Slashdot Mirror
Rescued Banks Sought Foreign Help During Meltdown
theodp writes "An AP review of visa applications has found that major US banks sought permission to bring thousands of foreign workers into the country under the H-1B visa program, even as the banking system was melting down and Americans were being laid off. The dozen banks now receiving the biggest rescue packages, totaling more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years. (It's not known how many of these were granted; the article notes 'The actual number is likely a fraction of the... workers the banks sought to hire because the government only grants 85,000 such visas each year among all US employers.') The American Bankers Association blamed the US talent pool for forcing the move, saying they couldn't find enough Americans capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration. The AP has filed FOIA requests to force the US Customs and Immigration Service to disclose further details on the bailed-out banks' foreign hires."
...people turn to protectionism. No news there.
The American Bankers Association blamed the US talent pool for forcing the move, saying they couldn't find enough Americans capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration.
They're just copying well the tactics of others.
What the above paragraph really means is they couldn't find enough Americans capable of the job, who were willing to take less pay than average, so their costs would be less, and their profit margins would be more.
For the purposes of their requests, people who want to be paid somewhere near the market price for their services aren't suitable candidates capable of the job.
Retreats at luxury spas, buying private jets, handing out billions in "retention bonuses" when there are 10's of thousands out of work in the finance industry and the companies are asking for a taxpayer bailout. Then they repay those same taxpayers by trying to hire foreigners to replace them.
It's obvious to everyone outside Wall St. that these people just don't get it. Entitlement has become so entrenched it's a way of life for them.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
"...couldn't find enough Americans capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration."
They couldn't find Americans willing to work for 20-40% less.
This just smacks of wanting to use cheap labor so the pigs at the top can continue to feed at the trough.
... were also looking for the cheapest labour they could get.
I'm suspecting that you'll also find that those were the banks handing out the biggest bonuses for their executives.
When this disaster is over, I recommend lots of government regulations to ensure that, in the future, none of the banks (or other financial institutions) ever get "so big that we cannot let them fail".
In theory, with the "Free Market", these banks WOULD fail because they were badly managed. Instead, we're propping them up and rewarding their failed management.
They recklessly kept pushing derivative ponzi schemes until they collapsed, then brazenly took billions from the government to stuff in their own pockets, and continue displacing american workers with cheaper foreign labor. These people are morally corrupt, to the capital CORE.
They were right - the revolution did not get televised. It was posted on YouTube instead. All in 120 characters. SLOOSH!
The real problem was the only Americans they could find wanted to give out loans to unqualified applicants, and they already had enough of those idiots in-house.
John
I don't get it. You claim that in the free market would these banks would fail, yet you want to introduce more regulation to make sure no banks get big enough in order for the market to let them fail.
When is it "over", btw? And what do you recommend until then?
120 characters isn't enough to explain it.
And with it, the protectionism and labor unionism that plagued the country for decades. Want to see what happens when the whole US economy becomes like GM ? You're in for a ride.
Now let one thing be clear. What is a H1-B ?
It's a piece of paper from the government which says: you can work for your employer, and we will not come with guns to force you back on a plane.
What a privilege ! How can citizens allow WILLING EMPLOYERS and WILLING EMPLOYEES to contract, between the 49th parallel and the Rio Grande. What an outrage.
Mind your own fucking business. Hire who you want, work for who will want to hire you, but don't try to dictate who your neighbors can invite or hire on their property.
America has a choice. Bring in foreign labor that sometimes is much better and sometimes much worse than American labor over here legally or outsource their functions and loose all the benefits in the process.
The government runs on taxes.
The best way to get the most taxes is to push the most money through the economy at the fastest rate. The more times a dollar is spent on taxable items/services IN THIS COUNTRY the more taxes the government collects.
Spending less money on foreign workers is not a good way to accomplish that.
Giving $2 billion in bailout funds to a bank so they can give it to their "top 10" executives as "bonuses" results in different spending patterns than sharing $2 billion in cash amongst all the US citizens making less than $30K a year.
I'm worried by the increasing number of stories on /. up in arms about companies bringing in *gasp* foreigners. America was founded by non-natives and our economic strength comes from the thousands of immigrants who come here for a better life by getting good jobs or starting businesses.
The contempt for the foreigners coming here on H1-B visas, and the companies that hire them, disgusts me. What makes you any better or more deserving than these people? The fact that you were born in the US? Please. These people have the should have the same right as all of us to come here and be successful. By preventing people from immigrating, especially talented, smart people, we are damaging the future of this country. The ability to attract the best and the brightest to come here is one of our greatest strengths. Erecting barriers to trade and enacting protectionism, especially during this economy, will lead to our downfall as a nation.
The economy isn't a zero-sum game. Allowing foreigners to come here to work enhances their life and the life of those in this country. If you believe you are inherently more entitled to a job than someone from another country, just because you were born here, then you are a xenophobic prick.
Yeah, that's what I want to know. I'ld gladly take a job at a bank for 65k+ a year while I'm still in school, bankers hours would still give me time for class. And as an applied math minor, and a CS major, I'm sure I could handle these so called difficult positions. But it sounds like they weren't willing to pay the 75k+ a year that folks like me would like. I mean, when applicants start asking for 85k+ a year, you'ld think they were asking for more every time they mentioned the position...
2^3 * 31 * 647
There is no "Free Market" as originally described. The people with the money can get politicians to write laws protecting them.
But they keep quoting the "Free Market" when it is advantageous to their position to pretend that it exists.
It does not exist.
So just don't pretend that it does any more and ignore those people who use it to justify their abuses and just make it impossible for any SINGLE organization to get so big that the government has to rescue it.
It's all about privatizing profits while socializing losses.
they couldn't find enough Americans capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration.
The banks could have _trained_ people. It's called 'investing', and banks are supposed to be good at it.
All bank robberies would be utter failures if Blackwater, DynCorp, or Triple Canopy were providing security. There's a big difference between your average rent-a-cop and a highly proficient, former military combat arms, security operative.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
I think you missed his point. Many feel we need to regulate the banks so that we don't let them get so big that a failure of one would bring down our economy or other banks and sectors in mass. One of the basic tenants of the Free Market/ Capitalist system is to ensure competition. If we let a bank get so big that it is a cornerstone or major support of our entire economy (CitiBank, Bank of America, etc) then letting it fail is not as reasonable or acceptable a premise because the pain is no longer on the investors but the population as a whole. We have seen in this economic collapse that allowing financial institutions to become interwoven and then having them make up a large segment of our economy means that a failure in one part can bring it all down. However, if we limit the bank size (like they used to be for 50 years) to a smaller percentage of deposit and loan market and don't let them insure their own loans or be in insurance then if we let them fail they hurt the risky investors (as intended) and not the entire nation.
Personally, neither system seems very good to me, however the limited size of banks seems the least objectionable IMHO.
Huh?
Yet....they can afford new jets (French ones), they can afford millions of dollars of bonuses...etc.
I've always been against anyone telling a company how much someone could make...and I still to an extent am...but, shit...if the US tax payers are bailing them out, how about a little favoritism to same US citizens for jobs, eh? An exec. making that much salary, with failing times...should not get a fucking bonus, but, use that money to hire US citizens out of work.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Rescued Banks Sought Foreign Help During Meltdown
and then
...requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years.
I wasn't aware the banking system was already melting down in 2003. Given the delay inherent in gov't bureaucracies, H1-B visa requests granted now may have been in the system for months, if not years.
Have gnu, will travel.
It seems more likely they had run out of the domestic supply of that particular breed of idiot, and were looking offshore for people with a bare grasp of English and math.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Sorry if I had phrased that like that. My point was that putting money into US citizens at the bottom of the economic ladder gets more taxes generated for the government than putting the same OR LESS money into foreign workers.
That has also been my experience. They come here, live as cheaply as possible, save their money (good so far, right?) and then start their own business back home when they return.
During good economic times and high employment, that doesn't impact the economy very much.
During bad economic times, you're sending money away from the US economy ... and taking jobs from US workers ... and increasing the tax burden on the other workers to pay for unemployment benefits of those workers ... and so forth. The government collects fewer taxes, but ends up with spending more on the unemployed. It's a double hit.
Yeah, that's what I want to know. I'ld gladly take a job at a bank for 65k+ a year while I'm still in school, bankers hours would still give me time for class. And as an applied math minor, and a CS major, I'm sure I could handle these so called difficult positions. But it sounds like they weren't willing to pay the 75k+ a year that folks like me would like
The info on your web site says you have no significant experience in technology, and you do not yet have your degree. Perhaps part of the reason these companies are looking for H1Bs are because there are so many people at your level of experience who think they're worth 75k a year.
I am a manager at major technology company. One that nearly anyone would love to get a job with.
I have hired a lot of people over the last few years. And a lot of people straight out of college. And I've hired a LOT of foreigners. I've had to deal with H1-B issues every year for 4 years.
I dearly want to hire Americans. I have a candidate right now who is really good and I'm frothing at the mouth to sign him up.
And I don't believe Americans are stupid or can't do what foreigners can. But here's the thing, Americans in college mostly seem to have lousy resumes.
Remember when you are getting a job out of college, that most of your peers (meaning college students graduating nationwide) will have no actual experience in anything but the basic concepts of your field. Most employers realize that a college student is mostly considered a smart blank slate, one they will have to train a while in the ways of work before they can contribute well.
When I see resumes from Indian students, both educated in India and educated in the US (often just graduate school), the Indian students have FAR better resumes than any of the American students. The resumes list specific courses which show that the applicant has done projects which involved design and implementation while still in school. Also, they will often have fantastic summer experience. Meanwhile, American students will apparently have been delivering pizza for the summer because there's usually nothing listed.
So, Americans, do yourself a favor. When you enter college, do a resume search of students graduating from your school or similar ones. Look at some of the resumes from the Indian students. See the experience they are listing, and then go get yourself some of this experience, both in school and during the summers.
Yes, work your butt off in classes too, but you also need to work extra hard to make sure you land a good-quality internship between your junior and senior years. And take project-type classes that show you can do work in the field you want to land a job in, not just that you know the concepts and math involved. And make sure when someone reads your resume, they can tell from it what you learned/did.
You'll make things a lot easier on me too, because I want to hire Americans (trust me, the government is still doing a good job of making it easier to hire Americans than foreigners), and if you make it easier for me to find you, we both win.
No one makes $65K a year while they're in school in this economy. You'll be lucky to make that much with a Bachelors.
Just because that poster had no clue about the job market today doesn't mean that there aren't a ton of highly qualified Americans who are willing to work for reasonable wages. There's simply no need for all the H1Bs.
Banks making decisions according to financial factors?! Say it ain't so!
Congressmen act surprised because they want their constituents to believe that by bailing out the banks, they're saving the American worker and the economy. But I have serious doubts that any of the Congressmen who voted for the bailout *really believed* that it would create jobs or help the economy.
The problem Congressmen *might* be facing next election is that those workers laid off by the banks receiving bailouts are not the ignoramuses they assume. These workers went to college, took courses in economics, and generally speaking, understand as much about the economy - if not more - than their congressional counterparts. They lived through eight years of the Bush White House, and can recognize cronyism when they see it. They lived through eight years of Reaganomics, and not only do they recognize it when they see it, they know it doesn't work.
And they, like me, are frustrated that the wool is being pulled over our collective eyes. We're frustrated that Congress is rewarding greed and avarice, and trying to sell it as creating jobs. They know better; we know better.
Oh, and that Change that Obama was talking about? Well, our government is going to take your dollars, and leave you with pocket change. Welcome to Democracy.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
...the top jobs aren't farmed out to foreigners as well. Imagine the savings in only have to pay your top execs 200k bonuses instead of 2 billion?
Don't play.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
is slashdot now a bastion of protectionism?
here are your choices:
1. bitch, whine, and moan. sink further into mediocrity
2. shut up, and make your fortune in the NEXT big new thing
apparently, the america of can do attitudes and innovation is being supplanted by loud sniveling voices of priveledge and entitlement
protectionism never works. if there exists some sort of talent outside the borders of your country that can do what you can do for less, simple economics will gravitate to that. either it will be the multinational you work for doing that, laying you off, or if that multinational is blocked from doing that due to protectionist laws, then some other company will capitalize on the cost difference, your multinational will shrink from the competition, and you will get laid off thataways. see? there is NO protection from simple economics and PROGRESS
you are not entitled to the same good job your entire life. no morality, natural law, or sense of fairness exists in which that attitude is supported
tighten your belt, shut up, move on, and make your mark somehwere else
really
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Don't change the subject! They've hired a bunch of H-1Bs, and I bet their employees didn't brush their teeth every day either... So F***ing what?? C'mon that's not the real issue and you know it.
The titles says that as if were a crime to employ foreign workers using H-1Bs, which is perfectly legal. And what's with the evil guy pictured in the article? Is he the investigator or an H-1B holder thinking how to take your job? What a load of BS!! Can't believe this made it to the frontpage of /. It's dissapointing.
