How European Startups Are Battling Labor Laws For Developers and Programmers

Nerval's Lobster writes "The United States with its H-1B controversy isn't the only country going through that sort of immigration upheaval. As the cult of entrepreneurship spirals upward in Europe, the intricate vagaries of immigration policy on the continent are being newly scrutinized by our company-building classes. Freshly venture-backed European Internet companies want talent, and they are going to remarkable lengths to get it — but not always legally. Milo Yiannopoulos talked to whole bunch of entrepreneurs and investors in Europe about the fudges, shortcuts, workarounds and, in some cases, 'strategic decision-making' are — just about — getting their companies the talent they need. For example, one well-known Parisian venture capitalist told Milo that he knows of 'at least nine' startups in France employing developers illegally, keeping them off the books not only to avoid France's notoriously onerous labor laws but also because it would have been impossible, or simply too expensive, to import them officially."

Comments

so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Chirs]

If the laws of the land are too onerous, the correct solutions are either to change the laws or else go somewhere else.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[cayenne8]

If the laws of the land are too onerous, the correct solutions are either to change the laws or else go somewhere else.

That's what most companies do.

Why doesn't the US set corporate tax to near "0"....for all companies set up physically IN the US with over X number of employees in the states? I'd think we'd be attracting all sorts of businees to our shores. The lack of corp tax would offset to a great deal the higher salaries to be paid here.

Also, make those non-tax incentives to have to hire US citizens....

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

1. Because it is a race to the bottom: if you're getting companies in there because of your 'near zero' corporate tax, don't be surprised if they move to another country with 'nearer zero' corporate tax, and lower payroll tax as well, and maybe poorer working conditions.
2. Because if a company isn't paying corporate tax, then it is much harder for it to be worth having them in the country (the cost of servicing their existence may exceed their return to society/government)

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gl4ss]

If the laws of the land are too onerous, the correct solutions are either to change the laws or else go somewhere else.

Maybe they can't move to the other place to work legally either, Setting up a legal entity in China can be an adventure of it's own.
But it's not really that hard to employ people legally in europe, even if they're from India or China. Hell, it's easier to get the travel permits if you employ them legally.

HOWEVER.. if you don't employ them officially you can screw them. Also you save a ton of money in taxes. That's what "uuu it's too expeeensive!!!" and bitching about the labor laws is about.

actually, they can _screw_ the owners. technically it's the employers fault and they could ask for all the benefits, unpaid holidays etc if the company folds and the owners/employer would be on the hook for them(it's not the illegal immigrant who arranged the situation so technically I think it's just, it's also practical. that's why people employing illegal immigrants generally don't want them to mingle with general population because they would tell all kinds of things about rights and how their illegally acting employer is potentially in deep shit because dodging taxes is serious business)... really, what the fuck is a thousand bucks on paperwork to get some guy that's going to cost you 6-10 thousand euros (legally paid ok pay) per month anyhow, are you going to make your talent live in illegal 10 persons per apartment shithole in some Parisian suburbs? are yo looking for coders or pizza delivery boys?? If your business needs them to work for pennies and you can't afford the taxes, make them partners or something - don't be a dick, it's going to cost you a ton if you are.

In other words, it's not really a problem in Europe to get the permits, it's relatively cheap as well.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[mlts]

Even better, move to a VAT system... far harder to hide physical objects than money trails.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Alex Belits]

If labor laws are too onerous, you shut up and obey them if you want to benefit from others' work.

Re: so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

i just came back from the cinema in ireland. i went alone. i sae happy friends there eatching movies. they werent irish. irish people are too busy slaving off debts to go. maybe too proud like me to have friends when theu have no job. better to be an immigrant.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[alexander_686]

Could you say again what you want? I am not following you.

For context, most of the world uses a “source” standard of income. If you earned X dollars in country Y you pay Country Y’s tax on those X dollars. America (and a few other small countries) uses a domicile test – If you are a American corporation you will pay American taxes on that income no matter where it was earned. (This at times has led to a tax rate over 100% - so America put in a lot of fudges, exemptions, etc. which makes our tax code very inefficient.)

So, to you – should small companies (under X people) pay corporate tax and not big ones? Why would they move to America if they still had to pay profit on their overseas operations? (I am assuming that if a company were operating oversea that their market would remain there while they were physically here?)

(FYI, I am all for dropping the corporate tax rate to near zero – assuming is is coupled with the closer of some loopholes. And, I think part of America’s future is being an international hub, where bright people from around the world come and mix to create new things – so nix the non-citizen part – welcome almost everybody.)

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the 0 tax would only help the rich get richer and we can't have that at all these days.

Even if they are helping to maintain a healthy middle class.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can I have some of your cool aid?

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

Because it is a race to the bottom:

Yes. It's called "competition". It's what keeps markets efficient and prices low. It's what makes people better off over time.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

Because it is a race to the bottom:

Yes. It's called "competition". It's what keeps markets efficient and prices low. It's what makes people better off over time.

Sure, I'll acknowledge competition can encourage market efficiency and prices low. It's a bit of a stretch to claim that a race to the bottom makes people better off over time. It makes some people better off over time, but I think you're overreaching an awful lot to claim it 'makes people better off over time' more generally than that.

e.g. it is 'efficient', temporarily, for companies to use as close to slave labor as they can obtain with the minimum safety standards that prevent loss due to injured or killed workers that exceeded the cost of having safety equipment and protocols. It reduces production cost to a minimum, which makes things cheaper.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[darkwing_bmf]

If the laws of the land are too onerous, the correct solutions are either to change the laws or else go somewhere else.

Sadly this is not possible. This only works if people are free to live and work in whatever country they want. Unfortunately, this freedom is not allowed (or is so onerous that it might as well not be allowed).

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[peragrin]

really? ask dell, HP, levono, and all the other computer makers what a race to the bottom looks like.

No having multiple companies each trying to find an edge to expand into is what makes the market efficient.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

The problem with a VAT system is that it is a flat tax, which means all individuals are taxes equally on what they buy irrespective of income. Some have argued that this is fine, since higher-income individuals consume more and thus pay higher taxes. In practice, though, this is not what happens - the proportion of income which is saved or stashed increases with income. Someone on $20k a year will be spending essentially all their income; someone on $200k a year is much less likely to be. It is the same reason that (some have argued) having a means test on a stimulus package is a good idea because those on lower incomes are more likely to spend it. I should note others have argued that the opposite is true and low income earners will save the 'free cash'.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[ShanghaiBill]

2. Because if a company isn't paying corporate tax, then it is much harder for it to be worth having them in the country (the cost of servicing their existence may exceed their return to society/government)

I got news for you: Most corporations pay little if any corporate income tax. Big corporations avoid most income tax by funneling their profits through overseas subsidiaries. Small corporations avoid income tax by electing S corp status. A good tax collects revenue efficiently while having few deleterious consequences. Corporate income taxes are the opposite: they collect almost no revenue while inhibiting the creation of jobs. But corporations still pay plenty of payroll taxes, excise taxes, sales taxes, etc.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

Yep, many corporations do ay little or no corporate tax. In some countries they then wind up the targets of investigation and receive tax bills and fines.
I don't think your comment supports dropping the corporate tax rate to zero, but rather better policing and tax law management.

I've seen the claim that corporate income taxes inhibit job creation, but I've not seen convincing evidence that it does. I've also not seen convincing evidence that it doesn't, mind you.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because it is a race to the bottom:

Yes. It's called "competition". It's what keeps markets efficient and prices low. It's what makes people better off over time.

The problem is that there are multiple definitions of "efficiency" and "prices low" and "better off". If you are prepared to constantly lower and narrow your own standards, then it can always be claimed that people are better off, despite stagnating wages, skyrocketing debt, contracting economic and educational opportunity and the ravages of preventable health maladies.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Skapare]

Just contract the work out.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[chris.alex.thomas]

yes, this is rife in spain.

sometimes people are employed autonomo (freelance) and it's apparently a law that if you bill one client 80+% of your total income they have to contract you, to stop the company from cheaping out on the taxes, etc.

then if they fire you, you can get a nice little deal under the table where they agree to pay you X thousand euros because they broke the law and they are gonna get screwed if they get found out, they would need to pay a fine for the tax avoidance, your holiday pay, etc, etc.

although it's not well known, it's useful to know a friend who tells you this so you know when it's your time under the axe, you have a nice ace in the hole to play with, that X thousand euro payment will help a lot when you're looking for a new job sipping mojitos on the beach in barcelona :D

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[ShanghaiBill]

In some countries they then wind up the targets of investigation and receive tax bills and fines.

... and other corporations notice that, and locate their new facilities someplace more welcoming.

I don't think your comment supports dropping the corporate tax rate to zero, but rather better policing and tax law management.

Every dollar the government spends on better policing and better tax law management is one dollar less for something else. Likewise with every dollar that corporations spend on tax avoidance. US corporations already spend about $200 billion per year on tax avoidance. If the corporate income tax was cut to zero, all of that money could go into something productive, and the end result would be higher overall tax revenues from payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc.

I've seen the claim that corporate income taxes inhibit job creation, but I've not seen convincing evidence that it does.

When a company moves its headquarters overseas, the executive and administrative jobs go with it. When American businesses spend hundreds of billions on accountants and tax attorneys, that is just dead end spending that results in no useful goods or services, and no job growth.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Immerman]

How about applying a VAT system to the stock market and other such investments as well? Seems to me that would be an excellent solution for gathering tax revenue in a more income-neutral manner, while also slightly reducing the volatility of the markets. Or if we wanted to *really* stabalize the markets we could apply a flat sales tax - even a fraction of a percent would eliminate virtually all profit from high frequency trading, as well as discouraging day-trading and other short-term "investing".

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

In some countries they then wind up the targets of investigation and receive tax bills and fines.

... and other corporations notice that, and locate their new facilities someplace more welcoming.

There is a level of 'welcoming' at which the benefit of keeping the corporations is outweighed by the cost.

I don't think your comment supports dropping the corporate tax rate to zero, but rather better policing and tax law management.

Every dollar the government spends on better policing and better tax law management is one dollar less for something else. Likewise with every dollar that corporations spend on tax avoidance. US corporations already spend about $200 billion per year on tax avoidance. If the corporate income tax was cut to zero, all of that money could go into something productive, and the end result would be higher overall tax revenues from payroll taxes, sales taxes, excise taxes etc.

Yes and no. If the government can get a $1 return on a $0.50 investment in policing tax then they have recovered additional money, so it was a good investment. If a company can only save $0.50 on tax by investing $1 in tax avoidance, then there is no benefit to them engaging in tax avoidance. As the ROI of tax avoidance drops, tax avoidance drops, and the ROI of government investment in tax policing drops. End result: less money being spend on taxation itself, and more on other things by both company and government.

I've seen the claim that corporate income taxes inhibit job creation, but I've not seen convincing evidence that it does.

When a company moves its headquarters overseas, the executive and administrative jobs go with it. When American businesses spend hundreds of billions on accountants and tax attorneys, that is just dead end spending that results in no useful goods or services, and no job growth.

I agree, but I disagree with you on the solution to this problem (see above).

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

The latter sounds like the Tobin Tax.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Hackysack]

>>>> Someone on $20k a year will be spending essentially all their income; someone on $200k a year is much less likely to be.

Provide rebates for people who make $whateverAmount. It also encourages tax filing, which is always good. In Canada, if you make less than a certain amount, the government will send you cheques quarterly for what your GST expenses would be.

VAT Taxes are a good, useful tax, but they should not be the only tax. Income taxes are better at targeting high value targets with more appropriate tax rates, but they're ass backwards in that they target the generation of income, which the government always wants to encourage.

What we most need across most of the west is a better way to prevent money from pooling the way it does into the pockets of certain individuals and corporations; or to pull it out of those pools when it does. Each dollar or euro or peso or whatever is a little bit like matter, they create wells which attract similar objects. When you have 0 dollars it's very difficult to get more, when you have $10,000,000, it's very easy to get more. Money forms pools, it's the government's job to break up these pools and keep the money flowing.

VAT taxes tax the flow of money, which is ok in small amounts, but shouldn't be used in large amounts.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[ShanghaiBill]

If the government can get a $1 return on a $0.50 investment in policing tax then they have recovered additional money, so it was a good investment.

It is only a good investment if you believe a $0.50 increase in government revenue is worth sucking twice that amount out of the economy. What is the government going to spend that $0.50 on that would be better than a company investing a $1 of profit back into growing their business?

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[nbauman]

3. Because when companies get tax breaks, the local governments don't get tax revenue to run schools to educate the employees that the companies will need. That's why we don't have the technology-savvy employees the companies want (among other reasons).

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[nbauman]

That's what economic theory teaches. Reality is more complicated.

Here's reality: Suppose I'm a contractor with a bunch of construction workers digging trenches. Now trench collapses are a major cause of workplace deaths. You prevent trench collapses by shoring up the sides of the trenches if they get too deep or the soil is too damp. It takes longer to shore up the sides, so it takes longer and costs more to do the job safely. If the trench collapses, and kills a few workers, it doesn't cost the contractor anything, because it's a worker's compensation case, which means the state pays (and doesn't pay much), and these businesses are run as corporations, so the contractor simply goes bankrupt and starts a new corporation.

Most contractors don't shore up the sides of the trenches. They can bid low for these jobs. If a contractor were to shore up the sides of the trenches, it would cost him more, he'd have to bid more, and he wouldn't get the job.

So the result of competition in the free market is for contractors to run their businesses in a way that kills their employees. Because unemployment is so high, they can always get more employees, who are desperate for work and willing to face the risk of death.

And that's the race to the bottom.

(OSHA can't stop it because they they don't have enough inspectors. They'd need a thousand times as many inspectors to visit all these small sites.)

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[nbauman]

I've talked to corporate executives. Their biggest problem isn't taxes. It's sales. If they sold enough, profitably enough, they could easily pay taxes.

Taxes might be significant if you had many companies manufacturing commodities with hairline profits.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Maxo-Texas]

You need to read up on Robber Barons and Company stores and then follow it up with some reading on the labor movements of the 1920's which helped stop working 12 year olds 72 hours a week.

Unlimited Capitalism and competition is REALLY ugly.

You need to decide some reasonable boundaries and allow competition inside of those boundaries.

Otherwise you end up with most people basically slaves with shoddy, unhealthy (even poisonous) products that break quickly.

The only thing that makes capitalism and competition work are strong labor laws, strong drug laws, strong warranty laws, strong pollution laws and a government that enforces them.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

If you accept the assumption that the money would be spent on the company putting growth back into the business, and that such growth would beneficial outside the company and the shareholders, and there is not an increase in supporting costs (e.g. roads and other infrastructure costs) that exceed the increased tax as a result of the growth then sure, having the extra tax is not necessarily a good thing.

If you accept the assumption that effective tax policing would make it no longer cost effective to spend large on tax avoidance and so the company simply paid the tax, then the government can spend the tax on infrastructure, social supports, etc AND the company can spend the profits it does get on growth.

In my view, the solution to corporations avoid tax is to (1) consider whether corporation taxes are a good way to tax, but then assuming the conclusion is that they are then (2) brutally enforce them - not to roll over and drop the corporate tax rate to 0 on the assumption that the money will go to into growing the company which will somehow be good for the people and society of the country.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

So the real problem here is that the public has assumed a risk and the contractor doesn't have to bear that risk anymore. If the contractor were actually liable to the tune of, say $20m per killed employee (cost of human life plus some penalty), he would shore up the side of the trenches. Of course, if the employees were rational, they would refuse to even work for a contractor who doesn't provide safety equipment. In effect, that's what strikes and unions do. The problem is that, instead of dealing with the problem in a market way, namely by getting individual contractors to change their conduct, they have forced the state to assume the contractor's risk, resulting exactly in the problem you describe.

In effect, we're piling one bad regulation on top of another: public assumption of workplace risk, freeing corporate officers from liability, ineffective and costly OSHA inspections, etc. In the end, every special interest group, whether it's workers in dangerous professions, their employers, corporate officers, etc. is trying to get rich and lazy by saying "I don't want to have to worry about this, let the tax payer pay for it". That's not a "race to the bottom" (in terms of working conditions) at all, it's a completely different kind of failure.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

No, you need to stop conflating the conditions at the dawn of the industrial revolution with today's conditions, and you need to stop giving false credit. What stopped 12 year olds working 72 hours a week was not just that the labor movement demanded it, but that the industrial revolution made it possible; the same 12 year olds used to work 72 hours a week (and more) before the industrial revolution, but people didn't stop that because economic conditions made it impossible.

Today, programming is not dangerous industrial work. The idea that programmers need to be protected from predatory employers by applying workplace standards developed for dangerous manual labor is ludicrous. Most people these days should be free to contract for work in whatever way they like. And they want to, as you can see from the declining union memberships.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[SerpentMage]

This is the classical mistake where people like you assume that labor is a resource like steel, or oil. Humans are not a resource, for they are unpredictable, and stochastic. Meaning if I drop steel I have certain physical properties. Where as if I drop a person I will have a multitude of reactions.

"For example, in the classic case of the original Luddites, when it became cheaper to make clothing due to technological advance, people had more money to spend elsewhere, and that elsewhere is where the new jobs go, and you invariably see more jobs created than had existed before that "job costing" technology was invented. It happens every single time, without fail"

Silicon Valley; In fact jobs have left and have not been created. Sure there are success stories, but the influence of Silicon Valley as a job creator has waned. Take for example Apple, or Oracle, who have jobs there, but have created a huge number of jobs outside of that region. Facebook is a bit of the old culture of creating jobs in silicon valley. New jobs have not replaced the old jobs. I can bring in many other examples of where more jobs are not created.

"As for minimum wage...If your wage was below what you're willing to work for, then you'd simply not take the job. This is a fact. Most people do in fact work at above minimum wage. Minimum wage has the following effect: For the low end workers who really aren't worth a shit (there are many out there - this nobody can deny) they simply have no job at all. Whereas they could have at least had SOMETHING, they now have nothing. This has two effects: Increased unemployment, and higher prices. Because prices now go up to match that minimum wage increase, your purchasing power hasn't really gone anywhere. Most people tend to equate money with wealth, and that relationship isn't one to one."

