, they don't exist. Only thing I can do is every opportunity to try and not be a hypocrite, I do this to the best of my ability.

    1. Re:yes and no by sql*kitten · · Score: 2

      As to whether or not this is a good thing, here's a test, actually find some US workers who havelost their non-buggywhip jobs to having them shipped overseas or replaced by 'guest workers". Stare them in the eyes, tell them you don'tcare, tell them they didn'twork hard enough or smart enough and it'sall their fault. Tell them you don'tcare if they lose their equity, or if they lose their cars, because 'oh well, it'll all sort itself out eventuallylike in the olden days". Honest, just try it, take it beyond academic posting on a forum.

      Yeah, on a personal level it sucks. I've been laid off (altho' not because the job was shipped overseas) and I know plenty of people that have been laid off too. With one exception, they all found jobs again easily, within days or weeks usually, those that wanted to that is (some went back to school, traveling etc). There will always be a place for the talented.

      So I guess we at least "try". I'd love to buy an all USA made computer, wouldn't bother me a bit my money went to US workers even if it cost more, deal is, can't buy one, they don't exist.

      I know what you mean. There are some things I always buy British like Hi fi, pork sausages and suits. But I wouldn't buy a product purely because it was British, if its quality couldn't compete with imports. Too many Western firms grew complacent and let the price creep up and the quality down. The US auto manufacturers are a perfect example of this.

  115. Re:Why unions are going to bat for the techies by release7 · · Score: 2

    Interesting point about this program expanding into the nursing profession. You hear a lot how nurses are in short supply. Have you heard of a push on the part of the health care industry to push this through?

    --

    <a href="http://www.joblessjimmy.com">Work is dumb and so is Jobless Jimmy.</a>

  116. Free educations vs. Americans with loans to pay by aquarian · · Score: 2

    For all the talk about hardship and obstacles in countries like India and China, these workers have one big advantage over Americans -- no bills! These people may come from the poorest backgrounds, but if they do manage to do well in school, they usually get free educations.

    Americans, with very few exceptions, have to mortgage their souls for 10-20 years to get an education. They graduate college with a mountain of debt. They simply can't afford to compete with foreign graduates who are debt free, and maybe don't have to worry about saving for retirement, either. It's like poor kids from Harlem trying to compete with trust fund brats for Wall St. jobs -- even if they have the ability and education, they're screwed because they can't afford to tread water in NY, with so many bills to pay. H1-B workers have to pay the same Silicon Valley rents that native workers do. But there's much more that's keeping their boats afloat...

  117. Re:Econ 101 by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    Cheaper labor is not bad for the American economy, it's obviously good.

    That is the antithesis of capitalism. The central tenant in a capitalistic society is the increase in worker productivity that comes form the investment in the production process. If workers are cheap there is no incentive to invest, and the economy stagnates.

    It seems to me that countries with large ammounts of cheap labor are the countries with the worst economies. Countries with expensive labor are the countries with the best economies.

    What is good for an economy is a worker who is productive, i.e. somebody who produces goods cheaply. The worker can be quite expensive so long as the productivity is high. That is very different from cheap labor.

    The great advances in economies come when there are major advances in worker productivity through some technological advance or investment of capital. These times of increasing productivity are often triggered by labor shortages.

    The classic example was the change and improvement in the status of peasents immediately following the Black Death in Europe. The plague obviously led to a large shortage of labor; this led to a great increase in the status of the worker because of the shortage of and increased expense of labor.

    http://www.planetpapers.com/Assets/1682.php

    If the H1B program's primary effect is to keep wages down in the US it should be scrapped immediately because it will have an extremely negative effect in the long term growth of worker productivity.

  118. Don't drink the AFL-CIO's Kool-Aid! by aquarian · · Score: 2

    Just like the Moonies and other predatory groups swooped in to take advantage of the nation's wayward youth in the 60s, the AFL-CIO has had its sights on disillusioned tech workers for years. They made a grab for displaced aerospace workers in the 80s, and they're moving in on IT workers now. They'd love to have a piece of every IT worker's (substantial) paycheck. Please, don't drink their Kool-Aid.

  119. Slashdot quote of the week! by aquarian · · Score: 2

    Remeber, the truth is in you. Whoever innovate wins go fuck the prom queen. Losers go under the food chain. That's exactly how the economy should work, right ?

    That's the best Asian English I've heard all week! And a point well taken!

  120. Re:H1B, welfare checks, and colonialism by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2

    poor conditions in "third world" countries (as many of you have described them) are largely the effect of colonialism.

    That is a long discredited Marxist theory. The fact is that many of the world's strongest economies (US, Australia, Canada, Taiwan, Malaysia, Chile, etc.) are former colonies.