And yet the executives of those companies using that logic don't seem to apply it to themselves.
That's because it doesn't work.
The foreign workers don't expect to be paid as much because they DO expect to save most of it and then return home where the cost of living is significantly lower.
Now, if the companies want to play that game, then fine. They should be required to move their offices to India or wherever.
Instead, they want to "game" the system by paying to cheap labour rates of India, but enjoying all the benefits of the USofA. Meanwhile they're hiding their assets in the Cayman Islands and such.
Why should the American citizens support their government allowing such behaviour? It's just a race to the bottom.
I agree with you 100%. Banks I've worked with will hire Indian workers at 20k to network admin over 1000+ clients. That's a bare minimum 50k to a US worker. It's bullshit. I know about "hard times", but like you said, if it's hard times, then execs shouldn't be getting 7 figures.
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
Try hiring older experienced workers. They'll be more productive sooner, so you won't have to hire as many.
When this disaster is over,
Over? I'll only believe it's over when the last bank executive is strangled by the entrails of the last politician(apologies to Voltaire).
"Nobody knows the age of the human race, but everybody agrees that it is old enough to know better." - Unknown
I didn't see any Java or C# on your resume either. To get a job at any of the big banks, you need any of the following:
1. Java and some java framework stuf like EJB or Spring and Hibernate .net framework
2. C# and the
3. Be a C++ Ninja with some exceptional Math skills.
Consider this to be constructive criticism if you want to make the bucks in the Financial Services industry.
the usa's rise to prominence wasn't due to innovation, hard work, good laws, corruption opposition, the promise of liberty, immigration... etc., etc.
no, it was due to protectionism
got it
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
I'd be feeling a lot happier if they WERE getting 7 figures, instead of the 8-9 they get now...
All bank robberies would be utter failures if Blackwater, DynCorp, or Triple Canopy were providing security. There's a big difference between your average rent-a-cop and a highly proficient, former military combat arms, security operative.
But sametimes there would be a few victims of their over-reaction.
ie. Killed 'cause kicked the ATM.
or The client looked like a Iraqui
or Coins bag mistaken as a bomb
I'ld gladly take a job at a bank for 65k+ a year while I'm still in school
I thought cost of living in the US was cheap. I make a third that with much higher cost of living. I guess these are NY/LA numbers then?
Perhaps part of the reason these companies are looking
F---- the companies. I don't see too many bankers over in Afghanistan or Iraq.
This is my sig.
update google to point to my (currently private) blog
Doesn't that defeat the purpose of a blog? If it's private I would instead call it a journal, you can put all of your innermost thoughts into it and hide it under your bed.
Have a squat over at the hobo house.
a) where-tf on my website does it list a resume, 'cos I'm not seeing it /. was so anal about homepages being current I might have prepared better to make a joke .NET ... ARE ... YOU ... WORKING ... FOR?
b) if I had known everyone on
c) I don't care for Java, and am pretty good with
d) I'm not a ninja, who told you that, who are you working for, WHO
d) I don't want to work in the Financial Services industry
e) I'm not very good at making jokes....
2^3 * 31 * 647
I don't think that's the issue at hand.
It isn't about disregarding an applicant's merit and favoring US citizens, it's about companies exploiting the H1B system for profit. The H1B system isn't supposed to be a facilitator of cheap labor, but it has been demonstrated that this is often exactly what it is used for, which is the concern behind TFA.
The H1B program would be fine if fair wages could be enforced. They can't, which has caused the program to be abused by unscrupulous employers.
Bank size has nothing to do with the current financial clusterfuck. As you said, financial institutions are interwoven, and that's the problem. Credit Default Swaps are causing the current panic by governments to try to save any bank, big or small. Because even if a small bank goes down, because everyone and their dogs are interwoven with CDS contracts, the entire gambling house of cards crumbles. In fact, I am willing to bet (pun intended) that if one of the big automakers goes down, it would bring the financial system down with them. Or all is needed that a few small banks sell CDS contracts targeting some entity that goes down. And if these small banks go down, they'll take the entire system with them.
The current shadow financial system is the problem because there is zero transparency. If banks would have been forced to put all these gambling bets with CDS on their balance sheets, there would have been bank runs a long time ago and they couldn't have gotten big. Also, other banks might have been reluctant to sell CDS contracts on something like Lehman Brothers if they could have seen Lehman's CDS exposure. The CDS bubble wouldn't have gotten out of hand if only it was on the companies balance sheets.
I don't believe that limiting bank sizes would have prevent any of the current problems. And until CDS contracts are regulated and exposed, and companies are forced to reveal their CDS exposure, the current system will be vulnerable to any minor failure in it.
No, I'm making 50k/year in Houston and doing reasonably well as the sole provider on a married household, while in school full-time working on a BS. So I would say that if we were making 65k/yr we would be doing well for ourselves, but we won't be having kids, so I don't know how much that would have changed things.
Now, as for making 22k/yr and living well? No, not so much. 22k is considered passable, but not doing well. NY/LA numbers are about a third higher than my 50k for the same standard of living, as I understand it, but then again, I've never lived in either one.
Cheers
2^3 * 31 * 647
There's no such thing as "banker's hours". People I know that work in these large banks more often then not spend more than 8 hours at the office.
Also, Banking revenue should increase significantly due to the $35 NSF fees and late fees these laid off workers will be paying as they discover their unemployment benefits don't quite stretch far enough.
Clearly this is a big "BUY" signal for banking stocks as this is going to be quite a windfall in fee collections this year.
Ross Youngblood
That's rather exactly what I do... but to the point, I don't link to it. It's supposed to be a coping aide for my ADHD and my BP2 tendencies, but my ADHD keeps forgetting about it, so my BP2 doesn't get to cope. Go figure...
2^3 * 31 * 647
Umm, no.
While most might not remember this, since it happened four months ago, those big banks that got the $150 billion bailout were ORDERED by the Treasury Secretary to take a bailout. Most of them didn't even want it. I recall reading in the paper at the time that the Secretary had to basically lock them into a meeting and tell them they weren't leaving till they'd accepted a bailout. Apparently, someone was afraid that bankers who really needed a bailout would be afraid to admit it if everyone wasn't getting a bailout.
Note also that this H1B thing isn't something that's happened recently. It happened over the last 6+ years, BEFORE the banks were bailed out (at the next best thing to gunpoint).
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
If a company does a web search for you, beware of what they find.
If they don't like it, you won't get called.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
((*) for rich bank executives)
that they ARE available. In droves. Despite complaints about our school systems, according to actual studies we have today, on the average, the best-educated workforce in the USA that we have ever had. Saying that there are no qualified native workers is just plain bullshit. And even if it were not bullshit, the industry would have nobody to blame but themselves. Nobody is going to bother to "get educated" in order to get a job that pays shit wages and has few benefits!
Companies and corporations are going to have to get this through their heads: they complain that workers are not loyal, and that they cannot find enough people who want to work for them. But the reason is simple: they treat their employees like crap and pay them too little. So... they try to hire foreigners who are willing to live in hovels and accept those shit wages.
Of course this is a generalization, and there are some glaring exceptions... some companies treat their employees like royalty. But those exceptions have been relatively few and can be hard to get into. So as a generalization, this is pretty good.
If they want to find good and loyal employees, they are going to have to pay better, and treat people better. And the changes have to start on their side, because employees are NOT going to say to themselves, "Sure, they treat me like crap and pay me poorly, but I will be a good, loyal employee anyway and maybe they will change over the years!"
Excuse me, but things -- and people -- just don't work that way. Normal people take the jobs that look attractive and avoid those that do not... which is why they are not working for those companies that are complaining.
Until employers are willing to treat people better, they aren't going to get better people. Period.
I am sort of enjoying watching the United States have these epiphanies about protectionism, minimum wages, banking regulation etc. Not because I wish ill on you guys - I absolutely don't. If we must have a 900 pound gorilla of a country indirectly ruling the world, I'd prefer America to, say, China. Or just about anyone else.
But for years and years, the rest of the world has protested long and loud as the U.S. has rammed radical capitalist theories down our throats - no, you may not protect local IP, jobs, vulnerable industries, agriculture, culture, etc etc etc. Globalise everything, open your markets, participate in the race to the bottom. It has seemed crazy and backwards to you that any of us would even consider having high minimum wages, good unemployment benefits, strong unionised workforces, public health, free education and so on. Such things are apparently "socialist", which to many Americans (especially of the right wing bent) really means a combination of "communist" and "totalitarian".
Sure, globalisation has created a lot of growth. But it has also been unneccessarily destructive, and in many countries has wrought untold damage before any benefit has been seen.
So now, after forgetting all about the New Deal and after ignoring the post-WWII warnings your own leaders and intellectuals gave you about the corporatisation of your nation, you finally start to see what can happen to an economy and a society when you strip all of those terrible 'protectionist' policies away and then expose it to harsh conditions. Banks are hiring foreigners because (a) it's cheaper and (b) you have created a culture where the only "right" is corporations doing things as profitably as possible and the only "wrong" is putting anything ahead of money. You're a late entrant in the race to the bottom that you created.
But the measure of intelligence is not whether you make mistakes - it's whether you learn from the ones you do make. I hope you learn from all of this, I really do. Getting rid of the Republican Party and moving your idea of "centrist" away from what the rest of us regard as "far right" might be a good starting point.
Read Pynchon.
While most might not remember this, since it happened four months ago, those big banks that got the $150 billion bailout were ORDERED by the Treasury Secretary to take a bailout. Most of them didn't even want it. I recall reading in the paper at the time that the Secretary had to basically lock them into a meeting and tell them they weren't leaving till they'd accepted a bailout. Apparently, someone was afraid that bankers who really needed a bailout would be afraid to admit it if everyone wasn't getting a bailout.
I wish I had mod-points for you tonight.
A number of banks that did not need the bailout were strong-armed into accepting it. The reason: they didn't want a panic to start at the banks that needed the funds. If the public perceived that Bank A needed bailout funds while Bank B didn't, customers shifting their deposits from Bank A to Bank B would exacerbate the problems at Bank A.
Frankly, I think the whole scheme was a horrible waste of taxpayer money. But, this is how it went down.
We don't pay CS majors 65k a year out of school. You get less than half of that.
Reality is alot less comforting than your parents "computers are the future!" speech I imagine.
It does have it perks though, you will never put in a "hard days work", although you might have to press the buttons on your blackberry on the weekend.
Trackball users will be first against the wall.
What needs to happen is to turn off the money tit. Okay, $350BN is down the tubes (or did they give out the other half by now?) but this stuff gets everyone riled up when they hear about it. Unlike a lot of the stuff we hate in government on /., this is something that Man On The Street hates just as much. Call your congressmen, and tell Man On The Street that you did and give him the numbers. If enough direct pressure is put on them, they won't keep throwing gasoline on the fire because they don't want to get burned in the process. Everybody wins (in the long run and not painlessly) except for the losers who ran their banks into the ground. Otherwise it's fire and brimstone etc. for much longer, and the fail gets spread around.
Your brain is not a computer.
two points: first, "six years""the meltdown"--six years ago was 2003, for god's sake, the economy was still roaring along. second, these banks are 100,000+ employee behemoths; they're ruled mostly by inertia. if someone said, in 2005, "hire me 10,000 people from india in 2008", an executive order direct from bush wouldn't have been enough to cancel the process in less than six months.
Media that can be recorded and distributed can be recorded and distributed.
-kfg
I'll be willing to bet that when you leave work you actually leave work.
I'm also willing to bet that you don't have your nights, weekends, and time with your family interrupted because of something broken at work.
I'm also willing to bet that for every hour worked over 40 a week you get actual compensation for, instead of "We'll make it up to you".
I'm also willing to bet that your company can not just lay off 1,200 workers in a week, without your union getting involved, and garnering some pretty hefty severance packages (if the union lets them lay the workers off in the first place).
Yes, your job is more physically demanding, I'll give you that. But even desk jobs can cause stress.
Ok, so you're responding to my situation without seeing the rest of my posts, possibly fair because I would have been typing them while you were typing yours. I'm making well over 30k, and this degree IS a stepping stone to my next degree. I anticipate being jobless in two years, due to I want to try and goto grad school full time, and the company where I work now will be better able to hire another employee to do full-time work than to pay me full-time salary as a part-time employee. Granted, I'll already know the biz, but still.
As for my point in stating I would work for 65k+, then 75k+, then 85k+, bear in mind that banks are one of the few organizations that popular culture has the low man on the pole making more than most mid-level execs. I'm not saying that that myth of the popular culture is accurate, and I'm not saying it's all pervasive, but I am saying that it exists, and that there is this expectation that banks pay more than other jobs.
Also, you seem to keep posting income figures for a single individual. What about single-provider marriages and full-family situations? Should the earner still only earn enough for an individual? Are you advocating that all couples should be double-earner's? Don't you think that's unusual when so much of the world doesn't live like that?