Wrong, another example, Germany. Germany has no minimum wage and in fact there is this concept of hunger wages. This means a person is working full time, and does not even come close to making enough money to support their family. I am talking wages of about 1 euro per hour. The government kicks in social help to make ends meet. Germany has shown that to survive you will take work below your pay because you need to do something.

"A classic example I look at is this: Back in 2001, I paid $3800 for a 50" tv. The thing was pretty massive not just in diagonal length, but it was pretty fat too - it was rear projection. A really big and obnoxious TV by today's standard. Last year I "upgraded" my whole living room: Bought a new leather couch, ($1,200) built a 5.1 surround system from the ground up (none of the HTIB crap, a truly good sound system, $1,000ish with 8 channel lossless audio) and a new samsung 50" tv that has a MUCH better picture quality than the one from 11 years ago, consumes a lot less power and is light enough for one person to carry. Total spent was $3,200. Basically by spending less I have more "wealth" than I did 10 years ago - and that's even ignoring inflation."

Oh yes just because I can pay for cheaper consumer crap things are ok. I am going to ask how old are you? For life also includes health care, education, etc. These costs have become prohibitive for the poor. Sure they are given loans and then get jobs where they can barely pay back these things. But hey as long as I can get get cheap consumer crap all is ok, right?

"When somebody tells you that the poor are poorer and the wealthy are wealthier because - adjusted for inflation - the poor are making fewer dollars today than they were in the 90's, they have no idea what they are talking about. "

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Cheaper consumer crap yes. Cheaper food? NO, but I guess you don't buy food do you? Again the question of age. The poor are poorer than the average poor of say 40 years ago. When economists measure poverty and such they don't measure it in absolute values like how much currency you have. The measure it in terms of what you can afford for the monies you make. Again, g

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[SerpentMage]

Again not seeing the reality are we? The GP has made a legite point and all you do is fire back the theory. First we do have liability laws on the books. Second, lets for the fun of it say that 20 million needs to be paid. What about those situation where a company produces a product and it is bad with people dying or getting sick? Tooth paste? Asbestos? Lead Paint? and the list goes on. Are you going to convict each and every company?

Oh wait this has already happened and why the US pays so much for health care. Doctors have to buy extremely expensive mal-practice insurance. People are bitching and whining about it is too easy to sue.

What the GP is saying, and this is the problem. When you have one set of contractors cutting corners to get a job, you setup a race to the bottom. And there is no amount of legislation, etc that will stop that. The problem here is to figure out how to stop the race to the bottom.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[SerpentMage]

Oh bloody hell, what history books have you read? I ask you a simple question why on earth are kids still working today in other countries? The only thing that stopped child labor were the laws! And wow you have not dealt with programmers in India or other places?

While programming is not dangerous work in terms of physical danger, have you seen the programming pits of some of these offshore places? I have! And trust me it ain't pretty. They work ungodly number of hours and behave like monkeys (lack of sleep) when the boss comes by.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Have you ever tried changing a bureaucracy? even when you're succesfull your talking about months, years or decades of effort to effect change. Not a very practical solution for a startup.

Besides theoretically we have a democratic governemnt, where power is delegated by individuals to the governemnt. When people disagree with the government they should be able to revoke their delegation and make the government up and leave.
In practice what we have is a kleptocratic bureaucracy with a democratic facade, which is why that idea is not very realistic

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

If the contractor were actually liable to the tune of, say $20m per killed employee (cost of human life plus some penalty), he would shore up the side of the trenches.

Like he said, the contractor just declares himself bankrupt and then starts a different company.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Cryacin]

It's hard to see the realities of life when you sit in an ivory tower contemplating what the peasants might be doing today.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[xelah]

The problem with a VAT system is that it is a flat tax, which means all individuals are taxes equally on what they buy irrespective of income.

The structure of corporate taxes isn't better in this regard, and is often worse. The poor pensioner with a few stocks gets her dividends with corporate taxes taken off (assuming they're actually paid in the first place...), and so does the wealthy investor. In the UK at least, owners of businesses are likely to pay less tax than typical employees overall because they can manipulate the structure much more than an employee can. In the UK that might mean receiving their income as dividends, which have a lower income tax rate and don't attract NI (a 'payroll tax'), or for the adventurous it might mean tax avoidance structures involving tax havens. I imagine it's similar elsewhere: extra flexibility enables avoidance.

My opinion is that corporate taxes are just too hard to define well to be worth doing anyway. eg, I work for a (very) small company with shareholders in the UK, US and Brazil, people working for it in the UK, US, Argentina, India and the Ukraine and custom/potential custom in various places in South America. Which government should collect the corporate taxes? Whose rules do you apply? Defining profit as a whole is hard enough, physically locating it can be an exercise in futility. Instead, I think it'd be better to tax profit when it becomes an individual's income (and to tax all kinds of income the same - salary, royalties, dividends, interest, capital gains, whatever). Far fewer individuals have an ambiguous location, it's ultimately individuals who benefit from government services, it's easier to define an individual's income and it's possible to make the tax rates progressive. And, of course, if you eliminate a whole layer of taxation you can eliminate a whole layer of avoidance, distorted behaviour and bureaucracy.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[xelah]

There's no 'value added' to tax here (except for the stockbrokers services). VAT is not charged on sales of second-hand assets of all kinds, which includes houses, cars and shares, for this reason. The seller has not added any value. It sounds like what you want is really just a capital gains tax. I'd agree with you: you should pay the same on capital gains as on any other kind of income. But this should be individuals only, not companies (because the companies gain will either be a loss somewhere else, or become an individual's income someday).

There are already flat taxes on share purchases (eg, in the UK: https://www.gov.uk/tax-buying-selling-shares/buying-shares ... I think the HFT people avoid it somehow, though).

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

Thanks for the detailed answer.

First, I'd like to point out that although you can provide examples where 'a race to the bottom' has not occurred, that doesn't actually mean that a race to the bottom doesn't or can't occur.
Second, I'd like to point out that technology can take away jobs. That doesn't mean technology should be avoided, but it does mean that the impact on employment needs to be taken into consideration in terms of how to manage the social impacts of labor-replacing technology.
Third, although I am willing to acknowledge that a minimum wage could indeed reduce employment, that may be better than the alternative.

I'll get to tarrifs later.

As for the first one, even if new technology doesn't create new jobs while getting rid of the old ones but in the short term results in layoffs, in the long run the demand for labor continues to rise.

This is a theoretical rather than an empirical argument (which my race-to-the-bottom was too, to be fair). There is no reason that demand for labor should increase. As an example, let's say a company which manufactures widgets current does so by hand. They find a great way to do it automatically using machines, and switch to it. First, we need to assume that the cost of production using machines is lower than the cost of production using people, taking into account the initial outlay for the machines depreciated over a period of time. This assumption is based on the idea that the company would not have switched to the new production system if it were not predicted to be cheaper. Perhaps a subset of the people who used to make widgets are able to do maintenance on the machines, so some of them switch to doing that. (This is a dubious assumption because the skills may be very different, or higher skills may be necessary to work on the equipment).
Because there is new equipment, someone needs to build it, so there are some jobs there. The equipment requires materials, which have to be mined, so there is perhaps a little more employment there. However, if the company making widgets has higher profits as a result, then either there are less people employed for the same (or more) pay, or more people employed for less pay. Why? Because that extra profit has to come from somewhere, and if previously the full expenditure was on employment and the expenditure has dropped, then less expenditure must be going on employment. (That is, unless I've tripped over a logic flaw here somewhere).
Perhaps some of that extra profit gets spent on consumables, which need to be produces and so there is some extra employment there, or on services which likewise require some employment. However, so long as the original expenditure was on employment, there can be at absolute most an equal $ value of employment as there was before.

So really, there is nothing in the move to new technology (for manufature at least) which necessarily leads to greater demand for labor.

As for the second - the argument that we need to reduce working hours is often tried, and instead of getting reduced unemployment, you get the opposite. Every single time. Counter-intuitive I realize, but it is a fact nonetheless. The reasoning for this is rather simple:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

I'll start by pointing out a section from that very Wikpedia article:
'This common argument against the use of restricted working hours to reduce unemployment has recently been questioned, with one scholar arguing that "substituting a dubious fallacy claim for an authentic economic theory may have obstructed fruitful dialogue about working time and the appropriate policies for regulating it". Tom Walker holds that the lump of labour idea is a straw man, arguing that most proponents of restriction on working hours do not hold the simplistic view. He argues that a reduction of working hours can have

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are correct, I know multiple IT firms that contract Chinese workers in Europe that are doing just fine, its not that difficult and its working out just fine.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

"As for minimum wage...If your wage was below what you're willing to work for, then you'd simply not take the job. This is a fact."

No it's not. A wage below what you want (or even can afford to live on) is still better than no wage at all.
This is a fact that is proven by all people living in employed poverty.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[chrish]

What's wrong with telecommuting?

Europe's got fast, cheap Internet infrastructure... are they still mired in the 9-5, you-must-be-at-the-office mentality affecting North America? If folks need an 'office' for meetings or whatever, there are shared office space providers in a lot of big cities.

If the hiring/immigration laws are too onerous or whatever, try something completely different, don't keep dorking around with the same immigration trickery.

This sort of stinks of offshoring, but that's something companies already love, isn't it?

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[kraut]

Corporation tax is a small fraction of the taxes companies pay. All their employees will be paying income taxes, for starters.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[ultranova]

What is the government going to spend that $0.50 on that would be better than a company investing a $1 of profit back into growing their business?

Roads, electric grid, water, sanitation, education, healthcare, public order, enviromental protection, basic research, national defense, social security...

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[mjwalshe]

Yes Holland or the UK are very welcoming to start ups and and you effectively employ people on trial for the first year or so in the UK and Holland

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[nbauman]

Contractors are forcing their workers to work under dangerous conditions, and the contractors in turn are forced to do that if they want to meet the lowest bid of a free market.

I don't see how this is the result of government regulation. It's the result of a lack of government regulation, and a free market.

I don't see how individual contractors would change their conduct in a market way. In the 19th century, the law in the US said that workers assumed the risk of their job, and the employer wasn't responsible for their injuries. That's the free market you get without government interference. It required government interference, in the form of a state workers' compensation system, to make the employer more financially responsible for worker injuries. It required government interference in the form of sending OSHA inspectors to the workplace to get the employer to adopt safer work practices.

Look at a country that has no effective government regulation of workplace safety, like India. Indian workers are working in even worse conditions, and they pay even less regard to safety. There are Indian companies that break down ships for scrap, and they have workers working barefoot on beaches.

I've studied state and federal OSHA regulations, and I've talked to OSHA regulators and the businessmen they regulate. OSHA did a pretty good job -- much better than most of the unregulated businesses did on their own. For example, California OSHA found out that a lot of workers were getting electrocuted from a new kind of boom truck, so they changed the design of the truck and improved worker training. Ronald Reagan shut down California OSHA.

The problem with OSHA is that the anti-regulatory conservatives (mostly Republican but also Democratic) cut OSHA's budget, which cut the number of inspectors and analysts who studied workplace safety to identify the problems. As a result, OSHA has been less effective in solving these widespread problems. We have guards at stores to stop theft, but we don't have OSHA inspectors at work sites to stop injuries. That's what conservatives do: they cut OSHA's budget and then complain OSHA is ineffective.

The few businesses that adopted good safety regulations without the government forcing them to do it were working in a monopoly, where they could afford to incur the costs of doing things safely, because their competitors weren't driving their prices down. Even so, all the examples I can think of, like the aircraft industry or the nuclear industry, were heavily regulated monopolies.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[pnutjam]

Minimum wage is not there to protect workers. It is there to protect business owners from themselves and each other. Look at the industries that have been decimated by illegal laborers, like landscaping and construction. An honest man can't make a living. Companies spring up, undercut an existing business and then fail because the can't handle any real volume or the owner is a moron.
The customers are getting a bad product, the workers are getting abused, the owners are going bankrupt and taxes aren't getting paid. You want this to happen everywhere? This is not self correcting, there is always another fool mucking things up for everyone else.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[pnutjam]

There have been several recent studies of border areas where minimum wage increased. Most businesses actually saved money because of decreased training and turnover costs. Unfortunately the quality of people that are attracted to business ownership in the US is not usually the type of people that would see this for themselves.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[pnutjam]

Well, owners might, but most decisions in our economy are made by managers. A particularly inept breed...

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[cheesybagel]

You have different VAT rates for different products. e.g. food and medical products pay a lower VAT rate. In practice lower income people tend to spend a larger fraction of their income on these products than wealthier people. There is a limit to how much food a person can eat anyway.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[ShanghaiBill]

social security...

Of the things you listed, this one is more than all the others combined. So lets see if that makes sense ... corporate profits are distributed to shareholders either through growth (capital gains) or dividends. Who are these shareholders? Mostly institutional investors, which are dominated by retirement funds. So if the government takes $1 out of your 401k retirement fund, spends half of it on bureaucratic overhead (as the GGP is proposing) and gives you back $0.50 in your social security check, you really think that is a "good investment"?

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

Again not seeing the reality are we? The GP has made a legite point and all you do is fire back the theory.

No, you are firing back irrelevant theory. We're talking about ridiculous over-regulation of software developers in France, and you talk about stuff that is completely irrelevant.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

I ask you a simple question why on earth are kids still working today in other countries?

What stopped child labor is the revolutions in agriculture, industry, and the economy, which meant that everybody could survive on a fraction of the amount of work they previously needed. Until it was economically and socially possible, you couldn't have passed any such laws.

And trust me it ain't pretty. They work ungodly number of hours and behave like monkeys (lack of sleep) when the boss comes by.

Trust me, it's still prettier than not having a job at all. And unless people like you screw up their economies with their naive ivory tower views, they'll go through the same evolution as our society: they'll become richer and their kids won't have to work anymore.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because French and EU law isn't American law -- in many cases the government won't approve the paperwork. Under French, an employment visa will only be granted to a non-EU/EAA passport holder if the employer can demonstrate that no other EU/EEA passport holder can do the job. Proving that is incredibly expensive because of the amount you have to pay in attorney fees. Moreover, it's a completely factual determination.

I've heard that they put a similar poison pill in the recent U.S. immigration bill. Which is probably a good thing, IMO, given that our real unemployment rate is roughly on par with some southern EU's states.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

...or the French could import them from one of the (many) other countries within the EU - there is freedom of movement/work across all of it. Or is it just about getting around labor laws period, or finding indentured servants, equivalent to H-1B?

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Maxo-Texas]

Even with legal constraints companies continue to try to work children. In other countries they do work children (and 70 hours a week and locked in the building) despite access to the same technology which supposedly "freed" the children.

One of the biggest problems at Foxxconn (Apple Iphones) is labor turnover because of crippled and permanently disabled children from exposure to toxic chemicals.

Programming can be crippling if you start it too young. And on my last project (SAP conversion), we had three people die on the project (and a possible 4th who was hauled away but they were a contractor so we never heard about them). One 43 year old just said she felt bad, laid down, and that was it.

We also had 4 heart attacks and 3 cancers. I saw young people walking around with black eyes from lack of sleep. Programming without constraints is horrible and will kill you. Humans are not meant to consistently work 70-80 hours per week for months.

If child labor laws were and are unnecessary then why do we continue to have violations (lots of them) today. Both for excessive work hours and for hazardous violations (including fatalities).

If child labor laws are unnecessary, then it wouldn't matter because businesses would never come close to violating them.

Most people can be evil with very little incentive (Summers experiment, the french electricution torture television show). Unconstrained capitalism gives people a very HIGH incentive. People will behave evilly unless you put in clear boundaries.

It's the difference between sports and war. And we even have rules of behavior for wars. Without them, you end up with genocide and people eating the opposite side's hearts.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

I'm sorry, but you have turned a discussion about work hours for French programmers into some ridiculous debate about 19th century workplace practices and put up a silly strawman of no regulation vs California/European-style regulation, as if those were the only two options.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Maxo-Texas]

And also very hard to see reality when your income depends on not seeing it.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Maxo-Texas]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2509604/

Our findings add to the literature on child labor violations. In 2003, the US Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division identified 7228 minors employed in violation of the FLSA.37 In the same year, a survey of state labor departments carried out by the National Consumers League identified 4755 minors (in 30 states) who were illegally employed.14 Kruse and Mahoney used data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics Current Population Survey to estimate that as many as 295 800 15- to 17-year-olds working in nonagricultural industries are illegally employed annually.4

Our resultsâ"which were derived from self-reported practices that we independently classified as being in violation or complianceâ"revealed that a substantial proportion of US adolescents working in the retail or service sector were employed in violation of the child labor laws. Extrapolating our findings to the roughly 2.4 million 16- and 17-year-old workersâ"a group for which the US Bureau of Labor Statistics reports employment data and who mostly work in retail and service2,3,7â"we estimate that as many as 264000 of these youths may be employed in violation of the FLSAâ(TM)s night work provisions and as many as 888 000 may be employed in violation of the hazardous orders each year.

And...

http://stopchildlabor.org/?cat=66

Young Worker Deaths & Injuries

Accidents are the leading cause of death for children between the ages of 10 and 19. Teenagers are particularly vulnerable to accidents at work. A 2006 survey found that 1 in 13 youth had been injured on the job. In 2008, 34 workers under 18 died in the workplace.

This is in the U.S. WITH child labor laws.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[nbauman]

Don't blame me, blame the guy who said that competition keeps markets efficient, prices low, and makes people better off over time.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

The new norm is to demonize anything productive and worthwhile (businesses, entrepreneurs, energy, engineering) and cater to parasitic and extractive entities (government, labor unions, and all of their beneficiaries).

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

Oh yes just because I can pay for cheaper consumer crap things are ok. I am going to ask how old are you? For life also includes health care, education, etc. These costs have become prohibitive for the poor. Sure they are given loans and then get jobs where they can barely pay back these things. But hey as long as I can get get cheap consumer crap all is ok, right?

How old are you to spout such nonsense? Health care today is nothing like health care decades ago, it is much more valuable. Education today is nothing like education decades ago, again it is much more valuable.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Cheaper consumer crap yes. Cheaper food? NO, but I guess you don't buy food do you?

Again, you don't know what you are talking about. Here's the data:

http://theintrinsicvalue.com/images/2011/03/US-Income-Percentage-spend-on-food-History.png

Note that, not only are people spending less, they are getting much better food for that amount of money.

