Slashdot Mirror


Hillary Clinton Takes Data.gov Overseas

theodp writes "ZDNet reports that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's office issued a fact sheet during her visit to India confirming that the U.S. and India will be working together to develop an open source version of the Data.gov project, which was launched in 2009 by off-to-Harvard Federal CIO Vivek Kundra to serve as a central repository of data collected by the US government. The Hindu Business Line notes that Clinton was also pressed to exempt Indian techies in the States on H-1B or L1 visas from U.S. social security taxes, an exemption that, if granted, could reportedly result in savings of at least a billion dollars for the country's software industry."

171 of 250 comments (clear)

  1. Re:!outsourcing by TheDarkNose · · Score: 1

    I guess it's a good thing that that isn't one of its labels then!

    --
    "Obviously, you need to be an Einstein to navigate the Austrian Patent Office website." - platinumrat
  2. Who taught them how to negotiate? by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The Hindu Business Line notes that Clinton was also pressed to exempt Indian techies in the States on H-1B or L1 visas from US social security taxes, an exemption that, if granted, could reportedly result in savings of at least a billion dollars for the country's software industry."

    An exemption that would also cause an even more vitriolic backlash from American workers who would become even more expensive relative to Indian H1B and L1 holders because of a tax that only the Amish and a few others can avoid (for now).

    They'd have a case here if American developers could legally bow out of FICA. I'd take that deal without hesitation. I know a lot of developers who'd love to step outside that system and have the money for their 401ks and FSA/HSA instead.

    1. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Funny

      She's a Democrat. Democratic negotiating skills can best be described with the analogy of the poker player who starts the game by showing everyone all his cards--then tries to bluff.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      This sounds like a great idea. We could call this system "Social Security."

    3. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      On doing a little research, it looks like you can basically only bow out for religious reasons. According to the IRS form (PDF warning: here ) you must be a member of a religious organization that objects conscientiously to public or private insurance or welfare. There also a few exemptions for students working on dissertations or nonresident aliens working in a few select jobs (according to this). But, no, not just anyone can back out, unless they hid the method for doing so really well.

      And no, Pastafarianism wouldn't suffice: the form specifically states that the religious organization must have existed continuously since 1950.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    4. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by RottenJ · · Score: 1

      They should pay SS taxes considering they are taking a job that should be done a US citezen.

      --
      "It's fun to obey the machine" - Ralph Wiggum
    5. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by Nexus7 · · Score: 1

      Wait... wouldn't you want them to be exempt? So that after working for a while they don't have the amount they've paid into SS sitting there, and they have lees of an incentive to become citizens.

    6. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 2

      H1Bs have to pay FICA, and can't collect until they have paid into it for ten years. They may be able to collect in their own countries when they return home, from that country's equivalent plan if there is a reciprocity treaty with the U.S. (Canada and the U.S. have one: you can collect SSI or OAS, but not both).

      But, H1Bs are only renewable once for a total of six years (this can be extended year over year in the case of a green card application that is pending the last step). After that, you have to be out of the U.S. for a year before you can return on another H1B visa (though NAFTA visas might be available, but as those require temporary intent, getting one after an H1B just ends without leaving the U.S. first could be hard).

      So, H1Bs do have to pay FICA, and are unlikely to collect benefits unless they immigrate to the U.S. or have other unusual circumstances.

      As a former H1B holder, and now lawful permanent resident, I find this fair: one does not waltz into a place without paying some sort of dues.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    7. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by nschubach · · Score: 1

      Pastafarianism has existed since the beginning of time. We just didn't know about it until recently.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by Mister+Whirly · · Score: 1

      Meh, still beats the Republican negotiating skills that can best be described with the analogy of the poker player who starts the game by showing everyone all his cards - and then not only tries to bluff, but repeats the lie so often even he himself starts to believe the lie. And if anyone accuses him of bluffing they just "hate America and freedom".

      --
      "But this one goes to 11!"
    9. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by hairyfeet · · Score: 1

      Don't forget that if you put 6 of them in a room you wouldn't even be able to get them to agree on what's for lunch!

      That is one of the really sad things about the USA, the fact we only have one party now. In Europe they have lots of different parties with different beliefs and have to have a coalition, here we have the "Give teh rich more MONIES! nom nom nom" party and then we have the Ds for dumbasses, that can't agree on shit and spend all their time bickering with each other until people get so fed up with their bullshit they vote for the "more MONIES! nom nom nom" party just to get rid of the dumbasses whining.

      Personally I don't think it is really gonna matter in the end what the dumbasses or the nom noms do, we will end up with our own Arab spring. You have lost over 42,000 factories in a single decade and students buried alive in student loans (the next bubble to burst) that go straight from the graduation ceremony to the unemployment line yet we have companies following the how not to hire an American video like its a how to book and bring H1-Bs over as fast as they can shove them on a plane, and the business districts in the south look like Escape from New York thanks to all the abandoned buildings.

      People will only put up with shit for so long before the powderkeg blows, and I would argue we are seeing that fuse get smaller every day. it really wouldn't take much to get the people to follow our own crazy Austrian, as frankly anything is better than what we have now. Hell if they keep stretching the military and sending them into one shithole after another I wouldn't even be surprised if some general decided a junta was in order, and most Americans? like I said better than what we've got now.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    10. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And even when the Republicans loose a hand, the Democrats still timidly let the Republicans take all the chips.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Wait... wouldn't you want them to be exempt?

      No, because they are working a job that an American should be working and paying into the system.

      The missing American is still going to need help at retirement when the Indian is gone.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    12. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by BeansBaxter · · Score: 1

      This sounds like a great idea. We could call this system "Social Security."

      And keep it separate from the general fund, and never borrow against it, and pay out only what is brought in, and allow those who pass on early to give their pension to their children. And best but not last put the entire cost of the fund on the pay check so employees know how much it costs for them to be employed. Wouldn't that be a great program?

    13. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      No, we should fix three problems: One, make it easy for top talent to come work in the US, permanently. Two, make the temporary worker program live up to its name, instead of displacing US workers. Three, stop taxing true temporary workers for a benefit they are not eligible to receive. Your proposal attempts to use an injustice to make up for another, which is not only wrong in principle, but also ineffective since the US workers are still angry anyway.

    14. Re:Who taught them how to negotiate? by turgid · · Score: 1

      What are you, some kind of lily-livered yellow wuss pinko-commie liberal socialist fascist un-American terrorist lover?

  3. So thats how the US will survive .. by OzPeter · · Score: 1

    as a protectorate of India!

    --
    I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
  4. in a counter move, the global IT union said by decora · · Score: 1

    oh wait, there is no global union of IT workers....

    (not yet anyway)

    1. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      And it's amazing, too, since you can't just hire a scab to replace a programmer during a strike. It takes a month or two for a new hire to produce anything useful that integrates with your current software, and even that requires guidance from the people who are already there. If those people are out on strike, there is no such guidance, and maybe not even anyone to provide a list of servers and passwords. Nothing could possibly get done without the techies around to make it happen.

      For us web developers whose work gets billed out at 10x what we bring home, it's obvious that we should be getting paid far more than we are now.

    2. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Its not just web developers who get billed out a 10x what they bring home. At my company I was a lead on a project and found out for T&M work individual workers are billed to the customer at about the same rate.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 4, Insightful

      time to start listening to pete seeger (again).

      UNIONIZE.

      we need this, now. yes, unions can go too far. but corp america already HAS gone too far.

      I'd take union corruption over employer based corruption any day.

      turn of the 1900's - here we come again!

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    4. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by royallthefourth · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, unions exist so that any type of workers can band together to push back against their employer when they inevitably get fucked over. Individuals are easy to replace, but there's power in numbers.

    5. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      You have nothing to lose but your on-call pager! IT workers of the world, unite!

      I'm actually being serious about that - a strong IT union or professional organization would go a long way towards improving developer working conditions.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    6. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      The situation you're describing only exists in your imagination. Unions practice solidarity with other workers because our opponent is capital, not other workers.

    7. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      No, unions exist so that any type of workers can band together to push back against their employer when they inevitably get fucked over. Individuals are easy to replace, but there's power in numbers.

      not when they're doing something that only a few other people can do. like software developement. they ARE easy to replace if they're doing something any normal human would be able to do, for example driving a garbage truck. in fact, the wiki page on unions redirects from "labor union".

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    8. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      This is stunningly ignorant or maybe just naive. Unions exist, in reality, as a method to empower unskilled labor, which cannot properly negotiate on the terms of its employment.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    9. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by hedwards · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there's overhead and other costs involved, right. It's not just the cost of the wages that has to be included, there's the cost of benefits, pay roll taxes, capital expenditures and whatever other costs are involved with running the business.

