Slashdot Mirror
Trump Gives Displaced IT Workers Attention, and He's Not Alone (computerworld.com)
dcblogs writes: The H-1B visa issue is getting more attention than it has ever received before. Donald Trump has invited laid-off Disney workers to speak at his rallies, and has posed in photos with them. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), held a press conference this week to complain that visa workers are being hired instead of U.S. workers. Legislation to reform the visa program has been introduced, and discrimination complaints are being filed with federal agencies and in the courts. But these efforts may have little impact. If visa restrictions arrive, IT services firms may increase reliance on web-based "knowledge transfer" to avoid having visa workers at an employer's site. There have also been reports of U.S. workers traveling overseas to train replacements on foreign soil. [Even with all the political and legal efforts,] there's no certainty any action will derail the forces moving IT jobs overseas.
Sanders: Corporations are sending your jobs to China and Mexico!
Trump: China and Mexico took away your jobs!
Competition hurts good. The back bench of the whites-only-basketball-team shit their pants when the NBA integrated. Bob Gibson of the St. Louis Cardinals probably "disemployed" some back up pitcher.
The theory is that 300M Americans who buy $18 jeans are better off than 300M Americans buying $65 blue jeans. Because if unemployment now is 5% despite losing the USA 65$-jeans-making-jobs loss, that if the jeans jobs were STILL here we'd be screwed. The noise from the people on the pitchers bench who lost their pitching jobs has been exaggerated via WWE.
I grew up in a fine big house where all my neighbors lived in fucking cardboard boxes. Now my neighbors have decent houses. Whaddya know, my home valuation went up!!
Gently reply
His policies are on his website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...
Click through - the stances are quite firm and there is quite a lot of detail. On a number of issues I consider him more progressive than Hillary.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
Okay tell me what his platform is.
1. Go here: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/
2. Click on "Positions" and pick something
3. Read
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
> Trump won't tank the country.]
How do you know? He's on all sides of practically every position - he hates outsourcing, but he outsources the manufacture of his branded clothing to mexico, china, honduras and bangladesh.
He says he's against H1B visas,then he's for them, then he's "changing," then he's against them again.
No one has a clue what Trump will do, what we do know is that he's skilled at innuendo and insults. Beyond that, no clue. And if you are one of those people who thinks that's a great qualification to be president, then you're just drinking kool-aid.
Not only did he inherit 40 million (in 1970s dollars) from his dad, he got to use his father's total fortune of 200 million as a guarantee for credit for his own businesses. Plus he had all the social and business connections that come with being born with a silver spoon in your mouth.
Those factors put his estimated net worth at 100 million in 1978. If he'd dumped that into a SP500 index fund he'd have 6 billion in cash today. The highest estimate of his holdings today is $4.1B (by Forbes), Bloomberg thinks his net worth is only $2.9B.
So, yeah, he pretty much inherited everything he needed to get where he is today.
Can anyone tell me why temporarily banning Muslim immigration from conflict areas is a bad idea? Seems like a common-sense approach to me.
A couple of points.
Most (all?) the recent terrorist acts in the west have been homegrown, not imports. For example the recent Belgium and French instigators were just common small time hoods who felt very alienated in their home countries and banning their kindred makes them feel even more alienated. Shit they weren't even particularly religious, which is why they went to ISIS rather the Al Quada. (ISIS don't care if recruits are very religious with many recruits just joining for money, important when there is no work)
It plays into the narrative that ISIS is trying to paint, namely that the west hates Muslims so lets go to war. Along with the west bombing them, starving them and screwing with their affairs, a ban just expands the hatred.
It is also leverage that the local authoritarian types can use to gain power. You just have to look at this election, which seems to consist of mostly extreme authoritarian types playing on fear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
Can anyone tell me why temporarily banning Muslim immigration from conflict areas is a bad idea? Seems like a common-sense approach to me.
Three reasons:
1. It punishes many innocents over a fears of a very tiny minority over a frivolous distinction. The funny thing is, that's not the way we want to act when this sort of thing happens on US soil. In fact, one of the big arguments against reacting to attacks like these is that we should just play the odds because you're heaps less likely to die from terrorism than you are in your car on the way to work. Paying into this sort of fear is leaving LOTs people in need out in the cold.
2. Human beings have a tendency to prefer an enemy that's easy to identify. When you angle it towards a particular religion that leans towards a particular skin-tone, certain syllables in family names, and apparel that may not actually be worn by that religion but western culture is ignorant enough to not know the difference, you end up with a LOT of innocent people being oppressed. Americans in particular have absolutely no idea what sort of numbers we're talking about, either. Our presidential candidates don't, either. What would three million people of any particular religion do if they were suddenly targeted just because their beliefs are vaguely related to those of a handful of extremists?
3. This particular approach casts a searchlight on an entire religion. Wouldn't the masses turning against Muslims in general be exactly what any of these attacks hope to achieve? Do you really want to drive up recruitment for them?
Common sense is not a synonym for wisdom.
The loser AC above put Hitler on the left so has no idea. I'd be tempted to put Stalin on the right, he was pretty well a Tsar in all but name, but he did get his start as one of Lenin's killers.
They may have been 'homegrown', but always children of recent islamic immigrants. One of the Belgian guys was not a 'common small time hood', he was a known terrorist nicknamed "the bomb maker", who was recently deported from Turkey, and had a warning issued about his terrorist activities by Turkey at that time (one wonders why he was out and about).
Whether or not they felt alienated is not known at this time, as is whether they were religious or not. They felt sufficiently religious, however, that blowing themselves up (and receiving the islamic reward of 72 virgins) was considered worthwhile by them. Finally, ISIS pays between $200 and $600 per month. Belgium social security is 834 euro/month ('leefloon alleenstaande'), so it is doubtful that financial concerns played into this.
So much for your 'facts', then...
>It violates our constitutional prohibition on establishment of a religion
You, like most people, are misunderstanding several parts of that line.
There's a Federal Constitutional ban on the establishment of religion.
1) Federal. Back when the US was first founded, the states & regions had official religions. That was a good thing. Didn't like the religion of your current state? Move to one do you like. It was a marketplace of faiths & ideas, and the federal ban was so that one flavor wouldn't be mandated on the whole country - like in good old mother England.
2) Establishment. This means the Federal Government advocating, promoting and enforcing a single official religion. It says nothing about banning particular religions, though that is against the spirit of freedom the country was founded. It also says nothing about the neo-atheist notion of "protecting" people from religion, which is a very recent idea and bears no foundation in any of this nation's documents and ideals. Nuts, the first 2 sentences of the Declaration of Independence cite God as the basis and authority for the document & founding of a new country.
All that to say that the establishment clause has no bearing on immigration. I believe that there is no constitutional basis for or against immigration or it's limitations, short of Congress having the authority to pass laws on how to regulate it.
His policies are on his website: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/p...
Click through - the stances are quite firm and there is quite a lot of detail. On a number of issues I consider him more progressive than Hillary.
"Progressive"? Maybe. Insane, yes.
Look at his tax plans:
And he claims "Doesn't add to our debt and deficit".
This is madness.
he's skilled at innuendo and insults., like any other 8 year old. He also stated he'd like to punch one of the protestors. But when challenged, Trump wrapped himself in Secret Service like a cheap suit. Trump is a liar, and a coward.