Slashdot Mirror


IEEE: New H-1B Bill Will "Help Destroy" US Tech Workforce

dcblogs writes New legislation being pushed by Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) to hike the H-1B visa cap is drawing criticism and warnings that it will lead to an increase in offshoring of tech jobs. IEEE-USA said the legislation, introduced by a bipartisan group of lawmakers on Tuesday, will "help destroy" the U.S. tech workforce with guest workers. Other critics, including Ron Hira, a professor of public policy at Howard University and a leading researcher on the issue, said the bill gives the tech industry "a huge increase in the supply of lower-cost foreign guest workers so they can undercut and replace American workers." Hira said this bill "will result in an exponential rise of American jobs being shipped overseas." Technically, the bill is a reintroduction of the earlier "I-Square" bill, but it includes enough revisions to be considered new. It increases the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 (instead of an earlier 300,000 cap), and eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanced degree in a STEM (science, technology, education and math) field. Hatch, who is the No. 2 ranking senator in the GOP-controlled chamber, was joined by co-sponsors Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in backing the legislation."

484 comments

  1. Bipartisan by fustakrakich · · Score: 5, Insightful

    See? They do work together! They are a team! The majority wants this. Don't even try to argue with them.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    1. Re: Bipartisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I wonder what corporations contributed to those politicians campaigns?

    2. Re:Bipartisan by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bipartisan today means bought with the same corporate money.

      Whenever the two parties work together today, that will be the reason.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    3. Re: Bipartisan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orrin Hatch is sponsoring the bill. Have a look at some of the top corporations and companies who brib....ahem...."donated" to him last year.

  2. ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ah so both parties f-d us

    1. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by binarylarry · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They're like workers in the US (and everywhere):

      Precious, precious few talented and useful ones, hordes of shitty ones

      --
      Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
    2. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by FurnitureCyborg · · Score: 1

      That does seem to be what 'bipartisan' means.

    3. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      You're new here, aren't you.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

      They're like workers in the US (and everywhere):

      Precious, precious few talented and useful ones, hordes of shitty ones

      Yes. Just like here. Except less expensive. So actually not just like here. See how that works?

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    5. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah more people get fucked to make billionaires richer.

    6. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're like workers in the US (and everywhere):

      Precious, precious few talented and useful ones, hordes of shitty ones

      Yes. Just like here. Except less expensive. So actually not just like here. See how that works?

      Soon the American worker WILL cost less, if he or she wants a fucking job.

      Isn't unrestrained capitalism great ?

      It sure is, if you're at the top of the pyramid.

      /

    7. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Isn't unrestrained capitalism great ?

      The fact that you think there has ever been anything on the planet even approaching "unrestrained capitalism" shows me you are nothing but a hysterical nitwit.

    8. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is that historical nitwit?

    9. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by jythie · · Score: 4, Insightful

      More importantly, isn:t capitalism great when you have non-monetary incentives to hold over people? The ability to deport workers works much better then benifits packages, and all those pesky US workers who can do things like change jobs and thus have competition are just too expensive.

    10. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Well, if they are allowed to compete with us in the same labor market, then we are less expensive too.

    11. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by postbigbang · · Score: 0

      Indentured servants, just like those within the nooses of student loans.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    12. Re: ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're Finger cuffs and with no lube

    13. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      Actually that is what you dumb asses signed up for when you voted republican to spite Obama. Stew in it assholes! I am leaving this fucking country finally! Enjoy your fucking bullshit you brought about to try to bring about the second coming of jeep bus.

      How about instead of arguing with me about who is trustworthy and who is destructive to this country, you figure it out for yourselves? I am ashamed to be an American since 2001, the Republicans have done nothing but undermine this country and I am washing my hands of it.

      Well, voting for Obama solidly makes you part of the problem http://www.ibtimes.com/obama-m...

    14. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Frobnicator · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, voting for Obama solidly makes you part of the problem

      BOTH PARTIES contribute to the problem. This is not a party-line issue. This story body and TFA point that out: bipartisan bill.

      Given the political parties in power there is no good way an American can vote to fix the problem. Both parties listen to the money from businesses who like the cheap slave labor H1-B provides. Who wouldn't want to hire workers for 1/4 the money that cannot leave for another company that pays better?

      As a resident of one of the states mentioned in the story I've written my senator in the past about not raising the limits, and just seconds ago wrote again, including my own sad story of a layoff after training my own H1-B replacement in 2012 and learning that he was being paid about 1/4 of my salary, below the poverty line. Not that writing to the senator will do much good as I've written in several times before and only get a form letter "Thank you for mentioned your concerns. They are important. I will now ignore them. Signed, Senator Moneywhore."

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    15. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Crashmarik · · Score: 1

      You need to read the post I replied to for context. Telling me it's both parties is pointless I already knew that. The people who think that Obama was the messiah, and that Reid and Pelosi were on their side need the message.

    16. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hystrionic martinet?

    17. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Isn't unrestrained capitalism great ?

      The fact that you think there has ever been anything on the planet even approaching "unrestrained capitalism" shows me you are nothing but a hysterical nitwit.

      In this very narrow, very particular case, it is pretty close to unrestrained capitalism. Not quite, because if it were then US corps could literally hire anyone from anywhere without special permits, but close enough that it's fair to say in this context.

      Much more fair, at least, then calling Dems "Marxists" for supporting Obamacare, which doesn't even include a public healthcare option.

    18. Re:ah so both parties f-d us by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Not quite, because if it were then US corps could literally hire anyone from anywhere without special permits

      They can. They just can't hire them within our borders. But since "within our borders" is not an actual constraint... they can.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  3. They took our jobs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dey turk err jurbz!

  4. STEEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article summary neglects Engineering, a critical component of the STEEM acronym.

  5. Immigration blah blah blah blah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is all this talk of immigration but nothing really happens.

    Like most other immigration legislation that has pushed, it will just die somewhere along the way. America is really scared of immigration and would never let it pass.

  6. Its called capitalism folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    So when a "disruptive" technology forces down prices for Taxis (Uber, etc), Hotels (airBnB etc), Music (Spotify, etc) Software (Linux etc) Banking (Bitcoin) I see that the old guard are like "Buggy Whip" makers and they have no automatic right to be profitable or in business.

    So here is a shock, if that applies to the businesses it must also apply to the workers.

    Capitalism applies to wages just as it does to anything else, if you can buy it cheaper elsewhere, do it.

    1. Re:Its called capitalism folks by NatasRevol · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Did any of the other areas have a congress that was actively importing cheaper labor?

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Its called capitalism folks by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "Did any of the other areas have a congress that was actively importing cheaper labor?"

      What's the problem? Isn't America proud of their free market approach?

      There, your free market approach.

    3. Re:Its called capitalism folks by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Uh, a federal bill giving benefits for importing low cost workers isn't free market, dumbass.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    4. Re:Its called capitalism folks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2

      Did any of the other areas have a congress that was actively importing cheaper labor?

      No, but the POTUS is actively trying to give every semi-skilled American worker competition from anyone who chooses to illegally immigrate. Does that count?

    5. Re:Its called capitalism folks by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you still on about that? It was Reagan, in the '80s. Let it go, man.

    6. Re:Its called capitalism folks by turbidostato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "Uh, a federal bill giving benefits for importing low cost workers isn't free market, dumbass."

      No, it's a federal bill taking out limitations for importing low cost workers. It IS free market, dumbass.

    7. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Squiddie · · Score: 2

      Taking out limitations would mean the guest workers could stay, change jobs, and tell their employer to fuck off. This isn't the case, so how can this be at all competitive. If you want to bring foreign labor in, then let them stay permanently instead of kicking them back out and sending that job and others with them. I came here to work and got to stay, and I don't get paid less or ask for less than my native-born counterparts. This is the right solution, letting companies have that much say over the worker is not. You free market fanatics always put your dogma over what is actually good for this country. Maybe you forgot that the government was supposed to work for the citizens, not for nebulous ideals.

    8. Re:Its called capitalism folks by jedidiah · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This also fails as a "free market" because the labor that's being undercut isn't able to move where costs are lower. It's not a "free market" if corporations can import talent but individuals can't move out of the resulting disaster area.

      If Republicans destroy Ohio, I can move to Pennsylvania.

      I don't have that option with this particular "free market".

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    9. Re:Its called capitalism folks by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      Are you still on about that? It was Reagan, in the '80s. Let it go, man.

      It's a betrayal regardless of the traitor's party affiliation.

    10. Re:Its called capitalism folks by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "This also fails as a "free market" because the labor that's being undercut isn't able to move where costs are lower."

      Are you sure? How is it that the Indian guy can move but you don't?

    11. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wouldn't lay this on Reagan. His mistake in this regard was to not treat the other politicians of the day like terrorists, and refuse to bargain with them in any way whatsoever. Instead, he treated them with respect and compromise, and bargained for the security of the border (in law) in this one-time deal. Which no administration since has attempted to faithfully execute, and the budget axemen have attacked relentlessly. Dishonorable wretches. In fact, even though Reagan signed it into law, the bill was written and sponsored by a Republican and a Democrat in congress - it was a bipartisan effort at the time.

      Now it's treated as the historical context for capitulation to illegal immigration, instead of the cleansing and dressing of the wound it was meant to be.

      This article provides some pretty good coverage.

    12. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah you do. Its just not one that you like.
      Buggy Whip makers did not like the change that was forced on them either.

    13. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Are you kidding? Immigrating to India, or even getting a work visa there, is incredibly difficult. Other countries actually look out for their citizens. The US has some of the most liberal immigration mechanisms in the world.

    14. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Whorhay · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that even if you did manage to relocate to another country and obtain citizenship there the government of the USA will expect you to continue paying US federal taxes on your income for years.

    15. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Just because it was a shitty idea then doesn't mean it isn't still a shitty idea now.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    16. Re:Its called capitalism folks by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Funny how it doesn't apply to CEOs....

    17. Re:Its called capitalism folks by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      So there's an company in India that' willing to pay moving costs to bring an American worker there? Wow...

    18. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right. I don't understand how authorizing a person to only work for a specific employer indicates a "free market." They are, in fact, NOT free to participate in the labor market. The effect on wages is probably the most important, but there are intangibles like feeling free to disagree or question the employer's decisions during the course of work. It warps the culture and work ethos in an arguably harmful way.

    19. Re:Its called capitalism folks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's a federal bill taking out limitations for importing low cost workers. It IS free market, dumbass.

      No, it is fucking not, you brainwashed fucking moron.

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6727247&cid=48825081

      What makes you think what is going on has anything to do with "free market forces" ?

      You are > 100 hundred years TOO FUCKING LATE and 2 world wars TOO FUCKING LATE for your cherished "free market" you fucking moron.

      Keep "evading" the question. Keep worshipping your imaginary invisible "guiding hand" that doesn't fucking exist, and hasn't for a VERY LONG TIME.

      The evidence, is all against you and the "free market."

      So what do we need, a "reset" button to get back to a "free market" ? We need to end tax exemptions for international causes in the U.S. ?

      Is that what are you proposing, redistribution of fraudalent wealth that was extracted and taken from the "free market" in favor of promoting collectivism and "world trade through world peace" ?

      That is a giant fucking double standard you have. Why do you keep "evading" my questions?

      No, it's a federal bill taking out limitations for importing low cost workers. It IS free market, dumbass.

      Yes, this is called "protectionism." That is "free market" ONLY IF:

      -- every other nation agrees to also lower these "limitations"

      Has that happened? Show us the links! You want protectionism when it suits you.....this is "free market" IF AND ONLY IF every other nation agrees to do the same thing. Otherwise, it is protectionism.

      If you are going to get every nation on earth to agree to this, go ahead, and they all sign at the same time.

      Otherwise, you are full of shit, talking out of your ass.

      Doesn't sound "Free market" to me at all, the complete opposite. A fixed game, where each nation must bow down to global interests who
      pick and choose where to route people for their own benefit. Protectionism here when it suits them, revoke protectionism over there, repeat as needed to suck each country dry.

      A "free market" means everyone plays by the same government rules and there are not special laws favoring one set of people over another for absolutely zero benefit to anyone except private interests demanded such laws be written (no protecting your industry because you are too cheap too compete).

      This is only "free market" if every other nation plays by the same rules. Where is your evidence of that? Doesn't fucking exist, does it, dumbass?

      Sounds more like, you "free market" posers are lying your fucking asses off, sucking each nation dry, rewriting laws at particular times and places to protect you from having to actually compete.

      Again, if this is "free market' then why is the U.S. "free market" different than elsewhere? How does this revoke any other protectionism other nations have for or against importing low cost workers? Answer: it fucking doesn't, because you are full of shit and lying.

  7. This should make India & China very happy by jalfreize · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Considering the way China and India are growing, many of the brightest graduates that are turned out from state-subsidized universities are better employed at home.
    There was a time in the last 2-3 decades where a highly qualified engineer from these countries had no choice but to emigrate to the states to have a career. This is increasingly no longer necessary. Making it harder for people to move to the US will have the beneficial effect of halting the brain drain in these countries and keeping the brightest minds home.

  8. Since when has E in STEM stood for 'Education'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Anyone else notice this: STEM (science, technology, *education* and math)

    Pretty sure that should be Engineering...

    1. Re:Since when has E in STEM stood for 'Education'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I noticed that too. “E” in STEM definitely stands for “Engineering”.

      Actually, increasing H1-B visas for foreign teachers might be a much-needed improvement in our broken education system. ;-)

    2. Re:Since when has E in STEM stood for 'Education'? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Given how many college students have been failed by foreign TAs over decades you might want to reconsider that!

  9. Plagiarized from a lot of places by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  10. More US workers == offshoring?? by jcam2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Explain to me how allowing more foreign workers to come to the US under H1B visas will increase offshoring? Surely not allowing people to work here is going to cause work to be sent overseas, not the other way around.

    Every H1B worker I've met (including myself) wants to get a green card so they can live and work in the US permanently. At which point they are just as much part of the US tech workforce as a citizen who was born and raised here.

    1. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      And the business can get away with paying them half of what a local is worth. My last job was at a company that heavily abused H1-Bs, eventually I was let go once they found another cheap Indian to take my place, even though really I was more than twice as productive than the H1-Bs they already had. Of course though I was free to leave whenever I wanted, they can hold the threat of deportation over the heads of these people so of course they were all Yes Men while I could afford to be honest.

    2. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

      At which point they are just as much part of the US tech workforce as a citizen who was born and raised here.

      Except for starting from a significantly lower pay base, and being capable of initiating chain migration.

      Whether those are good, bad, or indifferent things depends on your point of view. But they are different.

    3. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by turbidostato · · Score: 1, Insightful

      "And the business can get away with paying them half of what a local is worth."

      A resource is worth whatever provider and consumer agree to be its price.

      Maybe instead of "what a local is worth" you should say "what a local values himself", not the same thing.

    4. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by hey! · · Score: 1

      And what if you don't get the green card? Then you will go back home, and be the ideal candidate for offshoring the job you care currently doing -- although at much lower wages.

      Understand, I *want* you to get the green card too. We should just issue more green cards faster to tech workers if we need them. If there is an H-1B program, it should be a fast track toward permanent residency.

      Concentrations of tech workers *create* jobs. That's why Facebook moved from Boston to the Bay Area. Boston has plenty of tech talent for a small company, but if you're planning on growing from a half dozen to thousands of tech employees in three or four years the Bay Area is arguably the only place you can do that. So why would we want to kick tech talent out of the country? Only to send their jobs with them.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    5. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Fire_Wraith · · Score: 4, Insightful

      These sorts of Shenanigans are what make me think that H1B visas should be replaced with a transferable work visa. Don't tie them to just one job; if they're good enough to compete and there really is a severe shortage, then they will have no problem finding one. Thing is, it's never about actual shortages, and more just not wanting to put up with the salary/benefits/etc demands of actual American workers.

    6. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I work for a Fortune 100 company, one that has taken the plunge. I can explain exactly how this leads to actual offshoring.

      There has to be a connection between the few American devs and the business people back to the offshore work group. A person from India works as the 'beachhead' here in the U.S. - finds out about issues and desires and funnels activities between here and the 5 to 10 offshore people they support. Sometimes they are very good at tech, other times they are just good at coordinating but aren't able to do the actual tech work themselves.

      If they can not bring over enough 'beachhead' personnel, they can not ramp up to a much larger number on the offshore teams. And trust me, it is done with brute force now more than brilliant minds.

    7. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A resource is worth whatever provider and consumer agree to be its price.

      Unless of course, you're a large corporation who can lobby and buy laws that protect your business, product, and profits. Then you can tell people what they'll pay and they don't get a choice. See: pharmaceuticals.

      But hey, just keep spouting the "free market" nonsense and proving to all that you're either woefully ignorant, or a shill.

      Companies that benefited greatly from the US system and citizenry owe it back to those citizens. That's the Right thing to do. But they seem to want their cake and eat it too. It's not a symbiotic relationship, it's a parasitic one that will not end well for the country. The selfish are ruining a country that was once the greatest in the world.

    8. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At which point they will be replaced by someone else on an H1B visa, and on it goes. Until you are a US tech worker and don't just 'want' to be a US tech worker, your job has indeed been 'offshored'.

    9. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Or try training Americans for job shortage areas.

    10. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "A resource is worth whatever provider and consumer agree to be its price.

      Unless of course, you're a large corporation who can lobby and buy laws that protect your business, product, and profits."

      Which it is not the case here. I mean, of course large corporations are lobbying and buying laws, etc. but here we are talking about foreign people that want to go to USA out of their free will and set in good faith a price for their services. It hardly can be more adamsmith-compliant than that.

    11. Re: More US workers == offshoring?? by RalphSlate · · Score: 1

      Better yet, how about a green card and a path to citizenship? We want educated, productive people in this country. We don't want them here mining out wealth and sending it to another country.

    12. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Dude because H1Bs are work cheap and get out visas. Get sick, well, piss off and die overseas, want holidays well, piss off and holiday in your own time, want a pay rise, well, piss off and see if you can get paid more back where you came from. I can't see why you don't realise they screwing up wages in the US will make going there pointless as wages fall and crime rises and remember the future you promise your family is now no future at all. So rather than following a lie make things better where you come from. Make no mistake H1B are all about breaking the back of the work force and turning them to a working in poverty work force than can be ruthlessly exploited.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    13. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by msobkow · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up.

      They're right on the money with that one. If anything, keeping the H1B limits low would encourage offshoring to where the resources are. Bringing the resources in to the country is not going to increase offshoring.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    14. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One guy comes over permanently and farms out work to their friends via contracts.
      Just one permanent resident could be 50 jobs elsewhere at a lower wage with the productivity of 20 skilled workers, but at the cost of 10.

      This game isn't zero-sum either.
      Inferior software leads to more lucrative work for skilled workers later in the form of consulting fees at $200/hour.

    15. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't CARE what YOU want! Get that through your thick head. I care about what I NEED...which is a JOB THAT PAYS A DECENT SALARY. YOU are standing in the way of ME getting that. I've paid my taxes and got my education and have a Ph.D. in a STEM field which I worked my tail off to get. You H1-B's are ruining it for those of us who were born here. NOW...GO HOME!

    16. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, because the H1B visas are temporary. After their time is up, they go back to where they came from and take the job along with them.

      I'm a corporation: I hire 5 talented H1B visa engineers, train them up and also train them on hiring and running a shop.
      When the H1B is done I send them back to where they came from to open our new foreign branch and outsource all jobs to overseas.

      Basically this is what you would do if you were planning ahead.

    17. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anything, keeping the H1B limits low would encourage offshoring to where the resources are

      Let them try. Despite the best PR efforts of the Indian government, India is basically still a shithole of a country. The streets are literally flowing with shit from all of the people crapping out in the open. The power is notoriously unreliable and their idea of quality work is completely unacceptable to the average American or European. In short, their standards are lower, their infrastructure is poor and they think nothing of stealing your intellectual property. So I say let them compete with American workers working in the US. It would be like the Seattle Seahawks or the New England Patriots taking on the Pop Warner youth football league.

    18. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · · Score: 1

      "and set in good faith a price for their services"

      which most of them are fraudulent.

    19. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by jcam2 · · Score: 2

      As someone who works at a company that has branches all over the world (including India) and employs people from all of the world, I've never seen this happen. Instead everyone who comes over on an H1B starts their green card application process as soon as they can, with the aim of staying in the US permanently.

      Have slashdot commenters ranting about H1Bs ever actually worked at a tech company? Or tried to hire someone in tech recently? The idea that there is some huge untapped pool of US workers that are being ignored is simply bullshit - demand is so great currently (at least in Silicon valley) that its damn near impossible to hire anyone decent from anywhere.

    20. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sure most of these companies would love to not put up with any worker demands. Health care is a social issue and nothing to do with free enterprise. Actually, nothing has anything to do with free enterprise beyond making money. It used to be that workers could demand better treatment, now we should just be thankful the CEOs give us a passing glance. If we want to continue and keep putting up with that then I guess I'm fine. The problem right now is that if I complain then I'll be replaced with the first 18 year old they can find that keeps the office warm. Experience is a disability these days.

      Not bitter. Not bitter at all.

    21. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

      The workers may want a green card, but frequently, the businesses that employ them have no intention of sponsoring them. There are businesses that specialize in having Indian workers come here, spend a few years working on an H1B and then go back home to India where they can be employed as "offshored" workers. They have learned our practices and bettered their communication skills and therefore provide cheap but prepared labor in their home country.

      If companies really just wanted more tech workers, and not cheaper labor, they'd push for fast tracking them on proper green cards so they could stay indefinitely. The H1B is a means to cycle people through as indentured servants.

      I'm sure there are exceptions. I'm sure there are well paid, well qualified H1B workers in this country. But think about it, do you really think companies and our gov't would have concocted the program if what they really wanted was a bunch of permanent tech workers to fix a shortage? Permanent residency would have allowed that already, no new program with a time limit and direct tie to employment was necessary.

    22. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh, smart H1B worker. Insigtful reason won't be tolerated. Can't you see there's passionate ignorance at work here?

    23. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My boss set minimum wage as a price for my service, and his boss steals a few hours here and there, whenever it suits him.

      If we don't like it, we can quit. Doesn't matter that he's breaking the law - complaints against him through the appropriate authorities have a habit of disappearing.

      So no, actually, the free market only works for the powerful who tell you what you'll be working for. Negotiating has long disappeared.

    24. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok, well the key is knowledge transfer. Bring someone over from overseas, train them in the skills needed to replace the American workers, and then send them back to train the replacements. Google "train my replacement" and you'll get about 15M hits.

      If we were talking about green card workers then I would agree with you. But an H1B visa is a temporary visa.

    25. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I am not sure this is what the author is thinking but I have seen companies bring folks in on H1Bs, when they stay for a few years. Then they go home, the company re-hires them in their own country. They hire their own local team, their America co-workers get pink slips.

      Its a sneaker variant of 'train your replacements'

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    26. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Peter+Simpson · · Score: 1

      Explain to me how allowing more foreign workers to come to the US under H1B visas will increase offshoring? Surely not allowing people to work here is going to cause work to be sent overseas, not the other way around.

      Every H1B worker I've met (including myself) wants to get a green card so they can live and work in the US permanently. At which point they are just as much part of the US tech workforce as a citizen who was born and raised here.

      H1B workers are a boon to employers. They work for lower wages because they can't legally change jobs. So the employers can get a better deal - longer hours, fewer perks, than with US workers, who are free to demand more and leave if they don't get it. It's a scam, everyone knows it, and our elected officials, by continually increasing the H1B cap, show exactly who they work for...and it's not the US tech worker.

      The US has plenty of good engineering schools and plenty of graduates from those schools are looking for work. There is no shortage of skilled tech workers in this country, they're just asking for more money than the employers are willing to pay.

    27. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I work for a telco.

      We have a lot of H1B hires. Overall, they're terrible (one exception in my bunch). I have to explain fairly simple concepts to them repeatedly, and it's not just a language barrier...though there is sometimes that as well.

      Oh, and they bring over whatever regional hatreds they have with them. The 2 Pakistani guys hate and are hated by the Hindi.

    28. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "actually, the free market only works for the powerful"

      What else did you expect!?

      "Negotiating has long disappeared."

      No, it hasn't. It's just showing its true value. Your negotiation position in a free market always depends on your relative strengh (do you remember the "fully knowledge" thingie about free markets, right?).

      Both parties trying to reach an agreement are using their full strengh to push it to their side, as they are expected to do and the result you observe is just the one a free market was designed to offer; if you dislike it, well, there are other socioeconomic systems.

    29. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the way it works in practice the H1B visa holders come over to the US to be trained. Once they are trained up the trainers are fired and the project is outsourced. (This is exactly how the program works currently).

    30. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, in theory. In reality companies abuse the H1B visas. I personally have several friends who have trained their eventual replacements, H1B visa holders.

      More info:

      http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

      http://www.nbcnews.com/busines...

    31. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by stanjo74 · · Score: 1

      It could happen.
      Most of the H1Bs are Indian and Chinese. Once they get domain experience in the US, they will become US-based managers for off-shore teams in India and China. Outsourcing may be rampant, but there is still bush back by American managers who have difficulties communicating with off-shore teams (language barrier, cultural differences, time difference, etc.)
      Once the old-school middle management is replaced with Hindi and Mandarin speaking individuals - it's smooth sailing for outsourcing. Also, their hiring preference will be more towards hiring from/in their native county, because they are naturally more connected in their native country than the new host country.

    32. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullish. "demand is so great currently (at least in Silicon valley) that its damn near impossible to hire anyone decent from anywhere." If that were the case, salaries would be going up. And they're not. Because they're being driven down by H1B folks who will work for 1/2 what the qualified locals will.

    33. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by jd.schmidt · · Score: 1

      I think I can explain the idea. H1B visas are not green cards, companies like them because once they sponsor someone that person either keeps working for the same company or goes home. Companies like this because it makes the person wholly dependent on the sponsor company, read really low wages. Except the catch is eventually lots of these people do go home, bringing their technical skill and company IP with them. As the process continues you get net talent drain out of the U.S., the U.S. citizen was never given a chance to learn the job and those skills hours go back offshore. Back when there were very few real opportunities back home the process was slow, but as the process continues over time there are more and more options back home and each new returnee further enables the next one. That is why you are now hearing more so many stories about workers repatriating, at the end of the day most of them really would prefer to live and work in their native communities. That is why most technical organizations advocate green cards over H1B, if the person is really that good, why not give them the option of staying. Companies don't like it because once they get over here, they can't keep them unless they pay competitive wages.

    34. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

      Of course you are right, this is not offshoring. And IT is something that's easy to offshore for real.

      However while the effect of competition will tend to lower wages in general regardless, importing more people can only decrease the wage relative to the median of everyone making less than the imported workers even non-IT workers, and certainly those in direct competition with imported workers lose wage bargaining power. As imported workers become naturalized, they dilute the power over the geographical area defining the nation represented by one vote. Also remittances overseas tend to devalue currency already held.

      Those who benefit are the ones who hire the cheap labor, who are few. Attempts to claw back the benefits through taxation are met with threats to relocate to more tax friendly climes, which mirror threats to offshore if cheap labor isn't allowed to be imported from the world at large.

      The economists are right that free trade in goods and labor is more efficient, and raises GDP, but so what if the benefits accrue only to a few while median wage falls?

      And while highly skilled labor may typically earn more than the median wage, by easing wage pressure, they rob opportunities and rewards from those already in the country, who might otherwise fill those positions albeit less efficiently GDP wise.

