Australian IT Workers Concerned About Migrants

Oh geez.... by vishbar · 2006-01-09 18:39 · Score: 4, Funny

Here comes the deluge of South Park "They took our jobs!" quotes...

fp?

--
Ride the skies

Re:Oh geez.... by nmoog · 2006-01-09 18:42 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, speaking as an IT Professional in Australia I can safetly say... Dey Turk Er Jerbbs!!!!
Re:Oh geez.... by mrcdeckard · 2006-01-09 19:32 · Score: 1

and "creativity, skill and experience will always be in demand" comments.

this thread goes the same way every time . . .

mr c

--
"Physics is like sex. Sure, it may give some practical results, but that's not why we do it." - R. Feynman
Re:Oh geez.... by ThePhilips · 2006-01-09 21:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why people in wealthy countries never think of moving into developing countries?

Thou I haven't tried that by myself ;-)

Freinds of mine - married couple of Uni teachers - were working in North Africa (Marocco & Alger) for about 10 years. When they came back I only hear them complaining how much they earn here but can buy literally nothing. Situation in Africa was different: they were earning little, but most of things costed next to nothing. In Africa they were top - here they are just average. (They came back because both wanted to have children in homeland.)

What just reminds me about how overvalued, overpriced developed countries became with time.

--
All hope abandon ye who enter here.
Re:Oh geez.... by Aeros · 2006-01-10 01:45 · Score: 1

Im busy making my freeway sign this morning "Hungry...Will code for food". Wish me luck
Re:Oh geez.... by Richard+Steiner · 2006-01-10 04:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

Probably things like disease, unstable political situations, difficulty of obtaining work visas, etc. Or maybe such a concept is too far outside their comfort zone to consider.

I know I would have to think long and hard before moving outside the US, even if I knew that there were no inherent risks. My friends and family are here, and I like the community in which I live.

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Re:Oh geez.... by Kwiik · 2006-01-10 11:11 · Score: 1

This isn't a bad thing

it's how we end up with priceless quotes like "All your base are belong to us" :)

But I guess not all poor translation and grammar mistakes can be such heirlooms to the 'community'.

--
Vehicle Stars used car search is my current project
Re:Oh geez.... by sgt_doom · 2006-01-11 06:17 · Score: 1

No, they didn't take our jobs - our jobs were handed over to them by very shortsighted, unimaginative corps-heads who think everyone is an easily replaceable module - which has been the corporate america credo for the past thirty to forty years. And if our economy is supposedly so strong as that deserter, bushie wushie, proclaims, why is it when one subtracts the evergrowing debt, which is figured into the GDP (and for those interested in the demise of the American economy and society - please research why the GNP was changed to the GDP) - our economy actually appears to be shrinking????

A perfect world by Da3vid · 2006-01-09 18:42 · Score: 5, Interesting

If this were a perfect world, maybe the competition would be welcome, where the most skilled would still get their high paying jobs. The problem really is in figuring out who is the most skilled. I see no reason why the most skilled shouldn't have the best jobs, and if you're the best man for the job, then more competition is no sweat, right?

-Da3vid-

Re:A perfect world by umbrellasd · 2006-01-09 18:56 · Score: 3, Interesting

Sometimes for whatever reason, a nation might produce fewer skilled workers per capita in an industry than another nation does. But the fact is that a nation does need to protect its citizens, and an unmitigated deluge of skilled workers in an area from a nation with great capacity to produce them (perhaps they have a population that is 30 times larger) can be devastating to the local economy.
This would be a very terrible thing, and the reason it can happen is simply that some nations have far greater populations than others. Understand that, India, as an example, would have it well in its power to produce sufficient people in certain technical areas to supply the entire world with all the needed labor in that area. Checks and balances in work visas for foreign nationals is one of the ways to provide sanity.
So no, it would not be a perfect world if competition were welcome because the playing field is not at all level when the two nations in question have a great disparity in ability to produce a particular industry's per capita workforce.
Re:A perfect world by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 19:31 · Score: 4, Informative

Funny,

I have worked for close to 30 years, and I have found lately that the bottom line is king .

A lot of the reason ppl are being hired from overseas is cost, not quality .

Don't get me wrong, some are quality ppl, I met some good and some bad while at cisco systems .

There is a perception that americans are fat and lazy, and I have met them too, but then again
I have met ppl that were awesome, but were paid very little because they were young .

I also see that older ppl are generally not accepted into the tech sector as being
considered unable to embrace new things and stuck in their ways .

Some old school telecom ppl got screwed on this HR techno-babble mental mindwash .

They need to just test the ppl, and have technical interviews in addition to the
personality assessment done by HR .

I have seen ppl hired at cisco that were pathethic , and they stayed even after the
DOT bust and ppl that stayed and left were both utterly amazed by it .

For the big corporations the accountants are driving them now, and 3dfx is a good
example of what happens when accountants and marketing droids take over .

Like I said, don't get me wrong, good ppl on both sides of the ocean, but some of the
most experienced ppl in the tech sector are being driven away by new visa workers
just for the cost savings .

As an american you can go apply at some of the foreign IT head hunter shops and no
matter your credentials you won't even get an interview .

They want ppl they can leverage with fear of being sent back home as well, knowing
it is the difference between a 3rd world job or being here making more than they would
in their resident country by far .

The flaw I see in this is that if money is made here, but most of it sent out of the country
to support their family back home, then money that would go into the economy here ends up
being sent out and deflating our economy .

They cry about a trade deficit, but they themselves employ foreign workers who send a great
deal of money home . "Just" sent via Western Union, "just" to mexico $6 billion USD .

http://www.businessweek.com/1997/19/b3526155.htm

I don't know how many ppl from other countries work here, but I know the figure is in the
millions, and I know it is from MANY nations . I also know generally the mexicans make
the least as well . So with that in mind, you can guesstimate the math .

When the corporations whine about the trade deficit, they can keep this in mind .

As for the government puppets protecting US jobs, that is a bunch of BS , and they should
all be flown to hollywood to pick up their oscar awards .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:A perfect world by johncadengo · 2006-01-09 19:39 · Score: 1

Then why is it fair that certain nations, although with a higher per capita skilled workforce, have a lower per capita income?

Ok. So, China has lots of skilled workers, and in fact, if they all moved to Aulstralia, then they would "devestate" the local Aulstralian economy. But who's to say that the Aulstralians should have so much more money, per capita, than the Chinese?

The protection and the rules of fairness are only working, in their current state, one-sidedly.

--
My page.
Re:A perfect world by MikeFM · 2006-01-09 19:52 · Score: 5, Insightful

As an American (white male - lower middle class) I just want people to realize that immigrants aren't the real problem - foreign workers are the main problem. The best solution is to make it easier for those foreign workers to migrate here and get decent jobs here. We have minimum wage laws and free competition that other countries don't have. A large number of foreigners working for $2/hr would move here where they can make $20/hr. I'd sure as hell rather compete locally where all workers are under similar laws and living expenses than with someone that lives in a dirt hut and gets dirt pay. There would be a dip in wages as competition grew but it'd be much less drastic than the dip from jobs moving out of the country. What do we really think is going to be left as a source of income for us as companies keep migrating jobs? Blue collar jobs have been leaving us for years, white collar jobs have been following - what is going to be left?

Make it easier for those workers to move into our western countries and encourage buying products produced within our own countries. That's how to keep wages high. Not by slowing migration. We want to force foreign countries to raise their minimum wage, improve their working and living conditions, etc and compete on a level ground with us. Pretty simple.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Re:A perfect world by MoralHazard · 2006-01-09 19:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

Sometimes for whatever reason, a nation might produce fewer skilled workers per capita in an industry than another nation does. But the fact is that a nation does need to protect its citizens, and an unmitigated deluge of skilled workers in an area from a nation with great capacity to produce them (perhaps they have a population that is 30 times larger) can be devastating to the local economy.

I like this post, because you actually display more sophisicated reasoning here than most of the talk-radio types that usually complain about this phenomenon. But I would like to point out something important.

The costs of producing something have an impact of the price of what's produced. If steel suddenly becomes more expensive, you can expect to pay more for refrigerators and cars--not quite as much more as the literal cost impact, but something approaching it. (There's some economic analysis that underlies this, but it's not important.) If the costs of production decrease, you have the opposite effect, where the cost of the product/service decreases.

Labor is the same way, and in many industries (IT being a perfect example) labor costs are almost the entire cost of production. Sure, there are servers and ethernet cables to buy, but commodity hardware has made it so that the vast majority of IT costs are in terms of actual dollars paid for salaries, benefits, etc. to the people that run the servers, write the code, make it all happen.

So if the market for IT jobs is suddenly or gradually flooded with people who are willing and able to work for lower wages, the costs of IT services will tend to go down, too (assuming there's some competition in the market, of course). You can buy hosted web services from lots of competiting companies, so the price of web hosting will go down. Outsourced helpdesk support will also get cheaper. The price of Windows won't necessarily go down, but that's because they have a pretty effective monopoly on desktop OS software (slightly different rules apply).

Since IT services are a cost of doing other types of business, the costs of producing everything that relies on IT will tend to fall, too. Whether and how much depends on those particular markets and how much of their total costs are IT-related, but there will be an effect. In the end, the costs to end-consumers across the economy will go down. And it doesn't take an economist to realize that to the consumer, lower costs are the same thing as having more money.

Like you pointed out (and this is the part I liked), this can be pretty messy if it happens overnight, because the original IT workers who are losing jobs and seeing less in their paychecks will just be SOL. Costs might be lower for everybody, but it may be a net loss the the family depending on a sysadmin's (now decreased) income. The breadwinner might have to retrain or change jobs into a new field in order to get back his/her original income level.

But modern, 1st-world economies can absorb these changes decently well. As long as the percentage of IT workers in your work force isn't too high, and the change doesn't come too quickly, the retraining and job-switching will happen incrementally and people will have time to adjust. And it's not a zero-sum game, either--after people do adjust and retrain back to their original salary levels, they're by definition working in fields where the "home" economy has more competitive advantage, so the net economic effect is positive. Everybody gets lower prices, and (assuming people retrain to original salaries), everybody is making as much as they were before. It doesn't work out perfectly, but that's the general idea.

Job protectionism works out to be the same moral give-and-take as any other kind of trade protectionism: if you protect the current salaries of IT workers, everybody else in the economy (including a lot of other poor, working stiffs) pays for it with higher prices. If you let the market do what it wants to do, you let the IT people take a hit in the short-medium term in exchange for greater prosperity in the economy as a whole.
Re:A perfect world by ichin4 · 2006-01-09 19:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

An unmitigated deluge of skilled workers ... can be devastating to the local economy.

Bzzzt! Return to Econ 101.

The local economy = everything produced locally. More skilled workers = more produced locally = economy grows.

Now, wihile said deluge certainly won't the devastate local economy, it certainly can devastate those displaced workers foolish enough to cling to the idea they are somehow owed a job in their former industry.
Re:A perfect world by Chuck+Chunder · 2006-01-09 20:00 · Score: 3, Informative

Sometimes for whatever reason, a nation might produce fewer skilled workers per capita in an industry than another nation does.
Interestingly I heard someone talking about this on the radio news on the way home today. The reasoning they gave for decreasing 'importing' people was that a lowering in wages was decreasing the desirability of IT courses to Australians (compared to other courses) and therefore Australia is producing fewer IT workers now. So, according to him at least, the "importing" of foreign IT workers was a cause of under producing native workers and getting more would in fact make the problem worse, as sort of a vicious circle.

To me it makes sense that a country should try and maintain a certain level of native competancy in skills, not that I have any idea what that level would be.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park
Re:A perfect world by umbrellasd · 2006-01-09 20:07 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well this is a very broad and deep topic, so it would be difficult to explore it fully, but there are many factors which contribute to relative economic strength in the world. A simple example would be: higher per capita skilled workforce for what kind of work? If your nation is full of a half billion super janitors, still, that is not so good for the average per capita income of your nation, maybe :-). But then there is the fact that what a job pays is typically strongly tied to a particular standard of living that "the market" has determined that job should command and the cost of that standard of living in the local environment. That market determination depends on a huge number of factors but broadly, supply of appropriate labor and demand for the product of the job. Supply and demand in this sense can be very largely affected by the government of the nation in which the work is taking place (visas, immigration restrictions, related trade tariffs, government funding of relted educational programs, and so on)
The bigger question you are asking about relative strengths of national economies, well that's just a huge topic. As a matter of national policy, it really depends on what resources that nation has and what resources it needs, and how effectively they can leverage the nations assets (people and natural resources) to reach agreements with other nations that are advantageous. The more resource that a nation has, the less it depends on others and so it has a stronger position. The more valuable the resources it has that it is will to exchange for power or other benefit, the stronger its position. (Witness the important of the Middle East on the global economic stage: Hello, Oil. Just for giggles, imagine if 90% of the oil on the Earth had actually been located in what is now U.S. territory.)
The market is very "fair" in the sense that the strongest nation at any given moment when factoring all these things in (lots of nuclear weapons is not to be underestimated in this respect for instance), is going to have the most "wealth". Might makes right is true on a national stage, no matter how subtle "might" happens to be. It's still the ultimate "fairness" in matters of power. Depending on the government, it may be concentrated into very few or it may be distributed more. That's where your per capita money comment comes into play. A nation leverages its resources as effectively as possible and that results in a certain GNP. If the leveraging is very inefficient, you get a low return on a large number of people and presto: low per capita wealth.
What you see in China right now is the industrial and technological revolutions occuring at a very rapid pace. Right now they have relatively little leverage (but still considerable) because they are somewhat behind the time curve on these economic transformations, but that will not hold for long, ...
Then you will see fairness in the form of a much bigger per capita leverage multiplier * 1.5 billion. The interesting question, at least to me, is how will the global community respond to this. How will the planet respond to the exponentially increasing energy demands, is interesting, too.
The next 50 years will be very interesting, unless an H5N1 or some such thing greatly simplifies things.
Re:A perfect world by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 20:15 · Score: 1, Insightful

Like you pointed out (and this is the part I liked), this can be pretty messy if it happens overnight, because the original IT workers who are losing jobs and seeing less in their paychecks will just be SOL. Costs might be lower for everybody, but it may be a net loss the the family depending on a sysadmin's (now decreased) income. The breadwinner might have to retrain or change jobs into a new field in order to get back his/her original income level.

I like to apply the simplicity method to this .

And to me that is this, if they can do ANYTHING we do for less, then they will doing all
the jobs we do for less than we do under the simple fact that they will work for less .

As there is no minimum wage in some of the competing countries ...

So abolish minimum wage, and let americans work for 90 cents an hour so we can "compete"

Simplicity applies again here, try to afford a house or car on 90 cents an hour .

So you see property values plumment as massive deflation grips the nation .

Greenspan warned of this, and this is part of the formula for the housing bubble.

I don't like all of Greenspan's thinking, but he was right on this one IMHO, time will tell.

Ex-Mislech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:A perfect world by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2006-01-09 20:37 · Score: 3, Interesting

Labor is the same way, and in many industries (IT being a perfect example) labor costs are almost the entire cost of production. Sure, there are servers and ethernet cables to buy, but commodity hardware has made it so that the vast majority of IT costs are in terms of actual dollars paid for salaries, benefits, etc. to the people that run the servers, write the code, make it all happen.
So if the market for IT jobs is suddenly or gradually flooded with people who are willing and able to work for lower wages, the costs of IT services will tend to go down, too (assuming there's some competition in the market, of course). You can buy hosted web services from lots of competiting companies, so the price of web hosting will go down. Outsourced helpdesk support will also get cheaper. The price of Windows won't necessarily go down, but that's because they have a pretty effective monopoly on desktop OS software (slightly different rules apply).
The problem here is that you're conflating IT and tech workers with fungible assets (webhosting). We aren't fungible. You're also assuming that companies are rational when all available evidence points to the opposite. The presence of a large influx of cheap labor allows companies to lower salaries, true, but it also can limit the output of those workers, as talent is no longer paid what it is worth - you can hire a kid to run a bunch of servers for $12/hr and he'll do ok for normal stuff. You can hire another kid to build webapps for accounting firms (slightly higher rate here). What you can't do is build something truly innovative like google or the first browser or really reliable clustering, just to name a few things.
Of course, the response by talent is to go found a company and try to get big or bought before some large corp crushes them with money (this is one of those nasty departures from theory), thus countering the idiots who think that all tech workers are fungible and pay accordingly.
And it's not a zero-sum game, either--after people do adjust and retrain back to their original salary levels, they're by definition working in fields where the "home" economy has more competitive advantage, so the net economic effect is positive. Everybody gets lower prices, and (assuming people retrain to original salaries), everybody is making as much as they were before. It doesn't work out perfectly, but that's the general idea.
What do you say to Henry Ford? He trained his workers and paid them outrageous salaries (got rich doing it, too). Fact is, a race to the bottom is generally destructive, as people don't like to change too much. You may berate them for it, but you have to deal with the realities of the situation.
Job protectionism works out to be the same moral give-and-take as any other kind of trade protectionism: if you protect the current salaries of IT workers, everybody else in the economy (including a lot of other poor, working stiffs) pays for it with higher prices.
I think you exaggerate too much. GM should be a shining example of what you speak, but all analysis points to shoddy management and poor quality as the cause of their problems. Overpaid workers are certainly a problem, but I think you overstate their impact.
Now for a personal example: I build software. Working normally, my productivity can be as high as $250,000/year. In fact, it's likely within 20% of that, as that covers my salary + benefits + profit to the company. The flip side is that I could work harder and longer and double or triple my productivity. Hell, I'm pretty good - I may be able to do even more. Problem is, this would eat up all my free time and wreck my health if I did it for too long. I could also work harder and still have time for other pursuits, such as investing and ski trips. If my work figured out how to get that out of me (by measuring and rewarding), they could also make some good money. The people you describe won't do this - they want to take the whole pie and view salaries as overhead and

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:A perfect world by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 20:48 · Score: 4, Insightful

Bzzzt! Return to Econ 101.

The local economy = everything produced locally. More skilled workers = more produced locally = economy grows.

Yet again,

The shell game, you can get a different job, ad naseum .

How many degrees will you have to get to "keep getting new jobs",
When the old one is "SOLD OUT" .

When does the cost of the new degrees exceed the pay from
restarting your career everytime the "corpocracy" decides to
sell your job to ANYONE who will work for less .

Under this theory, if they can do any job for less, then they
will do ALL jobs for less, and thus their will be no jobs for
workers that are citizens .

Your grandfather or great grandfather may have died for your
country, but that doesn't matter anymore .

Business as usual, the bottom line is to be fed .

Greed wins again .

http://www.engology.com/E-News1375.htm

Now, wihile said deluge certainly won't the devastate local economy, it certainly can devastate those displaced workers foolish enough to cling to the idea they are somehow owed a job in their former industry.

I don't need a job, I own my own company now .

I am not so moronic that I cannot see that total replacement of all citizens by
L1 visa workers living in corporate owned slums sending most of their pay back
to their home country would have a negative impact .

During this time my and other London guest worker's corporate housing was frequently without heat, hot water and electricity.

http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/108/ sha020404.htm

I do not blame the ppl of other nations for wanting to get money to take care
of their families, but I think they and their country would be better off in the long run
fixing their country rather than picking the low hanging fruit off their neighbor's trees .

Peace,
Ex-MislTech

Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:A perfect world by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 21:25 · Score: 1

But who's to say that the Aulstralians should have so much more money, per capita, than the Chinese?

Money is a fake system, and it is a delicate balancing act .

No tangible object represents the paper money after the world went off the gold standard .

For the chinese to have more money per capita all they need to do is stay their current
course, and crush the economies of the US and EU .

This is well under way .

All manufacturing will cease in the US in the not too distant future if the protections
for it are 100% lifted .

GM recently closed 9 of their major facilities across the US, as Delphi is a supplier,
the domino effect has already begun and they followed suit.

The ppl that had jobs in those towns who cannot find work may declare bankruptcy, and
lose their homes, cars, and pay what little money they have left in legal fees .

This starts a housing bubble situation as predicted by Greenspan .

For the US workers to "compete" we would have to trash most US labor laws, and work
for half what we do now, and could not afford to pay our current bills/taxes .

Massive deflation, somewhat like the Great Depression would likely occur .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Caus es_of_the_Great_Depression

If all major US corporations push for this race to the bottom, then they
will indeed find the bottom .

Corporate Cannibalism is what is alikened to IMHO .

This woman's story tells the tale well .

http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/108/ sha020404.htm

Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:A perfect world by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 21:37 · Score: 1, Informative

Interestingly I heard someone talking about this on the radio news on the way home today. The reasoning they gave for decreasing 'importing' people was that a lowering in wages was decreasing the desirability of IT courses to Australians (compared to other courses) and therefore Australia is producing fewer IT workers now. So, according to him at least, the "importing" of foreign IT workers was a cause of under producing native workers and getting more would in fact make the problem worse, as sort of a vicious circle.

This is so totally dead on .

Enrollment in IT related fields in the US by citizens is staggering low, so low in fact that the
majority of students are not citizens in those classes .

In fact a professor here commented he had one class that had zero citizens in it, and asked the
question "Are we paying taxes to fund schools to train our replacements ???"

I think it is a pretty interesting question ...

Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
Re:A perfect world by jgardn · 2006-01-09 22:29 · Score: 1

Is this some sort of Communist joke?

Why does every post that refutes free market capitalism start with something like "in a perfect world". In a perfect world, we wouldn't need jobs because everybody would do what they are best at doing and what is most important for everyone else. We would share what they have with precisely the people who need it most. In a perfect world, we wouldn't need government because everybody would be saints! There wouldn't be any crime nor any wars. We wouldn't need schools to educate the people who are too stupid to realize that education is extremely valuable. We wouldn't need hospitals because no one would get sick, and we wouldn't need roads because everyone would be perfectly happy where they were! That's what a perfect world looks like. A perfect world is perfect without capitalism.

It's because we are living in a messed up world that capitalism works. It preys on people's greed and avarice. It takes these negative emotions and turns them into very productive and useful things. It is a temporary solution until someone discovers the way to make "a perfect world" that doesn't involve murdering people or throwing them into prison camps. I'll be glad if and when that day comes. I'll gladly join whatever society figures out how to make people saints without violence or oppression.

As far as the job market, I welcome competition, even if it costs me my own job. It drives prices down and increases the quality of workmanship. If I lose my job to an immigrant, that means I was overpaid or underworked, or that I have to find some other market to sell my services in to stay competitive, perhaps one that exploits my old job. I'm looking forward to the day when I can hire 4 or 5 me's for the same salary I am getting now. I'll be able to keep 3 or 4 of their salaries for myself!

--
The radical sect of Islam would either see you dead or "reverted" to Islam.
Re:A perfect world by TapeCutter · 2006-01-09 22:51 · Score: 2, Informative

"Are we paying taxes to fund schools to train our replacements ???"

No, as far as I know no government funds foriegn students with taxpayers money, foriegn students are self funded. Here in Australia there are still plenty of jobs for someone with a computer science degree. I myself have had no trouble taking home more than the average wage for the past 15yrs.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:A perfect world by deadweight · 2006-01-10 01:25 · Score: 1

Retrain and switch to !WHAT? We are approaching a "replicator" economy where the inventors and designers can become very rich, but once any product or service gets developed it can be endlessly reproduced by cheap 3rd world labor.
Re:A perfect world by twem2 · 2006-01-10 02:20 · Score: 2, Insightful

Exactly.

Trade and the economy is not a zero-sum game, and things are so interlinked that protectionism in one area can result is disastrous.

Unfortunately we don't have free movement between countries, that would make this even better, the labour force could migrate if the work changes (although of course, real world factors like family can prevent this).

Protectionism is not the way forward though, it stiltifies the economy to the detriment to all.
Re:A perfect world by guisar · 2006-01-10 02:25 · Score: 1

It's not a world of unlimited land and natural resources anymore. No country is unaffected by the actions or policies of every other country. We should not all be striving to seek the lowest common denominator. As has been pointed out, if the top 1% of a large population emigrate they can overwhelm an industry or country with a smaller population.

More to the point, those who leave their country to go where the skilled jobs are better paying tend to be those who already have connections there, are extremely bright or wealthy by the standards of their home country; quite the opposite of the stereotypical immigrant. Their home country looses a valuable resource with the capital and education to raise the country's standard of living. Like their less skilled counterparts though, it's unlikely these immigrants will return home country unless their corporate sponsor casts them off.

Unskilled workers fill a niche doing low paying service jobs. They were likely oppressed, unemployed or worse at home. Maybe they would have had to resort or crime or violence to make a living. If the host country offers to legalize their employment and can prevent the dollars they earn from leaving their adopted country that country can increase the immigrants commitment to the adopted country. The immigrants can save and learn and hopefully do well there. The original country, the host country and the person are likely to end up better off.

So who really benefits by wages being steadily depressed? The average person in the US, Europe or industrialized Asia? Do Chinese citizens really benefit when they are seen as an infinite and exploitable resource and their resources are polluted and exploited?

When money is saved by corporations it's not often returned to its workers nor to the shareholders who own the stock through dividends. More often it's paid off to management or "returned" to those to buy, then quickly sell the stocks. Is this the short term behaviour we want to encourage?

