Slashdot Mirror
Examining Presidential Candidates' Tech Agendas
Aaron Ricadela writes to mention that BusinessWeek is taking a look at the tech agendas for several presidential candidates. The amount of attention being paid to Silicon Valley especially is unprecedented with the computer industry citing contributions of $2.2 million up from just $1.2 million in the first six months of the 2004 and 2000 primary campaigns. "So even while the general election is likely to be dominated by the war in Iraq, the continued threat of terrorism, and economic issues, candidates have staked out early positions on topics dear to the tech industry, including increasing federal spending on research and development, allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country, widening the availability of high-speed Internet service to create new markets for hardware and online services, and improving the state of U.S. math and science education."
I hope one of their goals is to get bigger tubes for this new "inter-web" thing.
I hear it could be big.
Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway, but I can't imagine the second half of that *helping* research.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
i find it interesting that Former Senator Mike Gravel was not mentioned in TFA. Although he's far from a mainstream candidate (much to my chagrin), he's been the oevrall biggest supporter of net neutrality among the candidates. From his official platform:
/dev/null
Net Neutrality aims to keep the Internet free from large companies who are using their networks to limit the amount of websites their customers can view, and the speed at which they can view them. Examples range from, being forced to use the search engines your Internet Service Providers (ISP), only being able to view streaming videos that your ISP deems acceptable, and charging a website an extra fee to maintain the usual connection speed. Senator Gravel guarantees a free and open Internet with no restricted access to any site, for any reason. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your Internet usage. Intelligent replies welcome, redirect flames to
Why should political aspirants have prejudicial tech inclinations? I look forward to a future of impartial leaders that give unfamiliar issues equal weight relying on subject matter experts from all sides. Sound, informed decisions without prejudice.
Unless they want to replace all government machines with Ubuntu- then they already got my vote.
Go ahead and give up your internet connection and donate the money to whatever cause you like. That's an admirable notion and I don't think there's any candidate that would try to stop you.
It's a completely different story if you want to force someone else (via the government) to make sacrifices to fund the cause of your choice.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
1. Suck up to the RIAA/MPAA.
2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present.
Get a clue, and cut it out with the rampant unsubstantiated FUD.
As a Canadian I know many former colleagues who are now working in the US on H1B's, and know even more who have returned to Canada (for one reason or another) after working in the US for years in the same capacity. I also know a great number of work visa immigrants in my home country that I work closely with every single day.
All are highly educated individuals who are very capable in their work, and amongst the elite in their home countries. None come from sweatshop environments, in both the literal and metaphorical senses. All were very well paid in their home countries and enjoyed a quality of life similar to what we enjoy here.
All of the Canadian H1B's that went to the States that I know were brought in because of their unique skillsets, not because their salary demands were low. When they were hired their salaries were on par with their American colleagues, and none ever felt that they were there as cheap labour, as opposed to highly skilled additions to the company.
America is built upon these people, and thanks to you and your xenophobic brethren, it is being threatened. The hostility towards Muslims, minorities, and generally anyone out to "steal your job" is making the US plummet on the list of desirable places to move to. The vast majority of my colleagues who went to the USA have since returned, as economic conditions at home improve, and social conditions in your country worsen. Your great nation was built upon the importation of top-notch talent from around the world - Bohr, Einstein, all were immigrants. The openness and inclusiveness of America was what made it a shining beacon for the top people in the world to gather, and your little lighthouse has fallen into ill repair thanks to attitudes like yours.
Expect more inclusive countries to overtake yours soon - countries that embraces importing talent from overseas to strengthen themselves, instead being morbidly afraid of it.
So basically, just more "think of the children" pandering.
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Other technology votes by Paul: Source
Invexi - a Phoenix, AZ based web design and web development company.
Like which countries? Any Western European one? Har, har, har. Japan? Guffaw... China? You've got to be kidding. I actually don't know of any country which really embraces importing talent from overseas. No, not even Canada.
I don't think too many Americans are upset over Canadian H1B or NAFTA visa workers. It's workers from third-world countries who are perceived to be the problem. Personally I'd rather they be working here than in their home country; if they're working here they have expenses more similar to mine, and therefore will not settle for nearly as low a salary as they would if they were working as outsourced talent in their home country.
Romney gave me the willies when listening to his Iowa Straw Poll speech. He advocated that every computer sold in the US be installed with government spyware to protect the children.
As usual Ron Paul isn't mentioned. IMHO he is right on that as long as the justice department does it's job in enforcing RICO statues and other laws barring ISP's from coercing their customers we should be fine. The reason our telecom system is a mess is the monopoly deals the congress entered into in the 1990s. Stop all federal funding of telecom projects and true competition should normalize the market. States are more than capable of funding basic telecom to rural areas.
bash-2.04$
bash-2.04$yes "Don't you hate dialup connections?"| write USERNAME
Canadian H1-B holders comprise a tiny fraction of the H1-B's issued. The big Indian outsourcing companies (Wipro, et. al.) grabbed about HALF of the available H1-B visas this year. And that doesn't comprise all of H1-B's that go to India. China is next on the list. Canada is hardly noticable.