The poor are poorer than the average poor of say 40 years ago. When economists measure poverty and such they don't measure it in absolute values like how much currency you have. The measure it in terms of what you can afford for the monies you make.

Every income quintile has improved, in constant dollars, since the 1960's:

http://angrybearblog.com/2012/09/what-is-economic-middle-class.html

One can debate whether incomes have grown fast enough, but to claim that "the poor are poorer than 40 years ago" is utter nonsense.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

I said that and it's true.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

We also had 4 heart attacks and 3 cancers. I saw young people walking around with black eyes from lack of sleep. Programming without constraints is horrible and will kill you. Humans are not meant to consistently work 70-80 hours per week for months.

We evolved for a life expectancy of about 35 years, at constant risk of starvation and disease, under constant threat of violence, and with a constant need to fight a hostile environment. Many human beings on this planet still live close to those conditions. Many people even in Europe and the US regularly and voluntarily work 80h/week with no ill effect.

As for the rest, you are arguing against points I never made.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[davester666]

No, there is no "bottom".

Corporations have been doing for "pay us to have an office here" for quite some time.
Hell, sports teams of all kinds have been doing it forever [build me a new stadium or I'm moving].

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

When American businesses spend hundreds of billions on accountants and tax attorneys, that is just dead end spending that results in no useful goods or services, and no job growth.

other than jobs for accountants and tax attorneys.

But I agree that a zero corporate income tax would be beneficial. Companies could avoid keeping money in their offshore subsidiaries or jumping through other accounting hoops to avoid taxes. There are other property, excise, and other consumption type taxes that they can pay. States regularly waive these taxes in bids to attract major companies to their state or to expand their current facilities. They make more off the taxes paid by the companies' employees and local businesses who provide goods & services to those employees than they give away to attract the corporation in the first place. However, where I draw the line is with public money used to build stadiums and other facilities for professional sports teams. The public often isn't allowed to use those facilities when the team isn't and have to pick up the tab for upkeep when the team leaves.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, another example, Germany. Germany has no minimum wage and in fact there is this concept of hunger wages. This means a person is working full time, and does not even come close to making enough money to support their family. I am talking wages of about 1 euro per hour. The government kicks in social help to make ends meet. Germany has shown that to survive you will take work below your pay because you need to do something.

Actually, they are correct. Look at Australia for example. It has a minimum wage that is a little over 2x that of the US. Not surprisingly, _everything_ costs heaps more - there are even products that are cheaper in the US because the middlemen don't have to levy as much to cover their employees. In the US, the minimum wage along with the "safety net" suppresses legal employment. There are plenty of people that would rather let the govt provide for them. They do not have the skills to get anything other than a min. wage job and they would rather sit around that work (ex: all the in-laws of a friend of mine). Likewise, there are plenty of employers who do not want to pay high wages and hire people that are here illegally instead. Somewhat like Germany, if someone is working at a minimum wage job, they can get numerous government benefits that greatly boost their spending power. One study showed that in MS, for example, that for the 'typical family of four', one has to earn more than $60K/year in order to have more spending power than minimum wage+govt benefits. No wonder the Feds and states are accumulating huge amounts of debt!

Oh yes just because I can pay for cheaper consumer crap things are ok. I am going to ask how old are you? For life also includes health care, education, etc. These costs have become prohibitive for the poor. Sure they are given loans and then get jobs where they can barely pay back these things. But hey as long as I can get get cheap consumer crap all is ok, right?

Nope. Other than college, education is free in the US, and so is health care for the poor, which is the biggest line item in the Federal Govt's anti-poverty spending.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. Cheaper consumer crap yes. Cheaper food? NO, but I guess you don't buy food do you? Again the question of age. The poor are poorer than the average poor of say 40 years ago. When economists measure poverty and such they don't measure it in absolute values like how much currency you have. The measure it in terms of what you can afford for the monies you make. Again, great I can get 50 Mbit Internet, so long as I don't want to visit a doctor, or get a diploma.

You are correct in that economists measure it terms of what people can buy, but are wrong in that the poor are poorer than they were 40 years ago. The poor today can buy what were considered luxury items 40 years ago. They also have access to free health care and receive subsidized food. And the corresponding argument "they can't afford good food" is invalid too. Many are extremely obese and are so because they buy processed & junk food, all of which is more expensive than healthy meals created from the basics (even canned food). But that requires effort.

Re: so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

No citation handy, but life expectancies that low include infant and child mortality. Your life expectancy given that you made it to puberty was in the late 40s or 50s.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you're referring to China or some other developing nation where there is a huge amount of people, the contractor isn't going to be hiring a bunch of people to dig a trench that could fall in, kill the people in it, and open the owners of the business to a lawsuit by the families of the workers. No, they are going to have a machine that digs a trench that is deeper and narrower than what humans could dig. Another machine or possibly the same one will be inserting whatever it is that need to be put in the trench and then cover it back up.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with a VAT system is that it is a flat tax, which means all individuals are taxes equally on what they buy irrespective of income.

That is what makes a VAT or any other consumption tax great! All people are treated the same. Everyone is supposed to be treated equally under the law, correct? People complain, protest, or file lawsuits if the government doesn't do that in every area except taxation. Government needs to stop trying to be social engineers because they screw more things up than they fix. Levy flat taxes on goods, services, income, whatever to provide enough income to the Federal govt to allow them to carry out the enumerated powers as outlined by the US Constitution and then cut everything else.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[AlphaWolf_HK]

Silicon Valley; In fact jobs have left and have not been created. Sure there are success stories, but the influence of Silicon Valley as a job creator has waned. Take for example Apple, or Oracle, who have jobs there, but have created a huge number of jobs outside of that region. Facebook is a bit of the old culture of creating jobs in silicon valley. New jobs have not replaced the old jobs. I can bring in many other examples of where more jobs are not created.

Jobs are leaving silicon valley due to taxifornia syndrome. You know where they are going? Well the silicon desert, for one. Many other places as well. They're not simply disappearing - not at all. The states with more socialist policies such as higher minimum wages, union monopolies, and high taxation are losing out on jobs - they're moving to places like Arizona, South Carolina (boeing), Kansas, and Texas. Speak of Kansas, do you know why google picked KC as their first fiber deployment? Because KC has the fewest regulations. Did they get tax incentives? Absolutely, in fact most cities will happily grant that to somebody who is building infrastructure, however they already had some of the fewest ordinances restricting where you could dig and what politician you had to bribe.

Wrong, another example, Germany. Germany has no minimum wage and in fact there is this concept of hunger wages. This means a person is working full time, and does not even come close to making enough money to support their family. I am talking wages of about 1 euro per hour. The government kicks in social help to make ends meet. Germany has shown that to survive you will take work below your pay because you need to do something.

Thank you for bringing up Germany! You know, they are the only thing keeping the EU afloat right now? The rest of the EU has such strong social policies that they are sinking, and Germany is bailing them out. Yes, there are a few there who will make absolute shit wages - those are the ones who I described to you. There aren't many though. You know who else does? Norway, Finland, and Denmark, all of the few countries that are actually self sustaining in Europe. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Oh yes just because I can pay for cheaper consumer crap things are ok. I am going to ask how old are you? For life also includes health care, education, etc. These costs have become prohibitive for the poor. Sure they are given loans and then get jobs where they can barely pay back these things. But hey as long as I can get get cheap consumer crap all is ok, right?

A previous poster (stenvar) debunked this talking point already (I say talking point, because you're basically arguing that my new stuff is inherently worse than my old stuff simply because it costs less, without any sort of reasoning why) and he debunked it pretty thoroughly too. I'll simply refer you to him.

Ah yes armchair snapshot economist. Yes Krugman did say this a long time ago. But did you happen to dig a bit deeper? He also called for wealth redistribution! I am sure having no minimum wage, but wealth redistribution is much better, no? Cynically put what Krugman was talking about could be referencing to something like Germany has. No minimum wage, but wealth redistribution. Which do you prefer? I happen to prefer a living minimum wage thank-you.

Personally I'm rather vehemently opposed to krugman, what I'm showing you was that even the liberal poster child of economists was at odds with what the common liberal view is on wage issues. However when he talks about redistribution, he isn't talking about handing around money, rather he's talking about government spending to provide jobs, such as public works. And of course, to fund it we need high taxes. Again, this is where I was pointing out how he still follows one of the few old keynesian theories that because government spending is part of GDP, therefore having a big complex government means a stronger eco

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[nbauman]

I was hoping you had some evidence to support it besides your own strongly-held opinion and sweeping generalizations.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[gnoshi]

Wrong, another example, Germany. Germany has no minimum wage and in fact there is this concept of hunger wages. This means a person is working full time, and does not even come close to making enough money to support their family. I am talking wages of about 1 euro per hour. The government kicks in social help to make ends meet. Germany has shown that to survive you will take work below your pay because you need to do something.

Actually, they are correct. Look at Australia for example. It has a minimum wage that is a little over 2x that of the US. Not surprisingly, _everything_ costs heaps more - there are even products that are cheaper in the US because the middlemen don't have to levy as much to cover their employees. In the US, the minimum wage along with the "safety net" suppresses legal employment. There are plenty of people that would rather let the govt provide for them. They do not have the skills to get anything other than a min. wage job and they would rather sit around that work (ex: all the in-laws of a friend of mine). Likewise, there are plenty of employers who do not want to pay high wages and hire people that are here illegally instead. Somewhat like Germany, if someone is working at a minimum wage job, they can get numerous government benefits that greatly boost their spending power. One study showed that in MS, for example, that for the 'typical family of four', one has to earn more than $60K/year in order to have more spending power than minimum wage+govt benefits. No wonder the Feds and states are accumulating huge amounts of debt!

Yes, things do indeed cost more in Australia and that is certainly contributed to by the cost of labor. To some extent, this will simply be the market having adjusted for the 'real cost' of the products. It's nice when things are cheap, but at some point they can only become cheaper because someone is suffering as a result and at that point they are 'too cheap'.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Grishnakh]

1. Because it is a race to the bottom: if you're getting companies in there because of your 'near zero' corporate tax, don't be surprised if they move to another country with 'nearer zero' corporate tax, and lower payroll tax as well, and maybe poorer working conditions.

They're going to go where the talent is. If you're trying to set up a software shop, you're not going to have much success finding skilled employees in Zimbabwe or Kazakhstan; but there's tons of skilled employees in the US. Skilled employees rarely leave their country for crappier countries just for work, unless they're being offered a huge salary (like with the Americans who go to work in Dubai or Saudi Arabia). Having a lower corporate tax is good when you're (you=national government) trying to compete against other countries with similar standards and costs of living.

2. Because if a company isn't paying corporate tax, then it is much harder for it to be worth having them in the country (the cost of servicing their existence may exceed their return to society/government)

Did you forget that the company is hiring employees, who all pay income and other taxes themselves? The more high-paying jobs you can attract to your country, the more your workers (and imported workers) will pay in taxes. It doesn't cost anything to "service the existence" of a company, unless that company is creating a lot of pollution or causing some other negative side-effect. But in that case, you can deal with that problem specifically, such as by taxing pollution or pollution-generating industries. Software companies don't produce any significant pollution, and what they do, such as electricity consumption, can be dealt with with taxes on electricity generation (with different taxes for different types of generation: wind,solar = low tax, coal = high tax, etc.) to make electric power cost reflect its true cost to society.

In simple terms, when you tax something, it means you really want less of it. For most things, when you add a tax, you create a dis-incentive for people to consume that thing. Sales taxes discourage sales and commerce and consumption; property taxes discourage the purchase of property, even income taxes reduce the incentive to make more money unless you can do so with no more work. So if you tax companies, you're reducing the incentive to have and operate a business. Since economies depend on businesses operating and generating profit and employing workers, why on earth would you want to discourage people from doing that, by having taxes on it? There really shouldn't be any taxes on business, logically; instead, you should just tax income (since not many people want to make less money). All that profit that business makes eventually becomes someone's income, so there's no reason to tax it as a profit; that amounts to double-taxation. Of course, you do need to have some protections to make sure people don't just move the money offshore somewhere to avoid paying their income tax on iot, and it would help a lot if capital gains were taxed at the same rate (or maybe higher) than wage income.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=correlation+economic+freedom+prosperity

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[vipw]

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/medical-liability-costs-us/

Malpractice isn't why the US pays so much for health care. Please correct your knowledge base.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[vipw]

This can be fixed by requiring insurance in dangerous fields. Then insurance companies have the incentive to encourage corps to improve safety (will lead to lower premiums). Workers compensation is actually an insurance, but it's not run correctly. It doesn't really have a logical risk-to-premium and instead relies on historical results.

Many public works require bonded contractors, which also avoids the "bankruptcy solves everything" problem.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[airdweller]

"Many people even in Europe and the US regularly and voluntarily work 80h/week with no ill effect."
You're full of crap. Please disprove.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[airdweller]

" If the corporate income tax was cut to zero, all of that money could go into something productive..."
Like the management and shareholders' pockets?

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Maxo-Texas]

Most hunter gatherers "worked" about 4 hours a day and socialized the rest of the time. They mostly slept from dusk until dawn.

Working 60 hours or more is strongly associated with higher risk of death from heart attacks and heart disease, higher blood pressure, unclear thinking ( 21 hours in one day makes you the equivalent of being legally drunk), higher risk of multiple kinds of cancer, lowered immunity (which means diseases that would make you sick if you were more rested kill you instead). Accidents have been proven to be much more likely (Surgeons and Doctors are being moved away from these schedules because patients were dying or being seriously injured by errors due to lack of rest).

I agree- some people can work 80 hours a week. And some people can run multiple miles at under 4 minutes per mile. Most people get sick and die. And a lot of people just collapse and are unable to continue working.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Maxo-Texas]

Oh yea, and the life expectancy you quote is almost entirely due to infant mortality.
If you made it past 12, you had a very good chance of making it to 60. Look it up.

I made the same mistake years ago and was corrected (tho I was saying life expectency was 45).

Think of it this way.

2 people are born.
One dies at age 1
The other dies at age 69.
Their average life expectancy is 35 years.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

Most hunter gatherers "worked" about 4 hours a day and socialized the rest of the time. They mostly slept from dusk until dawn.

That's one theory, but there's little supporting evidence and it is biologically implausible.

Working 60 hours or more is strongly associated with higher risk of death from heart attacks and heart disease, higher blood pressure,

Yeah, you have like a 30% higher chance of having high blood pressure, possibly increasing your risk of disease moderately when you're past reproductive age. That's meaningless from an evolutionary point of view. And we don't even know what is cause and effect there.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

I made the same mistake years ago and was corrected (tho I was saying life expectency was 45).

No, what I said was true: we evolved for a life expectancy of 35 years, which is vastly different from the life expectancy of 78 years that we have now. I said nothing about the causes or details of the survivorship curves (however your new beliefs aren't correct either: current survivorship curves aren't just the old ones without child mortality; they are different in many ways).

I'm saying that arguments of the form "humans are not meant to..." don't work: we exist under vastly different conditions today than what we evolved for. Arguing against 80h work weeks that way is as silly as the Catholic church arguing against homosexuality by saying that "humans are not meant to...". Both the left and the right should cut out this stupidity.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[stenvar]

I agree- some people can work 80 hours a week. And some people can run multiple miles at under 4 minutes per mile. Most people get sick and die. And a lot of people just collapse and are unable to continue working.

By the way, even if that were true, why would it imply that the French government has a right, or even an interest, in forbidding these particular developers to work 80h/week? Why shouldn't it be their own choice to determine whether they work 40h or 80h/week?

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[cas2000]

for the same reason that governments have a compelling interest in preventing people from selling themselves - or their children - into slavery.

because exploitation happens, and governments have a duty to protect all of their citizens, not just the rich. even those stupid enough to be willing, or coerced by economic circumstance, to work themselves into an early grave.

by limiting maximum working hours per week, governments prevent exploitation of those unable to say "No" as well as those stupid enough to say "Yes".

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[Anonymous Coward]

Come on, that just makes no sense. You just said that some people can work 80h with no problem. Why shouldn't they be allowed to? And you think 40h is necessary regardless of job? What about pianists? Writers? Tour guides? Wildlife photographers?

"Exploitation" and "slavery" don't apply here. Slavery means a work contract that you can't get out of. All we need to do to prevent "slavery" is to give people the option to cancel labor contracts on short notice.

Of course, 40h workweeks are an unenforceable fiction anyway. They increasingly only apply to a small minority of unionized occupations, while everybody else is becoming more and more entrepreneurial. These European startups should make their foreign workers partners and investors, and the whole problem goes away.

Re:so why not set up shop elsewhere?

[cas2000]

Come on, that just makes no sense.

it only makes no sense if you're too stupid to read.

You just said that some people can work 80h with no problem.

you're confusing me with someone else. i never said that.

my first and only involvement in this thread is to respond to the question "why would it imply that the French government has a right, or even an interest, in forbidding these particular developers to work 80h/week?"

the answer is, as i said, that by limiting maximum working hours per week, governments prevent exploitation of those unable to say "No" as well as those stupid enough to say "Yes".

governments have a duty to protect citizens from abusive and exploitative employers, just as they have a duty to protect citizens from thieves, murderers, and rapists.

and just as not everyone is physically strong enough to defend themselves against a mugger or a rapist, not everyone is able to stand up to their employer and say "No, I won't work any more overtime, or 80 hours/week" or "No, I wont suck your cock to keep my job".

Simple solution: Just Offer More Money

[Squidlips]

Oooops, can't do that...

Re: Simple solution: Just Offer More Money

[ebno-10db]

Stfu statist. If you want to earn money or respect you should join the Galt class and not the Marx class.

Re: Marx

Is that Groucho, Chico or Harpo?

Re: Simple solution: Just Offer More Money

[benjfowler]

LOL, Randroids and their snarl words... are you still 13 years old?

Re: Simple solution: Just Offer More Money

[ebno-10db]

I think it was meant as a joke, though it wouldn't surprise me too much if a real Randroid wrote something like that. With Randroids it can be hard to tell whether it's satire or it's real.

Re: Simple solution: Just Offer More Money

[nbauman]

Well played. I can't figure out whether you're pretending to be a Randie or really are one.