  121. Nonsense, you'd have a job regardless... by aquarian · · Score: 2

    You have nothing to worry about. It doesn't matter if you don't have "computer science" anywhere on your resume. The shakers and movers in most tech organizations don't, more often than not. This has been true since the beginning of the tech boom, and it's still true today.

    A friend of mine works for a big government contractor, programming sattelites. Neither he, nor anyone else his dept. has hired in the last 5 years, has a CS degree or credential of any kind. Most of them have backgrounds like yours.

    What's most important is a demonstrated ability in the area of concern, and demonstrated ability to think creatively in technical/science work in general. Having *some* kind of science/technical degree in this area is part of that, but it needn't be CS. Good technical minds can be made into good programmers very easily.

  122. Death Spiral by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me that something like the H1-B visa program is putting technological education and eventually competitiveness in the US into a situation where severe long term damage to the economy is very likely.

    If US companies are successful in using the H1-B program to alleviate wage pressure and shortages in technical jobs, there will be little or no financial incentive for US students to study engineering - short careers and pay not much different from mechanical trades is not going to attract top candidates to a difficult field of study.

    The result will be fewer graduates - and with fewer students, the institutions capabable of graduating people with these skills will decay as well. This will exacerbate the skill shortage, and trigger additional demands for more such H1-B workers. The infrastructure to support the education of these candidates in their countries of origin will correspondingly flourish. These educational institutions will be fertile grounds for great new advances in technology while the decaying US institutions will not be able to respond in kind.

    There is a great flaw in letting short term band-aids like the H1-B program drive a nation's policies - short term fixes are merely treating the symptoms.

  123. Oh, the delicious irony by BluedemonX · · Score: 2

    Your job could technically be done anywhere. Even the ten miles away from your home, thanks to the magic of the Internet. However, no, they won't let you work from home, even though you technically could....

    HOWEVER

    Given that your job could be done anywhere, they have no problem with sending it 3,000 miles away thanks to the magic of the Internet.

    --

    --- Jump!! Fire!! Bullet time!! - Lego version of the Matrix
  124. Re:There *ISN'T* native talent out there right now by Skapare · · Score: 2

    There are plenty of unqualified people for every qualified person here. I'm sure there are in Canada, too. Post a job opening and see what you get. Run interviews and see how many people are qualified. Most aren't, for sure.

    But ... there are plenty who are qualified, yet they can't find work, either. The big reason is they have families, car loans, mortgages, and soon kids going off the college (with a higher probability than average of going into a tech field). That means they need a decent salary. But the corporations are trying to cut costs, and the easiest target to cut is people.

    In some specialized fields there are genuine shortages of people that simply doubling salaries won't fix. Bringing them in from another country where they can be found is one solution. Someone from Canada is probably not going to be here cheap, but someone from India probably is ... just look at the costs back home they will be looking at when they return in 3-6 years.

    My question to you is, are you here for the short term (3-6 years on H-1B) or are you here to hopefully stay here if you can get the paperwork put through? If you're here to stay, they I say a big welcome. That's why I think we should scrap the H-1B program altogether and replace it with a special expedited green card for special cases, where the INS has to process them ahead of everything else (but why they have a 2 years backlog seems totally insane to me ... if they don't want to let them have a green card, just deny it within 3 months and move on).

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
  125. Give Linus American Citizenship! by Skapare · · Score: 2

    I'm sure he won't really want it. But still, the offer should be there. People that good should be let in permanently as citizens. Those that decide to take it will be welcome. And they can shop around for the best jobs, too ... once the economy rebounds, whenever that might be.

    --
    now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    1. Re:Give Linus American Citizenship! by Skapare · · Score: 2

      If you are genuinely qualified to work here in highly technical and specialized jobs for which there is a true shortage of people here, then not only should you be able to get in, but you should be eligible for a permanent residency in short order (6 months at most), and on track for citizenship within 4 years ... IMHO. But it seems at least 2/3 of H-1B people won't qualify from what I hear.

      --
      now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
    2. Re:Give Linus American Citizenship! by minard · · Score: 2, Informative

      That would be nice. As it is, the INS takes 4 months to acknowledge receipt of paperwork. With the additional "security measures" now in place (my quotes reflect my skepticism that there is any useful security involved) processing times are getting longer and longer. After becoming a permanent resident aka green card holder, it is then necessary to wait 8 years before becoming eligible to apply for citizenship (at least, that is what I was told - it's so far off I haven't investigated further). In the meantime, an H1-B is the only option to work legally. The rules on renewals of H1-Bs have now been extended beyond the originally permitted 6 years precisely because so many immigrants were being forced to leave at the end of 6 years, still waiting for their GC application to be processed.