2^3 * 31 * 647
Understood and recognized. I'm not looking. Thanks for the thoughtfulness, but it's the same reason (more or less) why I barely have a myspace account, no LinkedIn account, no FaceBook, etc.
2^3 * 31 * 647
You know, it might not be the greatest idea to have this webpage with obselete details still around, where any potential employer can easily find out. Not only that, but you actually seem to be proud of having this out-of-date website...
This guy is not a potential employer, why do you expect him to ask for you CV?
hmm... i wonder why you can't find a decent job.
Um, for seven years I busted my arse at my family's company, unloading boxcars and tractor trailers full of potatoes and onions on the Georgia State Farmers Market (upper side, not lower). For 12 hours or more everyday I would toss 50 and 100 lb sacks of vegetables, or boxes in some cases. I've put in a third of a career's worth of "hard day's work" and figure I may just have to go back to that.
Accordingly, my parents never gave me a "computers are the future!" speech, they wanted me to stay in produce. My mother was deathly afraid of y2k, and she thinks that because I want to get into pervasive computing that I'm going to help get the Christians persecuted for the endtimes. Sorry, they don't put much faith in computers in general. If you had a family that was initially supportive of you going to school, then I applaud you, but I'm quite happy with my income and my station in life right now.
And I don't use a blackberry, I'm a WinMo6Pro kinda guy... BES is EPIC FAIL, no?
2^3 * 31 * 647
If that's what you got out of the parent post, it says a hell of a lot more about you than the poster.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
And yet you post AC... Hmmm, not much into tech are you?
2^3 * 31 * 647
heh, the AC above you (at this point in time) makes a really good point: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111905&cid=26690167
So, all I have to do to prevent someone from being hired is to post a web page with completely false information about someone and companies with retarded hiring managers and retarded HR people will fall for it and not hire the person?
And you ask me why I would expect them to ask for my CV? Because I don't anticipate going job hunting again till I've gone to grad school. That may be far fetched, or it may not, time will tell, but it's my understanding that at that point a CV will be more pertinent to my situation than either a resume or some pointless site on a homesteaders site like geocities. Sure sure, now it's called tripod or lycos, but once upon a time that little POS site started life on geocities. I remember learning basic HTML from Gilpo's. Not that I've ever done anything with it, mind you...
2^3 * 31 * 647
I think what shocks me most is the complete disconnect between the classes. The lower class is surprised that the elite is shitting on them? Talk about heads in the sand. Meanwhile the elite bankers at the top are shocked that they are being scrutinized so heavily. After all, "do you know who the fuck you are talking to?"
I'd be laughing my ass off if it didn't hurt so many people.
Really, there are plenty H1B's out there that work for 75-50% of the standard wages. If you're out of a job, what would you rather have: 0% or 50% of what you used to make? If Americans don't want to work at those wages, then they don't get the job, there are always people who want to work whether you import them or not. It's not because you're American that you're entitled to get higher wages. The economy is down the crapper, you have to pay your bills; get a job or become homeless. If you don't want to work for the bank at 45k, there is always pizza delivery or McD for 25k.
I work and live in America as a permanent resident. I made 2 years ago well above average and got a bit of savings, the last two I make slightly below but I have a much better work environment and at least I still have a job and job security for at least a few years even if the economy gets worse. If you're forgoing jobs because you hope you get a better offer, that's your problem and good luck if you can get it in this economy. In the mean time I'll just build up my credit and buy a house within a few months. Hopefully you'll deserve a tip when you serve me my food.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
someone should point out to those fretting about foreigners that the attitude of north korea leads to an economy like north korea's
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
The info on your web site says you have no significant experience in technology, and you do not yet have your degree. Perhaps part of the reason these companies are looking for H1Bs are because there are so many people at your level of experience who think they're worth 75k a year.
Why not. CEOs whose only experience is driving one or more companies to bankruptcy command multi-million dollar salaries AND golden handshakes. Lead by example.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
I'm sorry... My knee jerk just hit me in the face so hard I lost all ability to reason for a while.
The dozen banks now receiving the biggest rescue packages, totaling more than $150 billion, requested visas for more than 21,800 foreign workers over the past six years.
We've got our panties in a bunch over their hiring H1Bs at the rate of one one thousandth of their global workforce each year during the fastest period of growth in banking history? Anyone else feeling stupid yet?
21,860 over six years.
So an average of 3,600 a year?
Or, divided across the dozen quoted, an average of three hundred whole H1Bs per bank, each year.
To put that in context, Citibank, not even the largest of them, had around 300,000 worldwide workers. Their lay offs have hit around 10% of that number... 30,000. 300 H1Bs a year is suddenly a very, very small number.
Even if none of the H1Bs moved on during the six years, they'd have hired a total of about 2,000 of them. They'd still have laid off 28,000 non H1B holders even if every last H1B holder had gone first.
Sweet jesus, they're clearly the most evil H1B abusers evar.
And as for talking about how evil they were for hiring these H1Bs over the last six years as the system imploded? It's been falling apart for the last year or so. The other five of those that we're busy lumping in there were (admittedly for bad reasons) the fastest period of growth the banking sector has ever seen.
The constant whining about H1Bs, I'm sorry, is the same pathetic xenophobia and protectionism that kicks in, whether grounded or not, whenever people get scared.
I was disgusted in 2002 as that shameful of human traits was used to justify stripping away the nation's civil liberties. I was disgusted as it turned in to attacking mosques and regarding all muslims as obvious terrorists. I was disgusted as it was used to justify attacking as "unpatriotic" anyone who dared question what turned out to be lies justifying a war that's cost 5,000 American lives. And, yeah, I'm pretty disgusted by it now too.
Xenophobia's pathetic at any time. Massively distorting numbers to make a point that really doesn't exist doesn't help.
I have no doubt at all that it works that way for a lot of people!
I'm definitely not saying all HR people are tarred with the same brush, but some of the ones I've dealt with over the years make you wonder how they got a job in the first place.
And just remember, the internet abounds with proof that all you need to do to ruin someone's career is to throw a little mud, whether it's true or not is of no relevance at all. People like nasty rumors and quite happily spread them.
Blame your government. What kind of idiot gives money away without oversight into how it is spent?
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
not only does that contradict federal work laws, it shows you depend more on unsupported hysteria than reality
you've defeated your own argument by revealing a failed mentality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
My comment ended up on the wrong thread. I meant to reply further up.
It's because HR usually does not work for the employees, or for the company as a whole. It works for the necessary bureaucracy that is HR. That department's goals often are to commit acts that are decidedly illegal, such as to save corporate money by hiring H1B's instead of American citizens, to discriminate against older employees who might retire and collect pensions, to avoid hiring people with medical problems that will cost insurance money, to protect the jobs of descendants of company founders, to hire menial office staff who will gratefully perform sexual favors for their bosses, or to lie to employment agencies and newspapers by placing false employment ads for positions they have no intention of filling, but merely use to pretend the company finances are good. (My peers looking for work right now are running into that last one quite a lot: once you figure out the positions don't actually exist, it's a good time to warn your stock investor friends that the company is planning layoffs.)
In the course of my career, I've seen HR personnel commit every single one of those acts, with none of the HR personnel at risk for following such policies unless discovered by an outside agency. It's not all HR personnel, or all HR departments, but their loyalty is only rarely to the actual people they're helping hire or manage benefits.
Oh, you're referring to my way out of date geocities page, which I'm too lazy [...]
Yup, great. "too lazy" to update a website but wanting a 75k salary? :-)
Ok, fine, the page is out of date, but employers WILL google you. It's a fact of life. You can't decide what information about you an employer will use in his or her decision to hire, aside from a couple of protected categories such as age or race. Especially as an IT person, you need to keep all facets of your online information up-to-date.
Then again, as an IT person, I'd be extremely hesitant to hire anyone who ever had a Geocities page. ;)
Not that simple as you portray.
Citizens are looking for work everywhere.
Whether its KFC or Citi.
But the cost of hiring H1-Bs is lower in many ways than just financial:
1) A H1-B could be fired instantly without any union problems.
2) No healthcare or pension crap.
3) Ability to hite 2 H1-B for price of one american citizen (ok, nowadays this is gone)
In short, this is just stealing.
Corporates steal tax payers money and feed it to h1Bs, while the same tax payer is fired!
As long as a corporate is NOT funded by tax payer money it is free to hire anyone.
The moment a corporate touches public money, it has to follow rules that limit hiring.
In India Public funded organisations (even profitable ones) have to follow rules on hiring including reservations for the backward and under-privileged.
Similar should be in US...
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
given how well it's all gone you'd be forgiven for thinking they couldn't find people capable of handling sales, lending, and bank administration, regardless of nationality.
Sure, globalisation has created a lot of growth. But it has also been unneccessarily destructive
If you think growth has been destructive, wait until the growth stops.
You only ignore all of human history. Growth can be painful but it's far better than the ugly alternatives.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I'm not surprised. I've known for a long time that government and corporate elites are stealing from the workers. It's just that, until now, most people thought I was nuts.
Even in today's climate, there are still some who think these elites can be trusted. As if in they are in denial and can't face the facts.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Cry me a river.
Hint: don't use your real name in online forums unless you've invented something used on at least 1/10 of the net or have a Nobel prize - I just can't understand the facebook generation.
Tariffs are no more evil than huge trade imbalances. Only simplistic application of Adam Smith's theories shows trade imbalances to be good. When you use modern techniques to ALSO include risk and bubbles and 3rd-world human rights, then it's not so clear-cut.
Besides, tariffs with our more lopsided trading partners may actually encourage them to import more from us and slowing the imbalance, and thus reducing the tariffs again.
Table-ized A.I.
In quotes from interviews in the article, and comments here on Slashdot, there seems to be this misguided assumption that "taxpayer" equals "American". That is wrong!!!
Immigrants who work here, even on a visa, pay taxes on their income. They shop at the same stores, forking over sales tax. Many foreign workers own property that is taxed, they buy stocks that are taxed, etc. In fact, you would be hard pressed to find any difference between an immigrant and a U.S. citizen from a "paying taxes" point of view, over the same period of residency.
So, stop acting as if foreign workers contribute no money to the government, as if somehow every use of tax dollars will only impact U.S. citizens.
"Microsoft killed my company, I hold a personal grudge. I don't use Microsoft products and neither should you."-JWZ
There's no such thing as "banker's hours". People I know that work in these large banks more often then not spend more than 8 hours at the office.
...per week. I'd say that was a subliminal slip.
Just callin' it like I see it.
When businesses complain that they can not find qualified American workers the real truth is that they do not wish to pay out the money needed to hire qualified Americans and prefer to import desperate workers willing to accept low wages.
In machine-gun rapidity, it's been reported that US Banks have;
What has to happen to get the American public angry enough to do something? Will it take roving bands of bankers engaged in drive-by shooting?... the serial of rape our pets?... bombing momma's retirement home? These are criminals, self serving, greedy, despots without conscience, or any apparent sign of limit to their hubris or appetites. The American public seems somehow transfixed watching this slow motion disaster, while these pint sized Neros, not only fiddle while Rome burns, but pour gas on the fire and loot the rubble to their hearts content.
These people will not stop until they've utterly gutted the world and they've sucked out the last morsel. It's time to stop this behavior once and for all. It's time to declare this mentality the social illness it deserves to be and address it accordingly. Having allowed these people direct access to our government has been a profound failure, and needs to be stopped immediately. Just as church and state must be separate to maintain human freedom and liberty, it's become clear that we need a similar separation between commerce and state. The State must manage the environment in which business operates, but allowing business unlimited access to government results in precisely the kind of steady erosion to freedom, justice, and a healthy middle class, that we've been witness to over the last 30 year. The corporate state is every bit as much a failed system as it's opposite. A capitalism grounded in reality, and designed for the benefit of all people, and not just a vanishingly small few is called for. Punishing the criminals who've brought us to this place however is not just an unthinking act of revenge... only by punishing these people will Americans regain their pride, and let those in the halls of power know they can't use people disgracefully without paying the price.
I think you give them too much credit. They'll never be shocked. They will be bankrupt and on the street homeless and still be fighting for the rights of the wealthy to continue screwing them.
Look at Joe the Plumber.
The idiots in this country who believe that hard work and long hours alone will make them 8 figures some day. The idiots who believe that their success is the result of their hardwork and their hardwork alone--that they don't owe anybody anything. "You're going to take away MY WEALTH!" When they have no wealth of their own.
Everybody in America dreams of winning the lottery or working hard and building a business which is going to make them millions. And when that happens they "sure as hell aren't going to pay to keep some lazy ass mexican to sit home and watch cable." They're all deluded that someday that millionaire will be them.
