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.
This is racist and sexist. I dont know how yet, I'll wait for Huff po. to tell me how, but rest assured it is somehow.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Learning about brewing beer, by brewing beer.
Let's be clear: I voted for Ron Paul in 2008, and Barrack Obama in 2012.
I'm voting for Trump in 2016 because:
A) I think he is hilarious and don't want the comedy to stop
&
B) because I want to watch the Republican party burn to the ground after the way they treated Ron Paul in 2012.
If it were up to me: Hillary Clinton would nominate Ted Cruz as her VP and Donald Trump would Nominate Bernie Sanders and we could rebrand the Republican Party the "Antiestablishment Party" and the Republicrats would have a unity ticket called the "Establishment Party".
When liberals misconstrue my intentions as being "passions that have been inflamed by casual racism": they disarm themselves of their ability to counter my influence by fundamentally misunderstanding my motivations.
I don't support Trump because I hate muslims or black people... I'm on the #trumptrain because I want to see the world burn and I think Trump is crazy enough to light the match. Once you stop confusing my fatalist intent for ignorance, you'll be better equipped to dissuade me. I'm letting you in on the joke because it makes the inevitable punchline that much funnier if you saw the ground rushing up at you and were unable to stop it.
Until then, your trite assumption that my political preferences are born from ignorance or bigotry just further fans the flames of my conviction. It's a shame that Bernie is wasting his time on the Democrats. He would make a powerful ally.
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.
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.
> 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.
You need to dig deeper into the politically correct thing as many of the stories are later retracted or turn out to be fabrications.
Good example: Student win of track race retracted after he makes a gesture thanking god... reality... later the parents and the student both retracted their statements and admitted that he had made taunting gestures to the other team.
Don't get me wrong-- I think the left does suppress free speach and does do the political correctness thing.
But the right has played into that and used it to their advantage to make it seem much more outrageous than it really is.
The teacher who was fired for giving her personal bible to a student... turns out she gave lots of personal bibles to lots of students.
And so on.
One of the main reasons I left the republican party was because they passed the normal level of lying by politicians. They turned strongly to "the ends justify the means"
They abandoned the political tradition required to make this country function: Argue in chambers and then go to dinner together afterwards. Negotiate and compromise. They just don't do that any more since GW Bush Jr's 1st term. And they became the party of "NO" in 2009. At that point, I stopped voting for them entirely. Even local offices.
It's not good behavior for the country.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
It makes just as much sense as women saying they are going to vote for Hillary because she has a vagina.
That makes those women sexiest, but they will never admit it.
Personally I find women with vaginas to be the sexiest, that's true.
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.