  126. Two sides to the coin by Ralman · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Reading through these comments all I see is a whiny buch of children screaming "my daddy can beat up your daddy." Send them home, we deserve it, its the only way to get a green card, fsck you, fsck me. Grow up!

    As an America born/bred/schooled worker in the tech industry, I have seen both sides of the coin. There are alot of American workers who are very good at what they do, and there are alot that suck. Same thing goes for the H1B holders, alot of them are great, alot of them suck.

    As one of the co-lead developers in our department I had to attempt to train my replacements. Yes, that right, replacements, they could hire 3 H1B holders for what I was making, and I was already making below market value for the area and technology. The only problem is, they couldn't do the job. Between all three of them they couldn't even turn on the computer, and they were college-level graduates in ComSci. This, of course, came after we let go one of the best developers, also working under H1B, who got it done, and did it right the first time around with no fuss.

    Personally, I have nothing against most of the people here under H1B Visas. The problem I have is with the idiots who are doing the hiring. Most of them are not hiring the competent workers, they are firing them and trying to get a bunch of cheap ass labor to take the place. Its hard enough for me to even get an interview since I am an American worker because they automatically assume I want way to much money. Yes, I have been told this to my face by interviewers.

    As for the problem with the rest of the H1B holders, are the ones that work in a 'system'. Nothing more than indentured servitude if you asked me. They get fired from one place, they get put into another, no questions asked.

    Oh yeah, for the commenters crying xenophobia, I have only one retort. Patriotism, where is yours?

    Alright, thats enough incoherent rambling from yet another chump for now.

  127. I will admit to a bit of... by zogger · · Score: 2

    I will admit to a bit of "buchananisms" in my thinking. I would be a tad more comfortable with what we originally had as our model nation, if I was allowed to pick and choose. Not much in the way of foreign entanglements. A constitutional RESTRICTED central government that "knows it'splace". Inflation proof currency, ie, no fiat poof created debt notes from a central private bank, rather a commodities and tangibles based currency with PMs being part of it and it's front end. Sane and controlled immigration based on current reality of available land and jobs, not a wide open southern border with almost zero controls like we have now. That's a pure insult to the people doing it the legal way, and it's a huge national security menace. Rule of "law" that is based on the english language and common sense and not obscurity and how much money you have. A lot more "independents" rather than fractionalization based on political for-profit "parties". Very small organized standing army, and a much larger militia/guard like switzerland has currently and like we used to have. No "wars" except as a last resort and any of them to be thoroughly lawful based on formal declarations. Eliminate professional "politician" class-as-career, and a return to citizen representation. Governmental "service" to be just that, a patriotic service, with a time limit (say ten years maybe) then back to the private sector and no governmental pensions, so we don't "breed" entrenched untouchable anonymous bureaucracy. Having some way so those who "make the rules" cannot "profit from the rules they made".

    And etc.

    We can trade with the world, I have no probs with that, I have BIG probs in trading with the world when the long range results are giving people the illusion of wealth when it's temporary and based on accumulated trinkets that are based on credit that can't even be paid off until well into the next generation-IF the creidt issuing was stopped this second. That's just plain lame. We can have tourists-but then they need to go home. We've hit the pacific ocean in our western expansion, we no longer have "free land", that phase of the US expansion is over, we can't sustain that. Also and this is pretty important, most of the nation west of the mississippi is maxed out on fresh water, there just isn't any more than what's there now and is replensihsed by the sparse rain. It's almost beyond maxed. It's a point that's overlooked quite a bit when discussing tech and macro economics, but there silently generation after generation is this 'water" deal, just one of those things you need to keep "expanding" until you can't.. Oil/gas/electric we seem to be able to keep ahead of, water is a totally different story.

    So ya, probably a lot of similarities, namely some sane amount of protectionism, not wanting to arm and enrich people who are most likely our "enemies", keeping control of the borders a lot better, making sure we ALWAYS have a fully diverse economy including agricultue and vertical manufacturing at least in the critical areas, and a government that is truly representative of the "people" and not international corporations that hold no loyalty except profits. Some things just can't be quantified exactly with a dollar sign.

