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.

Comments

wonder why

[turkeydance]

he leads?

Re: wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Funny how anonymity and Trump go together so nicely. Sort of like secret ballots... Trump is the first presidential candidate willing to say what the silent majority is thinking. That's why he does so poorly in opinion polls, yet seems to do so well in elections: many more people support what the guy says than are willing to admit. The mainstream media/rabid liberals can wag their fingers, shriek, and demonize him all they want. They may be able to harass us in to the closet: but the more they try to make supporting Trump a thought crime: the more people support him.

I'm voting for him primarily because he makes them so angry.

Re: wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

Okay tell me what his platform is. Aside from he's going to do something and it's going to be something, he literally takes no firm stance on anything.He is fear mongering based on other, without any real platform of solutions, he can't even build the wall he's talking about.

Re: wonder why

[VanGarrett]

This is the sort of irrational behavior that makes me want to support Trump. How can I be in agreement with such irrationality? If it were just the occasional whack job it could be dismissed, but the abundance of unbridled crazy in Trump's naysayers makes me think that Trump must be on the right track.

Re: wonder why

[kuzb]

I honestly think there's a lot of truth to what you're saying here. Let's be real - there are a ton of things wrong with the country and we've seen decades of people lie through their teeth about fixing it. As batshit insane as some of the stuff Trump says, there's a lot of things that he says which are not only plausible, but resonate with a large portion of the population because they've traditionally been taboo topics for politicians at election time. Instead of sidestepping these issues, he's taking them head on even though they make him look like a bad person.

It's sorta like masturbation - everyone does it but NOBODY admits it, and most if asked will actively deny it.

Re:wonder why

[phantomfive]

...and that's why he's 100,000x richer than you will ever be, right?

Yes, yes, actually it is why. He inherited his money.

Re: wonder why

[Anonymous Coward]

The scaremongering seems to be coming from the other side. The media seems to want people to believe the world will end if Trump is elected.

Re: wonder why

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

This is the sort of irrational behavior that makes me want to support Trump. How can I be in agreement with such irrationality? If it were just the occasional whack job it could be dismissed, but the abundance of unbridled crazy in Trump's naysayers makes me think that Trump must be on the right track.

So you're saying that you want to get back at these people by tanking the country. Brilliant.

Re: wonder why

[tnk1]

I will say this. I disagree with Trump and will not be voting for him.

However, this has been wrought by the mistreatment of people by both parties. They've felt that they had a lock on them so long that they were now voting blocs to be moved like chess pieces and controlled using Big Data triangulation of just the right issues. And that's the way it turned out with Obama/Romney.

What is more, on one hand, the Republicans tend to like to obstruct, and get nothing done, they are generally assholes, and many are about as close to Mr. Burns as you can be without being a yellow cartoon character.

On the other hand, you have people in the so-called progressive side working to silence what is not politically correct and deriding a significant portion of the population as a bunch of fly-over state hicks who burn crosses in their front yard and hate everyone. Whether or not that is true, you've now got them mad enough so they're now just going with it. I can't get behind their frothing at the mouth at the Trump rallies, but I can see how it must be cathartic for them.

Make no mistake, the Republicans are looking at a serious upheaval and possible dissolution, but the Democrats are oddly enough not too far behind, if Bernie Sanders is any indication. I actually think that the Black vote that keeps electing Clintons is going to realize that they are getting very little but lip service and affirmative action for their loyalty. Neither one of those things is ending racism or inner city problem, and I'd argue that affirmative action makes it worse in some cases. Four or eight years of Clinton after eight years of Obama had better change their fortunes, or you could see a real problem for the Democrats too.

Re: wonder why

[Maxo-Texas]

Don't bother them with facts.

It's a scary strong man fascist charisma thing.

He lies 93% of the time when checked-- when questioned about a lie, he doubles down with an even bigger lie.

His supporters don't care if he is caught in a lie.

I'm really looking forward to Trump being the republican candidate.

Re: wonder why

[lister king of smeg]

THIS is why we should all be scared. Somewhere along the line, Americans stopped fearing the devastation that the LEFT is historically responsible for.

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, and the list goes on. Given enough leeway, the radical LEFT kills millions.

You're afraid of Trump? Don't be. Be afraid of the LEFT.

Who is silencing free speech on campus? Who is rioting and demanding rallies be canceled? Who is getting professors fired from their jobs? Who's calling for "muscle" to get pesky journalists removed?

I don't care if you're a Democrat. Democrats are fine. But the rise of the radical LEFT is 100% not fine. Be afraid. This shit is not something we want to mess with, and it's rising fast. And the Democrats aren't doing nearly enough to silence the rabble in their ranks.

Historically speaking, this ends with lots of bloodshed. And historically speaking the LEFT will be to blame.