Buy American?

[girlintraining]

Hey. I'm an American. Our H1-B visa program has tanked our industry. Substandard code, slipping release schedules, low wages. There is plenty of domestic talent here already, and I'm not even here on a visitor's pass.

What would it take for me to get out of my mismanaged and failed country of fools and into your country, which appears to be slightly less mismanaged and the changes are being pushed by startups who want to pay me well instead of MegaCorp(tm) who wants to pay me minimum wage to do something that takes 10 years of training to get into?

I'm deadly serious here. I could line up about 50,000 americans inside a week for you guys -- we're unemployed but we have the skillset. Our H1-B Visa program has killed our tech sector. Don't fall for the same trap we did.

Re:Buy American?

[DaHat]

Substandard code, slipping release schedules

That sounds more like a management issue than it does an H1-B problem.

If someone is churning out substandard code and causing schedules to slip... be they an American or H1-B holder... replace them... it's that simple.

Re:Buy American?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

I think a lot of the better educated in the US are starting to look with interest at Europe's social protections. My sister and her family moved to the land of opportunity a month ago, and are already working out exit options since there's no way in hell they can afford university or health fees for the kids. Yes it's not perfect but you'd be surprised how financially advantageous paying your taxes into social systems can be.

Re:Buy American?

[DoofusOfDeath]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. From what I've been able to determine, the governments in central and northern Europe / Scandinavia just seem to generally work better than do the U.S., U.K., and southern European governments. I'm not going to pretend I know why, but it's looking very, very attractive to me. (I may be particularly sensitized to the issue at the moment, as federal budget sequestration is causing me major problems.)

Re:Buy American?

[JaredOfEuropa]

Those social protections are part of the problem, or rather, the way some countries implement them. In some EU countries, government has pushed the cost and risk of social measus to employers. An employee falls ill or is injured? Company is obliged to pay for their wages, sometimes for over a year. Need to fire someone? You can't, or you spend a goodly sum getting rid of him/her. Or you have someone off on maternity leave, with the obligation to keep paying her wages, just a few weeks after she joined the company. Yes, it happens, and by law you cannot refuse someone on that ground or even ask about it in a job interview.

That's all fine and dandy for the worker, and for corporations who can easily absorb the average costs incurred in a large group of employees. But in small startups, having to pay a worker who is unproductive one way or another for a long period of time can kill the company. You can insure against that, but the premiums are unbelievable.

Re:Buy American?

[tnk1]

Speaking as someone who hires and fires people, firing people and hiring new ones is far easier said than done, even if you propose to pay them well.

Even with a labor market full of candidates with the skills you need, you're still looking at a few weeks to get them in the door. In the meantime, your project is disrupted. Sure, you can try and train up someone on your team and make them work harder for a month or so, but they don't just learn stuff overnight, and your good team member is going to be overworked because those people still have to get their own code/project out the door on time as well.

I don't know where you have worked, but it's about ten times more likely to see people laid off than it is for them to be fired for performance, and there is a reason for that. I'm not afraid to fire someone who is not performing, but that's usually after at least working with them for some period of time to try and rectify the issues. The last thing I want to have to do is fire anyone unless they are richly deserving and that usually is demonstrated by a history of failure over time. So, if I have a "problem", he's going to be my problem for awhile. Thankfully, if you do find the right candidates, the failures are few and far between.

I work in a "right to work" state in the US. So, I don't even have to worry about half the stuff a European employer will have to when it comes to letting people go. There is nothing simple about it.

And there's the fact that you're going to fire someone. Unless the guy is an asshole, even doing what you must for good reason is not a pleasant task. In no way do I want to work for people who think I am going to fire people at the drop of a hat.

Re:Buy American?

[girlintraining]

If someone is churning out substandard code and causing schedules to slip... be they an American or H1-B holder... replace them... it's that simple.

You haven't worked with people who ask you to... do the needful... have you? The substandard code is a byproduct of a combination of culture, language barrier, and a lack of experience. Note that I said experience, not education. American labor often stresses that people take their own initiative in solving a problem. You're expected to come up with a solution on your own, with little oversight or guidance, and you're given some leeway in making that happen. Yes, some companies are worse about this than others -- I am speaking in generalities here. YMMV. The culture of many of our immigrants is to not take that initiative -- but to only do things under the express guidance of their leaders. They see a problem and unless it's in the three ring binder that says "Things Management Says You Should Do When You Spot Problem X", it doesn't exist. They don't even see it. If you ask them about it, they'll say they don't know.

I'd snark you back and say "it's that simple," but nothing about conflicting cultural ideas and attitudes is. Nothing. You can't just replace people who have good attitudes but limited experience or have been trained to not take the initiative... you're just passing the buck on to the next person then. And it won't save your project. Software development isn't like factory work -- you can't mongolian hoarde the problem and solve it faster. In truth, a lot of times adding new people or more people makes the project take longer. This is a "people" problem, but it's commonly seen in all engineering disciplines. It's just the nature of the work.

The H1-B problem is not about putting down immigrants. We want them. Hell, we need them for some industries. The problem is that you can't destabilize an industry by radically changing either supply, or demand, and not have it hurt everyone. The H1-B program radically increased supply, and as a result, the cost of technical labor dropped -- a lot. It dropped so much that a lot of people who had invested in an education in it were left high and dry, and many people who had solid experience suddenly found themselves knocked several notches down on their career path and had to scramble to find a way to support their current lifestyle at a much lower income, with often tragic results. So a lot of experienced people left the industry to move into fields that were more stable, and the overall quality of the labor dropped.

This, in turn, fueled more cries for H1-Bs because high level positions were now going unfulfilled -- there was a glut of low-level workers, and very few experienced people because they didn't want to move 'down' in their career and simply moved out. That gap simply couldn't be filled no matter how many workers you threw at the problem. So the entire problem became cyclical... more H1-Bs mean more experienced workers leave, which mean lower overall quality of work, and now businesses are scrambling to find anyone who's qualified amongst a veritable sea of resumes... none which have the amount of experience needed.

And that, right there, is how our industry collapsed. It was because of short-term thinking -- they wanted to tap into the global labor market, so they poked a hole in the dam of regulations holding them back, thinking they could suckle off the new supply of cheap labor. But they were trying to drink out of a firehose, and then the dam exploded and washed out the entire industry.

There is no new tech now in this country. It's all gone to shit. It died because of short-term thinking, and now our high tech industry is just an empty shell, unable to produce any better than the third world, because that's the only labor source we have left.

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

Get in line, there are several millions already waiting. If Europeans let them in the wages will fall to the level you wouldn't like them. From my understanding those startups are using cheap slaves (probably from the post-soviet countries), and the want to legalize it. The don't want to bring developers on an average salary, it's too expensive. It's not about to find a talent, there are many of them in Europe. It's about to get them dirt cheap. The solution which will satisfy businesses will be to let them bring workers with no right, no way for citizenship, and guarantied kick out of the country after several years, or in case employer doesn't need them. So those "lucky" guys will pay full taxes without getting the benefits. BTW, the same happens in the US to those on H1B who have to go back. They pay full taxes and get minimum benefits.

Re:Buy American?

[JanneM]

Most of those rules either exempt small companies or they get reimbursed in turn by the state for the costs. In Sweden, for example, the employer pays for the first 14 days of sick leave (which is lower than your regular pay), the state covers anything beyond it. Same kind of thing with the other costs.

Re:Buy American?

[ebno-10db]

I think a lot of the better educated in the US are starting to look with interest at Europe's social protections.

I sure hope so. Even I think some European countries go too far with some benefits, like long paid maternity and paternity leave (yes, I have kids) but the basics are another story. We pay at least half again as much as any other country for healthcare (as %/GDP - it's worse by exchange rate or PPP) yet get no better care. University tuition has reached a point where either you have rich parents or go into debt for life (at high interest rates and, unlike any other loan, can't be discharged in bankruptcy).

Unfortunately we still have plenty of idiots who scream "socialism", without realizing that the frickin' fire department is socialism. Occasionally you even hear a brilliant remark like "tell the government to keep its hands off my Medicare" (Medicare is the one way the US has long provided universal healthcare, but only if you're at least 65). The same people who scream "socialism" would probably revolt if you tried to take away their Medicare.

Re:Buy American?

[girlintraining]

The last thing I want to have to do is fire anyone unless they are richly deserving and that usually is demonstrated by a history of failure over time. So, if I have a "problem", he's going to be my problem for awhile. Thankfully, if you do find the right candidates, the failures are few and far between.

I can't say I speak for everyone, but I know I speak for the most professional amongst us when I say: Thank you. I'll never work for you, but we need more managers like you in the field. People who are willing to roll their sleeves up and get involved. So again, thanks.

We now return to our regularly scheduled flame-fest, already in progress...

Re:Buy American?

[whoever57]

My sister and her family moved to the land of opportunity a month ago, and are already working out exit options since there's no way in hell they can afford university or health fees for the kids.

While things can be difficult, there are ways.
University fees: firstly, live in a state that offers in-state fees to all residents, not just to Green Card holders (permanent residents) and citizens. Secondly, take the general education part of your degree course at community college, so that only 2 years of full university fees have to be paid. University of California's fees are comparable with the UK (9,000 pounds/year).
Health fees for the kids: should be covered by employer, or, if over 26, some kind of government assistance.

Re:Buy American?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

> I work in a "right to work" state in the US. So, I don't even have to worry about half the stuff a European employer will have to when it comes to letting people go.

Being in a "right to work state" doesn't change what you have to do to hire or fire someone. It just means that employers are forbidden from entering into exclusive labor contracts with organizations like unions. If the employee is a union member (which can be the case even in right to work states) then you have to abide by whatever contractual obligations the company has negotiated with the union.

Re:Buy American?

[Luckyo]

Not "worker" but "society". These safety nets are created to ensure the future continuity of society through making everyone's future safer. A good example you list is maternity leave. Most of the developed countries already have bare minimum birth rates to hold their populations steady, and many would be in decline if not for immigration. This is a massive time bomb because our retirement systems are designed so that we have enough people providing for those who no longer provide for themselves. As this pool is depleted, societal order built on wealth will collapse. Japan has this problems in a very severe form due to their extreme xenophobia preventing immigration from plugging the short term loss accrued and as a result they're already struggling even though enough time hasn't lapsed for the problem to become even remotely bad. This is the issue of next twenty to thirty years and it's going to keep getting worse during this period.

So we have a choice: deprive the owner class of some income and give all mothers in the country a significant incentive to get children desperately needed to maintain the society, or award owner class with a bit more money, and make sure that it will be next to impossible to get children unless you're very safe financially and have society hang on the verge of a cliff in twenty years or so due to collapsing birth rate.

It's called "short term gain versus long term gain". You are advocating the short term gains and fully willing to throw the future under the bus for them. This is a very common way of thinking among those of the current owner class, as they believe that they and their capital will be allowed to leave the society when it starts to collapse and go to another healthy society to parasite off until its eventual collapse. And the circle will continue.

They are likely wrong, and forgetting the lessons of French Revolution and what happens to owner class alongside everyone else when society really does collapse in a large Western contry. While many of the owner class in the developing countries successfully dodged this bullet and just left for European countries and US after parasiting their own countries to the point of societal collapse, it's highly unlikely that US and European countries will allow for the same thing to happen to them. A far more likely outcome is the way of the guillotine and mob justice on those who remain alongside massive confiscation of property and a complete collapse of society to the point where there are no "healthy economies" to run to due to global impact of a collapse of a large Western country.

Re:Buy American?

[JaredOfEuropa]

I'm not suggesting that we do away with these safety nets. It's about striking a good balance. You want companies to pay taxes and not be able to fire people on a whim. But those companies also need some flexibility in their labour force, and security against the financial risks that come with these safety nets. Place too large a burden on companies, and they may up and leave or go out of business. But indulge them just to keep them in your country, and you'll start a race to the social security bottom.

I like the social security we have in my country (NL). But we could do with more flexible labour laws.

Re:Buy American?

[JaredOfEuropa]

2 weeks is nice. In the Netherlands it is up to 2 years.

Re:Buy American?

[Luckyo]

But that is exactly what you are suggesting. Or you are simply acting as a "useful idiot" arguing for it for those who do. Because "flexible labor laws" mean "I can own people". Literally. Look at the condition of people who are imported illegally. That is the ideal state of a worker for these employers.

Slavery is better then that.

Re:Buy American?

[TheSync]

There is no new tech now in this country.

Instagram? GoPro? iPhone? iPad? Square? Google self-driving cars? Tesla? SpaceX? Drones from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems & Northrop Grumman?

Re:Buy American?

[TheSync]

I think a lot of the better educated in the US are starting to look with interest at Europe's social protections.

Eurozone suffers its longest downturn ever as France sinks back into recession...The eurozone is in its longest recession since it was created, after GDP fell by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012...

Re:Buy American?

[chris.alex.thomas]

well, I don't remember any stories about the netherlands being on the brink of bankruptcy though, so I suppose it's doing a great job at all that tax collection which the southern countries have so many problems with.

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

so you don't want h1bs in your country but you're asking to go to another country??

Re:Buy American?

[DNS-and-BIND]

They are not "safety nets". That term is deprecated. Safety net means that if something bad happens it's there to catch you. That's not what happens, though. Welfare is a way of life, not a safety net. Wild animals that receive handouts become lazy and dependent on those handouts, and humans are no different.

Japan has made an entirely rational choice to remain Japanese. Importing millions of foreigners to keep a short term loss from occurring has the price of eradicating their unique culture. It's their choice to make. I can't help but notice the implicit without-thinking assumption you make that mass immigration is a thneed.

Re:Buy American?

[KingMotley]

I'm not sure what "industry" you are in, but I can assure you that the IT and programming sector is far from ruined. Unemployment in our industry is far below the average (slightly under 4%), compared to the 8-9% overall. I haven't met a contractor yet who has been out of work for more than 5 days at a time. When I am between contracts now, I typically don't even start looking until I've been out of my last contract for a couple weeks, just because I know that once I start, I'll be working again that week. In the past few years, I finished a contract, and was hired at my next one in less than 12 hours. The next one, it took 3 days because it was a large corporation. The next round, I looked 3 companies, set up interviews for all 3 the next day, and by the afternoon, I had 4 job offers for me (an old employer heard I was available and put in an offer as well).

If you can't get hired in the IT or programming fields today, you need to take a serious look as to why. More than likely (but not always), your skill set is terrible. And yes, there are a lot of terrible programmers out there, I've interviewed them. Those are the only ones left.

Re:Buy American?

[NicBenjamin]

In general I agree. The US social safety net is inadequate. If the European job market didn't suck moving would be on my to-do list.

But your sister may not know about several elements of the US Social Safety net. One is ObamaCare. As of January it will be very difficult to be priced out of health insurance. From a patient's point-of-view the system will be quite close to several European systems -- notably the Dutch, Swiss and German -- in that you will have to be insured by your employer or buy insurance on a private market, with insurance prices varying based on your ability to pay.

Higher Education is more complicated. It is very easy to end up with a degree that cost more then it's worth. This has happened to me.

But if you're talking about Undergraduate education (ie: a Bachelors degree), then there are plenty of options. High-status, extremely-high-cost Universities are actually the best bet. Most American kids could go to Harvard (sticker price: $37k a year for four years, plus room and board in Boston) for free if they can just get in.

Indeed, the major reason the sticker price is so goddamned high is that Harvard subsidizes most kids with the tuition of the richest ones. Emory and the other Ivy league schools offer similar deals, as do many state schools.

The problem is you have to plan this shit out way ahead-of-time. You need to find out the exact deadlines for applying for financial aid BEFORE you send in a college application, and since the programs are administered by the schools you have to know that for each school your kid might end up going to.

Re:Buy American?

[girlintraining]

Instagram? GoPro? iPhone? iPad? Square?

Instagram: A photo sharing site. These have been around since, I don't know, the beginning of the internet?

GoPro: We took a camera... and duct taped it to you! Wow. Innovative.

iPhone / iPad: Can't comment on it on this website. Too many religious connotations, not enough facts.

Square: omg! A way to insecurely store your personal banking data on your phone.

None of these things will be remembered in 20 years as significantly advancing the state of the art.

Google self-driving cars? Tesla? SpaceX? Drones from General Atomics Aeronautical Systems & Northrop Grumman?

Not in production, just became profitable after heavy government subidizing, follows on the heels of NASA who did all the heavy lifting, and things in the sky that are trying to kill us. Yeah... USA! USA! USA!

Gimme a break, man. Look at the Large Hadron Collider -- that could have been us, but we slashed the funding. A Nobel Prize? What's that compared to sleezy marketing and questionable accounting practices? Not much, that's what.

When I say new tech, I don't mean new business. America is great at cranking out variations on the same theme -- turn on the TV sometime. It's all just rehashes. And our technology sector is quickly becoming the same thing. It's all formulaic. There is no innovation, no risk taking, no entrepreneurship.

And that's my point. Every last example you've thrown up has been done before. Every. Last. One. Google car? DARPA robotics. SpaceX? NASA. Tesla? Tesla! And drones... dude, R/C airplanes aren't exactly cutting edge. We can mass produce them, yes, but it's not revolutionary... it's just taking what we already had and repurposing it.

They're nice pieces of kit, but they are not revolutionary, ground-breaking, paradigm-breaking things. We haven't had any of that in a good fifteen years now. Meanwhile, in the rest of the world... China's building dams that it takes all afternoon to walk across, entire cities and railway projects are springing up almost overnight, etc. In Europe, we've got the LHC churning out new physics.

Just about everywhere else you care to look besides the United States is showing signs of innovative new ways of doing things. The only thing we're good at... is business.

Re:Buy American?

[TranquilVoid]

It's called "short term gain versus long term gain".

At best encouraging population growth is medium-term gain. Structuring your society to require an ever-expanding population is long-term suicide.

Re:Buy American?

[TranquilVoid]

[The US] pay[s] at least half again as much as any other country for healthcare

I sometimes wonder if this is a result of the large population. Bureaucracy may have exponential growth against population size, allowing smaller European countries more agility with their social programs. Or perhaps it is the notoriously corrupt (for a first-world country) US political scene and the power of lobby groups. Or maybe it's some random cultural factor.

Re:Buy American?