    I'm not a xenophobe, but that doesn't mean I am supposed to care so little for my US neighbor that I don't care what happens to them just to make me a few more bucks. Just not built that way, not my mindset to be so..mercenary I guess you could term it, about money, you could put it. We take care of our own US "family" FIRST, then maybe help out the rest of the world. That's my default. To say again, not to perpetuate buggwhip jobs, but to keep and save still useful and necessary jobs and industries, and to way more insure domestic security. Security is hard to put a price on until lack of same bites you, then you realise you didn't spend enough attention to it or were too preoccupied with other things. Better safe than sorry. The US-or any other nation-has nothing to be ashamed of looking out for it's own interests. We should and they should. I'm not a proponent of a "one world government", I am content with nations and national soverignty, flawed as that can be, the proposed alternative is too dang scary and too probable to turn into a disaster. IMO of course.

    Sorry I jumped around so much, you can probably make some sense of it though.

  128. Re:The military system goes back to 1806. by benzapp · · Score: 2

    You mention correctly that competition for scarce resources can lead to war. Up until the rise of imperial Rome this was almost always the case.

    With the prosperity enjoyed by humanity in the last 3000 years, a new problem has begun to appear: There are now lots of people who really have no reason to exist and nothing to offer society. They are a liability, rather than an asset.

    Bread and circuses were not the only means of keeping an unruly population in check, but so was military conquest. Many would argue that the primary reason Octavian was able to become the first Roman emperor was so many in the military became rich through conquest and booty. You can either have a riotous group who make your daily life unbearable, or you can appease them through whatever means you can.

    The United States was settled primarily by people who had no future in Europe. This country was for the most part immune to the social upheaval which came with increasing numbers of people because many could, and did migrate to unsettled regions. It wasn't until the turn of the twentieth century this was no longer the case, but it was recognized to be a future problem in the east. In many ways, the discovery of the New World provided something of an outlet for a densely populated Europe. Too bad Machiavelli didn't grasp the importance of exporting your nations undesirables.

    Flashback to 1806 with the defeat of the Prussians by Napoleon at the Battle of Jena. This was a huge deal, one frequently not appreciated today. The Prussian state was perhaps the first truly militaristic society since Rome, or even Sparta. Not only was militarism a staple of their culture, but it was a foundation of their economy. Perhaps you recall the British using Hessians in the early days of the American Revolution. They supplied mercenaries all over the world, and perfected the art of diplomatic extortion under threat of their soldiery.

    Napoleon's army were rabble, the masses brought together in the aftermath of the French Revolution. This revolution was caused by hundreds of thousands of educated, by relatively poor formlerly middle class with nothing to do, and nothing to lose. The defeat of the world's greatest and most professional army by what amounted to amateurs was a serious problem for the future of the Prussian economy. Waterloo came and went, and the Germans went back to working on their reich. Needless to say, they were absolutely intent on preventing any future defeat. One of the first steps to furthering this goal was establishing compulsory schooling as a means of conditioning the populace to best serve the state to make themselves free.

    The Prussian philosopher Fichte wrote much of how this was to be accomplished, and Edward Bernays and Ivy Leed spread his word through the United States. It is no coincidence that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein was published the same year Prussia's compuslory schooling was set in motion. (1819).

    The end goal of this Prussian experiment in social control was to create obedient soldiers for the army, and obedient workers for mines, factories, and farms, and to create a constant uniformity in thought, word, and deed amongst the citizenry. Since you seem to be the military type, a great book on the subject how this precisely created the German military machine of the 20th century check out Fighting Power by Martin van Creveld.

    By 1864, the disparate German state, disunited for a thousand years since the days of Charlamagne, became one nation under Bismark. The unity and strength of Germany in the late 19th century inspired every upper class intellectual in the United States. Seeing the masses of immigrants with their different languages, mannerisms, and beliefs, the same system of centralized control was instituted in the US. The wealthy, particularly the great industrialists of the late 19th century were absolutely terrifed of this mass of people. The University system we have today in the United States was founded to find ways to manipulate the masses. By 1932, the Rockefeller foundation stated they now had the total means to condition the people to be peaceful and obedient. The first eugenic government policies were instituted in Indinia, directed by Indiana University. When Hitler began sterilizing undesireables in the name of eugenics, it was always called the "Indiana Plan"

    The military-industrial complex as we know it today, goes far beyond Eisenhower's speech in 1961. It goes back to the days our free nation was perverted to resemble Prussian Germany. It goes back to the implimentation of the income tax and the federal reserve. Our nation, once free, was molded into a fascistic centralized economy where people ceased being individual citizens and were molded to not only serve the state, but do so willingly.

    I will be among the first to argue that every war of the twentieth century was neither about scarce resources or revolution, they were simply attempts at acquiring wealth and power either directly or indirectly. The only reason World War II happened so easily is after decades of conditioning the people to be obedient to authority could they so willingly become a part of the military economy created during the war.