Are the rich and succesful by and large hard workers and productive members of society? Sure. Absolutely. But are they 100,000 times more useful to an organization? Are they 100,000 times more productive than a replacement? No. Our entire pay structure has gotten bent out of shape. Who pays the salaries of a large bank? The board. Is the Salary coming out of the board's pockets? Not really. What do they care if they pay their CEO 10 million or 11? And if the CEO makes 11 million then it only seems fair the board pays itself 2 each.
How can you rationally set the salary of someone who is your boss? How can you rationally set your own wage? No wonder it's completely blown itself out of proportion. You can't tell me there isn't someone out there who is a business genius who is willing to work for $1million a year. Based on the performance of the auto industry it's been obvious for over a decade you could take any manager in the corporate office and put them in power and get just as good of results.
We've gotten to the point now in these large organizations where we're paying 50x the price for .01x times the extra gain. But that's the American dream. Someday "I too could be that super over priced executive." Someday "I too could be that movie star." Someday "I too could be that lottery winner." And when that day comes! I don't want to pay the government a million dollars a year in taxes!
I strongly support your statement. I am currently living in a European Country that I have no citizenship in. I am not allowed to vote, but I am allowed to pay taxes. But somehow that doesn't stop me from being the evil foreigner who takes away jobs for the locals.
The GP argument implicitly assumes that there is some fixed amount of work available, and that foreigners coming into the country somehow "take away" their work, or deteriorate their salary. I can assure you that, if anything, I am more expensive than a local (I get the same wage, but my employer paid a bonus to get me here. Also, I am stricter about taking all of my paid leave and not working overtime than the people around here).
The sad fact is that while the markets have become global, most workers still don't want to live global. It's just as easy for an American to get abroad as it is for an American company to hire people abroad. So why are Americans so hellbent on staying put? It can't be the standard of living: Many European countries offer a better deal than the States when it comes to work-live balance and purchasing power.
... were also looking for the cheapest labour they could get.
I'm suspecting that you'll also find that those were the banks handing out the biggest bonuses for their executives.
When this disaster is over, I recommend lots of government regulations to ensure that, in the future, none of the banks (or other financial institutions) ever get "so big that we cannot let them fail".
In theory, with the "Free Market", these banks WOULD fail because they were badly managed. Instead, we're propping them up and rewarding their failed management.
I agree, Ron Paul should be listened to more often. Rewarding is a bad idea since there needs to be some fundamental changes to make a sustainable market.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
'Nuff Said.
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
No, no, no - don't you know that America is a classless country where everybody has a chance to make it big and live the American dream.
There are no such things as elites oppressing the underdogs in the US - that's purely something that happens in socially decrepit places like France.
Clearly you've been missing the propaganda all these years.
Most of the time the 'sales' or 'loan' people just type some numbers into a computer and it spits out a YES or NO. It's about the same as working at McDonalds in terms of skill set
'Welcome to (insert big bank here), how may I take your order'
'I'd like to borrow $10,000, heres my SSN'
'I'm sorry, we have no money to lend you. How about a nice savings account instead?'
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
The Romans called it panem et circenses. Keep the rabble amused with big screen TVs and superbowls and no one will pay attention to what you're really doing. Do you think all the easy credit stopped at the house market? Who do you think has been buying all those 47" flat panel TVs?
To run the computers, or to run the companies? Because it is pretty obvious where the real skill shortage was. Are CEO positions H-1B eligible?
Well maybe your case is unique but if you want to see the American side of the coin just type in 'immigration lawyers'. It should be listed as 'PERM Fake Job Ads defraud Americans to secure green cards fo' (yeah the title is cut off because its too long) it should be the first one you see listed.
These are the types of lawyers that are being used to secure people H1-B's. The fact of the matter is that they are actively trying to disqualify as many candidates as they can in order to get this one foreign worker a green card so they can work in the US. So they willfully put on blinders and attempt to find as many faults with any American resume they can and any interviewed person. The fact of the matter is that the people being interviewed may be 95% as qualified as the person they are seeking to get in, which the 5% can probably be dealt with by a little bit of on the job training (because lets face it noone is perfect when they start out some place theres at least a small learning curve with any new job even if its the same job at a different company).
09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
+2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
Blame your government. What kind of idiot gives money away without oversight into how it is spent?
The last one was a guy named George Walker Bush, it looks like the next one might be a dude named Barack Hussein Obama. I'm hoping Mr Obama will be a pleasant disappointment on this score and actually spend the money sensibly and kick people in the nuts for misusing bailout money but given past experience I'm not holding my breath. I did get a kick out it when Mr Obama called up those Citigroup executives personally and chewed them out for buying a new $50 million corporate jet some 24 hours after receiving $45 billion in taxpayer bailout money but I'll wait and see if that was a publicity stunt or if it is actually a sign of things to come.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
To ruin the computers, or to ruin the companies?
Fixed that for you.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
And yet there are americans who say the darnedest thinks about unions and how evil they are. So what gives? Are unions such a great resource when others benefit but suddenly turn into something awfully negative when it applies to you?
Everybody wins (in the long run and not painlessly) except for the losers who ran their banks into the ground. Otherwise it's fire and brimstone etc. for much longer, and the fail gets spread around.
I think the point is that if you let the banks who are "too big to fail" (tm) fail then everybody loses. Hence why we need to save their sorry asses. Whether or not they should be allowed to get that big in the first place is for the reader to decide.....
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
The idiots in this country who believe that hard work and long hours alone will make them 8 figures some day.
You got modded up for this? Few people think that hard work and long hours alone will make them rich. But how many people do you suppose get rich without hard work and long hours (Paris Hilton notwithstanding)? Do you think Warren Buffet or Bill Gates made their money without long hours and hard work?
The idiots who believe that their success is the result of their hardwork and their hardwork alone--that they don't owe anybody anything. "You're going to take away MY WEALTH!" When they have no wealth of their own.
Translation: Anybody who doesn't support my ideas for taxation is an idiot. Taxes are out of control and it's only going to get worse as we expand Federal spending. Take a look at the real guts of that "stimulus" bill sometime -- it's about 30% stimulus and 70% pork. Most of the spending won't even happen for several years. Who's paying for it? Between the various taxes I already pay out about 40% of my income -- and I don't even make $35k/yr. WTF is wrong with that picture?
Everybody in America dreams of winning the lottery or working hard and building a business which is going to make them millions. And when that happens they "sure as hell aren't going to pay to keep some lazy ass mexican to sit home and watch cable."
Not everybody who is opposed to higher taxes is opposed because of welfare. Nice way to work in an off-topic racist attack on those that disagree with you though. Many of us just have a fundamental problem with the concept of wealth redistribution. Case in point: I just helped a low-income friend of mine do her taxes. She qualifies for the earned income tax credit. Even though she only paid out about $2,500 in Federal/New York income taxes she's getting a refund of about $5,500. I'm glad it worked out for her individually (you play the system the way the system is configured) but I have a fundamental problem with that concept. It shouldn't be the job of the Government to redistribute wealth.
No. Our entire pay structure has gotten bent out of shape
No argument here. I just don't think it's the job of Uncle Sam to regulate what people get paid. If you want to impose salary limits on companies receiving Federal funds then I might agree in principle -- although that comes with it's own set of problems (flight of talent to firms not receiving bailouts which pay better -- which will undermine the firm that we are trying to save). Beyond that I don't know what you want to do. Tax the rich even more than they already are?
But that's the American dream. Someday "I too could be that super over priced executive." Someday "I too could be that movie star." Someday "I too could be that lottery winner." And when that day comes! I don't want to pay the government a million dollars a year in taxes!
Dude, I don't think I'm too likely to wind up as a millionaire and I still have a problem with the concept of taxing the rich more just because they are rich. I would prefer to see a flat tax of some sort -- why should someone have to pay a higher percentage of their income out in taxes just because some bean-counter in DC deems that they can afford to do so?
Government big enough to give you everything that you need is powerful enough to take away everything that you have.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Blame your government. What kind of idiot gives money away without oversight into how it is spent?
I think you answered your own question. But don't worry I'm sure there will be oversight of the money the Democrats are throwing at the problem......
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I'm not a U.S. citizen (I'm an Australian), but I totally agree with your sentiments - if the U.S. are bailing out corporations with U.S. taxpayers money, then they should at the very least be employing U.S. citizens!
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
I like the let them fail argument. Take the billions that were given to them to set up half a dozen new banks to offer the same services the failed banks were offering. After the recovery the government can IPO the new banks, end the nationalized banking AND make money on the deal.
Think Deeply.
Sure, globalisation has created a lot of growth.
The word gets bandied about here and there, but do you know what growth really is and why it's needed?
Ok, I'll tell you.
Growth is the increase in bank credit (and corresponding debt). It is a purely monetary phenomenon, the supply of money must grow every year. That's it, credit and debt. Yes, it is. Increase the money, the GDP increases. Simple.
It has little relation to reality. A house which has increased from 100,000 to 200,000 has "grown" in value but otherwise hasn't changed. More money chasing the same thing. Now, the real stuff does grow as well, but the figures quoted as "growth" don't represent reality. Lets take 1981 as an example, 12% GDP growth... Were there 12% more cars on the road, more houses built, more businesses, all in that single year? Nope.
Lets take 1976. 11% GDP growth. A doubling period of 6 years. Did EVERYTHING double between 76 and 81? Nope. Only the money did.
Growth, as used by politicians, financiers, journalists, then is basically how much paper is printed, and how much credit is created on top of that by banks. You can essentially equate growth with inflation; The devaluation of the currency.
Growth IS higher prices...
Growth stats:
http://www.econstats.com/gdp/gdp__a10.htm
Deleted
I am sorry but thats what comes off free trade....i dont remember too many people complaining when this meant mega corporations getting unfettered access to developing nations and repatriating their profits back to shareholders in Europe and the US.
Free trade means precisely that : Free movement of Goods,Capital and Labour.
For years we have had cheap goods off the back of chinese labour and booming economies with access to new markets for our mega corporations.The chickens are coming home to roost,Comrade!
Wanted : A Signature.
Hey, there's another 800 billion heading towards the banks under the new guy... Didn't you notice?
Perhaps you might have noticed that the new guy at the Fed, is the old guy from the New York fed.
Or perhaps you didn't notice Obama's biggest contributers.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00009638
Deleted
Any power sufficiently concentrated is a threat to our liberty, not just government. This applies to any organization or individual.
Having said that, government is a necessary evil in our current social and economic framework. We try to mitigate it's downsides by making those in power accountable through various mechanisms. I'm not arguing for bigger government, but rather to put effective safeguards on government power, and to use this power when necessary for the common good.
I would very much prefer that I have a direct say in where taxpayer money gets spent. Right now, a large chunk of this money is spent on bailing out the financial industry (whom I may add spent considerable sums of money lobby for less oversight of themselves for innovation's sake). It may not be the best system, but the taxpayer does not want to see public money being spent frivolously by individuals and organizations that have been proven to be irresponsible in the past.
You say you have a fundamental problem with wealth redistribution, but in fact do you? You have a problem with the government redistributing your wealth, but do you have a problem when it is private persons doing is? For their own gain?
The market surely is a wealth redistribution system, but it is not perfect and prone to abuse, as can be seen currently even though in many cases it does work well. I for one, am glad that there are people in government that are willing to temper our tendency to idolize the market. Not to dismantle it, put to prevent power being concentrated in those that abuse it.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
You have slightly missed khasim's point. He wants regulations to prevent banks (and other entities) from growing so large that their failure would crash the global economy.
The "free market" if unchecked actually encourages the growth of such monster organizations. This is obvious if you realize that companies are not and cannot be all the same size: therefore, the strong will eat the weak, and over time the surviving companies will grow larger and larger. Eventually you will have gigantic companies, and this is what we have seen.
Khasim is proposing to apply some checks and balances, to stop such organizations from growing too large. It's a good idea.
<devilsadvocate>
H1B visas mean the people getting hired are living in the same country, and probably the same city as the US worker you mentioned, these jobs are not outsourced overseas. How is it then, that these people can survive on $20k yet a local worker needs $50k? Is it a matter of expectation or actual need?
</devilsadvocate>
Note I'm not saying that it is correct to undercut citizen's but how do you we make the case that $50k is necessary as a living wage when the employers can point to the H1B visa folks and say "See, they are doing just fine at less than half that amount"? How do you win that argument?
Sheesh, does nobody read the post, it's 95k+ that I want...
HELLO! :-D
And besides, when I was 16, and geocities*** was giving away free webhosting, it seemed like a good idea. And I've just never taken it down.
***Ya know, I keep saying GeoCities, and others keep following me along, but it's really a Tripod page. Interesting tidbit tho: they were marketed to college age kids when I got mine, as opposed to Angelfire, which was marketed to my demographic - high schoolers.
2^3 * 31 * 647
The info on your web site says you have no significant experience in technology, and you do not yet have your degree. Perhaps part of the reason these companies are looking for H1Bs are because there are so many people at your level of experience who think they're worth 75k a year.