I'm not against outsourcing IT or other industries if that outsources builds demand and the economy of another country. I'm not xenophobic. I do think we all need to demand that each government look out for it's citizens best interests first, the citizens of other countries second and corporations only when other governments violate one of the first two rules (dumping, not complying with global standards of behavior towards its citizens or wanton destruction of the environment for instance). Is it time we reverse the notion that low-skilled immigrants are a menace and high-skilled ones should be given special consideration?
Re:A perfect world by JesseMcDonald · 2006-01-10 02:41 · Score: 3, Insightful

We have minimum wage laws and free competition that other countries don't have.

Someone else (an AC) already noticed this error, but I though I'd point out exactly why this is a contradiction.

Minimum wage laws impose artificial restrictions on the economy. Like any price floor, they encourage oversupply and drive down demand, which results in unemployment. For a simple thought experiment to demonstrate this point, consider the following:

Employee A starts out in an economy with no minimum-wage laws, making $2.50/hour for 40 hours/week. For every 120 hours of labor and $50 worth of material, the employer can sell a product for $400 ($50 over monetary cost). This increase is a result of the employee's time-preference: the employer has advanced $350 in wages and materials, in exchange for getting an additional $50 when the product is sold. We'll assume for the moment that this is the pure interest rate, the average monetary rate of time-preference. In other words, $350 three weeks from now is, on average, worth $100 in one week, another $100 in two weeks, and yet another $100 in three weeks (the rate is exaggerated for the purposes of example).

A minimum-wage law is passed, requiring wages to be $3.00/hour or higher. The amount of labor required to produce the product remains unchanged, so the cost of labor and materials is now $410. Assuming that the pure rate of interest remains unchanged, the final price of the product will be $460. Raising the price will decrease demand, and so less of the product will be sold. As a result, although the wages have increased by $0.50/hour, the number of hours of labor required for all the products combined will decrease. This may result in unemployment for some, reduced hours for all, or some combination of the two. In the end, the total amount of money spent on labor may increase, remain the same, or decrease. In any event, the product itself will be harder to come by. If the minimum wage applies across the entire economy, then the purchasing power of the money will decrease because there will be less to buy.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:A perfect world by voice_of_all_reason · 2006-01-10 02:50 · Score: 1

+1 MadeMeThink
Re:A perfect world by SpacePunk · 2006-01-10 03:08 · Score: 1

cheaper kicks the ass of skilled any day of the week.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Re:A perfect world by GnuDiff · 2006-01-10 03:09 · Score: 1

Raising the price will decrease demand, and so less of the product will be sold.

It is a huge oversimplifaction, isn't it? You seem to have an education in economy, but to me - as somebody who hasn't got one - this post seems overgeneralized exceedingly past usefulness.
Surely, there will be tons of products, for which the demand will stay the same for a range of price change?
If you drink milk, you are probably going to buy it regardless if it costs $0.50 or $0.70?
Re:A perfect world by stephenbooth · 2006-01-10 03:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

My observation, from having worked for IT employers who heavily used immigrant workers and living in areas where such workers settle, is that it's, now, very rare that said workers contribute more than the absolute minimum to the local economy. In the past it was normal for immigrant workers to come to an area, settle down, buy houses and raise families (by either bringing in others from their area of origin or marrying into the local population). These days, especially in IT, the norm seems to be to move into an area, take over jobs, spend as little as possible whilst saving or sending back to their area of origin as much money as possible then (as soon as they've saved enough) returning to their area of origin. Often the IT work in the developed world isn't a career, it's just a step to raise enough capital to set them up in what they actually want to do. I've had a number of friends working in IT who have come from India and had the stated intention of just working in IT for a few years to earn the money to buy some farmland or a hotel (which they would then hire other people to work for them). Even those in suposedly permanant jobs have treated them like contrator positions.

Stephen

--
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Re:A perfect world by dada21 · 2006-01-10 03:45 · Score: 1

Great post, I sense an Austrian among us :)
Re:A perfect world by Maxo-Texas · 2006-01-10 04:04 · Score: 1

In a perfect world, our wages would drop 25% but our costs for housing, medicine, food and entertainment would drop 40%.

This -should- be the case now- movies sell legally for 2.45 in china but for 14.95 in the 1st world. The same medicine sells for $4 in the third world that sells for $80 in the 1st world.

These price differences would not exist if the capitalist system was allowed to function. Prices would flatten. Only artificial constraints hold these artificially high prices up.

The cost for some things will be bid up tho. As there are more rich people in all countries, it gets harder to get the truly rare things like beachfront property and lift tickets at the top resorts. Likewise, housing in stable countries would be more expensive.

I trust- that long term- these price differences will be erased by inflation in the 3rd world and by price cuts in the 1st world. But a lot of people who spent 4-8 years of their lives and tens of thousands of dollars getting an education (another thing that should be getting way cheaper) are going to get hurt very badly over the next decade.

--
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Re:A perfect world by vertinox · 2006-01-10 04:18 · Score: 1

Since IT services are a cost of doing other types of business, the costs of producing everything that relies on IT will tend to fall, too. Whether and how much depends on those particular markets and how much of their total costs are IT-related, but there will be an effect. In the end, the costs to end-consumers across the economy will go down. And it doesn't take an economist to realize that to the consumer, lower costs are the same thing as having more money.

So are saying (in theory) over time that all things will eventually cost $0.00 to produce?

The problem is that certain things will always be limited since there is only finite matter on earth. While your income and things you buy from walmart might balance each other out, gasoline and electricty may not.

Why? Because there is only so much oil in the world and electrity tends to be well regulated and non-competative. If one could synthesize oil out of a small factory for the same amount or cheaper than oil from the ground or if you could purchase electrcity from an infinite number of competitors then it could work really well.

However, such things would require either a virutal world or a singularity *coughs* like event which makes the manufacture of all materials and energies a $0 cost.

Then only can you have services being the only real value of society since everything else costs $0 to physically produce.

--
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
Re:A perfect world by ciggieposeur · 2006-01-10 04:34 · Score: 1

And the real economy does indeed follow Econ 101, right? We all have perfect information (including the salaries of our peers in the same company) and only make fully rational decisions. Uh-huh.
Re:A perfect world by JesseMcDonald · 2006-01-10 04:41 · Score: 1

You're right; I left out the concept of elasticity of demand in hopes of simplifying the argument at bit. It is possible that the price can increase without any reduction in demand. The only certainty is that a price increase will not increase demand. However, the elasticity of demand (change in demand for each unit change in price) is greater when there are close substitutes available for the product (water or juice instead of milk, for example). The actual price-point varies from one person to another, but on the whole people will drink less milk if the price of milk increases significantly. A change of 20 may not be significant enough to alter demand much, but if the price went from $1.00/gal to $5.00/gal I'm sure we would notice a change in sales.

Even when there are no close substitutes, there is always the option of going without the product and spending one's money on something different, or saving for the future. Thus, no products not directly necessary for survival are truly inelastic. When the prices of labor factors increase, then those products which require less labor will be favored. In any event, the prices of the end product tend to increase faster than the wages of the laborers, and if the minimum-wage policy is applied across the entire economy the purchasing power of the money will decrease. Even if people, on average, make more money than they did before, there will be fewer products to spend it on. Thus, the standard of living will be lower.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:A perfect world by JourneyExpertApe · 2006-01-10 04:44 · Score: 2, Funny

The problem here is that you're conflating IT and tech workers with fungible assets (webhosting). We aren't fungible.

That's a very cromulent point.

--
If you can read this sig, you're too close.
Re:A perfect world by JesseMcDonald · 2006-01-10 05:15 · Score: 1

Contrary to popular belief, economics does not assume that people have perfect information or that everyone acts in a way that they will not later regret. Obviously, people make mistakes, and sometimes the value of what is purchased does not exceed the opportunity cost of purchasing it. I am sure that you would agree, however, that most individuals do try to fulfill those ends which they value most, which is the essence of rational self-interest. This is all that economics assumes: that given the choice, people will choose the good they expect will best fulfill their highest-valued goal(s). How those values are determined can be completely arbitrary, and can only be known by observing the choices the individual makes.

Since this really isn't the place for a complete explanation of practical economics, I'll just refer you to the excellent (free!) e-book Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard, which should answer most of your questions.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:A perfect world by tmortn · 2006-01-10 06:00 · Score: 1

True but a minimum wage requirement is a generalized change which affects all products produced by the affected labor. Thus the generalized statement of raised prices reducing demand for goods. He simply provided a single example to show the actual mechanics of how something like a minimum wage has an across the board affect on supply and demand. It isn't just milk... its EVERYTHING. So all companies face this issue. But you are quite correct to point out that changes in prices do not necesarrily affect how much of a specific product people will buy. You use milk but I would choose Gas as a better example.

This has an exacerbating effect on this principle. There are some things you HAVE to buy regardless of price and some things you LIKE to buy. Generally reffered to as necessities and luxuries. So in a less general statement of this principle the interaction of need for necessities and desires for luxuries means that demand decreases much more sharply for luxuries than for necessities as prices rise due to the minimum wage.

Individually the point at which we change our buying habits varies. But the trend for all buyers is down as prices rise. Thus the generalization is quite usefull when discussing macro economics.

--
I don't ask you to be me. I only ask you not expect me to be you.
Re:A perfect world by sgt_doom · 2006-01-10 06:17 · Score: 1

Thanks for explaining everything so wonderfully (what should be self-evident by this time - it is sooo obvious!). It saddens me that there are still people who just don't get it!
Re:A perfect world by Vicissidude · 2006-01-10 06:40 · Score: 1

You're ignoring the fact that the entire system rises. Your example of demand decreasing as price goes up only works when you look at a single product by itself when the rest of the system is stable. However, if everyone has to raise prices on their goods due to paying more wages, then demand stays the same. Simply put, workers have more money to spend and they still want to spend it on the same amount of goods and services.
Re:A perfect world by LaCosaNostradamus · 2006-01-10 07:05 · Score: 1

Blue collar jobs have been leaving us for years, white collar jobs have been following - what is going to be left?

Red collar jobs -- the ones involving life and death, like security (security, police, intelligence, military), government, and some medical. This becomes especially true as the USA loses the last of the Republic and becomes a Fascist culture.

Of course, these jobs are an even tinier portion of the population, like the transition from blue to white was, and green (agricultural) to blue (industrial) was.

The loss of blue-collar jobs in the USA is still a work in progress, and the overall bankruptcy from that loss has yet to be fully felt ... which is why the Right Wingnuts feel justified in saying "we lost a lot of manufacturing jobs and nothing terrible happened". The middle of America is actually a Third World country that we charitably call the "Rust Belt". We are just beginning to see the bankruptcy of the flight of white-collar work; the master/slave work ethic is reaching out to the coasts from the Third World country in the middle of America. So the transition to red-collar work is not going to be clearly demarcated. It never is. The transitions from Republic to Empire to Fallen Empire are never clear, even with singular events like the sacking of a capital city.

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:A perfect world by JesseMcDonald · 2006-01-10 07:57 · Score: 1

Even if that were true (and I'm not saying that it is), then there would be no advantage in having minimum-wage laws. As I mentioned in reply to another post, however, increases in the costs of labor factors tend to shift the demand away from labor-intensive processes. The costs of products do not rise evenly throughout the economy, even if the costs of labor rise evenly, because every product requires a different amount of labor.

In addition, there are some kinds of high-elasticity labor which are only cost-effective at low hourly rates (primarily "unskilled" labor). With the minimum wage in place these jobs simply do not exist. Primarily affected by this are young and/or inexperienced individuals. With the real minimum wage at about $10-11 (an estimate) due to mandantory payroll taxes and benefits, in most industries a college education and/or several years' on-the-job experience is necessary before productivity exceeds the costs of employment. Basic services, in particular, are hard to find at any reasonable price, and consumers spend more time on things they'd rather not have to do themselves while others, who would be willing to perform these tasks for less than the minimum wage, remain unemployed.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:A perfect world by GnuDiff · 2006-01-10 08:30 · Score: 1

Thank you for the clarification, it was quite interesting.

I would have only two things to note further, as this is probably going outside the original discussion:

1) Insofar as price for product is defined by the producer, he may both opt to reduce his price margin in order to keep the price of product within range of demand, or to not actually start that particular line of product if it is economically unfeasible - I am refering to a situation when minimum wage is a given, rather than going to be introduced in future.

2) my particular country is undergoing a stage in which there exists a rather high level of "envelope salaries", particularly in specific sectors, where the employer is declaring the minimum wage salaries and paying the rest of the wages in cash, for tax evasion.

While the situation with such illegal activities is gradually improving, it is widely held that until it improves past some percentage (at least some 3/4ds of employment to be on fully legal pay) minimum wages are providing at least a minimum of protection for employees (severance pay etc.) as well as providing at least some minimal amount of taxation meanwhile.
Re:A perfect world by ichin4 · 2006-01-10 09:32 · Score: 1

Thanks for replying. There are two of your points I'd like to respond to in particular.

Under this theory, if they can do any job for less, then they will do ALL jobs for less... I am not so moronic that I cannot see that total replacement of all citizens by L1 visa workers living in corporate owned slums ...

The argument that, without government intervention, workers would earn only starvation wages, dates back to Malthus. If it were true, it would apply with or without immigration. But it isn't true.

Any modern economist can draw you a bunch of nifty graphs that show that, in a competitive labor market, a worker will earn the marginal product of his labor. I encourage you to go take an econ class, because the mathematical logic of the argument is fun. But to see that it's true, all you have to do is look around at all the vast majority of workers in our cometitive labor markets who are earning far more than starvation wages.

Your grandfather or great grandfather may have died for your country, but that doesn't matter anymore.

Sigh. Do you know the line about patriotism being the last refuge of scoundrels?

I don't believe that my grandfather, who did in fact fight in WWII, served in order to protect native workers against competition. On the contrary, he believed that people should be judged on their merits and not on their country of origin.
Re:A perfect world by blahplusplus · 2006-01-10 09:56 · Score: 1

"Minimum wage laws impose artificial restrictions on the economy. Like any price floor, they encourage oversupply and drive down demand, which results in unemployment. For a simple thought experiment to demonstrate this point, consider the following:"

You're forgetting the fact that the minimum wage or the "price floor" is necessary, because the price of certain necessary products cannot decrease towards infinity like wage labour can, when people cannot afford to clothing, food, electricity, and things like housing you're going to have an overthrowing of the government or the entire economic system.

There are many products in the world that cannot be made cheaper simply by making peoples labour cheaper. Much of the savings of cheaper labour is NOT passed onto society at large it's passed onto private rich families and wealthy individuals.

Next and modern businesses are not rational, let me repeat that for you, businesses cannot be expected to behave rationally. Their desire is profit, think about CEO pay raises over the last 20 years compared to the wages of the jobs at the bottom of the economic pile.
Re:A perfect world by JesseMcDonald · 2006-01-10 09:57 · Score: 1

I am aware of the problem of "sweatshop" working conditions. From the article:

Some defenders of sweatshops hold that even products manufactured as a result of child labor should not be boycotted. According to a UNICEF study an estimated 5,000 to 7,000 Nepalese children turned to prostitution after the U.S. banned that country's carpet exports in the 1990s. Also, after the Child Labor Deterence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Bangladesh, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution," - "all of them more hazardous and exploitative than garment production" according to the UNICEF study.

Perhaps, instead of shutting down their best hope of income, you should offer them better jobs where they are, or make it easier for them to immigrate to countries with higher standards of living, so that both you and they could benefit. If alternatives to the sweatshops existed the sweatshops would not remain viable. Setting a minimum wage does stop sweatshops, but it accomplishes this goal by driving the jobs out of the country entirely. The "liberated" workers are then left with worse jobs than the "oppressive" sweatshops offered.

I would agree that the exploitive practices of some sweatshops are wrong, and should be stopped. I do not believe that child labor is itself one of them, unless it is harmful to the child or against the wishes of the child or the child's guardian(s). However, every person (even a child) has certain personal rights which ought to be respected by others as a matter of basic human dignity. Those who do not respect those rights should be punished in accordance with their crimes. That, however, is primarily a social matter, not an economic one.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:A perfect world by DaveInAZ · 2006-01-10 11:22 · Score: 1

Since IT services are a cost of doing other types of business, the costs of producing everything that relies on IT will tend to fall, too... In the end, the costs to end-consumers across the economy will go down. And it doesn't take an economist to realize that to the consumer, lower costs are the same thing as having more money.

If you let the market do what it wants to do, you let the IT people take a hit in the short-medium term in exchange for greater prosperity in the economy as a whole.
Yeah, these are the standard arguments used by proponents of "Free Market" economics or Reganomics as they were known for a while. And, they're logically sound and mathematically unassailable. The problem is they're based on assumptions that ignore reality. They assume that a decrease of X in production cost to the manufacturer results in a decrease of X in the cost of finished goods to the consumer. That's just insanely optimistic.
Does anyone know of an actual documented case of this happening in modern times? I seriously doubt it. In the real world, wealth does not "trickle down". Not if the wealthy have anything to say about it. In extreme cases, say when a company is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy, the proportions may be altered slightly, but the full X never makes it to the consumer. At best, the customer might see 80% of that savings. Usually it's a percentage approaching, if not reaching, zero.
But, let's say that our IT company outsources my job to someone for 80% of my former salary. This doesn't just affect me, or even just the superset of people with whom I do business; it affects the whole class of people in the same salary class I'm in. Not just in the IT industry which, naturally, rushes to follow the example set by my former employer, but every white collar employee earning the same general level of salary and benefits. Why shouldn't they? If cheaper labor can handle jobs that the average CEO can't even understand, they can certainly handle the jobs he does understand within his own business.
Soon, everyone who was making X is making .8X (if they can find a position that will hire a full-time, benefited employee, instead of a contractor) because that's what the market rate is, for now. And, they learn to make do with that salary level because they have no real choice, but their .8X salary now has to stretch to cover products/services that, at best, have dropped to .99X prices. But, the company's bottom line looks good, so their stock goes up and the CEO gets another billion dollar bonus, and the pundits tell us "the economy" is strong because the stock market is up, despite the continual, and accelerating, erosion of the quality of life for the average american worker.
And, no, the problem is not the influx of cheap foreign workers; that's a symptom. The problem is fear. Fear that, if they don't squeeze the last penny out of the lower echelons (without touching executive perks and privileges, of course!), the suppliers (if any), and the customers, they'll lose their own cushy jobs. And that may be true, in some cases, but not universally, and this is a damn near universal problem in this country. Greed is responsible for it, of course; the insatiable greed of stockholders and boards of directors. But, the problem is fear.
Re:A perfect world by swingbyte · 2006-01-10 11:29 · Score: 1

Case for a minimul wage - no minimum wage, artificial labor surplus through distorted market by external forces drops salarries to USA working poor == effective slaves => Who will buy products?? The rich at the top don't buy everything - all economies float on the middle class. It has been proven that slavery is extremely harmful to economy - good for the boss thought! I'll tell you what - I'll be the boss - and you can be my slave!!

--
#include "std_employer_disclaimer.hpp" "Smoke me a kipper... I'll be back for breakfast"-Ace Rimmer
Re:A perfect world by JesseMcDonald · 2006-01-10 11:42 · Score: 1

I'm going to refer this one to the excellent economics text Man, Economy, and State by Murray N. Rothbard. To summarize the counterpoints:

(1) Wages would not drop to zero in an economy unencumbered by minimum wages. This is because labor is a required element in the production process of all consumer goods, and exists in limited supply. The goods that consumers desire cannot be provided without paying wages which make it worthwhile for laborers to work. Most jobs in the US economy, for example, pay a higher rate than minimum wage. The reason for this is that the individuals who fill those position have a productivity above minimum wage; their contribution to the final product justifies their pay. If the standard pay in any given area is too low, then workers will leave that area in search of better employment, which will tend to drive the wages up since the supply of labor has decreased. The system is self-regulating.

(2) There ought to be a word for the fear of rich individuals / big companies. This comes up far too often. First, people generally become rich either by saving their income, or by investing in markets that are undervalued compared to their actual worth to consumers. In the former case, I cannot see how anyone could think that anything unethical or immoral has occurred; they earned an "honest living" and chose to save their earnings. There may be some who did not in fact earn an "honest living", but their error is not in being rich. In the latter case, the investments are actually helpful to the economy because they improve the market's ability to supply consumers with the products that they value most. This is an example of entrepreneurial profit, and is also self-regulating: the market's value will rise as more investments are made in it, and the profits in the market will decrease to match the pure rate of interest.

(3) CEOs typically report to (and are paid by) the companies' shareholders, represented by the companies' boards of directors. It is those shareholders who should be upset about excessive CEO pay raises, since the CEO is ultimately their agent, chosen to be responsible for the day-to-day operations of the company. If the lower-paid workers are continuing to work for these companies, then they must believe their wages better those available elsewhere. I do think that the various directors should keep a closer eye on CEO salaries (for their own benefit), and progress is being made in this area.

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:A perfect world by umbrellasd · 2006-01-10 12:16 · Score: 1

Hrm...I read the responses, but I think there is a difference in context here which I can resolve. When I referred to the "local economy", what I was considering and the part that I see as devastating is market saturation for a skill set. As I suspect many of us have felt from time to time, our current job and salary are due, in no small part, to a long sequence of educational events which specifically trained us for our job.
But the idea I am more getting at is the "local economy" as a social one. If you have 10,000 jobs of a particular type in a market and you have 10,000 foreign nationals capable of doing the job and 10,000 local workers, then certainly supply and demanded play a role in adjusting the price point for the service. No need for an Economics 101 lecture, there.
However, if you have 20,000 foreign nationals capable of doing the job and willing to enter a local market, and there is no protection from them so doing, they will and then they can displace many local workers. The situation is, of course, worse if they are actually more qualified for whatever reason.
You can turn around and say, "Well, those local workers need to retrain and move to a different job." Well, yes. That is a path. But you must also consider the realities of individual citizens, the flexibility in their life style, their willingness and ability to retrain, and other economic constraints that might devastate their life ("Where'd my house go?") if they need to retrain at their own cost with a reduced income or simply accept a job that pays less. Is this the individual's responsibility? Well, yes. It certainly is. You can take the tack of full personal responsibility.
But you also have to be aware of the limitations of your citizens. You can expect a great deal from them, but there are points beyond which, on average, your citizens will be unable to be flexible enough to deal with being bent over an occupational barrel by a completely free and unrestricted labor market. Some of those limitations might well be limitations of your governments own making for not investing significantly enough particular areas of education, thus putting you at a disadvantage. Can you compensate? Yes, any individual could ultimately take full responsibility for everything that befalls them.
Your economics and your argument may be perfect, but the reality is that your citizens are not. We have limits, we get lost sometimes, we make poor choices, we get overwhelmed, and so on. I think the point of a nation, the reason they exist, is to help protect the way of life of a group of people that have a shared identity. Sometimes that means protecting your population from its own limitations.
If for whatever reason, you end up with an important segment of your industry which is staffed largely by foreign nationals--well for one, that would be a significant security risk or at least a significant economic weakness that puts you at a disadvantage in dealings with other nations. But there are other more subtle erosions that can occur and the result is typically bloody.
So in response, to your final paragraph, I would say that yes, "protectionism" does resulting in a higher economic cost, but it exists and is used in situations where the social cost has the potential to be greater (risks to national security, risks of social unrest, etc.). Put two ways: sometimes you take out a loan, and sometimes you purchase insurance. (And some times you take out a loan to purchase insurance, which can really ruin your day.)
I think when most people argue for ideal concepts like "a free market", they are neglecting the people variable in the equation. You cannot just look at the economics of the situation, because people's fears are difficult to predict and quantify, but they can in certain situations have a critical impact on the economy. If you have sufficient time, then the economics will mirror the social factors, but sometimes you do not have the time and you hit a break point. It is good to keep
Re:A perfect world by MikeFM · 2006-01-10 12:18 · Score: 1

Capitalism, like socialism or damn near any other system, in it's pure form will self destruct. A totally free market isn't that great an idea. Corporations and consumers care about short term gains with little thought to long term results. That only works for so long before the whole system crashes and has to be painfully rebooted.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Re:A perfect world by umbrellasd · 2006-01-10 12:23 · Score: 1

Spot On.
Re:A perfect world by Vicissidude · 2006-01-10 12:44 · Score: 1

Me: You're ignoring the fact that the entire system rises. Your example of demand decreasing as price goes up only works when you look at a single product by itself when the rest of the system is stable. However, if everyone has to raise prices on their goods due to paying more wages, then demand stays the same. Simply put, workers have more money to spend and they still want to spend it on the same amount of goods and services.
You: Even if that were true (and I'm not saying that it is), then there would be no advantage in having minimum-wage laws.

Actually, when you add in foreign trade, you see that the whole nation is better able to purchase cheap foreign goods and services - that's the advantage. Of course then, you start getting problems like offshoring. But, trade barriers in other countries limit that and make it convenient for countries to produce here, where trade barriers are lax.

Having a higher minimum wage also increases wages all the way up the scale. Say, if we push the minimum wage up from $5.15 to $8, then all the people now making $8 will also want a similar raise to $11. Then, all the people making $11 will want $14. This then ripples throughout the economy.

The costs of products do not rise evenly throughout the economy, even if the costs of labor rise evenly, because every product requires a different amount of labor.

If we don't include foreign trade or company innovation, then demand goes up in response to the decreased supply. Companies can charge more for the labor intensive goods and services. McDonald's did not fire everyone when Washington state raised its minimum wage to $7.63. That's because they knew everyone else would be paying the same wage as well. They just raised the price of the Big Mac.

Certainly, that makes companies want to innovate more to decrease their labor costs. However, I'd be hard-pressed to consider innovation a bad thing.