    This is a large topic, I hope I have at least made you question the timeline of the infamous "military-industrial complex". Today, between the military, related industry, government bureauocracy, and the nearly 25% of our people employed in the educational system, a free country based on free market principles no longer exists and sadly has not for a long time.

    Back to my original point of the military being dispersed around the world to prevent revolution, this entire system we have has been created to prevent revolution. Schools were created to make people stupid so they would be content taking orders and pulling levers in factories. Schooling was extended well into the mid twenties to prevent adolescent rebelliousness from becoming outright civil war. By the time your average youngster is through being processed into a productive human, his youthful vigor is gone and nearly half his productive years are behind him. This sytem was created because ever since the French Revolution, it has been realized that you cannot allow your middle class to become purposeless in your society otherwise they revolt. The military-educational-industrial complex exists PRIMARILY to give the masses something to do. Other things have resulted surely, but life, HUMAN life as it once used to be, free, limitless, dangerous, were lost as a result. This system started to get out of control after world war II, so artificial conflicts were created to station troops all over the world in large numbers. Maintaing the peace is but a nice precept. The reality is peaceful trade would occur anyway, even with a navy preventing piracy only.

    The reason revolution is around the corner is there are simply too many people. The game is up. Talk to anyone on the street and they realize their jobs are irrelevant, THEY are irrelevant. We have lost our society in an endless maze of rules and regulations intended to keep the masses busy. The financial markets were a game created to continue the misery of structure and those too are failing. Usury went from a way for the rich to get richer to an entire industry, with millions employed simply to administer it.

    The system is breaking down, organized revolution which would involve nuclear weapons is not what I am talking about. The United States is one of the few countries with unemployment less than 10%. When that increases to say 20% which it certainly will, you will see what I mean. Street gangs are only the beginning. The 200 year old attempt as maintaining order through fictions is over. The sad part is order will be easier to maintain in cities, but distant suburbs will be ransacked.

    Also, the military and paramilitary personnel probably don't want to fight, but ultimately they will have no choice. the government will attempt to maintain something of a civil society, and that will be the way. Historically, that kind of activity leads to conflict as different factions result. If revolution becomes civil war, that will be the way it happens.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  129. *AFL-CIO* proposing reforms for others? by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    AFL/CIO is the one doing the whistleblowing rather than, oh, say, the current executive branch

    Yeah, when I saw "AFL-CIO Proposed Reforms..." I thought "Well, finally they're going to have to stop running a massive propaganda-spewing organization that is federally backed and, incredibly enough, can negotiate to *require* that companies hire only union workers." Then I realized that instead of reforms *for* the AFL-CIO, it was a series of reforms proposed *by* the AFL-CIO.

  130. Re:Globalization: GET USED TO IT. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    H1B's are NOT immigrants. They are indentured servants. This issue has NOTHING whatsoever to do with immigration.

    REAL immigrants are at no handicap when it comes to negotiating raises and fleeing abusive employers.


    Agreed. If the AFL-CIO really wanted to stand behind their rhetoric about how H1Bs abuse *foreign* workers, they'd be demanding that Congress grant H1Bs citizenship.

    Of course, that will happen when hell freezes over...

    This is the same organization that likes to paint awful pictures of poor exploited workers in sweatshops ("Oh, no! Sure is worse than starving!"), and then has the balls to suggest that, based on moral grounds, US citizens should *buy from US-based companies* instead, thereby reducing said worker's wages from a dollar a day to nothing a day, and producing higher priced goods produced by an American worker being paid a hundred times as much.

    The AFL-CIO had a point back when mining companies had inter-company agreements to screw over workers. I submit that the only legitimate use of a union in a capitalist society is to prevent companies in an industry from acting as a monopoly, since a union effectively makes workers act as a monopoly. And monopolies are a bad thing for just about everyone...

  131. Re:This is about as stupid as "no war for oil" or by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    America belongs to Americans, and Bangladesh belongs to the people of Bangladesh.

    However, Afghanistan apparently belongs to Americans, as well as Saudi Arabia. There was apparently some misunderstanding between the citizens of Vietnam over who their country belonged to, but after some violent discussion, America decided that Vietnam belonged, in fact, to Vietnamese.

  132. Interesting tidbit by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    On the same site, look at the just-out-of-school salaries for undergrads in computer science. How's *that* for a pay range.

  133. Re:No. by pstemari · · Score: 2, Informative

    They stop getting counted in the statistics if they lose their phone service, though. The numbers are gathered through a phone survey. The Bureau of Labor Statistics has an summary that gives a better picture of the actual employment picture, but it still doesn't account for their systematic sampling errors.