      What happens when it's cheaper to import already skilled foreigners than raise a child to competency, is that the child is never concieved, yet the overall population of the country increases, degrading the environment.

      The US Census Bureau declared in 1890 that the US no longer had a frontier. The need for the US to accept immigration in order to preserve it's borders ended then. Since then, every immigrant has been given opportunity from a finite pie that is the inheritance that comes from being born in the US. It's time to stop giving away the inheritance of opportunity being born in the 'land of opportunity' represents.

      If people in the US want children in their lives who have a chance to have it as good as they do, they can't force their yet to be concieved infants to compete with imported adults.

      People should demand that their country protects them from physical and economic harm. If your country isn't protecting you from harm, then what good is it? A smaller GDP with less people is better than a larger one with more.

      --
      ...
    35. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nonsense. "Fair" market price for labor balances out when the labor is allowed to sell their product to the payer of their choice. So as an American I can choose to sell my labor to another business if I don't like how I'm treated, what I'm being paid, or how the business operates. Employers who treat employees poorly or pay them poorly will have a hard time finding quality labor analogous to how the qualified labor pool "feels" about that treatment.

      H1Bs and other types of foreign labor in-country (still on student visas etc.) have had freedoms restricted so that they cannot freely participate in the labor market. They are much more likely to keep their heads down, not rock the boat, not quit, not demand higher pay or starting salary, and certainly not push back when labor laws are being ignored. Their participation has an oppressive effect on the labor pool.

      Or to reply directly to your statement, a person with less freedom is worth less, even to themselves.

    36. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It will decrease the viability STEM careers for US citizens (by forcing them to compete with indentured servants not only salaries but, more importantly, on work conditions). As less US students receive STEM education, less educators will be employed in those professions and less academic research will happen in those fields. It's a slow decline, but it is a push in the direction of decline.

    37. Re:More US workers == offshoring?? by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Absolutely correct. But the TRUTH about all this... well, people aren't the least bit interested in that, because it's easier to scream populist rants. Being a raving populist is the easiest, most gutless decision one can make, all you have to do is look at something and say "Oh that's horrible"

      I'm sure all these people ranting about the horrors of off shoring shop at Walmart and have houses full of cheap Chinese goods, don't drive cars made in America, have tools from Harbor Freight, and wouldn't pay a penny more for something made in the USA...

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  11. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then please, work from the top instead. Bring the CEO's finances into the realm of others. Pay other nations to make more medical research than us. The only other nations I'd trust to make good work aren't the ones that these H-1Bs are used for.

    Then again, most of what I see people hiring for is just web servers and databases. Perhaps I'm just really bitter, but I consider that work for grunts. Boring and uninteresting. They can take those. Hope it works out for them.

  12. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I really don't understand why they want this. Is it just plain out right corporate greed? Do the legislators really believe that, in doing this, US tech workers won't be negatively effected, as if there are all these tech jobs out there that US workers can't or won't fill? It has to be more than that, right?

    I'm honestly thankful that, where I work in IT (healthcare), they really can't hire H1B's because it's doubtful any H1B candidate would have enough experience to pass muster. That, and they can barely find anyone in the local market to fill the position anyways. Except me!

    /bragging a little because I'm honestly excited. High 5 figures salary w/ beni's, and no college degree? Yay me!

    1. Re:Why? by turbidostato · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Do the legislators really believe that, in doing this, US tech workers won't be negatively effected?"

      Of course not. They really believe that, in doing this, they the legislators will be positively affected by means of their corporate patrons.

    2. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having made sometning of himself, his doctor called. It's terminal.

    3. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I really don't understand why they want this. Is it just plain out right corporate greed?

      No. Mostly it's the Americans who can't code and are ineducable to the point of being able to code, and are out of work because they:

      (1) had jobs as cubicle warmers before the .bomb, and they think this qualifies them to work in tech now the .bomb era is over, or
      (2) had jobs as blue collar workers, but now all those jobs are overseas, or
      (3) think that because they were able to pass the ABET standard coursework, this qualifies them for a job, or
      (4) think that college/university was for sowing their wild oats, and now they want an apprenticeship program, or
      (5) think that college is stupid, and they should just go right to work coding, because, how hard could it actually be?

      Unless, you know, them not giving you a job you are unable to do, and paying you to do nothing is a God Given Right?

      The only saving grace is that the diploma mills in China and India have the same issues with turning out qualified people.

    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kickbacks for shafting your own people. Classy.

      Tell me again of this PATRIOT act they keep pushing? I think they forgot.

    5. Re:Why? by Shortguy881 · · Score: 1

      Really? If someone comes to the US and gets a graduate degree in a STEM field, they should be given citizenship, not a temporary work visa. We need more intelligent people in this country. Next, if we could only somehow deport the stupid American citizens...

      --
      Brilliance without wisdom, power without conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
    6. Re:Why? by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      I really don't understand why they want this. Is it just plain out right corporate greed? Do the legislators really believe that, in doing this, US tech workers won't be negatively effected, as if there are all these tech jobs out there that US workers can't or won't fill?

      Why would legislators care about people who aren't large campaign contributors?

  13. When can we get H-1B replacements by Snufu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    for senators? They may be cheap enough for ordinary people to bribe.

    1. Re:When can we get H-1B replacements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for senators? They may be cheap enough for ordinary people to bribe.

      First post in a long time I've wanted to see get mod points.

    2. Re:When can we get H-1B replacements by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      Why just senators I would like to see some H-1B managers and board members.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  14. STEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Isn't STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics? I know the original article also has it as "education", but I would imagine that's wrong.

    1. Re:STEM by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Because the author lacks education.

  15. Watchout eveybody!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm coming over next month on my new visa :p

  16. It's a badly written article/summary by rsilvergun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's using the phrase "offshoring" to mean Americans losing jobs to cheaper foreign workers in general. Probably because by now everyone understands that "offshoring" == "bad".

    It doesn't change the fact that the basic point (the death of American IT) is correct. If you can bring anyone in with an "Advanced STEM" degree then India will just open more schools to rubber stamp 'em. Race to the bottom.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by fightinfilipino · · Score: 5, Informative

      It's using the phrase "offshoring" to mean Americans losing jobs to cheaper foreign workers in general. Probably because by now everyone understands that "offshoring" == "bad". It doesn't change the fact that the basic point (the death of American IT) is correct. If you can bring anyone in with an "Advanced STEM" degree then India will just open more schools to rubber stamp 'em. Race to the bottom.

      except that's not what the law says. it's an advanced STEM degree from a U.S. institution. to qualify for the H-1B cap exemption, you have to have been awarded a degree from a U.S. higher ed institute. this drives immigrants to come to the U.S. for schooling and become invested in the U.S.

      the law also requires H-1B employers to meet prevailing wage levels set by the DOL, so that U.S. workers are not undercut. enforcement has been admittedly shoddy, but has gotten much better in recent years. (the fines against Tata and Infosys being two of the better known examples).

    2. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 0

      "If you can bring anyone in with an "Advanced STEM" degree then India will just open more schools to rubber stamp 'em. Race to the bottom."

      Are you, then, against free market forces? If the labour market wants cheaper workforce more than it wants quality workforce, who are you to interfere on this true example of free market in action?

    3. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by sribe · · Score: 5, Informative

      ...except that's not what the law says. it's an advanced STEM degree from a U.S. institution. to qualify for the H-1B cap exemption...

      The Indian body shops already have set up diploma mills in the US to rubber-stamp master's degrees.

    4. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're delusional if you think the USA has anything even near a "free market" to begin with. To throw this on and say it's fair is dishonest, at the very least. The big wigs have distorted damn near everything in their favour, and then try to use the "free market" card when it comes to screwing the people even more. They have no credibility, and deserve no respect.

    5. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by fightinfilipino · · Score: 4, Informative

      ...except that's not what the law says. it's an advanced STEM degree from a U.S. institution. to qualify for the H-1B cap exemption...

      The Indian body shops already have set up diploma mills in the US to rubber-stamp master's degrees.

      you're...you're claiming that employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills to intentionally hire foreign nationals?

      the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard on what they deem a valid higher ed institution. they rely on AACRAO standards in their determinations. that weeds out a lot of the diploma mills.

    6. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Don't like what I think are recent changes to the classic Slashdot format in the comments section. Seems a bit wider now.)

      Anyway, require 110% of the prevailing wages. Why the extra 10%? If there really is a shortage, then they should be more than willing to pay extra.

    7. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "You're delusional if you think the USA has anything even near a "free market" to begin with."

      You are just evading the question. Are you, then, against free market forces?

    8. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Livius · · Score: 1

      It's not about formal wages, it's about all the other abuses of workers' rights.

    9. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      Are you, then, against free market forces? If the labour market wants cheaper workforce more than it wants quality workforce, who are you to interfere on this true example of free market in action?

      I'm fine with free market forces. They can go ahead and pay me $36k for my 25 years of experience. Along with that, they can go ahead and make a 6,000 square foot mansion cost $50k and a car cost $8,000 etc, so that we can afford to compete equally.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    10. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most /.ers were always "Libertarians of convenience" who are more than happy to run to the government when it's their gonads in the bear trap. The hypocrisy makes me laugh.

    11. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      1) Bring H1Bs to US
      2) Have old workforce train them
      3) Send them back home and take a job with you there and train more people there
      4) Fire the US workforce

    12. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. You got a score of 4 even though what you said was completely wrong and easily seen as wrong by anyone who read the article.

      Now I can prove to my friends that Slashdot is the cesspool that I always knew it was!

    13. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      why would companies be desperate to hire workers with deceptive credentials? Why not just hire high school dropouts or homeless people instead?

    14. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "I'm fine with free market forces. They can go ahead and pay me $36k for my 25 years of experience. Along with that, they can go ahead and make a 6,000 square foot mansion cost $50k and a car cost $8,000 etc, so that we can afford to compete equally."

      I see... you are fine with free market forces as long as they are not free.

    15. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No foreign national - whether educated here or abroad should have a God-given right to stay here permanently. NO OTHER COUNTRY LETS THE ENTIRE WORLD IN FOR GOD'S SAKE. Where is MY job in Bangalore? HUH? GO HOME. We don't need you.

    16. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      enforcement has been admittedly shoddy, but has gotten much better in recent years.

      How about we borrow a page from the ADA playbook and create a right for US IT workers, with a STEM degree from an American institution of higher learning, to sue companies who don't pay the prevailing wage to H1-B workers?

    17. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by sribe · · Score: 1

      you're...you're claiming that employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills to intentionally hire foreign nationals?

      Actually, no, that's not what I was claiming--sorry about being too brief. What happens, currently, is that the Indian body shops send them here for a degree, then bring them back to India, and then tell prospective clients that "x% of our programmers hold master's degrees from US colleges." So it's not US employers spending large sums of money in order to hire foreign nationals, it's foreign companies spending middling sums of money to find yet one more way to deceive clients about their capabilities and competence. Anyway, my point was that the mills are already here.

      the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard on what they deem a valid higher ed institution. they rely on AACRAO standards [aacrao.org] in their determinations. that weeds out a lot of the diploma mills.

      And, if this no-cap on advanced degrees passes, just watch the next logical step unfold--legislation removing the accreditation standards. Bet on it :-(

    18. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's the market at work. What we're really saying is that the American education is worthless, and that countless hundreds of thousands of dollars we're spending on those diplomas still doesn't compete with the free diploma they can get overseas. That our next crop of brightest $80K owed, cutting edge trained, can't keep up with a country that's still 99% goats.

      Okay, now I look like a racist but they're more invested in their people than we'll ever be. They still have communities and jobs and tradition and we just have the mighty dollar and Wall St. We treat our undergrads worse than their livestock and they still have the upper hand.

      American education is worthless. I'm sure Stanford will have something to say about that, but they may not get a shot at the podium with politics like these.

      I feel so sorry for America.

    19. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by fightinfilipino · · Score: 1

      you're...you're claiming that employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills to intentionally hire foreign nationals?

      Actually, no, that's not what I was claiming--sorry about being too brief. What happens, currently, is that the Indian body shops send them here for a degree, then bring them back to India, and then tell prospective clients that "x% of our programmers hold master's degrees from US colleges." So it's not US employers spending large sums of money in order to hire foreign nationals, it's foreign companies spending middling sums of money to find yet one more way to deceive clients about their capabilities and competence. Anyway, my point was that the mills are already here.

      you're going to have to cite some sources, because this is a claim that beggars belief.

      the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard on what they deem a valid higher ed institution. they rely on AACRAO standards [aacrao.org] in their determinations. that weeds out a lot of the diploma mills.

      And, if this no-cap on advanced degrees passes, just watch the next logical step unfold--legislation removing the accreditation standards. Bet on it :-(

      highly doubtful. this same removal of the cap on advanced degrees has been before Congress in various forms. the point of that legislation is to attract and keep highly educated foreign nationals in the U.S.

    20. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I may be the only person on Slashdot to admit that I don't hire programmers on a full-time basis. I do interact with Indian grad students. I've tried to hire some for small projects. The amount of fraud, exaggerating, lying, that goes on would make someone from the US or China die from shame. (So that tells you something.) What are these people doing to buy and/or fake degrees?

    21. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

      because they weren't even smart enough to get some fake creds.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    22. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would do that because we demonize high school dropouts and the homeless in this country. They're sub-human. They're not worth oxygen to most employers. (These are not my opinions, just how it is).

      On the other hand, these same idiot managers believe all IT people are interchangeable drones, so who really cares if somebody has deceptive credentials and turns out crap products. The manager will have gotten his bonus and moved on by the time the bad product is released, if it's ever released.

      The glory of capitalism unveiled in its absolute majesty and splendor!

    23. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

      What if he is?
      Free market forces can suck very much. They lead to bubbles, crashes, front runnings and all the rest of the misery that is associated with them.

      --
      "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
    24. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by thogard · · Score: 1

      As a US citizen living in the US, I get offers to work in the USA until they find out I don't need the H1-B visa.

    25. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Because it's in their financial interest to believe it.

      My last company hired a lot of indian workers from infosys because infosys told them the employees would all be SAP experts.
      After laying off close to 500 united states IT people- they discovered (and this is a shocker!) that the indian employees were

      a) untrained
      b) training on the companies time
      c) being rotated to higher paying sap clients once they were trained.

      But all the higher ups got their bonuses and they adjusted the project deadline from 2012 to... (wait for it....) 2030. That's right.. an EIGHTEEN year fall back on the original plan to bring all six areas on line at the same time.

      This after working the united states citizens 70+ hours a week from 2010 to 2012 to make the deadline when ( this was leaked by people in legal after the layoffs) the u.s. company *knew* they were going to lay the u.s. citizens off in 2010! That's some evil shit.

      Even the executives who were let go got six figure severence packages. Not so much for the hoily poily.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    26. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      No, I am fine with free market forces as long as they are applied both on the pay side and on the side of stuff I have to pay for.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    27. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would do that because we demonize high school dropouts and the homeless in this country. They're sub-human. They're not worth oxygen to most employers. (These are not my opinions, just how it is).

      On the other hand, these same idiot managers believe all IT people are interchangeable drones, so who really cares if somebody has deceptive credentials and turns out crap products. The manager will have gotten his bonus and moved on by the time the bad product is released, if it's ever released.

      The glory of capitalism unveiled in its absolute majesty and splendor!

      Wow, just Wow! Let me guess, you have never worked in the industry have you?
      Ok , tell me then where exactly the money to pay the idiot managers comes from? does it come from the blood squeezed from the turnip that is the homeless?? If so how can they get money without working? It does sound like this is just your opinion and I just proved it in one sentence!

      So let me get this straight, all I have to do to be a high level manager is lie and believe that people are drones as you put it and hire the lowest unskilled workers I can find for as cheap as I can hire then run away before the problems start?

      Have you considered that being off your meds is a bad idea?

    28. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because high school dropouts and homeless people both know about minimum wage laws and don't have to worry about being deported. One likely lives in their parents' basement, and the other... Well, what's the worst they're going to do? Put them on the street?

    29. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by joocemann · · Score: 1

      Those rubber stamps are ridiculous. China and India put out waves of certified idiots. What do you expect when you have a system where the majority of students cheat, and are permitted to do so? There are loads of articles on this topic because the tests and applications and such are so frequently cheated.

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...

    30. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "No, I am fine with free market forces as long as they are applied both on the pay side and on the side of stuff I have to pay for."

      No, you don't. You don't have houses at $50k or cars at $8,000 because people do pay higher prices for them. You want low prices on what you buy and high prices on what you produce and you want government helping you on that. Sorry, that's not how free markets work.

    31. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "What if he is?"

      Now we are reaching to something. Exactly: what if he is.

      "Free market forces can suck very much."

      Exactly that. The sooner the people understand this, the sooner they'll be ready to accept corretive actions.

    32. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      How the hell is this a true free market example? Microsoft laid off a bunch of workers and than banned their rehire. How is that a free market? Immigrants are not free to move into this country without a work Visa. Americans are not free to move into other countries because of restrictions in other countries.

      A free marker means that are no barriers to entering a market. The labor market has barriers and thus is not free.

      Moron.

    33. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't pick and choose who gets rights. I have every right to hire who I want, work for who I want, sleep with who I want and be free. Countries are lines on a map mostly drawn long before any of us existed. Lets take down borders instead of making them so bold.

    34. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      But it still depresses the wages in these markets because of the large surplus of workers. What no one has been able to explain to me is why if these people are so critical to a company why they are not legally required by law to be the highest compensated people working at that company. I mean if these individuals are so critical that it was impossible to find someone in the entire US or train someone in time that they had to import someone they must be exceptionally critical to the operations of that company so they should be the highest compensated person working there.

      If this were implemented I wouldn't have a problem with having an unlimited number of H1-B employees as we would see what the actual need was instead of this body farm crap that goes on now. For a small company that really does need a highly specialized worker for a short period of time it wouldn't create a huge burden as they really are looking for a highly specialized employee and those cost a lot of money. For a large company like MS, Google, FB, IBM, etc. it would cause them to rethink their process since I doubt that IBM wants to have ~1600 people with the same compensation package as their CEO.

      I guess it is time to write my useless congress critters again on this issue, as well as the local papers who won't print my Op-Ed.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    35. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He made no such clean. The law clearly provides an incentive to create schools that are targeted at foreign citizens that want to qualify for H-1B. The cheaper and easier the schools are the more money they will make.

      The standard you talk about is just a road bump on the path to making that happen. They have an profit incentive to skirt it. It would be foolish to think they wouldn't invest in getting around it.

      Remember the goal is to make money. These schools don't really care about if their customers get a job. Is it bad for their reputation if their students don't get jobs? Clearly but that's why they close and re-open with a new name.

    36. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by deoks · · Score: 2

      Can you name few diploma mills? Not every institution qualifies for STEM degree programs. Just having a mere degree from any US university is not enough. The program has to be approved under the STEM program. By increasing the number of H1B the senators are trying to make sure the jobs stay here in US rather then being off-shored. Immigrants on the H1-B Visa pay taxes, Social Security and Medicare and contribute to the economy. The $$ contributed towards Social Security and Medicare are free $$ that government gets as the immigrants are not even eligible to get those benefits. Immigrants have immensely contributed to the growth of IT in this country, look at the technical heads of most of the successful IT companies - Facebook, Google, Microsoft to name a few. What attracts us to your country is the notion that this is a country built by immigrants and who welcome immigrants who are willing to work hard to achieve the American Dream. Most of the guys who are opposing this maybe need to look few generations back in their family. I can understand the backlash against the Illegal immigration but not sure about the issues against legal immigration. Most of the accusations thrown out here are complete lack of understanding of how complicated the legal immigration system is. Just don't assume things - maybe spend some time understanding the issue before opposing it. I am just bit confused - so all of you guys opposing this you would rather prefer to see the jobs being off-shored than an immigrant coming here working under the US laws and contributing to economy?

    37. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by deoks · · Score: 1

      Actually, no, that's not what I was claiming--sorry about being too brief. What happens, currently, is that the Indian body shops send them here for a degree, then bring them back to India, and then tell prospective clients that "x% of our programmers hold master's degrees from US colleges." So it's not US employers spending large sums of money in order to hire foreign nationals, it's foreign companies spending middling sums of money to find yet one more way to deceive clients about their capabilities and competence. Anyway, my point was that the mills are already here.

      Can you name one? Being an immigrant myself I have not heard of this so called foreign companies sending folks here to study so that they can misuse them later. DO you know of any specific cases where that has happened. If you do than I will back you to complain USCIS about such illegal practices and have it stopped.

      And, if this no-cap on advanced degrees passes, just watch the next logical step unfold--legislation removing the accreditation standards. Bet on it :-(

      And again do you have any valid proof of this? or just throwing an accusation with no real data to back up?

    38. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by sribe · · Score: 2

      Can you name one? Being an immigrant myself I have not heard of this so called foreign companies sending folks here to study so that they can misuse them later. DO you know of any specific cases where that has happened. If you do than I will back you to complain USCIS about such illegal practices and have it stopped.

      1) You can't complain about it to anyone because there's absolutely nothing illegal about it. And yes, somewhere around here I have a (virtual) pile of the resumes.

      2) Just advertise a paid internship on MonsterTrak (now MonsterCollege I guess)--you'll be flooded with lame-ass resumes from students at these "colleges". They're really distinctive: limited coursework in C# or SQL Server, work experience that's a joke, and a "thesis" subject that might pass muster for a high-school AP class but is not even remotely appropriate for master's level work.

    39. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      "Free market forces can suck very much."

      Exactly that. The sooner the people understand this, the sooner they'll be ready to accept corretive actions.

      The problem is that so far everything else we've tried has sucked more.

    40. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with him. I'd like government to help me get low prices on what I buy and high prices on what I produce rather than what they actually do: Encourage high prices on the necessities of life and a pittance for what I produce.

      Hell, we'd go a long way in that direction if the government quit meddling and let the free market forces actually work.

    41. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      People pay higher prices for cars and houses (and various forms of imaginary property) in the US because they have to. If companies can use cheap foreign labor, then to be fair I should be able to buy foreign good when they're cheaper there.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    42. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So to me this sounds like this company is probably not profiting due to poor decisions made by upper management. It seems the owners of the company (the shareholders if it's public), have made poor decisions in appointing/properly incentivizing the upper management, and do not deserve for their poor decisions to be rewarded with profit.

      As for the workers, it sucks for them, but rather than working 70+ hours for a poorly managed company, it may have been a better decision to get a better job, or improve their skill set to qualify them for a better job.

      I am not trying to blame the victim, but I do think there were probably clear warning signs that could have lead to better outcomes if they were recognized. Being forced to work 70+ hour work weeks for 2 years being one of them. For one thing this is effectively a 40+% hourly pay cut.

      Yeah it's evil to profit from deceiving others. But we need to be guarded against this sort of thing. We need to assume that when a company asks you to work 70+ hours a week, that they aren't looking out for your interests. We (as shareholders) need to assume that executives who want 6 figure severance packages plan to use them.

    43. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you please link to one? I am curious, not trolling.

      Thank you.

    44. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're...you're claiming that employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills to intentionally hire foreign nationals?

      No silly, that would be capitalism and the free market. "Employers" are redirecting U.S. TAPAYER money (and exemptions) to favor international causes, same as they've always done, for over 100 years. Any other stupid questions?

      the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard on what they deem a valid higher ed institution. they rely on AACRAO standards [aacrao.org] in their determinations. that weeds out a lot of the diploma mills.

      Yes, "AACRAO "Advancing Global Higher Education" -- so the "Dept. of Homeland Security" no longer gives two shits about the U.S. or American independence, instead they are committed to "global" causes and internationalism (pre-planned "global" economies where everyone works in tandem, cooperating together to make global corporations richer) ?

      Is that what you are implying? WTF is the U.S. "Dept. of Homeland Security" doing caring about "global higher education" ? How does that serve U.S. interests? It does not.

      http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/24183/david-fromkin/entangling-alliances

      "It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world": it was George Washington's Farewell Address to us. The inaugural pledge of Thomas Jefferson was no less clear: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none."

      It sounds more the DoHS is caught up and entangled in treason...just like "five eyes" ... WTF do they care about "global education" ?

      Shouldn't they be defending and promoting U.S. education?

      Or have they been radically hijacked ?

      This goes back to pre-WWI at least...guess who was chairman of the Carnegie Foundation For International Peace ? Why , a certain Mr.
      Thomas Watson !

      http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com

      Guess who promoted "world peace through world trade" ?

      http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com
      http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html

      NORMAN DODD: Oh, it’s a hundred percent behind meeting the cost of education such as it is presented through the schools and colleges of the United States on the subject of our history as proving our original ideas to be no longer practicable. The future belongs to collectivistic concepts, and there's just no disagreement on that.

      ED GRIFFIN: Why do the foundations generously support Communist causes in the United States?

      NORMAN DODD: Well, because to them, Communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly, that is, an organization of, say, a large-scale industry into an administerable unit.

      ED GRIFFIN: Do they think that they will be the ones to benefit?

      NORMAN DODD: They will be the beneficiaries of it, yes.

      the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard

      Too late:

      Toward the end of the 1920's, the Endowment grants to the American Historical Association $400,000 for a study of our history in a manner which points to what can this country look forward to in the future. That culminates in a seven-volume study, the last volume of which is, of course, in essence a summary of the contents of the other six. The essence of the last volume is: The future of this country belongs to collectivism administered with characteristic American efficiency. That's the story that ultimately grew out of and, of course, was what could have been presented by the members of this Congressional committee to the congress as a whole for just exactly what it said. They never got to that point.

      You are a hundred or so years too late for "high standards" I am afraid. High standards were ruled obsolete, silly.

      The future is internationalism and collectivism, everyone working together for global causes...high standards are an impediment to this goal.

      I

    45. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're...you're claiming that employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills to intentionally hire foreign nationals?

      How silly and naive! We have LAYERS and LAYERS of interlocking organizations and chair people, so that employers do not EVER have
      to use their own money

      http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Influence-Rene-A-Wormser/dp/0925591289

      Why hire "foreign nationals" ? The plan is to transform the U.S. so it is no longer a "foreign national" but instead just another "subservient to global causes" charity case.

      There are no "foreign nationals" and there are no "U.S. nationals" silly...there is just "Global pre-planned economy" and "global pre-planned economy" that every nation must be coerced into supporting.

      "nationals" ? How cute, you think global interests care about your little countries and your imaginary "borders"!

      I don't know where you have been the past 100 or so years, honestly. What did you think "eternal vigilance" meant? It was just a joke to you I guess?

      You didn't see this coming, a MILE AWAY? The founding fathers of the U.S. all predicted, even outlined that a government no longer serves its own people and interests, abolishing it is LEGAL and ENCOURAGED and the PROPER path for the people to follow.

      Or was that all just "ancient history" to you too ? That is all "obsolete" I guess? The U.S. is invincible and bullet proof, in your fantasy world?

      Seriously, where have you been?

    46. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If the labour market wants cheaper workforce more than it wants quality workforce, who are you to interfere on this true example of free market in action?

      Then they should pay for workforce training with their own money, not buy the government and write special laws favoring such a situation.

      Not hijack American public education and turn it into "workforce training" (how communist countries work, the public + private sectors merge and there is no difference between them).

      If the "labour market" wants to stop interfering and rigging the U.S. away from independence and the free market towards a pre-planned global economy, maybe then you can talk about the "free market" guiding things.

      Are you fucking blind, or what?