As for foreign trade, they'll mostly take the labor intensive processes that don't require a great deal a skill. So, they produce our shirts and socks while we make Windows and Linux. Again, I don't consider that a bad thing.

In addition, there are some kinds of high-elasticity labor which are only cost-effective at low hourly rates (primarily "unskilled" labor). With the minimum wage in place these jobs simply do not exist.

Fine, if employers do not want to pay an attractive wage, then let these jobs be done overseas. Otherwise, demand will rise to meet supply. So, if there's enough demand for these goods and services, then employers will find ways to pay employees.

Basic services, in particular, are hard to find at any reasonable price, and consumers spend more time on things they'd rather not have to do themselves while others, who would be willing to perform these tasks for less than the minimum wage, remain unemployed.

No, the problem is that we have 10 million illegal aliens which employers use instead of citizens because they can hire them for less than minimum wage and get away with it without repercussion from the government. Remove the illegals, and employers will have to make their jobs and wages attractive to all the currently unemployed young, inexperienced, or unskilled citizens.
Re:A perfect world by squeen · 2006-01-10 12:46 · Score: 1

You may have had something interesting to say, however your style of writing made me just move on to the next comment. Please use a level of punctuation that makes me assume you actually have some semantic reasoning.
Re:A perfect world by JesseMcDonald · 2006-01-10 13:07 · Score: 1

Having a higher minimum wage also increases wages all the way up the scale. Say, if we push the minimum wage up from $5.15 to $8, then all the people now making $8 will also want a similar raise to $11. Then, all the people making $11 will want $14. This then ripples throughout the economy.

I'm not going to address all of the points, although I will say that I don't agree with the idea that driving up labor costs would help the economy any, in domestic or foreign markets. However, regarding this one point, I am curious at to what you believe limits us from simply raising the minimum wage to $100/hour and making everyone rich? After all, if a high minimum wage helps the US out in foreign markets, and there are no problems with having a minimum wage in the first place, then what prevents us from seeking the best advantage by setting an arbitrarily high minimum wage? After all, $5.15/hour is, in the end, just as arbitrary as $100/hour, or $1000/hour. Do you think we'd be better off somehow if we raised the minimum wage by 10% every year while maintaining the same productivity?

--
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Re:A perfect world by Tablizer · 2006-01-10 18:44 · Score: 1

I see no reason why the most skilled shouldn't have the best jobs

Then flood ALL jobs equally. I perhaps could compete at $5 per hour 3rd-world wages if my doctor bills and mechanic bills were not so high. Thus, flood one flood all, or flood none.

--
Table-ized A.I.
Re:A perfect world by Bush+Pig · 2006-01-10 22:25 · Score: 1

While it's true that some schools of economic thought don't assume perfect knowledge, the current dominant paradigm (economic irrationalism) certainly does. That's all that "invisible hand" shit that the neo-classical economists are always wittering on about.

In fact, the markets appear to be set up so most of us _don't_ have perfect knowledge, as that's the only way the spivs who run things can make a quid.

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Re:A perfect world by Bush+Pig · 2006-01-10 22:34 · Score: 1

I saw it. I kind of agree with you.

The thing most economists seem to forget is that the economy only exists (or at least should) as a mechanism to allow us all to have a decent life, not the other way round.

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.
Re:A perfect world by blahplusplus · 2006-01-10 22:38 · Score: 1

You're missing the point of minimum wage completely, maybe you need a history lesson of why it was implemented in the firstplace. Go backwards in time as capitalism had less regulation and you see infinitely more squalor, you also forget that minimum wage becomes the new "unencumbered price floor" it doesn't matter if the lowest wage is a fraction of a cent or some specificied amount capitalist markets automatically adjust as if it was unencumbered, you are also forgetting that global markets are unencumbered, you can buy many more engineers for the same money in india or china as you can in the US, this is a problem because the standards of living decrease for the population that had worked so many years to acquire them creating massive disincentive as you reduce wages.

Current market systems are hopelessly defective and ruin lives, the historical forces of markets in the times we live in are ruining countless lives all over the world by displacement, no wealth is truly created, it is onl displaced, as other countries grow richer someone else is having their standard of living slashed.
Re:A perfect world by MikeFM · 2006-01-12 07:46 · Score: 1

I know a lot of people in the rust belt that used to hold down jobs that are now living off a mix of odd jobs and welfare because there are simply not enough jobs to go around and they are to old to start over with a new skill set. Even if they were retrained I don't know if it'd help much as ever greater ranges of jobs are being moved out of the US. If I wasn't flexible my IT skills would be easily replacable - it's only by mixing my computer skills with skill and experience in other areas that I manage to stay in IT at all. Certainly most my skills can be purchased cheaper elsewhere and that's even after I've lowered my wage expectations quite a bit. If there isn't something done to stop the job drain the US (and probably other Western countries) is in serious risk of collapse or at least a major depression.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Re:A perfect world by tushar · 2006-01-12 12:32 · Score: 1

I've had a number of friends working in IT who have come from India and had the stated intention of just working in IT for a few years to earn the money to buy some farmland or a hotel (which they would then hire other people to work for them). Even those in suposedly permanant jobs have treated them like contrator positions.
How many of them went back? Among my acquaintances of Indian origin (yes I am from India, working in the US) 90% talk about going back in X years or after they have saved Y dollars. X is always relative from the current date and never changes. Y always keeps on increasing. Bottom line, less than 5% of them have gone back. And this is at a time when companies in India are paying handsomely by local standards.
Re:A perfect world by stephenbooth · 2006-01-12 19:58 · Score: 1

Of those I've actually met and worked with (small sample size, maybe a few dozen) I'd estimate that 80-90% have returned. Probably about a third of them had a family (i.e. a partner and sometimes kids) in their area of origin to return to, others had someone they intended or were commited to marry to return to.

Stephen

--
"Don't write down to your readers, the only people less intelligent than you can't read" - Sign on Newspaper Office Wall
Re:A perfect world by LaCosaNostradamus · 2006-01-13 03:19 · Score: 1
hold down jobs that are now living off a mix of odd jobs and welfare

YES!! Yes, THAT is a good summary of "what the hell is wrong" with Rust Belt culture at the moment. This kind of personal economic uncertainty is becoming mainstream, hence is tolerated. I'm watching grown men resignedly losing their homes and talking about taking seasonal work to make "Christmas money" (itself a farcical sentiment, please note).

Unseen to the media and elite, there are millions of men in their late 40s to early 60s who have fallen out of the unemployment stats due to:
- imprisonment
- medical care system (back injuries)
- medical care system (mental illness)
I am only guessing, but I'd bet that a significant disproportion of these men are from the Rust Belt.

As far as I'm concerned, the Rusty States are already in America's next Depression, and that Depression started in the 1990s.
--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:A perfect world by MikeFM · 2006-01-13 08:34 · Score: 1

Last time I checked unemployment stats don't count people who are considered outside the usual job market (students, retirees, etc) and also only count you for a short period of time - you can still be unemployed but you're no longer in the numbers.

My father probably doesn't count as he is almost to retiree age and has medical problems. He can't work anymore because with his health problems he can't do manual labor and the skilled labor (inventory control and a mechanic of factory machines) he was doing no longer exists because the company he worked for for twenty years moved to Mexico. Not only that but the government let the company screw him out of his unemployment money - he was laid off for more than six months so he tried to get a new job which didn't work out and the company he'd worked at all those years found out and filed to have his unemployment taken away - a whole complicated mess that ended up in him getting screwed.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Re:A perfect world by LaCosaNostradamus · 2006-01-13 10:51 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, that sounds like a very familiar type of anecdote. The point I was making was that millions of otherwise qualifiably unemployed men have been "hidden" in the medical care system on some sort of public assistance; unemployment in the United States is at least 4 points higher in real terms just for this crowd alone. Usually these men are on that widely-ranged thing called "disability". It is my opinion that the medical care system had felt significant pressure to get these millions of workers put onto the disability rolls, starting in the late 1980s.

Since this system is an onerous one for the taxpayers, it must snap like a dry stick eventually. THEN we'll see the shantytowns, bread lines, train hobos and all the other obvious indicators of Depression ... and meanwhile, the major media outlets will be falling all over themselves to keep the urban yuppies in the spotlight to continue to blot out economic reality.

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]

I don't know what they're talking about by MadLep · 2006-01-09 18:44 · Score: 5, Interesting

I work at a software development firm in Melbourne, Australia. We've had a lot of new work recently and have had to recruit extra developers. It has been very hard to find competant staff. Sure, there are a lot of wannabe grads and deadwood who have drifted through a few years experience, but it's slim pickings in general.

Re:I don't know what they're talking about by scdeimos · 2006-01-09 19:01 · Score: 1

Mod parent up!! Deadwood is certainly the case!

Most of the new development staff we've hired in recent years have come from internal applicants in our Technical Support departments who've been through our systems software training programs.

When I went back to uni to do IT in mid-90's (I was an Elec. Eng. originally) I was unpleasantly surprised to find that a large number of incoming students had to be shown where to find the power switches on the lab computers. It seems that not much has changed, with a lot of the graduates we've interviewed having the piece of paper but no real idea of what the hell they're talking about.

I'd say the graduates with any nouse have their jobs and are as happy as Larry - it's the nouse-less ones left behind which are making the noise.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by pookemon · 2006-01-09 20:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

We recently advertised for a graduate developer through a very well known Job Search website at a very well known University (and hospital...). Of the 2 dozen or so replys we got we binned close to half almost immediately simply based on the terrible cover letters (Eg. I would like to work for your Origination). 2 of the applications were Aussies, the rest were foreign students. Out of the dozen or so left (the ones we read past the front cover) only 3 could actually string a sentence together (the 2 Aussies and one Chinese guy on a student visa).

When we interviewed the 3 the Chinese guy had obviously copied his resume from someone else as he hardly spoke a word of English. The other two we pretty much ended up flipping a coin to pick our new employee.

I used to work for the parent company of an IT Employment Agency that organises the immigration of significant numbers of people from India. When their Candidates couldn't find work they'd "organise" a contract with us. Whilst their resumes often looked good (Gee I wonder why) they generally didn't have anywhere near the skills claimed.

I have also worked with alot of the Deadwood (having worked for Aus' biggest Telco and with a few ppl from Big Blue). IMO alot of the dead wood in the market is their because they were released into the market by the transfer from the Telco to the Big Blue.

That being said you hire Graduates because they are cheap - and you train them. If you want someone with experience you go to one of the many Employment Agencies and they'll find more than enough candidates for you.

my 2c

--
dnuof eruc rof aixelsid
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by GoLGY · 2006-01-09 21:02 · Score: 1

Disclaimer: I am a graduate, also in Melbourne.

Finding a job in this city is abysmal. For each job, there's nearly always a requirement of this built-up peice of paper from some tertiary educational institution. Getting past that is the easy bit, of course not mentioning that said peice of paper is almost worthless, and doesnt really give you any real skillset of any sort. Though, it does teach you how to learn ( the only worthwhilte part, imo ).

On top of this degree requirement, you have to make it past recruiters. Those interviews are the pits. Having to go via some third party who arent *really* interested in finding you a job, just making sure they get a payment from their client who has the position open. These recruiters put such rediculous standards on pissy little jobs, that any 'graduate' or 'entry level' job advertised has at least a few years experience wanted.

Its a classic chicken and the egg. To get a job, you need a bit of experience. To get experience, you need a job. The only real way to break this cycle is to whore yourself out to some helpdesk job till someone decides that your mandetory "get used to life" sentence has been served, and takes pity on you enough to give you a go.

--
--- perl -e 'printf("%s\n", pack "H*", "7369670a676f6c677940676f6c67792e6e65740a2f736967")'
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by chathamhouse · 2006-01-09 21:48 · Score: 1

I completely agree with you, and am completely baffled by the article's ascertations.

I work for a Melbourne ISP, and can assure you that finding skilled operations and development (two different roles there!) people is difficult. Our salaries are above average, the work varied, yet we still generally find a glut of skilled people.

And to answer those suggesting that we employ junior personel and train them up -we do. Though you can't expect to succeed as a company with one or two senior people and an army of juniors.

Though I can't say that this is a problem just in the IT industry. Australia's immigration laws are almost draconian, and their quotas are too low. Really. I've had chats with people in the engineering, legal, and architectural fields - all are looking for more experienced staff to balance their junior ranks, and are willing to pay for it.

Come on Australia, help your booming economy - increase the skilled migrant quota, and drop the required score!
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by oztiks · 2006-01-09 21:59 · Score: 1

Yeap, seems pretty much the case anywhere you go here in Oz, not sure if i've found any kickass hindu developers coming out of the woodwork though as a direct results (or any other race for that matter).

Heck Australia is founded on multiculturalism and for the most of it there are lots of multicultrual professionals especially in the health industry, but as for IT its just a huge basin for suckass developers and people are starting to realise its better to just go off and employ indian resident developers to do the job (screw getting them over here its cheaper to pay them over there).
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by Ambush · 2006-01-09 22:10 · Score: 1

I work at a software development firm in Melbourne, Australia. We've had a lot of new work recently and have had to recruit extra developers. It has been very hard to find competant staff. Sure, there are a lot of wannabe grads and deadwood who have drifted through a few years experience, but it's slim pickings in general.
It's not just good appdev people that are difficult to find in Melbourne. I reckon it's harder to find good systems people here.

--
There are 10 kinds of people; those who know ternary, those who don't, and those now hunting for a dictionary.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by abdulla · 2006-01-09 22:16 · Score: 1

I think you need something more to differentiate the people you're picking. I think you need to look for people who've not only shown a high degree of competence, but also people who are actively seeking to better themselves or develop stand-out technology. Look for people who have their own projects and who aren't just sitting still waiting for a job to sweep them up.

I'm only 20 but I got offered a very generous job working on military simulation stuff. Sadly I had to decline it because I chose to do honours instead this year, but I know for a fact that I was the youngest to apply yet I was able to get the job due to how I differentiated myself. There are very capable people out there, you just need to know where to look and how to attract them. If you're interested in skilled graduates, try posting in university careers sites. Also talk to friends and co-workers who might know someone skilled. That's how I was referred to that job in particular.
Ofcourse you have the upperhand in career experience, so take this all with a grain of salt, it's just my experience. I'm just a Melbourne University student with a lot of crazy ideas.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by jcam2 · 2006-01-09 22:59 · Score: 1

I'd hardly call Australia's immigration laws 'draconian' .. last year, the net intake was around 130,000, which is quite a few for a country of 20 million. And those with IT qualifications are pretty much guaranteed to get it, thanks to IT being on the list of in-demand qualifications.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by stunt_penguin · 2006-01-10 00:18 · Score: 1

Precisely. 18 months ago I finished second in an Honours Degree class of 26 Multimedia Design students in a university Ireland. Although I was second, it wasn't really that impressive an achievement as 22 of the 26 students in the class were total deadwood who scraped 2:1 degrees together from the easiest modules they could find.

I would only hire 3 other people from my class.

I and those three have all found web developer & mmedia related jobs, so i'd say the job success rate for proper graduates for our course was 100%.
Of course, the deadwood students in the course will have been recorded as graduates and their lack of jobs will account for our course's 15% industry job success rate.

I suspect that the Australian Govornment's graduate jobs figures are full of dead wood. Just because you're a 'Graduate' doesn't mean you're actually good at anything.

--
When the posters fear their moderators, there is tyranny; when the moderators fears the posters, there is liberty.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by Itchy+Rich · 2006-01-10 00:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

It has been very hard to find competant staff. Sure, there are a lot of wannabe grads and deadwood who have drifted through a few years experience, but it's slim pickings in general.

I lived in Melbourne for 6 months (2002-2003) and was looking for work in IT. I didn't get a single interview until I removed any mention of my nationality from my CV.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by nutbar · 2006-01-10 13:44 · Score: 1

Who in their right mind would put nationality on their CV? It's a needless piece of information that could be used to discriminate against you.
I do. My last name is very similar to an Indian one (Kahn), and I'd rather have the potential employer know that I'm a New Zealand European.
So, you could say that I put my nationality on my CV for the exact opposite reason as you - to avoid being discriminated against.
Re:I don't know what they're talking about by Bush+Pig · 2006-01-10 22:40 · Score: 1

This is not necessarily the case. Admittedly I live in Adelaide which _always_ has a slow IT job market, and I'm not prepared to move to either Melbourne or Sydney for personal reasons, but I was unemployed from Nov 2004 to Apr 2005. I'm extremely competent (you're going to have to take my word for that), but being 55 is definitely a barrier to even getting an interview.

--
What a long, strange trip it's been.

boom bust cycle by bobby1234 · 2006-01-09 18:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

Once again the boom bust cycle continues...

1. high demand results in increasing supply (more uni graduates and immigration)

2. demand deminishes resulting in supply being met

3. demand bottoms out => oversupply

4. low demand => less uni graduates and less immigration

5. demand begins to increase

6. goto 1

Re:boom bust cycle by Rocketship+Underpant · 2006-01-09 21:39 · Score: 2, Interesting

You've just illustrated the cycle by which the market corrects itself, wage prices being the usual economic signal (Adam Smith's "invisible hand"). It's not really a boom-bust cycle, though, since the market tends to make corrections quickly.

However, market interference tends to send the wrong signals to market participants, resulting in booms and busts. Here's a typical boom-bust cycle:

1. New Industry (IT, dot-com, whatever) emerges with strong growth potential.

2. Government creates below-market interest rates and expands money supply to "encourage growth".

3. Cheap credit causes over-investment and excess demand in new Industry.

4. Labour market mistakes over-investment for real potential, and labour supply (graduates, immigrants) expands. This is the boom period.

5. Over-investment (see 3) results in over-supply and poor profits. Businesses contract and the market rate for labour decreases as the economy seeks equilibrium.

6. Market equilibrium is denied, as the government legislates anti-immigration laws, tariffs, and possibly even wage protection laws.

7. High operating costs force many otherwise solvent businesses in the Industry to fold. Derivative industries also fold or contract because tariffs are keeping prices artificially high.

8. Government lowers artificial interest rate further to keep money flowing into the Industry. Over-supply situation persists.

9. When rates can go no lower, the majority of businesses in the Industry consolidate or go bankrupt. High frictional unemployment results because of workers who mistook over-capitalization for true market demand and learned the wrong skills. This is the bust period, which lasts until the misallocation of capital (investment, labour, etc) is remedied.

--
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
Re:boom bust cycle by LaCosaNostradamus · 2006-01-10 07:14 · Score: 1

"Thank you for demonstrating your knowledge of the GOTO statement. However, we're looking for a programmer with 10 more years experience with the GOTO statement. We'll keep your resume on file. Have a nice day."

--
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Re:boom bust cycle by Profound · 2006-01-10 14:49 · Score: 1

>> the market tends to make corrections quickly

It takes 3-4 years and tens of thousands of dollars to train for a career.

how much more of this crap by caffeinemessiah · 2006-01-09 18:44 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's all very fine to point the finger at immigrant workers and blame them for vanishing jobs, but the question to be asked is why are they needed? Is it because immigrant workers are instantly, instinctively appealing to employers that they just feel a desperate urge to dump on their countrymen? If that were the case, then this would be a valid argument. But the IT immigration bias exists because the demand for IT labor exists. True, if there were no immigrant workers, then there'd be no shortage of X country IT jobs for people from X country, but there also would be a gaping personnel demand that X country's IT workers could not fill. The question should be why are immigrant IT workers getting jobs over the natives (and I use that term as respectfully as "immigrant")? And please don't come back with the "lower wage" stuff -- all the (few) job offers I got (being an "immigrant") were very competitive with those of local workers.

--
An old-timer with old-timey ideas.

Re:how much more of this crap by TubeSteak · 2006-01-09 19:06 · Score: 4, Insightful

When you have a high standard of living (USA, France, Australia) workers in high paying industries expect decent hours and good wages.

Foreigners from countries with lower standards of living (large parts of Eastern Europe, Africa, portions of Asia) tend to willing to work long hours for what we'd consider a shitty salary, but for them is relatively high.

The worker Visa program also creates something of a hostage situation (in the U.S. at least). If cheap foreign laborers start bitching about their wages or working conditions, they can easily get their Visa revoked and sent back home. Australia also has work visa programs, so I imagine it is somewhat similar.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:how much more of this crap by umbrellasd · 2006-01-09 19:08 · Score: 1
There are a bunch of reasons.
- The immigrant IT workers might be better qualified due to a stronger education and technical background.
- Workers could have similar skill levels, but the number of foreign applicants might far outnumber citizen applications.
- Foreign nationals of particular national, ethnic, or racial background might be perceived (and I know this is against the law in at least the U.S. but it still can happen in the form of unofficial bias) as more skilled.
- Sure, wage might be an issue. Not in IT from what I can see, though. Often it is more expensive to hire the non-citizen.
I think the issue here is that what is true for the U.S. (are you a U.S. citizen) does not necessarily apply for Australia which has a much smaller population. So what you may argue could be valid for the U.S. situation but not for the situation in Australia.
Re:how much more of this crap by Mateito · 2006-01-09 19:21 · Score: 4, Interesting

willing to work long hours for what we'd consider a shitty salary
C'mon. Everybody I know (including myself) in this industry in Australia work shitty hours. Programming deadlines, upgrade windows, tender responses, support calls. Even just the reading to stay on top of the technology. We get paid well because we know stuff and we put in the hard yards.
Looking around my office, if there are "foreigners" taking Australian jobs, then those foreigners all come from NZ (Out of 18 people I can see from my cube, 4 are kiwis). Kiwis don't even need a Visa to come work in Aus.
As far as these "unemployable" grads, I'd like to see their profiles. I still get people turning up with a three-year CS degree from a non-brand university, a CCNA and an expectation of a six-figure salary. Sorry guys, not going to happen when I can get somebody (either Aussie or Foreign) with a hell of a lot of experience for that money.
We don't discrimiate on race or background, but nor do we import people to work for us. Actually, I can't think of any reason to import "cheap" foreign workers: The hoops you have to jump through to get the Visa are still pretty stiff, they have no knowledge of the local market and if I just want to use them for programming, why not leave them where they are and send the work over?
No. I think at least a decent proportion of these grads don't have work because they don't have the skills or experience to land the jobs, nor the nouse to go out and get the requisites.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:how much more of this crap by Mateito · 2006-01-09 19:27 · Score: 1

Maybe if you'd just stop dumping shit on anybody from the East Coast, some of us might come over to work there.

As it is, Perth has such a huge chip on its shoulder that anybody from Sydney or Melbourne is treated like a leper.

News to all Perth residents: We don't call you names. The only time I've heard people use the term "Sandgroper" has been when WA residents accuse use "Eastcoasters" of using the term.

Note to all non-Perth residents: Its a beautiful city, and if you tell the locals that you are from Adelaide, they are really nice people.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:how much more of this crap by GaryPatterson · 2006-01-09 20:12 · Score: 1

Well, I've personally seen a few examples where it was just all about the money.

That's over here in Melbourne, on the East Coast, but it's the same situation.

It's all about the money. Most IT workers are recruited based on keyword searches through resumes. I know this happens and have seen many examples of it in IT, project manager and other areas.

It's just another form of outsourcing, but doesn't have the negative PR.
Re:how much more of this crap by rodac · 2006-01-09 20:16 · Score: 1

I work for the sydney, australia office for a large international hi-tech company.

I often interview applicants for above-average payed technical positions at this company for this office.
We rarely hire local australians, instead most of the time we hire immigrants or arrange relocation for staff in europe or the us to fill open positions here.
The main problem is that australia was never an industrialized country and the true entreprenours or technically skilled people of the locals are few and far between.
In fact, in my particular group we no longer have a single australian born remaining.

I would say, and will probably be flamed for it, that the australian culture is not ready for hi-tech or technical thinking. But why would this be a surprise, this country does not really have any experience of having an industry. (no europeans or americans would consider this country industrialized. Dont get me wrong, quality of life is GREAT but it is not an industrialized country.)

The school system and the universities are probably also to blame, sometimes I mentor final year comp sci (master level) students that dont even know what Ordo is.
The mind boggles, how would anyone get past first year without knowing what computational complexity is.

Then again, it is not like there is lots of industry here so why should they waste resources on teaching them skills they will likely not need?
Re:how much more of this crap by rodac · 2006-01-10 01:35 · Score: 1

Greek letter O, as in O(n^2)

also refered to by its name, Ordo, in all textbooks.
Re:how much more of this crap by Mateito · 2006-01-11 12:57 · Score: 1

Melbourne, in general, has a more interesting mix. Sydney is just Kiwis, Poms and most of Asia.

At least we don't have too many South Africans (and, no, that's not a rascist comment: They are as white as I am and they are still arseholes)

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl

Somebody get it straight by 246o1 · 2006-01-09 18:47 · Score: 4, Insightful

Either the skilled immigrants are taking our jobs (competing under our labor laws), or the skilled foreigners are doing our jobs remotely.

Either the poor immigrants are responsible for all the poverty and crime, or else the birthrate is too low.

Admittedly, I didn't RTFA before deciding to post, but i have read it now. Basically, it's all summed up in the title. Some immigration analyst interviewed by what appears to be a newspaper says that too much skilled labor is causing a glut. Nothing new, for those of you who follow this kind of news in America, or any other country, i guess. damned foreigners (not that it's not a legitimately difficult situation).

A single source gave them the gist. Then at the end, here's the kicker:

But Australian Computer Society chief executive officer Dennis Furini said that while there was possibly an oversupply of entry-level programmers, there was a shortage of specialists in areas such as e-commerce and network security.