      Even if one is working for oneself the actual take home pay is probably only a half or so of the total fee.

    10. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Nothing could possibly get done without the techies around to make it happen.

      You're starting to sound a lot like the functionalist movement from Heinlein's "The Roads Must Roll"

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    11. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      You don't get it. An individual software developer may not be easy to replace, but he's still replaceable. You can't replace the whole office. A union can eliminate the question of being replaced entirely and secure appropriate compensation at the same time.

    12. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by royallthefourth · · Score: 1

      You do realize that there's overhead and other costs involved, right.

      10x? Fuck off.

    13. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      Not sure if trolling, or...
      For a quick counterexample there's SPEEA. Aerospace engineering isn't always the most exciting thing in the world, but I wouldn't call it "unskilled".

    14. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by SpasticWeasel · · Score: 1

      Mindless and repetitive. Really? Have you worked in IT?

      --
      No sooner do I get over one, then you put a better one right next to me. Bastards.
    15. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      "Union" == "Unskilled Workers"
      Hmm, Filmmaker's union.
      I see what you did there.

    16. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      and this is not how it should be (imo).

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    17. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      no i have not worked in it. i'm sure it might seem boring, but it is a job that requires a proper education, and some training too.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    18. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by JasterBobaMereel · · Score: 1

      The US has largely been against unions (mainly because they were consider communist, in some cases with justification) and now have some of the worst labor laws for all workers ...

      e.g. Parental leave - almost all counties have statutory paid parental/maternity leave .... except the USA ...

      --
      Puteulanus fenestra mortis
    19. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by Jim_Maryland · · Score: 1

      I haven't seen a huge amount of billable rate information but 10x seems a bit high compared to those I have. The range I usually see falls in the 1.5 to 2.8 multiplier range for what a customer is billed versus employee salary (not including benefits). If you are seeing your work billed for 10x the amount, perhaps you are to blame for undervaluing your work.

    20. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by Truth+is+life · · Score: 1

      You do know about the American Medical Association, American Dental Association, bar associations, and other "professional" organizations which (as it happens) are often partially empowered with determining who gets to practice their profession where, right? These significantly resemble unions for professionals, which by definition are skilled (very skilled) labor. Bar associations in particular, especially in states where you have to be a member of the bar to practice law, very much resemble unions running a union shop.

    21. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      Ah. The delta between "should" and "is" is a good part of what unions attempt to address.

    22. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

      wtf does "Hurf durf...Derp derp" mean?

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    23. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      unions exist for unskilled workers, those doing the kind of work that any random healthy person can do, with minimal training.

      Exactly. That's why it's so easy to hire airline pilots: you just grab some guy off the street, sit him down in front of MS Flight Simulator for a couple hours, and now you have a fully-trained pilot ready to handle a 747 full of hundreds of passengers and knows what to do if the engines suck in some birds and the plane has to crash-land.

    24. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 1

      It doesn't happen because the vast majority of IT people seem to like to stab each other in the back for a few more pennies.

    25. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      unions are made to empower workers who are unable to negotiate

      EVER try to get ANY line changed on a contract, in a software job?

      I have.

      once the laughing stopped, they asked me to sign the contract as-is, no mods.

      tell me again that we have ANY bargaining power other than to just starve?

      also, come back once you are over 40 and still tell me you have bargaining power against the boilerplate we-own-your-ass contracts (fulltime, contract, makes little diff these days).

      employers own everything. sad that you still don't see that.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    26. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      yeah you're correct. without a union, workers are hired and retained based on merit. with union, its a matter of bullying.

      you are so wrong.

      people, today, are hired on PRICE. and disposability.

      bring an experienced guy in and they won't want him; he costs too much (his experience level) and he also won't sit there and keep taking shit if its to the point of abuse.

      newhires or 'freshers' as they are now called are cheap and abusable. they have all but replaced the older middle aged workforce.

      its not about merit or skill. its ONLY about bottom dollar and younger is cheaper.

      a union could actually help fix this.

      you really think the company vs YOU, a single programmer guy, can really strike a fair deal? go re-read your employment contract. you like all that's there? see things that worry you? did YOU have the ability or power to get it changed so that its fair?

      no. you took what was given to you and you justified it.

      we are all taken as pawns. we all need a union.

      its time.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    27. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "For us web developers whose work gets billed out at 10x what we bring home, it's obvious that we should be getting paid far more than we are now."

      Maybe you should start your own company if you think you can provide the same level of service to clients at a lower price.

      Of course, you might lack the sales, management, finance, and legal skills to do it.

      (NB: I started my own company, it failed...)

    28. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by uncqual · · Score: 1

      However, none of these act as formal collective bargaining units which doom, by contract, young high skilled practitioners to lose their jobs or earn a lower salary than their less productive coworkers who happen to have been around the company longer.

      The "professional organizations" you mention are really more like guilds exploiting regulatory capture. They have two primary (and conveniently intertwined) goals. First is to ensure some level of competency in the trade so the entire body of members is respected by the general customer class. Second, to limit the number of practitioners in the field to avoid excessive supply driving incomes down. Of course, they will tout the first goal loudly and deny that the second goal ever entered their mind.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    29. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      Unless, of course, they're foreign scabs fraudulently imported to do our work for slave wages.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
    30. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      I disagree, there's still enough wealth disparity between American and Indian IT workers that, from their perspective, all of us are the upper class to be fought against, so classist rhetoric will tend to fall on deaf ears.

      Similarly, nationalism tends to be a much more powerful motivational force than classism, it seems more likely that an Indian workers union would fights for the demands of Indian workers first, and workers in general second.

      As time goes on, and globalism continues to change the world market, I do believe workers worldwide will eventually swing back towards how you see the world, uniting against exploitative practices, but this is decades away, and won't benefit any of us American workers in the short term.

    31. Re:in a counter move, the global IT union said by Xaositecte · · Score: 1

      It means you're retarded.

  5. Well, at least she's creating jobs SOMEWHERE by elrous0 · · Score: 1, Funny

    Lord Vishnu thanks you, Hilary.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  6. Where do I sign up? by gblackwo · · Score: 2

    23 year old mechanical engineer here, where do I sign out of Social Security?

    1. Re:Where do I sign up? by OzPeter · · Score: 2

      23 year old mechanical engineer here, where do I sign out of Social Security?

      Start here: http://www.immigrationindia.nic.in/

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Where do I sign up? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      usually you sign out of social security by getting a job, if you want to sign out of paying for it start your own company and don't take a salary.
      what i'd like to know is were they eligible for the social security they were paying taxes for?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:Where do I sign up? by gblackwo · · Score: 2

      I have a job. I simply have no faith that SS will be around by my retirement and would rather not throw my money away.

    4. Re:Where do I sign up? by Winter · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As a H1B, no, you are not eligible for social security.
      (Taxation without representation?)

      --
      main(i){putchar(177663314>>6*(i-1)&63|!!(i<5)<<6)&&main(++i);}
    5. Re:Where do I sign up? by EvilStein · · Score: 1

      Yet we're always told that illegal immigrants are paying into SS but won't ever get it. Now the H1B group will simply be exempt?

      How long before the new "guest worker" program wants the same treatment?

      We're going to have millions more *not* paying into the system, and people will act surprised when it fails.

    6. Re:Where do I sign up? by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      And this is different than what coporations try to do by not paying taxes how?  Seems like it works just fine when we just print more money, right?

    7. Re:Where do I sign up? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      That's actually true. How that typically works is that they need to have a valid SSN in order to be hired and payroll takes the social security tax out automatically on whatever one makes up to the limit. So, they'll end up paying the taxes and whoever it is that the SSN corresponds to gets the benefits.

      As for the GP's taxation line, that really only applied because there wasn't any way of gaining representation. It doesn't really apply to individuals that don't go through the naturalization process.

    8. Re:Where do I sign up? by SydShamino · · Score: 2

      Non-citizens in the country, and indeed most countries, regularly face taxation without representation. Heck, the U.S. now charges all guests to the U.S. a tax just to enter. If you want not to be taxed in a country in which you are a guest, don't visit the country. If you want representation in a country in which you pay tax, become a citizen.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    9. Re:Where do I sign up? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      We'll get to that in a minute, but first, tell us why you believe that you can beat the (well established) odds and provide better retirement and disability insurance for you and your family.Oh, wait. You said you were 23 years old, so it's highly unlikely that you've given such things any serious thought. You've probably just swallowed the whole illogical notion that "free market" is better and "government is bad" without really thinking about it. Right?

    10. Re:Where do I sign up? by Jawnn · · Score: 1

      Got anything like, you know, facts which give rise to these doubts? And no, citations from Fox News personalities do not count.

    11. Re:Where do I sign up? by gblackwo · · Score: 1

      No. I've thought about it and have already spent over a year working professionally outside the US.