Hey! I have a C.S. PhD and a degree in Software Engineering and are currently making just 30K net in Germany.
I would gladly work for 50K in the USA... it is closer to my home country (Mexico) and they speak English (keine deustche sorry :P)
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
(I wondered about the black on black too, but I was only looking at the content and not the appearance.)
Yeah, and did it catch the "this site last update 2005" or that most pages with an updated timestamp are 2001?
Aw eff it all, I just took it all down. Go play on archive.org
Did you want a cookie for being able to use google cache? I mean seriously, if you're going to cut and paste, make sure you copy everything, including the bad table layout, ok?
2^3 * 31 * 647
What these people are doing with Tax Payer money is treasonous.
Only in America, can you finance your company with no responsibility because you know the tax payers will bail you out.
So what do we see in response?
Huge excesses by the executives.
Then on top of this, they make the American tax payer pay for hires outside the country with the worse unemployment rate this side of 40 years with the explanation that they cannot find anyone.
Is any of this sound the least bit credible to any of you?
This is treason.
You also have to remember that the Bush and now the Obama administration continues to allow these executives to get away with this.
Personally, I want to see some of these guys burn. It just won't happen.
The best we are going to get is lip service from the president and a pat on the back "What these guys are doing is very bad. Too bad isn't it?"
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
You say you have a fundamental problem with wealth redistribution, but in fact do you? You have a problem with the government redistributing your wealth, but do you have a problem when it is private persons doing is? For their own gain?
The market surely is a wealth redistribution system, but it is not perfect and prone to abuse, as can be seen currently even though in many cases it does work well.
The difference between "the market" and government is that people typically have a choice of whom they do business with in the market. Whereas the government uses the power of the state (what happens if you don't pay your taxes?) to take your money away from you and use it to fund whichever programs currently happen to have the most political support.
I for one, am glad that there are people in government that are willing to temper our tendency to idolize the market. Not to dismantle it, put to prevent power being concentrated in those that abuse it.
I'm not a free market purist and made no comment on the regulatory structure. My post was aimed at the GP whom implied that anyone who disagrees with his ideas about taxation is a racist who is driven by a hatred of welfare.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Are unions such a great resource when others benefit but suddenly turn into something awfully negative when it applies to you?
No - they're like a lot of other things. A fairly good idea that gets corrupted by human involvement.
Please don't use "umm" or "err" or "erm".
True, the degree will not get you very far, as so many people have them (because everyone is special and "deserves" to be college educated, whether or not they can truly handle it). But there are many other career advantages that you can accumulate during college (both on and off campus), and some of these will set you up for some very high paying jobs. Even something as simple as having a high GPA or a history of leadership/accomplishment helps.
I also think someone going to college solely for the purpose of getting a well-paying job is largely missing the point. It's an amazing and unique learning opportunity, which you should endeavor to make the most of for its own sake.
There are a variety of ways that immigrants live cheaper then Americans. One of the easiest is by packing multiple people into small apartments. They will often have 5 or 6 people in a 2 bedroom apartment. I'm not sure if it's that they are accustomed to a lower standard, or that they see this as a temporary discomfort that will allow them to have a much better life in the future.
Cheap storage VM.
I do so want to hire you now at 75k.
How do you win that argument?
You don't, if by "doing just fine" you mean "living in a 15m2 studio with a wife and 3 kids" (saw this on (french) TV just yesterday).
I guess you can live with $20K in the US (or any developped country), but that's not the kind of life I'd like to live.
Did you think maybe it is not the brightest idea to post one's salary on the Internet?
they can afford millions of dollars of bonuses
No, billions of dollars of bonuses.
Oh, I wasn't upset, per-se, but after your comment, it does feel like things did turn into a poke-the-nerd game. I've thick skin, so that doesn't bother me, but I don't like being misquoted, and that whole 105k+/yr salary thing was a joke, apparently all too subtle.
As for the site, yar, popped a placeholder, we'll see if I do something with it. Some good points made here that if I do go job hunting, it should probably reflect my current work, etc, or be obviously for leisure, and not mention any sort of freelance work, which I'm not in the market for right now anyways.
Trust me on the frustration, I know how you feel, where it seems like nobody "gets it" anymore, where it feels like so many people got hired either because they "knew someone" or because they happened to have the right buzzwords, and then you find out that they didn't know crap about what they were trying to get the job in the first place. And apparently, my Engrish is on full-kilter this am.
Oi, time for coffee, l8rz
* And honestly, no hard feelings. I keep forgetting I've got that damned thing linked on here.
2^3 * 31 * 647
Can't afford real food so you live off the dollar menu at McDeath, $1 banquet TV dinners and Ramen noodles. Real food becomes a weekend luxury. Eating out at a real restaurant is for anniversaries or when a check for some side work comes in.
Stop eating off dollar menu. You are trading short term money for progressively worse health.
3 items off the dollar menu for each of four folks should equal about $13-14 with tax.
I don't know about you, but a small fry, drink and small burger won't fill me up.
Here's what you could do instead
(1x) 8lb Frozen Bone-in Turkey breast (All white meat with low fat.) - $9-$16
(2x) Can of french cut green beans $2-$4
(4x) Yukon Gold Med. Potatoes - $5
Add in milk, butter, salt, pepper, rosemary and I'd predict this meal rings up at around $15-$25 with about another dollar or two in electricity.
Boil the bone meat in a 3qts of water and reduce it to one quart. Strain the meat and bone, leaving the stock. Add onion, celery, carrots and noodles to it then boil again, to cook those new additions. Feel free to use a little turkey meat. Voila -> Turkey soup.
Sure it takes time, but I'll make this every night if it keeps my family fed at a price I can afford.
Now, you can get 1 filling meal with leftovers or 2 moderate meals while not killing yourself with.
import system.cool.Sig;
Did any one notice that the workers were getting 90K -- thats the median income.
I guess its more of a work ethic type of thing, I have friends who are bankers and they are willing to put in 80-100hrs a week.
Perhaps, but I have seen people go from "People can live comfortably on $40k/yr, who needs to make more than that?" to the sentiment I posted about. It's not a stretch...
NO actually your comment and attitude (implies still in school, implies you think that good grades = capable in real life situation) brings me to same conclusion as the poster you are defending yourself against.
Also your reaction and also subsequent post (both the content and tone) suggests that you are either (or all of the below)
- highly strung
- highly sensitive to criticism
- presenting a facade of aggressive bravado that hides some kind of self esteem issues
DISCLAIMER: I am only commenting on the impression that your on screen words are giving me. I do not know you and make no assertion that my impression is accurate.
Everybody in America dreams of winning the lottery or working hard and building a business which is going to make them millions. And when that happens they "sure as hell aren't going to pay to keep some lazy ass mexican to sit home and watch cable." They're all deluded that someday that millionaire will be them.
Are the rich and succesful by and large hard workers and productive members of society? Sure. Absolutely. But are they 100,000 times more useful to an organization? Are they 100,000 times more productive than a replacement? No. Our entire pay structure has gotten bent out of shape. Who pays the salaries of a large bank? The board. Is the Salary coming out of the board's pockets? Not really. What do they care if they pay their CEO 10 million or 11? And if the CEO makes 11 million then it only seems fair the board pays itself 2 each."
Well, one thing you keep mentioning...becoming a millionaire on salary. That's the error I see in your argument.
There's and old saying that you will never get rich working for someone else. That is really true 99% of the time.
In the US, if you want to be rich...you gotta work for yourself. Incorporate and get out there on your own....entrepreneurial spirit and all. Invent something, consult, contract yourself out...etc. This is where you make money. Is there risk? Of course, most people that are wealthy take risks to go along with that hard work,etc.
And lastly....you don't have to be a millionaire to be rich. To many people, making 6 figure salaries is rich to them. I've found that I've amassed most of the fun 'toys' I've ever wanted in life, and aside from one or two new ones a year...I don't need a ton of money.
As long as I have a fun car and motorcycle, a cool place to live, I don't have to keep track of what my grocery store bill (or bar bill, or restaurant tab) will be and just know I can afford it.....I'm happy. I think with me personally, that is what I'd say is 'rich' to me. If during my daily life, I don't have to worry really about what price things are...know that I can afford to do what I like to do....I am rich. (of course I also mean this AFTER I've put money back for savings and retirement, etc)
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Per capita income in my ZIP code, according to the last census, was roughly $16k. Some places are cheaper to live than others.
--saint
I do something ver' similar. This is a nym, not tied to any of my other nyms, and not (as far as I remember, being fraught with every memory disorder known to man) connected to my "real" self at all.
Of course, I do have a facebook under my given name, but that's genuinely for family and friends. Private profile, no proles allowed.
Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
Well, take heart! The way things are going, the US is going to be a third-world nation in no time, and we'll be able to live for $1/day, too! Of course, by then, India and China will control pretty much everything in the new global economy, and there won't be opportunities for Americans to make more than about $0.50/day. Fortunately, I'm sure that India and China will throw open their doors to us, just like we did to them, when the tables are turned.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
This illustrates the economic DOWNSIDE of low unemployment. Employment works just like any other aspect in an economy. It is subject to supply and demand (and unexpected shortages). Think of it as a market for talent. When unemployment is low (typically under around 7%), employers are not afforded a good selection of workers at the prices they are willing to pay. This causes a salary bubble at first, as employers bid to get as much of the available talent as possible. Eventually prices get too high because only the most cash-rich employers can afford to hire anyone.
Now, unfortunately, and this has happened throughout American- and World-history, the employers simply went abroad to different employement markets (with higher unemployment) to find talent. In America it has been more common to allow more immigration during boom times to increase the available labor pool (and thus "raise" unemployment, but only in the lowest tier of jobs).
The opposite becomes true when unemployment gets too high. There are too many applicants so employers can "sell" a job for much less than before. A good natural rate for a stable economy is around 7%. This means there is an adequate applicant pool for growing businesses, it affords businesses good choice in available applicants, and it provides enough of a pad during boom times to prevent a salary bubble. It may sound bad, but really it's good for the economy. Unemployment just means how many people are available to start a new job at any given time. It does not mean there are 20-30 million people "out of work". The vast majority will find jobs; it's simply a RATE of people that happen to be out of a job at any given instant.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
Yeah, all three of those sound about right. I'm not going to deny it, I felt it was an obvious set of character flaws, and I'm seeking non-psycho-pharmaceutical methods of reversing those, like how I have a therapist, etc.
As far as expectations of income, no not really. I think it would be nice to earn 65k on a BS, but I don't expect it. I'm quite happy at my 50k, even if I don't get to buy new gear all the time, or go on long vaca's, but I'm still young, so I figure it'll all change one day. Hell, I'ld be just as happy being 60 something and getting my 27th degree (ala the guy on idle from about a week ago).
But you're spot on with your three-point armchair analysis.
2^3 * 31 * 647
Per capita income in my ZIP code, according to the last census, was roughly $16k.
You should be looking at household income, not per capita. I make pretty good money, and have a decent house. If you divide that by the number of family members, suddenly each one of us is lower middle class.
3 Million Americans lost their jobs in the last 90 days; and 12 Show Off's said to President 'W, "We need 21,000 clones of Gunga Din, because there is no one in America that can do the job." I think this maybe evidence of Dumping, or maybe a good reason why this country is heading to the Crapper. The parallels of this act, and that of the Romanovs is chilling.
"Beware of the person that does not publicly state their intentions, or associations", Unknown
Thanks for the sarcasm. It may help to remember that communication is intended for the receipient not for the gratification of your own ego. If the recipient gets a muddled message then whatever the reason, you've failed.
Anyhow its all speculation, I dont know you and don't claim to know you in any way whatsoever.
Kinda like how all that cash just disappeared in Iraq while being guarded by Blackwater?
Are the rich and succesful by and large hard workers and productive members of society? Sure. Absolutely. But are they 100,000 times more useful to an organization? Are they 100,000 times more productive than a replacement? No. Our entire pay structure has gotten bent out of shape.
If you invest $1000 in the stock market today, you'll have about $117,000 in 50 years. That assumes an average 11% annual return (which is a good assumption). If you invest in a CD with an interest rate of 5%/yr (optimistic) then you'll get $11,000.
I was astounded when I first did the math. That's an order of magnitude difference between a 'safe' investment and a 'risky' one (quotes because, well, nowadays everything seems risky...) I'm still looking for errors in assumptions or algebra. It means that if was thrifty enough and not risk-averse, I could put away enough money for my child to retire before he turns 10. If I played it safe my son might still be working when he was 70. How is this possible? It's the same reason that 'rich' people ARE worth 100,000 times as much as Joe Schmo.
What does 'rich' mean/signify? 'Rich' people have lots of money, but they usually get that money through hard work, thrift, cleverness and taking risk (coupled with a bit of luck). You don't become a CEO for showing up at work every day. You don't even become a CEO for doing your job well and getting your scheduled raises and promotions. You become a CEO by doing all of that AND being driven and taking risks.