An Immigration Department spokesman said it relied on information from the Department of Employment and Workplace Relations to draw up the skilled occupation list.

"The Immigration Department has no information suggesting IT jobs should be taken off the skilled occupation list," he said.

--
Although the moon is smaller than the earth, it is farther away.

Re:Somebody get it straight by JanneM · 2006-01-09 19:04 · Score: 1

Either the skilled immigrants are taking our jobs (competing under our labor laws), or the skilled foreigners are doing our jobs remotely.

So, developing countries follow the (very apt) advice of developing their human resources: better schools, more resources for further education, partnerships for research and development and so on. This undoubtedly is vaulting a lot of societies upwards from poverty.

But of course, that means these people are doing actual work. Either at home, "taking jobs away" from rich countries (disregarding the question of how much of that work would have been done at all otherwise) and we can't have that, can we? So they go to where there's a market already, and suddenly immigrants are "stealing our jobs", and that's unacceptable too, of course.

From a larger view, after the highly developed West have been arguing for fifty years that countries need to expand out of poverty and become competitive, prosperous societies, suddenly everybody is shocked - shocked! - when countries are actually doing so, and becoming competitors in the process. News flash: lessening wealth inequalities means that the differences in wealth between countries will become smaller.

So what should these countries - and the smart, dedicated people living in them - do? Quietly disappear?

Me, given a choice, I much rather see R&D money (and my own money as a consumer) go to a struggling, up-and-coming newcomer of a country than to places that are already among the very wealthiest in the world.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:Somebody get it straight by Mateito · 2006-01-09 19:29 · Score: 1

better schools, more resources for further education, partnerships for research and development and so on
Strangely, this is the exact antithesis of the current Australian government's Science and Education policies.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:Somebody get it straight by strider44 · 2006-01-09 20:27 · Score: 1

I'm someone not too long away from graduating in Soft Eng from an Australian university, and I'm sort of getting the opposite feeling to this article here. I think that even with the migrants (and yes there are a lot of them) there may be a shortage of specialised IT workers quite soon. I'm talking about specialised IT workers, not help desk workers or something like that. University enrollments are at a record low of something like 20 years for IT related degrees, my own university is having quite a bit of troubles.

Lets face it here, there will be almost no migrants that aren't from first-world countries that will be as good as the students the top Australian universities should be able to deliver.

Notice, however, (and this is where the mood of this message will suddenly change) that I say "should". I don't think that bringing in migrants is a huge issue, the main problem is that the Howard government seems to be looking at this from almost a capatalistic viewpoint: Migrants from other countries are simply cheaper to produce than graduate university students, so what on earth's the need to fund Universities? A government should be looking after its people, so shouldn't the answer be instead to boost the universities instead of not giving the local students a chance of going to university and simply grabbing people from overseas? One of the bigger reasons for a lack of graduating university students is because the universities simply can't afford to accept as many students as they want. Universities are trying to get around this through many ways. Charles Sturt University, for example, sponsers out their courses to companies like Microsoft and Cisco. Graduating from a Charles Sturt degree gives you an automatic MCSE. My own university simply cuts the amount of students that can attend, so even though I get a high level of education, I had to be in the top 5-10% of Year 12 students to even have a chance of getting in.

Ironically at the time when the politicians went through university in Australia tertiary education was completely paid for by the government.

So to summarise, I don't mind them importing migrants, but they should also look after their own citizens first.
Re:Somebody get it straight by JanneM · 2006-01-09 20:29 · Score: 2, Insightful

However, the west has been sending money, sending food, sending clothes, doing training, and performing other aid for decades to help propel 3rd world countries to the modern age.

Nope, it's backwards. The point of economic growth is just so wealthy countries no longer need to send emergency aid. And this is now what is happening.

Given my choice, I'd rather see the money stay right where it was created.

It is staying. Note how the need for emergency aid nowadays is much more for "true" emergencies (earthquakes and such)? Fewer countries than ever are so destitute that they need relief. Those countries that are now able to competer for real do not receive aid anymore, by and large.

Let the 3rd world make their own. That's what we did. They obviously don't care about the help we've given them for decades to bring them where they are today.

They are making their own wealth. The IT business in Bangalore is thriving, isn't it? How would you propose, say, the Indian IT industry to develop and flourish and _not_ compete with IT industry in other countries? If nothing else, if you expect the likes of Microsoft, Dell or IBM to be able to compete for business in India, surely Indian businesses can compete for it in the US and Europe?

The good part is, many poor countries have grown a lot wealthier. But of course that means the difference in wealth has been reduced. You can't have one without the other. Note that the US and Europa has not grown any poorer by this development; just that countries like India have grown wealthier even faster.

What you are reacting to really is the growing disparity of wealth within your country, not the lessening disparity between countries.

Me, on the whole, I'm much happier seeing my money go to an up-ang-coming country, where it makes a bigger difference, and at the same time I end up getting quality stuff cheaper. And judging from the success of imported goods into the first world, I'm not the only one.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:Somebody get it straight by rodac · 2006-01-09 20:32 · Score: 2, Informative

You try to offer a 100k+ package for a specialist position in sydney and see what kind of crap will apply. You find a good ossie, good for ya.
We usually pay relocation for someone from either europe or the us in order to get someone with decent technical skills.

This is NOT cheap but what other options are there when you just can not hire locally?

Close to 50% of our hires over the last few years has been 100k+ package plus full relocation from europe/us but what other options are there?
Re:Somebody get it straight by Vicissidude · 2006-01-10 07:31 · Score: 1

The point of economic growth is just so wealthy countries no longer need to send emergency aid.

You are ignoring the aid that went beyond emergency relief. American schools worked with Indian schools to teach and train them. IIT modeled itself after MIT. They could not have done that without MIT's help.

Note how the need for emergency aid nowadays is much more for "true" emergencies (earthquakes and such)? Fewer countries than ever are so destitute that they need relief.

Your country may no longer need aid. However, your country is not the world. There are certainly countries in worse situations than yours to which we still send money to. You need to look beyond your little corner of the world.

Me: Our money also paid for the development of large companies in our country. Now, all the money we've created and paid is being used to sell our jobs to the lowest bidder in the developing countries... Given my choice, I'd rather see the money stay right where it was created.
You: It is staying.

What world are you living on? Microsoft, IBM, Intel, and tons of other companies are now shipping billions of dollars of work to India and China. That money certainly was not made in India or China. And those companies were certainly not made in those countries either.

Even if you immigrate to Australia or the US, you still send half your check back home. Either way, the money's not staying here.

Me: Let the 3rd world make their own. That's what we did. They obviously don't care about the help we've given them for decades to bring them where they are today.
You: They are making their own wealth. The IT business in Bangalore is thriving, isn't it?

Ahahahahaha!!! That's the funniest thing you've said yet! Microsoft, Dell, Cisco, Google, Yahoo, IBM, Intel, AMD, Sun, Oracle, etc, etc are not Indian companies.

The closest you've come to making your own wealth is Wipro. But, that's just outsourcing, something that will leave India as soon as another place becomes cheaper. Create an innovative company like Microsoft, IBM, or Intel and then you can be believeable.

How would you propose, say, the Indian IT industry to develop and flourish and _not_ compete with IT industry in other countries? If nothing else, if you expect the likes of Microsoft, Dell or IBM to be able to compete for business in India, surely Indian businesses can compete for it in the US and Europe?

Hey let the companies compete. That's all fine and good with me. Create an Indian Dell. Create an Indian Google. Create an Indian Yahoo or an Indian AMD. It's certainly possible. None of those companies existed in America 15 years ago. If we could do it, then so could you.

Note that the US and Europa has not grown any poorer by this development; just that countries like India have grown wealthier even faster.

BS. You seem to ignore the tech downfall here in America from 2000-2005. That recovery was exacerbated by a lack of jobs. Economists sat and scratched their heads wondering where the jobs where, but it was abundantly clear to everyone else that offshoring and H1-B visas played a part. Even now wages are stuck at the same place they were in 2000. Which means, if you include inflation, that real wages are actually down over that time period. Yes, the average US worker has gotten poorer since 2000.

Me, on the whole, I'm much happier seeing my money go to an up-ang-coming country, where it makes a bigger difference, and at the same time I end up getting quality stuff cheaper. And judging from the success of imported goods into the first world, I'm not the only one.

Sorry, not everyone subscribes to the Wal-Mart philosophy. Cheaper goods just means cheaper wages, less ability to purchase, and generally lower quality, not higher.

Trade is not aid.

Experience tells Otherwise by femto · 2006-01-09 18:48 · Score: 4, Interesting

The IT immigrants I know in Australia are getting paid more than the locally produced talent!

In my experience the immigrants aren't coming from third world contries and being used to force down Australia's wages. Rather they are from other countries with major (well paid) IT industries and Australia is poaching hard to get talent from these contries.

Hence the higher wages for the off shore talent. They are commanding higher wages as there is hardly any competition for the job from within Australia.

Others may have different experiences, but I can only comment on what I have observed. The people I know aren't 'entry level', though not all of them have a degree (lots of experience though).

Re:Experience tells Otherwise by Napalmstrike · 2006-01-10 04:57 · Score: 1

They're working in Austrailia, and bringing *up* the median salary for tech then. What's wrong with that? Would you rather that they be working in their home countries and bringing *down* the median salary for tech?

--
I'm bored, lets go break something.

Spinning out of Control or Spiralling Upward by Quirk · 2006-01-09 18:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

An introductory Economics text will speak to the need for labour to be willing to move to where there is work. Whether as individuals or as groups, those who battle the idea of economic globalization are irrelevant in the face of the movement toward freetrade zones and trade agreements. The current troubles arising from the implementation of globalization is causing friction and will for some time to come.

It's unlikely that isolationist nations can survive because trade secrets and laws protecting IP aren't sufficient to stop the flow of knowledge. The requirement is to stay competitive. Staying competitive requires a series of tradeoffs including bringing in cheaper labour.

Bite the bullet, it's better than the alternative of isolationist states at a constant threat of war.

--
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen

Don't worry by RickPartin · 2006-01-09 18:54 · Score: 2, Funny

Foreigners really, I mean REALLY love doing over the phone support. Us IT workers have absolutely nothing to worry about.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Neo-Rio-101 · 2006-01-09 18:58 · Score: 1

As an Australian actually working as an immigrant in IT over in Japan, I think I'd be pretty qualified to answer this one.

Quite frankly, whilst i have been discriminated against in Japan and refused a lot of work for not being Japanese (language issues aside), I actually got an IT job over here with no degree, whereas back home I wouldn't have had a snowballs chance in hell - even with a degree - all citing "lack of experience"

Go figure that one. It seems that foreign workers in Australia all have the magical experience which homegrown uni-trained talent are never given the opportunity to get.

--
READY.
PRINT ""+-0

Re:This article is garbage by calyptos · 2006-01-09 18:59 · Score: 1

He may be better qualified, indeed. However, he may be less qualified, single, and able to survive off of a low income... while you have a wife and kids to take care of.

--
http://illhostit.com/ - Webhosting

I know I am! by thecampbeln · 2006-01-09 19:00 · Score: 1

I'm a Californian that came down to Oz just around the bubble bursting. Anyway, my wife is an Aussie so I used her for the green card. I'm making more in Oz then I ever did during the bubble years in NorCal (inflation included). Course, "I's be one of dem damned fur-en-ers" the article discusses I suppose (though I now have my Aussie citizenship), but I am most assuredly not at the bottom of the market, pay wise.

--
"1984" was ment to be a warning, not a guidebook. You hear that Kim Jong-il!? BushCo?!

Re:I know I am! by Cili · 2006-01-09 21:36 · Score: 1

yes

protectionism is retarded by circletimessquare · 2006-01-09 19:01 · Score: 4, Insightful

assuming equal proficiency, if someone will do for $10 what i want $100 for, then obviously the guy who will do it for $10 will get the job

whether he lives in bangalore, san francisco, or melbourne

go ahead and fight that, go ahead and wail about the injustice of it all

what are you going to do about it? what can you do about it?

are you saying it's exploitation of the guy who makes less? well he doesn't have to deal with the real estate market in san francisco... so rather than complain about how little the guy in india is getting paid, why isn't the problem that you are getting too much money for what you do?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:protectionism is retarded by Jason+Earl · 2006-01-09 19:44 · Score: 1

I would much rather have the immigrants move here where they have the same cost of living expenses that I do than see Bangalore become the tech capital of the world. The reason that the first world has remained the first world for so long is that we have enticed the best and brightest from the rest of the world to leave their homelands and relocate in the first world.
Re:protectionism is retarded by ddx+Christ · 2006-01-09 20:25 · Score: 1

I think what the article is hinting at is it seems to be artificial.

For example, from the article:
"People lured to Australia on the promise of lucrative jobs in IT get here and find they don't have a hope of getting a job," he said.

This creates a mess of problems. Perhaps Australia was getting the standard immigration scenario you outlined there - work for less money ($10 instead of $100) - and then the government stepped in. The program outlined dramatically increased immigration in hopes of getting promising IT jobs. Only problem? The reverse happened. They were expecting that $100 but instead got $10. The immigrant loses and the company hiring wins.

--
Fun Zoid RPG
Re:protectionism is retarded by dafoomie · 2006-01-10 00:47 · Score: 1

so rather than complain about how little the guy in india is getting paid, why isn't the problem that you are getting too much money for what you do?

Because it costs us more to get the skills required for the job, and it costs us more to pay the bills.

Its easy for you to say that we make too much money. They don't have $50,000 in student loans to repay. They don't have to deal with the astronomical cost of living here. And when the market gets flooded with cheap labor, they won't have to take another 4 years and another $50,000 to get another degree.

Why do we have the obligation of allowing cheap foreign labor, when that country doesn't allow our workers and our students to go there, to enjoy the lower tuition and cost of living? If any other industry were so heavily subsidized as India subsidizes educating IT workers, it would be called protectionism. IT workers are a commodity. I bet you'd be 'wailing about the injustice of it all' if we demanded reciprocity in our trade and immigration agreements.

Personally, I don't have a problem with foreign workers. They're just trying to do the best they can, like anyone else. But the system is heavily stacked in their favor, and you have the balls to tell me its MY fault, that I'm simply a greedy American and that I want too much money.
Re:protectionism is retarded by asuffield · 2006-01-10 04:35 · Score: 1

The 'problem' is that people want to believe that the work they are doing has some intrinsic value - rather than being mindless graft that any warm body can do with a little training. They believe this because governments and TV have been bombarding them with the idea that they 'deserve' to get paid, despite their job being little more than corporate largesse. They aren't willing to accept that in the capitalist market they think they like so much, everything - including them - is worth no more than what somebody is willing to pay for it.

Most people are stupid, and are doing stupid pointless jobs that would have been automated out of existence if people weren't so stupid. Callcenters for tier 1 support are a good example. The purpose of a callcenter is to read the manual to people who are too stupid to read it for themselves. That's all the operators are doing - sitting and reading from a script. This job has no right to exist in a sane world. You could just ship the script with the product and let people read it for themselves. But the world isn't sane, and so we have people doing a worthless job - and then complaining when somebody realises how disposable they are.

The next time you're getting paid to work, consider this: how much of what you're doing can be handled by any semiliterate muppet who has attended a training course? How much requires some form of skill, and how much merely requires a set of instructions?
Re:protectionism is retarded by Dark_MadMax666 · 2006-01-10 11:56 · Score: 1

Wow talk about americans thinking US is center of the world. FYI there are many other countires with extremly strong educational systems. In some areas US is actually behind ,namely fundamental math ,which is essential for CS (unless you work as helpdesk/coder monkey) .
Re:protectionism is retarded by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2006-01-15 13:57 · Score: 1

assuming equal proficiency, if someone will do for $10 what i want $100 for, then obviously the guy who will do it for $10 will get the job whether he lives in bangalore, san francisco, or melbourne go ahead and fight that, go ahead and wail about the injustice of it all what are you going to do about it? what can you do about it?

I'm going to wait until he's done and charge you $100 to clean up his mess.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

Lower wages??? by asphinx · 2006-01-09 19:05 · Score: 1

I am just preparing my documents to apply for permanent residence in Australia after finishing my IT degree here (in Australia). There are a few things that Australians can't see (while the immigration authorities can) that impede people like me to get a job straight after graduation.

Firstly, it is impossible to get a job without a permanent residence status. The actual application and documents take about 7-8 months to get reviewed and approved (or declined). This gives a good chance to all Australians to get jobs before any immigrants, who finish their degrees at the same time.

Second, There is a language/cultiral barrier. I personally know people who have applied for IT jobs, and have been rejected on the basis of "would not fit in the corporate culture" excuse. I can sense that if an employer is presented with two equally skilled job applicants he/she would choose the Australian. I can understand this, and I respect this. Also, I know that the society is very culturally tolerant, but still...

I suppose that lower wages for immigrants is not an issue here, as it is not possible (in 95% of the cases) to obtain employment without permanent residence visa, and once you have permanent residence status the companies do not differentiate between Australian Citizens and Permanent Residents (oh well, probably the government and the military do).

So - please do not complain about immigrants getting your jobs. If you want jobs - study harder and get better degrees. And also - I have heard that about 60% of all jobs are given without formal advertisements - do you think it is that easy for an immigrant to get one of these??

Re:Lower wages??? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2006-01-09 19:35 · Score: 1

Firstly, it is impossible to get a job without a permanent residence status.

Wrong.

That's what I thought, too, and that may be what some folks (even some working for DIMIA) try to tell you, but it is not necessarily so.

I became a permanent resident in Australia in July 2005, 14 months after having obtained an Australian work permit (in May 2004).

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Lower wages??? by Mateito · 2006-01-09 19:38 · Score: 1

I have heard that about 60% of all jobs are given without formal advertisements
The last ACS survey put this around 80%. Yeah - contacts are everything.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:Lower wages??? by JanneM · 2006-01-09 20:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

The last ACS survey put this around 80%. Yeah - contacts are everything.

But that's really the same everywhere, in any field where skills aren't fungible. Not particular to IT or to Australia. In any given field, in any given area, people tend to know other people working with similar things. And any employer understandably likes the extra safety net of hiring someone who comes recommended by someone they already know and trust. Even if the recommendation is not wholehearted, the person - with strengths and weaknesses both - becomes a known quantity, and thus lower risk.

That's a major reason companies prefer people with some work experience as well. The fact that they have been hired once already in the field gives an implicit stamp of approval; someone else vetted them and found them acceptable. It's the same phenomenon anyone who's gotten engaged or married can tell you - suddenly you're much more interesting to people of the preferred sex than you were when you were single.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
Re:Lower wages??? by asphinx · 2006-01-09 20:06 · Score: 1

hehe, you are more like an exception i suppose. i can work any hours i want now - because i am still on a student visa (until i graduate officialy - that is until i get a testamur) and i have applied for a few jobs. i got a reply from 3 of them. two of them asked me whether i am a permanent resident, to which i replied that i can work but i am not a permanent resident yet, explaining that the chances of getting it are very close to 100% - and i got no reply whatsoever from booth of them. i lied to the third company and told them i was a permanent resident. i got an interview and all went well, but when they asked me if i am a PR, i told them i am not and they told me that they cannot sponsor non-australians..so i didn;t get that one too. so now i gave up and i am waiting for my application to get processed before applying for any other jobs. i can give you some more examples of my friends, who also couldn;t get jobs because of their non-PR status here. there are also exceptions - but the rule does hold - it is extremely hard to get a job after finishing your degree and while waiting for a PR.
Re:Lower wages??? by asphinx · 2006-01-09 23:08 · Score: 1

Hah, you are replying to the wrong post. I really have no idea about how companies organise work visas and/or permits for offshore "IT specialists". I have also no idea how much such workers get paid and how that compares to wages given to locals. That's precisely why I did not mention these points in my first post.
The whole point of my post was to compare permanent residents to non -permanent residents in regards to their chances of getting employed.
FYI the original article was about skilled migrants. A skilled migrant is someone who comes in Australia and obtains permanent residence here based on his skills, age, English language proficiency, marital status, etc. In fact there is a quite complicated process in place, which is supposedly such in order to let only healthy, young, highly skilled, fluent English speaking/reading/writing and altoghether proomising specialists live in Australia and enrich the Australian labour market /for more information you can visit http://www.immi.gov.au/. I am talking about Skilled Migration - not temporary work permits...
OK, now having that in mind - please re-read my original post and then comment.

As if there is any point talking to strangers...

Everything is a commodity by Tenk101 · 2006-01-09 19:06 · Score: 1

Everything is a commodity these days, its a case of adapting to this mindset and differentiating yourself. People migrating to australia (or other developed nation with an IT industry) for work will have a much smaller effect overall than work migrating elsewhere from australia.

Workers are somewhat fungible by coyote-san · 2006-01-09 19:07 · Score: 2, Insightful

Doubling the number of developers doesn't mean you double the size of the industry. Some developers will leave the field, others will be discouraged from taking entry level jobs, etc.

The last point is something worth considering. My friends and I all have solid technical educations. A generation ago we would be leading the charge to get more students to pursue similar academic and career tracks. It's hard work, but it also meant you could have steady employment later.

Now we all discourage people from pursuing technical degrees. The risk is too high. Senior people may still be in demand (although we have to wonder about that as well), but entry-level positions?

For that matter it's not just IT. Higher education is getting much more expensive at the same time that skinflint republicans are cutting student assistance. That forces many students to be more focused on a "trade school" university education than the more well-rounded one of prior generations. K-12 education, it goes without saying, is now teaching to the test to avoid draconian measures under NCLB. (Never mind what a high-performing school district can do. How do you show improvement when you already peg the test? These districts will be punished for being "successful.")

That's a minor pain today, but where will this country be in 20 years? I don't begrudge other countries growing their IT economy, but what happens when everyone would rather stay at home with a higher standard of living than they could get here?

There's a term for what the US is doing -- "eating our seed corn". Businesses may need to look at the next quarterly statement, but the government should be taking a longer view. Maybe the solution is to increase immigration so these skilled workers are more motivated to stay, maybe it's to limit immigration so our students have a motivation to make the necessary investment to be highly skilled workers in 20 years. But AFAIK that question isn't even on the table.

--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken

Bullshit Re:I've said it before, I'll say it.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-09 19:08 · Score: 1, Informative

Let me get this straight. TFA's asserting that the Australian Govt lets in "too many" immigrants with IT skillz, and you see this as evidence of inherent Australian immigration policy racism.

Uh-huh.

Or are you just doing your usual (since you've apparently "said it before") knee-jerk reaction to anything involving the words "foreign" and "immigrants" ?

(More racist than Japan? Yup. Sure. You need to get out more, and login less.)

Amused Caucasian

This reminds me of a movie by johncadengo · 2006-01-09 19:08 · Score: 1

This movie is as much about immigrants and an (but not the) Aulstralian response as the article: Romper Stomper

--
My page.

presumably that'd be.... by Alex · 2006-01-09 19:19 · Score: 4, Funny

All of the Aussie IT workers that aren't working in London ?

Alex

ps - Hi Neil.

Re:presumably that'd be.... by artsrc · 2006-01-10 05:56 · Score: 1

There have frequently been issues for inexperienced IT graduates. The best solution to this problem is to learn what you can and lie about your experience. I am an Aussie IT worker in San Francisco. I expect to go back sometime and from discussions with companies in Sydney salaries are up from where they were when I left.

Just shut up.... by mcbridematt · 2006-01-09 19:24 · Score: 3, Informative

Perhaps they should stop blaming others and increase the standard of what is being taught at Universities and the last few years of secondary/high school. The Australian IT industry is a shame compared to other countries.

He also said the Australian Computer Society, which accredits the IT qualifications of applicants for permanent residency, should introduce tougher English tests and insist that overseas students spend three years studying IT in Australia, rather than two.

The Australian Computer Society? Oh, these are the same guys who think IT 'pros' should be certified just like doctors and nurses. When its illegal to be an uncertified IT guy in Australia, please tell me because I will happily show the door to anything trying to enforce it.

No worries mate by Centurix · 2006-01-09 19:25 · Score: 1

They can do all the work, we'll be down the beach.

--
Task Mangler

the great IT racket by kevin_osborne · 2006-01-09 19:28 · Score: 2, Insightful

you guys supporting this 'no foreign workers' paradigm should be ashamed of yourselves. you're a racketeering mob if ever their was one: cronyist, corrupt and extortionist. take the medical fraternity in australia as an example of where this 'jobs for qualified locals only' thinking goes. the Australian Medical Association (AMA) has exactly these kinds of racketeering rules laid out in law (you can't practice medicine without being an AMA member; doing so is the equivalent of a felony) to prevent foreigners from taking up positions and possibly denying them the rates that allow them to upgrade their porsches every year. This practice continues while lack of specialists and rural GPs drives huge hospital waiting lists and ever-increasing costs of healthcare. And yet here is an example of a foreign worker: my wife is eastern european, and through her I have met older friends of the family, one of whom was a respected neurosurgeon in her country of origin. A neurosurgeon you say? surely she must be practising her incredibly difficult-to-gain level of education and experience to treat desperately ill patients on said waiting lists, right? wrong. she worked as a cleaner for many years while trying unsuccessfully to gain AMA membership, and now owns a small business completely unrelated to medicine and has left her hopes behind. The AMA is a cabal of price-fixers who use thier fraternity to starve supply and to artifically raise costs. You IT 'no foreign worker' bastards are just the same. If they can't place someone locally, or the candidates who do apply are shithouse, then foreign workers should be sought. If there's an oppurtunity to give gainful employment to qualified personnel from underprivelidged nations then we should jump at the chance. do you think its fair that an argentinian programmer should have to work for $20US a day to barely feed his family and drive a taxi at night to survive so you can be guaranteed of being overpaid for a job you're underqualified for, even though his code runs rings around yours? ps. yes, aussies are racist. %93 supported sending the NV Tampa home while on board Iraqis starved and faced either death or destitution at home. add to that concentration camps for refugees. and aborigines probably don't appreciate the name 'the lucky country' you insensitive twats.