      The county of Galveston opted out of SS and did quite well.

    12. Re:Where do I sign up? by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      (Taxation without representation?)

      If only they weren't being held against their will being given high paying jobs...

    13. Re:Where do I sign up? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      Be careful with life expectancy numbers because infant and childhood mortality (and what counts as "infant mortality" -- but that's another topic) weigh very heavily into this but have little relevance to SS.

      A more relevant number for SS purposes is "Life expectancy at retirement age" (as folks who die younger than this don't get SS retirement benefits) and these numbers have not changed as much as overall life expectancy.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    14. Re:Where do I sign up? by uncqual · · Score: 1
      While it's likely that SS will "be around" when a professional who is now 23 years old retires in 45 years (2056), it's likely that benefits will be reduced and/or benefits will be means tested and/or contributions will have increased substantially. So, it's fair to be skeptical about the benefit of SS to a young professional today.

      For information about the state of the program, we could go to the source, THE 2010 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS (pdf) or A SUMMARY OF THE 2011 ANNUAL REPORTS, the latter of which contains the money quote [emphasis added]:

      Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow. After 2022, trust fund assets will be redeemed in amounts that exceed interest earnings until trust fund reserves are exhausted in 2036, one year earlier than was projected last year. Thereafter, tax income would be sufficient to pay only about three-quarters of scheduled benefits through 2085.

      To be fair, the current SS tax is already highly progressive. The first dollar paid in each year returns, roughly, six times the retirement benefit of the last dollar paid in each year just before hitting the cap. As well, benefits are indirectly means tested today by partially taxing SS benefits as income IFF other sources of income exceed a threshold.

      Therefore, making SS taxation more progressive (such as by removing the salary cap and/or taxing all income including investment income etc) and/or stronger means testing (possibly including asset tests such as those used by medicaid and other programs) has a precedent. However, going too far down this path risks SS becoming viewed as a "welfare program" making it vulnerable to major "reforms" (i.e., cuts).

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    15. Re:Where do I sign up? by uncqual · · Score: 1

      SS is too big to fail.

      And only China and India are big enough to bail it out. There will, of course, be some conditions but I'm sure we can get used to those.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    16. Re:Where do I sign up? by HungWeiLo · · Score: 1

      Looks nice on paper, except:

      - Benefits are not indexed to inflation. Think about how the initially slightly higher monthly payouts will look 20 years afterwards.

      - No spousal benefits.

      - Looks like there's some percentage of return that they guarantee. Sounds like SS to me, except on a much smaller scale.

      Sounds like one of those things in life that sounds good, but in the end is just as good as most other things already out there, at best.

      --
      There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
  7. They don't care by soupforare · · Score: 3, Insightful

    They don't even care to pretend to act in the best interests of the citizenry anymore. It's absolutely brazen.

    --
    --- Do you believe in the day?
    1. Re:They don't care by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Note that it was India who was pressing this. They were acting in the best interests of their citizenry, by making it more attractive for companies to hire Indians.

      The story, at least, doesn't give Clinton's response, so anything you are reading into it is part of your own bias. It does say that this has been a "persistent irritant" between the countries, which implies that India has asked for this before, and the U.S. hasn't given in to it yet. That makes it sound like she and her predecessors are looking out for U.S. worker interests so far.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    2. Re:They don't care by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Well, with a Democrat in the White House I am finding it hard to believe that this one will happen.

      I don't. Obama will sign the law and then say "the Republicans made me do it!". It's the current Democrat excuse for everything they do that pisses off their voters.

    3. Re:They don't care by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Well, with a Democrat in the White House I am finding it hard to believe that this one will happen. If it was a Republican in the White House and if the Republicans controlled Congress, it might happen, but even then I'm not so sure. Given the amount of budget cuts coming soon and the high domestic unemployment, a freebie for IT companies that won't result in any extra American jobs would seem to be political suicide, but that wouldn't stop some Tea Party supporters from thinking it's a great idea.

      I dunno why you can possibly imagine the Dems treat this any different than the Reps.

      Neither of them are responsive to what "the people" want...only to the corporate re-election donators have sway over them.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  8. Social Security..... by Quato · · Score: 1

    I'm a US citizen, and I firmly believe the gov't will piss away all my Social Security 'savings' before I hit retirement age. I'm in my mid-thirties and most of my friends feel the same way.
    I think it's screwed up that foreign workers have to pay into a retirement system they will never see a nickle from. I also think young people today paying into a system that we have no faith in is screwed up. It should be an optional system.

    1. Re:Social Security..... by KCWaldo · · Score: 1

      The only reason it works, to some extent, is because it is not optional. Maybe they should replace the SS tax with an unemployment tax.

    2. Re:Social Security..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think its screwed up that the U.S. seems to be more concerned with Indian Citizens jobs than they do with U.S. Citizens jobs. ...

    3. Re:Social Security..... by DaMattster · · Score: 1

      In many states, there is an unemployment tax already which goes to fund Unemployment Compensation.

    4. Re:Social Security..... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      Unavailability of jobs in foreign countries are seen as a national security issue where as unavailability of jobs in the US are seen as sloth on the part of the unemployed. Because obviously nobody would work if they could get regular checks that don't even cover the cost of living.

    5. Re:Social Security..... by Ogive17 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think if you work here you should pay as much as the next guy. If you don't like it, find a job in another country.

      My wife is currently on an H1B visa (though we're going through the green card process right now). She's always had to pay the same taxes I've had to pay. She also cannot vote so she doesn't have a 'voice'.

      But you know what, that's part of the cost of immigrating to the US.

      --
      "Action without philosophy is a lethal weapon; philosophy without action is worthless."
    6. Re:Social Security..... by bberens · · Score: 1

      We have decided in America that we want our elderly people to have a modicum of dignity in their old age. Until we're willing to let the elderly wallow in their own filth and die in the streets of hunger and disease that's not changing. While I'm definitely on the side of improving efficiency and reducing fraud in the system I don't really have a problem with pitching in so old people can eat a decent meal occasionally. One of these days I'm going to be old too and my faith in the stock market/401k system is not much greater than my faith in SS.

      --
      Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
    7. Re:Social Security..... by Methuseus · · Score: 1

      Yes, but look at other countries such as Germany, France, and others in Europe. They have government pensions for the elderly and don't have nearly the problems. Not saying I know how to fix it, but it is fixable. Maybe not with an "American" mentality, though.

      --
      Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
    8. Re:Social Security..... by Jaime2 · · Score: 1

      I think it's screwed up that foreign workers have to pay into a retirement system they will never see a nickle from.

      Social Security isn't a retirement system. It's a social safety net funded by a specific tax. A quarter of the recipients of Social Security benefits aren't of retirement age, guess where their money comes from? The biggest problem with Social Security is that many people see it as a system that holds on to your money and gives it back to you when you retire. Foreign workers living here benefit from the fact that we don't simply cast out those that cannot support themselves and make them fend for themselves.

    9. Re:Social Security..... by beamin · · Score: 1

      The only way that Social Security will stop being available is when people stop paying into it. As far as the money borrowed out of the SS Trust Fund being paid back from general fund revenues... well, that's the heist that they're trying to pull off with this "deficit reduction" kabuki theater.

    10. Re:Social Security..... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      More fool you.

      Or, was this somehow supposed to be a positive experience?!

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    11. Re:Social Security..... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      foreign works - especially (!) - should do every god damned thing they can do to help the US. freeloading on the US then returning home with their money is the last thing we need more of, here.

      they take. they take again. our jobs go away. and now even our future is to them.

      take from the US, and take and take.

      (kennedy had some choice words; and no, it did not just apply to those who want to take-and-run from what the US has to offer).

      every time you drive on our streets, you benefit from our infrastructure. our clean water, or better food standards, our better jobs and better schools.

      WE EXPECT YOU TO GIVE BACK, SOME.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    12. Re:Social Security..... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      firmly believe the gov't will piss away all my Social Security 'savings' before I hit retirement age.

      I hate to break it to you but they have already pissed away all of your social security "savings". The lock box you hear about is just filled with I.O.Us (government bonds). In years where Social security takes in more than it gives out (probably all years until recently) the government borrows from social security thus adding to the bonds that are held by the trust fund. That money is then added to the general fund and pissed away. Now this in general works well if you have increasing funds entering the social security program, but we really don't any more with the current economic down turn and beginning of the baby boomer retirement. When/if we climb out of this recession there will be a few more years where social security takes in more than it pays out. The real problems arise once social security needs to start cashing in those bonds, and gets worse once there are no bonds left to cash in. When social security starts cashing in bonds congress will have to either cut back on spending since they no longer have that source of revenue, or raise taxes to keep spending levels the same. Things will really start to get harry when social security no longer has bonds to cash in as at that point they can't meet their obligations and will only be able to pay out a percentage of their promised benefits, or go and seek additional revenue from the general fund.