In otherwords, the OP was speaking about MOST H1-B's.
All of the presidential candidates are trying to take us back to the dot-com bust as fast as possible, with the exception of Edwards. If you'll recall, it was in the years 2001-2003 that Congress increased the H1-B limit from the standard 65,000 to 115,000, for each of those years.
In fact, the reason why this is such a hot topic this year is because the visa's issued in 2001 are expiring this year. This is what you don't hear in the media. And the tech companies know very well that they have absolutely no chance of getting the Visa limit increased in a major election year.
So, if you want to relive the dot-com bust years, vote for Clinton or Obama. Edwards seems like the only one who isn't pwned by the high-tech lobby, and actually gives a damn for the average U.S. citizen.
Ron Paul is against Net Neutrality.
Where is the Undo button for my life? Not to mention the Esc key.
Objective proof is something that is rather elusive in economics- since economics is usually based on some implicit axioms that may or may not be true, it's hard to be objective about such things.
In fact, I think the cheap labor movement comes down to a single pair of completely irreconcilable beliefs about labor. The first is the supply/demand theory of wages, in which whenever you raise the supply of something the price MUST go down, thus increasing the amount of labor available will depress wages. The second belief is the skills/efficiency belief, in which cheap labor merely frees up money for more expensive labor to go elsewhere, and skills are always in demand regardless of supply. These two axioms are diametrically opposed- those who believe one are implicitly denying the other.
I'm not sure which is true myself, but for any given skill that has become a commodity, as technical engineering and computer programming has, I tend towards the supply/demand theory- that a skill can only demand a wage that fits the supply of that skill in the marketplace, thus increasing the size of the marketplace will increase the supply of that skill and drive real wages down. Skills this doesn't apply to are rare enough skills not to be commodities YET- but given 6.5 billion human beings and limitations on human ability, I personally think we could commoditize just about any skill you can name- including C-level executives.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Oddly enough, I tend to think you have it backwards. Because our workers' political and economic lighthouse has gotten into such ill repair (real wage loss, especially when computed with non-core inflation; loss of social safety net; loss of political power for common people; etc.), a backlash against someone should hardly be unexpected. It is a shame that we always find the alien at fault rather than the corporate and political leaders who actually allowed this to happen, but when you see your own potential for economic advancement being washed away, you're not going to feel too happy about sharing what little you have with others.
That is all.
When they were hired their salaries were on par with their American colleagues, and none ever felt that they were there as cheap labour, as opposed to highly skilled additions to the company.
Have you considered that they were depressing wages because the additional supply of labor drove down what they were being paid?
Your great nation was built upon the importation of top-notch talent from around the world - Bohr, Einstein, all were immigrants.
Not to mention Tesla.
H1Bs aren't about bringing the best and brightest. They're about increasing the supply of educated labor to drive down prices.
Einstein, Bohr, Tesla, et all were not brought here on "Worker" visas.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of equity that has driven America's policies of affirmative action for so long? We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.
To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me a few years after college, the goal is not "color blindness", where everyone is treated the same way and everything is merit based. The goal is "equal opportunity", where a person's race, gender, and economic background is not a burden for them to bear. Even if racism and sexism was removed from the world, things would still not be "fair", because the legacy of less education, less money, and less connections means that certain groups are not as capable of receiving the education and experience needed to compete equally. A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits.
One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups.
Life isn't fair. We accept some inequalities in hopes of making the world a better place. Whether there's hope of that working, or whether it's an acceptable cost, of course, is something to yell and argue about.
One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups. So, a white male born to a single welfare mother in the ghetto of a dying city has a more advantageous position than, say, Oprah Winfrey's children (if she were to have some)? If you want to truly promote equal opportunity, neither race nor sex is are primary factors. Parent's education level and economic background, the quality of public schools in the area, undue family hardships (father died from an injury at work or maybe mom died from cancer while the child was young), the person's intellect, work ethic, ability to overcome adversity, etc are all what you should look at.
When you say "This grant is only for people who were born without a penis (or perhaps people who chopped theirs off) or are not from a pure Caucasian descent," you are saying that those people are inherently inferior to all white males and they cannot make it on their own regardless of their personal circumstances. I have friends who are minorities and women who earned coveted positions through hard work but everyone assumes that they got them just because of their skin color or gender. That, in fact, breeds resentment and hatred between white males and others as well as instills an inferiority complex in everyone that we're supposedly helping with those policies. Hillary might as well hang a sign outside her restaurant that says "No White Males" and we can go back to the days of segregation. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.