Re:the great IT racket by GaryPatterson · 2006-01-09 20:22 · Score: 1

Australians are no more racist than Americans, British, Germans or just about any other group. Maybe no less racist either though.

Your Tampa stats are rubbish. Any survey can say whatever you like - "Do you think it's good to allow unknown people fleeing their country for unknown reasons into this country?"

I disagreed with the whole thing. I think we should throw open the doors to people fleeing a regime that's apparently so evil that we go to war to bring it down. But then I'm one of the 48% who voted for the second-place party.

There are many, many Australians like me.

And yes, the AMA should be called to account. this article is not about the AMA though, and racism is stretching it a bit too. Which country are you from, so I can heap some of the massive pile of shit back towards you? I am willing to bet that your country isn't pearly white in historical morals. You insensitive twat.
Re:the great IT racket by zem_11 · 2006-01-09 20:59 · Score: 1

What a load of self-righteous drivel.
For one, you are so far off-topic its not funny.
Two, there is a reason why groups like the AMA filter who can/can't be a doctor - no price fixing isn't one of them - standards. I'm quite happy to know that doctors here are suitably qualified. Why? Because do get the odd (immigrant) doctor who isn't up to scratch. e.g. http://www.google.com.au/search?q=doctor+death+que ensland
Your friend must be some neurosurgeon. If they are honestly suitably qualified, then I would certainly question the system - without the unnecessary rhetoric - and ask why. Can you explain what reason the AMA gave your friend? Otherwise take your medicine (pardon the pun) be quiet.
Back on topic,...
Kevin, your web server is down ... you must be one of those really, really good super qualified IT employee's Australia needs.

It's the wages stupid. by www.sorehands.com · 2006-01-09 19:29 · Score: 2, Funny

It is not more qualified, generally it is cheaper. I know of one company that hired people H1B and paying them $2400/month and putting in 10 hour days. The owner of the company said that that is the top pay that they pay there, based on this woman being the highest paid employee. I have dealt with H1B people who were not very qualified.

Not to say that some H1Bs are not more qualified, but many are not really more qualified. Many employers put in fake advertising, or fake job requirements (ie. in 1997 requiring at least 5 years of Win98 programming). Or they advertise for people with a skill set thayt they don't require, ie. C/C++, Windows, Palm OS, Apple DOS, CP/M, RSTS/e, VM/370, SPSS, Basic, Snobol, Lisp, Perl, and Linux, but they are hiring someone to install linux on PCs. Then the employer claim that they cannot find a qualified person.

Once the H1B is applied for, the H1B must stay at the employer for a period of time. Meaning, they are stuck.

--
Fight Spammers!

Deadwood obscures the forest by phorm · 2006-01-09 19:31 · Score: 1

A lot of the jobs I've been looking at are pretty blase in their requirements. They seem to want degrees and a decade of experience for jobs that really don't require so much. For myself, I'm a Canadian with a background in system administration (Linux/Windows networks) and general IT support (hardware, networking, etc). Employers ask for the kitchen sink, and there are plenty out there who will jump up shouting about experience they don't have - making it hard for me to find my own in. Again, I'm not an Austrlian so it's more difficult for me to get my foot in, but I'd imagine that with the drones of locals, foreigners and others who are willing to greatly overrate themselves there's a lot of good wood hidden amoungst the deadwood.

Re:Deadwood obscures the forest by SpacePunk · 2006-01-10 03:29 · Score: 1

15 years experience with Java 2.0, and fluent in both Mandarin and Swahili.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM

Aussie IT aint what you think boys.. by ministerofsickeningr · 2006-01-09 19:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

I have been going there on and off for the last 4 years, and every time i go, i pick up industry rags, employment papers and all that lot, and check out the local IT scene there for software/IT work. let me tell you, its damn thin on the ground there, wages are laughable, and australia has a ton of overqualified people that cannot get a job. the worst problem is, not once did i see any evidence of an environment that fostered a silicon valley or whatever type of rampant innovation and development. maybe there is some geographic area that i am missing there, but if there is a bay area, or redmond, or boston there, i couldnt find it. it made me sad, cos i love the country, the people, and most everything else, but after 15 years in the IT industry in most of the hottest markets in the US, i'm fully accepting of the fact that i *will* have to change industries radically in order to keep my head afloat, should i decide to relocate.

Re:Aussie IT aint what you think boys.. by Mateito · 2006-01-09 19:45 · Score: 1

once did i see any evidence of an environment that fostered a silicon valley or whatever type of rampant innovation and development
You are spot on. There are very few incentives that encourage entrepeneurial behaviour, and in the end we are a small markets (20 million people) selling into a small market.
Today I went to talk to a group of PhDs who have spent the last 3 years developing some really funky s/ware. This friday they are off to europe and asia for two months to get some pilots up and running with some major international businesses. The only reason they got this far is that they knew people who knew people and were able to fund their work for the three years its taken to get to this point. No government help, no tax breaks... and Australia is not going to benefit from it: I'm betting that a major European provider snaps them up and then sells it back to us at an exhorbitant rate.

--
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
Re:Aussie IT aint what you think boys.. by treval · 2006-01-09 20:57 · Score: 1

I'm Australian and agree with the parent post.
I would love to work for an Australian company that is doing innovative and original work but they hardly exist anymore. We are now a 'service economy' whatever that is. As a result I spend most of my time working overseas. Not only is the work there (mainly Europe) much more interesting but I earn a lot more than I would at home too. It really saddens me to see a country that calls itself 'the knowledge nation' carrying in in this way.
It's not as if we don't have capable and well educated workers, we do, lots of them in fact. It's just that as a country we seem to have taken the easy road and forgotten that an investment in the future costs money now. /Rant Off/

--
Your attitude is infectious...
Re:Aussie IT aint what you think boys.. by cafeman · 2006-01-09 21:07 · Score: 1

No government help, no tax breaks... and Australia is not going to benefit from it:

I'd blame that on a lack of research ability. I know of three different government sponsorship schemes off the top of my head (federal and state) that are designed for non-equity based seed funding. And, I'm not an expert in the area. If done correctly and if successful, you can generate somewhere in the order of a few hundred thousand a year and have the opportunity to re-apply when the funding period runs out (a few years, from memory).

Sure, the government could be doing a hell of a lot more, but options do exist. Besides, tax is meaningless if you're looking at a startup - cash is king. Given that you're making year on year losses, you pay barely any tax anyway. The main thing you need is cashflow. When I used to do a bit of work in the area, it was actually surprising how few people took advantage of the government funding options.

With regards to the GP, it's all in who you know. Australia's a small place, and the salaries are very good when compared to the cost of living. If you're plugged in enough to know the people hiring. Advertised positions still go high enough to maintain a very comfortable lifestyle (especially when one considers vacation time in comparison to the US), but the real money comes through contacts.
Overqualified people not getting a job? Seems strange to me. Everyone I know who's qualified has few problems getting a new job within a few months. And, I personally believe know a pretty good spread of people. They range from C levels of major Australian companies everyone would recognise through to helpdesk support and graduates.

--
This is your life, and it's ending one minute at a time.

Humbug ! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-09 19:32 · Score: 3, Interesting

>> Australian IT Workers Concerned About Migrants

That's a deliberately misleading headline. Read the article or don't waste your time, here's a summary

Australian IT workers haven't made any comment.
The comment was made by a consultant longing for long-past Y2K golden days.

"Bob Kinnaird, of labour market consultants Kinnaird and Associates, said ........ "

I can't blame The Age for publishing it.

After all, if it bleeds, it leads :-)

Age old rhetorical question by redblue · 2006-01-09 19:36 · Score: 5, Insightful

Why is a global free market for goods considered good, but that for labor bad by so many inhabitants of "developed" nations?

Re:Age old rhetorical question by Scarblac · 2006-01-09 20:50 · Score: 1

Why is a global free market for goods considered good, but that for labor bad by so many inhabitants of "developed" nations?

Because free markets are good for consumers (who get low prices for good products), not for suppliers (who are driven towards zero profit). On the labor market, the people are the suppliers. It's not really surprising that free goods markets are more popular than free labor markets.

--
I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
Re:Age old rhetorical question by IIH · 2006-01-09 22:07 · Score: 1

Why is a global free market for goods considered good, but that for labor bad by so many inhabitants of "developed" nations?
Because "developed" nations are the ones producing the goods.
And it's not just goods/labour, it applies to different types of goods too. If you look at some recent "free trade" agreements, it often boils down to free trade on goods which the stronger country exports, but not on those that the weaker one exports.

--
Exigo spamos et dona ferentes
Re:Age old rhetorical question by kabocox · 2006-01-10 03:12 · Score: 1

Why is a global free market for goods considered good, but that for labor bad by so many inhabitants of "developed" nations?

Oh, come on, do you want the truth? We like being the "developed" nations and getting goods for cheap or near free. We like our wages/benefits high. We don't mind taking advantage of India's and China's vast horde's of workers to make throw away McDonald's toys. We don't want them to progress and do things like IT, engineering, lawyering, doctoring, or management jobs. In short, we want our cake and to eat it too.

It irks folks because maybe the "min. wage" should be 5 Chinese dollars a day for a task rather than 5.25 US dollars an hour for a task with alot less labour protection laws. (I don't see that one happening; do you?)
Re:Age old rhetorical question by colinrichardday · 2006-01-10 05:50 · Score: 1

There's a free global labor market? Thanks for telling me. I'll be sure to try getting a job in Bangalore as soon as possible.

I'm a USian.
Re:Age old rhetorical question by beforewisdom · 2006-01-10 09:58 · Score: 1

Um, because people want cheap products AND a job so they can actually buy those products?
Re:Age old rhetorical question by blahplusplus · 2006-01-10 10:19 · Score: 1

"Why is a global free market for goods considered good, but that for labor bad by so many inhabitants of "developed" nations? "

The cost of living is not the same globally, what one person pays in US or Canada for an education, someone pays even less in another country. The fact is wage and currency disparities create these impossible situations where one person is paying many times more just to live then another person in another country.

Programmers in the developed world have it so hard by mlinksva · 2006-01-09 19:38 · Score: 1

Would programmers in the developed world be better off without immigration ... ?

Would white miners in South Africa be better off without competition from black miners?

Re:This article is garbage by ikarys · 2006-01-09 19:41 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm sorry, what has this got to do with "whites"? I do believe you views on racism cloud your mind from rational thought. Especially since you appear racist against whites. Where I work, we employ people from Thailand and India. We fly some of them over to work here in Australia. They get paid terribly in comparison to what the roles should be paid here. This is the "business" trend for bulk labour, regardless of industry. If its cheaper, business will do it. This is where businesses save money. They develop an "easy" to follow process, and then labour becomes cheap. Unfortunatly most of the time (that I've witnessed) it comes at the cost of quality. IT work should always be about quality. The contracts/positions are no longer financially feasable for someone with the required experience locally. Business can make huge savings in wages by employing someone from overseas. IMHO, we would be better off paying more for quality resources. I don't mind offshoring work. Importing workers is bad for the wealth of our local industry. If someone could be flown to Australia from a country less fortunate, to replace my role for a half of the cost, then thats REALLY bad for me. My value in the workplace diminishes, not because of my knowledge, or my experience, but because of imported labour. Imagine if whatever industry you're in started paying half wage. Also, different cultures can have different work ethics which are hard to work around. These aren't so easy to measure, and I think businesses quite often ignore the issues. For example, from Thailand we have some issues because the culture says "if you ask questions, you were to stupid to understand the first time". I've had a team of 3 "senior software engineers" each tell me that they understood a project (after reading a tech spec, func spec and a week of meetings), and had no questions. A week later, this was clearly not the case (even after verbal status updates "Yes its very good"). The one employee that did understand it all was a junior who asked plenty of questions (and she rocks at what she does, and I have a lot of respect for her).

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by drsmithy · 2006-01-09 19:41 · Score: 1

Just look at the history of Australia's immigration policy and notice how it swing back the close-minded direction again in the mid 90's.

How has Australia's immigration policy changed for the worse in the last twenty years (please cite sources) ? If it has changed for the worse, how do you reconcile that and your following comment about immigration being a "POSITIVE economic force" with that last ~10 years being one of the best economic periods of Australia's history ? Surely if Australia's immigration policies had worsened, the economic impact would be negative ?

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Honest+Tony · 2006-01-09 19:48 · Score: 1

All is fair in globalization; that's what capitalism is all about, getting the more bang for your buck. Did Aussies falsely believe to remain isolated for all eternity?

--
"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" - Emiliano Zapata

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 19:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

I cannot speak to the levels with which I agree with your assessment of this persons
neo-globalization tripe.

You cannot have a fair, equal, and equitable relationship with nations that do not
have the same labor laws . Unequal ground = Unequal Terms .

If I were to run a company on US soil the same way one is run in China or other
countries I would be taken to court, fined, or possibly jailed if ppl were pissed enough .

This is about one thing, and that is MONEY, aka good old greed .

It always has been, and it always will be, "period" .

Extortion and manipulation of resources of ppl, aka human futures for the stock market .

Fle$h for sale .

The ppl that support the globalization tripe are most likely to profit/benefit from it
thus their perspective is skewed .

Globalization is how the country of france was almost burned to the ground, Globalization
is how riots have occured in the UK:

http://www.writewords.org.uk/archive/200.asp

Didn't hear about them I suppose ????

Mum's the word, keep the profits up mate !!!

Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

History repeats by VincenzoRomano · 2006-01-09 19:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

There's no way to stop history.
This already happened several times in the Human history. One of the most kown case the "Fall of Roman Empire".
People coming from the borders substituted the Romans in almost all the "lower" layers of the society, thus actually changing the Roman Empire itself. Soldiers were not Roman at all, later officers and generals and finally even the Emperors themselves.
The same happened with economy. First the farmers and the goods traders, later the manufacturers. In the end of the Empire all the stuff needed to keep Rome alive came from abroad, even the wheat.
And Rome ended to be nothing more than a village from a big city it used to be.
The "empire" people concentrate into consuming resources instead of producing them and into looking at the world instead of taking care of it. The people from the borders try to exploit this by providing those goods, thus dumping the market and killing the "local" manufacturers and traders with lower costs and prices.
Most part of the western society will be replaced in a near future by "border" people. And there is no way to stop this.

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]

Re:History repeats by Dogun · 2006-01-09 20:51 · Score: 1

Gee, and here I was thinking it was moral decay and sex with young boys.
Re:History repeats by VincenzoRomano · 2006-01-09 20:58 · Score: 1

Gee, and here I was thinking it was moral decay and sex with young boys
I think those are actually effects, not causes.

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
Re:History repeats by pyota · 2006-01-10 00:19 · Score: 1

that's an interesting take on history. i was under the impression that the roman empire fell when it was sacked by goths and vandals .... but i'm not sure your analogy with the modern western world is sound for a few reasons. first, the roman empire was based on slavery; whereas now free markets reign. second, we live in a much more globalized economy in which intercontinental travel and communication are trivial. last, it has been argued that cheaper labor rather than undermining an economy, stimulate inovation and propel former grunt workers into more complex technology.
Re:History repeats by VincenzoRomano · 2006-01-10 00:47 · Score: 1

the roman empire fell when it was sacked by goths and vandals
Again, that has been an effect, not a cause. Those populations have always been there. They got in only when the legions lost their power. And this happened pecause ofthe fall of the Empire.

the roman empire was based on slavery
We still have it, we just keep it outside of our (western) countries. Slavery was used in very limited cases like agriculture. Army, architecture, education and arts needs specialised, paid and motivated people, not slaves.
we live in a much more globalized economy
I fear that Romans invneted globalisation. One language, one coin, one law system, one emperor over almost all the known (western) world. While in Rome you could have been able to drink French wine, eat Greek cheese, wear eastern silk dresses and read poetry from Neapolis. It simply used to took longer than today in order to have those things.
cheaper labor rather than undermining an economy, stimulate inovation and propel former grunt workers into more complex technology
I was not arguing that cheaper is worse. Only saying that today cheaper means "done by people paid with lower wages". Technology itself costs very little. Most of the costs are human costs and hunger for high profits. As profts lower, companies try to find cheaper ways to produce. So they either manufacture the stuff abroad or "stimulate" immigration. In both cases, in my opinion, they (we) spoil the home country in the mid term. But again, I'm not against this. This is history repeating itself.

--
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]

No, I'm not. by Kris_J · 2006-01-09 19:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

As an Australian IT worker, not only am I not concerned about migrants taking my job, I actually work in an educational institution that trains international students. Migrants are not "taking Australian Jobs", that's just a tired old stereotype hauled out whenever some, usually, right-wing nutjob wants to rally support for whatever cause he or she is abusing at that moment.

This is a small planet people, and everyone is just trying to get through life as best as they can.

Re:No, I'm not. by bhima · 2006-01-09 20:28 · Score: 1

My Family & I lived just north of Sydney for 7~8 years, shortly after our defection from the Czech Republic. To this day I still have the impression that Australia is very protectionist (Mind you this was back in the '70's). What it's like now I couldn't comment on, as I haven't live there since 1980. The main drift of my comments though are perhaps that the issue looks different from a immigrant's point of view.

--
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Re:No, I'm not. by kubrick · 2006-01-09 22:03 · Score: 1

Since John Howard has been Prime Minister (1996) it's been like going back to the old White Australia days of the 1960s and earlier. You're not missing anything.

--
deus does not exist but if he does

Sensational Bullocks by gregoryl · 2006-01-09 20:08 · Score: 2, Interesting

I work in Australian IT and this topic never comes up.
I look around and yes, I'm one of two people in my team of 10 that are Australian, but who cares?
Like most others we are more concerned with our roles being outsourced off shore.
It's kind of cool being surrounded by different people for different backgrounds - I'm proud of the lack of discrimination and mixed culture that is in my industry.

This topic has never been a concern in any Australian workplace I've worked in. It is sensationalistic journalism. What next? Are our IT workers getting fat? Women vs. Man ratios. The dateless many at Star Trek conventions. *sigh* Next!

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by JanneM · 2006-01-09 20:17 · Score: 1

If I were to run a company on US soil the same way one is run in China or other
countries I would be taken to court, fined, or possibly jailed if ppl were pissed enough .

Of course, the same could be said about running companies in Europe the way they are sometimes run in the US as well. Differences can go both ways.

One thing, though: it isn't a zero-sum game. If a job moves from Sweden, say, to Estonia, the total wealth in the world is not constant. Since the baseline of wealth is very different, the job (let's say it costs half what it would in Sweden) creates more wealth in Estonia than is lost in Sweden since the value of that job is a smaller proportion of the Swedish wealth than of the Estonian. And since the work is being done for half the money, half is left to invest elsewhere (doing some job that would otherwise go undone), again creating wealth.

The effect? A somewhat more slowly growing Sweden - but a lot faster Growing Estonia. And the end result? An asymptotical narrowing of wealth disparity between the countries, with most of the narrowing effected by the growth of Estonia. And with Estonia about as wealthy as Sweden, it's a much larger market for everybody than when it was just a fraction of Sweden. Everybody wins, but especially the formely poor Estonia.

I said it elsewhere but it's worth repeating: Getting countries and people out of poverty means shrinking the gap in wealth - and that means having them grow wealthier and being more competitive.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

Miscommunication? by ddx+Christ · 2006-01-09 20:19 · Score: 1

From the article:
"People lured to Australia on the promise of lucrative jobs in IT get here and find they don't have a hope of getting a job," he said.

But Australian Computer Society chief executive officer Dennis Furini said that while there was possibly an oversupply of entry-level programmers, there was a shortage of specialists in areas such as e-commerce and network security.

...the Federal Government had brought in large numbers of IT workers over the past four years, even though there was a serious oversupply in the Australian labour market

It might've been easier on all parties involved to have highlighted that, according to the article, that the shortage involved was in e-commerce and network security. The oversupply is just going to make the jobs worthless if the companies have an enormous supply of workers. The promise of lucrative jobs is then a blatant lie - but perhaps the influx is desired by companies for that very reason.

Either way, that's fairly unfortunate. The immigrants and the natives both lose in the long run. The fierce competition could easily drive down wages. If you're willing to work for less, you're hired; it may not apply toward the highly skilled jobs, but it's still employed to a degree.

On the extreme, it seriously cuts future supply by discouraging future students from IT. Money is a powerful number, and high unemployments means a certain lack of money. And then the cycle continues, as someone put it earlier.

--
Fun Zoid RPG

nationality != race by Vicissidude · 2006-01-09 20:19 · Score: 1

nationality != race

Yes, there are some countries where race is defined by nationality. However, in places like Australia and the US, that is not true. I suggest you learn and memorize that fact. It will make your discussions with Australians and Americans more understandable and less hostile.

Re:nationality != race by Vicissidude · 2006-01-10 06:47 · Score: 1

Actually, it does matter. We're talking about nationalities. You're talking about race. Obviously, you have confused the two. Tell me, what race are Australians? If you say white, then I can point to the aborigines who've lived in Australia far longer than the whites. If you say aborigine, then I can point to the whites who've lived there for over a hundred years. Either way, you could say that Australians, both white and aborigine or whatever, don't want new immigrants taking their jobs.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Dogun · 2006-01-09 20:20 · Score: 1

a) e.g. The reinstitution of the English literacy test as a way of discouraging immigrants from certain countries.
If you want a lot of information on the subject, go to my user page, find this same past I made a few months back and read some of the responses there. Links galore. Knock yourself out. Mind blowing.

b) I think it's fallacious to link a good economic period (I'll take your word on this) with changes in immigration policy. There's nothing to reconcile there, you're ineptly attempting to put words in my mouth.

It's not their immigration, it is their existence by Ogemaniac · 2006-01-09 20:21 · Score: 1

An engineer from China or India is going to lower the wages of first-world engineers regardless of where he or she works. It is actually better for Australia to let these people come and work in their country - at least they can then collect the taxes as their own corporations make profits. Leave them in China or India and they will just compete from there, to the benefit of China and India and their companies.

You cannot stop the information from crossing the border, and that is what matters in the end. Since the primary product of science and much engineering is information, there is little one can do to stop globalization of these markets.

Re:Bullshit Re:I've said it before, I'll say it... by Dogun · 2006-01-09 20:28 · Score: 1

Again, a kneejerk reaction putting words in my mouth that are not mine. (Incidentally, yes, my post was a knee-jerk response to "foreign" "immigrants" "Australia" "they took our jobs".)

While I do find a policy or two racist, I think my comment was more geared at the TFA, which I don't take to be an unbiased authority on the subject. If you look at some of the other posts by Aussie IT people I think you'll find that this paper is perhaps a somewhat distorted view of the situation.

Also, I like how the first response to my original post lends support to my position, intentionally or not.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Acetysal · 2006-01-09 20:29 · Score: 1

So, how do your Japanese colleagues feel about Aussies taking their jobs without even bothering to learn the language???

according to some histories by circletimessquare · 2006-01-09 20:30 · Score: 1

the concept of a written zero in math was first invented in india (i'm not joking, that is a real assertion)

so therefore, we all owe india our jobs

because without the indian contribution of zero to the world of computers, 00101110101010111 would just be 1111111111 ;-P

if you hadn't noticed, now i am joking

does that line of reasoning sound stupid?

it makes about as much sense as yours in terms obligations and debts

well wait...

actually, it makes more sense than what you are saying

if i had added "and the indian who devised the concept of a written zero in mathematics gave his life and died of a cerebral hemorrhage in the process of conceiving the idea of zero" then my words would be as stupid as your words

"loopy" doesn't even begin to describe what you just said

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Aus has too few IT jobs anyway... by linuxlover · 2006-01-09 20:31 · Score: 4, Interesting

I attended a major Austalian University majoring in Comp Eng. Now I work in Silicon Valley. So I can talk about both worlds on a personal test.

Australia is a country with small population (20 mil) compared to US (~300 mil). There isn't a robust IT job market. This has lead to a massive 'IT recruiting' industry. These are the people who advertise with ludicrous(sp?) terms like
5years + Java experience is a must (this was when Java was publicly available for only 3 years)!
Also the recruiter guy interviews you has very little knowledge of Tech field and will throw some standard tech questions
- why virtual destructiors for C++ ..etc

Also other useless crap like
- where do you see yourself in 3yrs, 5yrs, 10 yrs (do I really want to tell the guy, that I will start my own company in 5 yrs!)
- what is your weakness, how do you over come it

Also there is no shortage of other 'BS' like
- writing a good cover letter, cover letter?!
- going to interview with full suit & tie

When I came to Silicon valley (during the dotcom bubble), I went to a career fair, aced 3 interviews on the spot, went to the company for more interviews. Had another 5 interviews with Eng team and got a job offer, all within days. All interview questions were spot on, trying to figure out if I had really done the things I have mentioned in my resume. I was interviewed by geeks and architects who knew their deal. All the while wearing jeans & t-shirt!

When I went back to Aus (my wife is Aus) a recruiter tried to set me up for an interview. He said 'wear a business suit with a tie'. After working in Silicon Valley culture for years, I didn't have the stomach to go through the BS again. So I declined.

thanks for reading.