      Also keep in mind that you only pay in half "your money" to social security the other half is paid by your employer. Each pay period they take 6.2% from you pay while your employer also pays in that same amount on up to $106,800 of income currently, or in the case of a self employed person you get stuck paying the full 12.4%. To further worsen the current problems social security is facing there is a 2% deduction in the employ contribution so they are only paying 4.2% but their employer is still paying the 6.2% rate. The current benefits are based off of your highest 5 years of income up to some maximum so there is a maximum benefit for social security.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    13. Re:Social Security..... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You might want to do some research on the funding status of those government pensions because lots of Europe is in a worse position then the USA. Not every nation but most.

      At least we can print money and inflate away our debt.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Social Security..... by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      Work the math beamin: Not enough people paying in, too many collecting. Government prints money. Inflation 'fixes' debt problem.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    15. Re:Social Security..... by hedwards · · Score: 1

      What they really need to do is lift the cap on earnings that are taxable for social security and include more forms of income in that. It's especially fitting seeing as we've just seen one of the largest ever redistributions of wealth in American history, if not the largest redistribution of wealth to the rich. Considering how well off the rich are right now, I have no problem whatsoever requiring that they give some of the ill begotten gains back. Being rich is hardly justification for being given money for nothing.

    16. Re:Social Security..... by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      In many states, there is an unemployment tax already which goes to fund Unemployment Compensation.

      Actually, that's in all states that have provide unemployment. Which, I believe, is all of them. That's how it works - the states run it with some leeway, but a lot of rules are set by the federal DOL. Employers pay unemployment tax based on the number of workers, the salaries paid, AND their history of laying off workers (employers with high turnover pay a higher tax). They are also required to report all wages paid each quarter the the state employment security office. And they, in turn, send all that information to the US Census Bureau.

      It's just like an insurance program, which is why they call it ... Unemployment Insurance.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    17. Re:Social Security..... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      I think SS will be there for us. They're just playing political games, like always. It's not hard to fix the problems, by things like raising the retirement age. You'd better expect that one. Forget 65, and just hope you can retire before 70.

      Nevertheless, when I have no info about politicians other than age, I vote for the younger ones. Imagine the political fallout if they even think of wrecking SS. Politicians who look like they might let or make SS fail will quickly be ex-politicians.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    18. Re:Social Security..... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1
      Social security will never actually go away and if I implied that it would that isn't what I was going for. My basic points are:
      1. The trust fund isn't a room/vault filled with $100 bills, but is a bunch of government bonds
      2. When all of the bonds are cashed out social security will not be able to pay all of its obligations. It will be able to pay some percentage, that if I remember correctly it is around 75% or so and that doesn't happen until some time in the mid 2030's. A quick google search confirms this with the most recent result from Social Security Board of Trustees.

      Also my assessment of what happens when Social Security starts to sell the bonds seems to be in agreement with the board for trustees findings:

      The drawdown of Social Security and HI trust fund reserves and the general revenue transfers into SMI will result in mounting pressure on the Federal budget. In fact, pressure is already evident. For the sixth consecutive year, a "Medicare funding warning" is being triggered, signaling that projected non-dedicated sources of revenues -- primarily general revenues -- will soon account for more than 45 percent of Medicare’s outlays. That threshold was in fact breached for the first time in fiscal 2010. A Presidential proposal is required by law in response to the latest warning.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    19. Re:Social Security..... by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

      I hate to break it to you but they have already pissed away all of your social security "savings". The lock box you hear about is just filled with I.O.Us (government bonds).

      In the same way that the "lock box" that you call a "bank account" is just filled with your banks promise to provide you cash, which they don't even hold enough to cover, as its all tied out in loans they have to other people (that is, they promise that they'll pay you with money that other people have promised to pay them.) If you have the right kind of account, all those promises are backstopped by a promise that the U.S. government will pay you if your bank can't.

      And I won't even begin to consider how that compares to most investment options...

  9. HIllary Clinton has done enough already by alexmin · · Score: 1

    Screwing up good processes at State Dept., that is.
    This is strictly anecdotal evidence from personal experience, but under previous administration scheduling visa interview at US consulate abroad was a matter of going to a website and doing some clicks.

    Under Clinton that changed into two phone calls to the consulate: first to pay some bucks for the privilege to talk to a call center rep and second is to schedule appt.

    Job creating, my ass.

    1. Re:HIllary Clinton has done enough already by kj_kabaje · · Score: 1

      Nope. Revenue generating.  Who said Democrats didn't like big business?

    2. Re:HIllary Clinton has done enough already by thanq · · Score: 1

      I am curious what country you speak of.

      There are three countries I know for certain that do not apply to what you suggest (Poland, Czech Rep., Slovakia).

      It's not just a Web site and few clicks - it's multiple trips, appointments that span over multiple days ("come to your appointment between 7:30am and 4:30pm on day X. If you will not be seen, come day 7:30 and 4:30pm on day X+1), and lots of paperwork and waiting JUST to talk the the consul.

      Then there's waiting for a decision and dealing with denials (it is almost as if consul's job is to block as many applications as possible).

      I would, on the other hand, agree that bribery is - and has been - rampant for many years, it's just out of sight.

  10. Re:Realy? by slackbheep · · Score: 1

    But just think, a billion saved by businesses! Obviously that will trickle do—
    hahahaha oh god I just can't do it.

  11. For Americans by DaMattster · · Score: 1

    This angers me beyond belief! We have plenty of development talent here in the United States. I am so sick of the erroneous belief that Indians make better programmers. It is simply not true. Too often I have seen an inferior product. If a large sector of America is unemployed, why are we importing labor? I thought that Clinton and Obama were against H1B visas. Fucking politicians .... Promise one thing and do another.

    1. Re:For Americans by mdf356 · · Score: 2

      This angers me beyond belief! We have plenty of development talent here in the United States.

      We don't, in the sense that the company I work for has open headcount and we can't find enough qualified people to fill it, either from the USA or anywhere else in the world. We've got a decent number of folks from Russia, India, Australia, Britain, Germany, etc. Neither the engineers nor the recruiters where I work think any specific nationality is "better" at writing software. We just hire the best wherever they come from.

      If a large sector of America is unemployed, why are we importing labor?

      Because none of the unemployed people can write good software? I dunno; I just know what resumes I see and who I interview and the majority don't meet our hiring bar.

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
    2. Re:For Americans by dkleinsc · · Score: 1

      I am so sick of the erroneous belief that Indians make better programmers. It is simply not true.

      You don't understand - when management says "better", what they really mean is "cheaper".

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    3. Re:For Americans by Warlord88 · · Score: 1

      Are you assuming that all Americans with same qualifications as H1-B visa holders are jobless? I highly doubt that.

    4. Re:For Americans by goruka · · Score: 2

      It's not about talent, it's about commitment. Foreigners have to work hard to obtain a green card in the long run (something you are born with). Workers in H1B have a higher degree of commitment and will not (or cannot) switch jobs that easily if overworked or underpaid, so they are naturally very appealing to companies (who pay for the h1b and green card).

    5. Re:For Americans by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      Indians are better programmers
      No, they are mostly forced to being uncreative mindless drones because of culture and "the system" over there. The ones who can get out of that mindset, usually by going to foreign land and getting fired up about being self-empowered and innovative , now that's another matter.

    6. Re:For Americans by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Note that it was India who was pressing this.

      The story, at least, doesn't give Clinton's response, or indicate if she likes H1-B VISAs at all, so anything you are reading into it is part of your own bias.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    7. Re:For Americans by nschubach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Anecdotal, I know... but I worked with a guy from Pakistan a few years back and he was tempted by offers to apply his physics degrees to scientific research at some large laboratories. He said that they posted job offers and listed starting pay as $25-30k/yr. Nobody in the US with a doctorate/masters would take those jobs... especially someone with multiple advanced degrees. After offering the job and having no takers they could then offer the same job outside the US and entice unaware workers and bring them in at a that wage. (After all, that sounds like a ton of money to someone unfamiliar with cost of living here.)

      So, I would say it's not about the bar being high, but the salary being low. (At least... in some cases.)

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:For Americans by TheSync · · Score: 2

      "If a large sector of America is unemployed, why are we importing labor?"

      Most unemployed Americans are not competing with H1-B candidates. Americans with a 4-year college degree had an unemployment rate of 4.7% in 2010, compared with an unemployment rate of 14.9% for those without a high school degree.

      Of all unemployed Americans in 2010, 52% had a high school degree only or less education, and 80% had less than a Bachelor's Degree.