[darkwing_bmf]

You're joking right? You can get a software engineering job easily in the US.

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you sure about that? I think in the past few years it was tuned back to a year or 18 months (from the perspective of the government, I'm not exactly sure how the government/employer distribution is).

Re:Buy American?

[bradley13]

girlintraining writes: "American labor often stresses that people take their own initiative in solving a problem. You're expected to come up with a solution on your own, with little oversight or guidance, and you're given some leeway in making that happen. Yes, some companies are worse about this than others -- I am speaking in generalities here. YMMV. The culture of many of our immigrants is to not take that initiative -- but to only do things under the express guidance of their leaders."

This is an incredibly important point. Many Asian workers have this problem - technically, they are incredibly competent, but they have learned to do just exactly what they are told to do. I have visited Asian programming shops, and watched as the boss instructed his programmers on every detail, all the way down to "you need to put that CD back in its cover". Western management style is to give general directions and leave the initiative to the developers. This combination is a recipe for disaster. It is also a direct contributor to for GPP's complaints about "Substandard code, slipping release schedules, low wages."

Re:Buy American?

[gnoshi]

Welfare is a way of life, not a safety net. Wild animals that receive handouts become lazy and dependent on those handouts, and humans are no different.

Because an example of wild animal behaviour provides clear evidence of inexorable human destiny?

Re:Buy American?

[ctype_007]

I'm suspecting that you will start complaining about outsourcing just after banning H1-B

Re:Buy American?

[MadKeithV]

Substandard code, slipping release schedules

That sounds more like a management issue than it does an H1-B problem.

You can't manage your way to good code, and you can't manage all 9 month projects into 1 month by hiring more people.
Any management action to alleviate the former will worsen the latter: you can have stringent checks on the quality of your code, but all management can do is to say "not good enough, do it better", further slipping the schedule.

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

And yet I wouldn't want to move to the US. And I live in one of the bailed-out countries (Portugal), but still think our recession is better than going to a country where it's every man for himself without any kind of societaly solidarity whatsoever.

Re:Buy American?

[Xest]

Look, I get it, you're unemployed, you're bitter, and you're looking for blame, but you've been going on like this for weeks now and it's tiresome.

I'll admit I'm not American, and I don't know the vagaries of the H1-B system, maybe that means I don't know what I'm on about, but maybe alternatively it allows me to be objective.

You see here's the thing, I hear a lot whining about how H1-B has decimated the US technical industry, and the people I hear it from all seem to have one thing in common - they're unemployed or they seem to believe they're underpaid, and it's all the fault of immigrants. So I decided I'd look at the fact.

I figured I'd see exactly what these low paid immigrant workers are getting paid and so forth, and I found this site which seems to have a pretty good database:

http://www.h1bwage.com/

For 2012 a search of programmer came up with 10k records, developer another 10k, whether any of these crossover I'm not sure, but hey let's call it 20k anyway. Estimates are shaky but currently the amount of developers in the US seems to be anything from about 1 million to 4 million depending on who you ask, but again let's given the benefit of the doubt and pretend there are only 1 million, so H1-B visas account for 2% of developer jobs each year based on these figures, that's a small amount but it's certainly not negligible so it's a fair criticism that H1-B immigrants are taking at least a non-negligible amount of jobs each year. Note that the number of developers has grown each year, and so has the visa cap, roughly linearly so the figure will be reasonable for past years also.

But I also found figures for average salaries for developers, they seem to have remained fairly stagnant for a few years (if the economy isn't growing much, neither will wages grow much) at roughly $73k per year as the average and the top 10% earning an average of $110k. So the next issue is that immigrants are being employed because they accept less money and are bringing salaries down, again though looking at http://www.h1bwage.com/ I can't really see how that's true - the majority are getting paid more than the average so if anything H1-B immigrants must be raising the average.

In fact, many of the companies that I see chided here for wanting to increase the H1-B quota "to bring down developer wages" are doing quite the opposite. Facebook in 2012 was paying an average of $115k per developer, Google $125k, Microsoft $104k, Apple $119k. Given this, all these major companies are paying well above the average developer salary to immigrants, and all except Microsoft are paying above the average paid to the top 10% of developer salaries in the US.

So here's what frankly I think the facts say the reality of the situation is, that in practice, across the globe it's not ever going to be the case that every American programmer is better than every other programmer in the world, in fact, there will be a sizeable segment where the opposite is true, that is for example, that perhaps the bottom 50% of American programmers are statistically going to be nowhere near as talented as the top 10% of developers in almost every other country in the world. That's bound to be a lot of developers, and awful lot. What this means is that technology companies who want to populate their company with the best talent available no matter where in the world that comes from are going to have to use the H1-B visa program.

I'm not saying there aren't companies taking the piss, one company at least stood out on my peruse through and that was Wipro, they clearly seem to pay a little below average on average, and lot in some cases whilst also taking up more than their fair share of the quota, but by and large the H1-B visa program seems to be being used for what it's intended to be used for, on average does not appear to decrease average developer salaries but in fact increases them and that companies such as Facebook, Microsoft etc. want to

Re:Buy American?

[Xest]

"Even with a labor market full of candidates with the skills you need, you're still looking at a few weeks to get them in the door. In the meantime, your project is disrupted. Sure, you can try and train up someone on your team and make them work harder for a month or so, but they don't just learn stuff overnight, and your good team member is going to be overworked because those people still have to get their own code/project out the door on time as well."

Do you not just bite the bullet and hire contractors for that sort of period? Good contractors should not really take too long to get up to speed. Of course there's a cost involved of using contractors to fill temporary gaps, but I guess it depends whether the cost outweighs the cost of lost productivity towards a monetisable release.

Re:Buy American?

[chrismcb]

Hey. I'm an American. Our H1-B visa program has tanked our industry. Substandard code, slipping release schedules, low wages.

Code was substandard, schedules slipped before the "tanking" of the industry. Some of the best programmers I know were hired on H1B visas... and some of the worst programmers I've worked with were H1Bs... But some of the best programmers I know are Americans, and some of the worst are Americans.

Re:Buy American?

[Xest]

"Need to fire someone? You can't, or you spend a goodly sum getting rid of him/her."

For what it's worth, I used to think this too, as it's what I was always told when I asked the question "Why the fuck is he/she still in the job?".

But in practice providing you have good reason to get rid, either redundancy or because they were a bad employee then it's really not difficult. It's largely a myth built up by managers who are too cowardly to confront people about problems, and so rather than admit they haven't got what it takes to be a firm manager when they need to be, they simply make up shit about how it's too hard because of the law. An alternative form of the problem is because the manager asked HR and HR thought "Fuck that, that means we'd have to do some paperwork" they told the manager "Sorry, can't be done". The final common issue is simply that there are no grounds to get rid of the employee - they've done nothing wrong, there's no need to make cost savings, the manager is just a dick and wants to fuck them over but they don't have legitimate grounds to do so and so HR do the right thing and block them.

Failure to fire people who genuinely need to be fired, here in the UK at least, is much more about incompetence of those doing the firing, than it is the law making it too difficult.

Re:Buy American?

[Xest]

I agree with you for the most part but there is a question of balance. For example, would people really be any less likely to have kids if they only got 6 months of full paid maternity leave rather than 9 months? What about 7 months? 8 months?

I think you probably see the point, I'm not really advocating either way - whilst you're right about the general good reason for supporting child birth, this doesn't necessarily mean that some countries aren't giving away too much free money to those that have kids such that the excess they're giving wouldn't be a factor in the first place. For example, a female colleague of mine I used to work with complained that child benefit reduction here in the UK would leave her £20 worse off a week, so I looked at her and smirked then suggested "Well maybe you could not buy the new iPad your holding, by something slightly cheaper than the Gucci glasses or Prada shoes you're wearing, or not having the latest iPhone you have on your desk" - to be fair she laughed and said fair point, but I think this highlights the thing - the child benefits she was getting had given her additional income that contributed to her buying "nice things" for herself, she didn't really need them but because the money was there and she had it to spend it gave her this ability - not having it in the first place wouldn't have had any impact on her having children, it just meant she'd have been comfortable in life living with just one less designer product per year which isn't really a hardship.

So yes, encourage child birth, but no that doesn't necessarily mean giving away free stuff just because people have children - the two aren't necessarily related - having kids is a big decision and it's something you'll make one way or the other regardless of whether you can buy 4 or only 3 designer products in a year or regardless of whether you only get 8 months fully paid maternity instead of 9. Such factors are in practice just simply too small to have an impact on the outcome of such a big decision.

Re:Buy American?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I have thought about it as well. Leaning more towards Austria or the Scandinavian countries. My biggest problem is the language as I only speak English and have very poor comprehension of French that at it's best was worse than a French kindergartner's. I would miss the hunting opportunities offered in my state but the Scandinavians seem to enjoy it and is accepted so I would consider them. From the time I spent there the Austrians seem like my kind of people and I could work for the same company doing what I am currently doing but with better benefits and probably comparable take home pay.

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

It just means that employers are forbidden from entering into exclusive labor contracts with organizations like unions.

But it's OK if it's a gigantic corporation.

America!

Re:Buy American?

[Winchy]

What's your point? Are you suggesting that the recession in the Eurozone was caused by socialised medical protection?

Re:Buy American?

[clay_buster]

I'm not sure about your math. The last three places I've worked have all been over 20% H1B developers some over 40%. Where is this 2% place of which you speak?

Re:Buy American?

[Xest]

I think you've probably misunderstood what I said so I'll explain in more detail. The 2% is the proportion of H1-B visas relative to the amount of the jobs in the market each year.

For example, for 2012, if there are 1 million developer jobs in the US as the most realistic lower bounds figures suggest* and there are 20,000 new H1-B applicants each year then that means that in 2012, 2% of developer jobs were taken up by H1-B applicants. This means that in the 10 years since the H1-B program started, assuming there wasn't an equivalent number of H1-B workers leaving that the total figure will be higher, as the number of jobs and number of workers has scaled in fact you'd have just under 1%, but let's round it up to 1% of today's figures in 2002, 1.1% in 2003, 1.2% in 2004 and so on. That means assuming none left, none retired, none changed role (for example, promoted into management) 16.5% of today's developer market consisting of H1-B workers.

So your 20% figure isn't too far off that, but that estimate is very generous in weighting all assumptions towards the viewpoint that H1-B visas have a real impact on the job market. If there are in fact as high as 4 million developers it drops to only 4.125%, and of course if you guess that a non-negligible proportion have moved into management, left the US and gone back home, or changed careers then the number shrinks further. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle, but it's likely that in practice maybe 7 - 8% of developer jobs in the US are taken up by H1-B workers.

If you're seeing figures of 20% - 40% then you're working in places that are grossly weighted towards using the H1-B program and to offset that there would need to be many more companies that use few or no H1-B workers at all. In other words, your experience would not be typical in the slightest so is not reasonable to form an objective or neutral viewpoint off of.

*Some figures are even lower, but they search on a specific term like "programmer" and ignore developer so 1million is the lowest realistic estimate I could find but as I say, some estimates put it as high as 4 million.

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

as an american I resent this attitude. I resent all this anti-immigrant "my grandparents could come here but these newcomers can't" attitude. I resent the entitled attitude that my selfish, stupid, lazy, compatriots encourage..unless you are a native american 100%, get off your high horse and come down here to the ground with the rest of us. there should be no borders, there should be no countries, there should be no football clubs, there should be no tribalism... because, guess what: underneath your skin and mine beats the same kind of heart and the same blood flows in our veins. we are one species called homo sapiens, so start acting like it, not some neanderthal thug... cheers

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

when the hell do you imagine this H1B program started? and why have its pernicious effects gone unnoticed for so long? all I remember is that the month after 9-11, visa QUOTAs were implemented that dropped visas in certain categories from certain countries down by factors on 100 or more... IIRC Indian H1B's went from millions to 50k in one day...
the fact is: america was FOUNDED by immigrants, BUILT by immigrants, and all this whining about cultural values and integration is just bullshit, in my book, covering up for a generally poor entitled attitude that somehow NOW we are supposed to worry about "all these people coming in" when every single non-indigenous person is either an immigrant or descended from one...

Re:Buy American?

[Pope]

None of these things will be remembered in 20 years as significantly advancing the state of the art.

Wow. You're really dumb.

Re:Buy American?

[tnk1]

I agree that I could probably source a contractor faster than an employee, but I don't understand why being a contractor means he or she learns faster than anyone else would. There is also the fact that contractors tend to be of an uneven quality themselves, sometimes. If there was some sort of firm that maintained people on staff that had my exact needs available, that might be different, but that sort of specialization is expensive, even when it actually exists.

I used to be a contractor myself, and I'd like to think I did a good job of it, but I worked with many who were not. And good or not, I had the same spin-up period as anyone else. There would always be some tool they used which I had not, or they used tools I use all the time, but differently. For instance, believe it or not, I have never seen a business use JIRA in quite the same way or to the same extent, even working in three jobs in a row that have used it. That was mostly all process involved.

Business knowledge is king when it comes to a lot of things. Unless a new person already knows our deployment tools, our business model, and has some experience with the packages we use, they will effectively work at the level of someone who is not as good for a period of time, even after they start being productive. So in that case, I might as well keep the poor performer for the interim unless they suck that much, because at least I don't need to detail an existing employee to train them on the business stuff.

Which goes sort of back to my point on layoffs. Although they are horrible, that is usually when management takes the chance to fire people who are not all that good. Part of that reason is that the planning of the layoff usually gives you some ramp to figure out how to deal without that person. Unfortunately, being a layoff, you don't usually get someone to replace that person.

That is not to say that you suck if you got laid off. Very few people in this business rate being fired, many of the people who get laid off get the shaft based on some "fair" metric like critical domain knowledge, performance reviews, or seniority. Of course, since the layoff tends to include target numbers, there is the "unfair" situation where you simply cost too much. I used to wonder why companies didn't just reduce salaries, but the sad truth is that the preference is to fire rather than reduce salaries because reduction in salary creates an employee who has a good reason to look for another job while they continue with you. That means you have unplanned vacancies at the wrong time and produce potentially shoddier work.

Re:Buy American?

[Xest]

The reason I've tended to find experienced contractors can hit the ground running faster is simply because they've had so much practice at it - they've seen so many companies do so many things in so many different ways that it's just easier for them to jump in, even if you do things slightly different the person whose been at 30 different companies will find it easier to jump in than one that has only been at 2 or 3. Usually if they haven't seen the exact "thing" you do they've seen something they can at least relate to it.

I suppose in part though I have the benefit of having built decent relationships with close contractors such that I can usually find at least one that'll be able to come back as and when I need them. Because of that relationship they do know how we work, what we do and so forth so I guess in way once you've taken that first step of building up a decent pool of well known contractors then it gets easier too but again the value in doing this might depend on how dynamic you need your workforce to be.

This isn't to say that I haven't had bad contractors too of course, but that's one of those bumps along the road, and at least bad contractors are easy as hell to get rid of if nothing else.

I'm not sure what the US recruitment market is like (assuming that's where you are) but there are literally 100s of recruitment agencies in the UK and thanks to sheer number it does mean that at least one or two are actually quite good and again building relationships up with the good recruiters can help because they'll usually find you exactly what you need in no time and are also good at blacklisting the ones that got a bad reputation and hyping up the ones that have a good reputation because they know that means repeat business for them.

Re:Buy American?

[ultranova]

Welfare is a way of life, not a safety net.

True. Welfare means that public resources are used to build the social and physical infrastructure to support a good life for the citizens, with safety nets just a part of said infrastructure. In a welfare state no one lacks education or healthcare for lack of money, which leads to great social mobility. The result - healthy, educated and motivated workforce - combined with good infrastructure leads to great economic competitiviness, but it also means that even hobos don't starve, which greatly irritates some people who apparently think the purpose of life is to prove your evolutionary fitness or something.

Wild animals that receive handouts become lazy and dependent on those handouts, and humans are no different.

That's a great point, actually. Now ask yourself: which would you rather have as a neighbour, a lazy dog or a hungry wolf?

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll sign up. It's getting to the point that I may have to change fields if I want to be able to retire some day. I'm a valued employee with company awards on my desk that's nice but a raise would be better.

Re:Buy American?

[TheSync]

Gimme a break, man. Look at the Large Hadron Collider -- that could have been us, but we slashed the funding. A Nobel Prize?

Well David Jeffrey Wineland (USA, NIST) won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 2011 for laser cooling and manipulation of quantum states.

Brian Kobilka (USA, Stanford) and Robert Lefkowitz (USA, Duke) won the Nobel Prize in Chemistry in 2012 for work on G protein-coupled receptors.

Some other recent USA winners of scientific Nobel prizes:

Saul Perlmutter, Physics, 2011
Brian P. Schmidt, Physics, 2011
Adam G. Riess, Physics, 2011
Ralph M. Steinman, Physiology or Medicine, 2011
Bruce Beutler, Physiology or Medicine, 2011
Richard F. Heck, Chemistry, 2010
Ei-ichi Negishi, Chemistry, 2010
Thomas A. Steitz, Chemistry, 2009

Re:Buy American?

[TheSync]

Are you suggesting that the recession in the Eurozone was caused by socialised medical protection?

That is not clear to me - but it is clear that restrictive labor laws are playing a major role.

Re:Buy American?

[Anonymous Coward]

My brother used to get "I'm sorry you're over qualified" and changed fields so he could actually get work. I am under qualified but have experience and have no problem getting in the door for reduced pay.

Re:Buy American?

[mantle9695]

I am one of the co-founders of a tech start-up that is currently going through expansion, and I completely agree with Xest's point. We recently gave an offer out to someone with an O-1 visa, with a competitive salary. For a small, lean company, we are extremely mindful about our burn rate. But he is certainly one of the best in his field and we didn't even think twice about having to sponsor the O-1. At the end of the day, the labor market is a free market like everything else in this capitalistic society. If people have rare and special skills, they will command a higher market price. It doesn't matter if someone needs a visa sponsorship, has 11 fingers, or is a midget and needs a different furniture setup. If I don't acquire the necessary talent for the company to excel, then I am doing my team, my customers, my shareholders, and myself, a disservice. If I need to do or give extra to make the hire, then I absolutely will be glad to do so.

Re:Buy American?