Re:Aus has too few IT jobs anyway... by Solilok · 2006-01-09 20:53 · Score: 1

Add to the list the need for reference letters from your jobs during past 5 years.

Actually this is pervasive in Australia...you need reference letters from people who have known you for 2 years to get a bank account, a mortage, opening a business, whatnot.
To rent a place, you need to give the past 2 or 3 addresses you've been.

I applied for PR in Oz and moved over there when I got it. In spite of this I still had to overcome the chicken and eggs problem of knowing no one and no one knowing me (so who could vouch for my being an honest and 'moral' person)

On the other hand people coming from UK seem to be familiar with this kind of BS...which was probably exported to Oz in the first place. Together with uniforms at school, hence the need for suits.

As a migrant in Oz, though, once in the workplace, it's all good if you can deliver.
Don't expect to make too much money though. And forget about sharing in the success of the company, for example with stock options.

Finally, examine the tax situation before you move in any case!
Re:Aus has too few IT jobs anyway... by drsmithy · 2006-01-10 01:52 · Score: 2, Informative

Actually this is pervasive in Australia...you need reference letters from people who have known you for 2 years to get a bank account, a mortage, opening a business, whatnot.
Rubbish. For the first you need 100 points of ID (for the non-natives, a passport and birth certificate are worth about 50 or so each, drivers license about 30, credit card about 10). For the second you need 100 points of ID and the last few months worth of paychecks. The third I can't comment on.
It's been *ridiculously* easy to get a mortgage in Australia for the last 5 - 8 years (something that has the potential to come back and bite the banks _hard_ if the economy goes south). Heck, there are places who'll give you a mortgate if you just tell them you're self-employed and earning enough.
To rent a place, you need to give the past 2 or 3 addresses you've been.
Maybe if you're an unemployed nineteen year old who looks like he just walked out of a hippy commune. I moved to Sydney about 3 years ago and knew no-one, but since I had a letter from my employer stating I was starting full time work the following week and dressed neatly when I went looking, I was moving into a new place in a matter of days - and I'd never rented before in my life.
Finally, examine the tax situation before you move in any case!
This is good advice. Taxation here is relatively high, even taking into accounts the services benefits it delivers. OTOH, outside the rat-race insanity of Sydney or Melbourne, it's a really nice, laid-back place to live.

fuck the west by circletimessquare · 2006-01-09 20:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

fuck protectionism

i thought the whole idea is that the contrast between rich and poor areas of the world should level out, that this is progress

or i suppose you like regions of disgusting wealth contrasted with disgusting poverty in this world?

exactly what does the idea "progress" mean to you? or do you think progress isn't important?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:fuck the west by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2006-01-09 20:53 · Score: 1

I think the poster has a valid point, though.
The US and the UK have a massive anti-immigration "taking our jobs" viewpoint. The US was built by immigrants, and now they want to shut the door.
Ultimately, people always find a way around. If they can't get a job in the US, they'll simply work out of their own country and export their skills.
On your "levelling out the world" that will ultimately happen, even with an immigration market. If more people want to live in the UK, costs go up and make someone in India cheaper.
If I was a younger, I'd be considering my options other than living here. I can write code anywhere. My clients deal with me by email and phone. If I lived in India, I'd have a much lower cost of living.
The levelling out is going to happen. The western economies are fat and want handouts. The US debt is completely out of control, populations are aging, and in Europe they are creating more and more protectionism. Having things like 35 hour weeks only makes your country less competitive in the world and gives the newer economies a chance to grow.
Re:fuck the west by Asic+Eng · 2006-01-10 04:17 · Score: 1

i thought the whole idea is that the contrast between rich and poor areas of the world should level out, that this is progress
Well as long as you say areas, I think that might work. However what about the gap between the rich and the poor people? If a company can replace an employee with a cheaper one, the gap between the rich and the poor widens.
AFAIK this is entirely consistent with the long-term trend - there is an ever growing gap between rich and poor. I don't really have the impression globalisation is providing what it's supposed to provide.

"bloody immigrants took our jobs" topic by l3v1 · 2006-01-09 20:33 · Score: 2, Interesting

Ok, so I'll have to start with telling that I'm also something like an immigrant where I live now (no, not in the US or Australia), meaning I have the nationality of this country but I was born in another country and then later immigrated here, and I'm doubly involved in anything IT-related, having both IT and EE degrees, and working in the field.

What I can tell from my experience and from knowing _a lot_ of what you'd call immigrant IT workers - not just who came here, but who went into western Europe and/or US - so what I can tell is that they didn't go because they want to live there forever, or because they didn't have or couldn't have got good jobs here, or because they wanted to take US jobs from US people, but because the money. Nothing else, but the money. Working a few years in the US can really mean a _very_ large boost financially for very many people from very many countries.

And thing is, IT/CS/EE-related people usually are a bit more "brave" in going in other countries to work, since if you're skilled, there are _very_ many opportunities, positions and jobs that you can get.

And added to the above, I don't think that the ever larger global flow of "work force", talent and skilled people is a bad thing. In fact I think just the opposite of that, and if I were in the position I'd very much encourage that.

Even I would have had some opportunities to go and work in some other countries, but I prefer being and licing where I am now, so I didn't go. But today I would go, since e.g. in my current job I'd only be able to buy a 40-50m^2 flat in about 20-25 years (I'm just getting 27 now). Now think about that for a minute.

By stopping foreign workers from getting into one's country to live and/or work one can only achieve one thing: hate.

--
I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I can think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do.

Re:It's not their immigration, it is their existen by GnuDiff · 2006-01-09 20:35 · Score: 1

Well, there might be an impact anyway. There are a number of jobs in IT, which either can not be done by overseas outsourcing, or companies prefer a guy who comes to work every day (or night, for that matter).
Still, in general I would agree.

bait and switch by circletimessquare · 2006-01-09 20:35 · Score: 1

that's not right

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by 16K+Ram+Pack · 2006-01-09 20:35 · Score: 1

Globalization is how the country of france was almost burned to the ground, Globalization is how riots have occured in the UK:

The Bradford riots had nothing to do with globalization and everything to do with poverty and bad governance.

Deja vu again by vik · 2006-01-09 20:36 · Score: 1

Historically, you blame the immigrants for everything as is currently happening. This is fairly easy when your media don't really cover anything outside their own borders that does not involve their citizens being tried for drug offences or having a fine old time shooting up potential immigrants, oops, I mean terrorists.

The classic next move is to round up the immigrants into internment camps - which I see the Australians are already doing, so they seem to know the game plan.

Then, as the Nazis did, you whip the population up into a racist frenzy using the media and find someone to declare war on. G W Bush should be able to help there.

Oh well, we can hope I'm wrong, eh?

Vik :v)

Re:Deja vu again by GoLGY · 2006-01-09 22:41 · Score: 1

The classic next move is to round up the immigrants into internment camps - which I see the Australians are already doing, so they seem to know the game plan.

You seem to have your story wrong.

Illegal Immigrants caught trying to enter the country, often on crude, massively overpacked boats are contained within immigration camps while their claim is processed. We cannot as a country afford to house so many immigrants, which is why such measures were taken to contain them.

And before the cry of "why dont you process them quicker" is made, perhaps a thought should be taken as to why these people attempting to immigrate didnt make an official request for such in the first place - because they were trying to avoid it, hence the boats.

--
--- perl -e 'printf("%s\n", pack "H*", "7369670a676f6c677940676f6c67792e6e65740a2f736967")'
Re:Deja vu again by Achromatic1978 · 2006-01-10 00:01 · Score: 1

Actually, you're wrong, too.
Being a signatory to the UN Refugee Conventions, Australia has agreed to accept any and all refugees that arrive upon its shores for processing. Whether or not they are then recognised as refugees is another matter altogether. That the government uses the Navy to take preventative measures is yet another.
But the big flame that it fans is this 'illegal' stuff. We signed the Conventions. They don't have to make an official request. We're the ones who opened our doors, and had the indecency to be pissed off by people having the gall to use them.

Simple solution... by mrjb · 2006-01-09 20:37 · Score: 1

Call to all migrants - Do NOT settle for a lower salary.

Or maybe the migrants didn't have a choice but accept worse salary conditions, to at least allow them to re-start their lives? Most people don't imagine the cost to migrate from one country to another.

Whomever says "migrants lower the average salary" and complain about it should be ashamed of themselves.

Obviously the salaries were lower because the migrants were discriminated against 'natives' in the first place. ('Natives' between quotes because we're talking Australia after all) That problem is not solved by blaming the migrants and discriminating them twice over. It is only solved by not discriminating migrants to start with.

--
Visit http://ringbreak.dnd.utwente.nl/~mrjb/growingbettersoftware to download your free copy of the book

In other news.... by codecracker007 · 2006-01-09 20:37 · Score: 1

Australian Computer Society now wants to introduce a test for competency in cricket, the national sport of Australia. The step is expected to discourage a heavy influx of foreign workers. er..wait a minute..isnt cricket the stuff then Indians play day and night... guess it wont work out....

--
7-8-9-10-0

ANC emigrants by codeButcher · 2006-01-09 20:42 · Score: 1

Yeah, all those highly skilled, white bloody South Africans fleeing the ANC regime - and emigrating to Australia, New Zealand and Canada....

--
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.

Re:ANC emigrants by Builder · 2006-01-09 22:46 · Score: 1

Pity you couldn't fit an E into that acronym, because from what I can tell, most of us are in London :)

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by timbo234 · 2006-01-09 20:49 · Score: 1

That's one of the better refutations of zero-sum economics I've seen on slashdot.

--
Pre-canned Evolution Links for all those Slashdot holy wars.

Re:slightly offtopic, but... by ZorroXXX · 2006-01-09 20:51 · Score: 1

There is no such thing as illegal immigrants, only illegal Governments...

Colour Line by Asian Dub Foundation

--
When you are sure of something, you probably are wrong (search for "Unskilled and Unaware of It").

Foreign work by peterfa · 2006-01-09 20:56 · Score: 1

Wait a second, that Linus Torvalds isn't American nor living in America. That slimy cheeseball! All the dollars that could have gone here didn't. If this isn't a clear argument, I don't know what is. Ok, seriously now, the joke is over. This same thing happened way back in the day of the Guilded Age in America. I find it so interesting that this is a repeat of the past... A long time ago, immigrants flooded the country and desperately needed work. They found jobs in meat packing factories and rolling cigars in their own homes. Children didn't go to school, it was much more important for them to go home and roll cigars or work in a factory. Child labor skyrocketed. Jobs became dangerous. One would have to work long hours in a dangerous situation. Children aged too quickly. Minors came down with blacklung, but they were lucky. The poor meat packers got it the worst. This was the day of the rober barrens known as Carnagie and Rockefeller. These guys made enormous sums of cash. They quickly became monopolies and then they control the country. A long came a man. This particular man had a particular personality. He was daring, cocky, intellegent, and best of all, moral. He dismantled the political machine in New York. He was the leader of the Rough Riders. He was one of the greatest presidents. He was Theodore Roosevelt. Teddy (as he hated to be called), became president and he then called the rober barrens over to talk to them. He asked them if they could please pay their workers better and improve their factories. They laughed. You don't laugh at the leader of the Rough Riders. The Sherman Anti-trust Act was pulled into effect from what it usually was used for. These gigantic businesses were shackled. This even was known as, "Power being taken from Wall Street and returned to Penslevania Avenue." Of course, this guy was also a war mongeror and an imperialist, but who's perfect? Now a similar event has occured. However, I think this turn of events is much different. For one, some laber cannot be exported. Try adding a Cat5 cable when you're 2k miles away. Who know? Time will tell.

If you don't want imported labour... by dodobh · 2006-01-09 20:58 · Score: 1

the work will go where the labour is. And _that_ is even cheaper.

Perhaps this consultant needs to open an Indian office.

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 20:59 · Score: 2, Informative

An asymptotical narrowing of wealth disparity between the countries

With close to 3 billion ppl living in poverty by US/EU standards, to "equalize"
the pay scale, property values will plumment, and the currency will be devalued
to levels that deflation will cripple the US/EU .

I cannot say it enough, any job can be done by someone else from another country
for less, and they are more than eager to do it .

If every job in your country was systematically done by a corporate owned visa worker,
none of the citizens would have jobs .

How the hell would anyone pay their bills ???

I am not talking about one EU member working in a sister "state"

I am talking about corporate slums like in the bradford riots .

Like what this women is talking about .

http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/108/ sha020404.htm

If you still try to sell this, then your just on the cash cow and
sucking away at the udder til the tit runs dry .

The US, the place everyone loves to hate, and wants to work !

Hypocrisy !

Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

yup by circletimessquare · 2006-01-09 21:00 · Score: 1

i worked in an investment bank in nyc for a bit with a chinese guy from hunan. he was an intern still in business school. after a few months, he left to pursue better business opportunities, and to drop out of business school. i asked him what the hot lucrative opportunity it was that was seducing him.

it was home, hunan, china.

fuck the west. fat, rich, gas guzzling, whiny, sense-of-priveledge lazy west. spoiled children. we're a shadow of who our grandparents and great-grandparents were. we deserve to decline.

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Aussies doing it to others too by daBass · 2006-01-09 21:01 · Score: 1

Don't forget that many Australian go straight from university to see the world. Well, when I say "world", I mean "London", with some weekend trips into Europe. Well, when I say "Europe", I really mean the Shepherds Bush Walkabout and Fulham Slug.

Just kidding, back to the subject. Many of those are trained IT people, who tend to stick around here for quite some time before, not in the least because of the high wages you can make here, especially if you do contracting work. And that is why they stick around for quite a while too. I know; I work with many of them.

This, of course, upsets some of the locals here and also is one of the reasons Australia needs to import IT talent back into the country. But it is not just foreign specialists that make more than locals, the same it true for people returning with "London experience"; something not limtted to IT, but other fields too.

I am planning to reap the benefits of that later this year as my Australian wife and I plan to move from London to the land down under.

I think you missed it by Chuck+Chunder · 2006-01-09 21:05 · Score: 1

It's all very fine to point the finger at immigrant workers and blame them for vanishing jobs, but the question to be asked is why are they needed?

There is no finger of blame here.

There is simply the suggestion that the answer to your question "why are they needed?" is that they aren't, at least in current numbers/skill levels. The statement that "IT immigration bias exists because the demand for IT labor exists" is all well and good but it should be proven. According to a news story I just saw 60% of IT university places in Australia are now filled by overseas students as it is becoming a less attractive career option to local people due to lack of demand. Part of the reason it is still attractive to overseas students is a good chance of getting residency through the skilled migrant program even though there isn't necessarily a shortage of entry-level programmers.

The skilled migrant program is a good thing and can benefit both migrants and Australia as a whole. However it does need to be considered carefully and designed to meet everyones needs.

why are immigrant IT workers getting jobs over the natives

I don't think that is the question at all, especially as it relates to entry level programmers. It's not about 'stealing jobs'. It's about whether the demand is really there warrant luring people from around the globe with the promises of residency and prosperity.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:I think you missed it by Bobsledboy · 2006-01-09 21:18 · Score: 1

@Your sig. How much internet traffic does BOINC use? I have a whole bunch of computers here, but I'm on a shitty connection.
Re:I think you missed it by Chuck+Chunder · 2006-01-09 21:30 · Score: 1

Not sure, I'm on broadband and haven't monitored it and I think it varies between the different projects. The people on the forums at the site in the link were very helpful when I had questions. They can probably help you.

--
Boffoonery - downloadable Comedy Benefit for Bletchley Park

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Dogun · 2006-01-09 21:08 · Score: 1

I'm going to make a prediction:

Some, annoyed. A lot of these are the same people who believe in the purity of blood and listen to the stories that some Japanese media companies run about "foreign crime waves" and support history books that ignore wartime attrocities on the grounds that they undermine national pride and take pride in the fact that it causes an international uproar with China, S. Korea, and others.

Others probably don't care unless the language thing gets in the way. A lot of people in Japan are hard to distinguish from native speakers with written English, and it takes a lot of work to become literate in Japanese. You do what works.

Japan isn't all peaches and cream. debito.org has some disturbing stories about discrimination for a US expat in Japan (some possibly exaggerated, but food for thought, regardless.)

Too many entry-level IT migrants by wew · 2006-01-09 21:15 · Score: 1

As the article itself says, the real problem is with entry-level IT workers, not with experienced,
skilled ones. What is going on is that the Australian government still classes an IT qualification as
a preferred one for granting Permanent Residency (equivalent to a US green card), so overseas students
are attracted to study IT courses in Australia. But at the end, there just aren't enough jobs
locally for them. And at the same time, the oversupply of IT graduates this causes and the poor
job prospects that IT graduates face is driving local students away from doing IT courses. Really,
the problem here is not one of the government failing to maintain barriers to the free movement
of labour (as many posters here are suggesting), but artificially boosting a particular segment
and class of labour (entry-level IT graduates) through a kind of "immigration subsidy". The results
are not pretty. I know of many overseas students who have completed masters, and even PhD degrees,
in IT in Australia and, after working at McDonalds for a few months, give up and return to their
own countries.

Wanted: Immigrants --or anyone-- with PHP skills. by kale77in · 2006-01-09 21:19 · Score: 4, Interesting

I work for a Gov't dept in Australia -- web stuff mainly, a large system using PHP, Linux, database. We've been trying to hire new people for weeks (we're advertising in Sydney).

We use an interview plus a timed skills test which all current employees have passed -- it differentiates the sheep and goats better than anything else we've tried. Even (?) after being referred by a HR company, and having a sufficiently interesting C.V. to make an interview, most applicants have been very seriously underskilled, and at least a few have seemed dangerously incompetent.

All of which means (1) Our current staff are feeling pretty good about their job security, and (2) we really do not care where applicants come from. We just want to find them.

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by JanneM · 2006-01-09 21:24 · Score: 1

With close to 3 billion ppl living in poverty by US/EU standards, to "equalize"
the pay scale, property values will plumment, and the currency will be devalued
to levels that deflation will cripple the US/EU

No. Growth will be (is) slower in the richest countries, and much faster in the developing ones. You may have noticed that the disparity is not closing all that fast - a good thing for all concerned.

The change is not happening suddenly for a very good reason: The wealthy countries are the main market for the developing ones (shifting gradually as a direct result of the lower disparity). If the change starts going too fast, the economy in EU and the US starts to sputter, slowing it right down again.

I cannot say it enough, any job can be done by someone else from another country
for less, and they are more than eager to do it .

And eager to do it because you can make a boatload of money - so lots of people jump at the chance. That "jump at the chance" entails investing in yourself/your children/your citizens with education and work training, infrastructure, stable legal system and so on, all of which will expand their economy and raise the wage level. Which makes it more expensive to do the job there, but on the other hand making for a better quality job instead, and more work available within the country since it has grown economically.

So will those jobs move to the next cheapest market? Possibly, in time - cost is not the only determinant. The thing to keep in mind, though, is that the number of countries is finite. The overall wealth disparity really goes down as a result. Eventually you will have a world where the search just for cheap labor diminishes since the huge differences will no longer be there to be exploited. That is a good thing. And it doesn't mean everybody makes the same either; the wage differences within the wealthy first world countries is not neglible today. It's just small enough that other factors have a greater impact.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

So .. leave Australia. I did. by torpor · 2006-01-09 21:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Disclaimer: I'm an Australian, born and bred in one of Australia's most unique spots, but as soon as I was able to work, I left Australia .. and have been making my living, ever since, as a programmer, outside Australia.

You want to make money as a programmer, have a wonderful life, and do something worthwhile? Go to a 3rd world country and teach them to write code.

The world needs far less nationalism, far less 'right to my nations lifestyle', and far less elitism. The world needs more cooperation, more participation between cultures, and more direct influence on the ability of the poor, by the well-educated, such that equality does occur. Complaining about 'migrants taking our jobs' is the most narrow-minded, stupid, un-educated point of view in this modern age of technological wonder; living in a village with your laptop and giving the local kids a logon so you can learn their language properly is a far, far greater way to spend ones life.

I can't stand the 'lifestyle trap' that Australians think they have a God-given right to. Australia never, ever belonged to whitey. To my Australian compatriates, I say, get the hell out of town and live a little .. your lifestyle is the problem. The world needs you to leave.

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

My Situation by hoofie · 2006-01-09 21:37 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm moving to Australia from the UK next month and I don't remember seeing any IT jobs on the Skilled List. At the moment, the Skilled Occupations List is made up of medical jobs or else such things as panel beaters, electricans, chefs, welders etc - i.e. skilled, but not automatically professional, occupations. We've got a permanent visa through my wife who is a nurse.

As far as I am aware, only an obscure or very specific IT speciality will get you a work visa for Australia at the moment.

As for all of these overseas students graduating and getting work visas, is it not safe to argue that a large number of them will be making a beeline for the U.S. anyway ?

Slave labor by Lord+Kano · 2006-01-09 21:42 · Score: 1

Companies love immigration that allows highly skilled workers to get work visas. Because they can pay them less money than American citizens, they can't easily leave for a job making more money and don't complain about shitty treatment.

H1-B visas should be cut back.

LK

--
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 21:50 · Score: 1

You recite your school books with flawless accuracy, but I think they may have
forgotten an important lesson .

One that is easy to read if you simply look back in time and decide to
learn from history, or doom yourself to repeat it .

I think perhaps some modern school books have left out this most painful lesson .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Caus es_of_the_Great_Depression

I can pretty much guarantee the ppl that used to work for GM and Delphi and
the other associated suppliers may decide to not buy GM cars in the future .

As more ppl are offered up on the sacrifical altar of globalization here
in the "overpaid" US it might just boomerang on them as friends and families
decide to not buy their products anymore .

Why pay a US company to send your money overseas when you can just send it
straight overseas without lining the pockets of US corporate whore CEO/COO/CIO's with
multi-million dollar salaries .

Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

Think it through. by DCFC · 2006-01-09 22:07 · Score: 1

Oh dear. Let's do some really simple economics here...
Migration moves people from where they can work cheaply, to a place where they can charge more for their labour.
These people won't stop existing if they are not allowed to migrate. They will do IT work in their home country.
Since India, China et al have lower wage rates, he will work for less.
Thus the world supply of IT people will be sold at a lower average rate.

Migration actually holds up the price of labour for those skills which are portable across countries.

It is also the case that an IT person costs quite a bit of money to build. This comes from a combination of parents and the home state.
However if they migrate, the return in the form of taxes and the general economic use of their work is for the benefit of the country that he now lives in. In effect countries that do not retain their skilled people are transferring wealth to those that do.
Also, at the risk of political incorrectness. Look at economic migrants in terms of their quality. Those who have been born with some grave issue affecting their physical health or general intelligence, find it much harder to move.
Thus they are on average better people to parent the next generation of citizens, and it is that generation who will be working to support us when we retire.
If we look at history over the last 200 years, we can observe the fate of those countries who kept out foreigners.
China, which was abjectly garbage. It's current growth is based upon low wages. Crap pay is a sign of past economic failure, not success.
Other socialist countries like Russia and E.Europe kept people out for a long time. Anyone want to emulate them in any way whatsoever ?
Japan kept people out, stayed backward until the Americans forced it open.
Conversely look at America, Oz, NZ et al.
Easy.
Fact is that it's now a global market for labour. When I left university having done computers, IT people were so rare that if 2 strangers in this area bumped into each other they often struck up conversation because they felt part of a small group. I guess there's more than 80 million full time IT people in the world. In the early 80s, most people on Earth worked in mud hut or gulag economies. Effective world work force of about 250 million, in W.Europe, N.America, and various fragments of the former British empire, like Oz, HK, Nz, and Singapore. Now there's nearer two billion people in the world economy, and growing.

Lots more jobs, but you have to make sure you are equipped to compete.

--
Dominic Connor,Quant Headhunter

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by JanneM · 2006-01-09 22:08 · Score: 1

You do realize that the US as a whole has grown wealthier, not poorer, right? When people in the US have lost, economically, it's because wealth disparity within your country has increased, not because wealth distribution between countries have decreased.

Or to put it another way, the pie to be divided has grown bigger in the US as well as in developing countries. But how each country divides up its pie internally also changes over time. If people have gotten poorer, it's because their share of the US pie has shrunk even faster than the pie itself has grown. And that is a matter for national politics, not trade or foreign policy, no matter how much some people would wish to spin it otherwise.

--
Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.

As an Australian immigrant.. by supachupa · 2006-01-09 22:10 · Score: 1

I am a recent immigrant to Australia from Silicon Valley. At the risk starting a flame war, most of the IT gurus I've met here are pretty weak compared to what I'm used to. I think that's mostly because of the unique area of the world I come from. In any case, since I've been here, I may have "taken someone's job" because I had better skills and experience, however, I have become an active member of the community. I volunteer some of my time doing free IT work for a couple of non-profits, and I have also been training up a few new Aussie contacts so they will be able to go out and take a better job for themselves. So.. I may be taking one job, but I am also upping the standards here. Further, Australia is experiencing a major IT 'brain drain' as students go to study abroad and end up staying there permanently. Because of this, there are incentives for foreign IT professionals to immigrate. Namely, we get major extra points during our immigration assessments if we have IT qualifications or experience. I think that unlike Silicon Valley, Australia is not very integrated and there is a big fear of this country being overtaken by non whites. It wasn't until the 70's that even eastern Europeans were able to immigrate here, and only recently has it been easier for Asians. No.. I don't think it's about Australians getting their jobs stolen.. I think it's more likely xenophobia.