And the radical right had Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco. Beware of extremists of either wing they won't tolerate opposing views and will attack their groups rivals.
The problem is the two party system coupled with a primary system pushes a polarizing on the politics. The primaries cause each party to push the most extreme candidate to get nominated for the election instead of a person that the majority of the country will actually like.

Re: wonder why

[AmazingRuss]

... And he'll give everyone a free pony! Trump is no puppet of the 1%. He IS the 1%, bringing you the lies you want to hear direct!

Operators are standing by, call now!

Re: wonder why

[Mashiki]

For some reason I find that a more rational belief than the belief that Trump will be somehow better for America than the other candidates.

When the media, the beltway, and political insiders are all saying "the world will end if Trump is elected..." it more likely means "their world will end." If he does even half of what he's proposing it means bad stuff for the politicians who've been sucking on graft for years, and it means even worse stuff for special interest groups that have paid graft for years.

Re: wonder why

[dbIII]

He's not actually a fascist. He's far more shallow that that for better and worse. No real ideology - Trump is for whatever is best for Trump, will do whatever is best for Trump and will say that he'll do a lot of things he never intends to do if that's what will convince people to do things he wants them to do.
Look at the sort of unaccountable nobility that George Washington fought against for a bit of a closer idea than fascism but that isn't the full story either.


If this was a movie there would be shadowy sinister figures in a smoky room pondering who they could possibly run against Hillary if they wanted to make her look like the best choice - and then in a moment of inspiration one of them says "Trump".

Re: wonder why

[dbIII]

Populism - speak about the obvious problems to distract from having no plan to actually do something about it. It's a nice trick and more effective than the people that state the reality that it's going to take years to climb out of the hole and there may be another bubble about to burst.

I think the last President or potential President to tell the people the unpolished truth was Jimmy Carter, and after what happened to him nobody running is going to dare to suggest that time, hard work and a shitload of tax money is going to be needed to fix some things.

Re: wonder why

[Dutch Gun]

I could have sworn you were talking about Bill Clinton just then. Let's see... polarizing, charismatic, entertaining, slightly smarmy, any able to shrug off or even gain traction from any minor controversy, to the delight of his supporters and constant irritation of his opponents. I disagree that they don't have an ideology, as Bill Clinton definitely views the world from the left just as Trump comes from a right-leaning position, but they're much more centrist / pragmatic than people (on either side) tend to admit. And obviously, Bill Clinton knew how to play the political game extremely well, being a lifetime politician, where part of Trump's appeal is that he doesn't give a fuck about political games, and the political establishment is still trying to wrap their heads around that.

So... yeah, the Republicans have their own Bill Clinton now, odd as that sounds in this race. What about Hillary? She's basically Bill Clinton, except a lot more devious and without any of the charm.

Re:wonder why

[meta-monkey]

A lot of the things he wants to do, however, are things the president has the power to do. Deport illegals? Right now Obama is telling INS/ICE to not do their jobs. He can do that just by lighting a fire under their asses. Banning muslims? The law is already written that allows the president to ban any group of people he deems necessary from coming here. Renegotiating trade deals? That's a power of the executive branch of government. Joining with Putin to destroy ISIS? He'll be commander-in-chief.

Your point is much more valid for someone like Bernie, whose entire platform is a legislative agenda. All the stuff Bernie wants to do requires Congress to make deep, structural changes to our government and economic system. Half the stuff Trump wants to do can be done on day 1 in office.

Re: wonder why

[kheldan]

I have no idea if it's 'racist or sexist' and really don't care, but I do know this: Trump doesn't give a damn about these IT workers, he's just doing this as a publicity stunt. Trump is part of the 1% one way or another, and as such he'll look out for the rest of the 1%, and to hell with the 99% (which includes these displaced IT workers). It's all smoke and mirrors and bullshit.

Globalization

[Etherwalk]

It turns out that lowering barriers to commerce increases competition.

This helps the guy who is buying the goods and services. Which mostly means whoever owns the company that uses or re-sells those services. It helps the 1% because they own the companies which profit by, for example, employing IT workers. It occasionally helps normal people, if the companies that are reselling or using the services are in tight competition, but mostly it helps the 1%--or in this case, the owners of Disney stock.

It hurts the guy who is selling the goods and services, at least in the markets with strong demand. That's why American Industry and the remaining small farms mostly disappeared--you could buy the stuff cheaper elsewhere, so people did. On the other hand, you can probably buy cheaper random-thing-X, so long as there is still competition among foreigners after the American producer went out of business.

Re:Globalization

[Black Parrot]

Yeah, the free trade agreements were supposed to let us get our toys cheap. Instead, the prices kept going up, the quality went to shit, jobs are gone, and wages are stagnant. The only people to benefit are the middle-men who buy cheap, sell dear, and pocket the difference.