    9. Re:For Americans by mdf356 · · Score: 1

      It's illegal to pay H1B less than other employees and at least for my peers I'd be very surprised if we pay them less. Meanwhile, do you really want to believe that non-Americans can do *better* work than Americans, in the aggregate?

      --
      Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
  12. The American for Americans by Eggun · · Score: 1

    Mrs Hillary Clinton, you should be here the development of everything that is USA

  13. Re:Realy? by bberens · · Score: 1

    I live in a medium-large sized city. IT unemployment here is like 2% and we can't fill our open head count. I'm sure a lot of people are upset that improvements in technology have made it so that lower skilled workers can do their work for less money, but that's certainly not unique to IT (manufacturing is an obvious example). At the same time, while I'm not seeing the wage growth I was accustomed to there's plenty of work for the foreseeable future.

    --
    Check out my lame java blog at www.javachopshop.com
  14. She hasn't exempted them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    India ASKED her to exempt them from taxes, she DECLINED to do so, India has PRESSED her again... So even Clinton isn't that dumb.

    A lot of vague talk on working with them to market data.gov to other nations.... words.... cheap.

    Promises on Cybercrime from the Indians.... words,... cheap. They're a big malware laden pirate software market, up there with Russia & Turkey.

    1. Re:She hasn't exempted them by kent_eh · · Score: 1

      Sure, today I don't have mod points..
      +1 Reading Comprehension for you, anonymous sir

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
  15. Re:Realy? by mdf356 · · Score: 1

    Ditto. Here in Seattle every software shop I know of is hiring like crazy.

    --
    Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
  16. H1-B karma burner by Urban+Garlic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I was on an H1-B for a while (in academic research, not software development, as it happens), and was puzzled at the time by the requirement to pay US Social Security taxes -- the H1-B is a visitor visa, not an immigrant visa, it's time-limited, and when it runs out, the assumption is that the individual will return to their home country. I would imagine that very few H1-B visa holders ever recover this money, so it's effectively a tax on the employer, paid into the SS trust fund.

    Having H1-B holders not make SS contributions seems reasonable to me -- if you want to tax H1-B activity, you can always just raise the fees for the visa itself, to get the same effect -- but having only Indian H1-B holders be exempt from the SS contribution just seems bizarre.

    The summary is unclear, but on the grounds of basic common sense, I hope that pressure and lobbying went nowhere.

    --
    2*3*3*3*3*11*251
    1. Re:H1-B karma burner by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Having H1-B holders not make SS contributions seems reasonable to me

      The problem then is that it further incentivizes employers to hire an H1-B over an American citizen because the employer won't have to pay SS taxes on that employee.

    2. Re:H1-B karma burner by jameson · · Score: 2

      No, there is no assumption that an H-1B holder `will return to their home country.' The H-1B is a dual-intent visa, meaning that you can apply for a permanent resident card while in the US and then legally stay as long as you want.

      Incidentally, I'm currently on that very route. I still don't expect to ever see any benefits from the near-decade social security and taxes I've already paid while working on F-1 and J-1 non-immigrant visas.

    3. Re:H1-B karma burner by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      The reason that H1-Bs have to pay into social security is so that they system stays solvent longer. You don't get to collect, but you have to pay. This does show where the program is flawed and that it is similar to a Ponzi scheme (I know it isn't a true Ponzi scheme but has some similarities) in that it always need new people paying in (especially those that will never collect) so that it can continue to function.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    4. Re:H1-B karma burner by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      If you didn't pay, then you'd be cheaper to employ than an American worker. The H1-B program isn't intended to displace American workers but to complement them. Americans are still supposed to come first (sorry) as it's our country and our government is supposed to favor our employment over that of other people.

      I'd be okay with them eliminating the social security contribution if they replaced it with an equal tax on H1-B workers that contributed toward, for example, education for American workers. Either way the employer needs to pay it.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    5. Re:H1-B karma burner by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      The H1B is not a "dual intent" visa. Rather, the doctrine of dual intent is recognized for people on that visa: they may be here with temporary intent for one job, but have permanent intent with regard to another one IF they obtain lawful permanent resident status. In other words, their having permanent intent is NOT a visa violation (as it would be, with, say, a TN1 visa.)

      Further, just because they may apply for permanent residence does not mean it will be easy for them to get it: it is far more than just a formality.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    6. Re:H1-B karma burner by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      I'd be okay with them eliminating the social security contribution if they replaced it with an equal tax on H1-B workers that contributed toward, for example, education for American workers. Either way the employer needs to pay it.

      The employer should pay the same contribution, fine, that is fair as it puts everyone on the same level. But you want to give it to the American workers and not give it towards the welfare of the actual employee, exactly what Social Security is for in the first place. These companies are making 50% of their income or more selling on overseas markets, the people doing the work is 50% Indian or whatever, yet you believe that for some reason you are entitled to a >50% cut on account of where you were born. These Indian workers even pay rent to American landlords and buy American grown produce from American stores because of the location of the workplace. It seems that the US has already got a massive windfall out of this, now you're all just pushing your luck.

      Oh, by the way, I'm a blue eyed white guy from a conservative protestant family who's been happily working as a programmer on a guest worker visa in China for the last two years, and the Chinese company that hired me pay me quite well. You can go to India if you like, plenty of tech companies, food is awesome, English is an official language (unlike China where you need to learn a hard new one) and your social position as a programmer is much, much higher. Also, I suspect it is like China where having a respectable job is more important than being charismatic for finding a beautiful girlfriend/wife.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    7. Re:H1-B karma burner by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "Further, just because they may apply for permanent residence does not mean it will be easy for them to get it: it is far more than just a formality."

      Indeed, just because a person is obviously technologically competent enough for a company to go through all the red tape to get an H1-B for them, and that they've been successfully working in the US for several years and obviously doing OK here, then gee, why should we keep them here when we can just as easily ship them back off to India to be our overseas competition?

      I'm happy we were not as STUPID as we are today with all of our immigration phobia when my unskilled immigrant ancestors came to the US and basically walked down a gangplank (before it all got tougher starting in 1920).

    8. Re:H1-B karma burner by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 1

      An H1B is a temporary visa to fill a temporary need. It requires an LCA which establishes that there is a local labor shortage and the alien will be paid at least 95% of the prevailing wage.

      A labor-based Green Card requires an LC as the first step, which requires the employer demonstrate that a national attempt has been made to hire the [b]least qualified[/b] American, before settling on the foreigner. This is a FAR more stringent requirement.

      An H1B may cost an employer $3k to $5k in immigration attorney expenses and filing fees but a Green Card costs between $15k and $30k depending on the case.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    9. Re:H1-B karma burner by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      I remember reading something when I was getting my L-1 visa that when I left the country, I'd be eligible to recover everything I'd paid in to Social Security... I should probably look that up since I'll be heading home soon...

    10. Re:H1-B karma burner by GlassHeart · · Score: 1

      The H1B is not a "dual intent" visa. Rather, the doctrine of dual intent is recognized for people on that visa: they may be here with temporary intent for one job, but have permanent intent with regard to another one IF they obtain lawful permanent resident status. In other words, their having permanent intent is NOT a visa violation (as it would be, with, say, a TN1 visa.)

      You've just described why the H-1B is commonly referred to as a "dual intent" visa: you're allowed to have that second intent. Now, since you assert that it's actually not a "dual intent" visa, please also explain what a true "dual intent" visa actually means.

    11. Re:H1-B karma burner by mr_3ntropy · · Score: 1
      I know it seems hard, but please make an attempt to read the complete sentence:

      Having H1-B holders not make SS contributions seems reasonable to me -- if you want to tax H1-B activity, you can always just raise the fees for the visa itself, to get the same effect

      See? You can do it. Reading Comprehension Assistance: He proposed increasing other fees to make up for removing unreasonable taxes.

    12. Re:H1-B karma burner by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      Some of us have friends and families we'd like to see regularly. I do not consider my ability to move to India or China - not that those countries would let us all move there if we wanted to - to be a justification for trashing protections we have here.

      If the company didn't want to bring a foreign worker to the U.S., they already would have outsourced the job. Thus all your points about how the company and/or H1-B employee are contributing "enough already" to the American economy are moot. The worker wanted to come here, they may decide to stay here, and they certainly shouldn't be used as leverage to depress wages here.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
    13. Re:H1-B karma burner by donscarletti · · Score: 1

      If the company didn't want to bring a foreign worker to the U.S., they already would have outsourced the job.Thus all your points about how the company and/or H1-B employee are contributing "enough already" to the American economy are moot.