      The U.S. does not have "free market forces" you fucking jackass.

      Those are not "free market forces" that is "buying the U.S. government and twisting taxpayer money to prop up a pre-planned global economy."

      A "free market" presupposes many things, one of which is "the governnment is not in bed with private corporations."

      In the U.S., they are in bed together. You don't get to say "free market forces" under these conditions.

      Why do they need special visas? Where is the "free market force" in that?

      Shouldn't immmigrants have to obtain citizenship, per whatever laws of whatever nation they want to work in? Why should they get subsidized and laws written in the favor of certain companies who are BYPASSING and PISSING all over the "free market" ?

      Hint, since you are fucking slow: when you purchase a government, and get special laws in your favor rwritten just for your business and industry, that is not the "free market" that is the complete fucking opposite. That is called corporate communism.

    47. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the world was already carved up and divided AGAINST the "free market" you fucking moron.

      You are hundred years too late, AT LEAST.

      If you are young and naive, I can forgive you. Are you just ignorant, just stupid, just trust everyone blindly?

      http://www.amazon.com/Foundations-Influence-Rene-A-Wormser/dp/0925591289

      This goes back to pre-WWI at least...guess who was chairman of the Carnegie Foundation For International Peace ? Why , a certain Mr.
      Thomas Watson !

      http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com

      Guess who promoted "world peace through world trade" ?

      http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com
      http://www.realityzone.com/hiddenagenda2.html

      The "free market" was already subverted and hijacked, before you were even born.

      The "free market" was already obstructed. ALREADY GONE.

      If you want a "free market" perhaps instead you should be clamoring for investigations and revocation of anti-free market forces in the U.S. that have been at this game for WELL OVER 100 years.

      So, to correct the free market, are you in favor of "redistribution of communist and ill-gotten gains" ?

      It only seems fair. Jail time, for conspirators and fraud perpetrated against the American public and taxpayers?

      Is that what you are proposing? Seems the only way to correct the "free market" you so ignorantly think is running things.

    48. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just evading the question. Are you, then, against free market forces?

      Are you?

      http://it.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6727247&cid=48825081

      What makes you think what is going on has anything to do with "free market forces" ?

      You are > 100 hundred years TOO FUCKING LATE and 2 world wars TOO FUCKING LATE for your cherished "free market" you fucking moron.

      Keep "evading" the question. Keep worshipping your imaginary invisible "guiding hand" that doesn't fucking exist, and hasn't for a VERY LONG TIME.

      The evidence, is all against you and the "free market."

      So what do we need, a "reset" button to get back to a "free market" ? We need to end tax exemptions for international causes in the U.S. ?

      Is that what are you proposing, redistribution of fraudalent wealth that was extracted and taken from the "free market" in favor of promoting collectivism and "world trade through world peace" ?

      That is a giant fucking double standard you have. Why do you keep "evading" my questions?

    49. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      In order...

      1) the company was profitable and is profitable. the savings it expected ($100 mil a year+) didn't happen.

      2) most of the people had been with the company for 20 years (or more) and had 4-8 years to go until retirement. The company had never had a layoff and was profitable. The original owner retired around 5 years before and basically the company went from being a nice place to work to a bad place to work as new management came in.

      3) There were clear warning signs that people like you and I could see (having been laid off before). Not so clear to long term employees who'd been thru two harsh conversions with 70+ before and were retained with another 6-8 years job security each time. Expectations were a harsh conversion to SAP and then 6-8 years of job security afterwards. Also recall the economy was crap from 2009-2011 so you were not changing jobs-- and anyone over 40 has a house and (many) kids in college. You are just trying to get down the road at that point.

      4) Again- you and I and modern employees at most companies sure. What people dont' get is-- if you have a very good / nice owner who takes care of the employees and makes the place a wonderful place to work-- it can all go to hell the second they sell/retire/die. So even at a great company, with good bosses, etc. etc. you should keep training and be employable. But... working at a place 20 years works against you- regardless of your experience and training- after the layoffs occur. So you basically have to leave a great place every 5 years or so to protect yourself. And that puts you at risk of being the newest employee when layoffs occur at the new place.

      ---

      BTW- a few people did leave early and the company executives felt betrayed and were bitter and vindictive. Irony, eh?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    50. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      1) Well shall we say it was less profitable than it would have been otherwise? (i.e. I as a potential investor might have paid a very high stock price expecting a certain level of profit, but would not see a positive ROI given that the company is under-performing)? While the company may have been profitable (i.e. it netted > $0 profit), it may not be profitable for the new owners (i.e. If you spent $1 billion on a company that you thought would net $100 million per year, and it actually nets only $1 million per year, you have essentially just incurred a huge loss)

      2) So the owners (i.e. the new owners) were just not very good at being owners of a company. They allowed bad managers to run the company they owned (and possibly profit as the company was harmed). As far as I can tell, those owners deserve to lose their money in a capitalist system. It would be nice if the bad managers didn't make off like bandits (i.e. because that presents a moral hazard), but I'm not sure there exists any system that eliminates fraud entirely.

      3)I don't consider working 70+ hours (i.e. a ~40% hourly pay reduction) for 2 years for the reward of 6-8 years of job security (at a company that frequently forces employees to work 70+ hours) to be a good deal.

      My company sometimes gets in a jam and they need us to work about 60 hours a week for maybe 4 month stretches (3 or 4 times) over 10 years, but they pay us for the extra hours we work.

      I think the mindset of people over 40 just wanting to coast is not very healthy. I am 35, and I am constantly learning new things. I don't anticipating just wanting to half ass trying to be useful once I hit 40 (even with my mortgage and supporting my wife and kid). You can just coast if you want, but I think you should be aware that you are in fact less valuable if you don't care about maintaining usefulness.

      Should a company have loyalty to the workers who have put in a lot of time and just want to coast to retirement? Only in the same sense that workers should have loyalty to their company regardless of how shitty they are treated. Basically I believe companies and workers should be loyal to each other on the condition that their loyalty is deserved.

      Even if we want a system where workers were only required to be useful during the first part of their career and were allowed to just drift off into mediocrity as they aged, the economically efficient system would be to simply pay workers exactly as much as they are worth at every step in their career evolution. If they are super useful when they are young and energetic, then they should make more money at this phase to compensate for when they are less useful and making a lower wage (i.e. similar to saving for retirement). If workers can not be trusted to save for their own retirement, then you can have companies simply pay into a trust fund (e.g. like a retirement account), to ensure that workers don;t suffer from a loss in income as they become gradually more useless.

      My point is that it makes no sense for companies to pay relatively useless workers a high wage just because they were useful in the past. If anything it means they should have paid them more in the past and less now. It doesn't do us any good to pay workers high wages merely out of loyalty. It causes our economy to be less efficient and it forces older workers to be stuck in jobs that they no longer care about. Under my proposed system you could make all your money when you are young, and then just retire earlier when you no longer give a shit, and make some space for more new young go getters.

      4) If you really need to switch jobs every 5 years to forcibly prevent yourself from becoming complacent, then by all means do that. But logically you really shouldn't have to do that. If you have the will power to switch jobs every 5 years even though you don't want to, then shouldn't you have the will power to stay employable even if you have a cushy job?

      My mom sets her clock 15 minutes fast so she is never late. But she know

    51. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "The problem is that so far everything else we've tried has sucked more."

      Do you really think that, for instance, Norway, or Denmark, or Finland suck more than USA?

    52. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "People pay higher prices for cars and houses (and various forms of imaginary property) in the US because they have to."

      No, they don't. They can rent, or move to a cheaper neighborhood, or stay longer in their parents' home. And with regards to cars, USA is the 4th country in the world in vehicles per capita only behind San Marino, Monaco and Liechtenstein. They want to, which is different.

      "then to be fair"

      You see... it's called free market, not fair market.

    53. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the Dept. of Homeland Security has a pretty high standard

      Nope, not really. Unless by "higher standard" you mean "fuck the u.s. that shit is obsolete"

      You want to laugh your ass off even further?

      Besides the fact AACRAO.org is plastered with "international education" all over the place, besides the fact they do not represent American interests at all?

      Just look at what "the future" will bring us:

      http://www.americandeception.com/index.php?action=downloadpdf&photo=PDFsml_AD2/Report_On_The_Commission_On_Social_Studies-Krey-Counts-Kimmel-Kelley-1934-179pgs-EDU.sml.pdf

      5. The cultural potentialities of the epoch would seem to be commensurate with the economic.
      On the physical foundations of economic security, unprecedented leisure, relative material
      abundance, and rapid communication with all parts of the world, the extension to the masses
      of the people of greatly increased opportunities for the cultivation and enjoyment of the things
      of the mind and the spirit should be possible .

      It turns out, when you rig education and the U.S. economy towards "internationalism" and "world peace" noone gets more leisure time, noone gets more economic security, ...instead the global organizations leeching off of every nation get richer, everyone else starves and dies (if they do not get an internationally-recognized "degree") because "noone owes you a living."

      Instead, what happens is the Dept. of Labour and Dept. of Edu. project what careers are "in demand" for global private interests, and we get crap like:

      http://truth-out.org/news/item/6021-forprofit-kaplan-university-pays-executives-a-quarter-billion-dollars-courtesy-of-students-and-taxpayers

      all the "leisure time" flows upwards, and never actually trickles back down.

      Instead, wages are stagnant for DECADES and economists don't know why:

      http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/10/09/for-most-workers-real-wages-have-barely-budged-for-decades/

      So much for all that extra "leisure time" so much for all that extra free time we will all have now for "spiritual growth"

      It turns out, pre-planned communist economies only benefit the lucky "partners" who no longer have to train their workforce, because the taxpayer does it for them.

      It turns out, everyone else must go into an "in demand" career ... or enjoy a lifetime of poverty.

      It turns out, EVERYONE has to subsidize and prop up the "global economy" whether they want to or not, whether they work for one of the lucky private companies leeching off of the taxpayer or not, whether they have an investment in their well doing or not...because private companies demand we do....and they have taken over American education and government and are pulling the strings now (weren't they always?)

      Why do banks need bailed out, with all this extra "leisure time"? Why do automakers? What about those "high standards?"

      I guess by high standards you mean the Dept. of Homeland Security is on the godless pre-planned communist treason train with the rest of the U.S., and the U.S. and Americans can all rot in hell and starve to death, Americans are "obsolete" now ... why, even Dick Nixon would be
      proud, he also served "higher standards" beyond U.S. jurisdiction!

      The only "high standards" the DoHS has is the same as the Dept. of Edu. and Carnegie Foundation standards: "fuck the U.S. in the ass with their own tax money" to make global for-profit companies happier.

      This goes back to pre-WWI at least...guess who was chairman of the Carnegie Foundation For International Peace ? Why , a certain Mr.
      Thomas Watson !

      http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com

      Guess who promoted "world peace through world trade" ?

      WTF is Mr. Watson pretending to champion "world peace" at the same time helping Hitler?

      Does "world trade" include "gas anyone who disagrees or is the wrong genetic background?"

      The "high standard" of the DoHS is "we like money (and oil)" and that's about it.

    54. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www4.aacrao.org/centenn...

      1964

      AACRAO entered into a contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide evaluations of foreign education

      sounds about right. Right about the same timeframe too:

      In 1910, only ten colleges in the country had a student enrollment of more than 5,000 students; two-year colleges were still in their infancy, and statewide systems were not even in existence. There were no accredited institutions and standards and practices for higher education institutions varied greatly. College admissions requirements ranged from one to four years of secondary school, and student records were not always consulted in a candidate's recommendation for a degree. In addition, institutions often referred to themselves as colleges even though many lacked the necessary facilities for college work.

      ED GRIFFIN: Why do the foundations generously support Communist causes in the United States?

      NORMAN DODD: Well, because to them, Communism represents a means of developing what we call a monopoly, that is, an organization of, say, a large-scale industry into an administerable unit.

      ED GRIFFIN: Do they think that they will be the ones to benefit?

      NORMAN DODD: They will be the beneficiaries of it, yes.

      There were no accredited institutions and standards and practices for higher education institutions varied greatly.

      So how amazing it used to be! Back in the days of the free market!

      There was actual competition!

      Then they decided that a global pre-planned communist economy was more profitable and more efficient, and the U.S. (and every other country that wishes to maintain independence) can all rot and hell and fuck off and die.

      1964
      AACRAO entered into a contract with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to provide evaluations of foreign education

      WTF is U.S. taxpayer money (exemptions as well) going to evaluate foreign education?

      Why does that deserve tax-exempt status again?

      Oh, that's right! The U.S. was radically hijacked and "America" is completely gone, completely dead. The future is international "collectivism" and fuck the U.S. and fuck America and fuck the "free market" according to these greedy pieces of hsit.

      How many other countries use taxpayer money to evaluate U.S. institutions of education? I would LOVE to see that figure, and the amounts, and whether it goes back to 1964 or how long it has been that way.

      You'd think, with all their advanced degrees and "education" they could fucking afford to foot the bill themselves...nope the gullible U.S. taxpayer will fund their own demise, because Americans are gullible fucking morons!

      All you have to do, is call yourself the "American XYZ Organization" and you can do whatever the fuck you want with taxpayer money....Americans are complete fucking morons, it looks like.

      They are right you know with their timeline, it pretty much is "celeberate the past" ... go back to a time before U.S. independence, back before where those stupid "Americans" thought they could get away from us.

      The DoHS can't even stop a communist invasion using their own tax dollars...WTF they do they know about "high standards?"

      Brainwashed gullible unAmerican communist pieces of shit, that's the U.S. DoHS.

      Propping up global causes and international education institutes with U.S. taxpayer money, because they don't give a flying fuck about the U.S.

      They sure love global causes and global corporations though, you betcha!

      employers are laying out large sums of money to set up diploma mills

      No silly! That's what U.S. taxpayer money is for! A pre-planned global communist economy is more profitable PRECISELY BECAUSE it leeches off of the U.S. taxpayer, and transfers money from the public into private hands of for-profit "educational ins

    55. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And, if this no-cap on advanced degrees passes, just watch the next logical step unfold--legislation removing the accreditation standards. Bet on it :-(

      highly doubtful. this same removal of the cap on advanced degrees has been before Congress in various forms. the point of that legislation is to attract and keep highly educated foreign nationals in the U.S.

      http://truth-out.org/news/item...

      You were saying? The point of the U.S. Dept. of Edu and Dept. of Labour and affiliates is:

      1) fuck the U.S.
      2) fuck the free market
      3) hooray pre-planned communist "global economy"
      4) fuck U.S. independence
      5) fuck America
      6) hooray global private for-profit companies
      7) hooray tying # of graduates to taxpayer money (thereby ensuring standards are lowered, since colleges all want federal money)
      8) hooray tying federal funding of education to "availability of jobs after graduation" and "schools that teach skills in "high demand" (those skills that private companies profit from by pushing workforce training off to the taxpayer, what used to be the responsibility and expense of private companies)"

      you are too late, it has already happened, started > 100 years ago in the U.S.

      they are all "degree mills now" and they all prop up a pre-planned communist "economy."

      what did you think Obama meant when he says "free tuition" is for "in demand" certifications and degrees only?

      "in demand" means "how private companies decide taxpayer money should be spent"

      they are all "degree mills" now, the entire U.S. economy is hijacked and has been radically transformed.

      the "private" interests and deciding how u.s. taxpayer money is spent, what fields are "in demand", transforming the flow of taxpayer money per their interests...the "free market" was outlawed, destroyed, corporate communism is simply more profitable and more efficient for global interests than the unpredictable and uncontrollable "free market" .. which might not graduate "on time."

      you act like the U.S. economy is still standing...it is not, it is has been declared "obsolete" in the name of "world peace" (more profits for global organizations, fuck the U.S. and fuck americans)

      that is the "private" sector taking over the public sector, public taxpayer money...communism 101, there is no distinction.

      it just happens to be in the other direction...instead of the socialist utopian dream of private property being outlawed and redistributed to the public, we get the opposite, very similar, but in the other direction:
      public taxpayer money and the public interest being outlawed, and redistributed into private hands.

    56. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what did you think Obama meant when he says "free tuition" is for "in demand" certifications and degrees only?

      "in demand" means "how private companies decide taxpayer money should be spent"

      they are all "degree mills" now, the entire U.S. economy is hijacked and has been radically transformed.

      the "private" interests and deciding how u.s. taxpayer money is spent, what fields are "in demand", transforming the flow of taxpayer money per their interests...the "free market" was outlawed, destroyed, corporate communism is simply more profitable and more efficient for global interests than the unpredictable and uncontrollable "free market" .. which might not graduate "on time."

      Don't you get it? A "free market" means people might go into the wrong fields, study the wrong topics, start their own businesses, instead of being our slaves for life.

      then, we'd have to actually compete! we couldn't predict what they'd do! we'd have to pay decent wages and train workers!

      Instead, we have tied federal funding and federal aid (Taxpayer money, see also "No child left behind", we get our brainwashed slaves starting in kindergarten before they know what hit them! ) to # of graduates, how quickly they graduate, whether they go into the right careers afterwards, whether they go to the correct pre-planned schools or not, whether they study the correct topics or not that we have pre-planned for them.

      this way, there is always a fresh line of slaves (taxpayer-trained) in line, so we can just lay off all the older workers, tell them to "go retrain themselves (at taxpayer expense)" if they don't feel like starving.

      silly american, you thought global interests (which have infested the U.S. government and U.S. education institutions and tax-exempt foundations) gave a crap about:

      1) your life
      2) your well-being
      3) your wages
      4) your family
      5) your health
      6) your country
      7) your independence

      you are just "human capital" ... value to be extracted...you have no individual soul.

      you AND your children already belong to us, as adolf would say. what are you going to do about it?

      we have > 100 years head start on you already, all the money rigged in the meantime towards our causes.

      we even are addicted to pavlovian conditioning and "mastery learning" (see khan academy) and have got carlos slim, the gates foundation, google, many tech. companies, and many others on board.

      rule #1: the u.s. dept. of education does not:

      1) give a shit about the u.s.
      2) give a shit about the "free market'
      3) thinks we are all dogs to be conditioned into submission for "world peace" (even pavlov was against this..."i would not sacrifice a frog's hind legs for the kind of experiment you are running!" (referring to global communism by his own country...) ... the more things change, the more they stay the same.

      science has made "americans" obsolete, silly!

      you have no soul, just a brainwashed piece of meat, to be conditioned (rewarded/punished) into compliance with global agendas, from the cradle to the grave, lifelong slavery.

      if you wanted "America" you missed the boat by a 100 years or so, too bad for you, so sad.

      you will just have to learn to sit and beg for your meal, like the good little programmed dog that you are, from now on.

      what did you think "education" was about anyhow? we fill your heads with lies and garbage because it benefits us and makes us richer, we don't care two shits about your well-being our if your county survives or not.

      you need us a whole lot more than we need you. we don't need you at all. we can set up operations in any country, take over and hijack any government we please.

      you are simply outclassed and in over your head at this point.

      what are you going to do, boycott microsoft + ibm + intel + google + BILLIONS of dollars made over 100 years, in 100s of countries?

      we own you, in case you havent figured that out yet.

      "high standards" are whatever we say they are, and if you disagree, go fuck yourself and hijack your own country. we already took over the U.S. get your own, you selfish piece of shit.

      get the picture?

    57. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Got a suggestion.

      Print out your post and put it in an envelope to open and read when you are 45. You'll probably massively facepalm yourself that you were ever so naive.

      I made it. I retired at 51. The other 499/500 don't.

      1) investors drive equity prices up for companies that lay off. Executives are compensated in stock options.
      2) they are being excellent owners by today's standards. offshore jobs- save money, focus on core business model, profit your self for 2 years and then move on to the next company and do it again.
      3) This is a very naive statement. Turn it around- what conditions beyond your control *could* force you to work those hours. Have you taken every precaution to prevent being put in that situation. Do you live on half your salary? Do you have multiple years of income saved? (I did).
      4) Companies hire people who have a job. Companies do not hire people who worked a long time at one place (even if they have good skills on paper) and are currently unemployed.

      Drop the negative semantic shit like "cushy" and "coast". It's dumb and it's keeping you from seeing reality. Yes those people were unwise. I agree. Unlike me, they really didn't believe they'd become unemployable at the age of 50. I realized that when I was 28 because I saw it happening even back then. Companies want young IT staff. They cut loose 90% of the rest as they pass 45 and are not top 1% material and replace them with cheaper labor that has current skills which the company didn't have to pay for training.

      I'm trying to show you the road ahead waiting for you and you are blinding yourself to reality. You won't win if you stay blind. You'll do the same thing everyone else does.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    58. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Yes, or I'd move there. Those three are temporarily propped up by their North Sea oil revenues, take that away and the system won't work. See France for a good comparison of how it looks without oil exports propping things up.

      Socialism isn't bad per se, but it has inefficiencies that reduce total wealth creation and tends to promise more benefits than can be sustainably delivered. Any time you're spending more wealth than you're creating it will eventually catch up with you and go badly.

      Think of it as being a pie, after all everyone likes pie right? In capitalism there is a lot of pie but the cool kids get all the biggest pieces before everyone else can have any. In socialism the pieces are handed out more fairly but the pie is smaller to start with. In most scenarios the average person ends up with more pie under capitalism even though their share isn't very fair.

    59. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And they will find that rents and cheap neighborhoods are less expensive in third world nations.

      The US is probably the worst country to try to live in without a car, compared to living with a car.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    60. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      1) investors drive equity prices up for companies that lay off.

      Investors deserve to lose money for driving bad financial decisions or investing in companies who make bad financial decisions. That said, layoffs are not always a bad financial decision.

      Executives are compensated in stock options.

      Stock options (unlike stocks) are only worth anything if the stock price of a company goes up.

      2) they are being excellent owners by today's standards. offshore jobs- save money, focus on core business model, profit your self for 2 years and then move on to the next company and do it again.

      Sounds like you'd make a killing in the stock market. You've got it all figured out. It's so easy.

      3) This is a very naive statement. Turn it around- what conditions beyond your control *could* force you to work those hours.

      Aside from living in a 3rd world country or going through another great depression, I don't think anything could, especially now with obamacare. We have labor laws in this country. Hourly people aren't even allowed to work past 40 by law.

      Have you taken every precaution to prevent being put in that situation. Do you live on half your salary? Do you have multiple years of income saved? (I did).

      I do indeed live on less than half my salary, and after doing that for 10+ years, I do indeed have multiple years of income saved up.

      I'm not sure what any of this has to do with what I said.

      4) Companies hire people who have a job. Companies do not hire people who worked a long time at one place (even if they have good skills on paper) and are currently unemployed.

      So why doesn't anybody go hire all the desperate and overqualified unemployed people? They could hire them at a discount, and get very high quality labor for lower cost. Seems like a great way for entities that only care about profit to succeed. Maybe all the companies out there are dumb. If you became an entrepreneur, you'd murder all your competition because only you can see this golden opportunity that no one else can.

      Drop the negative semantic shit like "cushy" and "coast". It's dumb and it's keeping you from seeing reality.

      anyone over 40 has a house and (many) kids in college. You are just trying to get down the road at that point. --you

      I learned it from watching you dad.

      Yes those people were unwise. I agree. Unlike me, they really didn't believe they'd become unemployable at the age of 50. I realized that when I was 28 because I saw it happening even back then.

      What I am saying is that people aren't unemployable at 50 because of their age. People are unemployable at 50 when they "are just trying to get down the road". Half the people I work with are over 50, and I know which ones are just coasting, and I wouldn't hire them either if it were my money paying their salary.

      I'm trying to show you the road ahead waiting for you and you are blinding yourself to reality. You won't win if you stay blind. You'll do the same thing everyone else does.

      I'm doing just fine. thanks.

      Futhermore, most of my post was about why our current system sucks and some better ways of increasing the efficiency of everyone's labor. You ignore all that and call me naive and blind for not seeing reality?

      I was trying to have a discussion on economics. I was not asking for advice from you. And I don't buy this bullshit that older people (i.e. you) have more insight. Even in your own story you talk about how you outsmarted everyone when you were 28.

    61. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by turbidostato · · Score: 1

      "Socialism isn't bad per se, but it has inefficiencies that reduce total wealth creation [...] Think of it as being a pie {...] In most scenarios the average person ends up with more pie"

      Let's say I accept all you say. That, in fact, the ability to "produce pies" of northern-europe style socialdemocracies is in fact shorter than that of "free hands" capitalism and that in most scenarios that ends up with "less pie" for the average person.

      It seems that current globablized world (and the one in the years to come) is one of those scenarios that make the exception: the average citizen ends up with less pie now, even if the pie is bigger.

    62. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      It seems that current globablized world (and the one in the years to come) is one of those scenarios that make the exception: the average citizen ends up with less pie now, even if the pie is bigger.

      In a global sense wealth is rising dramatically for the average person. Unfortunately much of this progress is coming at the price of stagnation for those in developed countries. Remember though, none of the current developed nations are purely "capitalist" they're all mixed economies of one fashion or another.

    63. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      There's no point in trying to engage with you.
      Cheers and good luck.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    64. Re:It's a badly written article/summary by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      You mean there is no point in engaging in a discussion about the economics of incentives? You'd rather only participate in discussions where you are regarded as the wise old sage imparting invaluable advice to the naive youngsters so they don't fall into all the traps that you were too clever to fall into?

  17. "Help" destroy? Nah man, its already dead. by Narcocide · · Score: 1

    I am sorry to say you can't blame this just on the most recent iteration of cookie-cutter presidents. This shit all reached critical mass when we stopped listening to Ross Perot.

  18. math? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    It increases the H-1B visa cap to 195,000 (instead of an earlier 300,000 cap),

    Now I aren't no math genius, but ... increases?

    1. Re:math? by DavenH · · Score: 2

      "Earlier" means earlier revision of that bill. Both of those numbers are increases over the previous cap.

    2. Re:math? by TheGavster · · Score: 4, Informative

      For whatever reason, the summary chose to describe this bill in relation to a previous (failed) bill, rather than current law. The number that would have been meaningful in that sentence is the current cap; wikipedia indicates that it's 65,000, with caveats about a system of loopholes permitting an increasing figure over time.

      --
      "Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
    3. Re:math? by tompaulco · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, considering that I don't have a job, 65,000 seems like 65,000 too many. Since the current unemployment rate is about 6% (not including people who have fallen off the chart due to not being able to find a job within a certain amount of time.), and 193 million people between the ages of 18 and 64, it looks like we need to fill another 11.5 million jobs with American unemployed people before we allow any H1bs in.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    4. Re:math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      MOD PARENT UP - I just ran out of mod points

      You are exactly right tompaulco, the skilled jobs should be kept in the country so unemployed people should be be able to get into the jobs left by people with enough determination to get into tech jobs in the first place.

      People don't understand that technology jobs are hard work and not enough people want to do hard work, especially thinking - the hardest work!

    5. Re:math? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 0, Troll

      If you're in IT and can't find a job perhaps you need to think hard about a career change. May McDonald's or similar. You're not cut out to be in IT.

      --
      Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
    6. Re:math? by Malc · · Score: 1

      You qualify for all those jobs? You're willing to move anywhere in the country? Etc.

    7. Re:math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone lives in SV. The job market is different in other parts of the country and in other industries.

    8. Re:math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen, half the "programmers" I interview can't solve/write FizBuz on a whiteboard with the language they say they are most comfortable with. And these are programmers with prior experience as programmers. So ya, when I interview someone from china who just got their masters degree and in the same interview time span they can not only solve fizbuz but implement a full stack solution to a hypothetical web based calendar application.