Taking risks isn't for everyone and the world needs these people. In essence, we pay them to take risks so we don't have to. Sometimes they fail and have to start over (Do you know how many times Donald Trump has been broke?) and sometimes they win big. And when they win big, they're usually smart enough not to bow out of the game, but to reinvest and go for something bigger. They're driven risk-takers. We need them to invest in risky ventures that might bring fantastic returns or might flop fantastically. We need people who love risk to lead our businesses, because safe doesn't make money!.
'Rich' people know this, and they don't want to end up being Joe the Plumber. Joe will be fine. Plumbers make some decent money and he'll probably retire with a few million stashed away (if he was smart) and get a boat. He never took any major chances in his life (he's a plumber! That's not risky at all! Don't people often say 'We'll always need someone to fix the toilets?') but he worked hard and saved his money. Meanwhile, Bill Gates worked hard, was shrewd, and took lots of chances. And (to a great extent, not totally) thanks to Bill we have computers and software that make us many times as productive as we would have been otherwise and he's filthy stinking rich because of it.
Despite the abuses and errors in the system I think that the people at the top are being paid fairly because they're not just 'running the company', they're taking all of the risk as well. If something goes badly, typically your CEO gets fired. Rank and file employees are largely exempt from that kind of risk. And until you're willing to accept the risk that come inherently with the promise of wealth (by starting a business, investing your life savings in something, etc) then it is left to people who can handle taking risks. And when they succeed, we all benefit.
Bottom line: there is at least an order of magnitude difference in payoff between risky ventures and non-risky ventures. 'Rich' people take the risks and get the rewards. Live with it.
http://angryee.blogspot.com
It's not about immigrants, really, it's about companies saving a buck at the taxpayers' expense. If the system weren't so f***'ed up to favor this, immigration wouldn't be as much of an issue.
Anyhow, I'm a Canadian, but from what I've seen the situation is much the same on either end of the border. My girlfriend is from China. She's got a degree in accounting, a masters in business, and taught university level accounting courses both in China and Australia.
Here, she can't find a (legitimate) job. Small places don't want to hire her because they know once she gets enough local working experience, she'll move on to something bigger. Big companies don't want to hire her because she doesn't have local working experience.
What there are, though, are lots of companies willing to screw over the immigrants in this situation. Sadly, most of these seem to be run by those from the same backgrounds as the people they're screwing.
So far she's recently had two+ companies that grilled her with days of interviews/tests and then ended with "your experience isn't quite good enough. Pay us $xxxx and we'll train you, then if you pass one more test we'll hire you". She's had a few where they tried to sell her some product/software to do the job.
The most recent one was a fricking lawyer, who - after asking her a bunch of illegal personal questions (are you married, got kids, live with anyone) to determine if she was an ignorant just-off-the-boat immigrant, proceeded to offer her a pay that was only 68% of the legal minimum wage.
So if you think you've got it bad due to immigrants, I'd look at lot harder at the companies that are hiring them, because in many cases they're doing so because it's much easier to trick or screw over somebody who's recent to the country and ignorant of the laws here.
Meanwhile, American students will apparently have been delivering pizza for the summer because there's usually nothing listed.
While there are good number of people who take the summer off to party, plenty of people I know also did basic jobs during the summer time off in order to accumulate money to pay off their costs during the school semester. Co-op courses make it better, but finding an internship that pays enough to make it worthwhile AND gives useful experience isn't such an easy thing, especially if you don't live in a big city (or have relatives that do). Either you have to move and then pay out most of your wages in rent, etc, or you live with relatives for cheap a few months while you get the cash to pay the tuition/loans.
By continuing to give them money, we are only creating a situation where the banks are more consolidated than ever. If they were too big to fail before, a statement with which I strongly disagree, then allowing them to use government money (i.e. our money) to get even bigger by purchasing the banks who were not "too big to fail" only sets the stage for more, bigger problems down the line.
Your brain is not a computer.
Show some evidence of the contrary if you can.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
YOu don't choose the kind of live you want to live when it comes to economics.
Markets tell you how much your skills are worth and you better make the best out of it.
If other people are satisfied with far less income than you, just wishing this fact to go away will not improve your wage.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What exactly is it that you are trying to say? Anything?
Under the influence of Post-Cyberpunk Gonzo Journalism
All the clever people in University are mostly non Americans, and Americans are going mostly for softer options, they don't like hard science.
People in rich countries keep saying that there is a great pool of talent of natives, but as soon as you begin to interview people the ones that are more qualified are the guys from India, China, Mexico, Singapore, Spain, Poland, South Africa and other such countries.
The big pool of capable locals in rich countries is a myth which is propped up incesantly in this website by wishful thinking instead of hard facts.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
And the universal declaration of human rights for good measure.
If you are a token of how well educated Americans are then my opinion about why it is better to hire foreigners has just been reinforced...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
correction: over-hyper, poorly raised, and poorly educated workers at desk jobs can stress themselves out.
Anyone can learn the skills to not stress-out over whether their boss has got the latest TPS report.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
So people from other countries are more resourceful and can overcome language barriers, relocate and manage to earn money but not you USians?
Well, maybe you are not the world beaters you think you are.
As for taxes you baffle me: at least with the UK there are intricate treaties to avoid double taxation, which I am sure is the case with many countries...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Rush Limbaugh told me that the Elites would always act in my best interest as long as they were getting their tax breaks. I tend to trust Rush Limbaugh. He knows what he's talking about. He's been on the radio a long time.
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
. . . yeah, and JUST PRIOR to an election too! Who would DO such a thing?
These are my friends, See how they glisten. See this one shine, how he smiles in the light.
We have 100 million Mexicans, and sure as hell you don't have us all in the border trying to cross illegally.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
What I have noticed is that these days, any mention made of an income disparity at all receives a knee-jerk accusation of communism. Even when the mentioner explicitly disdains the idea of any social programs or income adjustment, and is quite willing to accept his struggle.
This is extremely disturbing to me... The end of civilization comes when the elites are too weak and ashamed to even accept the fact that there is an under-class.
"They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
Some of you really know squat about what you are talking.
Mexico's most important commercial partner is the US, so the money sent back home is used on big measure to buy stuff produced in your country.
Make your third biggest trading partners poorer and lets see who buys your stuff. It may very well be that we will have to turn to China for our business....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Also, you seem to keep posting income figures for a single individual. What about single-provider marriages and full-family situations? Should the earner still only earn enough for an individual?
Uh, yeah, unless some qualification dictates otherwise. A man or woman supporting a family shouldn't necessarily be paid more than a single person. That's discrimination. Welcome to the real world. The nightmare of the 1950's is over.
I'd make the case that since Americans who earn living wages are the only ones who can buy their products, it's in their very best interest to pay living wages.
I'd also make the case that the founding father of American industry, Henry Ford, had a very good understanding of this.
This simply is untrue.
Just check GDP or per capita income data.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Or maybe he doesn't want his salary forever associated with his username.
If all these companies continue to hire H1-B workers at a cut rate, the American workers who usually purchase products and services that said company produce won't be able to afford it anymore. Hiring foreign workers pay off in short term savings, but putting the American worker out of work is not investing wisely in your company's future, IMNSHO.
Also, how long do you think these H1-B workers are going to stand working for that measly 20k? They have to live somewhere, and 20k is not a living wage in this country.
The problem with "true capitalism" is that decisions are made in terms of personal gain, and not necessarily what benefits society as a whole. Greed will ultimately cause a true capitalistic society to fail, there needs to be compromise and regulation. I'm in favor of large tax hikes for companies who choose to hire more H1-B than American workers, the extra money will help pay for our unemployment checks.....
I got nothin'
> 'Rich' people have lots of money, but they usually get that money through hard work, thrift, cleverness and taking risk (coupled with a bit of luck).
No, they usually get rich by having rich parents. This gives them the education, connections, attitude and investment capital to get even richer. They can afford to take more risk because they can afford to take chances, lose, and still have money left over to try again or they know their families will pick them up again if they fail, or.. for *really* successful groups like bankers, if they risk and lose everything, they can get the taxpayer or some other losers to pay for their losses. This model will not be allowed to continue. Live with it.
http://rareformnewmedia.com/
I see your devil's advocate tags, but I need to comment regardless.
The philosophy of this country is that you should be able to make a better life for yourself than your parents. If you work hard enough, you'll be able to live a comfortable life. I see entire families struggling to put a simple meal on the table because they only pull in 20K a year. With the cost of housing, food, college for your children, and occasional entertainment (all work and no play makes a very unproductive and unhappy citizen), I'd like to see all of this come in at under 20k a year. This isn't even taking into account any savings for retirement, etc. You do realize that companies don't offer pensions anymore, right? Unless you want to live in a cardboard box when you're 65, you gotta factor that into your 20K too.
I got nothin'
At the other extreme, my real name is also a popular nickname. Punching my real name into Google will return hundreds or thousands of results, a minor percentage of which can be linked back to me (and many can be easily denied). I can mix and match nyms and real names on various sites, and wish employers good luck untangling it all. A few companies have tried and given up.
Dad, when did you start posting on slashdot? Seriously... I've heard this rant from him a million times. And I think you're both correct, for the most part. I suppose there are a few highly-paid workers who actually are worth all that money. Perhaps Steve Jobs. When you look at Apple's record with him, and without him...
But an equally valid way to look at it is that it's not that Jobs is such a genius. It's that people like John Sculley simply were not qualified to run Apple, and that lots of people could have done as well as Jobs, but people like that don't get picked to run big companies by a typical board of directors. Consider their different backgrounds: Sculley came from the prestigious Wharten School of Business, while Jobs is a college drop-out.
I think that hiring practices that focus on fancy degrees while ignoring basic competencies necessary to really understand the product have been the downfall of many companies. I mean, Dubya has an MBA from Harvard... and we all know where he got us. Degrees are way over-rated in most jobs.
I'd say I'm at least worth $60k+ and would be able to adjust easily to much larger environments if given the chance.
Given your qualifications, I'd agree assuming you could back them up. My point (later discussed further with the OP) was that too many people here in the states have an expectation of a salary very much out of proportion to their experience and abilities; or education and abilities in lieu of experience. This is a serious turnoff to employers, to the point where they're going to do no more than give a passing glance to the local applicant pool.
Actually, we'll be able to live for $1,000,000/day, which, adjusted for inflation, would be about $1/day today.
If you take the set of 'rich' people and remove those who had rich parents, you will end up with a group who by their genes made them smart and risk-takers, and that's why they are rich. It's not "fair" that some people had rich parents, and had good upbringing, etc. Remove that, and it's still not "fair" that some people are genetically smarter and bolder than others. We all have to live with that.
Private persons are not able to involuntarily redistribute your wealth, in theory. You have a choice whether you shop at Wal-Mart or not. If you don't like them, you don't have to shop there and give them your money, and you can instead choose to distribute your wealth to competitors.
Of course, there's problems, like monopolies. It's pretty hard to choose not to support your local electric utility, for instance. However, those utilities are highly regulated by the government for this very reason, which is probably why you don't often hear of utility company CEOs getting $200 million golden parachutes, like Home Depot's CEO got (and is why I shop at Lowe's or Ace).
We already have a say in where taxpayer money gets spent: it's called voting. We have hundreds of representatives/senators in Congress who decide where our money is spent, and we vote for these people every few years. The problem is, we the people keep voting for Congresspeople who spend our money poorly. Whose fault is that? It's ours. Having a more "direct" say in spending isn't going to help, because people still want to fund their pet projects, like their local bridge to nowhere. They just get pissed when someone else's stupid pet project gets funding and their taxes have to pay for it. If we the people really want people running this country who believe in fiscal conservatism, then we have to vote for those people. But we've had many of those people run for office, and instead of people voting for them, they get laughed at.
To bring up witches and wet wicks... umm, "Witches of Eastwick" or "Mars Attacks"...
Why can't we all just get alonggggg?
We all have to legally pay taxes almost everywhere we work, whether by extortion by law, or extortion by corrupt official.
So, at SOME point we're going to as taxpayers have to expect, accept and demand some sort of personnel swap.
It's like it to be that if i could identify and carry out a mutually-negotiated swap, i could work in Korea, or Japan, or China, and my equally-skilled counterpart could work here, at or near my pay and the price i pay is working at or near his/her pay for the contracted duration. WHICH employers would be involved in the swap shouldn't matter. Maybe agencies like Robert Half or some brokering/escrow operation could manage things. As long as the end employers can put up security or bond, then government should pretty much "stay the fuck out of things" except where crime is discovered. Crime such as drug, murder or high offenses. Laws would have to be reworked to retrain people to have different expectations. Example: SOMEday we may be allowed to venture into deep space. Anyone think we're going to succeed well by carrying fucking national flags and territoriality out there?