[GameboyRMH]

Because conservatives think poor people have the intelligence of wild animals, it's a recurring theme.

Re:Buy American?

[DNS-and-BIND]

A poor person who votes conservative is called what, exactly?

You mean there is exactly one correct way for people to vote, and anyone who does otherwise has the intelligence of a wild animal? How does that work? What does that say about free will? One need only look at the rampant hatred for Justice Souter or Alan West to understand that people of a certain skin color are not allowed the same choices that the rest of us are privy to.

Re:Buy American?

[girlintraining]

Dude, all you've done is pulled a bunch of numbers out of your ass, and then constructed an argument on it. Now I appreciate that maybe Fox News has had a bad impact on your ability to construct a proper argument, but rather than address the specific points, I'll just throw out a couple key principles that are well-established and then hit the conclusion.

First, if you increase labor, and demand remains constant, the price will drop. This is the law of supply and demand. All of your quoting of numbers and beating of chest tries to cover up the fact that more workers means lower wages, all other things being equal. It's an escapable economic truth.

As to the rest of your rant, it's all weasel words, ad homid attacks, and a lot of screaming "It can't be true because it can't be true because..." circular logic.

Here's some global data regarding wages. I'm not going to make it too easy for you by linking in the exact table you need to look at... but if you want to educate yourself instead of screaming profanities... I'd start there.

Re:Buy American?

[GameboyRMH]

Is that a strawman or did you misread my comment?

Re:Buy American?

[Xest]

"Dude, all you've done is pulled a bunch of numbers out of your ass, and then constructed an argument on it."

Except I provided a source for all my numbers, which is more than can be said for your incoherent rants and conspiracy theories. At least the numbers I provided are verifiable, I'm sorry if the facts conflict with your world view.

"Now I appreciate that maybe Fox News has had a bad impact on your ability to construct a proper argument"

Except I don't watch Fox News because as I said, I'm not American, and we don't have that drivel here. We have proper news outlets like the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 news.

"but rather than address the specific points, I'll just throw out a couple key principles that are well-established and then hit the conclusion."

In other words, "I'll do what I accused you of and make shit up and drawn a conclusion on the shit I made up".

"First, if you increase labor, and demand remains constant, the price will drop. This is the law of supply and demand. All of your quoting of numbers and beating of chest tries to cover up the fact that more workers means lower wages, all other things being equal. It's an escapable economic truth."

Which is great for your argument if you ignore the fact that demand hasn't remained constant and the price hasn't dropped. Unfortunately, ignoring reality doesn't help your case.

"Here's some global data regarding wages. I'm not going to make it too easy for you by linking in the exact table you need to look at... but if you want to educate yourself instead of screaming profanities... I'd start there."

In other words "I'm going to link to an arbitrary site, and not point to anything particular and pretend this adds validity to my argument in some unknown way". I could see nothing specific about developer wages there which is what we're talking about, and given that developer wages haven't followed the average trend I can only guess this is a desperate attempt by you to muddy the waters and make the false inference that if average wages have dropped, so must have developer wages. If you can't even be bothered to point out what it is you believe is damning evidence for your case then I'm certainly not going to try and dig for and guess what you think that might be given that I've already proven your existing points wrong with verifiable facts and figures.

I offered you a pretty detailed and verifiable set of facts and figures as to why the US is still full of developer opportunities and you opted to ignore it, pretend it's not real, and claw desperately for misdirection. It's okay I get it, you really are beyond help, the fact you "educate yourself instead of screaming profanities" despite there being no profanities in my comment is evidence enough that there isn't something quite right in your head because if you can't read a reasoned post with verifiable facts without seeing profanities where there are none then you obviously need professional help.

Good luck wallowing in your pit of despair, you obviously want to keep blaming everyone but yourself, but don't be surprised when nothing changes for you. You'll never find a solution when you refuse to even acknowledge the problem - you.

Re:Buy American?

[airdweller]

This needs to be modded through the roof.

Re:Buy American?

[benhattman]

H1B is a problem, but I don't believe it's the type of problem people think it is.

It's essentially indentured servitude. People come in, and it's not like they are here because they have skills and so long as they can remain employed they get to stay. They are basically at the behest of the company who brought them in. That company grinds on them for a time (which due to the high pay compared to back home is still a good deal usually for the employee), and then sends them back to wherever for fresh blood. Those people go back home and now suddenly they are direct competitors who we have trained.

If we have a shortage of workers in a sector, I see nothing wrong with immigration. In deed, as a US citizen, I hope we encourage the very best and brightest from all over the world to come here. I just want those people to stay and contribute for decades to come.

Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[Animats]

Typical employer whining about not being willing to pay prevailing wages. From the article:

• "Getting a regular visa wasn't an option because of the salary thresholds"
• "Canadian cousin flew in to London via Germany. ... She was due to stay with us to help us out with our newborn baby, and also to do some unpaid work experience at my wife's business."

As usual, it's employers whining that they can't find wage slaves.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[NewWorldDan]

Quite the contrary. Employers are able to find good workers for a reasonable price and the government is saying no. So meanwhile some guy's new business is struggling to get going and some other guy who had the misfortune of being born somewhere else can't find work. Free trade, by definition, is mutually beneficial to both parties. Meanwhile, people on H1B visas are getting treated like indentured servants, because that's what they are. If you just let workers come over and work for market wages, you'll quickly get equilibrium and not have to deal with this nonsense.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[Intrepid imaginaut]

Hey, my business plan would work great if only I didn't have to pay people!

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[Anonymous Coward]

and we have a winner!

I have stopped telling people "I am a computer programmer". Oh it carries decent prestige with it. The problem is the cheap-ass's with 'the best idea evar!!!1!!'. All they need is 'someone to cobble it together for them'. They get seriously angry when I tell them my rates and will not work for free. 'but we know each other wont you do it for free its really easy'. There are only 2 people I will work for free for, my wife and me.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[rmstar]

Quite the contrary. Employers are able to find good workers for a reasonable price and the government is saying no.

They want to work for free but the gov says no. It's sensible, because stopping people from working for too little avoids races to the bottom and makes sure everyone gets paid enough (which in turn ensures that the economy keeps moving).

Free trade, by definition, is mutually beneficial to both parties.

Only in a simple and sterile world where everything is linear. In truth, it is easy to find examples of free trades that do not benefit anyone. Like the addict and the heroin dealer, both sinking deeper into tragedy as a result of their (free) trade.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[tnk1]

That depends on if the wage thresholds are reasonable, or if they are simply trying to inflate everyone's standard of living artificially. If the latter, it will crush small businesses who legitimately can't afford to hire expensive employees.

We're not talking about megacorps here, we're talking about small businesses. Anything that allows them to grow a business is only going to help your country if you know how to keep them here.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[ebno-10db]

Free trade, by definition, is mutually beneficial to both parties.

Another person spouting nonsense about "free trade". It's not by definition, but according to simplistic theory. Furthermore, even that theory requires conditions that often aren't met (e.g. balanced trade). "Mutual benefit" means it benefits both countries in terms of their aggregate statistics (e.g. GDP) and says nothing about the distribution of those benefits. So if 1% of the people got an enormous benefit and 99% got screwed, free trade theory would still call that a net benefit.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[ebno-10db]

You must have a better business plan than me. Mine only works if the employees pay me.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[ebno-10db]

We're not talking about megacorps here, we're talking about small businesses.

So? Small companies that can't survive without special privileges deserve to die. It's a harsh reality called "capitalism" and "competition", though many people seem to like those things only when they're applied to other people. As for "anything that allows them to grow a business is only going to help your country", it's utter crap. If a company isn't competitive in an environment where other companies do fine, it means that company is a failure. Giving it special privileges to stay afloat is called welfare. The resources would be better invested in a competitive company.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[TheSync]

Another person spouting nonsense about "free trade". It's not by definition, but according to simplistic theory. Furthermore, even that theory requires conditions that often aren't met (e.g. balanced trade). "Mutual benefit" means it benefits both countries in terms of their aggregate statistics

Free trade means two people decide to engage in a mutually beneficial economic transaction, so it benefits both parties. That's a fact.

Trade statistics don't matter. The US could run a trade deficit forever and become more wealthy because those trades ARE making the people in the country more wealthy, or else they would not be engaging in the trades.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[gnoshi]

That is getting very close to the 'no true scotsman' fallacy: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

i.e. If someone provides an example of where free trade is not mutually beneficial then claiming it is not an example of free trade, because "Free trade means two people decide to engage in a mutually beneficial economic transaction, so it benefits both parties. That's a fact."

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[NicBenjamin]

To an extent you're right. If both those employers had wanted to pay their prospective employee then the immigration rulings would not have mattered.

Thing is in both cases the "employee" was in a situation where they wouldn't have been paid anything as a native. In the UK six-month internships are unpaid. UK Labour law was basically protecting navite Brits right to do a six-month internship for free, not ensuring Brits got fairly paid.

As for the Canadian cousin, you do realize that a) Canada is not a low wage country, and b) at this very minute there are probably several hundred Brits helping family in London for room and board. Some of them are probably doing work that the government would call employment.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[tepples]

[My business plan] only works if the employees pay me.

Isn't that the business plan of any organized religion, especially one with a lay ministry like, say, Jehovah's Witnesses?

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[gnoshi]

Wow, I hadn't realised that /. had slipped to the point where clearly pointing out a potential issue in definitions used for argument was 'trolling'.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[Anonymous Coward]

"Free trade, by definition, is mutually beneficial to both parties" Ah, another Randroid in need schooling: Slavery by definition is mutually beneficial to both participants in that the slave driver gets his cotton picked and the slave doesn't get whipped.You see, everybody wins. With free trade the CEO gets his cotton picked and the worker gets $.12 an hour so he can buy a bowl of rice so he doesn't starve to death. Everyone wins. Or we could have labor laws like minimum wage. Now the CEO gets his cotton picked and the worker gets enough for a small house and maybe even a car. Everyone wins. To put it in the terminology that Randroids understand: There are more ways to coerce someone than by putting a gun to there head.

Re:Didn't want to pay prevailing wages

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm guess you're setting up a government?

Hate labor laws?

[i kan reed]

You might be a greedy scumbag, regardless of the amount of money you have already accrued. Check for the following symptoms: not wanting to pay taxes on money your employees earned for you, feeling it is totally acceptable to dumb toxic waste from your country off the coast of Somalia, or stealing from babies.

But seriously, this isn't "battling labor laws," this is breaking the law for a higher profit margin.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[geek]

You might be a greedy scumbag, regardless of the amount of money you have already accrued. Check for the following symptoms: not wanting to pay taxes on money your employees earned for you, feeling it is totally acceptable to dumb toxic waste from your country off the coast of Somalia, or stealing from babies.

But seriously, this isn't "battling labor laws," this is breaking the law for a higher profit margin.

The laws being talked about are the ones where it is literally impossible to fire the employees unless they commit a crime. My company has an entire office full of people in Italy that do nothing because we have no more use for the facility but the local laws do not allow us to fire them. Instead we make them show up every day, for their 7-8 hours and sit in chairs and do nothing. They get paid for this. Some day they will quit and move on to other jobs and they just wont be replaced. However it's been about 3 years so far and they are still hanging around. France is even worse.

Not to mention the insane amount of paid time off many Europeans get. Honestly, I have a lot of friends in these countries. Many are out of work needlessly. If the government would unpucker its asshole and allow the crap people to be fired, the companies wouldnt be so afraid to hire new ones.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[rmstar]

Not to mention the insane amount of paid time off many Europeans get.

What is insane is how little paid time off people get in the US. I am sure most americans would love to have a decent break every now and then without having to fear that the job is gone when they are back.

In fact, without having to fear.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Intrepid imaginaut]

The more business-astute in these countries just open a seperate business and close it when they need to let people go.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[SirGarlon]

The grass always looks greener on the other side of the fence.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[girlintraining]

You might be a greedy scumbag, regardless of the amount of money you have already accrued. Check for the following symptoms: not wanting to pay taxes on money your employees earned for you, feeling it is totally acceptable to dumb toxic waste from your country off the coast of Somalia, or stealing from babies.

You must have missed the part where they said they want to do it legally. There. It's in bold now to be harder to ignore in your frenzied rush to get in a few licks without bothering to check and see that this is Europe, not the United States. You know, with the paying of taxes and the giving of benefits. They want to give those things away. Oh, and vacation days? They have those in Europe. It's some radical liberal idea that just hasn't caught on here. And as for toxic waste and stealing babies... well that escalated quickly... this is software development, not a nuclear weapons program with a side of trading in humans...

Re:Hate labor laws?

[girlintraining]

My company has an entire office full of people in Italy that do nothing because we have no more use for the facility but the local laws do not allow us to fire them.

We call those types of people Senators over here in the USA.

Not to mention the insane amount of paid time off many Europeans get.

Paid time off... that sounds nice. I'm putting in 60 hours this week.

Many are out of work needlessly. If the government would unpucker its asshole and allow the crap people to be fired, the companies wouldnt be so afraid to hire new ones.

Sounds like the government may have been reacting to high levels of unemployment by making it more difficult to fire people for crap reasons just to rotate in someone at a lower wage. As I understand it, Europeans take quality of life a bit more seriously than over here -- national health care, a solvent social security system, generous unemployment and welfare packages, vacation days that aren't just stand-ins for sick days, and your CEOs over there don't make 4,500x more than your rank and file. It's almost like they... care about the working class.

Look, I can appreciate bad laws interfering with commerce and employment. I sympathize. But only to a point. The system we have over here which throws the working class under the bus is not an improvement. I do not often hear of cities in Europe being reclaimed by nature because it was infested with poor people and we didn't care enough to rebuild it. I don't hear about expensive cell phone plans with limited options and everything is locked in by vendor. I don't hear about nightmare housing situations where 20% of a country's homes sit vacant while nearly the same number of people are homeless.

You may have traded a lack of profit and industry production for a better quality of life and resent that fact, but take it from someone whose country chose the former over the latter: It's bad. It's real bad over here. For every person who "made it" and became a success story, there's dozens who are living hand to mouth and afraid they won't be able to afford food next week.

Europe has its problems... but choose wisely which ones you want to trade them for.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Xemu]

Instead we make them show up every day, for their 7-8 hours and sit in chairs and do nothing

If this is the best use of available resources your company's management can come up with, I suggest replacing management with smarter people.

Even asking these people to clean toilets would have made the company more money.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[fatmonkeyboy]

That's very good for you, but it's also not typical.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[fatmonkeyboy]

Hah. Whoosh. Two days off = Saturday / Sunday. Man, I fell into that one :p

Re:Hate labor laws?

[ebno-10db]

The laws being talked about are the ones where it is literally impossible to fire the employees unless they commit a crime.

No, these are startups whining they can't hire anybody they want from anywhere they want, wages, visas, etc. be damned.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[tnk1]

You are right, but they are attempting to close that little loophole. The courts are starting to look very unfavorably towards companies that try to liquidate, and then start a new business with all the same customers and the employees they want, but without any of the debt or the other obligations.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

I get two days off every week. I get 3 weeks off every year and I have 6 paid days off a year in the form of floating holidays and sick days.

That's very good for you, but most software engineers I know work more than 5 days every week (but generally are only paid for the first five). Some PHB has a bonus that depends on that.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[geraud]

No, it's not impossible to fire people in Italy nor in France. Companies just have to pay adequate compensation for breaking employment contracts. The keyword here is contract, binding both parties (employee not getting unemployment benefits if they are the ones breaking it). Of course most are too cheap to pay.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly that sounds more like a problem with your company. Why LET them just sit there? Has all of your company's business just ended and there is no work left at all for them to do? Why not have them researching ways to attract more business to provide more work for them to do?

I know there are terrible places to work in America, but I have personally never worked at a place where they just casually let you go because there's no more work. They have always tried to find a use for me before laying me off, and my last employer actually found me another new full-time job that paid MORE than they were paying me. I realize my experience is not typical.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[timmyf2371]

Not to mention the insane amount of paid time off many Europeans get. Honestly, I have a lot of friends in these countries. Many are out of work needlessly. If the government would unpucker its asshole and allow the crap people to be fired, the companies wouldnt be so afraid to hire new ones.

I agree that it's often too difficult to fire underachievers but sometimes this is also attributable to management capability as much as anything else.

On the topic of paid time off, in the UK there is a legal minimum of 28 days paid leave. This can include bank holidays such as Christmas and New Years Day. Typically, many workplaces offer between 20-25 days depending on length of service plus the eight bank holidays on top.

When taken throughout the year, these days are usually enough to allow employees to recharge their batteries, go travelling, and deal with all those extra situations like taking a few days off for a house move etc. A healthy and refreshed workforce is often a productive workforce.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except there is such a thing as "economic dismissal" in France. If there is no work for someone to do, and if the particular subsidiary is not making any money, you can let people go.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking as an American who just dealt with a recruiter that tried to claim:

"5 sick days, 11 holidays, and 2 weeks PTO is the industry standard..." and I'm "expecting too much"..

Fuck that.

I declined the position after three interviews were invested in me.

And I'll keep doing it until they deal with a company that has some fucking respect.

Of course, maybe it's a sign that the company needs a recruiter because they have such shit leave.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

If what you describe in your office in Italy is accurate, the fix is straightforward: make them sit in their places all day, but don't give them computers or wifi. And ban personal cellphones in the office.

I doubt if many will stay there long under those conditions.

Or is it possible they are doing something, you just don't understand what it is?

Re:Hate labor laws?

[RoknrolZombie]

Instead we make them show up every day, for their 7-8 hours and sit in chairs and do nothing. They get paid for this. Some day they will quit and move on to other jobs and they just wont be replaced.

Seriously? I would have to DIE to leave a job like. Literally having 8 hours of "downtime" to work on my own projects? That's a damned dream job right there. Good luck with that.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[gnoshi]

But because of the power differential, they may well be able to get people who will do the job with even less leave and sick days. In a high unemployment environment, as long as they can out-wait the individuals who need to put food on the table then they're set.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Immerman]

I was about to make the same basic comment, minus the toilets. Now that I think about it though toilet-cleaning or other onerous duties would probably enourage a lot of such employees to look for other jobs as well, and added bonus.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your company has sunk-cost labor, according to you, and the best thing the co. can do with it is _nothing_? Jeez. Hire them out as palm-readers or a call center or sock darners, if the skills they were originally hired for aren't useful. Any income would be an improvement.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[NicBenjamin]

I don't think anyone except European workers seriously thinks the principle "a job is a job for life," is good for economic dynamism. Unfortunately for folks who prefer government policy to be as close to an economist's ideal as possible; European workers and European voters are pretty much the same group of people.