  19. Re:Protectionism never works by NatasRevol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Being anti-H1B isn't protectionism.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  20. Politicians do the bidding of those who pay bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The entire system is corrupt.

    All politicians lie in order to get elected and then do what they feel like doing afterward.

    The above applies to Bush, Obama, and all the rest of the scum. There is no substantive
    difference between one politician and the next. They will all pretend to be your buddy
    and then screw you whenever it suits their agenda.

    Your vote is meaningless. The show goes on regardless of who holds office, because
    the real power in the US is not elected.

    Welcome to the real world.

    Enjoy your stay.

  21. They do it for us! by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Insightful

    US Jobs Policy:

    Step 1: Export tech jobs overseas to increase corporate profit
    Step 2: Throw all low-skill immigrants back across the border
    Step 3: Now US tech workers can get jobs doing lawn work, picking crops, and nannying.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US Jobs Policy:

      Step 1: Export tech jobs overseas to increase corporate profit
      Step 2: Throw all low-skill immigrants back across the border
      Step 3: Now US tech workers can get jobs doing lawn work, picking crops, and nannying.

      " No no no misssrrr Peterr, It leave streaks"

    2. Re:They do it for us! by l810c · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is not what the eventual immigration compromise will be.

      Republicans will get their H1B's to help the corporations. The Democrats will get some form of amnesty.

      Our(IT workers) wages will go down and taxes go up as millions of millions of new citizens taking free healthcare and other government benefits.

      It's bleak, the worst of both worlds.

    3. Re:They do it for us! by bjwest · · Score: 2

      US Jobs Policy:

      Step 1: Export tech jobs overseas to increase corporate profit
      Step 2: Throw all low-skill immigrants back across the border
      Step 3: Now US tech workers can get jobs doing lawn work, picking crops, and nannying.

      Step 2 needs to happen so we can put our own uneducated unemployed to work. And before you start saying the current illegal immigrants in the country pay taxes I'll counter that with the fact that the current uneducated unemployed will not only pay those same taxes, but will also not be sending money to family out of country. This will both lessen their burden on the system (more/some income means less/no government aid) and increase the tax revenues for state, federal and sales.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
    4. Re:They do it for us! by OrangeTide · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Step 2: Throw all low-skill immigrants back across the border

      low-skill immigrants don't usually come on an H1-B Visa. In many cases they are working here illegally.

      Step 3: Now US tech workers can get jobs doing lawn work, picking crops, and nannying.

      I might hire those US tech workers to do my lawn, if they'll take less than an illegal immigrant. I'm assuming working at a desk all day doesn't make them particularly qualified to work in the fields or do a proper job on my lawn.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not flamebait people, it's reality.

    6. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, The biggest rags to riches stories I've ever seen is in landscaping. And you know what? A good plumber and electrician can pull in more income than your mamby-pamby tech workers. And they're worth it! If the computer breaks, fuck. It the toilet backs up, FUUUUCK!!

    7. Re:They do it for us! by russotto · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm pretty sure that as a tech worker I'm making more net income than most master electricians and master plumbers. For those who aren't running their own business it isn't even close. And I'm never hip-deep in actual shit, only metaphorical shit.

    8. Re:They do it for us! by Darinbob · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wait, where can I sign up for this free healthcare?

    9. Re:They do it for us! by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Many of those H1-B workers however are also here through technical fudging of the documentation - not strictly illegal but definitely a lot of cheating going on when someone signs on the dotted line that they couldn't find a single tech worker locally who could do the low skilled computer work. Yes, many of these jobs are for basic entry level IT support jobs, I'm happy to have immigrants come here for the high skilled jobs requiring lots of experience, but do we really need to import people who only do things like install Windows or infest web pages with Javascript?

    10. Re:They do it for us! by Crashmarik · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Slashdot where flamebait is a term that means anything factual that challenges the left.

    11. Re:They do it for us! by euroq · · Score: 1

      As a liberal who wants socialist-ish healthcare, I agree with you.

      I presume we disagree on many other things, but certainly the free emergency room visits are a reality and a fact of unnatural healthcare costs in the US.

      --
      Just because the U.S. is a republic does not mean it is not a democracy. Democracy/republic are not mutually exclusive.
    12. Re: They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is the health system is massively inflated in the states. Walk into a European hospital and an xray is either free or about 50usd. The same experience in the states costs hundreds.
      Presumably because previously everyone had to have insurance, so the hospitals adjusted process to what insurance companies would pay? Madness.

    13. Re:They do it for us! by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm assuming working at a desk all day doesn't make them particularly qualified to work in the fields or do a proper job on my lawn.

      On the contrary, many Silicon Valley tech workers have a lot of experience with grass.

    14. Re:They do it for us! by eclectro · · Score: 1

      Speak for yourself - where are you living? Perhaps this depends on geography, because where I'm living plumbers and electricians do better than $12-$15/hr lowly tech workers. And those tech workers are competing with engineers that don't have jobs.

      --
      Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
    15. Re:They do it for us! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What happened to the American Dream (TM) where immigrants were welcome if they worked hard and tried to make their fortune in the New World? Seems like a lot of people who benefited, or people whose ancestors benefited from immigration now want to pull up the drawbridge.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    16. Re: They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like to think of it as a rope ladder to the tree fort.

    17. Re:They do it for us! by Entrope · · Score: 4, Informative

      According to the best estimates out there, the US pays substantially more for Medicare fraud (even excluding Medicaid fraud, which is something state governments would handle) than for unreimbursed care. But don't let reality interrupt your little fantasy of how the world works.

    18. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those things are available to people who came over here legally and got a green card. Just like the rest of us who's relatives came here from other countries so we could LEGALLY settle down in a new nation under a common set of laws. The illegals don't abide by our laws and they are more than likely going to send hard earned resources back across the border where it does no benefit to our country.

    19. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure that as a tech worker I'm making more net income than most master electricians and master plumbers. For those who aren't running their own business it isn't even close. And I'm never hip-deep in actual shit, only metaphorical shit.

      Not if you're having to live in Silicon Valley once you factor in the cost of living. A Master plumber or electrician has a lot more flexibility in where they can set up shop.

    20. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's the thing about dreams...If they were realistic they would just be called goals.

    21. Re:They do it for us! by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What happened to the American Dream (TM) where immigrants were welcome if they worked hard and tried to make their fortune in the New World? Seems like a lot of people who benefited, or people whose ancestors benefited from immigration now want to pull up the drawbridge.

      Corporate America and the oligarchs decided that they wanted *that* slice of the pie as well as the one they already had. The American Dream is exactly that; a dream.

      As a Minnesotan I've backed Klobuchar but I am extremely disappointed that she is supporting this.

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    22. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think anyone has any problem with people, like my ancestors, who came to this country legally, became citizens, learned the language, had a trade or skill and/or paid for an education and worked their ass off to earn the American Dream(tm). Nowadays, there are signs up in third-world countries telling their poorest and least skilled citizens to "Go To America, Have A Baby for Free and They Won't Kick You Out! Free Healthcare! Free Welfare! Go To America TODAY!", etc.

    23. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm curious about this also. It seems like it varies widely depending on geography but I'm also wondering about other factors like what you work with, how long you've been in the game, location, etc. Even if you have to post AC, I think it would be interesting. Here, I'll go first.

      Job: Windows Engineer (automation, some *nix)
      Experience: 15+ years
      Education: GED
      Age: late 30s
      Salary: 120k
      Location: Dallas, TX

      I'm betting geography is the most common factor related to net income. Dallas has a crazy good job market. I get pestered a lot to jump ship.

    24. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That dream was based on the ideal that merrit was more important than precedent. That ideal made us industrious. Industry gave us wealth. Wealth buys power. Power corrupts. Corruption values precedent more than merrit.

    25. Re:They do it for us! by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      Your comment is an oxymoron proof.

    26. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to the American Dream (TM) where immigrants were welcome if they worked hard and tried to make their fortune in the New World? Seems like a lot of people who benefited, or people whose ancestors benefited from immigration now want to pull up the drawbridge.

      It's been relabel "H1-b."

    27. Re:They do it for us! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      As a fellow Minnesotan this isn't new. She was pushing for the 300k cap before with the auto increase almost exactly 2 years ago. I haven't been very pleased with her even before that as she seemed to make national issues out of things that need not be or be out to lunch when sponsoring a bill that had very obvious unintended consequences that she was even informed of.

      Then add in that at a personal level she has been the worst elected official that I have written to in responding to issues. While she does give responses to letters, unlike Franken who has never responded, they are patronizing as hell if you disagree with something or will thank you for supporting her decision when you were clearly against it. The worst was on the Syria chemical weapons issue when that was going on where her letter was about how wonderful it was that she didn't have to decide because thankfully Russia stepped in.

      I have written Klobuchar a number of times on this H1-B issue and it seems to fall on deaf ears. The only thing I can figures is that the large medical companies here are telling her they need something in return for their support since both her and Franken voted for the ACA which put a tax on medical device makers' revenue, 2.3% per device,.

      I don't know if Kurt Bills would have been any better especially on this issue but at least I knew him and was able to have a discussion with him. Part of that may have been because I was a former student and a part of that was probably because he was my representative to the state house.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    28. Re:They do it for us! by darkwing_bmf · · Score: 2

      The emergency room visits are anything but free.

    29. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What happened to the American Dream (TM) where immigrants were welcome if they worked hard and tried to make their fortune in the New World?

      It was just that: a dream; a fantasy.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Immigrants did work hard and made a better life for themselves and their children, but no, they were not that welcomed.

    30. Re:They do it for us! by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      If you think that there is ever such a thing as a "free ER visit" you are delusional. Yeah, they are required to treat you even if you don't have the "ability to pay", if you have a life threatening condition. But you can be god damn sure they are going to do everything in their power to extract their money out of you, regardless of your "ability to pay". They have no qualms about suing somebody making significantly less than the poverty line and garnishing their wages. What? Don't have a job? Don't worry, they will wait till you get one, then the collectors will come say hi.

    31. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More a tautology seeing as nearly everything factual challenges the left.

    32. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think people would mind if it was about hard work but more and more it's about crossing the border and signing onto the dole as fast as possible.
       
      Less workers are pulling a heavier cart everyday. How do you expect this not to break down?

    33. Re:They do it for us! by BoRegardless · · Score: 1

      Is this why WDC's control of education has been dumbing down grade & high school education to where the average college freshman reads at a 7th grade level today?

    34. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Americans in IT who got those expensive degrees just need to settle down and be happy with a $10 - $15/hour wage. Once they do then I think all these shenanigans will stop.

      At least you'll be able to work inside instead of out in the elements.

    35. Re: They do it for us! by anagama · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They'll vote for either the right-wing, pro-war, pro-Wall-Street, pro-surveillance party or the other right-wing, pro-war, pro-Wall-Street, pro-surveillance party based on the only issues separating the two: abortion and gay marriage.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    36. Re:They do it for us! by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

      That's okay. The real money is in landscaping, plumbing, and electricity. Do any of those well, and you'll be a hell of a lot richer than some IT schlub working 60-70 weeks.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    37. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The workers targetted are put into indentured servitude, where if they complain at all they can be immediately deported, there is no path to citizenship in the H1-B program, it's a program that exfiltrates wealth from the USA to other countries, at the expense of the majority of Americans and to the detriment of the H1-B worker being exploited. Think about it, they can already offshore most of the businesses, it's cheaper to have people move here at their own expense and hold deportation over them, while having a US manager, than shipping the whole operation overseas where internet and power can be unreliable. The H1-B program is only beneficial to the company and punishes everyone else involved.

    38. Re:They do it for us! by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      You completely neglect the benefits derived by the people that employ them, who also happen to be heavy 'contributors' to political campaigns. They are the tax cheats, not the workers. The workers get 'taxed' through sub-minimum wages and abusively long hours, while the employers pocket everything that would go into social security and payroll taxes and the withholding. As long as the present situation remains the most profitable, this is how things will be done. And playing into the hate only serves that purpose.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    39. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go the the emergency room at your local hospital. They are legally obligated to treat you regardless of your ability to pay the bill.

    40. Re:They do it for us! by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My lawn guy would disagree with you, unless you mean actual landscaping. If you mean actual landscaping, I suspect that most people never deal with it, and the remainder typically do it once. It's an artistic field, also, which means that most landscapers are not going to make anywhere near what I make developing software 40 hours a week.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    41. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You assume he makes bottom of the barrel wages as a tech worker? Some of us do considerably better than $15/hr. Hell, I pay my gardener $20/hr.

    42. Re:They do it for us! by Hodr · · Score: 1

      Job: Network Engineer
      Experience: 10+ years
      Education: BS Comp. Sci
      Age: Early 30s
      Salary: 115k (but also excellent benefits including six weeks vacation and 14 sick days per year)
      Location: The sticks, MD

    43. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, but that's not individual users scamming the system, it's wholesale scamming by clinics and billing shops.
      It has nothing to do with the people whose identities get used for the scams in most cases.

    44. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of overseas workers, especially in India and China, cheat on certification exams and their universities hand out STEM degrees like candy. I think that there needs to be a lot of consideration put into who is let in regardless of credentials due to fraud.

    45. Re:They do it for us! by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      The ones I see are towing a 20 foot trailer full of equipment behind their brand new suburbans. They started out poor too. Really the trade you pick is irrelevant. Skill and charisma (more like chutzpah) will get you through. If there's no money in IT, do something else.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    46. Re:They do it for us! by cmdr_klarg · · Score: 1

      I don't know if Kurt Bills would have been any better especially on this issue but at least I knew him and was able to have a discussion with him. Part of that may have been because I was a former student and a part of that was probably because he was my representative to the state house.

      Had he been better on social issues I might have voted for him. Alas...

      --
      THE SOFTWARE, IT NO WORKY!!!
    47. Re:They do it for us! by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      [The ER is] legally obligated to treat you regardless of your ability to pay the bill.

      No. They are legally obligated to stabilize you, which is a standard far below any attempt to actually resolve your problem. For instance, you walk into an ER with the first symptoms of lung cancer, perhaps bloody sputum, they'll give you a spray of Chloraseptic and a referral to a doctor -- which you will have to pay for. You might receive a prescription, which you will also have pay for. You will not be in receipt of a treatment program designed to remediate your cancer; you will simply have your present symptoms stabilized and be turned right back out the door. And then you will be billed for the ER visit itself (and the Chloraseptic) at a very high rate, and as soon as you can pay, they will insist, via the legal system, that you do so.

      ER's without actual medical care follow up of the same kind as usual isn't worth squat for much more than short-term, easily remedied issues. And even at that, the only time it resolves to "free" is when the recipient is so far down on the economic ladder, not to rise again for years, as to be at the very ragged edge of the Gaussian.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    48. Re:They do it for us! by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      I should switch to one of those drought-tolerant lawns, and plant San Pedro cactus, Peyote, etc. Then I will finally be prepared to invest in the latest web 2.0 start ups.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    49. Re:They do it for us! by GetAbike · · Score: 1

      There will be plenty of time to contemplate their own laze-faire, libertarian, apolitical, schmucky-ness they so proudly exhibited on Slashdot.

    50. Re: They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good luck with that, gringos are too lazy to do manual labor jobs.

    51. Re:They do it for us! by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      In my exchanges with him he was always at least willing to listen which is more than I can say for a lot of the representatives I have dealt with, only Phil Sterner was worse than Klobuchar in that respect but John Kline isn't too far behind them. On a number of the social issues he probably could have been swayed but on gay marriage or abortion I doubt there was ever going to be movement given how religious he is. At the same time I was willing to give a pass to him on those since I doubted much head way would have been made in congress on social issues and felt that he would be good from the economic and financial issues. At the same time I do realize that I was in a rather unique spot in that I had known him for a long time as a teacher, later a friend (we would run into each other at the gym), and as my rep to the state house.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    52. Re:They do it for us! by DarthVain · · Score: 2

      There is a difference between immigration and hiring US citizens then there is to hire foreign workers from another country...

      If there is a problem, then maybe fix the immigration and citizenship process rather than doing an end run around the whole process and makes what is essentially an "exception" to the rules to allow for it. As it is, the American Dream (TM) is being killed, where immigrated US citizens can't get a job in IT because all the work has been farmed out to cheap foreign imports.

    53. Re:They do it for us! by MooseMiester · · Score: 1

      Oh gosh, don't bring FACTS into this.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
    54. Re:They do it for us! by Methadras · · Score: 1

      Iceland is looking better and better by the minute at this point.

    55. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAH $15/hr. What are you, tech support?
      What (real) tech worker makes $15/hr? Try doubling that for low cost of living states.

    56. Re:They do it for us! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can't. But I hear there is a new government program to force other people to pay for your care since you can't earn your own way.

  22. Re:Protectionism never works by hey! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This has nothing to do with protectionism. Nobody is saying not let foreign software into the country.

    As for foreign labor, I have no objection to bringing foreign labor in. My objection is kicking that labor out after it has gained experience. If there really was a tech worker shortage, these are the very workers we'd want to stay.

    What this does is create a pool of offshore labor that's familiar with the work being done *here*. The obvious purpose is to use the immigration system to assist companies that want to relocate work overseas. And there's nothing special about American tech people; anything we can do can be done in India or Ukraine. That's fine, but I don't think the US government should be in the business of making it attractive for companies to move jobs overseas.

    It's something so irrational (if we were to assume for the moment that the US government works for the welfare of the American people) there isn't even a word for it. It's the mirror image of protectionism. It's self-predation.

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  23. You need to think like a PHB by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    1. Bring H1-B over to be trained and work.

    2. Send back.

    3. Open up foreign branch.

    4. Reduce costs -> increased profit.

    Model 2:

    1. American company gets H1-Bs.

    2. Sells services as "American" company (really important to government and politicians.)

    3. Charge "American" fees.

    3. Reduction in costs -> Increased profit.

    I'd also like to point out that Hatch was the one who forced to FDA to reduce regulations on the supplement industry so that instead of having to prove their products work, the FDA has to prove they don't. And with state laws of Utah, there is a reason why the supplement industry is based in Utah. (see Bigger Stronger Faster

    Meaning, I'm not saying he's corrupt, unethical, or anything like that. Or that he is a disgrace to the Senate and epitomizes everything wrong with our Congress and legislative system in the US and how they are all in the pockets of big business.

    Nope. Not me.

    1. Re:You need to think like a PHB by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      I think a good indication that a politician is corrupt is that if you know who they are and they are not from your state. Take Orrin Hatch from your example what possible reason do I have to know that he is the senator for Utah, he just recently became the President pro tempore of the United States Senate which I looked up to see if he was in a leadership position but he isn't the senate majority leader and I knew his name long before now, he isn't one of my two senators, he has done nothing but be a politician from a sparsely populated western state, yet I know who he is. Yet at the same time I cant tell you off the top of my head who is the congress person from the arrowhead region Minnesota which while not my congressional district is still in my state.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  24. Why all the complexity? by gronofer · · Score: 1

    Immigration systems are always unbelievably complex. The intention is apparently to allow immigrants to fill labour shortages. Labour shortages can be seen when people are getting paid well over the median wage. So create a visa that allows working in any job paying over three times the median wage, or whatever.

    1. Re:Why all the complexity? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · · Score: 1

      So create a visa that allows working in any job paying over three times the median wage, or whatever.

      So for bankers, manages, and executives then?

      --
      Time to offend someone
    2. Re:Why all the complexity? by gronofer · · Score: 1

      In theory, since the "free market" is suggesting that that's where the greatest labour shortages are, and you'd think companies would be keen to cut their costs in this area. However I'm not really sure that these people's salaries are set by anything resembling a free market, and they don't seem to have much trouble crossing national borders anyway.

  25. They want frightened slaves by Tetetrasaurus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Keep people in fear of losing their job at any time so they are forced to act grateful for any low wage and position an employer deigns to give them. Fuck the people responsible for this legislation.

  26. Insurrect now! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of the bodyguards have wives and children, you know.

  27. Why not outsource the government as well? by unixisc · · Score: 1

    Have members of legislatures in China, Russia, India, Eastern Europe, Africa, et al represent us instead of Congressmen, and outsource the president's job to Vladimir Putin.

  28. eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanced by sribe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Great. It's bad enough that the Indian body shops have set up diploma mills in the US handing out master's degrees for a little C# work and writing some database queries so that they can brag "x% of our programmers earned master's degrees in the US". Now that bullshit will get them around the H1-B cap as well.

  29. the GOP can do this because of anti-white Dems by leftistconservative · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The anti-white platform of the Democrats push most of the white majority away and into the arms of the GOP. The whites have nowhere else to go, so the GOP can betray us in this manner. We must drive all foreigners from our lands and hang the elite who aid and abet this invasion.

    1. Re: the GOP can do this because of anti-white Dems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By "elite" you mean "those who paid attention in school"?

    2. Re:the GOP can do this because of anti-white Dems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The anti-white platform of the Democrats push most of the white majority away and into the arms of the GOP. The whites have nowhere else to go, so the GOP can betray us in this manner. We must drive all foreigners from our lands and hang the elite who aid and abet this invasion.

      Let's all just admit it. We're pampered losers who partied hard in hs and college and still waste a lot of time downloading copyrighted files and smoking weed. So now we can't compete with anybody, so we need protectionism.

  30. Re:Politicians do the bidding of those who pay bri by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Politicians do the bidding of those who pay bribes

    That's only true if the people watching (i.e. the voters) aren't paying attention. If we got together and voted out anyone who accepted bribes, then politicians would learn quickly.
    If voters actively looked for the campaign platform of the person they voted for and ignored ads, then politicians wouldn't need contributions.

    But we live in a world where people don't take democracy seriously, but vote anyway. Welcome to democracy, we (collectively) get what we deserve.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  31. No by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Self inflected wounds cannot be blamed on the weapon. The American people did it to themselves by electing these assholes. If the people who don't like this wanted to avoid it, they would have either voted or voted for someone else. You can't say both parties would do it, because an active electorate would have ensured someone who met the needs was on the ballot. If you are Democrat, make sure a Democrat who don't do this gets nominated. Likewise, Republican. Or find an independent.

    --
    -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    1. Re:No by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      well we have one party who wants to let whoever wants come here no questions asked

      then we have another party who wants to let a select group of people come here (who happen to compete with for the jobs that the majority of slashdotters want/have)

      So one is a small scope - but directly affects us here, the other wants to let everyone in... which also directly affects us here

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Hey there isn't a single person in elected office that I have voted for and hasn't been since GWB left office (sorry bout that I still believed in the lesser of 2 evils crap with both of his elections). I do vote in the primaries as well and have been very active in trying to contact my congress critters and other elected officials but they don't seem to listen or my voice isn't loud enough. I tried to help the Minnesota democrats out before Mark Dayton was first elected as he just seemed like a train wreck with name recognition and actively supported one of his challengers but went over like a ton of bricks. So now we have a Governor that I don't think could find has ass with both hands who apparently is incapable of reading the bills he signs or vetoes by later says he didn't know what was in them.

      --
      Time to offend someone
    3. Re:No by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But they give us free stuff. Like government mandated insurance (healthcare), wealth transfer ponzi scheme (soc sec), protection racket (licensing), largesse (government grants), indoctrination(education) ,dependency (welfare). There are more than a few percentage of Americans who have no problem screwing fellow Americans.

    4. Re:No by strikethree · · Score: 1

      The American people did it to themselves by electing these assholes.

      LOL. Really. As if these assholes ran on a platform of ruining America and making laws in accordance with campaign contributions.

      Get real.

      --
      "Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
  32. Re:Politicians do the bidding of those who pay bri by reboot246 · · Score: 1

    The ones responsible for watching the politicians are the press, and they've shown that they're not objective and can't be trusted. It's obvious even to a casual observer whose side they've been on for the past few decades.

  33. Re:Protectionism never works by scottbomb · · Score: 2

    Your theory would work if the cost of living in all of these countries was the same but it isn't.

  34. the top H1B sponsors are Indian companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The increased limit does not fill a need for US companies to bring in workers, it's for Indian companies to bring over and train Indian workers, so they can more successfully outsource in the future.

    The top 3 H1B sponsors in 2014 are Infosys, Tata, and WiPro.

    This is a scam

  35. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, it is. That's literally what it is.

  36. It's already destroyed..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    When management started to look at IT people as strictly a cost center. No more training. No more enough people to do the work. No more. It's long overdue. We really need to consider unionizing. Otherwise it's just going to get worse.

  37. Re:Politicians do the bidding of those who pay bri by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The ones responsible for watching the politicians are the press, and they've shown that they're not objective and can't be trusted.

    Oh please, the press reports on it, people just don't care. It's YOUR responsibility as a citizen to know what's going on. The bribing is almost all in the open. It's not like politicians are hiding it. Blaming the press is just a lame excuse, it doesn't absolve your from living in a crappy government made by you and your fellow-citizens.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  38. Re:Protectionism never works by LessThanObvious · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ( Being anti-H1B isn't protectionism.) Especially when other countries aren't just throwing their gates open to Americans. Last time I showed up to do a project in Canada I had to lie about the scope and they were clearly less than thrilled about my arrival. All developed countries that I'm aware of are at least moderately, if not highly cautious of allowing foreign workers. A playing field that isn't totally level, in this case is better than the alternative. We're busy telling our young people to go to college and get STEM degrees. We owe it to them to protect the jobs we are telling them are there and for which they are needed. I'm all for a robust global economy were all workers can earn a living in dignity, but not at the cost of losing the American middle class.

  39. Hypocrisy much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So it is okay when Obama grants executive Amnesty to tons of Illegals, but allowing more skilled foreign labor, is bad?

    1. Re:Hypocrisy much? by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      Yeah, it always entertains me when I find people who think it's racist to keep Mexicans out, but the Indians?! They're stealing our jobs!!

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  40. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I work with may h1-b's. They are getting just as screwed. Many should be under the green card system. But they cant. Pretty much all the ones I work with have tried.

  41. Considering... by p51d007 · · Score: 0

    The lack of common sense intelligence of most USA 15-30 year olds, who have the attention span of a squirrel, who can't put their stupid smartphones down for 10 seconds, WHAT workforce is there in the USA to worry about?

  42. Bribocracy by Tablizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The majority wants this.

    Yeah, majority of campaign contribution dollars...

    1. Re:Bribocracy by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How much effort does it take to do some research and verify whether a 10 second political ad is truthful?

      If the power belongs to the people with the money to pay for TV commercials, it is only because the voters have voluntarily abdicated their power.

      Like Alexis de Toqueville said (probably apocryphal):

      In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

    2. Re:Bribocracy by Shakrai · · Score: 0, Troll

      Stop using common sense and logic. You'll undermine the Democrat's argument for campaign finance "reform" (aka: incumbent protection)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    3. Re:Bribocracy by mhotchin · · Score: 2

      “Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.”

        H.L. Mencken,

    4. Re:Bribocracy by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Both parties are run by crooks and idiots. I don't appreciate your attempt to co-opt my post to make it seem like it favors one of the factions of the republicrat party over the other.

    5. Re:Bribocracy by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Apparently the quote sort of comes from Joseph de Maistre who wrote in 1811 "Every nation gets the government it deserves.", but that's just not as catchy nor does it exactly capture the same sentiment.

      Maybe Americans who are apathetic about voting deserve republicans and democrats. Maybe the north korean people deserve a government that rules with an iron fist and brainwashing while letting them starve. The misattributed de Toqueville quote seems to highlight the ease by which a democracy could fix itself if it cared enough as compared to a tyranny.