We've GOT to get past the bullshit nationalism/territoriality scheme of living and doing business. Food, culture, dress, and holidays should definitely remain strong. But, job/vacation interchange should be fostered and encouraged as much as possible -- especially in a scenario like the one i mention above. Qualifications of individuals most definitely should be verified, and fraudsters should be branded globally so as to deprive them or their sponsors of "gaming the system".
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
That really cleared it up for me, thanks. It makes much more sense to me now.
This is wrong in so many levels. Basically, the argument would run that regular workers don't make a lot because they settle for a salary or wages, i.e., guaranteed regular fixed-dollar payments that do not vary and are supposed to continue coming in even if the business isn't doing great. So CEOs, instead of this, settle for... $40 million salaries with a $80 million severance deals? Millions in free stock options that pay off if the stock rises, and cost nothing if the stock falls? Executive jets that the company pays for?
In what sense do the CEOs "take most of the risk," if most of the world's stock capitalization isn't owned by CEOs?
And if we all benefit from CEO's success, how come the inflation-adjusted income of Americans went down during the Bush years, while CEO pay went up?
11% is too high an assumption. Try 10.5% at the high end, and 9% at the low end. And that's for 100% stock portfolios, which are extremely volatile and really not for most people. And you're assuming 50 years during which you don't use any of that money.
It is true that if you don't do the preparatory work, you won't be able to exploit lucky chances when they arrive, but you've got this stuff all backwards by relegating "luck" to a parenthetical item that barely makes the list. The American superrich, in general, were lucky to be born into wealthy families, which doesn't just mean that they had access to money, but also to the social networks available to the wealthy.
All this talk about "risk" is ideological. Basically, from the point of view of finance, "risk" is the possibility of financial loss, and it is measured in currency units. However, the reasoning utterly fails to take into account the marginal value of money, so that a billionaire who invests 25% of her billion in the stock market is taking more "risk" than a dude worth $100,000 who uses 75% to start his own business. Basically, risk ain't risky for the rich.
Are you adequate?
Most lower class people I know understand that they are being shit on. (Ever wonder why you get such bad service at the drive thru?) I think it's something like 40% of the population that votes, the other 60% has "voter apathy", or in other words, they understand that it's a big scam. It's the college "educated", professional folks that have a hard time understanding that they are being shit on. My theory is that most professionals are just comfortable enough to keep from thinking.
If something goes badly, typically your CEO gets fired.
Often to find himself floating from a golden parachute, and likely another CEO position somewhere else. Carly Fiorina got *fired* from HP (how often do CEOs actually get terminated?), yet still walked out the door more than $20 million richer than when she got out of bed that morning.
CEOs do assume more responsibility than the rank-and-file workers, but unless they're the sole owner or a *big* shareholder (like Bill Gates), they're not usually assuming a damn bit of personal risk outside the value of their outstanding options, and I've *never* heard of the CEO of a public company leaving the position poorer than when he took it, no matter how badly he performed.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
This post should also be tagget "incomplete" and "sensationalism". First, put things in pestpective - compare that 21K number to how many employees are in those companies. That will give you the *intended* percentage of foreigners in those companies (intended because they did not get all those cases approved by the DoL or USCIS). Second, six years ago nobody thought we would be in this deep shit (except for those of us who think they know the future). And it *was* difficult to find some professionals. It was even difficult to do it two years ago. Third, most of the companies would hire a local resident with matching skills if they were availlable. Department of Labor looks into every single case of H1B. And Department of Labor must approve every single H1B case. And after that USCIS (immigration) also looks into every single H1B case and must approve it. Exactly how much more eversight is needed?
In most EU countries (sorry US guys, the penny has to drop at some point) we have minimum wages, the difference is that people from poorer countries have to be paid that same minimum wage by law, that way real competition in a level playing field takes place.
You want to boost employment? Enter in an agreement with Mexico to allow free movement of workers and then enforce a minimum wage.
Problem solved.
The problem arises when illegal immigrants arrive, they have no protection and obviously go underground undermining the local workers and legal immigrants.
Both the US and the EU should reach agreements with countries like China, India, North African countries and many others in order to allow an almost free legal immigration and promoting widely the adoption and enforcement of minimum wages.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
It just needs to be a minimum commonly agreed, that would ensure what you are saying.
Once people would know this, they would decide if the wage is adequate or not, in the knowledge that anybody paying less would be braking the law.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The only thing worse than unions is no unions. People always bitch about things they cannot do without, unions, taxes, governments... Unions are a pain if you are in one, but it is way better than working where there are none (any "communist" country, say). Non-union workers tend to end up with similar benefits to the ones union workers get as well, that is a union fights and gets a dental plan and other companies, even non-union ones, start offering dental plans. Wages go up relatively widely as unions become prevalent and drop when unions get weak (thus the decline in real wages since Reagan started killing them off).
To actually make the banks more profitable:
regulate them and insist on a higher asset ratio
RAISE taxes on both the bank profits and the executives
You got me into this! You were the ideologue! I'm only a poor assassin! - Twenty evocations, Bruce Sterling
Welcome to capitalism.
Do you buy the same itme in the shop that sells it more expensive?
Given two tradesmen that are equal as far as you know, do you chose the most expensive?
You see? Everybody is trying to spend less, but somehow companies, according to the twisted reasoning of many, should not abide by the same common sense rules....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
... that if salaries are randomly distributed, a lot of people would take salaries below the average anyway? (I would say 50% of people, but I may be wrong).
As long as you can't even figure the basic statistics of the problem frankly you should not even talking about the matter....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
The government has to play games because if they would open the labour market properly they would be voted out of office.
People prefer the smoke and mirrors system rather than to compete fairly by opening the borders to foreign labour.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
That would assume that the Indians and Chinese will need tech support on the cheap crap they buy from themselves.
Zxern, the cash went to whom it was directed by the powers that were. Don't blame Blackwater for a Civil Servant's actions.
While I was in Iraq, I met someone who delivered a brand new BMW M7 with more than $100K to a tribal sheik. Personally, I'd rather he kept it than some third world thug.
Look, I don't approve of trigger happiness, but I know an ass-kicker when I see one.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is usually crucified.
what are you talking about?
securities and investment banking hardly leave you time for personal things on the weekend and if you are in the IT department, you generally have to work a lot of weekends and national holidays to implement new infrastructure changes. you don't get paid 80-150k for nothing, you're expected to work 60-100 hours a week (depending on division, etc).
granted, the pay is more than enough to live comfortably in any city in the world, but you definitely put your hours in for it. on an hourly basis, you would make a lot more just going to work at a steel mill or auto plant.
Between the various taxes I already pay out about 40% of my income -- and I don't even make $35k/yr. WTF is wrong with that picture?
Your accountant evidently. Why are you paying out 40% on $35k a year?
... were also looking for the cheapest labour they could get.
I'm suspecting that you'll also find that those were the banks handing out the biggest bonuses for their executives.
When this disaster is over, I recommend lots of government regulations to ensure that, in the future, none of the banks (or other financial institutions) ever get "so big that we cannot let them fail".
In theory, with the "Free Market", these banks WOULD fail because they were badly managed. Instead, we're propping them up and rewarding their failed management.
The government should let the banks fail immediately, if they are in trouble. Then the banks should be nationalized without any fussing, fretting or hand-wringing. It would be far more affordable for the taxpayers. What has happened is that the Board members and the execs who actually run the financial industry and the government, have correctly calculated the most efficient path to maximizing profits. They privatize profit and nationalize loss. Before nationalizing the losses incurred by the biggest banks, they want to loot the national (borrowed) treasury while there's still some credit left available. That's all that's really going on right now. Congress, for their part, is doing little more than politely asking the marauders how they want the cash - 10's 20's 50's 100's?
What, you think Federal income/FICA taxes are the only tax burden we face? Try adding New York State income taxes, property taxes (county/town/village AND school), sales taxes, gasoline taxes and "vice" taxes (cigarettes/alcohol/etc) to your calculations.
I track every penny of money that I spend in financial management software and my combined tax burden last year came in at 39.8% So again I'll ask: WTF is wrong with that picture? 2/5'ths of the fruits of my labor are being taken from me.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
So again I'll ask: WTF is wrong with that picture? 2/5'ths of the fruits of my labor are being taken from me.
What's wrong with that picture is that you're only accounting for one side of the equation. You track your tax payments to the penny, but you ignore the benefits you're getting by living in a country funded by those taxes.
If there were no taxes, and thus no government services, no courts or prisons, no highways, no public schools or libraries, etc., do you really think you'd be earning as much as you do now?
Since you favor a flat tax, presumably you have some idea in mind of the "right" tax rate. And presumably it's greater than 0% but less than 40%. So, what is it, and what makes it the "right" rate?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
If there were no taxes, and thus no government services, no courts or prisons, no highways, no public schools or libraries, etc., do you really think you'd be earning as much as you do now?
Give me a break. We are way past funding courts, prisons, highways and schools. If that's all my tax dollars were funding I wouldn't be complaining. Instead my hard earned dollars are taken from me to fund programs that have no benefit to me and questionable benefit to the community as a whole. Wealth redistribution from both ends of the scale (be it for the benefit of the working single mom or Lockheed Martin) also comes to mind as something that I have a fundamental problem with.
Since you favor a flat tax, presumably you have some idea in mind of the "right" tax rate. And presumably it's greater than 0% but less than 40%. So, what is it, and what makes it the "right" rate?
I don't pretend to know what the "right" rate is. I would start by cutting Government down to the size actually envisioned by the Constitution and seeing how much funding that would require. Given that entitlement programs represent the largest part of the Federal (and most States for that matter) budget I'm willing to guess we could cut that tax burden down to size.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Instead my hard earned dollars are taken from me to fund programs that have no benefit to me and questionable benefit to the community as a whole.
Well, you might be surprised at how many of those programs benefit you indirectly. I don't have kids in school, and I don't use the vast majority of roads in town, but I still benefit from their existence.
But that's beside the point, because government programs aren't meant to give you back exactly as much as you put in. The private sector can do that. Government programs are there to accomplish what the private sector fails to accomplish.
Wealth redistribution from both ends of the scale (be it for the benefit of the working single mom or Lockheed Martin) also comes to mind as something that I have a fundamental problem with.
Then you have a fundamental problem with the existence of a government, because all government spending is "wealth redistribution". It's still about taking a dollar from you and giving it to someone else, whether that person is a single mom or a police officer. In both cases, you're not guaranteed to get a dollar's worth of benefit, but you can expect to receive some amount of indirect benefit.
I would start by cutting Government down to the size actually envisioned by the Constitution and seeing how much funding that would require.
Let's say you did that, and productivity dropped so much -- due to, let's say, increased crime and illness -- that you were still paying 2/5 of your (lower) income in taxes. Would you be happy paying 40% of your income in that case?
(Of course, the Constitution is open-ended enough that there's no "size actually envisioned" by it anyway. How much do you need to "provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States", exactly? How much to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"?)
Given that entitlement programs represent the largest part of the Federal (and most States for that matter) budget I'm willing to guess we could cut that tax burden down to size.
Interesting that you skipped over military spending. We spend more on the Department of Defense and the "Global War on Terror" than we do on Social Security (and that's not even counting Iraq and Afghanistan, which aren't part of the budget).
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
What part of the US government system do you not understand? The part where it is to be of the people or the part that it is supposed to be FOR us? It's not supposed to be for foreigners.
It would be protectionism if we put up barriers to private businesses using private investment funds to hire or buy foreigners. But using public money (government money) to only fund those for whom the government is instituted, is sound and prudent policy.
_If_ our government has an excess, they it might be a moral question of distribution to other countries vs. lowering taxes on our people -- however, if our own people are the ones who are financially bankrupt or impaired -- it makes sense to focus the money collected from *US* on *US*, FIRST.
Go find a clue...or stop shilling for you and your foreign brethren.
Flexicurity
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
H1B Worker = Proprietary Software
American Worker = Open Source Software
I'd like to buy homeland for our 10 million people. http://twitter.com/mahadiga
If Americans don't want to work at those wages, then they don't get the job, there are always people who want to work whether you import them or not.
Not true in a free market. In a free labor market, if only a tiny fraction of the market will work for a certain low wage, then wages go up until enough people are willing to work. In America, however, companies just get the government to flood their labor market with immigrants until American workers get desperate enough that the equilibrium wage goes down. At no point, of course, does the cost-of-living go down.
They came here to carve a new life... ...out of the American Indian!
They are not, repeat *not* paid the same. They are paid on average 30% less for H1B and 50% less for L1. The H1Bs are paid less (semi-legally) due to age discrimination (laying off workers over age 40 and replacing them with younger, less talented H1Bs, because there is NOT "a prevailing wage" but four of them, from "entry level" to "fully competent". So all the company has to do is replace a "fully competent" American with an "entry level" H1B and they can pay at the 17th percentile wage instead of the 50th++ percentile they were paying.