And it's naive to think the politicos will balk at destroying the domestic IT sector, after destroying everything else.

Re:Globalization

[phantomfive]

It helps the 1% because they own the companies which profit by, for example, employing IT workers. It occasionally helps normal people, if the companies that are reselling or using the services are in tight competition, but mostly it helps the 1%--or in this case, the owners of Disney stock.

For people in the US it's been uneven, but for these people it's been a huge success. I'm ok with that.

Re:Globalization

[Anonymous Coward]

From America's leaders' perspectives:

Motivation to keep IT work in the USA:

1) Keep the US a competitive world power by retaining talent that is valuable in the current and future world market.
2) Keep local voters happy by giving them jobs.

Neither motivation is very strong. IT technicians represent a small voting demographic, so no political career benefits from pandering to them. USA's position in the world market is better maintained by forcing draconian copyright law on all other countries, so that America still owns all the intellectual property that we pay all the other countries to make for us, with their cheap talent that we don't have. The copyright plan is progressing quite nicely, in fact.

Methods of keeping IT work in the USA, that will actually work:

Offer tax credits to businesses that hire American IT talent.
Offer government-funded salary assistance to IT workers, so they can compete against foreign workers on salary but still maintain an American lifestyle.
Offer tax credits and income-assistance to self-employed IT contractors in the USA.

All of these cost real money, which won't be spent given the weak motivations mentioned above.

What will actually happen:

Lots of jobs will move overseas. Overseas businesses will start to charge more as their economy gets stronger because of this. Other countries will start to see the benefits of utilizing their IT talent for their own benefit, and the copyright advantage will be weakened by various means. Businesses will encounter hidden costs of having such mission-critical components of their business operate overseas. All of this will create a resurgence of interest in local talent; but there won't be very much local talent available, so costs will be very high, and the local talent will be hard to find. This will drive MORE H1B visa interest.

That pretty much covers it.

Re:I've said this over and over again

[drinkypoo]

The role of government isn't to take away that option and force people to waste their money supporting/subsidizing Zenith.

No, but if our government is truly opposed to e.g. slavery, then it ought not to encourage trade with nations which use slave labor.

Re:no easy solution

[fluffernutter]

If businesses are going to move overseas, let them. But don't let them participate in the American market for free, since that just keeps American businesses out of their own back yard. They should be charged for access to the American market. Just enough to balance any advantage they get from moving offshore and make it possible for local startups to compete.

Re:I've said this over and over again

[Alomex]

Sanders and Trump are the only ones actually listening to the American public.

Trump isn't listening to the public, he's pandering to the public.

I don't agree with Sanders' policies but at least he's self consistent.

Trump is just a snake oil salesman, depending on the good will of the American people. The same nice folks who voted for Bush Jr because he seemed like one of them, only to turn into one of the worst presidents in recent memory, blowing a trillion dollars in an unnecessary war (from the "fiscally responsible" party no less). Ditto with Trump, he's the likeable fellow who sells you a lemon at the used car lot.

Republicans vs. Democrats

[Anonymous Coward]

- Republicans care only for the rich people and companies owned by them. If an employee gets sick, there is no reason to help him at all.
- Democrats care only about people. All money and wealth should be divided equally to everyone. Individual skills and effort does not matter making everyone lazy as there is no point in doing anything.

I don't understand why Trump cares for the employees. Companies should be able to get work the way they want it. Markets will take care of everything, that is the idea republicans favour.

There are two options:
1. Trump is actually a Democrat. This would explain the war between other republicans which favours democrats.
2. Trump is a traditional republican who lies to stupid poor people who would benefit more for voting democrats, but who vote for the republicans because they believe in the old "if companies are doing well, people are doing well" (which might be true for a while, but not once you get sick or once the robots or cheaper labour replaces you).

I don't live in the USA and I don't really care does Trump or Hillary win. Either way I'm going take my popcorn and enjoy this episode.

Re:Here's why

[dgatwood]

Can anyone tell me why temporarily banning Muslim immigration from conflict areas is a bad idea? Seems like a common-sense approach to me.

For all the reasons others have already posted, plus:

• It violates our constitutional prohibition on establishment of a religion.
• There's no definitive way to determine whether someone is Muslim short of asking them and hoping that they aren't lying.

You could, at least ostensibly, ban all immigration from those parts of the world, without regard to religious beliefs, but you cannot reasonably ban just Muslims. Beyond being pretty much impossible, it just isn't the right thing to do.

Re:Here's why

[trout007]

So what you are saying is that Muslims are so irrational and dangerous that if we don't let them into our country they will hate us and try to kill us? That doesn't help your case. If I'm not allowed in someones house or country I don't hate them I just find somewhere else to go.