      It's like comparing a person who drops out of college because their parents died and they need to work to raise their siblings, and a person who drops out of college because studying was too hard with all the frat parties.

    6. Re:Bribocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How much effort does it take to do some research

      Multiplied by millions of listeners seeing the ad? Quite a lot, if each of them had to do the research themselves. Thankfully we have sites that cut through the bullshit, though everyone spends their time claiming that the sites are lying about their analysis of the ads, so now millions of people have to research politifact and its brethren.

    7. Re:Bribocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >In a democracy, the people get the government they deserve.

      Are we in a democracy?

    8. Re:Bribocracy by tburkhol · · Score: 4, Interesting

      How much effort does it take to do some research and verify whether a 10 second political ad is truthful?

      In politics, "truth" is very flexible. For example, it is true that the Obama administration has reduced the number of annual drone strikes by 80% (over the past five years, in Yemen). It is also true that the Obama administration has increased the number of annual drone strikes by tenfold (over GWB). Likewise, Obama has both increased deficit spending by $1.3T, and reduced deficit spending by $1.2T (although even these numbers are suspect, depending whether you consider 2008 spending to be "Bush's budget" or "Obama's budget." This is one of the reasons you'll hear a lot of percentages and deltas in political ads - they can avoid telling you the denominator or reference point. They can choose a reference that makes their point, regardless of whether that reference is reasonable or relevant, and technically be truthful.

      This is the reason no one believes a politician, unless he's saying something they already thought was true.

    9. Re:Bribocracy by anagama · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows that the Demoblican party is the only party to really care about America! Don't be such a partisan hack!

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    10. Re:Bribocracy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's pretty simple to tell, if they're lips are moving, they're lying.

    11. Re:Bribocracy by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Yes, you can imply a lot of misleading, yet technically "true", things with statistics. It is not important to determine if the claims made in a political ad are technically true or not. It is important to become informed and know what the truth is (e.g. by verifying whether what is implied by a political ad is true).

      Furthermore, there are websites that are nonpartisan that will make a lot of their fact checking public. How do you know the fact checkers are truthful? Well it turns out you can't, but luckily for us this isn't some amazing web of deceit. Politicians literally just hope you won't do the 10 minutes of research it takes to find the truth.

    12. Re:Bribocracy by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      Better yet is H.L. Mencken's description: "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard."

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    13. Re:Bribocracy by MooseMiester · · Score: 0

      True. And let's not forget that by not passing a budget - something required by law - The Obama Administration was able to grow the Federal Government at pre-recession rates, as the mandatory spending increases were based on the 2008 federal income. At the same time, they raised taxes.

      It's the same trick as "Hottest year on Record" - You change when "the record" starts! But not as big of a lie as "eight million insured!" when six million were cancelled... So many more examples abound.

      --
      Murphy was an optimist
  43. This benefits non "whites" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    The anti-white platform of the Democrats push most of the white majority away and into the arms of the GOP.

    Has life gotten better for NON-WHITES when they were under total Democrat rule? Nope.

    The Democrats aren't anti-white, they are pro-elitists. They are pro GIANT companies, of which the government is one example.

    The GOP can "get away" with raising an HIB cap because the way in which it is raised will not hurt the middle class much at all. I can't see it hurting any technical people I know much, since the H1B guys often get stuck doing jobs or working at companies that many people would rather not do otherwise.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:This benefits non "whites" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very short-sighted there ... if the H1B guys do the jobs at companies were Murricans don't want to, then those companies will thrive, and the "Murrican-friendly" companies will die a natural inevitable death - the "foreigner-infested" companies have costs which are therfore lower, and so the companies are more profitable. Natural selection indicates what happens next.
      You'll only have the scabby companies left, and they'll insist you work like a 3rd-rate H1B slave as well.
      Be careful - think ahead ...

  44. STEM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STEM is an acronym referring to the academic disciplines of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics..

    How far /. has fallen.......

  45. Re:Protectionism never works by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    Nope, What if I'm anti H1-B, but for easier green card rules, resulting in a larger net migration? Is that still protectionism? Or is anything that would sustain the standard of living protectionism?

  46. Imbalance by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    Importing cheap labor is not "technology". Plus, many countries that send visa workers have protectionist rules at home for our product and services. They want the benefits but not the downsides. It's one of the reasons why we have a fat trade deficit and why the rich get richer but the middle gets screwed.

    1. Re:Imbalance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sound like YOU want the protection.

      You are quite happy to see other peoples jobs get screwed so long as it benefits YOU with cheaper prices. Well Labour is just another resource , when there is a supply shortage prices go up, when there is a glut prices go down.

      You should look at the US protectionist laws for agriculture sometime.

  47. Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by fyngyrz · · Score: 4, Informative

    Trying to use protectionism to artificially keep American tech wages inflated while there are hundreds of thousands of perfectly qualified workers elsewhere who would gladly do the work cheaper

    There's more than one way for us to create situations that are "not what this country is about." The question at hand here is, is the value of the ideal of the free market for everyone, everywhere, regardless of consequences, more important than the idea that we here in the USA should be able to afford homes, transport, healthcare, safe neighborhoods and so forth. Your assertion of inflated wages is also questionable: how appropriate wages are has to be measured against cost of living, maintainance of a healthy lifestyle, home ownership, and so forth. The costs and social limits here are demonstrably different than in, for instance, China.

    Protectionism has its place, and isolating the economies of strong countries from those of weak countries is one of them.

    At this point, having seen the actual long term effects of our free trade policy, I am entirely for putting protectionism in place hard. If you want access to the US market, you live here, you mine it here, build it here, bank here, design it here -- period. We are resource rich in every way: we have raw materials, we have manpower, we have land, we have a potentially useful educational system and we have an ethos that matches job ethic with reward. Most importantly, with high trade barriers, we have the required market.

    If we did this, we'd have our own semiconductor industries, our own electronics manufacturing industries, and so forth, for every category you can think of.

    "Free trade" was put in place last century with good intentions and yes, a very American outlook, trying to extend the way we thought outside our own and operated borders. But that's not what happened. Only some of the economic mechanisms made it out. So now we have countries mostly unlike us in the sense that they have an ethos that matches job ethic only with the most basic day to day survival -- and they use that to severely undercut us. It's cheaper to buy prescription eyeglasses from China, ship them across the ocean by air and then across our own country, than it is to buy them here. Same for batteries, radios, displays, computers, iPods and tablets, jewelry, tech jobs, pretty much you name it.

    It's not just price as a per-hour thing; I don't require a high per-hour wage, and I know some others of comparable skill who don't either. None of us are employable, though, based on various combinations of basically economic factors like age, health, family size and the like. None of this makes a significant difference when the hire doesn't have to be insured; that's another economic advantage which going outside the country for labor provides.

    Look at Bethlehem, PA. At Detroit, MI. At Butte, Montana. Once you really see the wreckage caused by free trade, its very hard to have any confidence it's actually the right thing to do. Nice idea, yes -- but like many ideals, when put into practice, human nature alters the deal, Darth Vader style.

    I say put the walls up, give it 20-30 years, or whatever it takes for our economy to recover from the miss-step, then slowly begin to let other countries in with a carefully crafted tariff system that normalizes their prices with the prices here. That way, competition is based upon quality. Not the wages of Chinese or Indian peasants living in hovels.

    To indulge in a little metaphor, we offered our hand, and they burned it instead of shaking it. Time to pull it back. That's just the sane response. Right now, all we're doing is standing there, arm out, fingers burned off, waiting until the figurative fire burns our arms off to the shoulders. It doesn't help one bit to stand around saying "but our intentions were good!" Sure they were. But the intentions of corporations are not. The only way they are actually like people is that they act like sociopaths and

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Should we all be forced to pay the higher prices for products produced in America due to the higher price of labor? What's the point of making $80,000 instead of $40,000, if everything costs twice as much?

    2. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by bmo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Increasing the wages of an auto-worker from 115k (average $55/hr) to 230k/yr doesn't mean that the price of the automobile goes from 30k to 60k. Wages are currently appx 10 percent of the cost of an automobile.

      If you really believe that doubling wages doubles the price of goods, you don't know much at all about manufacturing.

      --
      BMO

    3. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of making $80,000 instead of $40,000, if everything costs twice as much?

      This is something a lot of people seem to have difficulty understanding. I got laughed at when many of my friends graduated and left to work at Silicon Valley while I chose a job out in what some people refer to as "flyover country" A few years later, yeah, they like to brag about their $150,000 salary, but at the same time, most of them are sharing a tiny, crappy apartment (which they can barely afford) with 2 or 3 other people and the bulk of their paychecks seem to be eaten up by living expenses. Meanwhile I payed off my car, bought a nice, large house with a significant down payment, and have cultivated several growing investments. And I make half or less of what they make.

    4. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1
      Increasing the wages of everyone in the supply chain, from the person designing the car in a cad program, to the person mining the steal, to the person selling the car, etc, would raise the price to 60K, as that accounts for 100% of the cost.

      If you really believe that doubling wages doubles the price of goods, you don't know much at all about manufacturing.

      How do you think prices are determined? Where do you think costs come from?

    5. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by TehZorroness · · Score: 3, Informative

      How do you think prices are determined? Where do you think costs come from?

      As someone working in manufacturing, I can tell you. Materials and expendable supplies.

    6. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Mining the steal"... very clever word play there, my friend. I see what you did there. I'm glad to see that you agree that the American worker is getting ripped off here, paying for a government that acts against his interests.

    7. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 2

      How do you think the cost of materials are determined? Every step from procuring the raw materials to refining the materials at various stages incurs costs in the form of the labor of the people doing the procuring and refining. The cost of the machines used in these processes come from the labor costs of the people who supplied the materials for the machines and the machines that made those machines.

      It's easy to split up production costs into labor and materials if you don't dig any deeper than that, but almost every material cost is derived from someone's labor or return on a risky investment. Materials don't dig themselves up and refine themselves.

    8. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by Simulant · · Score: 1


      If you condemn free trade without condemning capitalism in general, all you are doing is redrawing the lines so they suit you. Capitalism, in the long term, seems fundamentally incompatible with basic human decency (and most religious morality) and will eventually produce gross inequalities. As Americans, possibly as humans, this usually doesn't bother us as long as we perceive ourselves to be ahead or at least believe we have a path to get ahead.

    9. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      I agree with you in general. There are ways to level the playing field without completely putting up a wall and severing ties, with the rest of the world.

      First we need treat labor as the commodity it is. We should do away with our byzantine payroll tax system and replace it with a simple flat tax on dollars used to purchase domestic labor. Even better we could take things little farther and do away with individual income taxes, enact a VAT or national sales tax and simply tax employers on the labor they buy at the same tax rate which is applied to ever other good and service.

      We then need to put labor on a per-country tariff schedule. The tax rate should be adjusted according to the buying power of the dollar in the remote market. if the cost of living in $COUNTRY is $0.20 on the dollar to the mean cost of living in the us than the tarrif is $0.80 for every dollar plus the sales tax rate applied to the remaining $0.20. That should create cost parity between over seas employees and American workers. That would be anytime an American legal entity pays a worker in foreign country directly.

      Then you toss free trade into the dustbin of history where it belongs. I do feel strongly that would should attempt to set a 'neutral' tariff schedule, and write that into the law. I don't think we want to go down the path of trying to protect inefficient industries. Tariffs on goods should be set according to again based on the relative buying power of the dollar in the country where the bulk of the item by cost originated.

      This way if there really is an advantage to producing something like cane sugar in Brazil because the environmental conditions are better for it, the economic advantage to buying Brazilian sugar is not eniterly eliminated. Countries can still specialize.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not just that, its that all these libertarian think tanks republicans use for this free trade agenda are lying so blatantly. No one is having an honest discussion.

    11. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      What!? iPads are made in China with cheap labor, yet have a very high profit margin and are very costly. So no we don't benefit from cheap labor.

      Nice try Potsy.

    12. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You miss the forest from the trees just like he states. As others mention, the cost of goods do not increase linearly with the cost of labor. You also fail to think "Hey, money is worth the same, but now my countrymen HAVE GOOD JOBS". It's all about your 40,000 car, screw logic. screw the poor. I don't want to pay a cent more waaaaaahhh.

    13. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      I would be open to any solution that seems to have a chance of working.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    14. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      So it seems like your argument is "iPads are already expensive, there is no way that they could be more expensive".

      Let's say we passed a law forcing Apple to move it's factories to the USA, and pay all it's workers much higher salaries. Are you saying that Apple would *not* raise the price of it's products?

    15. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      You need to factor something else into your reasoning: If Apple changes the price of a product, just as with anything else, they will affect the market for that product. In particular, if they add too much to the end user's cost, competition will see to it that they regret it. The only way they can avoid this is to provide more functionality -- and in all products other than OS X itself, they're pretty far behind the curve already due to a series of extremely bad decisions.

      A very good example of this is the predominance of Android-based phones over iOS based phones. My phone cost less than my SO's; she has a late model iPhone, I have a Galaxy Note 3. My phone is a far better phone and general applications platform than hers is -- and it cost less. She (my SO) has been shown, in detail, why this is so, and her next phone will almost certainly not be an Apple product, because (a) she knows that the functionality is lower and (b) she knows that the price is higher. Apple has two options here to bring her back into the fold, as it were. They can either drop the price (a lot) or they can up the functionality (doubtful they can... too invested in iTunes tethering, mommying the developers and consequently neutering the applications, closed developer ecosystem.)

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    16. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      if they add too much to the end user's cost, competition will see to it that they regret it.

      Yes, if only apple was forced to do this, and their competitors were not, it would seriously affect apple's profit's maybe even threaten their position as a market leader. But my example wasn't meant to single out apple. Imagine if every technology company in America was forced to either use domestic labor with higher wages, or be excluded from the American market entirely, this would certainly raise the prices of goods in America. Not only would Apple's competitors would not be able to make Apple regret it's decision to raise prices.they would no doubt also be fored to raise prices themselves.

      I don't want to get into the debate of whether Apple products are overvalued. The fact is that the market has decided to put a premium on apple products, rightly or wrongly, meaning they can charge a certain premium over competitors products. I am personally an android person, but I don't think Android is superior in every way, it's just superior in the ways that I most care about. Other people care about different hings.

      My point is that if we forced all companies to pay higher wages (i.e. American wages), the prices of their products would be higher across the board. If you can believe this claim, then I would further suggest that this imples that we are in fact currently benefiting from a price discount due to the manufacturing of these products happening in countries with cheaper labor.

    17. Re:Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree.

      And as a historical aside, I always boggle at this claim, "'Murika founded on free trade freedumbs." Well, no. If you'd asked Thomas Jefferson or Benjamin Franklin whether they were fighting a war so that all future citizens forever could be forced into cutthroat wage competition against Fourth World peasants who live in mud huts, they'd have looked at you like you had two heads.

  48. Fees and restrictions by myid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This article lists some H-1B employer fees. Let's increase that by $50,000 per year per "guest" employee. That should cut down on the number of employees who are brought here in order to save on wages.

    However, some non-American hiring managers will want to hire only people from their own countries, because of feelings of patriotism for their countries. So we should have a law that states that "guest" hiring managers must hire at least 50% Americans, and that each year, the lowest starting salary of Americans that he/she hires must be higher than the highest starting salary of the non-Americans that he/she hires.

    1. Re:Fees and restrictions by jopsen · · Score: 1

      However, some non-American hiring managers will want to hire only people from their own countries, because of feelings of patriotism for their countries. So we should have a law that states that "guest" hiring managers must hire at least 50% Americans.

      So now immigrants can't become managers... That's not racist at all :)

    2. Re:Fees and restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Racist "patriotic" crap.

    3. Re:Fees and restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However, some non-American hiring managers will want to hire only people from their own countries, because of feelings of patriotism for their countries

      It's not patriotism. Other countries have narcissistic sociopaths too you know. If I know your cultural background supremely well, it's easier for me to exploit something about it. Plus if I build a little empire of people from other nations inside my own, those people will be very isolated and dependent on me.

      Indians make up an utterly tiny percentage of the general population where I live, and yet somehow I run into a disproportionate number of them at work all the time. I wonder how that happens...

    4. Re:Fees and restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By American, you mean white, right? And non-American is all those little colored people, no matter how long they lived in the US?

    5. Re:Fees and restrictions by nickname100 · · Score: 1

      There are too many people that try to game the system. If the law exists, it is easy to find a loophole.
      I know too many people that "hire" people (friends of friends or whatever) just to get the hiring reward for example. The reservation system in India mandates that you have to hire people no matter how poorly they have done in school. So, there are too many people that simple cry "caste system is against me", if things don't go their way and once hired, try to get the US H1-B jobs because at the end of the day the jobs are more lucrative 1 dollar != 1 rupee.

      I also know waaaaaay too many people who have built massive wealth in India by simply sending money home and buying up properties. The idea being that once they own 5 or 6 homes, they just "retire" and live off the rental properties or whatever. So many of these same people have said "I don't give a shit what happens to workers here, as long as it doesn't affect me in the near future".

      The only problem has always been those pesky border patrol officers who deny entry for cap, but now, if the cap is lifted, it will open the flood gates for a lot of these uneducated / uncaring / opportunistic folks who only want what is best for themselves.

    6. Re:Fees and restrictions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, this might be a brilliant idea. If there is truly a shortage of skilled workers rather than a shortage of skilled workers willing to work for lower wages and lower work place standards, then increase the H1B visa fees. If it's not about the money, then an increased fee should not be a problem. For my money though, I'd rather H1B's were scrapped altogether in favor of giving these immigrants a resident alien status (aka Green Card) because that's what they are -- permanent resident aliens who are forced to server for 3-5 years as indentured servant before being recognized as such.

  49. Re:Politicians do the bidding of those who pay bri by callahan2211 · · Score: 1

    Agreed, I have not voted for Dem/Rep in 30 years. I agree w/Carlin. You can ask most Americans basic civic questions and they have no clue. Agree with previous poster that corruption/bribes is now out in open. http://youtu.be/07w9K2XR3f0

    --
    "There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and
  50. Union by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The real question is why haven't we, the IT workforce of America, banded together and formed one or more unions so we can actually have some influence on laws that effect us?

    Companies discourage it because they know it's the worst thing that could happen to them.

    We discourage it ourselves, out of greed and competitiveness and a misunderstanding of politics.

    If we don't wake up and realize this is the only way we're going to keep a balance between the needs of business and self-preservation, we're going to find ourselves working in what's left of the walmart/mcdonalds sector.

  51. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Speaking as an H1-B working, I'm far from screwed.

    I'm paid a very high wage (even for silicon valley) as the company that employs me is legally required to. I enjoy all the same conditions as they do re health insurance etc. I have a team of lawyers trying to keep my in the country by getting me a green card. Honestly, couldn't be much better.

    And before you yell that I'm "stealin er jerbs!", we're still hiring for more people in the same role. There aren't enough people in the world who could do this job, let alone in America.

  52. Re:eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanc by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why don't you link one or two of these diploma mills? I might as well go get my masters degree so I can compete on equal footing with the H1bs.

    --
    If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
  53. Re:Protectionism never works by jedidiah · · Score: 2

    Opposition to the creation of an underclass is not "protectionism". If we really need them then fine, bring them over. Just bring them over as full EQUALS.

    Given them green cards the moment they land or forget about it.

    They won't do that of course because it doesn't get them what they want. They want indentured quasi-slave labor. They don't want real professionals.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  54. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most of the US workforce has been brought crashing down to earth by overseas competition. There is no reason why the tech industry, which is one of the industries where skills are most easily applied remotely, should not follow suit.

    On one hand, it does seem inevitable that STEM workers who were born in other countries will become a much larger fraction of the global STEM workforce relative to STEM workers born in the USA. If the USA stops foreigners from coming to work at jobs in the USA then the jobs in the USA will just move to the foreign countries. When it comes to writing software or doing scientific research, one location is as good as another. It's hard for a person on one side of the planet to give a haircut to someone on the other side of the planet. But software and scientific knowledge can be transferred to the other side of the planet almost instantaneously.

    On the other hand, there are major problems in the world that need solving and much of the work that is needed to solve these problems in STEM work. In a certain sense, there is an almost infinite amount of STEM work that desperately needs doing. So the real problem in the world is not an excess of STEM workers, it is a shortage of STEM jobs. The fact that there are people, anywhere in the world, who are are all trained up for STEM jobs but who can't find useful work that pays a living wage is a terrible waste of human talent.

    This won't be popular on Slashdot but if I was supreme dictator of the USA then I'd tax the crap out of the rich and use that money to soak up as much of the world's STEM talent as possible. I'd bring the world's best and brightest to the USA and put them to work doing everything from curing cancer to building infrastructure. I'd flood the housing market with affordable housing that was built right smack in the middle of the richest neighborhoods in the USA. The Hamptons and Beverly Hills would have gleaming modern high rises of simple but comfortable apartments that could be rented for only a few hundred a month - served by ultra-modern easily affordable public transportation to the jobs in the city centers. Sure the ultra-rich would take a bit of a hit but anyone with STEM training who was willing to do an honest days work would be secure in the knowledge that they could support themselves and their family simply but comfortably.

  55. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ( Last time I showed up to do a project in Canada I had to lie about the scope and they were clearly less than thrilled about my arrival.

    Perhaps you should bathe more frequently.

  56. Re: the GOP can do this because of anti-white Dem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Elite" means those who do not base their world view solely on Faux News.

  57. Re:Protectionism never works by jedidiah · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No it isn't. HIB is a slave status. Being against a slave status is not protectionism. It's classic American patriotism (Common Sense).

    You are trying to conflate immigration in general with the HIB underclass status and they simply aren't the same thing.

    If they're worth importing, they're worth treating right.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  58. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 0

    So we need inflated salaries to pay for our inflated tuitions/student debts? Makes sense...

    I'm all for a robust global economy were all workers can earn a living in dignity, but not at the cost of losing the American middle class.

    I imagine this looks to people from the 3rd world as "I don't mind helping poor people as long as I can remain in a privileged class of people whose only merit for being there is being born in the right place"

    If you think rich people are gaming the system, fine. Fine, lets try to stop all the loopholes that allow it. I don't think artificially inflating the price of labor in the US is neither fair nor helpful to the people that actually pay for that labor (i.e. us).

    Let's say that my salary drops in half because the labor market is flooded with people, but at the same time, costs of goods and services also drop in half because the price of labor is so cheap. What's the difference?

    By this same token, importing all these people into the labor market also creates market demand for goods and services, raising the price of labor.

    We could, in addition to importing foreign workers, also import foreign CEOs that do the same job for less money, and now no one has an inflated salary compared to anyone else.

  59. Re:Protectionism never works by jedidiah · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's funny because I have personally managed to out earn an H1B with a PhD (if not several) simply because of my status as a full citizen. I am free to bargain with an employer. I don't have to worry about deportation if I am too demanding.

    Now that's the "good side" of H1Bs (abused talent).

    The bad side is mediocre no talent sleazebags that are just used to lower labor costs. I've seen that variation on the H1B system as well.

    Your "situation" could be much better. You could have an actual green card.

    Also, cut out this "team of lawyers" crap. This makes you sound like such an obvious shill. I'm familiar with that end of things too. You're so full of it.

    --
    A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
  60. It's a Huge Problem for College Grads by Kagato · · Score: 2

    We are finally to a point where economics are forcing companies to put serious efforts into college hire programs and workforce development of college hires. I consult with many large companies as a programmer. Up until recently I went nearly a decade without seeing a programming department have college hires.

    If you were to remove all caps on H1B companies would go back to facing a decision between hiring a college grads that need professional development or H1B workers. The college hire could choose to take a different jobs years later. The H1B worker is far less likely to change jobs because they risk deportation if they fail to secure a sponsor (a fact that does not go unnoticed by employers).

    IEEE-USA's position is STEM workers should be afforded Green Cards accommodations (most likely capped) thus not be beholden to employer sponsorship. I personally think any change to H1B or Greencard programs should be dependent on the majority of college hires finding jobs post graduation.

    1. Re:It's a Huge Problem for College Grads by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The H1B worker is far less likely to change jobs because they risk deportation if they fail to secure a sponsor "

      Which allows abuse of the worker and allows the corporation to not spend a dime on training and mentoring. All of this has been bad for employees.

      Companies act as though it is a zero sum game, and I have heard this directly, "We cannot train because that person might leave us." What kind of nonsense is that? The truth is that they will most likely gain an employee from a comparable company who was trained over there.

      Training and mentoring have almost been completely eliminated so that Bill Lumberg's stock could go up a quarter of a point. That is the reality. As the legacy programmers, you know, the one's who knew about data flow, fault tolerance and such, retire, we are left with an army of open systems programmers many of whom have no idea of the implications of what they are doing. No one is mentoring them.

      My experience is that a person either inherently understands the art of programming, of planning a system, allowing for expansion, closed-loop, fault tolerance, or they don't. And it is somethinglike a 50/50 split. Half the "programmers" are mere coders. The other half are true designers, with only one in ten being able to predict a great deal of the implication for the system in the following years. A company can get these odds from an American or an Immigrant. Might as well hire the Americans first.

  61. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Shouldn't there be a financial reward to living in a place with lower cost of living, especially given the fact that in our modern economy, a lot of what is produced is just information?

    As an american, you can move to china or india and work for an american company, and benefit from a lower cost of living as well. One of my friends is in china doing that right now.

  62. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because whenever there's controversy, the supermajority at Slashdot gets to decide exactly what behaviors constitute value-laden words such as "freedom", "stealing", "terrorism", "patriotism", "traitor", "protectionism", etc.

    If we come up with some decent arguments, that's icing on the case. But as long as our majority shows up and posts the usual and the mods do their thing, that's the only justification needed.

  63. The concerns make no sense by msobkow · · Score: 1

    How does allowing people in to a country to work encourage jobs to move out of the country?

    That just makes zero sense to me.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:The concerns make no sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cuz when they're done, they go back home?

  64. Re: Protectionism never works by rfengr · · Score: 1

    "I have a team of lawyers trying to keep my in the country by getting me a green card." And there you have it.

  65. Re: Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, but then you have to live in a place like India or China. The cost of living there is lower for a reason.

  66. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    There aren't enough people in the world who could do this job, let alone in America.

    If there aren't enough people in the world who could do the job, how would letting in more H1-Bs help

  67. They ALL take bribes by msobkow · · Score: 2

    They ALL take bribes. They just euphamistically call them "campaign contributions" to avoid jail time.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:They ALL take bribes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Then vote them all out until they don't take contributions. Simple solution. The reason we don't is because most people don't care. If we fix the problem of people not caring, then the problem of contributions will almost fix itself. That is the problem we need to focus on.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:They ALL take bribes by chihowa · · Score: 2

      Once we've lost the ability to fix the problem, people will begin to care again. Apathy is caused by life being easy; fixing the problem of people not caring is going to be very painful.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
    3. Re:They ALL take bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't care? Maybe it's that we're so disenfranchised that we know our votes are worthless and ultimately count toward the same dictatorship? It's rapidly heading toward a one-party democracy, and a democracy without a choice is a dictatorship. We're living in tyranny already and we only maintain the party names as a nod toward the rules of engagement. Historically our predecessors always warned of a single party as being the undoing of democracy, so we invented two names for one thing so we could pretend there were still more than one.

      Voting is useless. Give me an alternative.

    4. Re:They ALL take bribes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      If you care, you are the rare one. Remember, your vote is only worth 1/300,000,000. If everyone else doesn't care, or even if millions agree with you, then you're still in the minority.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    5. Re:They ALL take bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We don't care?