      My points are certainly not moot since if the company had not been able to bring that Indian in, they would have outsourced to Bangalore and then they'd be contributing nothing to the American economy but the small amount spent by the outsourcing company in stateside "marketing", bribes and kickbacks. Silicon valley has a lot of tech companies who have a lot of needs and does not exactly have an unemployed but qualified worker waiting around wanting to fill every position. The enormous salaries for programmers in comparison to other developed countries like Canada, UK or Australia kind of suggests that there is not exactly a glut of surplus talent going on there. I'm not sure how companies like Intel would be able to survive at their current size without either hiring foreigners or moving development offshore.

      --
      When Argumentum ad Hominem falls short, try Argumentum ad Matrem
    14. Re:H1-B karma burner by SydShamino · · Score: 1

      My points are certainly not moot since if the company had not been able to bring that Indian in, they would have outsourced to Bangalore

      If they could have outsourced to Bangalore, they would have done so instead of bringing the employee here. Thus, they wanted the employee here. I think it's more likely that they would have hired someone eligible to work here had they not been able to hire an H1-B.

      --
      It doesn't hurt to be nice.
  17. AGAIN??? by sshirley · · Score: 1

    WTF??? As if we didn't take enough of a hit in 2001-2003, we're going to open up the floodgates to India AGAIN??? I'd like a little protection here please, Mrs. Clinton.

    1. Re:AGAIN??? by sshirley · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with racial issues. This has to do with the US doing what's best for US citizens. If an Indian American and an Irish American were applying for the same job, give it to the best qualified. Don't import thousands of Indians to compete with us for own our jobs. If a German company is outsourcing their project and the best candidates are an Indian firm and an American firm, give it to the best qualified company. Don't throw down the "racist" card unless that's what it is.

    2. Re:AGAIN??? by Dotren · · Score: 1

      If you are afraid of losing your job, be better than everyone else.

      I can't speak for anyone else here but it seems to me the issue isn't whether or not anyone is better than anyone else at the job... it's who is cheaper.

      Many of those MBAs running the companies out there now don't give a flip about whether their techies are producing quality product, but they do care about minimizing costs absolutely as much as possible. If that means outsourcing overseas at the expense of product quality then so be it.

    3. Re:AGAIN??? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      If you have the choice between a white person and an indian, and you pick the white person because they are white... that is called discrimination and makes you racist.

      If you are afraid of losing your job, be better than everyone else.

      Also, learn to support your entire family on $5 a day.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    4. Re:AGAIN??? by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      People are MISSING even the summary-- India was pressing Clinton to give them the exception she wasn't offering it to them -- foreign contacts involve tons of requests and attempts to get such deals; I do not think Clinton doesn't have the power to do this all on her own; it likely is going to have to get past a few others.

      If you've been reading wikileaks you should know by now the diplomats lie for a living-- she probably gave them a positive non-committal on most things they asked (or said she would and then somebody else stops it later.)

    5. Re:AGAIN??? by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1

      If the Indian's living and working in the US can do that, why can't you? RTFS. This isn't about outsourcing.

      Oh, right. They need to rent a room with 5 other H1-B Indians, and share meals of course. And they'll still have more to send home than it costs me to support a family. Even on the depressed (oops - I mean "documented comparable" - LOL) salary they are earning.

      --
      "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
      --- Jerry Garcia
    6. Re:AGAIN??? by sshirley · · Score: 1

      ILLEGAL according to *US* law. We're not talking about Americans.

    7. Re:AGAIN??? by sshirley · · Score: 1

      Plus I didn't say that Americans are better than everyone else. But there is a concept of protecting your own. Think of the US and it's citizens as a big family. Are you going to actively going to screw over your family? Or are you going to give preferential treatment to your family.

    8. Re:AGAIN??? by nschubach · · Score: 2

      No, you are discriminating against a person based on their citizenship. It has nothing to do with race. You could be a white citizen of India and still require the H1B to work here... race is insignificant to this.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
  18. Re:Realy? by Methuseus · · Score: 1

    Maybe I need to either move to Seattle, or become a developer. I work with the network/hardware support area and unemployment in my area (Tampa Bay) seems fairly high for those types of jobs. Oh, and I've heard Seattle is nice, as well. I will see as I am vacationing there in the next few months.

    --
    Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein
  19. Re:Realy? by Warlord88 · · Score: 1

    The current law stipulates that no more than 65,000 H1-B visas be issued each fiscal year. As of July 18, only 20,500 of these are filled. Of those, around 12,800 hold a Master's degrees. Are you suggesting that stopping the H1-B program is going to improve employment in US? No. What you'll be doing is reducing the quality of workers in American workplaces.

    As regards to removing taxation, I am somewhat ambiguous. One could argue that since H1-B holders are not eligible to receive Social Security benefits, so they should not pay taxes However, a significant number of H1-B holders stay on to obtain a green card, making them eligible for the said benefits. Personally, I have no problem paying the Social Security taxes. The job that I am going to start in a month or so is fairly high-tech, the work is very intellectually stimulating and is simply not done in my home country. I am more than happy to help the currently unemployed Americans by paying my share of taxes. I view this as a price I pay for the better living conditions and greater job satisfaction. Mind you, that does not mean that either of them will be able to do my job. If any American is as skilled as I am, he won't have any problem getting a similar job position as mine.

  20. Opting out of FICA by beamin · · Score: 1

    Yeah, who wouldn't want to subject all of their retirement savings to the booms and busts of a corrupt private market?

    1. Re:Opting out of FICA by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      as opposed to subjected it to the bust of a beyond bankrupt government. The social security monies really were looted and replaced with IOUs; many shills for the system are trying to portray it otherwise.

    2. Re:Opting out of FICA by fhage · · Score: 4, Informative

      You would rather trust it to the government?

      Yes. Please ask someone old enough to remember the many, many private pension raids and bankruptcies in the 1960's & 70's. It got so bad the people demanded the government step in and enforce minimal standards and provide for insurance. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employee_Retirement_Income_Security_Act

      Historically, private investment funds were often set up by wealthy people to attract the life's savings of the working class. The market is then manipulated such that the "market makers" (Job Creators :) win at the expense of the common investor. Laws are passed to prevent the manipulation. Yet the problem persists.

      How many times has US government social insurance gone bankrupt? I wonder when young people will realize they are being led to slaughter using the soothing drone of FUD on all government.

    3. Re:Opting out of FICA by saider · · Score: 1

      The fundamental problem with Social Security is that it is essentially a forced investment in US government Treasury bills. Your contribution goes to SS, which then invests it on your behalf in treasury bills. By purchasing T-bills, your contribution ends up into the government's general fund, where they can spend it at will. The government then makes payouts from the general fund to SS recipients. Essentially what you are doing is supporting last generation's retirees with the promise that the next generation will support you.

      Over the past several decades, the government could pay out more benefits as the baby boomers entered the workforce and increased contributions. The problem is that now that they are entering retirement, there will not be enough workers making contributions to support the relatively larger burden. This is the problem with Ponzi schemes - everything seems to work fine as long as you can bring in more than you pay out.

      This is why social security is fundamentally broken. If people could redirect that into a 401k or IRA, yes it would be subject to market swings, but it would still be more secure because the money is more directly controlled by the individual. It is not being redirected to someone else. You could invest in stocks when you are young and overall get a much better return.

      The problem is that people get greedy and leave their money in the stock market as they get closer to retirement because they want that bigger return. Then they cry foul when the market tanks and takes 2-3 years to recover. But there are funds out there that re-balance themselves based on your expected retirement date so that market swings have a smaller effect on your retirement. If people could make these kinds of choices instead of being forced to invest in the government, two things would happen.

      1) People would be better off with larger savings over the course of their lives.

      2) The government would be able to shave off one big budget item, because people would withdrawing from their IRAs or 401(k)s instead of receiving a social security check.

      --


      Remember, You are unique...just like everyone else.
    4. Re:Opting out of FICA by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Please ask someone old enough to remember the many, many private pension raids and bankruptcies in the 1960's & 70's."

      Those were corporate and union pension funds. I believe the other people here are talking about personal accounts, which are a completely different matter.

    5. Re:Opting out of FICA by rubycodez · · Score: 1

      they are IOUs, and that is what will crash in value on the world market if we default on national debt payments.

    6. Re:Opting out of FICA by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Over the past several decades, the government could pay out more benefits as the baby boomers entered the workforce and increased contributions. The problem is that now that they are entering retirement, there will not be enough workers making contributions to support the relatively larger burden. This is the problem with Ponzi schemes - everything seems to work fine as long as you can bring in more than you pay out.

      It's not anything close to a Ponzi Scheme for several reasons:

      1) The collectors of the payments die off, keeping the total number of people withdrawing from the system relatively stable.
      2) Each year more Americans enter the work force, ensuring new people enter the system at a similar rate.
      3) A Ponzi scheme lures people in by promising great rates of return, while the motivation for SSI is completely different. There's no promise nor expectation that you'll be able to withdraw more than you had put in.