  134. "Tech union" is a BS idea by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    The very thought of a "tech union" is disgusting.

    There's a reason the AFL-CIO wants tech unions. It's not because they give a damn about tech workers. It's because they represent lots more potential money to the AFL-CIO.

    The AFL-CIO is *frantic* to get more and more workers to form unions. Every worker pays union dues. And, you know, the top people in the AFL-CIO have a hell of a lot of money coming in -- they aren't your "average workers". They're just like the overpaid CEOs of corporations.

    The AFL-CIO, just like large corporations, is another self-interested large organization out to grab money from people however it can. I'd say that the AFL-CIO is somewhat worse, however -- they engage in more propoganda than typical companies, they do things that a corporation could not do because of antitrust laws, and they have special protection under federal law.

    So before people become so eager to become fodder for the AFL-CIO, it's a good idea to think things over.

  135. Re:The military system goes back to 1806. by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    There are now lots of people who really have no reason to exist and nothing to offer society. They are a liability, rather than an asset.

    Why is it that people that say things like this never place themselves in this group?

  136. AFL-CIO proposal by cheezehead · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Not very many posters seem to comment on the article, so I'll give a few comments. Mind you, I was one of those H1-B workers...

    Instead the program floods the marketplace with the potential of 200,000 or more professional guest workers each year...

    Interesting. They don't quote the actual number of H1-B visas issued in recent years. I remember reading that the number of H1-Bs issued has declined sharply since the economy went south.
    Anyway, call me a nitpicker, but how do you "flood" the marketplace with a "potential"? Maybe it's a language issue...

    [Proposal]: Limit number of guest workers in any one firm, to a set percentage of the firm's workforce.

    Hmm. That seems reasonable. However, consider the following true story.
    I worked for a large European software company, with branches in many countries. My company managed to land a big software contract with a large U.S. company, mainly because of my company's specialized skills. The contract was large enough to justify founding a daughter company in the U.S. Obviously, in the beginning, no U.S. workers with the required skills could be found. So, the U.S. daughter company was started with almost exclusively European workers. Support staff (secretaries, bookkeepers, etc.) were recruited locally. Also, a general manager was recruited locally, because my company had the philosophy that an American daughter company should be led by an American manager. As the company grew, more and more American (technical) workers were hired, because it's just easier to hire (qualified) local people than moving them over from Europe with all the H1-B costs and hassle (and trust me, it's a big hassle).
    So, by the time I joined the U.S. daughter company (two years after the founding), all management and support people were American workers. About half of the technical staff was American, the other half was European. And yes, I got my H1-B based on skills that were close to impossible to find in the U.S.: it involved a lot of experience with my company's (in-house) developed tools that were crucial to the project.

    Anyway, my point is that founding this company provided a lot of jobs to Americans and non-Americans alike. However, since the workforce was close to 100% H1-Bs in the beginning, it could never have happened had there been a limit on the percentage og H1-B workers.

    . A program of six years duration does not qualify as "temporary."

    Of course it does. Look up the definition of "temporary". If they had said that six years does not qualify as "short-term" than I would have agreed with it.

    Possible Reforms:
    Restrict this "temporary" guest worker program to one, two or three year (non-renewable) term.


    That's a good idea, or a bad idea, depending on what your motives are. If you want to limit the number of H1-Bs, then it's an excellent idea. For many people, two or three years is too short to justify moving to another country. Also, it's too short for many companies to justify the cost and trouble of hiring foreign workers.
    If you want to attract talented foreign workers to fill a hole in the marketplace (which is the intention of the H1-B program), then it's a bad idea, for the same reasons.

    Laid-off H-1B workers must return to their country of origin within 60 days of their unemployment;

    Err, correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the current time limit was 10 days! As far as I know, the only way to get out from under this (unreasonable) rule, is to apply for a status change to "visitor". This would give you 90 days. But you can't be employed while in "visitor" status, all it does is give you some time to get your stuff packed to move overseas.

    Current Problem:
    H-1Bs are supposed to be highly skilled professionals with the requisite academic degree. But even this standard is undercut by language that allows a vague degree equivalency, such as work experience, to suffice. In addition there is no system in place to verify that those with degrees have valid credentials or that they are equivalent to a U.S. degree.


    Well, maybe things have changed, but in my case:
    I had to submit notarized copies of my high school diploma, and my university diploma. The copies had to be translated, and the translations had to be certified. I had to describe in detail all the projects that I worked on in a professional capacity. I had to give addresses and phone numbers of my high school, university, and current employer. Then, all this paperwork was evaluated by a (sworn) evaluator from some evaluation bureau in the U.S. Conclusion: the equivalent of a M.Sc. in Electrical Engineering and a B.Sc. in Computer Science. There was lots and lots more: birth certificates, passport copies, a list of countries I had visited in the last 10 years, and the reasons why, etc., etc. I have copies of all the paper that was submitted to the INS and DOL with my petition, and it's about an inch thick.
    Don't give me any nonsense that there is no system in place to verify credentials.

    "The OIG has averaged 14 indictments and 11 convictions per year for labor certification fraud over the prior [1996] five-year period."

    Err, is it just me, or does that not sound too impressive? Either there's not all that much fraud going on, or the authorities are doing a really poor job in finding it. Or both...

    --

    MSN 8: Now Microsoft even has bugs in their ad campaigns.

  137. Silver lining by slashdot_commentator · · Score: 2

    Guns, tanks, death, amphetamine, heroin, Wagner, Sousa. Violent revolution, real drugs, and real music. [...] We will return to more complex music, especially militaristic music

    Rammstein! NIN! YEAH! YeeeeeaaaaahhHHHHH!
    --
    There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
  138. agreed on the energy by zogger · · Score: 2

    --totally agree with you on the energy side being a major factor in successful industrialization. One of the reasons I am convinced the 21st century will be the era of the "resource wars" primarily over oil, fresh water, and arable land that doesn't require massive irrigation to be productive. I am quite pessimistic over this. I think that some smaller wars coming up have a very good chance of getting to a "major" level because of population pressures and demand for just *more* of everything and oil still being so necessary.

    Link to a website with a plethora of energy related articles/editorials

    Note, this website definetly has a "doomer" type bent, but there's a lot of data here.

  139. BLS stats by zogger · · Score: 2

    --the bls stats are quite complex and can be interpreted several ways. They have a lot of different breakdowns as to seasonal and non seasonal and race and age and you want it you got it. My basic gestalt in my post was that it's still a guess in large part. I think the numbers are lowballed tremendously. People not actively seeking work can mean a lot, sometimes seeking work is not an offical way to seek work so it's not counted. An example, someone who has tried to use their personal contacts in various ways, querying friends who might be working at some plant, they get told "don't bother, they aren't hiring and laid off some more folks" won't bother applying, so because they didn't officially go there and fill out a form they are counted as "not seeking work". things of that nature skew the stats. It really doesn't matter to people so long term unemployed they have lost almost all hope of getting anything.

    We also have the phenomena of people who perhaps just a few years ago had income level A from a single job now having to work multiple jobs and many more hours to approach what they had gotten to before.

    This is really a complex subject that is hard to cover in casual posts on the internet. And obviously some geographical areas are better than others,some industries are better than others, but I would feel confident stating that the "job" outlook in the US now has gone downhill extremely fast the past few years, VERY broadly speaking. And it compounds, that one lost job and income gets spread around in the local area immediately as that person has dropped normal consumerism, they are buying "less" and perhaps not even being able to cover their bills, thereby reducing others income, which leads them to spend less, and etc. It's almost exponential in nature.

    On the tech side, I've seen several topics/threads here where you can readily see a lot of problems even with people with a decade or more good IT experience and work history having extremely difficult times finding more work. On the blue collar side it's "worse than that" most places.

    Anecdotals are just that, but I've seen this on several forums, this topic comes up a lot, quite a bit more than it did in the 90's for instance, and it goes beyond "dotcom bubble". One large forum I visited-a broad cross section across the US and across various white and blue collar industries-had an informal poll that showed as high as 1/3 of the respondents out of work or severely underemployed compared to a few years ago. I know that isn't scientific at all, but still... I've also seen this personally, just locally here, an example, I know of a few guys locally been in construction trades for decades,older guys with families, etc, regular old solid folks, worked steady all their lives, lately they are having to travel over 200 miles roundtrip a day to find any sort of work, even a one week minor job. They are just plain scared that even that is going to poof. Technically they show up as "employed" but it is quite tenuous.

    I look at other sorts of informal "indicators", the one that really shows me the labor market is going downhill is the used car lots. Couple of years ago there was a variety of cars, older barely running things to sorta new. A regular normal mix especially in price range. Now the lots (around here at least) are full of practically new vehicles, and all the banks have repos for sale parked out front. The new vehicle dealers are practically dragging people off the street to get them to buy. The pawn shops are full to bursting. Yard sales on the weekends have increased several hundred percent in the past couple of years. Homes for sale have gone up tremendously, the ad level in the paper has just exploded, and I am in what is considered to be a pretty decent area as far as my state is concerned. And the help wanted section has dropped to literally print editions of spam-work from home on puter and make millions, sell avon, etc, with very few "real" jobs being advertised.

