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.
he leads?
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.
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.
If a computer need to be re-image, the user will have to FedEx the computer to India, wait three months for the computer to return, and find their PST file missing from Outlook. That should save a lot of money.
I wonder what all those currently hysterical people screaming about Trump being a Nazi and how all of tech is a sexist, bigoted, cesspit of male nerd privilege will do if Trump is actually elected on the back of the massive surge of US voter discontentment?
My guess is that the Hipsters will have their beards shaved off within 8 months and the 3 piece suit (and Trumplocked hair) will make a comeback likes it's nineteen-eighty-yuppie all over again. A word to the wise gentlement, the geeks, techies, and especially the gamers to have been on the receiving end of your bullshit all have memories like fucking elephants, so don't expect a medal for a change of heart.
If Hillary becomes president, I think our next election will end up being between Hilter and Mao.
The end result may be a boom in tech businesses that choose to do business where these cheap labor pools are available.
Like manufacturing jobs returning the US because China is getting too expensive?
But despite what the rhetoric would have us believe, global manufacturing is trending in a positive direction for the U.S. Factory jobs are on the rise here, and many of these new jobs are coming back to North America from China, which is struggling to maintain its manufacturing capacity. Since March, 2010, when manufacturing employment in the U.S. hit a trough of 11.45 million jobs, nearly a million new factory positions have been created, most of them in the Southern states, particularly North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee. Better still, the jobs are typically good ones: across that same five-year period, average hourly manufacturing wages have increased over ten per cent, to more than twenty dollars. On the whole, U.S. manufacturing, as measured by the Purchasing Managers' Index, has steadily expanded.
http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/why-donald-trump-is-wrong-about-manufacturing-jobs-and-china
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.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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.
Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
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.
US foreign aid to Mexico, currently $560 million a year.
Wall cost, from $4 billion to $20 billion (John Oliver's inflated number). so between 8 and 40 years foreign aid to Mexico cut and you pay for wall. Reduce welfare given to illegals from Mexico and wall is paid for sooner. That is not raising taxes on US citizens a single cent, and making Mexico "pay for it". Typically budgeting at Federal level is done over 10 year period, so that gives Trump about $5.6 billion for a wall using GAO numbers, and a bit more if he can estimate welfare costs for them as well.
Mexico can go fuck themselves if they think the US protecting its own border is a bad thing. Their presidents talking that way on US television just makes the majority agree with the wall more.
Let's go with the assumption posited so frequently by the press that Donald Trump called women Bimbos and Pigs. He never said 'All women are bimbos and pigs'. He said 'Rosie O'Donnel is a pig' and 'Megyn Kelly is a bimbo'. By this same logic, it could be said that Bill Clinton thinks all women want a cigar up their coochie, which explains a lot really.
Same thing with illegal immigrants. Trump never said 'All illegal immigrants are murderers, rapists and drug dealers'. Maybe that is what you heard, but in reality that is what he said Mexico is sending us. Along with some good people. There were good Nazis and good Communists and good Anarchists, Chumbawamba and Noam Chomsky I guess, but none of that matters. Being a nation of immigrants doesn't mean we have no system of immigration. We have had varying levels of control through out our history. Until now, where there is a system that is being completely ignored and subverted by Presidential decree.
The H1B stuff is more of the same. There is direct evidence of companies violating key provisions and except for social media and the press, not much is being done.
If nothing else, Trump running means the Democrats and about 1/2 the Republicans will never again be able to offer amnesty for a promise to build the wall. That ship has sailed.
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.
Trump IS the establishment and has been in it since birth so I really don't get why people think he's an "outsider". He used his party connections four times to escape from consequences of bankruptcy. Also this is not his first tilt at President so he's got a very firm grip on the party machinery.
Because I didn't say something about Trump being a saint I'm sure some loser will irrelevantly bring up Hillary. Personally I think Trump is about the only choice from the last fifty years of Republican history that would make Hillary look good in comparison (even Nixon and Ford look better, and I'm still pissed off with Ford taking a bribe from Indonesia in 1975).
For all the reasons others have already posted, plus:
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.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
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...
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.
I love Jesus, except for his foreign policy.
>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.