      The Social Security system is in no danger of collapsing. All it will ever need is rebalancing. If it's paying out more than it's bringing in, then you have all sorts of options to rebalance. You can raise the retirement age, you can lower the payments, or you can up the SSI tax rate, or any of the three.

    7. Re:Opting out of FICA by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes. Please ask someone old enough to remember the many, many private pension raids and bankruptcies in the 1960's & 70's ... gone bankrupt? I wonder when young people will realize they are being led to slaughter using the soothing drone of FUD on all government.

      In 1967, LBJ and Congress realized they couldn't afford the newly passed Great Society programs nor the escalation in Veitnam, so they passed an amendment to the Social Security Act stating that ANY government program which creates a surplus, will loan that surplus to the general fund, in return for a promise that the general fund will repay the program in the years that the program runs a deficit.

      Since that day, the entire Social Security "Trust Fund" has been drained to paper over the endless deficit spending by the federal government. Last year, Social Security started paying out more than it takes it and that difference must come out of the general fund - the same general fund that is already bleeding $1.5 trillion in deficits per year. Simply put, Social Security was raided just like those private pension funds because the politicians knew that by the time the shit hit the fan, they'd be dead or retired and, thus, untouchable. Only problem is, there's nobody to bail out the government the way the government bailed out those pensions... We're $14.5 trillion in debt with an additional $15 trillion in unfunded Social Security obligations (and another $100 trillion if you count the Medicare programs).

      People have been warning that Social Security was eventually doomed to failure since the early 60s. The same people that told us, just a couple years ago, that Fannie and Freddie were fundamentally sound are still telling us that Social Security is as well. The dirty truth is, we're closer to collapse than most people think.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    8. Re:Opting out of FICA by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "The fundamental problem with Social Security is that it is essentially a forced investment in US government Treasury bills. "

      As a retirement plan, I'd argue the fundamental problem with Social Security is that you are not invested in anything - you simply receive a legislated amount from the government at a certain point whose details can change at any time. The retirement age has risen (and will keep rising), benefits will change (they have been lowered before by legislation), and your benefits will become more taxed (as they have been), lowering your actual "return on investment".

      People will argue that "Social Security is a safety blanket, not a retirement plan" which is fine, let's just all remember that.

    9. Re:Opting out of FICA by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "Please ask someone old enough to remember the many, many private pension raids and bankruptcies in the 1960's & 70's. "

      Indeed, I would neither trust a government nor a private company for defined benefit plans. Organizations both public and private lack the ability to maintain future planning for individuals. I would prefer to control my investments that I own myself.

    10. Re:Opting out of FICA by StopKoolaidPoliticsT · · Score: 1

      1) The total number of people withdrawing from Social Security is GROWING, not remaining stable. The single largest generation (the baby boomers) are just starting to collect. Over the next 20 years, the boomers will greatly weigh down the system and they will be retiring much faster than old people are dying AND young people entering the workforce.

      2) Again, the boomers are going to retire, removing people from the workforce. Some have suggested that we should even go so far as to entice the boomers to retire early as a solution to our unemployment problems, ignoring that it means they'll be sucking money out of the Social Security system even sooner.

      3) People receive roughly 3 times as much money FROM Social Security as they put into it... it is promising a great return and it is absolutely expected that you will be able to withdraw as least as much as you put into it, if not more. That was the "whole point" behind the system - to ensure old people never end up destitute, regardless of how long they live. On top of that, life expectencies have far exceeded the increase in minimum collection ag.

      Stick your head in the sand all you want. Social Security is already paying out more than it is taking in and there is NO money at all in the "trust fund," just a bunch of IOUs from the Treasury Department... and when Social Security runs a deficit, as it is currently doing even though the boomers are just starting to reitre, it means the money must come out of the general fund - the same fund bleedling $1.5 trillion a year right now. Social Security outlays alone have exceeded national defense spending since 1993 and by 2017, they'll amount to roughly $1 trillion a year (which is abut 50% higher than they are right now).

      As for fixing it, every time someone suggests modifying it in some way (usually a Republican), the scare tactics of how grandma is going to be forced to eat cat fod and whatnot come out. It's called the third rail of American politics for a reason, because if you touch it, you die. What Social Security is, is institutionalized generational theft - today's recipients steal from today's workers, leaving today's workers to steal from tomorrow's workers... and on top of that, today's retirees and the people they voted for drained the trust fund so that they could spend even more money that they didn't have, leaving today's and tomorrow's workers in even worse shape. It's going to come down to either telling grandma to take a cut or telling your kids to pay even more in taxes so that maybe they can no longer afford a house or food for their baby when they're starting out and not making much money and neither side is going to give in - grandma and her me generation is too greedy (they paid in already and want it back!) and sonny literally can't afford to pay more, especially since he can't even get a job because of the policies his grandma's generation pushed before he was even born.

      The bigger the Ponzi scheme, the longer it can run (Charles Ponzi's originally lasted 2 years and was wortha couple million, Bernie Madoff's lasted a couple decades and was worth billions, Social Security will last about a century and was worth trillions).. Just because Social Security hasn't collapse yet doesn't mean it isn't a Ponzi scheme, it means it is a well funded Ponzi scheme, mostly due to the fact that it is a Ponzi scheme made compulsory by the government.

      --
      Stop Koolaid Politics
    11. Re:Opting out of FICA by Wildclaw · · Score: 1

      The US is buying bonds created by the US, nominated in a currency owned and printed by the US. It is simple paper shuffling, nothing more, nothing less.

      It used to be a bit more than paper shuffling before the US went full fiat, but not any more.

      This is the problem with Ponzi schemes

      It isn't a Ponzi scheme. It is a regressive tax plus a social program, obfuscated as a savings scheme.

      The whole idea of everyone saving for their whole elderly existence is ludicrous. There is simply not enough savings capacity in the world to do it properly. Instead you pretend that savings occur, but in reality you are just taxing the young and using it to support the old.

      With a fiat currency base it becomes even simpler. It doesn't actually matter how much money you collect*. If you don't collect enough, you can always create more.

      The only thing you really have to watch out for is hyperinflation, which is basically just about ensuring that your country's white market production doesn't suddenly plummet. Especially in regards to basic goods.

      * Well, it does matter how much you collect, but for other reasons. It does have an effect on inflation, etcetera. But there is no hard demand on having to match up government income with expenses if you are using a government owned fiat currency.

      1) People would be better off with larger savings over the course of their lives.

      No, it would be pretty much the same, except that the financial markets would be far more volatile as you would pump more money into stocks instead of in government debt papers.

      Either way you are "investing" in the same thing which is US future productivity.

    12. Re:Opting out of FICA by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

      "Last year, Social Security started paying out more than it takes in"
      Only in the lowest-revenue quarter. On an annual basis SS still runs a surplus. See: http://www.ssa.gov/oact/progdata/assets.html . Over a $68 billion surplus in 2010.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  21. Ya, rly by beamin · · Score: 1

    The figures you mention are, as you said, for EACH FISCAL YEAR. There are many more than 20,500 (or even 65,000) H1-B visa holders in the US. I'm sure that you're a precious snowflake, but you're kidding yourself if you think that no one in a nation of 300 million could do the work you're doing.

  22. Re:Realy? by Tsingi · · Score: 1

    I am more than happy to help the currently unemployed Americans by paying my share of taxes. I view this as a price I pay for the better living conditions and greater job satisfaction.

    That's socially concious of you. too bad there aren't more people like you.

    Most of the people in this thread, it seems, have the attitude of the corporations. Give me all the money and to hell with everyone else.

    That's why the US is the mess it is today.

    As for US Social security, it's stable as long as they don't fuck with it. And they will, there's money in there, it doesn't matter that it's self sufficient, we can fix that!

    *gimme! mine!*

    Some would call this fascism.

  23. Wake up, H1B is not the real problem.. by goruka · · Score: 2, Insightful

    H1B is not taking your jobs, Outsourcing is.
    Workers under H1B may be appealing to some degree because they are cheaper and more over-workable, but they can be counted in the thousands, and they still help the economy by spending what they earn.

    Outsourced jobs, on the other hand, are in the millions and much more appealing economically to large companies. There's several millions of outsourced jobs, not only in India, but also taken by Chinese, east Europeans, Russians and Latin Americans.

    Also the tale that foreigners are less talented and that Americans should be hired instead is no longer relevant, the same way that china raised it's production standards the rest of the world is doing the same and each year there's more and more companies with excellent track records ready for outsorcing jobs from US and Euro companies.
    This is the real effect of globalization and opening trade. Rich countries thought they could own poorer countries by forcing them to compete equally and purchase their goods while providing cheap labor. This had the expected result of destroying most of the local industry in such countries and forcing them to rely on imports.
    However, no one expected the software industry to become so relevant worldwide. Cheap labor suddenly became cheap outsourcing, and there is no way first world workers can match the cheap costs of the third world, so this trend will continue and get worse.

