Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Startup Uses Trump to Lure Tech Workers (siliconbeat.com)
An anonymous reader writes: A Canadian startup "is using Republican front-runner Donald Trump in its latest campaign to recruit tech talent," reports Silicon Beat. The company's site claims that 31% of Americans they'd surveyed would consider moving to Canada if Trump were elected President. "Now, while we don't think Americans will actually move en masse to Canada if the election doesn't go their way, we do want to extend an offer. Because it's the polite, Canadian thing to do." The Washington Post reported a surge in Google searches in March for "how can I move to Canada," actually slowing down the Canadian government's immigration web site.
Meanwhile, a coalition of Canadian mayors is visiting California this week to promote Canada's booming technology sector. Toronto's mayor told Bloomberg, "The embracing of diversity as opposed to it being some sort of political issue is a huge advantage we have."
92% of startups fail in the first 3 years. Can a startup afford to install a safe space around every desk before the next election cycle.
Honestly, the hysteria from these anti-Trump people is hilarious. They're one chalk scribbled MAGA away from having a nervous breakdown.
Sure, it's easy to say they would take the tech workers. But would Canada gladly take the 10 million illegal immigrants who may not be as skilled? Those are the ones who really want to flee Trump.
The loss of backbone was a purely American thing. You bailed out the banks because you got scared, and now Wall Street is crazier than ever. Iceland didn't blink.
Ditto with your reps voting to invade Iraq. No backbone - they were scared and would do anything rather than think.
These policies didn't inflict pain on a small number of people for the greater good - quite the opposite.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I have a hard time believing sonicmerlin is, in fact, your real name.
Yes! Let's turn the US military into a global protection racket! Who cares about global security and preserving the Long Peace when we could be wetting our beaks!
I can hear it now, in a particularly obnoxious Brooklyn accent: "You gotta real nice country here, South Korea, it'd be a shame if something happened to it."
Only crack the nuts that crack. You don't put the ones that don't crack in the sack.
Trump says he will build a wall on our southern border and enforce our immigration laws.
Trump says he will enforce the H1B program in the way it was intended instead of allowing foreign workers to take American jobs.
Trump says he will halt immigration of Islamists until we can be sure they are not radicalized.
Trump says he will allow health insurance companies to compete across state lines and take other measures to make health care affordable.
Trump says he will renegotiate trade pacts that do not favor the United States.
Trump says he will reform the VA and ensure our vets get the care they were promised.
Maybe you can actually post some more things he said about what he is going to do. Those seem to be the main things that I've heard. Not sure what is so scary about any of that.
This election for me is about the rule of law. Either we are a country where everyone is equal under the law and laws have to be obeyed, or we are not. It's as simple as that. All the talk about Trump being a fascist is way off base. Trump doesn't have a fascist organization behind him. He's got no brown shirts or brigades, it's just the democratic process and some people reckoning that at least he might do some of things he has promised.
If nothing else, a Trump presidency would shake up the Washington first virus that has infected both parties.
The job of the US military is NOT global security.
Good thing too - because we're REALLY bad at it. Since out disastrous response to 9/11 the US is often rated as the greatest destabilizing force on the planet.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
If Donald Trump had taken the million dollars he was give by his father and just invested it in a S&P index fund, he'd be worth $10,000,000,000 more than he is right now. Yes, when you're business has underperformed the stock market over a 30 year period by that much, you are a shitty business man.
http://www.moneytalksnews.com/...
You are welcome on my lawn.
This is true and also a concern - it's one of the reasons I opened the thread - I'm off to bed soon. But, yes...
Or, rather, no... No, I don't think that this poll is accurate. Trump actually has a number of proponents in the IT industry. They're in that camp for varied reasons but they exist and I'm pretty sure that the numbers are higher than this poll would have you believe. I'm also a bit squirrelly about the number that they have come up with.
In this thread, we'll find more than 14 people who SUPPORT Trump, never mind being willing to move to Canada. I'm too lazy to look but I bet this survey was written to get one type of response, to be manipulated, or to get partial results.
"How likely are you to be willing to emigrate to Canada if Trump is elected president:
0 --- 1 --- 2 --- 3 --- 4 --- 5
With zero meaning that there's no possible way they're going to move to Canada to 5 being very likely to seek a visa.
Now, anybody who answered a number greater than zero is counted in this poll and that's where they got the 84% from - I suspect. It's standard practice. It's also a trick question - few people want to answer in a negative fashion. People are gullible and swallow it all the time. They may also take results from one question and add them in with the first - again being careful about verbiage.
If you give me a few days and a bunch of resources, I could poll the average American and come back with "Stalin was a great man - according to 87% of people in the garments industry."
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
He's also called for less fraud, waste, and abuse in government,
You believe that? I mean sure it's a lovely platitude because who isn't against fraud, waste and abuse? The thing is though it's an incredibly difficult, nuanced problem to deal with and without actually a real, firm, detailed plan on how to begin tackling it, such a platitude is not worth the air it's exhaled in.
The government it large, very large. This is inevitable and also not fixable because the country is large. Sure it can grow and shrink, but it is always going to be big. Big organisations have waste, or at least the appearance of waste. Anyone who's dealt with a large company, especially as a small contractor where you get the unpolished view into the guts of legal and purchasing, not the carefully curated customer service view will know that.
They are wildly, horrifyingly, insanely inefficient. Anyone who thinks otherwise has frankly had little to to with large companies, and anyone who thinks the governent should be better than that might as well wish for unicorns.
The thing is waste is not just present and inevitable, it's necessary, because redundancy is by definition waste. Small companies can be frighteningly efficient, no doubt. The thing is, that's indicidual ones, not en masse. En masse, small companies aren't efficient because small companies also go out of business ALL the time. The redundancy is having many of them, but if you look at one, you'll miss that. The reason individual one can be efficient is they lack redundancy and so there is no slack. If something bad happens, then they fail.
Big companies and even more so the government simply cannot afford that.
You *cannot* have key employees, because they will die. The governemnt is older than any human. Notonly that, you know those horrifyingly rare 1 in a million cancers? Well, that happens to someone in government on average several times per year. People do get run over by busses, die in freak accidents, never mind get old, retire, change jobs, move all the time when you're a large organisation.
If you have no waste (redundancy) then the organisation will collapse after a 4 hours when the first person cops it.
Secondly, a small company, or a small tech department in a big company can affor to hire the bst 0.1%. However 0.1% of the entire US population is less than the size of the governement and many large companies. They cannot hire only the best of the best because frankly those people don't exist.
And then there's the coupling or anticoupling of fraud and waste. Time was Joe Civil Servant could give the contract to his nephew with no oversight and make a nice little packet on the side. Naturally everyone thought this was a bad idea. The huge, insane bidding processes that exclude small efficient companies are set up precisely because of those problems. What is not clear is how you can allow in small companies which can't do rigorous auditing (because they don't have a full timeaccountant let alone department and besiade that is expensive and therefore wasteful) and can't go through massive hoops to "provably" prevent fraud, while being able to get contracts. In other words how can you remove the burdensome oversight without removing the oversight?
That's a tiny set of why platitudes of "reducing waste etc" are mindlessly stupid without somethig to back them up. Any fool can claim waste is bad (no shit!), but said fool can't actually do anything about it.
And no, just slashing budgets does not work, because all the same mechanisms are still in place.
SJW n. One who posts facts.