Re:As an Australian immigrant.. by danielrose · 2006-01-10 00:49 · Score: 1

It wasn't until the 70's that even eastern Europeans were able to immigrate here, and only recently has it been easier for Asians. No.. I don't think it's about Australians getting their jobs stolen.. I think it's more likely xenophobia.

What the hell kind of tripe is this? That's pure and utter bs. Asian people have been immigrating here for decades, ala "Vietnamatta".

--
i hate pansy republicans

Y2K: An excess of IT workers by bernywork · 2006-01-09 22:16 · Score: 1

Well it was said that there is a glut of IT workers left over from Y2K, A LOT of these people are immigrants. As an aussie, I can safely say that nearly everyone who I worked with on Y2k I wouldn't hire again. The simple fact of the matter is that they suck. They were good in the short term, but they weren't the best people on the face of the earth for IT.

In aus if you are any good you can find work, skilled workers might be taking one or two jobs (In the scheme of things) new people don't find good jobs fast, and it takes good contacts to find good work. Simple as that.

I can also say, in Sydney at the moment, finding really good developers is hard, real hard. If immigrants are coming in with those skills, let them come. Australia was built around immigration, white Australians 250 years ago didn't exist (The dutch on the west coast weren't settled, so they don't count).

From the people who I have spoken to in the past immigrants etc, I wouldn't hire these people either, simply because they didn't have the language skills (They couldn't speak english properly) or otherwise they weren't skilled enough. A lot of Australian companies demand the best of the best, and if the immigrants don't measure up in an IT sense, then maybe the immigrants should have done their homework a bit more before leaving their original country. People who are coming out of University don't seem to have all the skills either, now maybe it's just that I am picky, or maybe the universities aren't teaching what's required, either way, experience still counts for something in my book, and I find that these people who are going for jobs, don't have it or the equivalent level of knowledge.

--
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown

Typical hypocritical, divisive crap from The Age by vandan · 2006-01-09 22:22 · Score: 1

The is the standard 'divide and conquer' bullshit that our so-called 'leaders' turn to when their policies are becoming too much for the population to handle and they need to divert our attention.

Immigrants aren't the problem. They are people, just like all the other ... people ... already in the country.

For Australians worried about their pay and working conditions, the real problem is the current government and their buddies in big business that have rammed their Industrial Relations changes through the senate. Australian Workplace Agreements ( AWAs ) guarantee lower wages for ALL, by giving us the 'choice' of bargaining away working conditions that have been won over decades of hard struggle. Of course the government argues that we are only being given the 'choice' to throw away conditions previously guaranteed by law, but in reality, the choice is not ours, but the employer's. This is particularly the case since our right to collectively bargain has been removed. Without the ability to collectively bargain, how can we expect to get anywhere, or even maintain our current position? Instead of standing together to fight for our rights, we will be competing with each other for a job.

THIS point - that we are now competing with each other for a job - is what is so fucking hypocritical about the claims in the Age's article - because they are in fact true of ALL workers, and not only a problem caused by immigrant workers. Where was The Age when the federal government and Business Council of Australia were pushing for their IR changes? They were the fucking cheer-leaders! They were berating unionised workers and telling their readers that workers should 'get with the program' and 'get over' unions, which were a thing of the past. They were telling us that we shouldn't worry about being thrown into the deep-end of the job market with no safety-net, because the wonders of the free market would provide for all!

And now The Age play on this fear of competition for jobs leading to decreased wages because it fits their agenda of whipping up racist sentiment, such as the horrible abberation that we had at Cronulla just a couple of weeks ago. Make no mistake: The Age doesn't give a flying fuck about the wages of workers. They are more interested in the bigger-picture issues such as invading other countries to steal their natural resources, privitise their assets and plant the neo-conservative flag in the soil. To achieve this, though, they need to turn Australians against foreigners, and turn worker against immigrant worker.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by drsmithy · 2006-01-09 22:37 · Score: 1

e.g. The reinstitution of the English literacy test as a way of discouraging immigrants from certain countries.

No, it's a way of discouraging immigrants who can't (or won't) learn how to speak the local language. Why is this a problem ?

I certainly hope you've got better evidence than *a requirement to speak the local language* (something completely independent of race) to demonstrate "racist immigration policies".

If you want a lot of information on the subject, go to my user page, find this same past I made a few months back and read some of the responses there. Links galore. Knock yourself out. Mind blowing.

I did some google searches for your previous posts, since I'm not a subscriber. Some choice quotes:

[...]it seems Australia is full of racist bastards. Basically, white people.
[...]I hate white people as a matter of principle [...]

So, basically, you're a textbook example of ignorant racist bigotry, yet you have the gall to accuse others of being similarly biased - and the best example you seem to be able to support yourself with is a requirement for competency in the local language. Truly a discriminatory condition indeed. Heaven forbid immigrants be capable of actually communicating with their prospective countrymen before being allowed in. Some other unjust requirements Australia has for immigration is decent health, a clean criminal record and the ability to support yourself (and family if relevant) somehow.

Why do I get the feeling you're one of these "controlled immigration == racist" crazies ?

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Neo-Rio-101 · 2006-01-09 22:38 · Score: 1

Actually they're happy to give me a job considering that I speak business level Japanese (still far from native level of course) and most younger Japanese people don't want to get on the rush hour train and work full time these days.
Many of the Japanese hires they've had have suffered from stress on the job and I seem to be one of the only ones able to hack it. ....at least I can go back to Australia with my much-coveted "experience" though if I wanted to... although it seems that the bulk of IT work is not back in Australia anyhow. I know Aussie expats here who came here when they were 21 and stuck it out for 10 years to get amazing jobs here.

--
READY.
PRINT ""+-0

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by Ex-MislTech · 2006-01-09 22:43 · Score: 2, Informative

You do realize that the US as a whole has grown wealthier, not poorer, right?

The Ultra-rich have accumulated more wealth, yes, this is true .

News stories have been done on the vanishing middle class :

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A342 35-2004Sep19.html

The Stock Market correction of 2000 and then 9-11, was more massive then I think you
can imagine, it bankrupted most of the major airlines in the US .

Just now we have risen to the point we were at before 9-11, aka
the same spot we were at after the DOT COM crash .

Lay offs were literally in the millions .

Do you understand " MILLIONS "

They like to make like it has "recovered", but all that has really happened is
a shell game . It's all bullshit, just like Enron, Global Crossing, MCI, Ad naseum .

Greenspan knows this, thus his warning on a housing bubble .

Excerpt: ( 4 paragraphs up from the last )

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/040 4.wallace-wells.html

That job fell to Greenspan: Finally, on Feb. 24, testifying before the Senate Banking Committee, he came clean about the risks of the housing market, in a speech reminiscent of his 1996 warning about "irrational exuberance" in the stock market. In his familiar, glum posture, his bald head slouching low over the table, he warned that the GSEs weren't just unstable, but also posed a "systemic risk" to the economy of the United States. He suggested debt caps, to reduce Fannie and Freddie's role in the market, and urged stricter regulation.

These EXACT tactics have played out before, but we refuse to look back to 1929 .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_depression#Caus es_of_the_Great_Depression

They want to maximize the profit, raise the stock price, lower overhead ...Ad naseum .

I go back to the simplicity method .

If anyone can do any job here for less, then no citizen will be doing the job if the
bottomline is all to consider .

corporate funded slums to house the visa workers, because they aren't even paid enough to
afford the housing that the citizens have to pay for .

Read this woman's story :

http://wwwa.house.gov/international_relations/108/ sha020404.htm

Ex-MislTech

--
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"

No Southpark here. by raehl · 2006-01-09 23:05 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's an extreme example, but we used to have laws that made it illegal for black people to learn to read. Why? God forbid a black person should achieve the same ability to do a job as a white person.

We can't (ethically) prevent other people on this planet from educating themselves. We shouldn't (economically) prevent them from doing so either - a world with 50 million educated engineers is better than a world with 50 million people who can't read.

Australians (and Americans) don't lose jobs to immigrants because of migration. They lose jobs to them because the other person is better at doing the job, despite the inherent advantages they have in language and culture.

I work with immigrant engineering workers on a regular basis. These guys wern't born in the US, their families didn't speak english natively, they didn't grow up in this country - if these guys can do a job in a foriegn (to them) language, in a foreign culture, and to it better than a native.... whose fault is that? Getting (and keeping) a job is a competitive effort. I'd much rather see someone lose because the other person is better at the job than see someone lose because they were born in the wrong spot or have the wrong skin color.

And, at least in America, immigration is GOOD. Immigration lets us get young people to help fix our demographics problem. The best way to pay for all these damned baby boomers is to let a whole bunch of 20-something, educated immigrants into the country to pay taxes to support them (instead of letting them work in India where we don't get the money for our social system.)

--
paintball

Re:No Southpark here. by rikkards · 2006-01-10 00:41 · Score: 1

I'd much rather see someone lose because the other person is better at the job than see someone lose because they were born in the wrong spot or have the wrong skin color.

Problem in Canada is that there are situations (cough) Public Service (cough) where they will pick someone who has less experience/knowledge/compentency for a job just because they speak French even if the job would not require it. I have been skipped over and I know people who were on the other side who were forced to do this. It occurs especially in the IT field.

I do agree though that immigration is key for North America to ensure that the population remains balanced but dictating an unnecessary qualification becoming an asset that is taken to weigh more than proper credentials for a job should not occur.
Re:No Southpark here. by BVis · 2006-01-10 01:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

They lose jobs to them because the other person is better at doing the job, despite the inherent advantages they have in language and culture.
At the risk of sounding prejudiced, it should be noted that one of the reasons people lose jobs to immigrants (such as in this story) because frequently the immigrants (or H1-B visa holders) are willing to accept a salary significantly lower than a native worker. IMHO it's not about who's good, it's about who's cheap. (Or who's the "better value".)

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re:No Southpark here. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-10 03:06 · Score: 1

I call bullshit on your entire theory.

Why? God forbid a black person should achieve the same ability to do a job as a white person. We can't (ethically) prevent other people on this planet from educating themselves.

It has nothing to do with ethnic background so your attempt at playing the race card means nothing. It also has nothing to do with trying to hold back people from being educated.

They lose jobs to them because the other person is better at doing the job, despite the inherent advantages they have in language and culture.

So what are you claiming, sounds like two different things. You claim people are against foreign workers to prevent them from being educated but then claiming they are already more educated. That does not make sense.

Corporations/Companies that are driving force behind importing work are doing it to increase supply and lower demand. Economics 101 and the salary goes down. There are voids where a specific type person is needed for a very specific job and a company is having a hard time filling that position. What seems to be the case most often is the company is actually looking to fill a specific job at a specific WAGE and can not find someone to do that. That is why companies that have been doing business for years suddendly have a need for foreign workers and the current employees are let go, it is not that the job changed, it is the wages changed.

This is where peoples opinion changes. I view it in the US like this. I am in this country as a citizen and willing to protect my country and I respect my country. I can live in the US under relative security and peace because of people like me that lived here in the past. Someone that comes over here, milks the system for a few years and goes back offer nothing to me or the people before me and those after me. If a foreign worker was here living off of our relative security is asked to protect the US in the time of need, do you think they would? No, I would exprect them to go back home and protect the place they are loyal too.
Basically, the people in the US past and present have provided the framework, opportunity, and security for others to come over, use our system and then leave at the expense of the people left behind with no further commitment or payback to the US at all. Use a condo park for an example. The condo owners pay for the parking lot to be paved, the pool to be maintained, and for the fence and security. What if they open up the pool to anyone in the surrounding neighborhood to use? Now the pool is full of people with no vested interest in the condo park using the facilities short term and then leaving. Those short timers are never going to invest back into the condo park for the future either. For little input and responsibility, the entire neighborhood gets the benefits of those that sacraficed and paid to build the condo park. Maybe I am not putting this to words very well because my example is money based and not sacrafice or potential sacrafice to maintain what we have but anyway...It has nothing to do with race.
Re:No Southpark here. by rikkards · 2006-01-10 03:35 · Score: 1

I know French probably better than some French people know English but yet they get paid better. As I said language is not imperative for the job in question.

Would you like a GP working on your Brain just because he can speak Spanish even though the medical staff in the OR speak English and there is a Brain Surgeon who can do a better job but doesn't speak Spanish?
Re:No Southpark here. by Probashi · 2006-01-10 07:10 · Score: 1

H1-B visa holders CANNOT accespt a salaray lower than the prevailing wage.
Re:No Southpark here. by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2006-01-10 07:30 · Score: 1

They lose jobs to them because the other person is better at doing the job, despite the inherent advantages they have in language and culture.

Cheaper != Better. Only idiots let economics dictate engineering projects.

I'd much rather see someone lose because the other person is better at the job than see someone lose because they were born in the wrong spot or have the wrong skin color.

And apparently for you, born in the wrong spot means *Born in the USA* and the wrong skin color is "white".

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:No Southpark here. by BVis · 2006-01-10 08:05 · Score: 1

Yes, that's how it works in theory. In practice, the "prevailing wage" is frequently whatever the employer in question says it is. Another problem with the H1-B system is that the visa holders are loath to speak up about any poor treatment (lower wages included), because if for some reason they lose their job, they go BACK. So they have lots of incentive to shut up and take whatever they're given, for good or bad.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re:No Southpark here. by BVis · 2006-01-10 08:09 · Score: 1

Of course they end up spending 5 times longer to do equivalent work, so companies aren't REALLY saving any cash, but middle management will still hire them anyway.
Of course they're saving money! Right now they're paying them 50% of what they pay others, so obviously they're saving money! (/sarcasm) This is the same kind of thinking that makes people think it's a good idea to shop at Wal-Mart: Sure, those jeans are $5 less than they are anywhere else, but they last half as long. So you end up with a worse value over the life of the product, but it's cheaper NOW, so obviously it's better.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Re:No Southpark here. by CoolGopher · 2006-01-10 11:58 · Score: 1

frequently the immigrants (or H1-B visa holders) are willing to accept a salary significantly lower than a native worker
Funny you should say that. When I migrated to Australia, I actually achieved a significant pay-increase compared to my IT job in Sweden. That's both in raw currency, and after taking living costs into consideration. In fact, the new job which I'll be starting in a couple of weeks will have me up to a level about four times as high as what I had in Sweden five years ago.
So, I guess that brings out the real point here: Sure, aussie citizens might be losing out on jobs, but it's not because overseas people are willing to work for less - it's simply that for a number of IT jobs, the skill just isn't available within the country. Probably not for all jobs, but I know from first hand experience (I've been involved in hiring new people to our team) that it's damn hard to find people with the right qualifications, and we've had to look overseas on several occasions.
Re:No Southpark here. by freedom_india · 2006-01-10 17:22 · Score: 1

In practice too, it works out that way.
Companies always try to hoodwink you on this, but if you are alert, and threaten to complain to the INS and IRS (IRS always gets their attention), they will pay the salary put on H1-B papers.
Of course if you goal is simply to migrate to US, and not to earn money, then you deserve the lower pay they pay you.

--
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
Re:No Southpark here. by emilper · 2006-01-10 22:32 · Score: 1

Well, you have to choose between still having a chance to compete for the job (if you accept skilled immigrants), or no chance unless you move to India/China/Romania/etc. It's up to you.

btw, as far as I understand this, one immigrant creates at least another job besides that he is taking in the country he is moving in: s/he will need services, he will eat in that country, buy clothes, even pay taxes. A highly skilled immigrant will create more than one job: s/he won't be willing to spend time for small tasks so will hire somebody else.

If you are willing to let 10,000,000 jobs go to China or elsewhere, forbid imigration. If you want to have 10,000,000 Chinese, Indians, Pakistanis, Romanians, Russians and Ukrainians come to pay taxes for your goverment, and have a chance to compete with them for a job ... let them come.

Around 1900 it was said that only uncivilized countries demanded entry visas ... and the finger was pointed towards Russia ... now it seems that we are all uncivilized.
Re:No Southpark here. by emercado · 2006-01-11 10:35 · Score: 1

Dear A. Coward,
YOU bring a bowl load of offal to the conversation! Seriously, it stinks!
Tons of immigrants that come to this great country (just as your ancestors did maybe a few centuries ago) do it for the sole purpose of looking for a better living. Once they've found it, there's no reason to give it up and go back to their previous way of living. A few of them do go back, but that's not the norm. They pay taxes! They've died in war where US soldiers have participated! AND THEY CONTINUE TO DIE IN THE CURRENT WAR AGAINST TERRORISTS! Why don't you do your homework and check out the number of immigrants dead as US soldiers in wars. You'll be surprised!
Going back to the real topic at hand.
Corporations/Companies that are driving force behind importing work are doing it to increase supply and lower demand. Economics 101 and the salary goes down. There are voids where a specific type person is needed for a very specific job and a company is having a hard time filling that position. What seems to be the case most often is the company is actually looking to fill a specific job at a specific WAGE and can not find someone to do that. That is why companies that have been doing business for years suddendly have a need for foreign workers and the current employees are let go, it is not that the job changed, it is the wages changed.
Once again, I respectfully disagree with you. Corporations/Companies are in the business of making money. PERIOD. It doesn't have to with a "specific job at a specific WAGE". We have to give credits where it's due, and we have to realize technology is not a "US thing", but instead, it's a "World thing". It has to do with foreigners knowing their crafts very well and their standard of living, being much lower that ours, allows them to live with a much lower wage than ours at the States. All big companies, here in the US, has seen an opportunity of expanding their empires by "out sourcing" IT jobs abroad (some call his exploitation, but that's another story). Anyways, the bottom line is that us, US citizens, should start respecting the talents of others from another nationality!

Money going out V. Money staying in by jmkrtyuio · 2006-01-09 23:09 · Score: 1

It seems pretty straightforward to me.

All systems that encourage skilled people who would tend to be a net gain to the local economy and culture to come and STAY are good.

All systems that encourage skilled or semi skilled people who tend to be a net loss to the local economy to come, work cheap, send money back home, and LEAVE are bad.

I want them to come but I dont want them to go back. I think thats shortsighted, pumping money and talent out of the {local|city|state|national} economy and diluting it over the global one.

That's funny by adam.skinner · 2006-01-09 23:28 · Score: 1

My companny recently outsourced their IT to Australia.

Migrants Are Stolen From Their Country... by DonZorro · 2006-01-09 23:40 · Score: 1

...leaving their home country less developed.

Don't tell me that they send a lot of their money home...they take away a lot of the (usually, state sponsored University) degrees and qualification which could be used to develop their country's talent and cultural pool.

Re:Bullshit Re:I've said it before, I'll say it... by Achromatic1978 · 2006-01-09 23:44 · Score: 1

which I don't take to be an unbiased authority on the subject

The Age, in between the changing of sourcing of IT professionals from around the globe, and the rise of sites like Seek, etc, has a lot to be bitter about. I remember 2000-2001, and getting the IT Age. There'd be a dozen+ pages of edge-to-edge IT employment ads. Now there's a 1/3 of a page for anything other than 'exec' positions (truly exec, like '$100M manufacturing plant seeks new CTO/CIO').

Replacement by BenjyD · 2006-01-09 23:47 · Score: 1

Somebody's got to replace all those Aussies who've moved to Earls court.

Re:Typical hypocritical, divisive crap from The Ag by Achromatic1978 · 2006-01-10 00:05 · Score: 1

In terms of Australian IT workers, just what fraction of said workforce is, or ever has been unionised? I know in my ten years and numerous companies I've worked for, I've never been approached to join one.

Re:Wanted: Immigrants --or anyone-- with PHP skill by donscarletti · 2006-01-10 00:09 · Score: 1

You should probably put contact information here, I know a few people in sydney that match your criteria and are looking for work (myself included). Slashdot seems like a great place to find someone who is really interested in the field, take advantage of it.

--
When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem

The US and AU are very similar by Alan+Cox · 2006-01-10 00:20 · Score: 4, Insightful

In both cases the people doing the complaining are themselves almost all immigrants, they just got there a bit earlier.

Re:The US and AU are very similar by Richard+Steiner · 2006-01-10 04:08 · Score: 3, Insightful

Assuming a single point of human origin, 99.9999% of the human population on this planet has an immigrant at some point in their history.

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.
Re:The US and AU are very similar by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-10 09:03 · Score: 1, Insightful

Well yes, but I think he was alluding to the fact that the "immigrants" in US and AU killed, caused the death (deliberate or otherwise), and major inconvenience (if genocide is a mere inconvenience) to the existing inhabitants. So yeah, people are now afraid that what their ancestors visited on others may get visited on them. In my opinion people living on stolen inheritence shouldn't bitch when something that's not their own "inheritence" gets "stolen".
Re:The US and AU are very similar by Richard+Steiner · 2006-01-10 11:33 · Score: 1

How was this behavior different from the conquests that took place in Europe, Asia, Africa, or any other region of the world at various points in history?

When a more advanced (technologically, not necessarily in other ways) civilization starts to explore and encounters a less advanced civilization, the latter is almost always adversely impacted by the encounter. Don't you play Risk? :-) :-)

Seriously (and sadly), though, that seems to be the way Homo Sapiens operates regardless of the geographical or chronological location at which the encounter occurs. We aren't always as enlightened or "civilized" as we like to think we are.

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

I'd love an IT job in Australia, preferably Perth by crivens · 2006-01-10 00:38 · Score: 1

Ooh I'd love an IT job in Australia, preferably Perth. Any takers!?

Like all jobs everywhere. by will_die · 2006-01-10 00:40 · Score: 1

Like every other profession I, the worker, am going to be hurt by having competition in the field of employment. However the competition is benificial to others not in that same field.
For example as a person who will probably need medical care sometime in my life I want all the people in the world working on possible medical improvements. It does not matter to me where in the world a new medical process or chemical comes from I as a paying consumer will have access to it and benfit from it. For the people working in the field of medical research the worldwide competition does effect them and they would prefer it did not exist.

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by danielrose · 2006-01-10 00:53 · Score: 1

Yes, it does seem that he/she is the racist, rather than Australians, after all.

--
i hate pansy republicans

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by danielrose · 2006-01-10 00:55 · Score: 1

a) e.g. The reinstitution of the English literacy test as a way of discouraging immigrants from certain countries.

This test is used as a way to ensure migrants have an understanding of the english language which will allow them to function effectively in an english speaking society. Without speaking a word of english it becomes very hard to do basic things, buy groceries, count out our currency, and anything else that involves speaking or listening.

--
i hate pansy republicans

Re:Wanted: Immigrants --or anyone-- with PHP skill by bobscealy · 2006-01-10 01:00 · Score: 1

My partner works at a government department where they no longer have the APS5 pay range, everyone goes from APS4 straight to APS6 to try to encourage people to stay. Two of my good friends work for a particular company that outsources to the government (think "massive Customs IT problems" and you have the company) and they are begging and crying for staff. This article screams of a slow news day.

great news by koroviev+(begemot) · 2006-01-10 01:06 · Score: 1

I wish all the best to the Australian IT specialists, in their fight against foreign IT specialists. In fact, I think Australian immigration law should be changed so that foreign IT specialists are no longer in the "for naturalisation" section (along with nurses/scientists/engineers). Eastern Europe/Russia/India have a lot to gain from their best specialists NOT going to Australia, but rather stay home and raise their home industry standards and wages.. a very slow, tedious and painfull process, that most good specialists choose not to be part of. Fortunately - there are plenty of US companies outsourcing software dev. to India (as opposed to having Indian programmers on yearly "bussiness trips" to the US to circumvent anti-immigration/foreign employment laws). Its good to see Australia beginning to move in the same direction. Fenck you!

I am Aussie. Immigrants arent the problem! by rips123 · 2006-01-10 01:52 · Score: 1

Honestly, the IT industry in this country is a mess. There was a deluge of new Uni students a few years back and now it seems everyone has an IT/CompSci degree but 70% of these graduates are quite frankly rubbish.

The 'bad' graduates started degrees during the last bubble only because "it was where the money was" now have jobs in established companies. These 'bad' are more often than not propped up by the 'good' due to poor human resources. (In this country we have a history of disregarding 'boffins' so often technical staff end up progressing to management without any formal training - this is slowly changing but is still an entrenched culture.) Anyway, all the big multinational outsourcing companies (CSC, EDS, ...) are full of dead-weight and renowned for running over budget which is probably a larger contributor to lower wages than "Cheap International Labor."

Given the number of graduates available, theres no reason to pay $60k for a good programmer when you can hire two Uni graduates that are top of their class for $30. While we have this surplus, I don't see the market getting much better.

A year 10 drop-out here can go on and become an electrician to earn $70k in 3 years. Thats by the time a Computer Science student is in first year University and owes money.

I've loved computers since a kid and have been programming since I was a child but I am now contemplating a major career move purely on financial grounds.

Re:I am Aussie. Immigrants arent the problem! by koroviev+(begemot) · 2006-01-10 02:33 · Score: 1

Everyone has these problems, not just in IT or Australia. And everyone wants to be a "worker" as opposed to "boss" (at least in some countries). It seems like the supply of IT companies/"bosses" has dwindled in Australia :). Be original, come up with some novel software idea (that creates a niche of it own rather than enter the fray of existing IT dev. areas), borrow money, cash-in on the cheap foreign labour, be rich. The problem is - Australia is known to be a place that's easy-going, not stressfull, not a place where one must be competitive every second. In other words- "socialist"/"fun" when it comes to the lifestile of the average employee (who, as legend has it - goes diving/surfing/drinking beer with his co-workers after 5). Who wants to be a "boss" in such an environment? Or competitive? What kind of people would want to go to Australia?
Re:I am Aussie. Immigrants arent the problem! by rips123 · 2006-01-10 11:30 · Score: 1

And everyone wants to be a "worker" as opposed to "boss" (at least in some countries).
I don't think that is necessarily true here. There seems to be a general trend in IT jobs to get by doing the least possible. On top of the normal 'anti-management' sentiment, Australia is renowned for its strong 'tall-poppy syndrome' (cutting down people who stand above the crowd). This doesn't stop people wanting to move into middle-management, it just means that when they get there they do as little as everyone else at their level.
Be original, come up with some novel software idea (that creates a niche of it own rather than enter the fray of existing IT dev. areas), borrow money, cash-in on the cheap foreign labour, be rich.
I've tried two such ventures - Penetration testing and more recently online automated backup software. Both required way too much educating of the market which ultimately made them non-viable.
(who, as legend has it - goes diving/surfing/drinking beer with his co-workers after 5)
Legend sounds pretty accurate. :)

Same as it ever was? by AppyPappy · 2006-01-10 01:54 · Score: 1

When I came out of school in 1981, employers were all screaming about the need for programmers that could talk to the users. They didn't want dungeon coders who had the personality skills of a serial killer. They wanted people who could wear ties and talk about cash flow. They wanted coders who "understand the business". As one boss told me "I want people I can take to a meeting".

Hell, now they hire guys who can't speak understandable English. And they don't care. Shoot, lock them in the basement and make them code. Who cares if they "know the business"? Just work cheap.

--

If you aren't part of the solution, there is good money to be made prolonging the problem

Re:So .. leave Australia. I did. by drsmithy · 2006-01-10 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

I can't stand the 'lifestyle trap' that Australians think they have a God-given right to. Australia never, ever belonged to whitey.

Nice to see your racist colours shining through.

To my Australian compatriates, I say, get the hell out of town and live a little .. your lifestyle is the problem. The world needs you to leave.

Huh ? One of the big problems in Australia is there are _too many_ skilled people leaving the country because the wages are relatively low and taxation is relatively high.

Trying to pass the reactionism and into simplicity by ursabear · 2006-01-10 02:29 · Score: 1

(: soapbox start :)

Pragmatically, highly skilled AND communicative people generally are a benefit to companies and society alike. Whether or not they immigrated is irrelevant.

If a company wishes to replace skilled (and more expensive) folks with less expensive and less-skilled folks, said company has the right to shoot itself in its corporate foot if it wishes. Again, whether or not the hiree is an immigrant is irrelevant.

Immigrated IT workers do not equate to less-qualified or less-excellent workers. Folks are skilled and effective, or they are not - irregardless of their nationality or immigration/emigration status.

On the human side, it is natural for local workers to worry about being replaced by less-expensive and/or less experienced workers. Wanting to protect one's job is natural and reasonable. However, pointing fingers at anyone other than the collective mind (of themselves and their company) is counter-productive. It is a cooperative situation that is best resolved by: working hard; expressing interest in improving (and an interest in being a part of) the hiring process; and ceasing the entitlement frame of mind.

Help the company do better - it will help you most of the time. If it does not, you are better off working with a different company.

(: soapbox end :)

--
A Passionate Independent Musician

Time to just face the facts by SpacePunk · 2006-01-10 03:11 · Score: 1

The IT industry sucks. IT jockeys will have to make do with living on Ramen noodles, and driving beaters.

Oh, and for those talking about doing it for the 'love of IT' or some such shit. Love doesn't pay the bills unless your a whore.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM

Outsourcing and Offshoring by Anonymous Coward · 2006-01-10 03:15 · Score: 1, Informative

I'm an American who set up an offshore unit for my former employer. I can tell you this:

1. Not all IT workers from developed nations are skilled.
2. Not all IT workers from underdeveloped nations are unskilled.
3. Skilled IT workers are worth their weight in gold, regardless of origin.

The only IT workers that need fear losing their jobs are the unskilled; and rightfully so, as they don't really belong in our industry anyway.

Just get out of IT by lmh2671772 · 2006-01-10 03:16 · Score: 1

Face it folks, IT is the new low-wage exploitation job, right there with teachers and nurses.

No matter what Bill Gates says about needing more American (or Australian) IT talent, they'll always take the lowest bidder that will work the longest hours.

If you're in college, switch majors, unless you're really passionate.
If you're in IT, bone up such that you give the best unique combination of skills. Otherwise get out and find something else to put three squares on the table.

Re:So .. leave Australia. I did. by torpor · 2006-01-10 03:26 · Score: 1

Nice to see your racist colours shining through.

dude, i'm white, i can talk about whitey all i like. far as i'm concerned, fat lazy white bastards are ruining the country with their homogeneity and their cultural bias against anything they can't see on TV. yes, i truly believe this, no, i'm not a racist: white is a state of mind. black too, yo!

Huh ? One of the big problems in Australia is there are _too many_ skilled people leaving the country because the wages are relatively low and taxation is relatively high.

one of the big problems in Australia is laziness and consumption. consumerism blows! go do some real work, i say, and yeah .. you know for every "wage-whiner", there are at least 1,000 other human beings who will happily do twice the work for half the pay. get over it, its the new world order, either travel or die!

--
; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --

Here is the solution by SpacePunk · 2006-01-10 03:27 · Score: 1

Band together and create your own companies. Don't outsource, don't hire H1b visa workers, keep it . Kick the ass of the companies that outsource, and use their outsourcing/H1b hires as your best asset. You know they are lower quality workers, and you must make sure the public realizes this also.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM

Re:Here is the solution by GnuDiff · 2006-01-10 08:00 · Score: 1

You know they are lower quality workers, and you must make sure the public realizes this also.

That's probably why I am getting invited to the US for the third year in a row by my friend who went there 10 years ago.
He works for a company whose boss wouldn't mind at all to do with local staff - he is not offering me less than a local developer, as far as I've learned inquiring about the general IT wages in the state.
Apparently, the guys around there are just "too high quality" and he feels uncomfortable with that.
Sarcasm off.
Honestly. Do you reasonably expect that any particular country has monopoly on talent and knowledge? In the age of Internet?? Do you think that just because you went to a college or uni in the US this means you are by default better than somebody who's been programming in assembler for fun when he was 10? *lol*
When I read about the appalling quality of IT stuff coming from eg India, it does not make me conclude that Indian IT guys can't find their backside IN GENERAL. It reminds me that India is the world's second largest country by population - three times bigger than the US and that if the amount of talented vs mediocre and dumb IT people would be the same in there as in the rest of the world, it would _still_ mean that you have a FAR bigger chance to have to deal with mediocre or below than with the tops. The US, Australia and the richer countries elsewhere, among other things are looking for smart people. And they can afford it.
Re:Here is the solution by SpacePunk · 2006-01-10 10:56 · Score: 1

They'r doing it because the Indian (for example) guys are cheaper, not because they are smarter. I never went to college or uni, as you put it. I WAS the guy programming in assembler for fun. I certainly don't have anything against someone with talent, talent is always acqnowledged and is always a pleasure. The thing I do have against is farming tech support, or importing H1b visa people to replace knowledgeable tech support with script reading monkeys. Replacing a team of talented programmers that know the code with programming mills that focus on how much time they can peg on a project instead of doing quality code.

It's time that companies that are willing to support foreign workers over domestic workers, but still expect the domestic profit lions share are outed to the public as nothing more than economic traitors.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Re:Here is the solution by GnuDiff · 2006-01-10 11:22 · Score: 1

Oh, I fully support you on being against "script reading monkeys".

The issue I had, was with the fact that you linked, in your original comment: "outscorcing" = "low quality". Which does seem to say that the guys from overseas are by definition worse.

A minor point I would like to make is that "script reading monkeys" have been present (in the US) before serious outsourcing started. Just being local ones.
Re:Here is the solution by SpacePunk · 2006-01-11 04:29 · Score: 1

I'd much prefer local script reading monkeys to foreign script reading monkeys. No economy benefits from money being transfered into another economy without at least an equal gain. The money is best paid locally so it is spent locally.

--
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
Re:Here is the solution by GnuDiff · 2006-01-11 08:03 · Score: 1

Well then, I rest my case.

Re:Wanted: Immigrants --or anyone-- with PHP skill by Richard+Steiner · 2006-01-10 04:17 · Score: 1

The timed skills test will weed out the unskilled, but it will also weed out some tremendously talented people who might not currently have what you need but could pick it up in a matter of months, weeks, or even days.

If your search is for long-term employees, are those really people you want to eliminate from consideration?

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by Richard+Steiner · 2006-01-10 04:25 · Score: 1

Lay offs were literally in the millions.

That's why I still know a few IT folks who are experienced and competent but who are still bouncing from short-term contract to short-term contract (when they can get them).

With so many people looking for work, it takes a long time to reabsorb them into the ranks of the employed again.

--
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.

Immigration barriers a threat to western dominance by Napalmstrike · 2006-01-10 04:55 · Score: 1

I cannot agree more with the parent. Now, arguing from a standpoint of pure selfishness, we really ought to attract as many of these foreign workers as we can to the west. Why? It prevents those countries from *Ever* developing a technological edge against us.

Think about it. No skilled workers == no tech industry. This isn't bad for the people who are migrating. They will work for us, boosting our economy, and in return they get nice houses, 2.3 kids, a picket fence and a California-built Toyota. So what's the problem? The only concern I are our own kids, who might get the idea that they have to compete with foreign kids who are smarter than they are (which is complete BS btw).

Yea. It's pretty ruthless (and maybe I'm just really cynical =P). But those people wanted to come here anyway right?

--
I'm bored, lets go break something.

You want an extreme example? by TheLink · 2006-01-10 05:29 · Score: 1

Say there's a world where each person is paid the same amount to make one decision a day.

Then some wise guy comes and asks to be paid 1.5x for making 2 decisions a day. Then someone else undercuts him, and so on.

The end result of this is that most people will be at a certain level of suffering. You could say it's all relative, but I disagree in the same way that going hungry is not the same being slightly less well fed.

What is the optimal solution to this? Perhaps a socialist state where the basic needs are met and the pay is just for wants? Would it be efficient enough? Is there enough to go around, or must some people inevitably starve?

Anyway, in my opinion Governments should be responsible for slowing inevitable change down so that their citizens can adjust. But not all change is necessarily inevitable or good.

--

Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Re:You want an extreme example? by geekee · 2006-01-10 10:09 · Score: 1

"What is the optimal solution to this? Perhaps a socialist state where the basic needs are met and the pay is just for wants? Would it be efficient enough? Is there enough to go around, or must some people inevitably starve?
"

What happens in this situation is a large part of your former workforce has their basic needs accomodated, so they decide they no longer need to work. Who will now generate the food, clothing, and shelter to allow these people to survive. There's little incentive to work unless you offer huge incentives (and who will pay for those incentives) or force these people to work assigned jobs. The Soviet Union tried the latter strategy.

--
Vote for Pedro
Re:You want an extreme example? by TheLink · 2006-01-10 20:49 · Score: 1

Well, if robots+ a few humans are able to do most of the work of meeting the basic needs then I don't see it as a big problem that lots of people want to bum around. Maybe this is not possible yet but there appears to actually be a net food/resource surplus, politics appear to be the main cause of hunger/famine worldwide.

Also, I suspect that most people need to feel useful. I bet most people after bumming about for a while would eventually want to find something useful to do.

You might end up with something like ancient greek society (where slaves = robots), and the rest of the people found other ways to occupy themselves - like figuring out trigonometry, logic, philosophy, designing new machines.

Right now, there's a danger of employees=slaves. Which is not a good thing either.
--
- Too many replies beneath your current threshold

Yeah, who isnt by klept · 2006-01-10 05:38 · Score: 1

"Australian IT workers concerned about migrants" Yeah, who isnt. If you have a boom in labor demand that is impossable for the local population to fill, immigration might make sense. In todays world, in developed countries, that just isnt the case. If it were different in Australia, then IT workers wages would not be going down, they would be going up in spite of immigration. If misory enjoys company, Australia, you have plenty of it. Heard last year that there were loads of Chinese in Europe taking all kinds of jobs away, particularly the menial kind. And then, lol though not funny, there has been the constant complaint about those Polish plumbers in Germany and France.

Indian soda industry by narsiman · 2006-01-10 05:42 · Score: 1

In other news - In India it is being asserted that India's intake of soda operations from Coke/Pepsi is taking jobs and lowering wages for Indian citizens. It appears that in all countries, not just India, the case that Coke/Pepsi are lowering wages for Soda operations workers is being made. Would workers in the developing world be better off without globalization that favors established MNCs or is there an overall benefit for the industry with large scale operations going to the developing world and thus making the industry larger?"
- See how your 401(k) is doing with those Pepsi/Coke shares. I am sure you will modify your portfolio if their valuation slides.

there are starving college phds by circletimessquare · 2006-01-10 06:05 · Score: 2

with degrees in french poetry

no one needs to get paid to understand that

meanwhile, there are kids still in high school/ college making hundreds of thousands because they wrote a killer app everyone wants

the difference? supply and demand

you will get paid what the market needs, and if there is another company competing for your skills, they will try to steal you by paying you more, or you can go off on your own and start your own damn company if your skills are so hot

if no one needs your skills, your existing employer will fire you or pay you less

is that right? is that wrong? it doesn't matter, it just IS, there's no way around it, nor should you even try to understand a way around it, if you understand how the economy works, ther is no superior way of alloting pay for performance

your example of a company paying people less money to do the same job doesn't have any meaning: either you have marketable skills, and you are well paid, or you don't. if you pay some guy $10 in india for what you did for $100: the rules of supply and demand still hold: you got paid $100 because less and less kids in the west major in computers. but meanwhile, thousands of indians with your skills, and no need to deal with the american real estate market, can do what you do for less $. so the company does the OBVIOUS INESCAPABLE thing.

this is a constant rule of life: supply, and demand

try to understand it

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Re:there are starving college phds by Asic+Eng · 2006-01-11 06:40 · Score: 1

Ok, just a little history here: the economies which are big today have all operated protectionism to get where they are now. There is no proof that fully opening your markets to the outside world allows a small economy to grow big - it has never been done. China does great running a very protectionist economy, right now.
As for marketable skills - fact is that the wealth gap is growing. I'm doing fine financially, but most people do not. Following current trends, in the future there will be more people doing badly, not less.
You say (paraphrased) "there is no way around it". That's unprovable as you should know. Over the last thousands of years, many distinct economies have worked fine, there is no particular reason to believe that unrestrained globalization and corporatism are the only option. Why should the only protectionism that works, consist of work visas, non-competes and patent laws?

non-colonnial powers fare better by peter303 · 2006-01-10 07:13 · Score: 1

Formerly imperial countries like UK, France, Spain & Germany left colonies with good education in the imperial language. These are reservoirs of low-cost labor. There's a huge supply of English speaking colonnials.

H5N1 by KlomDark · 2006-01-10 08:07 · Score: 1

In case you are wondering about the obscure 'H5N1' reference, it is the name assigned to the virus being used to perpetuate the 'bird flu' scam.

What about the abuse of these professionals by ozphobia · 2006-01-10 09:52 · Score: 1

Hi All,

Before I start, let me say I am an Australian It worker and have worked with a number of these 'imports'

For the vast majority they are highly skilled and have a great work ethic, but gee they get paid crap money. The ones i work with are contracted in at the same hourly/daily rate as me. So they are being exploited by the 'agency' that put them in taking a huge cut of the fee.

Flame away

Re:I've said it before, I'll say it again. by Fizzog · 2006-01-10 10:02 · Score: 1

It can be tough to get back.

I left Oz in '88 and headed to London. Spent six years around there and ended up in the US, where I have been for over 11 years.

The problem is I now have so much experience at what I do (OO, Smalltalk) that there really aren't positions in Oz for me to go back to. There are occasional gigs, but it is a big decision to actually uproot after all this time and head back on the chance of one job.

I would like to go back (I still call Oz home after all this time) but without at least a couple of backup places to work it is hard to take the risk.

Help! Somebody save me!!

Re: Walmart by DocSavage64109 · 2006-01-10 10:03 · Score: 1

I would tend to agree with you, except for your specific example. About 2 years ago, I bought 5 pair of Walmart's carpenter jeans and they have managed to last longer than any other jeans i've ever had... well, except for that one pair that did sort of disintegrate.

Definitely showing predjudice now by geekee · 2006-01-10 10:05 · Score: 1

"Of course they're saving money! Right now they're paying them 50% of what they pay others, so obviously they're saving money! (/sarcasm) This is the same kind of thinking that makes people think it's a good idea to shop at Wal-Mart: Sure, those jeans are $5 less than they are anywhere else, but they last half as long. So you end up with a worse value over the life of the product, but it's cheaper NOW, so obviously it's better."

Assuming that an immigrant can't do the same job as a native worker shows predjudice. This is what you've implied with the WalMart analogy.

--
Vote for Pedro

Re:Definitely showing predjudice now by BVis · 2006-01-10 12:20 · Score: 1

Assuming that an immigrant can't do the same job as a native worker shows predjudice. This is what you've implied with the WalMart analogy.
Assuming that I'm saying something I'm not shows ignorance. What I'm saying is that someone who you pay half of what you pay someone else is going to be perceived by the short-sighted useless douchebags in middle management to be the better value, no matter how craptacular their skillset is. Bad employees cross the racial/socioeconomic spectrum. The Wal-Mart analogy was used only to illustrate the societal obsession with low cost at any price.

For the clarity impaired:

Some cheap workers are bad workers.
Some H1-B workers are cheap workers.
Therefore, SOME H1-B workers will be bad workers. NOT ALL.
You're assuming that I'm speaking in generalizations, which I'm not. Life != (black|white);

I've worked with several H1-B visa holders that were brilliant. I've worked with several who were a waste of space. I could say the same about native-born workers as well.

I really would be interested in how you got from "WalMart Sucks" to "$randomRacistStatement".

Oh, wait, I know why. Because you're one of those PC thugs that the neocons are always whining about. Don't give them any more cannon fodder.

--
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.

the immigrants... eh by bowlman · 2006-01-10 10:27 · Score: 1

As an A/P in Melbourne, I agree with the comments that most companies only care about the bottom line and not about the quality of the work that they are doing. But the idea that immigrants are taking jobs from aussies or lowering wages I think is preposterous. And even if it is true, should we be really blaming the immigrants? Why is there never a story about companies employing inexperienced immigrants or foreign workers producing substandard products where the focus is on the company doing the wrong thing? Sure.... socially irresponsible companies aren't our problem its the immigrants.

Point 2...
We are IT people aren't we? Isn't it part of our job to keep up with new technologies, continually learn new technical skills(and this doesn't necessarily mean getting a new degree) so we can move into different areas of the IT industry when we want to? Like it or not (And I don't but there's reality to consider) we will have to compete with people from around the world for jobs and the competition is only going to get fiercer.

hey racist by circletimessquare · 2006-01-10 10:41 · Score: 1

why are you posting anonymously?

are you ashamed of the way you think?

the term "anonymous coward" never rang more true

come on racist, show yourself

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

if you moved to india by circletimessquare · 2006-01-10 10:46 · Score: 1

you should be allowed to compete for your job at the lower salary rate with the other indians there

yes, i read here on slashdot about the stunt where the guy moved to india to try to get his job back

well, he should have gotten his job back if he was qualified

i think that clears up your problem, no?

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

"the system is heavily stacked in their favor" by circletimessquare · 2006-01-10 10:48 · Score: 1

you really think that? you whiny spoiled sense-of-priveledge rich westerner

the system is heavily stacked in YOUR favor moron: you're rich!

--
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it

Census by umbrellasd · 2006-01-10 12:40 · Score: 1

Dug around for some recent numbers and the labor force was Looking through some posts from some Aussies, though, they do not see this problem, so perhaps the entire discussion is moot.

:-)

Aussie Census by umbrellasd · 2006-01-10 12:43 · Score: 1

Labor force was 8M in 2001.
Population around 20M in 2003.

Less than a tenth of the US population. /. ate my numbers, for some reason. Now if only it would eat my quite incorrect 250,000 in the above post, :-). Either way, though, the point is there. Less volume to absorb strain.

Re:Wanted: Immigrants --or anyone-- with PHP skill by kale77in · 2006-01-10 12:52 · Score: 1

I'm trying to avoid identifying my workplace, as I'm not sure what policies apply in that regard here. However, you can email me on a private address -- nigel@webcoder.com.au -- and I'll point you in the right direction.

Re:Socialist Diatribe Above by koroviev+(begemot) · 2006-01-10 13:10 · Score: 1

ever done military service? or been in a place where people are gathered at randon, and not by economical or regional status, or common interest? if not you have no idea what "cross-section" of (any) society means. frankly, after meeting the cross-section of (a) society I got the feeling that 80% of the cross-section of a society is not good for society :).

Re:Socialist Diatribe Above by koroviev+(begemot) · 2006-01-10 13:21 · Score: 1

Funny that.. It kinda reminds me who were the first whites in Australia, and what section of English society they came from :) (Answer: whores and convicts) Or in the case of the US? (Answer: Strange religious sects ..and convicts) Gees! Where do YOU come from?:)

I AM an immigrant programmer in Australia by Malkin · 2006-01-10 14:52 · Score: 1

If I had stolen someone's job, I'd have bloody well hired him by now, damn it. The fact is, I can't beg borrow or steal people to do the work I do, here. When someone with apropriate experience comes into town, we game companies descend on him like sharks in a feeding frenzy. If you're the little shark, you have a hell of a hard time gettng any of the food.

There are a lot of students training up in the field, but they don't do you much good when you need someone with more experience than they have. We're more than happy to help the new kids learn, but if we don't have experienced people, there's nobody to teach them.

So honestly, I don't want to hear any whinging, until I've got qualified people banging on my door.

hmm lemme me think by BigLonn · 2006-01-10 15:54 · Score: 1

only in america, erh, australia! Oh well, now you know how we felt!

And if you think they work cheap... by bwcbwc · 2006-01-10 18:29 · Score: 1

IN Australia, Europe or the US, look how cheap they work when they're back in India/China/Romania. I'd rather have an immigrant working and paying payroll taxes in my country than one taking the job completely out of the country any day. At least if he's working HERE the government will have that much more money to pay my unemployment check. :)

--
We are the 198 proof..

What about the accountants? by ross.w · 2006-01-10 18:40 · Score: 1

My suggestion for any company wanting to cut overheads is to open a subsidiary in India for the following divisions:

CEO & senior Management
Accounting
Marketing
HR

Won't happen though. I wonder why?

--
If my call is important, why am I talking to a recording?

Re:Typical hypocritical, divisive crap from The Ag by vandan · 2006-01-11 11:31 · Score: 1

We're not highly unionised, no. I know of 1 particular workplace that IS highly unionised, but they'd be the odd ones out.

IT workers certainly aren't conscious of being a part of the working class. They make the common mistake of considering themselves to be somehow above the working class, probably due to their income. My income, for example, is quite good. My working conditions are even better - I have a very supportive employer, and upper management even look kindly upon my activism, for example in the antiwar movement. In my current position, therefore, I don't see how a union would directly benefit me. HOWEVER, I realise that I may not be in my current position forever. I may not even be in the IT industry. My relationship to the union and other IT workers, and all workers in general, is one of solidarity. I stand alongside them in their struggles for better conditions, and in particular in defense of the new IR laws which come into effect in July.

This stance - of solidarity instead of just self-interest - is the stance that IT workers haven't yet taken on, hence the terribly poor union membership. Of course, there are other reasons why people have abandoned the unions or not turned to unions in the 1st place. I certainly have no illusions about them being a particularly progressive force. Their support of the Australian Labor party despite decades of 'economic rationalism' under Hawke & Keating is enough to send people away in droves ...

The last comment is about you 'never been approached to join' a union. In places like IT call centres, I can imagine a union representative turning up and making a sales pitch. In other areas - for example in our company where there are only 2 IT workers - it simply is not feasible for union reps to tour every single company looking for members. The IR laws also further hinder union access to workplaces, making the likihood of you being approached even less. This doesn't, however, preclude you from approaching them . As the Howard government and successive Labor governments increase the attacks on our 'way of life', I expect more people will be forced to take a more militant stance and actively seek out their union in seach of a method of defense.

Re:Socialist Diatribe Above by vandan · 2006-01-11 13:26 · Score: 1

Idiot.

What planet are YOU from? Some people have an incredible talent for soaking up the most regressive, reactionary shit that goes around.

Re:Immigration barriers a threat to western domina by MikeFM · 2006-01-12 07:04 · Score: 1

Once they come here and earn enough money they can help their family and friends that weren't able to come here so we aren't supporting the whole world. It doesn't hurt us much for them to come and earn money where as it does hurt us to just be giving money away. Foreigners that come here and earn money are also coming here and becoming consumers so they are in fact creating new jobs even as they fill jobs. All in all open immigration is good for our countries. In the US anyway we have plenty of room. I've lived on both coasts, in the midwest, and in general all over the US. There is a lot of open space and resources just going to waste.

--
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.

Re:Spinning out of Control-Atlas Burns. by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2006-01-15 11:27 · Score: 1

Globalization is how the country of france was almost burned to the ground, Globalization is how riots have occured in the UK:

No, racist hiring policies and a government turning a blind eye cause the french riots. How'd you like it if you couldn't get an interview because your name was north african looking, or you had the wrong sort of address?

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"

Slashdot Mirror

Australian IT Workers Concerned About Migrants

294 of 406 comments (clear)