    1. Re:Wake up, H1B is not the real problem.. by TheSync · · Score: 1

      "Workers under H1B may be appealing to some degree because they are cheaper and more over-workable, but they can be counted in the thousands, and they still help the economy by spending what they earn."

      Workers overseas also help the US economy by spending what they earn. For example, Avatar grossed $204 million in China. Apple had $1.3 billion in China sales last year (most of which is realized by the American design & development teams).

      But more importantly, overseas workers also help the US economy by providing us with cheaper final products, enhancing our personal life, and also providing cheaper inputs for American industry (see the Chinese steel tariff incident, which raised steel prices for American auto manufacturers).

    2. Re:Wake up, H1B is not the real problem.. by etrnl · · Score: 1

      They may not be the only problem, but they are a definite problem. Look at Cognizant, a company that I used to work for. It's headquartered here in the US, but 90% of it's workforce is in or from India. They're the #2 consumer of L1 visas in the US. How is it that an American company can get away with having more foreign nationals working in the US than US citizens?

      L1 visas. Because unlike the H1B, they don't have to advertise a job publicly before granting it to the overseas person, they can just fill the job. And blanket L1 visas (like what Cognizant uses) belong to the company, not the person, so at any point they can shift one foreign citizen back home and bring in someone else to replace them... without giving them time to find another way to stay in the country if they want. So not only is it shitty to us as American citizens, it allows for great abuse of the people in the country under that visa.

      If that doesn't scream "this is wrong", I don't know what does.

  24. Blah by p4nther2004 · · Score: 1

    The current law stipulates that no more than 65,000 H1-B visas be issued each fiscal year. As of July 18, only 20,500 of these are filled. Of those, around 12,800 hold a Master's degrees. Are you suggesting that stopping the H1-B program is going to improve employment in US? No. What you'll be doing is reducing the quality of workers in American workplaces.

    Ahem.

    1. I have a master's degree. Meh.
    2. Currently I'm employeed...but ask me about March 2009.
    3. Yes - I'm serious suggesting that stopping the H1-B program WILL improve my chances of employment in the US.

    YMMV.

  25. Better think twice about quitting social security. by bluesalt · · Score: 1

    Some people here seem think eliminating social security taxes would mean you get to keep that extra money. Consider instead that most employers will just cut pay. Many people wouldn't even notice since the $ amount stays the same on their paychecks.

    Why do you think the emphasis was on how much money the software industry could save? It won't be any different when they "privatize" Social Security for Americans.

  26. I won't argue that outsourcing is by p4nther2004 · · Score: 1

    the worse problem. It's hard to hire a 60k a year programmer when you can hire 10 6K a year programmers.

    But H1B's don't help either. Ideally they should be paid market rates, but employers bring them in as junior programmer (lower cost) and once here, the H1B acts like a straight-jacket, making more difficult for the employee to quit/change jobs.

    I'm better than an H1B - by a long shot - but financially it's hard to argue with an H1B and offshoring.

    The solution for me is to open my own business. Provide the contracting/consulting/marketing that H1Bs and offshoring don't provide. Then when I get a contract, I can hire those guys cheap, verify the work, and rake in the difference as profit.

    The long term solution is for this recession/depression to continue...as the dollar keeps falling against the rupie - those 6K programmer are suddenly 30k...and offshore...and everything else that makes offshoring and H1B difficult.

    No wonder Indian officials are screaming to exempt their workers from Social Security.

    1. Re:I won't argue that outsourcing is by goruka · · Score: 1

      That is exactly the problem. As things stand, the day 6K programmers become 30K is the day the US stops being the largest economic power, either because other countries became richer, or because the US became poorer, or both, otherwise it makes no sense, because there will always be plenty of people ready to work for less in underdeveloped countries. Even if oursourcing costs in india would rise, there would still be more appealing places to outsource..

  27. NWO by Curunir_wolf · · Score: 1, Funny

    Lucifer Clinton doesn't give a rip about the US or any of the slaves living here. She's busy laying the groundwork for the New World Order, in which she will be one of the ruling elites. I mean, she spent more money securing a beard for her mistress Huma Abedin than I spend on everything over 10 years. And he couldn't even keep his hands off the Tweeter to keep from screwing that up.

    --
    "Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
    --- Jerry Garcia
  28. Re:Realy? by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    Yeah, we know you can't do it. At least not with a straight face.

  29. Re:Amazing by sumdumass · · Score: 1

    The social security tax the company pays is separate from the tax the employee pays unless the employee is a self employed owner of the company.

    There is no indication that a foreign employee not paying SS tax would mean that the company that hires them would not pay the SS tax.

  30. Re:Realy? by mdf356 · · Score: 1

    Hiring is the same in the Bay area (so I read), but the cost of living is higher.

    --
    Terrorist, bomb, al Qaeda, nuclear, yellowcake, kill, assassinate. Carnivore is dead... long live Echelon.
  31. Too bad Bush isn't in office by Shivetya · · Score: 2

    then at least the Democrats in Congress could go berserk and the press would dutifully report how much the President is selling out the hard working Americans who desperately need his help. Instead this won't even register except on techy sites.

    Kind of like how the press and Democrats are doing the big freak out when Republican controlled states are reigning in public employee entitlements and turning a blind eye to the Democrat controlled ones who in many cases are rolling over the employees worse.

    I so wish the press wasn't so overtly biased... if anything their lack of action is the best reason to have a Republican as President, then at least we can call them to the carpet when necessary

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Too bad Bush isn't in office by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not even just bias, there really isn't much in the way of good journalism anymore. My city's paper was once world class and the recipient of multiple Pulitzer Prizes. Now, they make interns (speaking of cheap labor) do most of the work and even headlines have typos from time to time. On the other hand, some of those Pulitzer Prize winning journalists can't get a job because they're worth too much. Every once in awhile, I see a well done piece but it's rare enough that I celebrate when I see one.

      Geez, did we just stop caring about quality as a country?

    2. Re:Too bad Bush isn't in office by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      It's not even just bias, there really isn't much in the way of good journalism anymore.

      Why should they bother...MUCH easier to just parrot the governments press releases pretty much verbatim.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  32. Re:"thanks for calling helpdesk." by perryizgr8 · · Score: 1

    do people immigrate to us and get call center jobs? nope. this is entirely irrelevant.

    --
    Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
  33. Really? by n5yat · · Score: 1

    You choose to work here, you get to pay taxes like the rest of us, including SS taxes.

  34. Outsourcing the US by bogibear · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight. The US sends jobs overseas to India when we have high unemployment. Wouldn't the country be better served by using domestic talent, allowing them to spend their hard earned money in our stale economy? Perhaps we need a domestic policy that gives priority for the US government to give jobs to qualified Americans. Make any contractor do the same.

    Take a step further, kill the outsourcing bug by offering companies tax incentives to hire domestic talent. I'm sure there isn't a dearth of talent or people that want jobs within our borders.

  35. Representation by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    As a H1B, no, you are not eligible for social security.
    (Taxation without representation?)

    Uh, no. I mean, H1B's are taxed without representation, but not for that reason. Because being eligible for social security isn't representation either. H1B's (and green card holders, who are eligible for social security, and anyone else who is not a citizen but is subject to any federal, state, or local taxes in the U.S., no matter which tax and no matter what benefits they are eligible for) are taxed without representation because they are taxed by the US government (and/or by State governments, including administrative subdivisions of states) but have no right to representation in the US or State government.

    Representation in a government is (logically) orthogonal to eligibility for benefits provided by that government.

  36. Pay close attention to what is going on by DragonWriter · · Score: 1

    So let me get this straight. The US sends jobs overseas to India when we have high unemployment.

    Actually what India is asking for (note, India is asking: there is no indication that anyone in the U.S. government is doing anything but recieving the request) is that Indian workers employed on notionally temporary Visas in the U.S. are granted an exemption from U.S. taxes that will make hiring such workers in the U.S. more attractive to U.S.-based employers.

    Perhaps we need a domestic policy that gives priority for the US government to give jobs to qualified Americans.

    We already have one. The issue here is private jobs, not government jobs. Most U.S. government jobs require U.S. citizenship. I think some may accept lawful permanent residents. None allow H-1Bs.

  37. Re:"thanks for calling helpdesk." by Savantissimo · · Score: 1

    We're effectively importing the labor. If overseas call centers were illegal or had a sufficiently high tariff, then the call center jobs would come back to the US and immigrants would be seeking those jobs here.

    --
    "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry