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."
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!”
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!
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.
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.
Anyone else notice this: STEM (science, technology, *education* and math)
Pretty sure that should be Engineering...
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.
for senators? They may be cheap enough for ordinary people to bribe.
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/
Being anti-H1B isn't protectionism.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
"Earlier" means earlier revision of that bill. Both of those numbers are increases over the previous cap.
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.
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.
Yeah more people get fucked to make billionaires richer.
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.
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".
"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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Your theory would work if the cost of living in all of these countries was the same but it isn't.
( 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.
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."
Yeah, majority of campaign contribution dollars...
Table-ized A.I.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>. 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.
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
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
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.
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.
Silicon Valley has never been duplicated, although many have tried.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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.
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