      You, as in the majority, not you personally I presume, don't care.

      Voting is useless. Give me an alternative.

      It isn't useless, if people start to care. There is no, and there will be no, alternative. The only chance you have is to start voting, and get enough people to do so together with you, in a way that gets the current crop of politicians out of the system.

      As long as you resign from (persistently, election after election) voting for something different than what you have now, you are part of the problem, whether you like it or not, and whether you feel that you deserve it or not.

    6. Re:They ALL take bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not true at all--The machine behind all the funding and candidate selection will just put new people up for election, and the cycle continues. Time and time again we see candidates running as "someone different, making a change" but then it's just more of the same.

      Obama was so not-Bush he was given a Nobel Prize just for not being Bush...And then we got more Bush-style policy.

    7. Re:They ALL take bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In some countries, they call it "graft" and people go to jail for it.

    8. Re:They ALL take bribes by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's not true at all

      Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean it's not true. You don't have to vote for a candidate from either party.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    9. Re:They ALL take bribes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We have already lost the ability to fix the problem, I think the last four decades have shown that pretty conclusively.

  68. Are these the "rules"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am a Ph.D. scientists and have a direct influence over a number of youths interested in science. I don't mean just my kids, but their friends who ask me oddball questions because I will give them real answers.

    I have not been shy about pointing out the issue of immigrant labor on the labor market. And this post reminds me why.

    It may give the US tech industry a short term boost. But it does reduce the pool of available native talent. Do we need native talent?

    The last set of native* Americans got replaced by a culture with superior technology. Can it happen again?

    *note sudden shift in use of the work "native".

  69. Supply meet demand by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    by definition having them in the country reduces the prevailing wage...

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Supply meet demand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      by definition having them in the country reduces the prevailing wage...

      Not as much as having them out of the country, where they are still competing with us but paid less.

  70. Re:Protectionism never works by towermac · · Score: 1

    "I imagine this looks to people from the 3rd world as ..."

    I see a premise there, that 3rd world people would be looking to us for something. Why would they? We're not the boss of them. (I bet they don't like being called 3rd world either. They're just people form other places. And no, not everyone is as rich as people in the US.)

    And then, your imagined response just reeks of white guilt. Or Karl Marx maybe. I understand that you didn't earn your 'privileged class' position. Your great-grandparents did that.

    All you can do with that, is to have it, or throw it away.

  71. Never by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    they're the ruling class. America has one. We just don't like to talk about/acknowledge our social betters.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  72. Thank you. Enjoy France, Greece, or Canada by raymorris · · Score: 2

    >. I am leaving this fucking country finally

    Thank you. I do think you'll find France, Greece, or Canada better suited to your political tastes. Really. I hope you enjoy it, wherever you go.

    If by chance you find that France or Greece sucks , you cant get a job there and stuff is generally screwed up, and you decide to come back here, please understand what that means. It would mean that you've seen the actual results of the policies you espoused and decided that you DON'T like the results. If that happens, if you don't like the results of welfare state liberalism, leave your old ideas behind when you come back. Here in Texas we have a booming economy with lots of jobs. You're welcome to come here, but understand our economy is doing well because of the way we do things here. If you don't like how we do things in Texas, you're free to not move here.

    1. Re:Thank you. Enjoy France, Greece, or Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, Texas? No offense intended (I like Austin), but your economic argument doesn't exactly hold -- Manhattan is doing extremely well, as is Seattle and much of liberal California. You should be downright jealous of some liberal areas. And, yes, before gas prices tanked you could expect to move to the Dakotas and cash in. Not so clear what the long term prospects are there but I've seen enough young guys make a lot of money in fishing, lumber, nuclear plant construction to know where those guys end up. (Yes I'm old and, no, I don't mean to disrespect them. I'm talking about short to medium trends leaving some trade guys behind)

    2. Re:Thank you. Enjoy France, Greece, or Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...leave your old ideas behind when you come back. Here in Texas we have a booming economy with lots of jobs.

      So will you also be willing to leave your own "old ideas" behind if the Texas boom doesn't last?

    3. Re:Thank you. Enjoy France, Greece, or Canada by gtall · · Score: 1

      Yes, but that isn't home grown success that you have in Texas. Your idiot former governor went around the country enticing businesses from other states to come to Texas. And this while he was gutting education. You also have a decrepit welfare system which kicks you if you are poor because being poor in Texas is strictly your own fault. And you over built, the recent water shortage is evidence of that. To make it worse, most of Texas doesn't believe in climate change and hence doesn't realize the lack of water is the new normal. You'd need a hole in your head to head to Texas with any idea of starting a family.

    4. Re: Thank you. Enjoy France, Greece, or Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different poster, I moved to Germany a year ago. Everything works here just fine, there are job centers in almost every town to help you find work. Healthcare is about 8% of your income, but everyone has it.
      The police don't shoot or beat you for asinine reasons.

      Advanced education is mostly free and the political system here isn't stuck 200 years in the past.

    5. Re:Thank you. Enjoy France, Greece, or Canada by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1

      If you don't like how we do things in Texas, you're free to not move here.

      What if I like how you do things in Texas, but don't want to move there because the climate in Texas is about the as my boxers?

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    6. Re:Thank you. Enjoy France, Greece, or Canada by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      Here in Texas we have a booming economy with lots of jobs.

      Given the recent trend in oil prices I wouldn't expect that to last much longer.

  73. Re:Protectionism never works by quantaman · · Score: 3, Funny

    What this does is create a pool of offshore labor that's familiar with the work being done *here*. The obvious purpose is to use the immigration system to assist companies that want to relocate work overseas.

    That doesn't makes sense. Sure you could imagine companies wanting to make off-shoring easier, but what possible motivation does a group of senators have for shipping US jobs overseas?

    --
    I stole this Sig
  74. yes, you can. Court ruling about 18 months ago by raymorris · · Score: 1

    Yes, you can do that. A year or two ago the court ruled in a case where someone was doing that with textbooks. Doctrine of first sale, your fine legally.

    Chinese DVDs might require a Chinese DVD player. That's a technical issue, not a legal restriction.

  75. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    And then, your imagined response just reeks of white guilt. Or Karl Marx maybe. I understand that you didn't earn your 'privileged class' position. Your great-grandparents did that.

    Except I'm not white nor a communist. I am actually a free market capitalist. Did you read my whole post?

  76. Re:Protectionism never works by dryeo · · Score: 1

    (if we were to assume for the moment that the US government works for the welfare of the American people)

    That's a pretty big assumption. The people don't pay the large campaign costs. The people don't supply the well paying jobs doing nothing for the politicians after their public service is done. At that the idea of helping people is a left-wing idea and anti-American.

    --
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
  77. Indian Body Shops? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indian Body Shops? Great, now they're going to "offshore" our welder shortage too!

  78. Re:Protectionism never works by jriding · · Score: 5, Insightful

    You forgot the fact that the cost of goods and services will never drop in half to match the salary drops. That equals profit. Why would they drop the profit?
    Does apple drop the cost of the goods because they use cheap slave labor instead of making the products in the expensive US?

    So enjoy your 10$ loaf of bread. It now only takes you 3 weeks to make that.

    --
    love the taste, hate the texture
  79. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fine, send the H1Bs home and spend the money reeducating american citizens instead. It's not like H1Bs are shining examples of competence.

  80. So we open the schools here by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    to rubber stamp 'em. U of Phoenix got it's start when a guy bought a secretary school so he could use the accreditation.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  81. Additional information by andy753421 · · Score: 4, Informative

    For what it's worth, the legislation is called the "Immigration Innovation Act of 2015 (I-Squared Act of 2015)". Here's another article along with the senate press release and the bill itself.

  82. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fine, then that 'abused talent' can apply for citizenship if they want to stay. However, H1B's should only be granted when there's a true shortage of needed talent. Really, though, in this economy, there should almost never be a need for such people because there are lots out of work. It's cheaper in the long run to train someone who already lives here than it is to bring someone in from india.

  83. Re:Protectionism never works by chihowa · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's hard to understand how disconnected they are from us and our daily concerns. They're representing their interests and the interests of everyone they know and meet. Senators, and the people who hang out with senators, don't have to worry about being outsourced. "Outsourcing" is something that makes people's business more successful and their bank accounts bigger. Why would you oppose it?

    Or, if you're feeling cynical:
    They're connected now, if they weren't already before. When the US turns into a third world shithole because of their actions, they'll be the feudal lords or safely relocate to a less distasteful locale. (Or at least they hope that's the case. Or they know they'll be dead before any sort of collapse and don't care what their lifestyle costs the chattel.) If they aren't so pampered and surrounded by sycophants to see the outcomes of their actions, they're just-world believers and think the displaced workers probably deserved being laid off.

    --
    If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  84. Re:eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanc by sribe · · Score: 1

    Why don't you link one or two of these diploma mills? I might as well go get my masters degree so I can compete on equal footing with the H1bs.

    I don't remember the names. I advertised paid internship positions on MonsterTrak (now MonsterCollege), and kept getting these resumes, from second-year master's candidates, with experience that would be more appropriate for a bright high-school student, and names that made the ethnicity obvious. Then later I read about the diploma mills, and recognized what had happened.

  85. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either you are enormously stupid or you are doing some serious drugs. Do you REALLY THINK that goods and services will suddenly just drop like a rock in price to accommodate the lower wages? Hilarious! I got news for you. My taxes keep going UP. My electricity bill, my heating bill, my food bill all keeps going UP! My medical insurance keeps going UP! But my salary keeps going DOWN! So how's this working? It isn't and it hasn't been for the past 20 years. Fixed costs have gone up relentlessly for Americans.

    We have had a FLOOD of immigrants over the last 25 years and wages have continued to collapse while the cost of just living has soared. So what in God's name makes you think this is going to change?

    Finally, WE FOUGHT HARD as a country for these wages. In the early part of the 20th century people marched in the streets, the went on strike, they were arrested, many were DIED - LITERALLY to make the labor movement work. WE EARNED fair wages and fair benefits with blood, sweat and tears. Now a bunch of foreigners think they have a God-given right to come here and destroy it all. Sorry. You are not welcome.

    Oh...and btw...who is offering ME a job in Bangalore? Why should Americans throw out the welcome mat to every single foreign national when there is no welcome mat for US in YOUR country?

    Foreigners need to resolve their labor issues IN THEIR OWN COUNTRIES by forming the labor movement that Americans formed a century ago. Taking a free ride on the backs of the American middle class is not acceptable.

  86. Traitor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jeff Flake and his dog killing kids can f their traitorous selves !

  87. H1B by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just be thankful - H1B are going to pay social security tax, and regular tax.

  88. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because by doing that, you have a 20 times greater chance of finding someone to do this job than you would by not doing so ;)

  89. Once H1B, then GC & now Citizen by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    FU

  90. Re:Protectionism never works by rworne · · Score: 1

    Team of lawyers?

    This team?

    --
    I tried every decent and legal way I could think of to resolve the issue w/the business before I rented the chicken suit
  91. Re: Protectionism never works by HagbardCeline6909 · · Score: 2

    Silicon Valley has never been duplicated, although many have tried.

  92. I thought immigrant tech workers created jobs by mpsmps · · Score: 1

    40% of the largest US companies were founded by immigrants. Surely a net win. The article needs to stop treating it as a zero-sum game

    1. Re:I thought immigrant tech workers created jobs by Shados · · Score: 1

      I could be wrong, but isn't there a visa category for investors already?

  93. Two realities have to be considered by See+Attached · · Score: 1

    First, no medium or smaller company is going to want to own IT hardware, and employ IT Staff. they want to buy applications from Cloud. Or thats what they think they need - damn the torpedos and the internet availability issues and loss of control. Even large companies dont think their dedicated, hard working folks offer any competitive advantage. They are just overhead in MGT eyes. Levels of bureaucracy ensure that workers get no credit for their succes. Second, letting H1B workers in displaces US workers, and drops the labor rates in the US for all other US workers. We train the foreign workforce,then chase them away so they go home with a clue on how to run businesses. Is it better to keep them here or not let em in, or restrict H1B count? Either way, business wants to pay less for what it perceives as commodity skillsets. (again, not recognizing the skills of the domestic worker). Then the jobs can go offshore and then the contracts that are written and the cross training provided results in a loss of control of the IP, as well as the financial performance. The guy in the next cube works for your competition, and gets the sales reports for both before you and before your competition, and goes on day trading escapades accordingly. The question never asked: Is the US worker more productive, more creative and more effective at doing IT work? I've heard hte rate is about >> 2:1 for headcount, favoring the US worker, but this is not acknowledged. EU has a protectionist view. Wonder how history will see that?

    --
    Time for a new Political party in the US (or two!) One is off the rails Other cant pony up a leader.
  94. Re:Protectionism never works by thelexx · · Score: 1

    It's the corporate leaders that benefit from off-shoring who decide on the big political contributions, not the workers who don't. The workers are divvied up with ads paid for by the contributions anyway.

    --
    "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  95. the Chamber of Cronies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    are buying-up all the corruptocrats they can (on BOTH sides of the aisle). Note that the chamber is working overtime to get a healthy bi-partisan mix of co-sponsors for this absolutely corrupt action. They'll try to ram through something so blatantly bad that even kim Jong Un would have trouble getting it through HIS government with a straight face, counting on the mainstream media to fawn over the bi-partisan nature of the effort rather than the substance. The modern press does not like to ask "icky" questions and prefers human interest stories with an air of "can't we just all get along?" in them.

    This is one of those cases that should wake people up to the notion that just because some piece of legislation is hyped as "bi-partisan", that does not mean it is any less of a crap-sandwich. Some of the worst legislation in US history was passed through congress in a bi-partisan way and signed by a president of a different party than the majority in congress. Incidentally, this sort of pro-crony treachery is ONE reason why most (though not all) TEA party groups opposed both Flake and Hatch (SOME endorsed both those guys as politically strategic plays).

    Most politicians PRETEND to be patriotic and pro-middle class; the phonies are the ones who do the bidding of the Chamber of Commerce and push to suppress the wages and benefits of middle class Americans by importing waves of new workers in exchange for campaign cash from the evil anti-American cronies in the chamber.

    Many politicians PRETEND to be strong on national defense (at least while arranging multi-billion dollar contracts for firms in their districts) but the phonies are exposed when they have an endless series of excuses for not securing US borders (the very definition of national security) while spending hundreds of billions trying to secure borders in places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, etc.

    Many politicians PRETEND to be strong supporters if inner-city minorities (while giving them handouts with "strings attached" that prevent them from ever moving up and escaping the plantation) but the worst of these phonies take money from the chamber of cronies to import more cheap laborers and import more foreign college students rather than helping the disadvataged Americans get into college and get good jobs; THESE politicians NEED a permanent underclass of dependent voters who "owe them" for their government benefits.

  96. How about H1B + training. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not allow H1B with the condition: any company that uses it must also hire a resident to be trained by the person benefitting from the H1B visa. In this way everyone wins. The company gets the worker, and and when the H1B visa expires the company has a resident fully qualified to do the job.

  97. Wait, what? by sabbede · · Score: 1

    How does letting more workers enter the country lead to jobs moving overseas? Isn't it the exact opposite?

  98. Reps owned by the corporations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The CEOs want their wages as high as possible while keeping the engineer's salaries as low as possible.
    This bill does exactly that, as the CEOs are lying through their teeth that there are no qualified people to take their jobs in the US. It's more precise to say that there's no qualified people to take their job at the salary that they want to pay.

    Once again, apply a simple litmus test: Pay the H1B 95%th percentile in their field, or in the company, which ever is higher.

    If you pass that test, you can hire him/her. I will guarantee you that the # of H1Bs applied for will plummet like oil these days.

  99. What's the big deal? by troll+-1 · · Score: 1

    If somone has a job and a place to live why shouldn't they be able to move about and work anywhere in the world? Just because a person is born on one side of a fence why should they be denied an equal opportunity? If labor is fluid the world will be a better place for it. I was born in the UK. I've lived and worked all over the world. Most people I know (here now in the US) would like the opportunity to travel and experience life abroad but silly imaginary lines prohibit them from doing so. Imagine if people in California were prohibited from working in Oregon. The whole idea of national borders is dumb. It's about time humanity started moving on to bigger things and living up to its true potential.

  100. Um by asamad · · Score: 1

    It seems pretty simple. Vote the GOP out.

    More wealth gathering for he wealthy :)

    1. That is only half of the problem. You also need to vote the Democrats out as well. Amy Klobuchar a democrat from MN has been pusing legislation like this for a while now. She was behind that last one that had the larger cap of 300k in 2013. Both sides seem to hate good paying middle class jobs.

      --
      Time to offend someone
  101. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why would they drop the profit?

    You don't understand maaaan! If they don't drop the profit, some company is going to spend millions and millions of dollars to enter the market and undercut everyone else and make pennies! PENNIES!

  102. outsource congress by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wish we could outsource congress

  103. Real offshoring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The thing is that if companies can't get the workers they want here they will just set up shop over there. That's really much worse for Americans.

  104. that's a theory. Tx technology before shale by raymorris · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That article expresses one theory. Of course it doesn't mention the fact that the economy in Texas has been besting the national average since long before the shale boom. Since right about time we started electing Republican governors, of turns out. Before shale, it was tech - tons of tech companies leaving California and coming to Texas.

    We'll see what the future holds. I do indeed check my intuition against the facts, and I came across a really nest way of doing so. I wanted to know which is better FOR THE ECONOMY - Democrats or Republicans. There are a like lot of ways to measure that and you can devise statistics to match any conclusion you want. I decided to choose the best, most objective statistic I could of, WITHOUT KNOWING WHAT THE RESULT WOULD BE before I chose the measurement. I decided a reasonable, objective measurement would be economic growth. The president has about as much power as all of the house reps put together, and presidents stick around long enough for their efforts to have some effect, while the house and senate can switch every two years. So decided I'd compare Republican presidents vs democrat presidents. I was a bit nervous to chart the results - it might prove me wrong, very wrong.

    I made one other decision before plotting the data. A new president's first budget is for the year AFTER they take office, and generally it takes that year for new policies to be formulated and go into effect, etc., so I decided to assign blame or creditcredit for that first year to the outgoing President. For example, Obama took office in 2009, but his first budget wasn't until 2010, so the 2009 economy wss under the Bush budget and Bush policies. (I actually did this in 2007, so 2009 wasn't on the chart, but 1989 was blamed on / credited to Reagan, etc.

    I charted the data and like looked anxiously to see which party had better economic growth. It turned out that both parties had years of high growth and low, all over the place. The chart made one thing very obvious, though. Economic growth had ALWAYS improved under every Republican administration, and always got worse under every Democrat administration's budgets. No exceptions.

    Of course after that we had the mortgage crash in 2008, making Bush Jr the only Republican president to have slowing economic growth.

    It turns out the data confirmed what I had suspected - Bush was indeed the worst Republican President ever, in terms of the economy, and Republican presidents consistently improve the economy.

    You can argue about which party is better for fairness or whatever, I don't know how to measure that objectively.

    In a similar fashion, I reversed my position on abortion when I realized the editorials I used to write were wrong. I love learning new things and gaining a fuller understanding.

    1. Re:that's a theory. Tx technology before shale by careysub · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That article expresses one theory. Of course it doesn't mention the fact that the economy in Texas has been besting the national average since long before the shale boom. Since right about time we started electing Republican governors, of turns out.

      But saying it doesn't make it so. You cite no metric, or evidence, or source to support - or even clearly define - your claim.

      Lets take a look to see if this is real, or good old Texas bragging.

      Since the current Republican hold on the governorship began with Bush in 1995, lets look at an actual chart of Texas relative performance. What we see is that the ratio of the Texas per capital GDP to that of the overall U.S. sank after 1997 (it did worse than the rest of the nation) and did not recover to its same relative economic performance until 2010, with the recovery occurring after 2006 --- or just at the time oil shale arrested Texas's declining oil production.

      So no, your claim is a fantasy.

      I charted the data and like looked anxiously to see which party had better economic growth. It turned out that both parties had years of high growth and low, all over the place. The chart made one thing very obvious, though. Economic growth had ALWAYS improved under every Republican administration, and always got worse under every Democrat administration's budgets. No exceptions.

      My, my, my. What a nice little story. Full of angst, with a surprise, and to you, heart-warming ending.

      It is a shame we have only your word that you didn't just, you know, make this all up. You cite no specific figures for any administration, or overall figures, that could be easily checked to see if you did any of the math correctly. I guess you figured that everyone would have to perform (I won't say "replicate") the whole analysis to check to see if you aren't just blowing smoke.

      Problem is, lots of other people have done this exact same analysis, and consistently come to the opposite conclusion. Just try Googling it. Look for example at the Conservative British economics journal The Economist. Their analysis is interesting because they find it embarrassing to admit and look for ways to turn a silk purse into a pig's ear.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
  105. Re:Protectionism never works by Darinbob · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is not necessarily foreign workers, but foreign workers that we don't actually need. Corporations are lying through their teeth when they say they can't find local workers to do the same work here. These are not all foreign workers showing up to do advanced R&D, most of them are doing very basic grunt work much of the time only they do it a lot cheaper. These are basic mainstream jobs, but the rationale being used to push this is that these are highly specialized jobs that are so arcane and rare that we need to import an additional 195,000 of them or else the economy will collapse.

    If it really is so very difficult to find American workers then one would logically expect the corporations to pay MORE than the prevailing wage in an attempt to find these amazing workers. Everything would be fine I think if the person next to you who's entering data into ActiveDirectory is paid double your salary because there was no one anywhere in the country who is skilled enough to do that job. But that's not at all what happens. Congress is not raising the numbers because there are so many above average workers who are so good that we're willing to pay a premium in salary to recruit, they're raising the numbers because on average they'll be cheaper than local workers.

    Of course there are exceptions. But foreign workers should be the cream of the crop, above average, for jobs requiring actual skills that are proven to be in short supply, and paid at *least* the average prevailing wage and benefits. There should be severe penalties for any company which falsely states that they can not find workers already within the country who are able to do these jobs.

  106. Re:Protectionism never works by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    What is happening is that we are also artificially lowering the labor cost by importing workers from developing countries to do the jobs for which we already have qualified workers.

    Work and charity can be kept separate. I'm not going to voluntarily relinquish my job just so that some worker from a poorer country can have it. Similarly I don't think people are going to stop feeding their own childrenso that they can invite poor children to the dinner table instead. Everyone looks after their own first and foremost, that's very natural.

    The big problem here is that companies are LYING when they fill out paperwork to say that there are no resident workers able to do these jobs. We all know the numbers are being raised to get cheap labor, it's an open secret with a lot of nudging and winking going on. It's the sheer hypocrisy of it all that's so infuriating, the insulting of American workers by claiming they don't have the necessary skills when in reality they're just trying to cut wages.

    What it looks like from the 3rd world, from the labor broker perspective, is that America is being governed by amazing idiots so let's try to exploit it.

  107. Re:Protectionism never works by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    But that is the sort of thinking you get from the free market true believer.

    Spend some time in these countries and it's not long before you see a wage disparity far greater than in the US, the haves are literally stepping over the have nots. They absolutely need to fix things up over there rather than for us to voluntarily give up our jobs as charity (or have congress give away our jobs in our behalf).

  108. H1 myth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having first hand experience in hiring H1 workers, I can say that an H1 worker can get paid slightly more than a non H1 worker. The main reason for this is that you can't negotiate much with an H1 worker since you need to offer a fair market value (and some more so there are no legal question) Yes it is common that an H1 worker get paid more than a native. Furthermore, there is a lot of legal paper work to go through to hire an H1 worker. It costs a company 30+k to apply for a green card visa for one later on as well (paperwork + legal fees). I am not sure why people say that companies hire H1 workers to save money.
    The only benefit might one think is that H1 workers typically do not change job often. If the person is qualified, hard worker, then it is a win win for all.

    If anyone had an idea the amount of legal complexities this brings, they would think twice before hiring an H1. The person needs to be really qualified before they get hired, which means this person could probably get job back in their home.

    As far as rubber stamped degree, it will take less than an month to see a person has been faking it if they had passed the interview process. At the end of the day, people have to deliver.

    Having said that, I have seen both good and bad H1 experiences. My only negative thought here is the fake outsourcing companies that snap up all the H1 permits early on to bring people from overseas in large groups. The abuse the workers and cheat the companies they try to offer service. Those guys need to be shut down.

  109. Re:Protectionism never works by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    If there really is a labor shortage than we should pay a premium in salary to recruit and retain these workers. Instead what is happening is that we're paying less salary for these workers on average. Sure there are some great people that are recruited from overseas. But these numbers are not being raised in order to recruit more of the best but to just get more.

  110. Unemployment can be bad by jopsen · · Score: 2

    Well, considering that I don't have a job, 65,000 seems like 65,000 too many.

    Are you "competing" for a tech job. Do you have an MSc in CS from an internationally recognized institution?
    I put "competing" in quotation marks, because my inbox has emails from a lot of recruiters who just wants to talk (they aren't all job offers).
    Actually, if you happen know your way around open source projects and has some experience with js, linux, python, node, aws and release engineering, + a non-empty resume; feel free to drop me a line...

    Either of 11.5M unemployed Americans I suspect most people don't compete for the tech jobs.. Oh, and btw, I know that my employer will hire anywhere in the world, and have people working remotely. In fact I'm an H1B, and paying taxes in the US; but if I weren't H1B I would just be working remotely from Denmark. To be honest, the uncertainty of being on an H1B, does often make me consider if I should continue to work out of the US (especially when 4 people are gunned down 20 blocks from my crappy over-priced San Francisco apartment - which is in the nice part of town).

    To sum up, yes some companies are trying to get cheap workers; but the bay area wouldn't be a tech hub if it weren't for immigrants (they would just go somewhere else - say London or Toronto); and most of the unemployed Americans aren't looking/qualified for tech jobs...

    Since the current unemployment rate is about 6%

    Being unemployed, you probably don't want to here this, but the unemployment rate can also be too low.
    Keep in mind that the unemployment rate counts people in-between jobs, and that an extremely low unemployment rate means that it's hard to hire, and, hence, hard to grow the economy. This is likely no the case in the US, as many people are under-employed (and/or under-paid); partly due to the very low minimum wage.

    1. Re:Unemployment can be bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your counter argument can be seen as a "chicken and egg" type problem. If the unemployed americans have no hope of finding employment why should they expend time and money to acquire your qualifications of the day? The basic idea of the H1B program (that skills cannot be taught by an employer) is misleading and absolutely ridiculous. While it's hard to find employers willing to train personnel there are still seasoned experts like myself who frequently teach FNG's both the basics of the job and things would be considered baseline to be hired in most cases.

  111. H1-B Tech workers are NOT paid less! by tlambert · · Score: 1

    If there really is a labor shortage than we should pay a premium in salary to recruit and retain these workers. Instead what is happening is that we're paying less salary for these workers on average.

    This is false. Here are average tarting salaries for H1-B workers for some companies:

    Amazon: $109,440
    Apple: $130,690
    Google: $126,565
    Microsoft: $113,408
    Qualcomm: $105,169
    Intel: $102,883
    Oracle: $113,065
    JP Morgan Chase: $105,751
    NTT Data: $100,889
    CVS RX Services: $120,435
    Goldman Sachs: $107,429
    BofA: $105,173
    Citibank: $109,327
    EMC: $103,245
    Capgemini: $114,785
    EBay: $119,224
    Randstad: $103,303
    Facebook: $123,142
    Walmart: $113,238

    Tell me again how they are underpaid?

    1. Re:H1-B Tech workers are NOT paid less! by Frobnicator · · Score: 2

      Sources for all these magical wages? Wherever I've been I don't see the tech giant directly hiring the H1Bs. Instead they hire a contracting firm, and the contracting firm brings in an army from India and China.

      And as for some of the companies on the list like Microsoft, they beg and plead for more H1B workers, but last year in July, September, and October they laid off a combined total of over 25,000 Americans with a corporate ban to not rehire any of them.

      Somehow those 25,000 workers cannot do the job despite many of them having stellar backgrounds, yet they tell Congress in September that they cannot find any qualified workers and so they are opening up offices in other nations..

      Most of us see this for what it is: a corporate money grab. The numbers you gave (without citation) do not paint the real picture. Those numbers may be what the companies publicly state when they are pleading for their desperate need for tech workers, but they do not match the reality of the layoffs, the people training their H1-B replacements, the office closures, and the creation of cheaper foreign offices. I cannot fault the companies in their desire to maximize profits, that is the nature of the beast. But please don't fall for and recite their well-spun lies about H1-B workers not displacing American workers.

      --
      //TODO: Think of witty sig statement
    2. Re:H1-B Tech workers are NOT paid less! by ubersoldat2k7 · · Score: 1

      Hmmm... I've never been interested in moving to the US again (I studied there) but with those salaries I as well give it a try... where do I sign up for this H1B1 thing?

    3. Re:H1-B Tech workers are NOT paid less! by blue9steel · · Score: 1

      In order to have a comparison you have to have two sets of data. You've provided only one set.

  112. Re:eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanc by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    From what I've heard from people who went to San Jose state, it is trivial to get a masters in software engineering.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  113. They took mah job! by peppepz · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Seeing the slashdot crowd, which is pro-capitalism and laissez faire when it's the other people's source of income which is being put in jeopardy, suddendly start to scream in pain because of the fear of a modest reduction of their earnings, is priceless.

    What did you say when shiny gadget manufacturer #1 announced that workers had better learn to "run against the robots"? And when shiny gadget manufacturer #2 exploited underage workers in dangerous sweatshops in China? I haven't read any comments about "unions turning the IT sector into another Detroit" on this page, but instead I now learn that government regulation is in "the true spirit of America, because it's againt slavery". If selling stuff in Spain but paying taxes to the British Virgin Islands is not only moraly acceptable, but even a duty, because it's in the interest of the investors, then why would hiring IT developers from abroad be any different?

    Capitalism is about making money, and that's it. It's not a philosophy, it won't make your lives better by itself. And rightly so. It is a government's job to ensure that the interests of those making money proceed in harmony with the interests of a nation as a whole; to which extent is matter of debate. When the government turns out as an expression of those with the most money (bi-partisan agreements...) rather than the choice of informed voters, we'd better learn to love the "invisible hand" and wait for its positive effects on the economy to trickle down on us.

    1. Re:They took mah job! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken just like an executive. Let's start outsourcing your jobs and see if you still have the same point of view. After all, if you think current technical wages are out of scale and need to be reduced the problem is much larger at the executive level. Shareholders ought to demand it.

    2. Re:They took mah job! by peppepz · · Score: 2

      Let's start outsourcing your jobs and see if you still have the same point of view.

      Looks like my post failed catastrophically at communicating what my point of view is.

  114. H1B, where is the stat, where is the cause, number by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As all the truth, the number speaks.
    Do we have any solid number how many H1B guest workers in US in each tech company? what's their average salary? what is the median salary? how about comparing against US worker's? I bet we won't have these numbers b/c THEY won't show us..... no matter The .gov or .com

    I believe the average salary for all tech workers haven't increased much, even decrease...........remember those laid off

    As what I see (I mean it b/c I have been many big tech firms), many H1B, if not mostly, got hire as Dev or QA b/c they accepted lower salary and more ADAPTABLE for their managers.

    If the current trend continues, not only most the tech works suffer, American economic will suffer as well, eventually.

    Advise to all STEM students, if the H1B thing keeps going, you may better off switching your major to others unless you are in the top 10% of your class in college.
    It is a joke whenever I see the public keep saying we need more STEM students while we keep importing more.
    For those, not graduating for tier-1 colleges, GOOD LUCK!

  115. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm not the AC you're replying to. But that AC's experience is similar to mine.
    I'm a green card holder, had H-1B before, and worked for a few Silicon Valley companies. My anecdote and my knowledge of other similar H-1B holders' experience is so vastly different from what you describe, such that until you can show me data to prove otherwise, it's difficult for me to take you (or any of anti H-1B people) seriously, and not jump to the conclusion that it's just protectionism and whining of losers.

    My 2014 salary+bonus was around $500k. Looking back, I've driven a lot more hard salary bargains when I was H-1B. I worked as a manager for some time and also served in company hiring committee in multiple companies - in my experience, I haven't seen any things remotely like you mentioned.

    You may dismiss my case as "an exception". But I don't think so - I know many (hundreds) of current and former H-1B holders, and none of them had any experience like what you mentioned. A biased but not trivial sample clearly showed me H-1B program works just fine, both for the company and the hired employee. Yes, it sucks for unskilled losers and whiners, but that's ultimately better for the world.

  116. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 0

    You forgot the fact that the cost of goods and services will never drop in half to match the salary drops. That equals profit. Why would they drop the profit?

    Let me ask a different question. Why doesn't Apple just double or triple all their prices tomorrow? Wouldn't that increase their profit? They would if they could (i.e. if there was enough demand for the market to bear these price increases), but they can't. The prices are what the market can bear right now. And those prices are based on supply and demand.

    Does apple drop the cost of the goods because they use cheap slave labor instead of making the products in the expensive US?

    The price of the goods already includes the slave labor discount. The inverse of your question is "If Apple moved their manufacturing to the US and had to pay hire wages, would they increase their prices to compensate?" That's a complicated question, but the short answer is yes, especially if their competition were also forced to move manufacturing back to the USA.

  117. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    What is happening is that we are also artificially lowering the labor cost by importing workers from developing countries to do the jobs for which we already have qualified workers.

    I would call it allowing the price of labor to reach it's true market value. Excluding a huge chunk of labor force that's willing to work for less money is artificially raising the cost of labor in the US.

    It's like if congress passed a law that said you are only allowed to take your car to the dealership to have it repaired. This would increase the price of car repair for those who follow the law by excluding those willing to do the job for less money.

    Work and charity can be kept separate. I'm not going to voluntarily relinquish my job just so that some worker from a poorer country can have it. Similarly I don't think people are going to stop feeding their own childrenso that they can invite poor children to the dinner table instead. Everyone looks after their own first and foremost, that's very natural.

    It has nothing to do with charity. As a consumer of goods and services, I benefit when the cost of those goods and services can be lowered (e.g. by hiring workers at a lower labor price).

    If congress passed the law requiring all car maintenance to be done at dealerships, one might say "We can't repeal the law, because it will cause a lower quality of life for those currently benefiting from their privileged position." My point is that it is not anyone's duty to maintain the privileged position of others.

    Buying cheap Chinese stuff rather than expensive American stuff *is* looking out for yourself (i.e. finding the best bargain). Buying expensive American stuff even thought he cheap Chinese stuff is just as good (or even better), is the act of charity (i.e. spending more money than necessary to help out your neighbor.

    The big problem here is that companies are LYING when they fill out paperwork to say that there are no resident workers able to do these jobs. We all know the numbers are being raised to get cheap labor, it's an open secret with a lot of nudging and winking going on. It's the sheer hypocrisy of it all that's so infuriating, the insulting of American workers by claiming they don't have the necessary skills when in reality they're just trying to cut wages.

    They shouldn't even have to lie. The fact that there are lots of workers willing to do the same jobs for less money is a fact. Yes they are trying to cut costs by cutting wages. They are corporations and they are trying to make a profit. That doesn't mean we don't benefit from it. We benefit from being able to buy goods more cheaply.

    We don't benefit when our cushy jobs are shipped overseas, but it's a two way street. We can;t have both cheap prices and guaranteed jobs for Americans with inflated salaries. My point is that there is no benefit to having guaranteed jobs for Americans with inflated salaries if the price of the goods is inflated due to the high cost of paying high salaries.

  118. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ( Being anti-H1B isn't protectionism.) Especially when other countries aren't just throwing their gates open to Americans. Last time I showed up to do a project in Canada I had to lie about the scope and they were clearly less than thrilled about my arrival.

    That's because if you have an american working for your company you suddenly have to face a lot of bullshit laws. And no these aren't laws of the local country, but US laws. It is almost as if you have your personal embassy rolling with you. Every other country's resident will be held to local laws only which allows them to be treated like any other employee you have. Not to mention if one goes criminal and manages to get to home soil you can get them back into court which is far less likely to happen with US passport holders (one-sided extradition treaties). In some cases (for example taxes) it is enough to be married with an american to be showed to the the door (banks, especially swiss banks).

    You are treated like any other person whose country thinks their laws are above all else. Other foreigners benefit from the fact that you can count these countries on one hand.

  119. Awed that Americans by ikhider · · Score: 1

    Consistently vote for representatives that act againt their best interests. I spoke to enough voters who genuinely believe in upholding policies that harm, including themselves directly. I wonder why this is.

    --
    "SO we bide our time, waiting for a purer kick to bloom and the future is still bleak, uncertain and beautiful" -GSYBE
  120. Sources... by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Sources, which you could have found yourself by picking 3 of the numbers and "H1B" and putting them into Google:

    http://www.myvisajobs.com/Repo...

    The 25,000 that Microsoft laid off were largely *not* Americans, they were (mostly) Nokia people who had been involved in building the Nokia phones that were not selling, and were very low margin, and mostly desired only in the third world, as Nokia tanked enough that Microsoft could buy them (very cheaply, in fact).

    Those numbers are from the U.S. Department of Labor, which obtained them from the IRS. And they are comparable, or higher than what an American worker would get for the same job.

    I personally interviewed some of the Apple and Google H1-B's.

  121. PS: The other benefit to the 6 month break by tlambert · · Score: 1

    PS: The other benefit to the 6 month break is that contractors don't get reclassified as employees by the IRS.

  122. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cutting salaries in half will not cut prices of services and goods in half.

  123. outsource politicians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ever notice how these fuckers are willing to outsource any job but their own?

    We gotta get rid of professional politicians. Sortition with an approval vote. Put an end to this nonsense.

  124. Why so many checks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when you can just require a quite-high minimum wage?
    If you pay much, it means you really NEED very qualified people (and not just trying to get cheaper labor) that you don't find in your country/state whatever.
    Problem solved, works for any kind of job, not only IT.

  125. I hope it passes...... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ..... then just a few more steps then before complete anarchy. Most important step after this is automating the transportation industry, then I am going to laugh my ass of on how people are going to kill each other over something they did to themselves :D

  126. Ditch Hatch by sydbarrett74 · · Score: 1

    Isn't it about time for that gnarly old fart to retire?

    --
    'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
  127. Cheaper to employ them overseas... by Kazoo+the+Clown · · Score: 1

    It's cheaper to employ them overseas, you don't have to pay them as much or pay benefits.

  128. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Indian startup and innovation scene is exploding at as astronomical rate even as I write.

    The Indian PM is putting a lot of effort in his 'Make in India' push.

    All this means that soon you white American dudes won't have to worry anymore about those cheap brown talentless sleazebag Indians coming and taking your jaabs.

  129. Not "offshoring" by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

    An H1-B visa is for a foreign worker to come to the US to work, not for a company to move a job overseas.

  130. They are simply coolies by gatkinso · · Score: 1

    This is nothing new.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  131. As a Great Philosopher Said by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Elections have consequences." George W. Bush

  132. Re:H1B, where is the stat, where is the cause, num by gatkinso · · Score: 2

    The entire sector is in for a shock in the next dozen years.

    Very advanced software will be generating applications ingesting the requirements via speech recognition. Most programmers will loose their jobs. Thanks to Edward Snowden, NSA is finally getting off their asses and plugging the super user security hole they have suffered under for decades - developing tech to automate and eliminate the vast majority of sys admins. That tech will be filtering out in about 10 (?) years or so.

    Good luck indeed.

    --
    I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
  133. When do we get a bill for more H1B Senators? by millertym · · Score: 1

    Just wondering...

  134. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We're not the boss of them.

    Wow. I didn't know people over the age of 12 used that phrase.

  135. sure is. Copy us by raymorris · · Score: 1

    The humidity in this part of Texas is really annoying. Of course, it's a BIG state - there are many climates to choose from.

  136. never go full socialist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Don't forget to properly credit the sainted Ronald Reagan with mandating that emergency rooms treat anybody, regardless of anyone's ability to pay.

    1. Re:never go full socialist by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think people should die outside an emergency room if they don't have cash in their hands?

  137. You're ignoring rent seeking and externalities by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R...
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E...

    People who claim ownership of the natural resources (including land underneath buildings) or of financial assets used to capitalize businesses may never have done any more work than cozy up to some King hundreds of years ago to get a "grant" of land, or, alternatively, (legally?) bribe some politician to get special monopoly or tax preferences, or something similar. Those "rents" can form a substantial part of many costs, and have little to do with "labor". Just think "feudalism" and "serfs" for an analogy, where feudal lords (who often provide nothing but protection against the feudal lord himself) taking much of the harvest from "their" lands for themselves despite however much work the "serfs" put in.

    Also, even when up-front costs to consumers may be lower with cheaper labor (domestic or foreign), there are also social costs (like violence, failed families, welfare costs, etc.) such as shown by so many people who work at Walmart getting food stamps etc.. So, there can be a lot of indirect costs to "cheap labor" that are paid in indirect ways like higher taxes or greater fears of violence and so on.

    Another example of externalities as indirect costs is low price for gasoline at the pump may ignore the huge taxes and debt obligations incurred to support a huge USA war machine which (in theory) defends long oil supply lines, and it also may ignore costs like polluted ground water from MTBE, or the health and crime crises caused by lead in gasoline in previous decades. It is possible the the cost of leaded gas may be (in my estimate) many trillions and trillions of dollars, which people never paid at the pump but paid in their personal lives and in taxes to pay for prisons and police:
    http://www.motherjones.com/env...
    "New research finds Pb is the hidden villain behind violent crime, lower IQs, and even the ADHD epidemic. And fixing the problem is a lot cheaper than doing nothing. "

    Rent-seeking and externalities are reasons why markets need to be regulated by governments. There are other issues too, like ignored or under-appreciated systemic risks. On that, see Alan Greenspan:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10...
    "âoeThose of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholdersâ(TM) equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief,â he told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform."

    --
    A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    1. Re:You're ignoring rent seeking and externalities by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I am also ignoring costs due to fraud, theft, etc.

      Yes there are some people who profit from owning capital, which is not strictly "labor" in the sense that these people do not actually work very hard. But I believe this is a red herring.

      Consider the case where someone inherits a valuable piece of land, and merely profits from renting it out (i.e. not working). Another person (one who did work very hard for their money), could buy the land, and rent it out for the same price. Now the money is going to someone who did have to labor to get it. The price of rent is determined by the market, and it is the same regardless of whether the person receiving the rent labored very hard, or simply had everything given to him as a birthright.

      Consider the case where someone telecommutes to his job, only he doesn't actually do any work. It turns out his father actually does all his work for him. The costs of this company to produce it's products is the same regardless of of whether the father or the son does the work. There was a cost to getting this work done, even if the person benefiting didn't actually do any work, but someone still did it.

      Rent-seeking and externalities are reasons why markets need to be regulated by governments. There are other issues too, like ignored or under-appreciated systemic risks.

      I agree with government regulation to account for externalities, towards the goal of charging the true cost of things, and making the market more efficient.

      I am very dubious about using government regulation to solve the problem of "spending wealth on political lobbying to increase one's share of existing wealth without creating wealth".

      It seems like the obvious solution is to remove the government's power to facilitate rent-seeking rather than trying to give it more power for the purpose of regulating itself.

    2. Re:You're ignoring rent seeking and externalities by Paul+Fernhout · · Score: 1

      Good point on theft & fraud etc. as another cost. Insurance is another one, which is only tangentially related to "work".

      I am in presumably general agreement with you that markets can be a force for good under certain circumstances; the issue is more what those circumstances are? Related:
      http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesa...
      "But changing the left's key message probably will be even more difficult. It involves nothing less than facing the fact that non-market planning (which is what is usually meant by the term "socialism") does not work."

      I might not go that far, given high tech possibilities of gift economies via the WWW, subsistence production via 3D printing, and internet-mediated democratic planning, but there remains truth to that sentiment that markets are what have created so much material wealth by hearing the demands of people with currency to spend in markets (the big problem being such currency is less and less evenly distributed for various reasons).

      As regarding land sales and the cost of products as far as labor vs. other costs, even if control of land changes hands based on money changing hands (where some of that money was "earned"), there is still rent seeking going on for all the owners. And likely as not, the original land owner will now be doing rent seeking on the financial capital instead of the land. The fact that people speculate about the value of the land or acquire it in whatever way by conquest or purchase does not change the fact that the land was originally privatized arbitrarily and whoever claims it currently is engaging in rent seeking (unless perhaps they are using it for subsistence production). The land itself was available without initial work, even if it may take work to use the land in various ways. We must be careful to distinguish between real physical assets, real physical work, political control of resources, and virtual fiat financial assets when doing this sort of analysis. The bottom line -- rent seeking is not "work" in a normal sense and should be accounted for differently when talking about whether all costs ultimately come down to labor costs.

      As another twist on this, imagine a new government (like in Cuba?) takes the land from the latest purchaser by eminent domain or some form of nationalization and then makes it available for low or no cost to some preferred business, like a big farm. Does that now mean the land is worthless? To me, the land retains it utility value in such a situation; it is just that the "rents" from the land now go to some different people. Granted, a lot of people may be pissed off by such a change (some in the USA still hold a grudge against Cuba for 50 years). Of course, one may also talk about the feelings of Native Americans who were generally displaced under duress or questionable circumstances, with treaties broken, and so on.

      BTW, even the physical bedrock of US capitalism, Manhattan, was acquired in questionable trades with a neighboring Canarsie tribe who probably thought it a great joke to accept some beads (essential information storage devices back then for use in Wampum belts, equivalent to USB Flash drives now) and metal hatchets and such from strangers in return for saying the strangers could hunt (or whatever) on a neighboring tribe's land. Which brings us back to your insightful comment on increased costs from fraud etc.. :-)

      Consider, say, Georgism for another perspective:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
      "Georgism (also known as geoism and geonomics) is an economic philosophy holding that the economic value derived from natural resources and natural opportunities should belong equally to all residents of a community, but that people own the value they create.[1][2][3] The Georgist paradigm offers solutions to social and ecological problems, relying on principles of land rights and public finance which attempt to integrate ec

      --
      A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
    3. Re:You're ignoring rent seeking and externalities by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I don't agree that all land owners are "rent-seeking" in the economic/political sense, even if they are literally seeking rent in the common sense. We should have the goal of stopping economic rent-seeking done by anybody (not just property owners). Otherwise I don't think there is anything inherently harmful about trying to get a return on investment into property.

      The land itself was available without initial work, even if it may take work to use the land in various ways. We must be careful to distinguish between real physical assets, real physical work, political control of resources, and virtual fiat financial assets when doing this sort of analysis.

      So why not just view the price of land as the cost of making the land useful rather than the cost of the land in some abstract sense which is defined to be $0 since it always existed? I'm not saying that there aren't people who profit (from anything) undeservedly. Aside from literal "land" (i.e. the thing that existed with no labor), every other form of property has labor costs associated with. Some property turns out to be a good investment (i.e. good ROI) some turns out to be bad (i.e. low or even negative ROI). That is the nature of investment. You can look to the worst examples of people making ridiculous undeserved ROI and conclude that investment in general is basically unfair, but what is not as readily apparent is all the failed investments.

      And I don't even want to give the impression that I believe owning land is morally righteous or anything. I just don;t think it throws my calculations that the vast majority of costs end up ultimately being related to labor directly or indirectly (which I think is much higher than most people realize).

      If you are of the view that no one has a right to own land or any personal property, I think that is a perfectly rational point of view with merit, but it is just not one that is easily reconciled with living in a capitalist system.

      I also don't mean to claim that capitalism is fair. I think it is useful at efficiently (albeit not fairly) allocating resources to maximize the production of wealth. In this respect I think that government regulations to account for externalities can play a very useful role to that goal. I also don't think it is unreasonable to have social safety nets (i.e. I don't think wealth creation should be the only metric for success).

      What I am trying to convey is the idea that actions designed to achieve a certain outcome often don't have the desired effect and/or have lots of undesirable side effects, and I think artificially inflating American labor prices is one such thing.

      I was planning to make the point about past vs. present labor, and I am glad that you already brought it up. So in that respect doubling current wages would not properly capture the fact that past labor wages aren't doubled (making any investments based on past costs and future returns disproportionately profitable) . But if we kept this system long enough, the system would eventually converge to where we would be if past costs where doubled somehow too. (e.g. we aren't still significantly profitting from investments into R&D performed by cavemen... at least I don't think we are).

      In short. I can respect the arguments that people don't deserve the benefits of owning things that were not ultimately the products of their labor (or purchased with money that was the product of their labor), but I still think prices would roughly double if wages doubled, with some variations thrown in for factors like the ones we discussed, given enough time for past costs to be flushed out of the pipeline of current manufacturing costs.

  138. I'm in tech and I welcome the competition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a born-and-bred-in-America tech worker with an advanced STEM degree.

    Competition? I say "bring it on." I'd rather have to compete against someone from down the street here on a work visa who is willing to work for 2/3 or 1/2 of my salary than someone living in a low-cost-of-living country willing to work for 1/3 or 1/4 of my salary.

    We do need to warn incoming college students to expect a tougher time getting a tech job and/or to expect lower salaries in tech careers. This will help weed out those who are in STEM programs just for the money, leaving those who are in it because they enjoy it. It will also make people think twice before taking out super-sized college loans they won't be able to pay off and by extension make colleges think twice before raising tuition.

  139. 40k Geeks and no answers? by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

    Perhaps someone here could come up with an automate methodology to put these folks on the ropes? How about multiple answers, approach it from many directions. Crowd fund, kickstart, background checking, fact checking, and other things? There is this strange aversion to unions after decades of paid for ad campaigns against them, but you all act like helpless children vs. the technology geniuses you are!@! Find a solution, implement the solution, solve the problem. These half baked "can't hold a job doing anything else" politicians are on the offensive, how about you all get offensive instead of whining like you are still in elementary school.

  140. what's new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see we are getting some bipartisan douche baggery on this one. Funny how they can act together when it comes to screwing the average Joes of this country.

  141. Re:Protectionism never works by blue9steel · · Score: 1

    No it's not. I'm pro-immigration, we can use all the smart hard working people we can get. I'm anti-H1B, it's a way to get lower cost labor that has less negotiating power than a US citizen.

  142. Texas done well with gas prices halved, doubled by raymorris · · Score: 1

    From 2011-2014, gas dropped from $4 / gallon to to $3.40 / gallon.
    At the same time, Texas unemployment dropped from 8% to 4.9%. So the Texas economy has been getting better while oil prices have been falling.

    Since 2007, gas prices have been up and down, sometimes as low as $1.59, sometimes as high as $4.10. Texas has had lower unemployment than the rest of the country the whole time. From 2009-2011 the price of gas doubled - Texas had low employment as the price doubled. From 2007-2008/2009 the price of gas was cut in half. Texas did better than the rest of the country over that period too.

  143. Re:eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're white, you're not allowed. You could always try Thunderwood College: http://thunderwoodcollege.com/

  144. Call it what it is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The politicians in our country are working hard to tear down barriers to importing wage slaves into the United States. It's importing poverty, really. The irritating thing is to hear these pundits get on the radio or television and act mystified about wage stagnation, as if they don't know boosting the supply of low-wage workers suppresses wage growth. Supply and demand, how does it work?

  145. Cant look up? US BEA (Bureau of Economic Analysis) by raymorris · · Score: 1

    > It is a shame we have only your word that you didn't just, you know, make this all up. You cite no specific figures for any administration, or overall figures

    Oh sorry, you don't know how to look up the economic growth rate? You could google "economic growth table" and find the numbers reported everywhere, but the canonical source is the US Bureau of Economic Analysis. Here's a link.
    http://www.bea.gov/iTable/iTab...

    For your convenience, here are the official BEA numbers labeled the name of which president did the budget for that year:
    http://bettercgi.com/tmp/econo...

  146. Re:Cant look up? US BEA (Bureau of Economic Analys by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    I checked your first link, and found a page with several tables I could look at, none of them labeled "economic growth". Clicking around a bit got nothing useful, and I lack the patience to explore further.

    Could you be more specific about what you're observing at the BEA site?

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  147. Re:Cant look up? US BEA (Bureau of Economic Analys by raymorris · · Score: 1

    I don't know if BEA will let me deep link, so here's another presentation of the data. The data all comes from the same source.
    http://www.tradingeconomics.co...

    Please note this tells us something important about the effects of each party's policies on the ECONOMY, only. We need to look at other data to comment on party policy effects on social issues such as crime rate or anything else. So it doesn't mean Republicans are better; it doesn't mean you should vote Republican. Unless of course jobs and the economy are your primary concern

    If you like the hopeful Democrat ideals, maybe you decide this means you should push your Democrat representatives to set the agenda, but allow Republican bean-counters to calculate the details of how to do it effectively and efficiently. This bit of fact doesn't address any of that, of course. It only shows that Republican policies improve the economy.

  148. It really doesn't work that way by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    If you condemn free trade without condemning capitalism in general, all you are doing is redrawing the lines so they suit you.

    Well, it's an interesting assertion, but you've not actually demonstrated this. Consequently I can't see taking it any more seriously than any other baseless remark. More to the point, I don't condemn free trade, I actually think it's a lovely idea, but as it turns out, when implemented without regard for human nature, it doesn't actually work. There are many ideas like this. For instance, it would be absolutely lovely if we could open our homes to anyone who needs shelter from a storm. Unfortunately, this tends to lead to us being raped and murdered in our beds. And so on.

    So in light of free trade's actual failure to function as hoped for, my position is that we need to examine it to see why it failed, and then fix the problems so identified. In my opinion, this is not rocket science: Free trade fails because there is no level playing field, specifically because our offerings of economic parity are incorporated, while our offerings of social parity are not. This establishes massively unequal costs we cannot control, and so the playing field tilts in direct response and proportion.

    To say that free trade is a fundamental requirement of human equality and/or decency is just hand-waving. Yes, all other things being equal, free trade could be a foundational element of a uniformly consistent world economic structure. But that's not the world we actually live in. Here, in reality, if we wish to develop a system system as good as it can be, then we must do it in a significant degree of isolation from systems that are fundamentally incompatible with the mechanisms that drive such a system. This is the only way it can be done. You may, if you're a raging optimist, imagine that were we to achieve such a thing, or even go a long way towards it, that it might serve as a model for other societies to emulate, but I think we already know where that leads: no one in power wants to abandon, or even significantly alter, the conditions that got them there and are keeping them there. That's just as evident inside our borders as out -- it is why it is so difficult to even begin to address the corruption that pervades our legislatures and our judiciary.

    Capitalism, in the long term, seems fundamentally incompatible with basic human decency

    Possibly pure capitalism is. However, since we've not been operating as anything even remotely close to pure capitalism in the last 60 years or so (that's the limit of my observations, not a pointer to any functional boundary I know of), what is relevant is what we are, rather than a pure ism. And what we are is very close to being compatible with human decency. We're getting along towards a universal medical system, we have social safety nets and so forth. Further, at the social level, we reward those who do charity with status. It all needs considerable work, but it certainly is many steps above the cold calculations of profit and loss already.

    (and most religious morality)

    The vast majority of religious morality is canned nonsense produced by the disingenuous in order to facilitate control over the deluded. The sooner it is excised from our economic and legal systems and is replaced by economic- and legal-sanity, the better off our country will be. I cannot, and do not, speak about other countries here, but I know very well the extensive damage the poison of religion has done to ours.

    and will eventually produce gross inequalities

    What you fail to recognize is that gross inequalities exist from the very start. They are the irreducible axioms of the human condition. Most of the implications of the statement "all men are created equal" are not just wrong, but nonsensical. The only sane rest

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  149. I provided the hard to get set. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    In order to have a comparison you have to have two sets of data. You've provided only one set.

    I provided the hard to get set.

    Look up the non H1-B yourself here:
    http://www.glassdoor.com/

  150. What's the point? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Should we all be forced to pay the higher prices for products produced in America due to the higher price of labor?

    Should we all be forced to pay the costs of a destroyed economy because you want cheaper widgets and don't give a hoot about the working and living conditions of those who perform the labor of creating these widgets for you? What you're arguing for here is great advantage for you, while the producers of the very things that give you your advantage have no access to the very benefits you so obviously covet.

    What's the point of making $80,000 instead of $40,000, if everything costs twice as much?

    The point of making twice as much, regardless of what things cost, is that you can purchase twice as much as you could otherwise.

    However, as others have pointed out, for manufactured goods, labor costs are not the only factor that sets prices, nor is the amount of labor required to create widget A necessarily equal to the labor required to create widget B, nor, in fact, are these costs certain to be constants inherently not amenable to reduction. The premise you're implying here -- inherent double costs -- isn't supportable at all.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:What's the point? by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      Should we all be forced to pay the costs of a destroyed economy because you want cheaper widgets and don't give a hoot about the working and living conditions of those who perform the labor of creating these widgets for you? What you're arguing for here is great advantage for you, while the producers of the very things that give you your advantage have no access to the very benefits you so obviously covet.

      Buying only american goods is good for the american worker and the foreign consumer, but bad for the american consumer and the foreign worker.

      What I am saynig is that the american consumer and the american worker are basically the same people, and the chinese consumer and the chinese worker are also the same people, so it doesn't really benefit any person of any nationality that produces and consumes the same amount. It only makes the markets less efficient to isolate them meaning that it costs more labor to create the same goods due to the loss of economies of scale.

      The point of making twice as much, regardless of what things cost, is that you can purchase twice as much as you could otherwise.

      My point being that if we force higher wages we will also be increasing costs by roughly the same amount.

      However, as others have pointed out, for manufactured goods, labor costs are not the only factor that sets prices,

      No, but they are the most important factor if you actually count the labor costs that get lumped into things like mining, refining materials, and building the infrastructure that facilitates the manufacturing in the first place.

      nor is the amount of labor required to create widget A necessarily equal to the labor required to create widget B, nor, in fact, are these costs certain to be constants inherently not amenable to reduction.

      I am unaware that I claimed all widgets have the same costs.

      The premise you're implying here -- inherent double costs -- isn't supportable at all.

      I am not saying that the price every good and service will *exactly* double (i.e. to the penny). I am saying that these 2 things (wages, and the costs of goods and services) are very strongly correlated. I am saying that if we doubled everyone's wages that everything would roughly cost twice as much.

      Yes this is a generalization. It is an experiment that can't practically be performed. It should also be obviously true that the general idea is sound. Like if we actually did this experiment and prices *didn't* roughly double, then we'd have to figure out what went wrong with the experiment, or what's wrong about our economic theories that we thought were true for the past couple centuries.

  151. Re: Pulling up the drawbridge by GargamelSpaceman · · Score: 1

    The Native Americans tried that, they just let the ice bridge from Asia melt away after the last ice age. And it worked well for tens of thousands of years, until immigrants came over from Europe. How did that work out for them eh?

    There's nothing wrong with pulling up a drawbridge - it's a what cells do when they build their cell membrane to maintain homeostasis by separating their innards from the outside world.

    --
    ...
  152. Re:Protectionism never works by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

    I'm not convinced that Americans making less money would significantly better the lives of people in other countries. It is ridiculous I'm not convinced that Americans making less money would significantly better the lives of people in other countries. Much of the world economy depends on the US middle class spending every dollar of those inflated salaries on goods and services sourced from all over the world. I realize saying I want more for workers throughout the economy while acting to protect my own privileges seems like a self-congratulatory contradiction. If I'm an asshole for not being willing to take less on the off chance others can have more, so be it. Americans cannot end economic suffering by accepting more suffering themselves. I believe it's more practical to support economic activity in other countries and support rising wages globally. Restricting competition for local jobs, even if imperfect seems to me to be less ethically flawed than most of our trade practices where business often seeks win-lose deals rather than the win-win deals were both trade partners reap substantial benefit.

  153. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You going to the border unprepared doesn't mean you weren't welcome. (And lying to a border guard? Try doing that going into the US sometime!)

    For the record, a TN1 work visa is $75 at the border and good for 3 years. Next time, plan ahead and don't assume "because 'murica" the (incredibly simple) rules don't apply to you.

  154. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Great point. If we're going to suffer with /. Beta, can we have a score higher than 5 so comments can be a 'top comment' or something?

    Along those lines USA also kicks out all the PhD graduates - even those in the STEM field. You bring them in because they pay the high international tuition rates, and it supports the locals. Then they get kicked out so they can use their new-found knowledge to invent things somewhere else...wouldn't you want to keep those people too?

  155. Fact: Free Trade doesn't work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your whole thesis, while interesting, is fundamental flawed as it assumes that the USA has engaged in Free Trade with the rest of the world. They haven't. Opening your borders to foreign countries who keep their border closed, is not free trade. It's just bizarre. You mentioned Detroit. Koran car manufactures are welcome to sell as many cars in USA as they want. Can US manufacture sell in Korea? Hell, no. That might hurt the Korean manufacturers! Etc.

    I would be willing to try something like what you have proposed (a generation of self sustainment) but don't blame it on "free trade" when you don't have that.

  156. More US workers == offshoring?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You want a green card, but your company won't sponsor you. You're going back, and you are taking your job with you. They couldn't offshore your job before, but now that they have someone trained it they can! Win win!

  157. H1-B Fixes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've thought about this a little recently. There are definitely good things about foreign workers in the US, however the current system is broken and jacking up the numbers only makes it worse.

    I think the biggest improvements would be to require understandable fluency in English, and to require that all jobs currently occupied by an H1-B worker is still required to be considered an open req for an American worker that can replace the H1-B worker at any time.

    With the first requirement, I've found too many asian and east asian H1-B's that may "speak" English, but its so difficult to understand what they are saying, that its too much of a hinderance for getting the job done. Of course, we still need to set English as the national language, but thats another issue.

    With the second requirement, the biggest fear is that cheap imported workers, who may or (often) may not be better than American workers will be taking jobs that should go to our citizens. This is a completely valid fear. While I support a company's right to hire the right people for the job, if a company finds a lot of the "right people" for the job in foreign places, maybe the right answer is to open a local branch and hire them that way. It is completely unethical to import foreign workers just because they work for pennies on the dollar, when there are plenty of local workers that cannot find jobs.

  158. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    I'm not convinced that Americans making less money would significantly better the lives of people in other countries.

    It's not that the fact of Americans making less money *causes* the lives of people in other countries to be better. It's that having a free market causes both of those things to happen.

    If Americans can find a way to make more money without restricting markets, it would not necessarily have any negative impact on anyone else, in fact it would probably be a positive impact by creating more total wealth in the world economy.

    Opening up jobs to the whole world that would otherwise be limited to only Americans, gives foreign workers more opportunities. It increases the demand for labor worldwide. If the supply of labor remains constant, this shifts the supply-demand equation into creating upward pressure on wages worldwide.

    Think about it in terms of cheating on taxes. Let's say some billionaire is cheating on his taxes, and he makes billions of dollars doing it. Let's say we catch him and repossess all his assets and throw him in jail. Does the general population benefit from this? A little bit. Maybe each person gets to pay $10 less in taxes on average. But when you multiply these $10 over the whole population, it adds up to the full $2 billion that the tax cheat lost.

    So the tax cheat might think, I may as well just keep this money, look at how much it benefits me. If I give it back, everyone else will only get $10 which is not that much at all. This completely ignores the fact that it's a *lot* of people getting a small benefit which adds up to a large benefit overall that is being stolen.

  159. How to verify a degree from a foreign country??? by uslurper · · Score: 1

    "...and eliminates the cap on people who earn an advanced degree in a STEM (science, technology, education and math) field."

    -Does anyone actually verify the credentials of a foreign applicant? -Maybe in the top 1% of jobs.. but the rest?

    --
    oldhack: "Security is a waste of money until shit hits the fan. 5 minutes later, it becomes waste of money again. "
  160. To be quite honest... by thesandtiger · · Score: 1

    If you are afraid that due to outsourcing and H1B you won't be able to find a job or you won't be able to find a job paying a fair wage, you either aren't very good at your job or you work in a commodity position where the value of "barely adequate" performance is not substantially different than the value of "really good" performance. Consider a career change, or consider trying to skill up.

    This isn't to shit on people or anything - just a reality check. If you can be easily replaced AND don't have anything that would make you in-demand, the burden is on you to become more competitive (or find your own path), not economic protectionism.

    Frankly, I'd be pretty disappointed in myself if I were in a position where despite all the advantages I've had in my live and all the opportunities that have been afforded me simply based on where I was born, didn't manage to perform well enough to be considered of more overall value to various employers than someone from a far less privileged background. It would mean I, personally, failed somewhere.

    --
    Since I can't tell them apart, I treat all ACs as the same person.
  161. Re:Politicians do the bidding of those who pay bri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But you don't. In fact, you vote massively for the candidate who takes more bribes. In 2008, Obama out-fundraised (solicited bribes) and out-spent (gave bribes) McCain by a factor of four.

    That's what you get for the insane ruling that says paid political advertising is covered by the first amendment. Me, I say: once you pay for it, it's no longer "free" speech, and laws should be allowed - nay, required - to restrict it.

  162. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    I don't view it as "giving up" our jobs. I view it as a mutual benefit to both societies.

    I am a software engineer. Until about 6 months ago, I washed my own dishes. Then my wife hired cleaners to clean the house every 2 weeks. They started doing the dishes. They took a job away from me, and I let them. It probably only costs me like $5 or something (part of a $100 total cleaning bill). They are willing to do this job for cheaper than I am. I now purposely don't do the dishes if I know the cleaners are coming soon, because I'd rather they do it at the cost they are willing to do it for. It helps them and it helps me.

    If you see yourself as a dishwasher, then someone willing to wash dishes cheaper than you is a threat. I think this is the wrong attitude in a global economy, especially if you live in a place with so much opportunity. All the cheap shit you can get at walmart means that it is cheaper to live at a certain quality of life while you are getting a college degree or learning a new skill.

    We shouldn't be competing with foreign labor by trying to exclude them from the market with laws. We should be competing with foreign labor by trying to acquire skills that are easier for us to acquire than it is for them. My housekeepers don't speak english. My wife has to communicate with them via google translate. They are more than happy to be doing dishes. I probably would be to if I were in their position.

    It's not that we should charitably give up our jobs to them. It benefits both of us if we let them do those jobs that they want to do more cheaply than we do. It gives us more freedom to do other things and it helps them as well.

  163. Re:Protectionism never works by Darinbob · · Score: 1

    There are cases that people have seen where two foreign engineers are hired to replace one engineer, most often as outsourced labor. Those two engineers are not individually better than the one replaced engineer, very often the two of them together are not even better. So the engineer who is doing the best is being replaced by substandard people.

    So your advice is stop being our best. Don't bother being good engineers because they'll always be able to hire inexpensive labor to do the simplistic stuff like engineering. Instead we should aim for jobs that even the poor undeveloped countries don't want to do. What's left? Can't do science, can't do engineering, can't do manual labor, can't do housekeeping, can't do construction, all those jobs are able to be done more cheaply elsewhere. Could be lawyers, all those executives need people to help them avoid the law, but not everyone has the capability of being a lawyer and we already have far to many of them in the country already. Could be artists, but they're already starving today.

    Do we tell our children today to stop becoming scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, because it will be impossible to compete by being good at the job and instead they must compete by being the cheapest? STEM is going to be this century's equivalent of the interchangeable factory floor worker, only without the unions fighting on their side? (mostly because the same people worshipping at the free market altar are the same ones who are dismantling the unions)

  164. No by hoggoth · · Score: 1

    Don't blame me. I voted for Kodos.

    --
    - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  165. Re:Protectionism never works by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

    Those two engineers are not individually better than the one replaced engineer, very often the two of them together are not even better. So the engineer who is doing the best is being replaced by substandard people.

    Wow so it seems like a company could stand to make a lot of money hiring all these super qualified people who are now out of a job (i.e. instead of foreign workers). They should theoretically get more work done that's of higher quality and for less cost. This seems like a golden opportunity that any smart entrepreneur seeking a profit would jump on.

    So your advice is stop being our best.

    I'm really not sure how you came to that conclusions from anything I've said, even if we assume your other claims are true.

    If you feel like you can't compete with people less skilled than you, then I don't know what to say, other than "Don't be a motivational speaker".

    Do we tell our children today to stop becoming scientists, mathematicians, and engineers, because it will be impossible to compete by being good at the job and instead they must compete by being the cheapest?

    If people are willing to hire less skilled people than you to do the same job, I can only guess that maybe you aren't as skilled as you think you are. STEM is really not a field where doing a shitty job leads to usable products.

    I would tell my children that a STEM career is definitely a good career choice. But I would be sure try to discourage them from thinking they are better than other workers simply because they are not foreign.

    If hell really does freeze over and bad engineers are more valuable to employers than good engineers, I would suggest becoming a business man, hire all the unemployed good engineers (at a discount), and destroy your competition.

    But being the negative person you are, I'm sure you'll find some reason why this won't work, and you are destined to fail competing against mediocrity.

  166. Wages and costs by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Buying only american goods is good for the american worker and the foreign consumer

    I'm not following. Please explain how buying only American goods is good for the foreign consumer.

    Buying only american goods [...is...] bad for the american consumer

    This isn't correct. Keeping the money within the country accelerates the economy without leaking funds externally, and so funds American salaries, resource recovery, care and so forth. In a closed economy, especially one as large as ours, there is a lot of room for competition, and so costs should settle out to reasonable values in most cases without having to depend upon the workers living in despicable conditions, as is the case now.

    Further, since within our own economy we can regulate activity at all levels (as we cannot in foreign economies), we can avoid monopolistic behavior, price gouging, unacceptably low wages, unacceptably long hours and so forth if we simply choose to do so.

    Finally, for American tech workers who now have jobs, where those jobs were previously offshored, their roles as consumers are hugely improved, as well as their contribution to our economy (as compared to money going offshore and then into a foreign economy/)

    so it doesn't really benefit any person of any nationality that produces and consumes the same amount.

    The presumption here is invalid. The Chinese workers that make iPads live in dormitories, eat poorly, and earn very little income. They don't consume on an equal level with a US worker/consumer; they cannot do so. Likewise, the children that manufacture some of our clothing, etc. The equality you posit simply doesn't exist. And that, of course, is the basis for the lower cost of an offshored job.

    My point being that if we force higher wages we will also be increasing costs by roughly the same amount.

    The degree to which wages affect the continuing cost of manufacture of any one thing varies enormously. Some services are 100% wage based, such as programming of one-shot, one-customer solutions. Some are nearly 100% resource based, such as anything coming off of a fully automated production sequence. And there are cases everywhere in between. In addition, for the workers who now have jobs that were previously lost to shallower economies, their earning power (and power to support the economy) goes from near-zero to very significant. In any case where precursors (parts, for instance) were already being created here or the materials mined here, no cost increase is implied. Finally, as competition arises, manufacturing efficiency is a commonly adjusted factor. It's not just about costs or wages; that's far too simplistic a take on the issue.

    No, but they are the most important factor if you actually count the labor costs that get lumped into things like mining, refining materials, and building the infrastructure that facilitates the manufacturing in the first place.

    The most important factor out of [6,4,5,5,5, 5,5,5,5,5, 5,5,5,5,5, 5,5,5,5,5] is the 6. However, doubling the 6 to 12 changes the total from 100 to 106, or a 6% increase. What this tells us is that your words do not describe a general situation that backs up your assertion.

    Furthermore, if we assume wages double, the only case where the cost doubles with it is the case where the job is entirely wage-based. You would first have to demonstrate that wages would double, though, and you have not done that.

    I am saying that if we doubled everyone's wages that everything would roughly cost twice as much.

    (a) No one is proposing doubling everyone's wages, the only wages that would need to change are the ones that were off shored, and (b) your assertion of doubled costs in response to doubled wages is fundamentally incorr

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Wages and costs by TsuruchiBrian · · Score: 1

      I'm not following. Please explain how buying only American goods is good for the foreign consumer.

      It lowers demand for foreign goods. The foreign consumer does not have to compete with the american consumer for foreign goods. Imagine a factory in china producing widgets to sell to America for $100 each. This means that a chinese person will not be able to buy it for less than $100 if someone can make $100 selling it to someone else. If America drops out of the foreign market, now there is less demand, for the same supply, so the price drops.

      This isn't correct. Keeping the money within the country accelerates the economy without leaking funds externally, and so funds American salaries, resource recovery, care and so forth. In a closed economy, especially one as large as ours, there is a lot of room for competition, and so costs should settle out to reasonable values in most cases without having to depend upon the workers living in despicable conditions, as is the case now.

      The presumption here is invalid. The Chinese workers that make iPads live in dormitories, eat poorly, and earn very little income. They don't consume on an equal level with a US worker/consumer; they cannot do so. Likewise, the children that manufacture some of our clothing, etc. The equality you posit simply doesn't exist. And that, of course, is the basis for the lower cost of an offshored job.

      I didn't say that a chinese worker consumes at the same amount as a US worker. I am saying that isolation doesn;t benefit any workers of any nationality where they produce and consume the same amount as themselves (i.e. a chinese worker producing the same amount he/she is consuming)

      Yeah it keeps money in the economy. It also keeps goods out of the economy. If isolating economies is good, maybe California could benefit from isolating itself from the rest of the USA. They could keep their own money in california, and keep salaries high without importing the products of cheap labor from states with lower cost of living. Do you honestly think this is a better system?

      Further, since within our own economy we can regulate activity at all levels (as we cannot in foreign economies), we can avoid monopolistic behavior, price gouging, unacceptably low wages, unacceptably long hours and so forth if we simply choose to do so.

      By leaving the foreign market, we remove choices from those foreign workers. They get paid even less when the demand for them is lower.

      Finally, for American tech workers who now have jobs, where those jobs were previously offshored, their roles as consumers are hugely improved, as well as their contribution to our economy (as compared to money going offshore and then into a foreign economy/)

      And now the whole country has to pay higher prices for technology to benefit the workers in 1 industry. Cutting ourselves off from the world economy doesn;t boost our own economy. The money that was "going offshore" was in exchange for goods, that we can now no longer get. It's like we are imposing sanctions on ourselves. Russia is trying to pretend they are better off now that they are isolated, but their economy is falling apart. No thanks.

      Some are nearly 100% resource based, such as anything coming off of a fully automated production sequence.

      Show me an exmaple of something that is 100% resource based (i.e. 0% labor costs due to automation), and I'll show you a bunch machines that had to be designed manufactured using labor and purchased. I'll show you a bunch of materials that had to be cultivated/harvested/mined by people or machines that also had to be designed and manufactured using labor.

      Buying a bunch of materials and machines and saying "I don't pay any labor costs", ignores the fact that the cost of your machines comes from the labor it took to make them, and the labor it took for the whol

  167. Tech workers need to organize their own PAC by snobody · · Score: 1

    While I, like many other tech workers, have a natural affinity for libertarian thinking and a concomitant disdain for the political system, the reality of this throat cutting behavior by our selfish and short-sighted politicians needs to be countered within the defective framework of the political system if we are to have a fighting chance of protecting ourselves and other STEM workers from these greedy bottom-line, pin-striped pinheads that are calling for the gutting of our field.

    As disgusting as it might be, we need our own Political Action Committee. Unless we can engage these baboons in Washington in an organized manner, they won't listen to us. They need to see PAC representatives from the STEM sector every day, demanding the lowering of the H1B cap and protection of the domestic tech workers.

  168. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And since when was "protectionism" a bad thing? Protectionism created the American Dream. Protectionism created the American industrial base that won two World Wars. Protectionism created a middle class that was the wonder and envy of the world. "Free trade" exports the industrial base, the jobs, and the prosperity and imports Third World poverty and social norms.

  169. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have to call bullshit here. The tech industry, and, for that matter, agriculture, existed in the US long before this flood of millions of minimum-wage (or less) Third Worlders, but a loaf of bread didn't cost $10.

    "Protectionism" always works--for people who work for a living, which is why it is loathed by Wall Street banksters who want Third World scab labor.

  170. Re:Protectionism never works by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What this does is create a pool of offshore labor that's familiar with the work being done *here*. The obvious purpose is to use the immigration system to assist companies that want to relocate work overseas.

    That doesn't makes sense. Sure you could imagine companies wanting to make off-shoring easier, but what possible motivation does a group of senators have for shipping US jobs overseas?

    What possible motivation? It's called MONEY. Billion-dollar "soft money" campaign contributions from Wall Street banksters buy these laws.

  171. Subtle issue by NewYork · · Score: 1

    If you meet anybody from India ask him "What Is Your Caste?"
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/...

  172. Abraham Lincoln Was Wrong by NewYork · · Score: 1

    Democracy is the Government of the Corporations, by the Corporations, for the Corporations.

  173. Impose Tax On Corporate Revenues, Not Profits. by NewYork · · Score: 1
  174. Industry can't trains scientists... by jopsen · · Score: 1

    H1Bs are as far as I understand for people with at least a BSc (with higher quote for people with MSc). I dare say that one does become a scientist by being trained in the industry. Granted one doesn't need to understand automatons, grammars, push-down automatons, Turing machines and how these are used to prove membership of computability and complexity classes... But you will never learn these things, or how to read/write scientific papers, or how to formally prove theorems by working in the industry.

    You can certainly replace some MSc positions with less qualified developers. But developing with inexperienced developers can be very expensive (even if the developers are cheap). Learning to code in the industry doesn't compare to an MSc; it different - not useless.

  175. Re: More guest-workers == off-shoring?? by NickGnome · · Score: 1
    "Explain to me how allowing more foreign workers to come to the US under H1B visas will increase offshoring?"
    ...

    Ron Hira has addressed this years ago, but here's how I see it:

    You've got an office in Outerstan, and set up a sales office in Cincinnati (or Buffalo, or Southfield, or Jacksonville), using $10M-$25M in "incentives" given to you by the suc, er, fine local and state government economic development/crony socialists, widely poclaiming that you expect to employ 1K people (from where you refuse to say). You send 100 people from Outerstan to Cincinnati, or recruit 100 or 500 Outerstani's from USA universities within 400 miles of Cincinnati (or, more likely a combination, with most being fresh college grad Outerstanis in the USA already, with a very light sprinkling of new-US-grad Easten Europeans, South Americans, Africans...).

    They're on a combination of F with OPT and L-1 and H-1B visas, and, as others have claimed, many of them want, and expect, to be able to stay in the USA for an extended time and perhaps become citizens. Many of them have gotten a great deal of help with their class-work and simply living in the USA, transportation, bail... from generous Americans. (Yes, I've helped several, and friends and relatives have helped many more a lot more than I did or could. In the end some of them were quite deserving of it, while others were not.)

    On this first gig they know nothing about the application areas of your customers, and only academic knowledge about programming, not what real commercial/production programming involves. But your bid was so low that you dare not invest in any training of substance for anyone. So, you have the soon-to-be-former US citizen employees of the client firm train your guest-workers (and if they don't co-operate in training the guest-workers, or try to sabotage it in any way, they don't get any severance pay and they don't get positive recommendations for use when trying to get a new job -- they have communication problems, aren't team players, are borderline insubordinate, are not people people, or simply say you're reluctant to recommend them... nothing anyone could prove or disprove that you're stabbing them in the back, but it still sounds bad enough to stab them in the back to the extent of hampering their careers).

    You have your guest-workers get a little experience doing the rote work, then a little work that requires understanding and creative figuring out how to do it. And then start sending them back to Outerstan in shifts of a few at a time. These rotated guest-workers and green card holders teach your crews in Outerstan HQ (your off-shoring services center), and they keep up a communications conduit between your bases of operations.

    You (typically) sponsor 0.5%-2% of your guest-workers for green cards and send the rest back to the old country, or scrambling for new jobs in the USA when their gig is up, or simply illegally over-staying their visas. You have an iron grip on the compensation and working conditions of the ones you're sponsoring for green cards through the several yars of the application process, because it would be more difficult and expensive for them to jump ship (though the law explicitly allows them to do so). You also use a tiny number of US citizens for PR and to work with some of the guest-workers to drum up business (clients and contracts/gigs) for your bodyshop/off-shoring operation (yes, I've had bodyshoppers from Outerstan ask me to help them drum up business).

    After a while, you've build up a collection of frameworks and templates, and the bodies shopped and green card holders and then the guys back at Outerstan Base are about to die from boredom doing essentially the same work with only minor variations repatedly, for different clients. But your bids are less wildly off the mark, and the guest-workers and off-shore operations people can't be too terribly dissatisfied because, as low as the pay is, and as crowded as they are in that shared house or apartment, it's better tha

  176. Re:Protectionism never works by terjeber · · Score: 1

    I was in the same boat as Anonymous Coward GP. My company paid me the same as regular workers, the lawyers were working hard to get me a Green Card (and I did get one too) etc. The H1B scare on /. always surprises me. A couple of questions:

    1. Is there a high level of unemployment in the sector that uses the most H1Bs?
      I left the US a handful of years back, but when I was there, that was not the case. I worked for a start-up growing from four to forty employees when I was there, hiring engineers was always an issue, we simply could not get enough qualified applicants from the US and was regularly forced (by our needs) to get H1Bs.
    2. Are typical H1B workers in the US paid worse than others with a similar level of education?
      Again, when I lived in the US, paying for a house, a cleaner, a nanny and a decent car on my salary was not an issue. My wife got a work permit and worked in a non-stem field, her salary was less than half of mine, but her job also required at least a bachelor.
    3. Are US engineers seeing their salaries going below people with an equivalent education level or lower?
      I'd love to see numbers indicating this. I hear from "Silicon Valley" about over-paid people driving people with "normal" pay out of the city and way out of the region due to property price increases. Are these stories untrue? The number of CEOs in these companies are not enough to make property prices sky-rocket, that phenomenon must be caused by lots and lots of "regular Joe's" in the tech companies having significantly higher salaries than the average in the area.
  177. Visit an emergency room... by zerofoo · · Score: 1

    ...then when the bill comes, simply do not pay it.

    Medicaid will foot the bill:

    http://kaiserhealthnews.org/ne...

    Sure, it's the worst way to get healthcare - but it is free - at least for some.