Moreover for about half of Europe dynamism would suck ass. Germany and Northern Europe are doing fine with their fossilized labor markets.

As for paid time off, you do realize that salaried Americans don't get that much less paid time off then Europeans? 20 days a year is exactly what the UK mandates. It's less then Germany, Denmark, or Greece (Germany is 24, the other two 25), but it's much more then our actual neighbors (Canada and Mexico are typically two weeks because they don't have a half-dozen holidays nobody remembers).

Re:Hate labor laws?

[tompaulco]

What is insane is how little paid time off people get in the US.

I have had to deal with foreign leave time before. I was working in the U.S. and having to coordinate work on a project with the Paris office. It was next to impossible to get anything done because out of 10 people, on any given day 3 to 10 of them would be out on vacation, holidays, sick, didn't show up, etc.

Having been with my current company for 7 years, I get something like 5 weeks a year now. But that's a joke. There is quite simply no way they would let me take that much vacation. It is currently midway through May and I have had zero days of sick or vacation time so far, and I don't see where I will be able to take any time in the near future.
It ought to be a law that they have to pay you for unused vacation, especially if they don't allow you to use it.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[tompaulco]

5 sick days, 11 holidays, and 2 weeks PTO is the industry standard.

Lucky you. At my company, new hires get two weeks PTO and bank holidays. Sick days are included in PTO. Apparently, they thought they could slip by me unnoticed that they went from two weeks VACATION and unlimited sick time to two weeks PTO INCLUDING sick time. I can't believe people signed the new policy. I sure haven't.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[tompaulco]

Frankly that sounds more like a problem with your company. Why LET them just sit there? Has all of your company's business just ended and there is no work left at all for them to do? Why not have them researching ways to attract more business to provide more work for them to do?

Or close down the location and offer to let them keep their job in the new Antarctica location, or agree to mutual separation?

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

I have had to deal with foreign leave time before. I was working in the U.S. and having to coordinate work on a project with the Paris office. It was next to impossible to get anything done because out of 10 people, on any given day 3 to 10 of them would be out on vacation, holidays, sick, didn't show up, etc.

That looks like a different problem.

France has a 35 hours work week. Presumably, you are making them work 40+ hours a week. That then results in the French getting a ridiculous number of extra days off to compensate for the overtime.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

My god.....if I don't have a pressing project due at work I nearly freak out. I can't imagine sitting there every day for years, it's like prison, maybe worse.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[datavirtue]

My company has an entire office full of people in Italy that do nothing because we have no more use for the facility but the local laws do not allow us to fire them.

We call those types of people Senators over here in the USA.

Funny, it reminded me of the college where I work. A bunch of people sitting around watching You Tube videos, chatting about video games (these are 40, 50, 60 year old people), and their favorite shows. Sometimes they stop to bitch about their job for a while. I hate downtime! I can't wait to fly this coop...soon...soon.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[peppepz]

My company has an entire office full of people in Italy that do nothing because we have no more use for the facility but the local laws do not allow us to fire them. Instead we make them show up every day, for their 7-8 hours and sit in chairs and do nothing.

Fire your lawyers then. In Italy you can fire people you no longer need, it's called "justified objective reason", and it applies in cases of crisis, downsizing, restructuring, or ceased utility of the job position in general.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[jawtheshark]

It ought to be a law that they have to pay you for unused vacation, especially if they don't allow you to use it.

In my country, that exists (in some form, too long to totally explain the details). I simply don't want that. Those are taxed so high, I would effectively be paid lower than minimum wage. So gimme me free days? Can't... Fine, as long as I don't lose them... I'll take them later, or when I quit.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[jawtheshark]

I don't hear about nightmare housing situations where 20% of a country's homes sit vacant while nearly the same number of people are homeless.

No, you don't hear those... They do exist. I live in Luxembourg, which is -granted- a quite peculiar place to live. In the capital (which is small, by any reasonable standards), there are 2900 homes empty (source: Près de 2900 logements vides dans la capitale. Link is in French). I don't know how many homes there are in the city, but given a population of 80000, with an average of 3 people per home (wild guess), we're talking 11% vacant. People want to live there, but it's simply cost-prohibitive. Owners don't want to rent cheaper: they'd rather have their buildings vacant than getting less than the perceived market rate.

I'm well paid, so is my wife (she actually makes more than I do, if she would work full-time) and we did manage to buy ourself a small home. We need to work both, though, and we did get a significant financial aid from my parents. Alone would be impossible. This brings me to another example: the house we got, is newly built. Formerly a big house was on the terrain, which was split for three smaller houses. This particular big house, was built in the mid seventies, and had been vacant since 2000. We just moved in our house, so, that's over 10 years completely vacant. The reason? Nobody can afford these kind of houses any more, especially if they're require some restoration. I don't even live in the city, a house like mine in the city is unaffordable, even for people in my income class.

Personally, I have no idea how, let's say, a cashier married to a bus driver (which is surprisingly well paid!) can even subsist in our country. I know as per fact, that many people with lower wages, just leave the country. Sure, it's not all that hard to do, given the country is so small.

I'm pretty sure, you'll find situations like these in many locations with high real-estate prices: Paris, London, etc...

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Man, if a company's turning a profit depends on getting programming work done under the fair market price, then their business is extremely shitty.

Seriously. Consider the added value of a programmer, say, substituting a paper-driven procedure that must be repeated some thousands of times every year with a custom software thing. Clerks and whatnot can process maybe four or five of those per day. The computer could do fifty every second without breaking 10% utilization. Boom, the computer program is now easily worth its volume in clerks, and more as processing increases.

Some would say that this causes unemployment, but that's not true. Skilled clerks etc. are quite useful in lower-volume clerical tasks. The total amount of paperwork never comes down.

The company will turn as mad a profit as they can shove at those systems. The programmers will eventually put the current system into maintenance, and start on the next one -- which becomes another work multiplier. Unless management is a bunch of fools who don't know how to expand their business, there's no reason besides fuckheadedness to underpay programmers.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[TheHonch]

What insane amount of paid time off? I'm from Sweden and only have 7 weeks (35 days) of vacation/year, plus the regular holidays etc of course. Fun fact, we get paid more when on vacation! :)

Re:Hate labor laws?

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

You sound like you need some vacation. Seriously.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Xest]

One might wonder also how a) Their hiring process ended up managing to hire such a disproportionately high amount of incompetent staff because Italy is still a top 10 major world economy and it couldn't be if even the majority of it's citizens were like this, and b) why they don't just close down their Italian operation full stop and pull out of Italy rather than leave it as is.

Or to put it another way, the GP's post has the distinct smell of bullshit to it.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Xest]

"On the topic of paid time off, in the UK there is a legal minimum of 28 days paid leave."

That's until the eurosceptic Tory/UKIP supporters take it away from us of course given that each time "renegotiation" with the EU is brought up the first thing they demand we renegotiate is the working time directive and minimum holiday limitations.

If they get their way then we'll be going the US way of no minimum leave long before the US comes in our direction and grants it's citizens a minimum statutory amount of time off.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Xest]

"Moreover for about half of Europe dynamism would suck ass. Germany and Northern Europe are doing fine with their fossilized labor markets."

Which is of course why the EU is still by far the largest economy in the world. Because it's not dynamic enough.

Seriously, no one in the EU believes in a job for life anymore. Well that's a lie, but no greater a proportion than anywhere else in the world. It's primarily the baby boomers who hold that view.

"As for paid time off, you do realize that salaried Americans don't get that much less paid time off then Europeans? 20 days a year is exactly what the UK mandates."

20 days + 8 bank holidays, so 28 days. The same applies to the other countries you mentioned, you're just comparing against the leave that you can use when you want to as an employee, rather than the total which also includes static public holidays like Christmas day, Good friday and so on.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[tompaulco]

In my country, that exists (in some form, too long to totally explain the details). I simply don't want that. Those are taxed so high, I would effectively be paid lower than minimum wage. So gimme me free days? Can't... Fine, as long as I don't lose them... I'll take them later, or when I quit.

That would be fine, but in most companies in the U.S., you can only carry over so many days from year to year, whether you simply chose not to take them, or the company's project schedule precluded you from taking any. Also, in my company, if you quit, they only pay you for HALF of your earned Paid Time Off. If you've earned it, you've bloody earned it and need to be paid for it. I guess that is why you schedule 6 weeks of vacation and then call in on your fourth week to give your two weeks notice. Otherwise they screw you on your earned vacation days.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[jawtheshark]

Well, that's why I didn't explain the whole thing. You're not allowed to carry over anything normally. Except IF you asked for them and they were not granted. So, the loophole is to ask for them when it's impossible and then you can carry them over. Furthermore, those days carried over need to be taken before the 31st March. Depending on the company, you can agree with them that you keep them. Most allow that, or they pay you out. (Which to most people is the desirable option, to me it isn't as I'm pretty well paid resulting in insane taxation) The alternative is having no staff in February/March ;-)

But yeah, I have enough vacation and never know when to take them. Being in Europe doesn't help much against that.

Re:Hate labor laws?

[spyfrog]

How do you have 7 weeks? The norm is five weeks and employees in the public sector gets a week extra (totally six weeks) after they gets 40 years old.

Re: Hate labor laws?

[TheHonch]

Government employee over 40=35 days. Age30=28 days and 30-39=31 days

Re: Hate labor laws?

[spyfrog]

Do you count holidays also?
I work in goverment, is 35 and have 25 days

Re:Hate labor laws?

[airdweller]

Seriously?! Somebody didn't get this was irony?! What is wrong with you people?

Re:Hate labor laws?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, Europe is now following and 'improving' the American model very fast.

I've run into this

[DoofusOfDeath]

I live outside the EU, but I'm looking to develop software in Switzerland. Apparently it's so difficult for a Swiss company to get a work visa for non-EU (Schengen area) workers, that they're almost never willing to go through the effort.

Unfortunately, the best way to get permission to live within a EU country is to have a job waiting for you. The chicken-and-egg problem is rather vexing.

Re:I've run into this

[0123456]

The problem is that the EU allows most people from any EU nation to move to other EU nations. As the locals get fed up with millions of people arriving in their country with whom they have nothing in common, who often can't speak the same language, and who take many of the low-paid jobs that locals used to do, they demand that their politicians do something about immigration. The politicians can't do anything about EU immigration because it's controlled by the EU, so they impose tougher and tougher rules on non-EU immigration, which are counterproductive and fail to solve the problem, but win votes.

Re:I've run into this

[DoofusOfDeath]

But does it really fail to solve the problem? Because at least in my case so far, it seems to have had precisely the effect the you said the locals wanted.

But I guess there are varying definitions of success. I suspect that, rightly or wrongly, they would rather have me: a highly educated person who wants to learn the local non-English languages and integrate with the culture, over some EU citizen who just wants to take advantage of generous welfare benefits.

Re:I've run into this

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems to depend on country of the applicant. Even non-EU citizens from certain countries (USA, Japan, Israel and some others) seem to have a speedier access path to the EU labor market.

Re:I've run into this

[Anonymous Coward]

>The problem is that the EU allows most people from any EU nation to move to other EU nations.

No it's not.

>As the locals get fed up with millions of people arriving in their country

[references needed] Unfounded claim. That's not the case. http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=27&r=eu&l=en

>who often can't speak the same language

They learn like everybody. They are not stupidier than yourself.

>who take many of the low-paid jobs that locals used to do

and want no more to do.

>so they impose tougher and tougher rules on non-EU immigration, which are counterproductive and fail to solve the problem, but win votes.

So you complain about EU immigration and you complain about rules too stringent on non-EU immigration. Let's me understand: what is your agenda ?

EU need time to stabilize that's all but EU is the greatest thing that arrived in Europe for a long time. Not perfect, I don't agree with all decision but still in the right direction. Will restraining freedom of movement of people inside europe solve any problem: NO ! The biggest problem now is the inequalities of wage and the only way to solve this problem is to enable these to converge by itself letting the people the freedom of movement.

Freedom is the most important thing for humanity. Repeat it: FREEDOM IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR HUMANITY !

Re:I've run into this

[Xest]

Switzerland isn't an EU member so that's really a Swiss problem and is symptomatic of the insular view of the Swiss people (which in turn is why they choose not to be in the EU).

EU countries still have control of their non-EU immigration policies so getting permission to work in the EU as a non-EU citizen will really vary from country to country in general for what it's worth.

When capitalism meets socialism.....

[Anonymous Coward]

"intricate vagaries" always beget "fudges, shortcuts and workarounds"

No longer smuggling people in to pick strawberries. Now we smuggle people in to write code! (zeh are tekeeng hour zhobs)

captcha: limiters

"Importing" labor?

[Noryungi]

Yeah, right.

It's more like: "We don't want to pay proper wages for good techies, so we are breaking/bending every rules to exploit cheap illegal labor and keeping more of the venture capitalist money for ourselves".

Seriously, I have seen this in many a start-up, in France and elsewhere: pay people low - even though their knowledge is what makes your bloody start-up possible - and fire them as soon as they start demanding correct wages and reasonable working hours. Meanwhile, the CEO is looking for the nearest Porsche dealership. It's simply disgusting, and it has nothing to do with France laws and regulations (which can be a pain in the neck, I admit).

Re:"Importing" labor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, right.

It's more like: "We don't want to pay proper wages for good techies, so we are breaking/bending every rules to exploit cheap illegal labor and keeping more of the venture capitalist money for ourselves".

Seriously, I have seen this in many a start-up, in France and elsewhere: pay people low - even though their knowledge is what makes your bloody start-up possible - and fire them as soon as they start demanding correct wages and reasonable working hours. Meanwhile, the CEO is looking for the nearest Porsche dealership. It's simply disgusting, and it has nothing to do with France laws and regulations (which can be a pain in the neck, I admit).

I agree that this is most likely the case. Simple economics suggests that by raising wages, you can fill the positions you are having so much difficulty filling.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[girlintraining]

It's more like: "We don't want to pay proper wages for good techies, so we are breaking/bending every rules to exploit cheap illegal labor and keeping more of the venture capitalist money for ourselves".

You're confusing Europe for the United States. We just made labor exploitation legal. Not exactly a new concept -- the H1-B visa program might have screwed up, but we built our entire railways at the turn of the last century on the backs of chinese immigrants. The European Union has much stricter laws regarding labor exploitation, and also immigration. It's flat out near-impossible to immigrate into many of those countries. And this is coming from someone who's highly trained, has a college degree, and is in a field highly sought-after.

They're not lying -- it really is hard to get people into the country legally. Europe's been suffering a "brain drain" for years -- it's easy to leave. It's hard to get in.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[Noryungi]

You're confusing Europe for the United States. We just made labor exploitation legal. Not exactly a new concept -- the H1-B visa program might have screwed up, but we built our entire railways at the turn of the last century on the backs of chinese immigrants. The European Union has much stricter laws regarding labor exploitation, and also immigration. It's flat out near-impossible to immigrate into many of those countries.

Nope. First of all, re-read the original article: we are talking about people working illegally in European countries. It is entirely possible to move to Europe illegally - just like in the USA, get there with a student (or tourism) visa and just stay in the country instead of going back home. Sure, it sucks because you can be caught (asked to provide valid ID, etc.) and sent back to your country, opening a bank account, renting a place, etc. all of these things are somewhat harder to do when you are illegal, but they can be done in every European country that I know of.

Second, European laws are sinking very fast to the level of the USA. More and more EU countries, under pressure by the same kind of people that are described in the article, are dismantling the only thing that makes life bearable: the protection they gave to their workers. In France, where I reside currently, a law is being considered that would make hiring/firing even easier than in the USA, while reducing social benefits, including firing compensations and unemployment benefits. And it's the same thing pretty much all over Europe.

Remember that unemployment is rising to never-before-seen levels. Youth unemployment stands around 25%-30% in Southern Europe, and sometimes much higher. In the meantime, start-ups are looking at illegal immigrants for techie jobs... Why is that? Because, yes, these people want to stuff as much money in their pockets as possible.

Again, this has nothing to do with finding labor - it has everything to do with screwing Joe Techie. Same as the US H1-B visas.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[girlintraining]

Remember that unemployment is rising to never-before-seen levels. Youth unemployment stands around 25%-30% in Southern Europe, and sometimes much higher. In the meantime, start-ups are looking at illegal immigrants for techie jobs... Why is that? Because, yes, these people want to stuff as much money in their pockets as possible.

We're at 25-30% right now and have none of those protections. We just lie through our teeth about how we calculate our unemployment. I'm not sure giving up those protections will net the result you're looking for. You'll still have unemployment, except now life for 100% of your population will suck, instead of 25%.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[ebno-10db]

we built our entire railways at the turn of the last century on the backs of chinese immigrants

Such provincial West Coast nonsense. Elsewhere in the country we built the railroads on the backs of Irish immigrants.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[RoknrolZombie]

It doesn't help that the people doing the hiring don't seem to understand the difference between "AAS, no experience" and "20 years of doing exactly what you're looking for". I'm frankly sick to death of these places wanting (and expecting) a skilled technician to be available 24/7/365 for a pittance. Why in the fuck can't we unionize again?

Re:"Importing" labor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if slavery is banned the capitalist class will get the cheap labour they want and they will find every loophole to get it. Free time? Pffft. That's for the 1%. Get back to work you lazy slave.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever realize oppressive anti-business laws that make hiring new employees risky and very expensive are exactly what is keeping unemployment high? No, you'd rather destroy businesses thus causing unemployment. In other words, your kinds like to cut off its nose to spite its face.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[Anonymous Coward]

In France, where I reside currently, a law is being considered that would make hiring/firing even easier than in the USA, while reducing social benefits, including firing compensations and unemployment benefits. And it's the same thing pretty much all over Europe.

As a Scandinavian who was once unemployed in the US, I think an employer should be allowed to fire people quickly and easily. We shouldn't be piling government responsibilities on employers except through taxes. Forcing the employer to keep people on the payroll for a loss is hardly in anybody's interests.

these people want to stuff as much money in their pockets as possible.

Nothing wrong with that. Almost everybody is driven by that same urge. Only laws must be followed.

The purpose of good legislation is to make it in the individual's interests to work toward the common interests.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[Nbrevu]

Wrong. You destroy businesses by destroying their customer base, which you attain by ridiculous race-to-the-bottom labour laws that erase their purchasing power. We've seen it first hand, here in southern Europe.

There is a heavy demand problem, and you won't solve it by worsening workers' conditions.

Re:"Importing" labor?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because that would be "socialism !".

Re:"Importing" labor?

[mjwalshe]

um the EU has been expanding adding former WP states like crazy there are tons of good Polish developers working in the EU now and for Berlin based startups a lot of Poles will speak German as a bonus.

great reasoning!

[Njovich]

Along the same line of reasoning, you should just steal that Porsche that you are selling, as it would have been impossible, or simply too expensive, to buy it officially.

Yes, of course it's a pain in the ass that you can't just hire people in 1st world countries for 3rd world prices. However, if we want to maintain our social system, that's not viable. So they should either hire them in the low wage country themselves, or pay a good price for this skill they say is not available on the local market (depending on country, that means a salary between 2500 and 5000 euro per month to be eligable for a highly skilled migrant visa). If it's really such a uniquely skilled person, that should be no problem of course?

Re:great reasoning!

[ebno-10db]

of course it's a pain in the ass that you can't just hire people in 1st world countries for 3rd world prices

But ... but ... but without that a third rate knockoff of the last second rate copy of a failed social networking idea might not stay around long enough for the founders and VC's to rake off some skim. Without "people in 1st world countries for 3rd world prices" it's hard to make money. Sometimes you need good original ideas and to run things well. Outrageous!

Re:great reasoning!

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't have to own a Porsche, so stealing one is ridiculous, but if you don't need or want a Porsche, having to pay for one is just as ridiculous.

As for maintaining your social system, perhaps you can't afford your social system. Forcing people to pay to support your system is only going to work until they get sick of it an leave. And more ominously, if you make new businesses have to bear that burden... you just won't have new businesses.

The only people who can consistently afford to pay high wages are big corporations, and those guys screw with you in other ways to make up the difference. They can afford to twist the screws, or open subsidiaries overseas if you annoy them enough.

I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildings

[mspohr]

Capitalists want the cheapest labor possible. They don't want to pay for frivolous things like health insurance, unemployment insurance, vacations, sick leave, etc. Europe has better protections for workers than the US but both are pretty onerous when you just want people to work hard for no money. That's why China and Bangladesh are so attractive. You can exploit people there much better than in more developed countries.
Yeah! Capitalism!

 

In Germany at least, things are trying to be fixed

[Anonymous Coward]

This is new-ish http://www.make-it-in-germany.com/en/making-it/quick-check/ . I guess it depends on WHERE you want to import your developers from.

Outsource to HCL

[turgid]

They'll bring in fresh Indian graduates for no more than 3 months at a time at 20% each of what you're paying your local developers. When one guy finishes, he'll go back to India and his replacement will arrive. The only fly in the ointment is that he'll have to be trained from zero. And the cycle repeats.

Bias Much

[Anonymous Coward]

Any summary that actually includes "the cult of entrepreneurship" is already so hopelessly biased as to not be worth reading.

Typo in article

[mwvdlee]

the fudges, shortcuts, workarounds and, in some cases, 'strategic decision-making' are — just about — getting their companies the talent they need.

the fudges, shortcuts, workarounds and, in some cases, 'strategic decision-making' are — just about — getting their companies the price they need.

FTFY.

Those laws exist for a reason

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should follow them.

Slashdot and freedom

[Anonymous Coward]

Typical Slashdotter: free software, but not the free movement of labor

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[ebno-10db]

Capitalists want the cheapest labor possible.

The main past-time of so-called entrepreneurs seems to be whining to mommy government to give them special breaks because their business models are otherwise unprofitable. Funny how, the current recession (exacerbated by the austerity preferred by most so-called entrepreneurs) notwithstanding, there are lots of successful European companies. If that brilliant startup of yours can't hack it in that environment, it's probably because the startup ain't so brilliant. Heaven forbid any "entrepreneur" or their investors admit that though. Given cheap enough inputs, and consumers who still have money in their pockets because they don't have to work under the same conditions, any idiot can make money. It takes brains to do it with more than Dickensian labor rates though.

China or Bangladesh? Way too expensive and over-regulated. After recent events Bangladesh my even enforce building codes! The Libertopia you want is Somalia. Cheap labor, no pesky laws, no need for visas. What's not to like?

Tried Running A Bar This Way

[Bob9113]

not only to avoid France's notoriously onerous labor laws but also because it would have been impossible, or simply too expensive, to import them officially.

I took the same approach when I opened a bar that offered drinks for half the price of the competition. I couldn't afford to buy my booze officially, so instead I was knocking over liquor stores. It's the only way I could make my business model work, which completely justifies it.

Re:Tried Running A Bar This Way

[ebno-10db]

+10

Flip side.

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of American software developers only want to write code. They don't want to test it, document it, demo it to stakeholders, meet with stakeholders to gain business knowledge and ensure that their designs are on-target, or (worst of all) support it when the client has trouble with it.

People who insist that every non-coding task be done by some other specialist are only suited to work for megacorps that have that kind of staffing budget. For most other businesses, programmers need to have basic social skills, professionalism, and a willingness to do the not-so-fun side of software development.

This doesn't mean that every programmer needs to be a top-tier business analyst or anything. Listening to a client tell you where their pain points are, and talking possible solutions over with them, is not hard (at least, not if your technical skills are what you say they are).

The mom's basement social rejects are merely coders, not software developers, and their unwillingness to do everything the position requires means that they effectively don't have the skills.

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[tnk1]

And consumers want the cheapest prices available for products.

So, riddle me this: how do you pay your workers a lot of money, but offer a cheap product?

France isn't representative of Europe

[dutchwhizzman]

Europe isn't like the USA. The countries have different languages and laws. Not like state laws in the USA, but real country laws. Sure, EU legislation is deminishing these, but there still is a lot more difference in EU countries than there is in the USA. French labor laws are considered borderline communistic by some other EU countries. On top of that, a lot of French IT companies insist that candidates speak fluently French, while in a lot of EU countries English is sufficient, even if that's not the native language where the company is. In the UK, Netherlands, Germany and several nordic countries, this whole article is not relevant at all. There are probably several other countries to which this applies as well, but I have no direct contacts there so I can't speak for those.

Re:France isn't representative of Europe

[coofercat]

France is also quite racist in the "global top 10 racist countries" (if there were such a thing). They're therefore quite inclined to keep immigration as low as possible. In some ways, this is a good thing for France, but as shown here, in some ways it's bad.

(Side note: A Swiss political party were running ads on trains that depicted some white sheep pushing the black sheep out of the country)

Somewhere like the UK is generally much more multi-cultural, and much more accepting of immigrant workers. Even with all the UKIP and Daily Mail crazies, we're still a remarkably welcoming place (London especially). That's not to say there's no racism, but it's a whole lot easier to come here to work than it is in France.

My point being that a French person whinging about how difficult it is to work in France is, as you say, not at all representative of Europe.

Re:France isn't representative of Europe

[YoopDaDum]

And one guy opinion may not be representative of the whole of France. I happen to work in a start-up in France, many of my colleagues are foreigners for all around the world (not counting EU people as they're free to work here so not a problem for them). Yes there is some paperwork to do, but if you have a competent HR or go through external competent HR consulting it can be done. It could be more fluid and smoother for sure, nothing is perfect. But it's not as dire as often painted on the web. It adds delay and cost, but if the company pays decent salaries it's not a big factor. You have to justify hiring a foreigner (as in the US), but again if the job is technical it is usually not a big issue. There is high unemployment on average but as in many places there is also shortage of qualified people in some areas, and the administration is aware of this. Of course if you want to get foreigners on the cheap at cut rate salaries it's a different story, but then I'd say the issue is not the country law it's the employer.

It's also possible to fire people, and it has been made easier recently. The company has to provide typically 3 months of advance notice. But it's perfectly possible to just pay this and ask the employee to leave immediately (what we typically do where I work: if there's a problem with someone there's no point lengthening the issue). It's typical to pay a bit more, like 6 months severance. Bigger companies often go higher for old employees, 1 year is not unheard of. But for a start-up I would assume it's on the low end. The issue on firing is not that it cannot be done, but that there is significant legal uncertainty around it: the employee can turn against the employer and challenge the decision or severance amount. Some changes have been done to bring clarity there, I haven't followed the details. It's a true concern, but in high tech which is a small world with usually reasonable people, this is quite rare. I've had contacts with ex-employees working and I expect that to be typical. Everyone benefit by making this as unpleasant as possible (and it's never pleasant). The situation is very different when a manufacturing plant is closed, it can becomes messy with factories being occupied and that's what people tend to hear about. But when talking start-up the context is different.

There are many things to improve in France and many legitimate criticisms on the legal and administrative situation. Still I feel that some paint a blacker picture to justify their own unrelated problems, or having left the country (which is ok in itself: go and explore. No need to pretend you just left hell thought).

startup whiners

[joe545]

That whole article sums up what is wrong with these venture capitalist funded start-ups; they want to compete on a different playing field than established companies. They want to be able to import cheap labour from other countries as they aren't willing to pay the going rate for local engineers. They don't want to register their employees properly as they will be liable for more taxes and to give their employees the rights they are entitled to.

As a European, I'm glad these guys are finding it difficult to ride roughshod over the laws has to protect workers. If you can't afford to do things the proper way then your business is not viable. Complaining that you can't find exploitative loopholes that depress wages for the rest of us is laughable.

Re:startup whiners

[ebno-10db]

That whole article sums up what is wrong with these venture capitalist funded start-ups; they want to compete on a different playing field than established companies.

That's only in Europe. In the US we have a level playing field: both new and established companies, large and small, demand the right to import the cheapest labor they can.

Happening in Canada as well.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tim Horton's, a freaking donut shop, has been using the 'skilled worker' loophole in labour laws here to import "temporary foreign workers" (H1-B analogue). They were claiming there were no Canadian workers able to fill the positions. At what they are willing to pay, perhaps, but that's the real problem isn't it?

Royal Bank of Canada was playing similar games, under the guise of "internal position transfers" which were supposed to be limited to people with unique expertise, and for short terms like 6 weeks -- but keeping them for 2 years or more.

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[idontgno]

Well, defending the facility and all your lines of communication against land pirates would suck something fierce. Your physical security costs will be breathtaking. But it might still profit better than fair labor, ethical tax payment, and socially responsible environmental practices.

Once you've sold your soul, the rest is pretty affordable.

Re: I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap build

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the investors, shareholders and CEOs could take in less money? If the CEO needs cheaper workers, maybe the company could also use a cheaper CEO?

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[ebno-10db]

So, riddle me this: how do you pay your workers a lot of money, but offer a cheap product?

Henry Ford figured it out. Anyone who can't doesn't deserve to stay in business.

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[mspohr]

Apple seems to be able to charge a lot for their computers and phones. They use cheap Chinese labor so they make a lot of profit. They could pay workers better if they weren't so greedy.
If Walmart took its entire $22 billion of annual pre-tax income and used all of it to give each one of its 2.1 million employees a raise, this would amount to about $10,000 a year apiece.
In 2004, a year in which Wal-Mart reported $9.1 billion in profits, the retailer's California employees collected $86 million in public assistance, according to researchers at the University of California-Berkeley. Other studies have revealed widespread use of publicly funded health care by Wal-Mart employees in numerous states. In 2004, Democratic staffers of the House education and workforce committee calculated that each 200-employee Wal-Mart store costs taxpayers an average of more than $400,000 a year, based on entitlements ranging from energy-assistance grants to Medicaid to food stamps to WIC—the federal program that provides food to low-income women with children.

Capitalism puts the greediest bastards in charge of the economy and the society adopts those values.
More enlightened countries have laws to protect workers, pay them more, etc.

What are your values?

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[TheSync]

If Walmart took its entire $22 billion of annual pre-tax income... ...then it wouldn't be able to pay its taxes!

Walmart paid $6 billion in US taxes last year. How much did you pay?

labor laws are there for a reason

[Mister Liberty]

starups schmartups.

This is what jails were made for

[WillAffleckUW]

Just pop a few of those employers in jail for a couple of decades and your rate of compliance will change overnight.

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you dense? All the cheap stuff from China isn't actually cheap. It's marked up. Everything is made at the 3rd world costs then marked up to 1st world prices so that they make 1st world profits. Price discrimination. Why do you think textbooks and software prices are inflated compared to poor countries?

You don't actually believe companies make prices lower in developing countries out of the goodness of their hearts, do you?

Re:I hear Bangladesh has cheap labor, cheap buildi

[mspohr]

No profit. No taxes.

Throw more devs at it

[rsilvergun]

with H1-Bs I can get 2, maybe 3 for the price of 1. That's because not only do they work longer hours but they depress local wages too. Or pocket the savings and use them to put the competitors out of business! It's all up to you when you play the H1-B game.

Good enough will always be good enough. I keep hearing people advance lots of reasons H1-B is a bad idea while every single person who runs a successful business races to get more of them. What do they know that you don't? And it it's nothing than why aren't you eating their lunch with your companies awesome code?

Why aren't the best startups from India?

[Anonymous Coward]

With all the whining you would think India is silicon valley.

Nice thought

[rsilvergun]

but I've worked with plenty of H1-Bs that had plenty of initiative. The substandard code is a byproduct of working them just a bit too hard. They're actually quiet competent, often better than their American Equivalents. But not always, because in the end they're just people. Culture isn't much of a factor. It's wishful thinking and really just more "American Exceptionalism" to think less of these people. I catch myself doing it, hoping against hope that I'm not replaceable :(...

Also never forget that somebody is winning. It's the 1%. They're making money hand over fist destablizing the industry. They're global. They don't have a country. So they could care less if they wreak one. And if the economy really starts to go south enough to threaten their money, well, they run the world. They'll reign it in. You saw what happen to Bernie Maddoff didn't you? He was fine until he screwed with some real 1%. If he'd stuck to widow's pensions he'd have died a free man.

Same situation here in Australia with 457 visas

[Anonymous Coward]

Here our IT industry is diminshing in a race to the bottom just like you are in the US. Our equivalent to the H1B is called the 457 and uur main industry organisation the ACS is fully supportive of bringing in even more 457's, to the detriment of local employee's careers. I'd hate to be an Australian IT graduate these days.

Not true

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know for Italy, but for France and Germany you can fire people. It us not as easy as "at will" country like the US, but it is not as hard as many makes here. You have to give the person from 3 months to 6 months, but you can simply state that you have no more use for the person. The rule and modality for it are put in what we call "collective convetion" and work right. It can be a professional error, but it can also be simply economics, or reorganisation. I have to wonder where that "it is impossible to let go of somebody in europe" mem comes from.

Re:Not true

[Nbrevu]

I have to wonder where that "it is impossible to let go of somebody in europe" mem comes from.

Just typical employers' whining, don't pay much attention unless they get too close to lawmakers (they have in Spain. Look at the results).

avoid France's notoriously onerous labor laws

[manu0601]

The company wants to "avoid France's notoriously onerous labor laws", but it still operates in France, rather than India or China. There must be some reason for that choice. Perhaps some reason paid by taxes, or even guaranteed by labor laws...

Re:avoid France's notoriously onerous labor laws

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS!!

mod this upupup someone, put it at the top. All other arguments invalid. If they want cheap labor they can set their company up in India. Why do they want to set up in France? Possibly because they live there and like the way of life and the society that has been built and the long holidays and don't speak anything other than French?

Re:avoid France's notoriously onerous labor laws

[manu0601]

Just to be informative, french legal work laws frame a 35 hours week, 5 weeks of hollidays, plus a maximum of 11 days bank holliday. This does not prevent France GDP per worker to be among the highest.

But this is not usually what is attacked when entrepreneurs complain about french work laws; Usually they are after social protection, which is funded by salaries. For 1 euro given to an employee, there is around 1 euro that goes to social welfare to pay unemployement, wealth and retirement insurances. This is mandatory and account for a quarter of France GDP.

Many entrepreneurs will tell you that this is an unbearable weight, but I am convinced that social welfare is a key ingredient to productivity. Workers freed from planning about unemployement, sickness and retirement may actually focus on their job.

France is also appreciated for workers education. Education remains affordable for student because it is funded through taxes (around 1/3 of government expenses). Infrastructures (also paid by taxes) are also often cited as a good reason for investing in France

In a nutshell, France work laws do bring strong worker protection, but this benefits to everyone. Taxes are indeed high, but the money is not wasted as some tend to tell us.

Want to emigrate? Do it!

[bradley13]

You ask the question: "What would it take for me to get out of my mismanaged and failed country of fools and into your country, which appears to be slightly less mismanaged and the changes are being pushed by startups who want to pay me"

The answer is surprisingly simple: Apply for jobs. If the employer decides that you're the person they want, they will apply for a work-permit and deal with the paperwork. Sure, you'll get a lot of rejections - that's always the case when job hunting - but it only takes one acceptance, and you're golden.

FWIW: I emigrated 20 years ago. It's easier now than it was then. Just do it!

Where's the news again?

[YoungManKlaus]

so in short - they complain about the evil evil labor laws which prohibits people from working themselves to death - they complain that work is too expensive nothing that we haven't heard already a million times, preferably from people who earn big money and that mainly from trying to exploit it from the people they complain about. so, where's the news again?

Hi

[sunimmigration]

SUN consulting Pvt. Ltd. Welcome to a New Beginning in Canada, USA and Malaysia. The MM2H commonly know as Malaysia My Second Home program is an attractive international residency scheme endorsed by Malaysian Government. It permits foreigners to live in the country on a long term visa of up to 10 years (Renewable). To qualify for this program, applicants must meet certain criteria listed below.
For More Details: info@sunenterprises.ca
Immigration Services

Peg Visa to Caste

[NewYork]

http://www.change.org/en-IN/petitions/obama-administration-peg-usa-visa-to-caste-system-in-india

earn money

[remas100]

EARN MONEY EARN MONEY