Slashdot Mirror
145 Tech Leaders Say 'Trump Would Be A Disaster For Innovation' (cnn.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report via CNN: "We have listened to Donald Trump over the past year and we have concluded: Trump would be a disaster for innovation," wrote 145 technology leaders in an open letter Medium post published Thursday. Some of the leaders are from tech giants like Google, Facebook and Apple, others from small startups, venture capital firms, nonprofits and universities. "We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity, creativity and a level playing field. Donald Trump does not," reads the letter, which was signed by well-known names like Apple cofounder Steve Wozniak, Slack CEO Stewart Butterfield, IAC's Barry Diller, Reddit's Alexis Ohanian and Wikipedia's Jimmy Wales. "His reckless disregard for our legal and political institutions threatens to upend what attracts companies to start and scale in America. He risks distorting markets, reducing exports, and slowing job creation," reads the letter, published by chief marketing officer at Color Genomics and former VP at Twitter Katie Jacobs Stanton. Moreover, Trump has shown "poor judgment and ignorance about how technology works," they wrote, citing his proposal to "shut down" parts of the Internet and the fact that he has revoked reporters' press credentials. "We stand against Donald Trump's divisive candidacy," the letter concludes. "We embrace an optimistic vision for a more inclusive country, where American innovation continues to fuel opportunity, prosperity and leadership." Meanwhile, Jon Swartz writes from USA Today that "If there was any lingering doubt as to tech's favored presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton put an end to that Tuesday with a tech plan that reads like a Silicon Valley wish list."
Translation: Trump would do something about importing cheap H-1B workers while Her Majesty wouldn't.
I'm not a Trump fan but I get the impression that many who like him believe he isn't bought and paid for like Hillary probably is. If they are right, it makes sense that these guys wouldn't want to lose their investment and have someone elected that isn't beholden to them.
The tech executives just want to keep the gravy train of cheap, captive H-1B visa holders. I have been a Democrat all my life, donated many times to President Obama--and would vote for him again in a heartbeat. Hillary Clinton is the first Democratic presidential candidate in my life that I cannot support. I am senior enough in my field to have never had my personal job touched by an H-1B visa holder. (They are dishonest morons.) The way it's run, the entire H-1B visa program is a scam. So, I will be voting for Dr. Jill Stein. I will be damned if I will vote for Clinton. I've done that enough. She supports rich tech billionaires--not me--and I will return the favor. I would rather suffer through 4 years of Donald Trump instead of allowing Hillary Clinton to screw us.
>> We believe in an inclusive country that fosters opportunity
Translation: We prefer a corrupt government so we can get an endless supply of H1B visas to replace all our US workers with cheap foreign labor.
It's amazing how I wasn't even fooled for a fraction of a second about what they really meant.
As a tech worker who lives on paychecks rather than dividends, I couldn't give half a fuck about their huge margins or their eternally climbing share price. I'm sure that a lot of the C-levels will weep and gnash their teeth if they have to pay me an extra 10 20 or even 50 percent salary but how in a million years does this hurt me?
And no, I know it won't result in unemployment because I know that my work generates millions of dollars a year in ROI (summarizing here but I automate the jobs of insurance adjusters, call center employees and the like). My salary is a tiny fraction of the value I provide. There's an enormous amount of money on the table here. We're talking about companies employing thousands of employees and generating billions in profit. All the unlimited visa abuse does is put more of it in the pockets of C-levels, shareholders and the banks.
And frankly, fuck them. I have never wanted to vote republican so much in my life. All the right people are recoiling in horror at Trump. Know someone by their enemies indeed.
He'll run the fiber and make AT&T pay for it.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What Trump says and what will actually happen are obviously two different things. There are still checks and balances to keep him from running roughshod over human rights by himself. The H1B travesty is real, happening, and can only get worse under Clinton. I'd rather have a redfaced blowhard spouting off nonsense than this slippery bitch plunging the knife in even deeper than it already is. They're both clearly unfit for the job, but Trump entertains me while Clinton makes my blood run cold for multiple reasons.
Simple, the government redefines high-speed Internet as 56Kbps. Problem solved.
The President does not control H-1B. Congress does.
The President DOES control the INTERPRETATION and the ENFORCEMENT of the rules - including choosing to avoid enforcing them.
When the laws are not enforced, businessmen who follow the law are at a severe competitive disadvantage to those who violate them. In a highly competitive market this quickly shakes out so that there are two categories of businessmen:
- Those who violate the law and get all the contracts.
- Those who don't violate the law, don't win any contracts, and are now out of business.
We saw that up close and personally when we did some home improvement a few years back. We couldn't find ANY contractors whose line workers weren't illegal aliens.
(We discovered this in the case of, and had it explained by, our siding contractor,. We went to take photographs of the added wiring in the walls when the siding was off, and all his workers became very upset that cameras were in use.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Just wondering. To the extent I know their political orientation, they are all quite partisan Democrats.
One tech person who was interviewed on Leo Laporte's "Triangulation" podcast a few weeks ago had an interesting perspective. Basically, there's a lot of very bad stuff entrenched in Washington DC that needs to get broken. The candidate most likely to break stuff is Trump; hopefully, he'll break more stuff that needs breaking than stuff that needs to not be broken.
Me, I'm probably going to vote Libertarian; I won't vote for either of the D or R <obscene characterization redacted>."