Please do some research before spouting off. If you don't know where to start to find actual information, then start here: http://www.flcdatacenter.com/skill.aspx
Oh, and if they "need the talent" then why are companies laying off the workers who were doing the jobs, but not allowing them to leave and not giving them their severance pay until after the older worker finishes teaching the new H1B how to do the job that the H1B is supposed to be so much better at doing? Please get some knowledge of the real world before spouting off the propaganda of "CompeteAmerica" or the American Immigration Lawyers Association.
Government programs are there to accomplish what the private sector fails to accomplish.
And right there is another problem I have. If it isn't in the Constitution then it's not a job of Government. Liberals expand the Government every single chance they get and then are the first ones to whine when they turn around and discover that their civil liberties (except gun ownership of course, cuz those are dangerous) are being eroded. Just remember that a Government big enough to give you everything that you need is big enough to take away everything that you have.
Then you have a fundamental problem with the existence of a government, because all government spending is "wealth redistribution". It's still about taking a dollar from you and giving it to someone else, whether that person is a single mom or a police officer. In both cases, you're not guaranteed to get a dollar's worth of benefit, but you can expect to receive some amount of indirect benefit.
The police officer is providing a service and working a job. Lumping him in with the single mom who gets back my money from the EITC is disingenuous. She didn't work a job or provide any service to get that money. Somebody decided to take it away from me at gunpoint (what happens if you don't pay your taxes?) and give it to her. You might not have a problem with that but I have a fundamental disagreement with the whole concept. If anybody besides the Government was doing it, it would rightfully be called "stealing" and I'd really like to know what my "indirect benefit" is in this case.
Let's say you did that, and productivity dropped so much -- due to, let's say, increased crime and illness -- that you were still paying 2/5 of your (lower) income in taxes. Would you be happy paying 40% of your income in that case?
Again, mentioning crime is irrelevant. Fighting crime is one job that even die-hard libertarians acknowledge is a proper role for Government, so I really don't see why you keep bringing it up. It doesn't take the current bloated Federal bureaucracy to fight crime. And far as health care goes, if we were to get Government out of the way I'd wager that you would watch prices drop like a stone. Ever notice how spending on health care keeps going up yet life expectancies don't? Ever consider the possibility that just throwing more money at our problems isn't the best way to address them?
How much to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States"?
Ah, the commerce clause. Used to justify everything from product regulation to the War on Drugs. Apparently if I grow a pot plant in my basement for my own personal consumption that's interstate commerce and the DEA can bust my front door down. Here you see the unintended consequences of your expansion of Government.
Interesting that you skipped over military spending
Providing for the defense of the several states is a proper role for the Federal Government.
We spend more on the Department of Defense
Again, you fail.
and the "Global War on Terror"
I'm no fan of Bush calling it the "GWOT" (how do you declare war on a tactic?) but there's a big hole in lower Manhattan that suggests to me that our mission in Afghanistan is justified. We were attacked. It's the job of the Federal Government to disrupt the network that attacked us so they can't do so again in the future and to arrest/kill those who were responsible. Interesting that you can quote the commerce and welfare clauses to justify your nanny state but can't remember this one: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Um, not the INS, why would they have the information?
Try the Department of Labor: http://www.foreignlaborcert.doleta.gov/wageinfo.cfm
Although guestworkers can be used for almost any job requiring a BA, most are concentrated in IT (computer programmers, analysts, administrators, etc.), which total about three million.
Leaving out other guestworker categories, such as L1 which has no limits whatsoever, the H1B category lasts six years, with unlimited renewals if a green card is applied for. Since (until our economy died) nearly all H1Bs wanted a green card,that means any H1B holder can stay here forever. So they are additive...got that?
For several years the quotas were 200,000 per year, and for several years they were a tad over 100,000 per year. It only takes five or so years to get a million total, out of our total IT population of three million. Um, that is one out of every three jobs. If you ever worked in an IT shop in the Fortune 500 (where some of us spent our whole professional lives), you would be able to look around and see that about a third of all current IT workers are guestworkers.
And the current 85K per year (typically exceeded "by accident"), does not even mention the totally unlimited number of H1B visas available to educational or non-profit institutions.
Well, at least I can hope that your turn will come soon...
I'm not humbled. At my last contract at a noted financial house, I was placed in a room with 90 programmers and analysts. Of the 90, only two were Americans, me and a secretary to keep the records.
Of the guestworkers, most only lasted the two weeks it took to ask them to do something and to realize they couldn't do what their resumes claimed, such as testers who didn't know what a test case was. So they were replaced with another H1B, who was no better. This continued until they finally gave up and started to pay the freight and hire Americans who stayed because they were competent and had not lied on their resumes. When the project finally wound down, 90% of those remaining were Americans.
So if you are "humbled" by their abilities, I am sorry for you.
It was not always this way. Ten years or more ago, the H1Bs were competent. No, they never had skills that were unavailable locally, but they were good. Now those who have the skills they claim are a minority.
They are paid much less than equivalent American workers, often 30-50% less, so the taxes they pay are far less.
And most are not permanent employees paid by the corporation, but are contracters paid by the bodyshop and many bodyshops (especially for the L1s) pay them back in the home country in order to avoid taxes entirely (and avoid scrutiny of their low reates of pay).
While it has its benefits in good times, in bad times the free market system is brutal, inhuman.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
It's not my fault that company didn't do it's due diligence. If you lied on your resume and were actually incompetent, I wouldn't expect you to get past the phone screen, at least where I work.
"enforce protectionism...
in the name of the free market!"
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
Of course, that all blithely ignores people like me who came for three years on an H1b and then decided to leave. I've been offered sponsorship again, and also for a TN1 since becoming a Canadian. But I have absolutely no desire to move back Stateside, and know many people with the same sentiments. I certainly wouldn't want to spend the next decade of my life getting a green card and then citizenship. What's the attraction? I don't get it. Each to their own though, but there's clearly a lot of ignorance about the issue, as well as media spin and sweeping generalisations.
Liberals expand the Government every single chance they get and then are the first ones to whine when they turn around and discover that their civil liberties (except gun ownership of course, cuz those are dangerous) are being eroded.
You say that as if there's a relation between the two events, as if the erosion of civil liberties is somehow a natural consequence of expanding the role of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. Health care for children and retirees, for example, has nothing to do with warrantless wiretapping.
Just remember that a Government big enough to give you everything that you need is big enough to take away everything that you have.
"Big enough"? What does that even mean? There's no minimum size requirement for a government to oppress people, if that's what it's determined to do. Eliminating the social programs you don't like would have absolutely no effect on the government's ability to "take away everything that you have".
The police officer is providing a service and working a job. Lumping him in with the single mom who gets back my money from the EITC is disingenuous. She didn't work a job or provide any service to get that money.
Oh, but she does: she raises that child. That provides a benefit to you, since children with a decent upbringing are less likely to grow up into criminals... not to mention the benefit that it provides to the child.
Somebody decided to take it away from me at gunpoint (what happens if you don't pay your taxes?) and give it to her. You might not have a problem with that but I have a fundamental disagreement with the whole concept.
It's interesting that you don't have a fundamental disagreement with the concept of taking your money away from you at gunpoint and giving it to a police officer, just because he's "working a job". Do you really think issuing speeding tickets and arresting harmless potheads is a better use of your money, and mine, than raising children to be productive?
Again, mentioning crime is irrelevant. Fighting crime is one job that even die-hard libertarians acknowledge is a proper role for Government, so I really don't see why you keep bringing it up.
I keep bringing it up because fighting crime isn't just about putting more cops on the street. It's also about addressing the causes that generate crime, like poverty and lack of education. Or do you think the "proper role for government" is simply to wait for crimes to occur and then clean up after them?
And far as health care goes, if we were to get Government out of the way I'd wager that you would watch prices drop like a stone. Ever notice how spending on health care keeps going up yet life expectancies don't? Ever consider the possibility that just throwing more money at our problems isn't the best way to address them?
That's funny, because countries with more government involvement actually spend less on health care. One of the best ways to lower health care prices would be to move to a single-payer system, because the tangled web of insurance companies causes all sorts of inefficiency.
Again, you fail [federalbudget.com].
You misspelled succeed. $484.1 billion + $145.2 billion > $608 billion.
We were attacked. It's the job of the Federal Government to disrupt the network that attacked us so they can't do so again in the future and to arrest/kill those who were responsible. Interesting that you can quote the commerce and welfare clauses to justify your nanny state but can't remember this one: The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion.
If you think the military excapades of the pa
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
Note that I mostly do Fortune 500, and they mostly do contract workers with only a few direct hire H1Bs, so things may be different with a small business doing a direct perm hire for a guestworker...
The Fortune 500 are bringing them in so fast that they really don't have time (and sometimes no longer have any permanent folks left with the expertise) to do a technical interview, so they often rely on the bodyshop which has a vested interest in getting a body on site no matter what their qualifications. This financial house brought in 150 in the space of a couple weeks (of which 90 were in one huge boiler room with me). The larger the corporation, the less they bother with due diligence. Since they no longer hire from within, but poach folks from each other, they no longer have the managerial skills to do due diligence. (Running Microsoft Project or one of its bastard progeny does *not* constitute "managerial skills".)
Check information about top universities.
The best 100 are almost exclusively from rich countries (except China that manages to squeze in a few, mainly from Hong Kong).
From then on you see several names from other countires (Mexico, India, China, Taiwan, Brazil). These are still top Universities (I studied in one of them), perhaps not at the level of the top 20, but some of them have excellent Engineering and IT departments (my University is rated 150 overall, but our Engineering faculty is top 100, no wonder, we used the same text books used in top notch universities and it wasn't uncommon to have as teachers graduates from US universities).
People from these universities are anything but walk overs. Many of us were educated to lead, so if you think we are push overs that do "dumb-ass, cheap or shoddy" work I can just conclude that you have been unlucky with the kind of people you have met.
I will tell you something else: people like me, from a "humble" top 150 University in the world can stand their own pretty well against people from top UK universities (heck, I win jobs in direct competition with them, as do people from other countires). If you think we earn peanuts, then you are really smoking some seriously good weed, you should share it with the rest of us...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Programming, DB Administration, System Administration, etc.
Your prejudice and outright racism is a sorry sight.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Which means open borders for foreign workers.
If that was the case you would let the market speak, as things stand everybody is in the dark (you don't know how much you are really worth, and have no chance to move to where the jobs are).
The US should be looking at open borders treaties with the EU, China and India which would clarify the situation and allow US professionals to compete in a even playing field.
But the question is, do USians have an stomach for real competition? (Europeans do in general terms, the treaties in place ensure that you must compete, as do Indians and Chinese).
The US have companies with worldwide interests, but many people in the US somehow think that these companies could not possibly find good employees out of the USA' borders ....
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
I am sure that will be dead easy with so much evidence all around the place.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Whinning. That is your solution.
Those foreigners are not going to Mars anytime soon. If you don't ket them in the US, then the technological means exist so they can do work from their own countries or from locations more amenable to foreigners.
The market for IT skills is global, even if you would pass laws to say no foreigner can work in the US (how stupid would that be?) jobs still would move to places where the same work can be done cheaper.
So you prefer that those people pay taxes and buy stuff elsewhere instead of doing so in your own country?
Honestly, I just don't get the logic some of you spouse...
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
So you are a tax payer.
Do you want your bank to be efficient or not?
If you do, you should allow them to make the best business decision. This may very well be hire foreigners for a variety of reasons.
If you want the banks to become a welfare agency, all the power to you, but that is clearly not what the governments are asking from banks.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Here in the UK degrees take 3 years.
In Mexico they take 5.
So when I made a Masters degree in a UK univeristy I was just reviewing stuff I learned in my undergraduate studies in Mexico.
If I understand correctly the system in US universities, you actually have a major subject and a minor one. Well, in Mexico we have only a major subject for most of those 5 years.
Now, don't misunderstand me, I am sure all those wonderful universities in the US and UK are better than mine in many ways, but I feel better prepared to get jobs.
Perhaps people coming from India, China and other places are being more pragmatic regarding what is tought in universities. In my case my first job was in the University itself (all the administrative and IT personnel was hired from the University's students), so when I got out of Uni I have a vastly superior CV compared to people form other universities.
From there I moved quickly to a multinational coporation based at home, and once there the sky was the limit.
This history is being repeated thousands of times around the globe, people in the US can't do nothing to stop this, just closing your eyes to this reality (US jobs for US people? What is next? Ein volk etc.... ? ) will not make the problem go away.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
For bunnies sakes, I can tell you in 3 minutes if somebody has the skills they claim to have or not.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111905&cid=26690463
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111905&cid=26690463
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1111905&cid=26690463
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
At one time, America was a great country, but now our corrupt politicians are turning it into just another third world country. I don't blame you for leaving. The guestworker visa system is designed to transfer wealth from the middle class (IT workers) to the rich (corporate execs) by lowering wages for IT workers through wage arbitrage and taking the resulting wage savings for themselves. All with the assistance of government.