    "Bottom line" is that the economy is suffering on several fronts now, rising un and under employment being just one of them. And it's really not hyperbole or exaggeration to those 780,000 people who just got their very last source of income, it's stark reality in their face.

  140. Re:The military system goes back to 1806. by benzapp · · Score: 2

    Why is it that people that say things like this never place themselves in this group?

    Because that was not a post discussing me as a person, but the historical reasons for how our modern economy has evolved to its current state.

    Read the thread. At the very least read about the French Revolution. Look at the title of the post 1806. Why did I choose that year?

    Perhaps I sound as if I advocate the wholesale system of indoctrination used to maintain our modern caste system. That is not so. The fact is that it exists, and outside of India prior to their societies collapse and assimilation into the British Empire, this kind of caste system never works and always leads to civil war. This happens either quickly as with the Glorious Revolution in England or the French Revolution, or it happens slowly as in Rome. These revolutions begin because people who realize they are an irrelevant part of society have nothing to gain in maintaining that society and everything to gain by destroying it.

    Simply by my interest in the subject it should be quite clear I hold the latter view. Those who believe our system "works" do everything in their power to suggest that this is a meritocracy, not an oligarchy.

    --
    I don't read or respond to AC posts
  141. Re:The military system goes back to 1806. by Dolly_Llama · · Score: 2
    There are now lots of people who really have no reason to exist and nothing to offer society. They are a liability, rather than an asset.

    I dont't really know what to make of this. Are you a nihilist or a bitter misanthrope? Who are you to say they have no reason to exist? And to whom are they a liability? A better explanation is that with rising populations, concentrated populations, and concentrated wealth, your 'new problem' is simply another manifestion of the competition of resources i'm talking about.

    This is a large topic, I hope I have at least made you question the timeline of the infamous "military-industrial complex"

    Yes, it is a big topic and history is a continuum, and there are antecedents to everything, which is why when referring to the 'military-industrial complex' i confine the topic to the modern american model, which started with roosevelt and the second world war.

    Today, between the military, related industry, government bureauocracy, and the nearly 25% of our people employed in the educational system, a free country based on free market principles no longer exists and sadly has not for a long time.

    Exactly my point in raising Keynes.

    Other things have resulted surely, but life, HUMAN life as it once used to be, free, limitless, dangerous, were lost as a result.

    I think youre wearing rose colored glasses. The past wasn't as free or limitless or romantic as you'd like to believe. Dangerous perhaps.

    --

    Somewhere, something incredible is waiting to be known. -- Carl Sagan

  142. Re:OT: Your signature by N3WBI3 · · Score: 2

    Actually its that they are Cheese-eating Surrender chimps..

    --
  143. Re:Indian taking your job? That's because you suck by leandrod · · Score: 2
    > Who's *really* got the obstacles?

    The guy who lives in a poor country and therefore gets less government services and decent job opportunities in general, and besides has to (A) both learn English as a second language and (B) either (1) do all the immigration process or (2) get a job either at (a) one of the few US companies which hire overseas or (b) at one of the few in India which get work contracts from the US.

    Besides, Indians will get lower pays than you, but cost of living is so low there that even if only a fraction of what he gets reach India its multiplicative effect will end up benefitting more people there than your full pay would in the US.

    At the same time you getting a lower pay will help keep inflation from corroding the acquisitive power of other, especially poor people, in the US. And it will force you to study better, what will end up benefitting your employers and (or) customers.

    That is how globalisation is supposed to reduce world poverty. It is indirect, slow, and requires some basic Macroeconomics knowledge to understand, but it is real. Just ask Third World farmers that are trying to get a living against First World subsidies.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin
  144. Re:Indian taking your job? That's because you suck by leandrod · · Score: 2
    > the guy who has to pay for his own education, and then spend the next 10 years saddled with the student loans?

    It is unfortunate that thesed loans have to be paid precisely when one is starting a family and has a lower salary. But other than that, it is completely fair.

    > Indian imported programmers who were trained by their government

    If they do not have to pay loans nor anything to their government, it would probably be unfair to the people of India. But OTOH India is so poor that any spillover that reaches India is a great boon to them.

    > resulting in many more impoverished families who would have need of the deflated prices.

    Not so fast, cowboy... when you say impoverished, you show you have no idea about what is poverty. Just pay a visit to India, or even to Guatemala which is so much nearer to you. Anyway, the net effect is always towards the common good, because the money that does not get paid you goes to poorer, not reacher, people than you. Even the money companies save ultimately enable them to hire two people instead of one, diminishing global (not local) unemployment.

    --
    Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
    DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
    GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin