Slashdot Mirror


US Companies Are Moving Tech Jobs To Canada Rather Than Deal With Trump's Immigration Policies, Report Says (recode.net)

US companies are going to keep hiring foreign tech workers, even as the Trump administration makes doing so more difficult. For a number of US companies that means expanding their operations in Canada, where hiring foreign nationals is much easier. From a report: Demand for international workers remained high this year, according to a new Envoy Global survey of more than 400 US hiring professionals, who represent big and small US companies and have all had experience hiring foreign employees. Some 80 percent of employers expect their foreign worker headcount to either increase or stay the same in 2019, according to Envoy, which helps US companies navigate immigration laws. That tracks with US government immigration data, which shows a growing number of applicants for high-skilled tech visas, known as H-1Bs, despite stricter policies toward immigration. H-1B recipients are all backed by US companies that say they are in need of specialized labor that isn't readily available in the US -- which, in practice, includes a lot of tech workers. Major US tech companies, including Google, Facebook, and Amazon, have all been advocating for quicker and more generous high-skilled immigration policies. To do so they've increased lobbying spending on immigration.

444 comments

  1. Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why hire Americans anyway? Competition drives the weak out in a myriad of ways.

    1. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why hire Americans anyway? Competition drives the weak out in a myriad of ways.

      The Canadians disagree with you. 25% of the Canadian "H1-B's" are from America.

    2. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      > The Canadians disagree with you.

      What does that matter? Oh, you really don't understand.

      More than the 25% of H1Bs want a socialist benefit, or the environment, or work within an industry that's already been marginalized out of the US (the pattern of "not available in the USA should appear). Remember pet fancy? how many print editor jobs are in the US compared to Canada is astounding. Canadian's don't disagree in principle on how capitalism works, they are just in a different ecosystem.

    3. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

      Wait...so, from this headline, am I to infer that most of our tech workers needed and used by US companies, are illegal mexicans coming across the border, and the 'wall' is keeping these needed I.T. workers away from the US tech firms that need them, so they are now moving to Canada?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    4. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by ripvlan · · Score: 1

      I wonder how many are "native" Canadians? I worked with several Russian H1B holders (and Green card) who first went to Toronto, Canada waiting for permanent work in the USA. They then worked as contractors on jobs or entered the lottery, or filed for H1B after successful contract work.

      But my last company hired a whole batch of graduates from a tech school in NS and gave them all H1B. The whole class. It was part of a special program, the school helped cross train them in specific tech and we hired them (about 20 years ago). Most of them reached green card status.

    5. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Those pesky laws that have been in the books for decades that are now being enforced Screw illegal immigrant. They have no claim to America or our benefits. Go away.

    6. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds about right ;)

    7. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Competition driving out the weak is the whole reason we elected such a far-left-wing president: we wanted to use central planning and taxes (tariffs) to eliminate competition.

      What our commie plan didn't anticipate, is that free-market conservatives can just leave the country and get what they want anyway.

      As a Trump supporter, I think this probably indicates that we aren't using enough force against business owners. Can't we just bomb their workplaces?

    8. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it cost money in the US (just as anywhere else) to get educated and trained and to pay taxes. Companies wang to hire people who are least exposed to those costs for profitability reasons. Thaf is why they hire younger people whenever possible and when not possible, foriegn labor.

      If someone gets a degree in tbe US they are at a competitive disadvantage to someone who gets a degree elsewhwere where the costs are lower, then a visa to work in the US. The companies advocating visas know this. They make statements that there are not enough educated US workers or students to fill needed job opportunities with the knowledge that those people DO exist but can't work for the cheap costs, or quick turnover, the companies want.

      It is straight up corruption that foriegn workers are willingly participating in.

    9. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      An alternative explanation is that they're perfectly legal but they get sick of hearing frothing fat fuckers like you and they decide it's not worth the hassle.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      No. Rather that because there isn't a crackdown(yet) in Canada on what's effectively our own H1B system(which is called TFW or Temporary Foreign Workers), US companies are happier to move various operations to Canada and abuse the fuck out of it, hiring people who don't actually live in Canada to do the jobs instead, by importing them and already straining the existing welfare/healthcare/housing/rental markets which are fully screwed up.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    11. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by dougdonovan · · Score: 0

      you have to be legal to live in the US but everyone ( 9+ billion people ) already knows this.

    12. Re:Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      Exactly whom are you talking about?

      * Americans with college degrees? Bzzzt. Under NAFTA, any American or Canadian with a college degree can go work in the other country, as long as they aren't barred from entry for some other reason.

      * Americans without a college degree? Unlikely. From what I've heard, it's damn near IMPOSSIBLE for an American without a college degree to officially get permission to move to Canada and work (and vice-versa). There are a few edge cases, mostly in the entertainment industry, but not many.

      * non-Americans who came to America as H1-B and went to Canada as the equivalent of H1-B after losing their job in the US? I suppose it's not impossible, but I believe someone who moved to the US under H1-B, lost their job, quickly applied for a job in Canada, and managed to get hired & moved there before the US officially kicked them out would STILL have to make a final documented trip from the US back to their own country before flying to Canada to begin their official employment there, which would instantly nuke a few thousand dollars right off the top.

      Personally, I think there are already too many stupid barriers between the US and Canada. It's not like there are masses of impoverished Americans or Canadians huddled along the border desperately yearning to flee in EITHER direction. If an American wants to move to Canada, or a Canadian wants to move to the US, fine. Let them. Any cost borne by either country (and the respective states or provinces) would probably be piddling compared to the cost of enforcing laws that literally EVERYONE thinks are patently absurd.

      Hell, I'd go so far as to extend the deal to just about ANY country with an economy that's basically equivalent to that of the US, with approximately the same number of people who want to move in both directions. Just to pick another comparable English-speaking country as an example, let's say the UK. The fact is, relocating across the Atlantic is incredibly expensive, and it's not like someone who's indigent in either country could possibly afford to just casually move to the other, EVEN IF the border and immigration formalities were minimal and frictionless.

      If US citizens and British citizens could freely move in both directions, I'd guess that the absolute number moving in both directions would be approximately equal, and that the overwhelming majority of people doing the moving would either be recent college grads who think living in the other country would be cool, or people who ended up in a relationship with someone from the other country & decided to move to the same city as a sensible next step. For the first year or two, there might be an influx of British construction workers naive enough to think they could spend the winter working in Florida... until word got out that half the construction workers in the northern US have the exact same idea at some point in their lives, and the amount they could earn working in Florida during the winter is so insultingly low compared to what they'd make in London, they'd come out ahead financially if they just literally spent the winter collecting British unemployment benefits instead of bothering to try working in a state with third-world wages and first-world cost of living.

    13. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep and as Americans are having the exact same problems it is important that Canadians stand up to them as well. They are exploitative b#st#rds looking for people to take advantage of. Canada does not owe them anything in the name of keeping relations with the US cordial. No one does.

    14. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're talking about a president who's history of business strategy was to refuse payment to services rendered until he was sued.

      Then when that failed, file bankruptcy over and over again until daddy came with his wallet.

      That's not a plausible approach to international economies.

      He doesn't understand a single thing about how policies have extensive effects on the economy. These are the signs of industries adapting to poor decision making in legal immigrant labor and international trade policy.

    15. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that literally never happened, sure?

    16. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure if you discount factual events that happened in real life.

    17. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that's what you infer remind me not to hire you as I prefer people with better comprehension skills.

    18. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They would rather move than hire American workers. Sad. But they want your money. Trump is forcing them to choose. To actually show where their loyalty is. And it his fault? He is just exposing the hypocrisy of these companies. He is making the case for reelection with the average worker....

    19. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep your dopey opinion to yourself, raji.

    20. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i sense you need to read up abit on socialism. There is a few differences in it. and the one you prob have stuck in your head is something from old Soviet era.
      You know its a good thing you only have to pay about 50$ to go to the hospital with anything that might aile you. Even better care than us i might add.
      And when we are all better we go out and continnue to rake the forest to stay healthy.

    21. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fix your own fucking country then if your kind is so great. We dont have to accept everyone because we realize what we built would be lost.

      Building a country is like having sex, invite everyone in and all you get is disease and opportunists.

      Obviously you have twice as many people as we do, why isn't it twice as better there? Especially with such amazing people compared to Americans...

      How are Americans doing so much more with so much less? And isn't your country ancient compared to America? With such a time lead why isn't your country better by now? How could the white man build such an amazing place in such a short time with half as many people?

      Inquiring minds want to know.

    22. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      you have to be legal to live in the US but everyone ( 9+ billion people ) already knows this.

      Tell that to the estimated (low) 12+ million living here illegally.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    23. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you call corruption, I call free market. Captalism is not an US invention, but for sure they represent the pinacle of the captalism evolution ( a dog-eat-dog world).

    24. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Dog eat dog world"

      Good, now I can look at other people as being the enemy, and a potential threat, and not even worthy of life and disposable. I'll beat the shit out of them and treat them like garbage, and dominate their asses. I'll be the biggest bully anybody has ever seen, and I might kill anybody who crosses me, or at least have them crippled for life.

      Thanks for legitimatizing this for me.

    25. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But....But....Socialism!

      Socialism is against Jesus and God! Everybody must pull themselves up by their boot straps....blah blah blah 1950s dillusions...blah blah..pinkoz....blah blah...i love to boof pigz when not boofing my sister...

    26. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America should stop breaking other countries then.

    27. Re: Bye bye bye, bye bye. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HaHa Excellent viewpoint!

  2. Not new really by AlanObject · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's been going on for some time.

    Since the Bush years we often had to deal with tech seminars and conferences where they were moved out of the U.S. because many of the participants couldn't deal with U.S. Customs and Border enforcement. If you weren't a white European you were basically treated like shit and assumed to be a terrorist unless you could prove otherwise.

    1. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shh, don't upset the narrative of "Orange Man Bad!"

    2. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why not both?

    3. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not punching Nazi's is exactly the sort of thing a Nazi would do... there is no in between.

    4. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have two friends who work for Lufthansa. (ie, "white Europeans.") It's no picnic for them either coming into the US, and they do it regularly.

    5. Re:Not new really by sycodon · · Score: 0

      They should just come across the the southern border. A slight delay for some paperwork and you are on your way.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    6. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Please don't try to put the narrative into childish terms

      The President of the United States is following policies that have been put together to sound good, and to get a rise out of the conservative base, but that are not tied to effective policy development

      In other words, US policy is being transformed to fit conservative bumper stickers

      That has had a number of totally expected side effects, which fox new pundits regularly ignore in their own arguments, but which Americans are now faced with
      1. Get rid of CAFE standards.
      A favorite of 'free market' pundits for years
      Net result, elimination of all car production lines as auto companies abandon them for more profitable SUV/light truck production resulting in off shoring of car production and loss of American manufacturing jobs

      2. Restore the trade balance, i.e. Sell more products over seas than we purchase
      Aggressive conservative pundits love any kind of war so they can flag wave, but ignore the FACT that there will be a trade imbalance as long as the US is the dominant economic power on the planet
      Net result people buy even less of our stuff, which they can readily purchase for less in less developed countries. this has affected our primary export of agricultural products, loss of American farms, loss of jobs and increased costs for consumers

      3. Keep out them damn immigrants
      Favorite source of conservative fear-mongering supported by thinks tanks like CIS
      Net result: increased costs for consumers and increased off-shoring of tech jobs (as demonstrated in this article)

      So, President Trump has really done us a favor by following the ridiculous policies of his beloved fox new pundits BECAUSE it is really the only way to disprove their bat-shit crazy ideas.

      It is just sad that many Americans have to suffer before they can learn they have been mislead

    7. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      US policies forbid anything that even smells of work in the US. I'm a Canadian contractor. If I went to a seminar in the USA I'd be dragged through the shit to prove that it isn't for my business and is only for personal enrichment. Easier to just say no.

    8. Re:Not new really by Moryath · · Score: 5, Interesting
      Meanwhile in reality, these companies were defrauding the USA to avoid hiring Americans so they could pay much less and keep the H1-B's as indentured servants who wouldn't be able to easily leave and find work elsewhere.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU Video on how PERM fraud worked, by creating fake job listings that nobody could possibly qualify for (such as demanding 20 years of .NET experience when .NET had only been around for 5 years) and "publishing" in absurdly small markets.

    9. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yup - and many countries have tough visa requirements and comings and goings. But of course that doesn't fit a "white man bad" narrative.

    10. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Big Money is a cancer and Patriotism is the cure.

      Of course their mainstream media liars will frame it for big money.

      Thank god for Victor Orban.

    11. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If white-nationalist twits like you do not like me, then I MUST be doing something right

      Funny that you lack any ability to refute my points and head straight to the ad-hominem like falling to your knees in front of a glory-hole

    12. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should H1B visa workers decrease my wage? FACT.

    13. Re:Not new really by godrik · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am well involved in organizing scientific conferences. We organize in the US most of the time but went to Canada last year. And we had WAY more attendees that could not get a visa than any other year on record. In particular north african and middle eastern attendees were the most impacted.
      So it may not be true that getting through visa and emigration is going to be easier in Canada than it is in the US. Though I have only the data point of a single conference.

    14. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Operating under the principal that "everyone who disagrees with me is a white nationalist" is a pretty sad way to go through life.

      Your previous drivel wasn't worth replying to... this though, is just sad.

      Seek help.

    15. Re:Not new really by Shaitan · · Score: 2

      "3. Keep out them damn immigrants"

      Fair point, we shouldn't be keeping out the (legal) immigrants per say. Instead we should be penalizing companies based on their utilization of foreign workers and in that process we should count foreign subsidiaries.

      We could do something like introduce the concept of a tax debit which corresponds to a credit and has to paid without regard to anything else in their taxes which raises the net cost for any and all foreign tech workers and contractors (including domestic) to at least 250k + any benefits. Thus we eliminate any and all cost savings and pave the way to the salary levels they are trying to avoid (salaries on par with the median for other types of engineer).

    16. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No tech companies moved to Canada when Obama was president. Real news says so. LOL

    17. Re:Not new really by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Many are far more severe including pretty much all of Europe

    18. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I don't want the cheap bastards and their smelly H1-B body shops around - let 'em go to Canada and rip people off there if the Canadians are so willing to bend over for it.

    19. Re:Not new really by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      Yes, and even if the salaries are within a reasonable margin the flood of additional workers stagnates wages. That is what companies want to avoid, paying tech engineers salaries on par with other fields of engineering.

    20. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Sure, and the dog-whistle "money changer" isn't used by white nationalists to undermine anybody who actually thinks about issues.

      Pretty smart there adolf

    21. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most "orange man bad" posters are paid shills or Trump supporters pretending to be libtards to make uncle Bob het all riled up at 'dem Dems.

      People bothering to post that who are NOT being paid to do so are the stupidest of the bunch. At least the schills get a potatoe out of it.

    22. Re:Not new really by swillden · · Score: 2

      There are body shops that hire H1-Bs because they can get them cheap, but there are also plenty of companies who don't. Google, for example, pays all of its technical staff well, where they're from doesn't matter. But the H1-B crunch it's forcing a lot more international hires to be located outside of the US, where in the past they'd be brought in. I know a few who are in the US now on H1-Bs and are going to have to move because they can't get their visas renewed. These are people making $250K to $500K per year, so money clearly isn't the issue. So, Google will pay to relocate them, pay to fly them to the US regularly for team meetings and continue paying them well in their new location.

      Really, if you want to fix the H1-B "problem", just set a minimum salary requirement (including bonus, equity, etc.) of $150K.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    23. Re:Not new really by russotto · · Score: 2

      Not so. Entry under visa waiver allows you to go to seminar for business.

    24. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or is it that tech companies want to import cheap labor? Not everything is racist.

    25. Re:Not new really by Wulf2k · · Score: 1

      Only the white ones? ...dude, not cool.

    26. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And potatoes make good vodka, don't they, Ivan?

    27. Re: Not new really by tsqr · · Score: 1

      People bothering to post that who are NOT being paid to do so are the stupidest of the bunch. At least the schills get a potatoe out of it.

      They may be stupid, but I'll bet they can spell potato.

    28. Re:Not new really by Pascoea · · Score: 2

      US policies forbid anything that even smells of work in the US

      It's the same thing going up that way. Last place I worked had guys sent home because apparently the answered the "what kind of work are you doing in Canada?" question wrong at the border. It got to the point where our company lawyer drafted a hall pass that anybody going to Canada had to take with them.

    29. Re: Not new really by Andy_Poloni · · Score: 1

      Pretty smart there adolf

      That's a compliment ... most of Adolf's domestic policies were spot-on. He did his best to get rid of all the Bolshevik money-changers like you. His only shortcoming was he didn't completely succeed, but there's always the future. I wouldn't go into a Bolshevik rant starting off with "Please don't try to put the narrative into childish terms".

    30. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol, adolf ran the German economy into the ground and only picked up growth by attacking their own citizens and neighboring countries.

      The fact that this has to be explained to you is beyond sad

    31. Re:Not new really by melted · · Score: 2

      What field? In my field (machine learning, computer vision) I don't think I've ever read a paper by any author affiliated with any non-Israeli Middle Eastern institution. It's as if nothing is going on there at all scientifically. There's a lot coming out of China (lots of froth, but some outstanding papers, too), a lot less from Europe, recently some good papers from Russia started appearing at a rate of 2-3 per year. Every now and then you see a paper from Israel (they seem to be predominantly focused on turning their inventions into businesses rather than going to conferences though). Lots from Canada, of course (Toronto, Montreal). Everything else could basically disappear tomorrow and nobody would notice.

    32. Re:Not new really by surfdaddy · · Score: 1

      So much winning here.

    33. Re:Not new really by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      "3. Keep out them damn immigrants"

      Fair point, we shouldn't be keeping out the (legal) immigrants per say. Instead we should be penalizing companies based on their utilization of foreign workers and in that process we should count foreign subsidiaries.

      Make the CEO of any company caught hiring illegal aliens spew a year in jail for each illegal employed, and the problem will disappear pretty quickly.

      cue the apologists wiling how this is not right.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These are the types of workers H1B visas exist for. If you're that technically skilled that you're truly unique, then the US welcomes your skillset and you will be adequately compensated, not used as a tool to suppress labor costs.

      I agree with a minimum salary requirement for H1B visas. I've said for years it should be at least $100k-$120k or more per H1B. If you're paying an H1B worker $60k or less, they obviously aren't that technically demanding and your motives are for lower labor costs, not the unique speciality you claim you can't find. Economics says if the labor supply is that short, the labor should be more expensive.

      If costs for sponsoring and hiring an H1B visa for a position was on par or slightly above the real market value, not the fictions one projected, you'd suddenly see the labor shortage narrative disappear.

    35. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > per say

      You don't se!

    36. Re:Not new really by Shaitan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Make the CEO of any company caught hiring illegal aliens spew a year in jail for each illegal employed, and the problem will disappear pretty quickly."

      The real immigration problem has little to do with illegal aliens and everything to do with legally imported workers to toss Americans out of high paying tech jobs. They distract you with strawberry pickers while they displace 50k six figure jobs a year. It floods the market and stagnates wages. Whether you actually work in those fields or not this kills the economy and drives the economic depression that leads to you pointing fingers at strawberry pickers.

    37. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah if you change venue to another country, then yeah you will have new problems. But all things being equal, global citizens prefer to have their conferences in Canada. I promise. It is easier and less intimidating.

    38. Re: Not new really by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      And "shill".

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    39. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, dont forget they changed the rules to allow the spouses of said h1bs to be able to work as well. That changed during Obama term. That also flooded tech workforce with so many so called developers.

    40. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's one-sided, how about Japanese, South Africans, and Australians?

    41. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Back around 2003, I had to fight tooth and nail to get into the USA from Canada, to get onto a drillship that was immediately departing for Canada to work in Canada. Meanwhile, most of the crew was from USA, and were going to work in Canada.

    42. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So... you have nothing on the topic to add.

    43. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I don't want to pay your lazy bum to post on /. all day.

    44. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The both of you are dumber than a sack of shit.

    45. Re:Not new really by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Getting into Australia was a pain, but that's because I admitted walking up a river in Vietnam.

      Getting into Vietnam was a piece of piss, just walked in.

      Getting out of New Zealand was the hardest. Strange questions like "Where did you hear of New Zealand?"

      I gave the sort of answer that gets you thrown out of a country, on the grounds they were slowing down exactly that.

    46. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Having worked on both sides of the US/Canada border, neither country likes "working" without the correct visa paperwork. It's easy, for example, for US-ians and Canadians to get temporary work visas in the other country, but without such a visa they have to walk the tightrope of visits per unit time and what to say to the border people. And there's magic code words when traveling in support of customers - can do pre-sales support but not post-sales training, even though it can amount to the same thing. And screwing up really makes for a bad day, what with exclusion risk.

    47. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then this is good news, because Canada doesn't have H1-Bs. If that was their way of keeping costs down, it's gone.

    48. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not so. Entry under visa waiver allows you to go to seminar for business.

      Yeah. After getting dragged through shit by the Immigration Officer. Years ago, a company I worked for purchased a US software solution for the Y2K issue. I was sent to Detroit for training. Training on software my Canadian company bought, to use in its Canadian location. 20 minutes arguing with US Immigration that no I wasn't stealing American jobs, I was being trained on software we had purchased to use in Canada. All the guy kept saying was I needed a work visa...to be trained on software we had bought. He finally realized his stupidity and let me through the border but the 20 minutes of grilling was enough to make me want to turn around and go home.

    49. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No fuck you ORANGE MAN BAD! Very bad!

    50. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So by your logic, Trump is the greatest President ever. ...You may be on to something.

    51. Re:Not new really by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Even easier way to fix it, band H1-B visas, job done. No one to fill the position, so fucking what, train someone.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    52. Re: Not new really by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Why set minimum salary for "highly skilled" H1B to the salary of a junior engineer? A salary that has not risen in over a decade, due to that very same importation of cheap indentured labor?

      Instead, let's set a minimum salary for these "highly skilled" imports at $750k base. That won't deter the import of labor with skills that are highly valuable but truly unavailable in the domestic workforce.

      But it will put the brakes on hard for import of indentured servants who just displace domestic workers.

    53. Re:Not new really by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      You have a single data point which only reflects a single group of people. I don't think US companies are desperate to hire more African and Middle Eastern people. Rather educated western workers, and the typical Indian H1Bs are getting caught up in the anti-immigration hysteria. In that regard it's much easier for a qualified white person to get a permit to work in Canada than the USA right now.

    54. Re: Not new really by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Germany was on the brink of bankruptcy at the onset of the war. Basically the war was a necessity so they could avoid being called on their international debt.

      And, well, ya know, today it's no longer really ok to borrow money and then when you can't pay it back try to kill your lender. The IMF kinda frowns upon that.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    55. Re: Not new really by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      And, well, ya know, today it's no longer really ok to borrow money and then when you can't pay it back try to kill your lender. The IMF kinda frowns upon that.

      Seems way more efficient though. And cheaper. Maybe he wasn't all that stupid. How much did we owe saddam and osama? O.o

    56. Re:Not new really by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      That's what you get for going to a shitty liberal ran city. Their unions ran the work out of the state so then the immigration officer dumb as they are feels its his responsibility to chastise people about stealing already gone jobs.

    57. Re: Not new really by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Saddam and Ozzy are mostly former allies that became a liability. Saddam was a useful tool when that towelhead took over Iran along with all that super cool bleeding-edge war gear the US sold to the Shah before. To put it into perspective, until 1979, the Iran was the strongest ally the US had in the middle east. And they stuffed so much military hardware into the country (in exchange for oil, well, you didn't expect those F-14 and Phoenix missiles to be a gift, did ya?) until it had the fourth largest army on the planet. The fourth largest army. Technologically on par with the US. And all that great war gear now in the hands of that mullah. Who is anything but buddy-buddy with the US.

      Waging war there? That would've been WW2 all over again. And since WW2 the US never fought a war against an enemy that had even remotely the same technological level. The bloodshed would have been enormous. So what did the US do? Hire a likable local tinpot dictator of course. That was Saddam. The idea was, they send him some war gear and Saddam wages war against Iran to trash all those nice weapons. And Saddam did as he was ordered. First gulf war, 1980 to 1988. Afterwards, both countries were basically fucked and the Iran's weapon arsenal was no longer a threat.

      Threat?

      Well, yes. To understand this, take a closer look at this map here: Notice something? Well, towelhead isn't towelhead, ya know? There's two (ok, more, but two big) groups of Muslims. Sunnite and Shiite. And they like each other about as much as Catholics liked Protestants about 500 years ago.

      Can you imagine who was a tad bit worried when the Iran was turned into a theocracy AND had a bigger weapon arsenal than the rest of the Arab world combined? That Red Sea isn't that wide and modern planes can easily cross it...

      But I digress. Anyway, Saddam was a useful tool to trash that stockpile of weapons. But when he noticed that he can't get in (well, duh...) and turned around to invade Qatar, that wasn't part of the deal. So just like the Iran, he turned from best buddy to armpit of evil over night.

      Similar with Ozzy. He was pretty useful back when he and his religious fanatics fought Soviets in Afghanistan. The US bankrolled him and shoved weapons his way. Remember Rambo III? Remember the original ending credit crawl? If not, here's a quick reminder. It changed when Osama found out that he's been had and decided to turn against the US when he found out that he was simply used as a convenient idiot to do the US' dirty work.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    58. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It is not new. However, the Title is a click bait. If you really go to TFA, you will find that the survey concluded that "Companies are targeting Canada as a future talent hub based, in part, on its immigration policies" which is NOT the same as "US companies are moving tech jobs to Canada." The conclusion comes from 65% saying "yes" and 17% saying "maybe" to the question. The survey question is about HALF WAY down the page.

    59. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      US-ians

      Stop being a fucking faggot. The demonym for people from the United States of America is Americans.

    60. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit

    61. Re:Not new really by mjwx · · Score: 1

      3. Keep out them damn immigrants
      Favorite source of conservative fear-mongering supported by thinks tanks like CIS
      Net result: increased costs for consumers and increased off-shoring of tech jobs (as demonstrated in this article)

      Told you so (not you OP, the royal you).

      In 2017 when they said Trump was "gunna get the immagrunts out and bring jobs back for real 'Merkins", I said that the jobs themselves will be sent offshore. Well, that's happening isn't it.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    62. Re: Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and thatâ(TM)s as it should be!

    63. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the plus side, there is much less shit and terrorists now.

      BA DUM TSSS

    64. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fraud you say? Im shocked!! I was under impression Murica' is full of hardworking, smart people with best brains on the planet.

      How could this happen? Was everyone asleep? Is there no 'basic sanity checks' anymore?

    65. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We'll call you bunch of pussy snowflake fishcunt USians whatever we like!

      - The rest of the world

    66. Re:Not new really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's resident coprophage is easily triggered.

    67. Re:Not new really by djinn6 · · Score: 1

      Really, if you want to fix the H1-B "problem", just set a minimum salary requirement (including bonus, equity, etc.) of $150K.

      Better yet, just have them pay a $250k one-time tax per immigrant.

      Oh and give them green cards after 2 years. That way they can't be exploited to depress local wages.

  3. Tech Companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will screw Americans any which way they can.

  4. Yay, let's celebrate shitty companies outsourcing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cmon - you hate trump, this is a great time to rejoice in a few shitty companies outsourcing.

    Either they are cost cutting, or they have to deal with record low unemployment. Go figure.

  5. More advantages by dskoll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Also, the corporate tax rate in Canada is very competitive, and health care premiums are much, much lower thanks to universal single-payer health care. Plus, if your income is in USD but your salaries are in CAD, you get a nice little boost.

    1. Re:More advantages by Pulzar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      and health care premiums are much, much lower thanks to universal single-payer health care

      What health premiums?

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    2. Re: More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      British Columbia for example has monthly premiums for MSP.

    3. Re: More advantages by Pulzar · · Score: 1

      Do businesses cover those premiums for employees?

      --
      Never underestimate the bandwidth of a 747 filled with CD-ROMs.
    4. Re:More advantages by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a Canadian, I can confidently state that we do, in fact, have to pay health premiums.

      In many cases, they are paid for by the employer, but where they are not, they still exist.

      Here in BC, a person can spend up to about $40/month on health premiums.

    5. Re:More advantages by FictionPimp · · Score: 2

      I'd gladly pay double, it would still be a giant savings for me. I pay $200 every 2 weeks.

    6. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't do your own taxes, do you?

      These premiums, right here: https://www.ontario.ca/page/health-premium

      That's for Ontario. I'm pretty sure most provinces have their own.

    7. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And let's not forget how the wages for skilled labour in Canada is much lower than in the USA too. A real badge of honour for sure.

    8. Re:More advantages by MooseTick · · Score: 2

      "Here in BC, a person can spend up to about $40/month on health premiums."

      Most Americans would wet their pants to only pay $40/month for health premiums.

    9. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In the US some of us with existing conditions are paying up to $4,000 per month, and that insurance will actually only pay a small amount of hospital bills and such even after large deductibles and co-pays.

    10. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dental, Vision, Enhanced Care (eg: Semi-private room instead of the ward), Ambulance, Prescription, Medical "Services" (doctors notes, prescription notes, etc), Medical "Parts" (casts), Experimental Care (eg: Experimental Cancer Therapy), Income Insurance while Sick/Disabled, Mental Health Services, etc.

      None of those are covered in Canada unless you're making a ridiculously low (or no) wage. Basically, Canada covers you if you are having a heart attack or break your arm (but not for the cast, that's $$$). Hopefully it happens in the ER, though, because that Ambulance ride ain't cheap.

      Typical family fees are $200 a month for these extra provisions and many employers don't offer their plans for free and deduct from wages. Yes that's less than the US prices, though the average person contributes about $4000 a year in taxes in top of this towards our medical system.

    11. Re: More advantages by mark-t · · Score: 2

      Depends on the employer. If you have a full time job that doesn't pay very much, then you might be eligible for free coverage... but you still have to apply for it, and you have to regularly reapply.

      The premiums are based on a person's net income and in my view are not cost prohibitive for a person that is earning those amounts, even if their employer doesn't cover them.

    12. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Our health premiums will be paid entirely by our employers as of 2020. 2019 is the last year we'll pay for health premiums ourselves in BC.

    13. Re:More advantages by mark-t · · Score: 1

      For now... honestly, I'm not holding out much optimism that will last more than 5 or so years.

      Don't get me wrong though... I'd love to be proved wrong here. I'm just saying what I think will happen.

    14. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Well, that's because Canadians already pay almost $4000 a year to the government, which takes its cut and then pays the health companies on behalf of that worker. For a family of four, it's about $12,000 in "free" health-care taxes.

      The average US worker pays about $2200 a year, or $5000 a year for a family of four.

    15. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The ones hidden in General government revenue, then shuffled back and forth between Federal and Provincial governments so you don't actually know what they are.

    16. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Informative

      You're ahead of a lot of people in Canada who pay for private health insurance to cover what isn't covered by universal healthcare up here. So, drugs, dental, vision, hearing, any type of medical equipment and so on. None of that's covered, and to be covered you have to be either a senior or on disability. I know people who pay $200/mo, and only get $700 in drug coverage(70% covered) and glasses every 2-years. In bad years, that $700 doesn't last more than half a year for them.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    17. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Most Americans would wet their pants to only pay $40/month for health premiums.

      BC is an odd province out. If you lived in Alberta, traveling 6hrs to see a specialist or being flown out to a major city is the norm for any type of critical care. In Ontario, traveling 2-5hrs for a specialist is common. $40 sounds great to even those of us in Ontario, especially since most people spend $200-400/per-person in private health insurance to cover drugs alone. That's on top of the money that's already being paid for it via taxes. Figure in Ontario you're blowing around 50% of your income on taxes right out of the gate. And you sure don't see much for it.

      But the real question is, how many Americans are willing to wait 2yrs for cataract surgery? Or 4 months to start cancer treatment? Cause those aren't outside a norm in Ontario either.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    18. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm so glad the U.S. is perfect.

    19. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem with saying "Canada", is that each province is different.

      For example in Quebec, by law everyone must have pharmacare.

      http://www4.gouv.qc.ca/EN/Portail/Citoyens/Evenements/aines/Pages/inscription-regime-public-medicaments.aspx

      Right now, that can be private insurance. However, I'm a contractor -- self employed, non-incorporated. In this case? I must take the state plan.

      How it works, is that each month I get prescription drugs? I pay $20, and then receive a hefty discount on what I buy. Yet I don't pay, in months I don't need it!

      And seniors are automatically subscribed.

      So yes Canada does have a public plan -- in some places.

    20. Re:More advantages by Shaitan · · Score: 1

      That is extremely misleading. There is a very drastic difference between what a worker pays for health care and what they pay for health insurance and you are conflating the two. The Canadian is paying the bottom line figure with no bill when they receive care.

      The health insurance $4000/yr will get you right now usually carries a several thousand dollar deductible, has a whole slew of exclusions, and generally only pays at 80-90% on what is covered. Which would put the real costs paid per year in the US at least 4 fold as high. One broken bone, surgery, or hospital stay required would put an individual at or above the $16k figure.

    21. Re: More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yet people have no problem paying it. Something must be working.

    22. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Canada's corporate tax rate is competitive to US companies because you can pay in USD. Which right now slashes 30% off your costs 1CAD=0.71USD right now. But that didn't really help here in Ontario. Now the question is why? Because electricity is expensive, for businesses you're paying around 4x the rate of Michigan or New York. If you were manufacturing the previous government implemented tax rates that were punitive to anything but the service industry, enough so that companies with massive data centers in the 101 Front St.(Toronto) area were considering moves to Montreal, Quebec City and US states.

      Healthcare premiums can be all over the place, go hit greenshield.ca if you want. They do look attractive to most Americans, but remember you're blowing 50% of your income on taxes. It can be almost 60% if you live in Toronto or Ottawa. And while you think that your USD to CAD will get a boost? Maybe, but that really depends on where you live. Even at that I don't see many Americans wanting to line up for 2lbs of beef for $7 which is the norm in most of Ontario. Sometimes you can get it for half that on sale.

      If you're wondering what 'normal' food costs are? Check Zehrs which is one of the largest chains, their discount chain is nofrills or Independent.

      To give a good breakdown, I recommend using the following cities: Toronto and Ottawa(highest cost). Waterloo and Kitchener(medium-to-high costs). London, Windsor, and Kingston(low-to-high costs) Woodstock, Sarnia, Barrie(low cost to medium costs). That'll put you in where 90% of the province of Ontario lives, and roughly 50% of the population of Canada.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    23. Re: More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Yet people have no problem paying it. Something must be working.

      People don't have a problem paying it? Strange. I must have missed the last few years when the government banned wintertime electrical disconnection for fear of people freezing to death. Or the numerous charities, food banks, and organizations like the sally ann are being used or broke at not a level seen since 1979-1980. ~10 years ago during the housing crash, food banks were at roughly 1988 levels of use. It was bad, it's gotten worse especially in the last 3 years that wages have stayed flat while the cost of goods have jumped 10-20%

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    24. Re:More advantages by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I can confidently state that we do, in fact, have to pay health premiums.

      In many cases, they are paid for by the employer, but where they are not, they still exist.

      Here in BC, a person can spend up to about $40/month on health premiums.

      Back in my day it was $36. Outrageous how much health care increases are! 10 percent increase ... that could buy you a double double!

      Is it still $5 for an overnight hospital stay?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    25. Re:More advantages by burtosis · · Score: 1

      But the real question is, how many Americans are willing to wait 2yrs for cataract surgery? Or 4 months to start cancer treatment? Cause those aren't outside a norm in Ontario either.

      People in the states already have excessive waits. We have death panels also, they are insurance companies that deny coverage. Plus, don't complain about medication when it's about double or more for the same meds and expensive insurance still has large deductibles and pays only a portion of the cost. It's sad when people have to go to Canada and Mexico for medications and treatments because in many cases paying directly is cheaper than in the states with coverage.

    26. Re:More advantages by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

      Aren't drug prices subsidised too? In the UK there is a fixed cost per prescription, about â10. That is usually a month's worth of drugs. You get medical equipment for free too, they will even come and modify your house to your needs if necessary.

      What we pay is based in earnings and hard to calculate as it's rolled up with other social security items, but it's affordable and free for those on lower incomes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    27. Re:More advantages by fatwilbur · · Score: 2

      I had a parent (in Canada) diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and started treatment within the week.

      There will always be the need for some sort of system in place to allocate limited health care resources; demand always outstrips supply. In the US, the queue of first to last is determined by who has the most money, as opposed to who has the greatest need. Up to you to debate which is the better approach.

      Like it or not, if you were told to wait 4 months to start cancer treatment, it is because you do not need treatment for at least 4 months (eg. low-grade prostate cancer), and there is someone in a much more dire situation who needs those resources more urgently than you. It's just that no one likes being told they're problem isn't urgent and they need to wait - we all want to be first in line. Reminds me of the sign I saw at a hospital emergency center desk, something along the lines of: "You should be very, very happy if you are asked to wait instead of being rushed in to be seen first."

    28. Re: More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are being phased out in 2020 in BC. I believe that no other provinces charge premiums.

    29. Re:More advantages by Can'tNot · · Score: 1

      If you're not Canadian and not paying Canadian taxes then you have to buy health insurance. When was there as a student it was something like ~$900 / year.

    30. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you lived in Alberta, traveling 6hrs to see a specialist or being flown out to a major city is the norm for any type of critical care"

      You realize there are two major cities in Alberta and over half the provincial population lives in them, yes? So it can't really be the "norm" for people to travel 6 hours to get to one.

      I'm really curious to know where you got that "most people pay $200-$400/per person to cover drugs alone" statistic also. The average per capita spend on prescribed medications in Canada is $909 per year, of which $388 is covered by the public sector, $333 is private insurance, and $188 is out of pocket. I guess if your "$200-$400" is per year then it kind of lines up with the private insurance/out of pocket costs, but that doesn't really square with the $40 per month you're comparing it to.

      About 72% of healthcare costs are paid for in Canada by the public sector; the private sector picks up the other 28%. So yes, actually, you do reap significant benefits from tax-funded health care.

    31. Re:More advantages by GregMmm · · Score: 1

      Funny, read a story how Canada can't keep tech employees since they get payed a lot less than US employees. I hope the Canadian Tech workers are keeping track of the numbers in the article. This will NOT make it better for Canadian employees, it will drive down wages even more.

      It always looks great to economists and investors, but not for employees.

      US is making the correct move, Canada is just the new landing spot. Enjoy!

    32. Re:More advantages by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "affordable and free for those on lower incomes" depends on the decade the medical product was released and what it costs in 2019.
      Think it as a list of approved prescriptions. Nations add lower cost medical products every year to an approved list.
      So its not every new advancement in medal care that's going to be make it to a nations approved prescription list every year.
      Canada can talk about new lower cost bulk purchases for all Canadians of some needed medical products.
      Canada can make people pay for each use.
      Wait for the cost to become lower and only then approve the medical care.
      Then do a bulk purchases when the price drops.
      That how nations "subsidised" "free" health care. Lists of what is approved, what decade and for how much.
      Any advanced nations health care plan can only pay for so much every year and can only bring in so many products and services.
      To reduce costs the nations can:
      Select from some products.
      Not approve expensive new products.
      The costs to the nation then drop but people can only select from a set list of products and services.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    33. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a big stretch to say nearly 50% of Canada lives in Ontario, but it is over 1/3.

      Seems like you haven't really been outside of Ontario though. Canada is a pretty big country, with some significant differences between the provinces. Of course, the stereotype in Ontario (especially Toronto) is that they have no idea about anything outside of their borders.

    34. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Aren't drug prices subsidised too? In the UK there is a fixed cost per prescription, about Ã10. That is usually a month's worth of drugs. You get medical equipment for free too, they will even come and modify your house to your needs if necessary.

      No. Drug prices vary by province, but not by a huge amount. The differences are usually due to distribution costs or pharmacy dispensing costs. Rather instead of subsidizing it, the entire country(all provinces, territories, and federal government) buy for the entire country at a flat rate. The projected costs are based on year-on-year trends for the demand of the drugs required for the amount of users. We don't get our medical equipment free, crutches are $39 at my local hospital if you're wondering.

      Most people pay with their supplemental insurance for it, and nobody comes to modify your house. You pay for that, if it's a fundamentally life changing thing like a stroke? You're better off selling your old property and buying something new. You may be covered to have someone help take care of you, but in general your family is the one who's doing all the hard work.

      Give you an example from the full rundown, diagnostics, costs, everything. When my grandmother was diagnosed with stage 4 lung cancer, the first doctor diagnosing was a ER doctor because she coughed up blood. From there it was 11 days to see her family doctor. 39 days to see her specialist. 40 days to meet with the oncologist, 15 days to start targeted radiation therapy. The doctors and oncologist remarked at the fast turn around time and asked if she knew someone "high up the chain" who might have bumped her name for faster treatment. Most people wait double. She was a head nurse, nursing teacher, and had a bunch of other certifications so maybe someone did, but if they did - we didn't know about it.

      For her treatment, we drove 51km one-way. Luckily her residence was "far enough away" that the VON(Victorian Order of Nurses - The VON is a not-for-profit care program, and is mainly funded by donations) which operated a hospice, and took patients to the treatment center would take her on. After that treatment, she was cut loose by the system until her care became so bad that family could no longer take care of her. That was around 9 months of pure hell with degrading health, memory, and various bouts of cancer and drug induced dementia of me taking care of her because both my dad and uncle worked between 40 and 50hrs/week and had no room in their houses, or because it wasn't very good to have a person who couldn't keep their balance walk up or downstairs for a bathroom. Her planning a head, before that she put herself on the list for a nursing home. The average wait time is 4 years, luckily or unluckily someone died and because she was already in the "last 6mo of estimated life" they got her in. She was in there for 3 weeks before she took an even harder turn. The hospital had no room for long term care for the last 6mo. Rather it was the VON again, who had space in a end-of-life hospice care facility. That was the last 27 days of her life.

      The state of care for end-of-life is pretty shit. It's shit enough that the government offers "escape" programs for people where a nurse comes in for a couple of days so you can bug the hell out, and try not to have a complete breakdown.

      What we pay is based in earnings and hard to calculate as it's rolled up with other social security items, but it's affordable and free for those on lower incomes.

      You pay pretty much for everything unless you're old age or on disability here. What is considered "critical care" is mostly covered, but there's plenty of people who go financially broke from the secondary costs of healthcare. And the 'safety net' is really your family.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    35. Re: More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tech companies do. And provide supplemental insurance for everything public health care doesn't cover, like dental, drugs, vision, and disability insurance.

    36. Re: More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BC is bringing in an employment tax to replace it, though, which will disproportionately hit tech employers as it is indexed. We will effectively pay much more than we used to even further subsidize non-workers.

    37. Re: More advantages by dskoll · · Score: 1

      Most employers offer supplemental health insurance for things that the province doesn't cover. Some provinces such as Ontario also charge an employer health tax. But as I wrote, these are far lower than what US companies and employees would pay for health insurance.

    38. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      People in the states already have excessive waits. We have death panels also, they are insurance companies that deny coverage.

      I suppose that depends on what you define as "excessive waits" you can see Ontario's wait list here. I don't know many people who if they had the option would wait 4mo for cancer treatment to start - that's after seeing a specialist. Especially 4mo is plenty of time where treatable becomes unrepeatable. Yes, we also have death panels here they're called the government. With the passage of "compassionate death" options, they'll even try to force you to kill yourself. There's a few people currently fighting the federal government over this, because even though they're terminal they have no desire to kill themselves.

      Plus, don't complain about medication when it's about double or more for the same meds and expensive insurance still has large deductibles and pays only a portion of the cost. It's sad when people have to go to Canada and Mexico for medications and treatments because in many cases paying directly is cheaper than in the states with coverage.

      The US has a bigger problem that instead of leveraging their buying power, they piss it into the wind. Ask yourself why at state levels they don't get together and buy? That's what Canada does. And people don't come to Canada for healthcare unless they're so damned poor in the US that they either enter illegally and commit healthcare fraud, or it's one of the extremely rare not-for-profit centers that does treatment. There was a rather big shitshow a few years ago about the private hernia treatment center and the government trying to shut it down. Seriously, you wait for nearly everything. If you're lucky, you might live in a city where you can get same-day CT scans - if you're lucky. Xrays are same day in most cases, but not always. MRI? You're waiting, most people wait 1-3mo.

      Need a pain clinic? Good luck. The opioid 'crisis' means that doctors who operated them have said "fuck this shit if we can't listen to patients and prescribe based on experience and what they're telling us. We're quitting." Oh and that's not even starting on some of the really big shit, like telling doctors that they have to operate a practice and do hospital rounds - oh but they're not going to pay you for the hospital rounds. You can do them for free and like it(Wonder why the previous government in Ontario can now fit into a dodge minivan?). My neurologist who's in the GTA(I drive ~180km one-way every 3mo for a checkup, migraines and treatment from when I broke my back in two places), gives an estimate of 18 months for them in her area. My local GP? Ah shit. Well if you're lucky enough to have one, it's around 29 months to a pain clinic. I know people who've been waiting 10 years for a family doctor.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    39. Re: More advantages by dskoll · · Score: 1

      So let me get this straight: more companies competing for tech workers in Canada will drive down wages? Economics 101 fail...

    40. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      That only holds out as long as money is flowing in, and the government can be openly loaned money. But you're paying for it now in deficits, and BC has a serious government debt problem. Not anywhere near as bad as Ontario, which is around Greece levels of gigantic fuckups.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    41. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for your reply, mashiki comes across like some 'merican pretending to be Canadian and defaming their health care system. There is not a single, widely disproven, alternate fact about Canadian healthcare which they will not claim happened to themselves.

    42. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I had a parent (in Canada) diagnosed with an aggressive cancer and started treatment within the week.

      "Where" in Canada is the important thing to start with. Because even aggressive cancers can still mean waiting a month. To give you an example, my sister works in a part of Alberta where they have a doctor every 3 days. They fly in, but her community isn't considered remote, not even close to it.

      Like it or not, if you were told to wait 4 months to start cancer treatment, it is because you do not need treatment for at least 4 months (eg. low-grade prostate cancer), and there is someone in a much more dire situation who needs those resources more urgently than you. It's just that no one likes being told they're problem isn't urgent and they need to wait - we all want to be first in line. Reminds me of the sign I saw at a hospital emergency center desk, something along the lines of: "You should be very, very happy if you are asked to wait instead of being rushed in to be seen first."

      You should tell that to my criminal law professor who was diagnosed with extremely aggressive prostate cancer. He waited 68 days to start treatment, he lives around 18km outside of London, Ontario. London, if you're unfamiliar with it has one of the largest healthcare centers in Canada for child and adult care outside of the GTA. That was only 6 years ago, it's gotten worse since then. Enough so that doctors, specialists, along with the union that represents them, were openly protesting the state of the healthcare system and calling on the federal government to intervene.

      Yeah well, think of it this way. In Ontario, in the emergency room. If it's a medical emergency like say with testicular torsion or surgery requiring immediate heart surgery you could still end up waiting a couple of hours or longer, unless they can get another hospital to pick you up and they either fly you there or get an ambulance to do it faster. Give you an example, a friend of mine's wife had a serious heart problem. Went to our local hospital, they could get no surgeons to work on her. They flew her to K/W Regional and had her chest cracked open in 4 hours. She'd already been waiting 5 hours at the local emergency for a surgeon to become available.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    43. Re: More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Companies pay a health premium in Canada. Simple Google search shows that this is 1-2% of salary.

    44. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I assume people are aware that co-pays in the US system can be 10's or 100's per visit? And that monthly health insurance can run $1k or more (80/20 employer paid with good, full-time employment). And drug coverage is spotty. Those lacking full-time, well-paying jobs outside of Massachusetts do their best trying to pick up ACS coverage, or run barefoot.

    45. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live/work in both Ottawa and Montreal and am blowing like 38-45% of my salary on all taxes and fees. Maybe Toronto is higher, but Quebec's not cheap. Yeah, provincial taxes are high, but US Social Security is far higher than Canadian (you get more) and this makes up a lot of the difference. Better deductions, taxes are filed individually rather than joint. Overall, it's been comparable to living in places like California.

    46. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in the US they would just let you die in the street. Try and have some perspective.
      Every time i have had a critical medical issue i have been dealt with in a timely manner. I usually wait about 4 hours in the ER if i have to go there, and they usually do a great job sewing me up or diagnosing my problem.

      End of life isn't pretty for anyone without a lot of money and support. I think thats probably true in every country. I know what you are saying, that we should always look for ways to improve. But comparing it to america where they might charge you 3k for a hospital visit, and their outrageous drug prices, i can't imagine anyone would prefer that system.

      Like it or not, most of elder care does fall upon the family, unless you can pay to outsource that. I wen't through it to, but really who cares about your old dying relatives but you? To everyone else they are simply a burden, which they kind of are at that point in life when everything is failing.

      We spend more treating people in the last 6 months of life than at any other time in their lives.

    47. Re: More advantages by astrofurter · · Score: 1

      Better to have basic medical services for all, than advanced medical services for the few while the sick masses are unable to see a doctor.

      A ruling class that has achieved universal health coverage for the masses, deserves advanced medicine for its members. A ruling class that willingly lets its countrymen suffer without medical attention, deserves nothing at all. With power comes responsibility.

    48. Re:More advantages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      They're not subsidized. What happens is the Canadian government plans what they need and buy it in bulk. This gives them a lot of sway to negotiate prices. The American government just throws you to the wolves by comparison.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    49. Re:More advantages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Wait are for people who don't need the surgery right away. We've been through cancer twice and there was no wait, trust me. Sometimes when people have a knee that hurts they complain loudly but really they don't *need* the surgery right away.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    50. Re:More advantages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Let me back you up.. two cancers, both treated in the next week. Canada has top cancer treatment. Some cancers are slow moving or not much can be done about them to make them better, those ones wait longer.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    51. Re: More advantages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      No they're coming here to import workers foreign to Canada, so this doesn't help Canadian workers either.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    52. Re:More advantages by mjwx · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian, I can confidently state that we do, in fact, have to pay health premiums.

      In many cases, they are paid for by the employer, but where they are not, they still exist.

      Here in BC, a person can spend up to about $40/month on health premiums.

      I'm guessing Canada is a lot like the UK where the state provided single payer system provides all your health necessities, but not any of the optional stuff like private rooms in hospitals, elective procedures, et al. which can be insured privately. Strangely enough, for a much lower sum than essential health care in countries without a single payer system.

      It's not unusual for a UK employer to include health insurance beyond the NHS provisions as a perk for it's employees... But the NHS is still there so I'm not subservient to my employer for basic medical care.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    53. Re: More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about?!? Employees pay ~$14000 for HC for family. The employee pays ~$2-5k of that depending on the option chosen. The employer pays the rest (indirectly and a little less if they maintain a high payout balance or directly if they don't). And you still have copays, $12k maximums out of pocket, and in/out of network facilities!!

      And before Obamacare, people who weren't employed paid more than that PER PERSON and it would not cover pre-existing conditions. And if they were sick, couldn't even get insurance.

      The American health insurance market is almost a text book example of how it should NEVER be setup. They debate "high risk" vs "low risk" groups for Christ's sake. Think about that for a minute. Let's put all the people who have a lot of healthcare needs and have them pay the higher fees for it. They couldn't afford it individually but someone their collective can... Insurance is about pooling monies to pay for one member of the group when they need it. You can't do that when half the members need it.

    54. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck you commie

    55. Re:More advantages by terrycarlino · · Score: 1

      Most people won't admit it's a mixed bag. If you have good insurance in the U.S. you get better service for many types of treatment, but it might cost you more. I had no wait for my cataract surgery, but it cost me an extra $7000 to get the high tech multifocal lense that my insurance wouldn't cover. Are those lenses even available in Canada, and are they covered by health care?

      I have a great drug plan. I get my meds for free because I'm a retired veteran. If I had to pay for them I know I would be paying less for most of them if I was in Canada.

      Conversely I can see a specialist just about instantly, sometimes in just a day. I know that's not the case in most of the provinces.

      I also wonder how much of a problem Canada has getting doctors to work in the system. I have no idea what a Canadian doctor makes, but I know that UK doctors make between $60,000- $120,000 (equivalent). While a U.S. doctor might make that while they are in training. A fully trained family practitioner in the U.S starts at $189,000. Most specialist make $330,000. A doctor with their own practice is probably a millionaire.

      I know one of the Brexit problems is that the UK get a lot of doctors from outside because the pay sucks for a profession that requires +16 years of school and 3-7 more years of OJT.

    56. Re:More advantages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      n the UK there is a fixed cost per prescription, about â10.

      Currently GBP9 per item.

      Worth noting also that if you don't qualify for free prescriptions, for GBP104 per year you can get a prescription prepayment card which covers *all* drugs, no matter how many or how expensive, for 1 year. Read it and weep [insert other country's citizens names].

    57. Re:More advantages by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re 'Canadian government plans what they need and buy it in bulk. "
      That has to fall within a budget every year.
      Thats not for all the new advances in medical care.
      Only what the budget will cover that year. For all the existing products needed that year and a few new treatments approved for use.
      Thats how "buy it in bulk" works. A limited list of products. A few new products.
      Got a condition that needs a new treatment? Try existing services.
      Got a rare condition that needs treatment? Back to a list of existing products.
      The "need and buy it in bulk" is a rationing system to give most people access to a list of approved products at a set price.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    58. Re:More advantages by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re covers *all* drugs.
      Thats all approved medical care in that nation. Its more of a price protection. The poor to get approved care in that nation.
      Not a way of getting low cost access to new advances in medical care.
      Got a few decades of medicine delivered in bulk on an approved list? Thats easy to cover as a list of *all* approved drugs in that nation AC.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    59. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      The official wait list times state that people absolutely do wait. The average time for brain cancer is around 50 days in Toronto, that's class 3 and 4(serious and not serious). The wait time for time-critical can still be as long as 21 days(class 2 and 1).

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    60. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Let me back you up.. two cancers, both treated in the next week. Canada has top cancer treatment. Some cancers are slow moving or not much can be done about them to make them better, those ones wait longer.

      And the person who waits 68 days for melanoma treatment is feelin' pretty good by that time too. You bother checking the wait times in Ontario yet? There's a reason why a website exists for tracking treatment, because ~15 years ago it was so bad here that the current state of healthcare was as bad as it is in Alberta now. I agree, it's gotten far better. That doesn't mean I enjoyed waiting 6 months to have the cancer cut out of my hand either, luckily in my case it had only started eating into the bone and other tests showed clear reading. And as the doc said, if they'd removed it 3 months prior we wouldn't have to be considering either chemo or targeted radiation therapy. I went for targeted and get screened every 6mo, and have been technically in remission for ~14 years. But tell that to someone in their 20's, when things are just starting out? That's pretty fucking devastating.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    61. Re:More advantages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Thats not for all the new advances in medical care.

      No, but it's all the new advantages that make a difference to recovery. There is a lot that they don't buy because it's a new more expensive way to do an old thing and it doesn't make recovery better. If it is a truly rare condition that is only treated in the US, they send people to the US. It happens all the time. As for a budget.. who cares. Budgeting is good and I always get my meds.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    62. Re:More advantages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      I'd check your sources. My wife has had cancer twice in a much smaller place than Toronto and surgery was the next week. Possibly there is a lot of preparation required for brain cancer.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    63. Re:More advantages by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Re "If it is a truly rare condition that is only treated in the US, they send people to the US."
      Most nations will not have their gov pay that for every condition.
      Re "expensive way to do an old thing"
      Nations will not import and approve the needed advanced US products.
      People are left with no treatment. Recovery would need the new medical care.
      Old products approved decades ago don't always work with every condition.
      Thats the limitation of holding back new services and not allowing new services to be approved.
      Finally approving and paying for a product that works well many years and decades later.

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    64. Re:More advantages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Why do you think nations won't import "needed US products"? If there is something that life saving only in the US, they send people to the US.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    65. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      I'd check your sources. My wife has had cancer twice in a much smaller place than Toronto and surgery was the next week. Possibly there is a lot of preparation required for brain cancer.

      My sources are the governments own sources, and estimated wait times and resolution times. I've already posted them, let me put it to you this way. Those numbers are "good enough" that under the federal health care act they're one of the reasons why the feds *didn't* step in to manage Ontario's healthcare system when it was implemented all those years ago.

      It's much easier to have treatment in a hospital system smaller than Toronto. In Canada, the healthcare system doesn't get any bigger than Toronto. Not even the federal healthcare system which covers all natives, territories, and military personal.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    66. Re:More advantages by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      And in the US they would just let you die in the street. Try and have some perspective.

      And in Canada, they let you die in the ambulance because the ER is closed due to healthcare cuts, if you simply didn't rot in a hallway. Try to think a bit further along then the entire line of bullshit you've just posed.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    67. Re:More advantages by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      If you lived in Alberta, traveling 6hrs to see a specialist or being flown out to a major city is the norm for any type of critical care. In Ontario, traveling 2-5hrs for a specialist is common.

      Canada's really big, and almost no one lives there. There are only five major metropolitan areas with a million or more people, and only 10 with half a million or more (including those five with over a million). And they're spread across the entire breadth of the continent. Your problem with access to specialists is a problem of demographics and geography, not politics or economy. As such, they're probably unsolvable.

  6. Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I know it's hip & trendy to blame Trump for everything under the sun, these movements have been happening for longer than he has been in office. Ex: https://www.geekwire.com/2016/trudeau-speak-opening-microsoft-vancouver-facility/

    1. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it is a clear trend and Trump has been in power for two years he is to blame for not acting accordingly.

    2. Re:Thanks Obama! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember the last Microsoft office that opened in Vancouver. This is much of the draw for Canada becoming a tech hub. Our governments have no problem selling us out. There's a reason tech wages in Canada are a fraction of what they are in the US.

      The freedom of information documents, given to CBC News by a third party who works in the industry, reveal Microsoft Canada initially promised that only **20 of those 400 new jobs — or five per cent — would go to Canadians.** The documents also suggest that, through a variety of programs including the controversial Temporary Foreign Worker program (TFWP), the majority of the new workers would come from abroad

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/microsoft-s-new-b-c-workforce-to-consist-mostly-of-foreigners-draft-plan-1.2990462

  7. So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers... by SuperKendall · · Score: 3, Informative

    Seems like, if companies have a lot of demand for workers, and it's harder to reign in foreign workers, that it's good news for legal U.S. workers already here...

    Some things may be moving to Canada but even the summary sure made it look as if the tech market in the U.S. was still growing also. Which you'd honestly expect.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Healthcare too by rsilvergun · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I've lost jobs to Canadian outsourcing because companies didn't want to deal with our screwed up healthcare system. One of the worst/best was when a US based insurance company moved it's call center operations to Canada.

    That said, if this really is just H1-Bs shifting to Canada I find it really hard to care. I couldn't have gotten those jobs anyway and to be blunt I see very, very little of the benefits from immigration here in America. Without robust set of programs to take advantage of those economic wealth generated it's all just money going to the top. Even small businesses can be hurt since they're left to compete with companies that can hire engineers for less money (though it's debatable whether wage depression brought on by the influx of cheap labor offsets that).

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:Healthcare too by sinij · · Score: 1

      Canada has robust merit-based immigration system but makes it very difficult to sponsor people for non-immigrant visas like H1B in US. As such, shifting jobs to Canada isn't about being able to import more cheap programmers from India.

    2. Re:Healthcare too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I've lost jobs to Canadian outsourcing"

      Then you aren't very talented at all. There are a fuckton of jobs right now for people moderately skilled. If you got outsourced you have a junior level skillset.

    3. Re:Healthcare too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I see very, very little of the benefits from immigration here in America. "

      Now you are a real American! - Every Native American ever.

    4. Re:Healthcare too by RalphSlate · · Score: 2

      I don't think Canada messes around with a "worker in purgatory" program like H1-B (where, if you don't follow the employer's wishes, you get let go, and have to return to your home country since it is hard to get another employer to sponsor you on short notice). Canada just allows more skilled workers to become legal immigrants right away.

      That is what the US should be doing. When the immigrants get a green card, they then lack restrictions which allow them to be exploited. Allowing them to participate in the job market - where they can do what everyone else does, switch jobs to get a raise - blunts any major impact they have on everyone else's salary. At that point their impact on the job market is only the fact that they are just another worker - no different from a newly-minted college graduate, or anyone else who learns to code and throws his or her hat in the job market ring.

      The benefit of immigrants is that they add demand to the US economy. Demand is demand, no matter where it is from. If you're living in Podunk, USA, and your company says "we need to ramp up. We can either hire 1,000 immigrants from China and India and get them settled in Podunk, or we can move the work to Canada and put those 1,000 immigrants there", if you're living in Podunk, and Podunk has a lot of empty storefronts, you're going to want those immigrants.

      Companies like TATA and Cognizent are the main problems; they bring in the H1-B workers but pay them really badly by US standards, because they can't easily switch jobs. Seems like they have replaced the Anderson Consulting model of hiring college grads, who at least got decent pay which was governed by their ability to switch jobs.

    5. Re:Healthcare too by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      Doesn't apply to TFW's just a heads up. And if a company can lie it's way through to get a TFW, you can bet your ass that they will. The best way to think of the TFW program is to think H1B's on steroids. Instead of just applying to a particular sector, or job area. A company can hire a TFW for anything, min wage to highly skilled. Out in Alberta during the big oil rush, at least one company laid off of hundreds of skilled trades(welders, mechanics, pipe fitters, etc) and then hired TFW's as replacements. It's happened at big companies like Caterpillar and TD-Canada Trust and Bank of Montreal too.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  9. Tow problems wit that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    One problem is that there is no shortage of highly skilled workers in the U.S., only a shortage of highly skilled workers who will take a job at minimum wage!
    And the longer we have Traitor Trump and his criminal republican party screwing things up here, the better a move to Canada looks!

    1. Re: Tow problems wit that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Check your brain. Trump is the best you can get to stem the flow of slave labour for the Dollarsoft Incs.

  10. You mean "enforcing the law"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you don't like the law, get it changed.

    Don't create bogus "sanctuary cities".

    How are you going to like it when "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" ignore your fucking gun control laws?

    It's already starting - and "progressives" are the side that thinks "Gunz is skeeeery!"

    Or maybe you "progressive" techies like your job security being undermined by cheap illegal immigration or lax H1B visas?

    Oh, NOW you're singing a different tune? Imagine that!

    1. Re:You mean "enforcing the law"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "How are you going to like it when "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" ignore your fucking gun control laws?"

      Well, it's not like some random buttfuck town in Misouri is exactly drowning in tourist dollars anyway.

    2. Re:You mean "enforcing the law"? by jeff4747 · · Score: 0

      Don't create bogus "sanctuary cities".

      Pssst....state law enforcement is not responsible for enforcing federal laws. Even if it isn't a "sanctuary city". Heck, it could be argued that state law enforcement detaining a person on behalf of federal law enforcement is not legal since the person has not broken any state laws, thus denying the state any probable cause.

      How are you going to like it when "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" ignore your fucking gun control laws?

      "2nd Amendment sanctuary city": State law enforcement would not enforce federal gun control laws.
      Rest of the country: State law enforcement.....would not enforce federal gun control laws.....'cause they're state law enforcement.

      Aren't you guys the ones who are supposed to love federalism?

    3. Re:You mean "enforcing the law"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How are you going to like it when "2nd Amendment sanctuaries" ignore your fucking gun control laws?

      I think it's great! What's not to like? Democrats get to satisfy their base by banning guns, and everyone who wants to, gets to keep their guns. Everyone wins. You damn well know it's going to be every bit as successful as marijuana legalization has been. We have seen the way, and it works!

      The way America has been waking up over the last 5 years and giving the finger to higher levels of government has been one of the most exciting, patriotic political movements in my entire lifetime. Counties telling states, and states telling feds, "oh yeah, what are you going to do about it?" is not only exciting, but it's the right direction for affecting political change and sticking it to The Man. Smaller governments having the courage to stand up to bigger governments is how we're going to end up with feds eventually legalizing marijuana and possibly even re-asserting the 2nd amendment some day. (And dare I say, re-assert the 9th and 10th amendments as well?)

      What could be more American? Damn right I love it. Why wouldn't I?!

      Or maybe you "progressive" techies like your job security being undermined by cheap illegal immigration or lax H1B visas?

      I can't speak for progressives, but I'm fine with "job security" being "undermined." I certainly haven't ever promised security to my employer and he never promised anything like that to me, so unless other people have radically-different employment contracts, I think you leftists are totally kidding yourselves about this "security." I think the truth is: there isn't anything to be undermined.

  11. is it really easier to set up operations by layabout · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in another country than it is to hire developers older than 40 and pay them for their skills??

    1. Re:is it really easier to set up operations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is!

      Over-40 cost too much. Every penny I pay them is a penny I can't keep.

      Over-40 workers can't be pressured into working long hours for free. Under-40 can.

      Combine those two and it absolutely makes sense to offshore.

    2. Re:is it really easier to set up operations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Above some size, very much so. Remember, pay is a rate, not an amount - and despite the mythical man month (which seems too rarely understood) getting (to make the numbers easier) 3 times the people for only double the outlay looks like a good deal to an MBA - even though it probably isn't better in real life at all, both due to the extra coordination overhead and the fact that inexpensive labor is often worth less than you pay - even if you pay less.
      Ageism and H1b's have always been all about someone thinking they can get more for their money - it's often proved wrong in the long run, but those guys have grabbed their golden parachutes by then anyway - they're all about the next quarter.
      And there's always some country giving what amounts to a subsidy because they percieve a benefit to themselves. Whether it's the Canadians here, or the Irish or Cayman islands that help companies avoid taxes...same story, different day. There's always some "defector" to get a little benefit by being a little more lax about something. Squeeze it here, it pushes out over there. Our government has never really understood this.

    3. Re:is it really easier to set up operations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you need to support 25 chiefs for every Indian, possibly.

      When I worked for the commonwealth of PA, my department had well over a million dollars of IT management to "manage" less than a quarter million in IT staff. I put "manage" in quotes because these people never set foot in the office, never communicated anything to us, never dialed into calls, never got any of the resources we needed, never even did performance reviews. They would occasionally deign to bark at us about problems they were frequently warned about but always chose to ignore until they were emergencies (like data breaches and service outages) but that was it.

      These morons have effectively stopped all progress. We pay Indians a fortune to write and rewrite the same crap over and over. Over the long run, the capabilities of the state's software would be lucky to stay still, but it actually keeps falling as each batch of Indians is dumber and dumber. To put it in the form of a car analogy, it's leasing vs buying. The person who buys a new car every 5 years, in 30 years ends up with 6 cars. The idiot who leases starts with 1 and ends with 1. So the result is that we never improve efficiency (by creating additional software/features) and we never improve costs (because we're always paying for what we already have). Or maybe you've heard of the broken window theory?

    4. Re:is it really easier to set up operations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on if you can waste the cash doing so for longer than the laborers can hold out before accepting lower wages...

    5. Re:is it really easier to set up operations by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Depends. Are these companies in high tax states such as California or New York? Then the answer is YES!. Texas?? not so much.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    6. Re:is it really easier to set up operations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For big companies, it isn't necessary because they already have operations in Canada.

      For Amazon, it is easy enough to have a position be based in either Seattle or Vancouver.

    7. Re:is it really easier to set up operations by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      No it's not. But it is far easier to condense a complicated legal and economic process down into an ignorant view of what the labour market is about.

  12. Title says one thing, summary says another by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Informative

    The title implies that tech companies are not dealing with the immigration policies. The summary says that they are dealing with them, and dealing with them so well that they are hiring equal or greater numbers of foreign workers. Which is it?

    Let's look at the article and see:

    “Due to a shortage of green cards for workers, many employees find themselves stuck in an immigration process lasting more than a decade. These employees must repeatedly renew their temporary work visas..."

    That problem has existed for >20 years. Much of the article reads the same way:

    ...there aren’t enough skilled Americans...

    ...US companies are hiring outside the US...

    Most of this could have been written in 1995 and nothing would sound different.

    But this is slightly different:

    Recent immigration data shows the US is issuing fewer total visas to these types of workers than in previous years. This is a result of an executive order Trump issued...

    This quote links to an article showing that only 75% of H-1B visa applications are being accepted. But that conflicts with the statement

    Some GOOD news:
    Take a look at the chart in the article showing which companies are getting their Visa's rejected. Microsoft, Amazon, Google -- 99% acceptance. Tata consulting: 78%. Accenture: 69%. Good riddance! Companies like Tata and Accenture are the real abusers of H1-B. These firms just hire as many H1-B applicants as they possibly can, and then find jobs for them later by promising other companies they can do the same job for less, then offshoring the work later. That's a garbage business model and if that's the only companies having trouble than good riddance!

    1. Re:Title says one thing, summary says another by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Most of this could have been written in 1995 and nothing would sound different.

      Indeed. A lot of current problems in the world are not new, however action against them is the result of trendy responses to them or sometimes the straw that broke the camel's back.

  13. Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1, Troll

    Leaving the country is easy when the gov't comes tromping thru the door every year wanting 21% of your profits. Lets fix it, by abolishing the prosperity-killing income taxes. In 1963, with the income taxes only 50 years old at the time, JFK said, "“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.” John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 " He was right.

    The FairTax is a consumption tax that, if enacted, calls for the complete repeal of all income taxes - personal, corporate, capital gains, alternative minimum, gift, estate, self-employment, etc. All of 'em. It replaces them with a consumption tax on new items sold at retail, and services, while giving every legal resident enough money every month in advance, to be able to pay the FairTax on the person's purchases every month up to the poverty level. Poverty level for a single person is about $12K / yr, so every month, that person would get enough money to pay the FairTax on $1K of spending.

    How's that help this? The little thing about repealing the corporate income tax would have those companies, and all the rest of the companies on the planet at least WANTING to move their operations to the USA where they could operate without having their profits stolen by the gov't. Move to Canada? Canada will come tromping thru the door and steal a part of their profits via corporate income taxes. So will pretty much everywhere else in the world. The USA would stand alone in NOT stealing from either its businesses or its people. Nobody would owe a dime of taxes from the start, they would be able to regulate how much tax they pay by regulating how much new goods and services they buy. Don't want to pay taxes on a new car? Buy a somewhat used car. No taxes on the used car. No taxes on the used (existing) house, only taxes if you build a new house. No taxes on the money you make and use for savings, tuition (tuition is treated as an investment), money used to pay your state taxes, car license fees, buying stocks and bonds (again, and investment), and so forth.

    Bottom line is that the USA would be the place to make the biggest profit, because of the lack of at least the Federal gov't tromping thru the door to steal a portion of the business' profits each year. Companies stay. More companies come. Jobs stay. More jobs come. That's what we want, and killing the income taxes dead is the way to do it.

    1. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumption taxes would stagnate the commercial sector.

      Tax all wealth, the more the better.

    2. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You realize that when he said that, the top income tax bracket was a 91% tax. Now it's ~35%. The right solution is raising income taxes on the ultra rich (10M income per year?) to 50% or more, and raising capital gains tax to the same amount to make it so the rich have to give back to the economy rather than buying more private jets.

    3. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The FairTax variety of consumption tax would set the economy afire. Also, Texas has no income taxes and a few years ago, during the economic doldrums of Obama, Texas was creating 1 of every 3 jobs in the country. And, I just bought a new car, and financed it for $484 a month. If I had to pay the FairTax on it, the payments would have been something like, maybe, $200 a month more. But... I paid $8500, approx, for that income tax last year and dividing by 12, that's about $700 a month MORE I'd have in a paycheck. So, I would have far more from abolishing the income tax than I'd be spending extra for this particular consumption tax. And of course I'd have had the option of buying a slightly used car and paying $0 tax. IOW, _I_ control how much tax I will pay.

      I can't see a tax where you can control how much you're going to pay having a great impact on buying and selling.

    4. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas has no income taxes and a few years ago, during the economic doldrums of Obama, Texas was creating 1 of every 3 jobs in the country.

      You have heard of fracking, right?

    5. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that Canada (the country these companies are moving to) has even HIGHER income taxes, right?

    6. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Taxes are for show. The man behind the curtain is big government, big spending. Stop worrying about how many angles can dance on the head of a pin.

    7. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Im in Texas and Yes I have heard of fracking. I get a check from the oil company every month for the gas they pull from my land by fracking.

    8. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Try and balance the budget. Between SS / Medicare, and DoD, there's precious little left over to run the rest of the country. I think I calculated $106 Billion for everything else that is not SS/Medicare and DoD. No, those 2 things shouldn't be cut. The other stuff can't be cut enough to do it, and still end up with a country.

      We have to increase revenues or we're going to collapse, sooner or later. If we increase income taxes, the revenues go down as revenue-producing companies flee the country and EVERYBODY figures out new and wondrous ways to cheat on their taxes. At current tax levels, there are estimates / studies that say that there will be 9 Trillion Dollars of tax evasion of the income taxes within the next 10 years. And of you cut the taxes, the revenues go up in accordance with the famous Laffer Curve, but not enough to fund everything.

      Bottom line is that we can't fund the country with income taxes. There was a time, tho, from the end of the Civil War to the turn of the century, that there was no income taxes, and coincidentally that was called "The Gilded Age" for its fantastic amount of economic growth. That's what can happen without an income tax. We should go back to not having income taxes.

    9. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 0

      The way to raise taxes on the rich is to pass the consumption tax, because... the rich consume like hell, and consumption taxes are harder to evade, you have to go beyond simply 1 person lying about their income, to 2 people, the buyer and the seller, both putting themselves at risk for prison on a conspiracy charge, to avoid a consumption tax. The seller, BTW, gets nothing out of such a scheme except that risk of prison.

      And, something no one seems to think of, is that the rich buy a hell of a lot of stuff that they have out of savings, or inheritance, or money laying around. That is taxed under a consumption tax, but an income tax may miss taxing that altogether, if it was earned long ago. Yeah, it may have been taxed when earned, but it might not have been, too, either by tax evasion or by being under-taxed at a lower rate in the past. The consumption tax would more positively tax the rich than the income taxes, that's why they went out of the way in 1913, when the rich of that day were determined to kill their consumption taxes of the time, and get the income taxes stealing from other people, to help get them off the hook of paying for almost everything via tariffs and excise taxes. The rich are still winning, via the income taxes they have become so adept at avoiding, and we're all picking up the load, but not enough to avoid eventual disaster when this all collapses like a house of cards. The only way to avoid that is... nuking the income taxes, and making the rich pay the way we'd like them to under the income taxes, but cannot make it happen.

    10. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Canada's corporate income tax is 12% - 38%. 12% would be way less while 38% would be way more. I don't know how it's figured. But I think the bottom line for this is how easy it is to get H1B-equivalent Visas into Canada for this flim-flam on the American worker.

    11. Re:Wanna Fix It? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In 1963, with the income taxes only 50 years old at the time, JFK said, "“The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive.” John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963 " He was right.

      [Citation Required]

      'Cause JFK did slash income taxes.....and there was not a corresponding boom of economic activity.

      If you're going to cite his statement, you also need to include the history of what happened when people followed his plan. And it did not have the effect JFK claimed it would.

      he little thing about repealing the corporate income tax would have those companies, and all the rest of the companies on the planet at least WANTING to move their operations to the USA where they could operate without having their profits stolen by the gov't.

      Only if you ignore that they're spending more money to buy goods and services to pay your consumption tax.

      No taxes on the used car.

      Your plan does not repeal property taxes. Also, car dealers are offering a service, thus putting them under your consumption tax.

      No taxes on the used (existing) house, only taxes if you build a new house

      Your plan does not repeal property taxes. Also, there are currently no taxes paid when you buy a house, new or "used" (there are various recording fees). However you did just massively jack up the price of all of the components of the house, massively driving up home prices.

      No taxes on the money you make and use for savings

      Only if your savings is under your mattress. If you invest your savings, guess what? You're using a service and the tax man cometh.

      tuition

      ....isn't taxed today.

      money used to pay your state taxes, car license fees

      Were deductible until the Republicans decided to raise individual income taxes to offset a fraction of their corporate tax cut.

      because of the lack of at least the Federal gov't tromping thru the door to steal a portion of the business' profits each year.

      Instead, the Federal government would tromp through the door to raise the cost of all the goods and services those companies buy.

      Money's fungible, yo. Tax income or tax consumption, you're still taking money from the business.

    12. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumption tax is sales tax and it is regressive if you can afford to save money (aka it is a giveaway to the rich). Just tax wealth. Broke people spend all they have and generate economic activity, they are the real job creators. Scrooge McDuck style money bin hoarders are the ones that should be taxed. Trump and Warren dont go far enough. Tax wealth at fifty percent for the multi billionaires, and let income taxes, if we still need them, be deducted from that.

    13. Re:Wanna Fix It? by DigiShaman · · Score: 0, Troll

      Democrats don't want a Fairtax, they want VAT! Actually, what the really want is Communism!. I swear to God and on my mothers gave and everything that is holy. The end-game with the left is communism. And sooner or later, you fucking retards are going to have to face it head-on.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    14. Re:Wanna Fix It? by jeff4747 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      the rich consume like hell

      No, they really don't. The poor consume 100% of their income. That's a big part of why we call them "poor".

      The rich consume far less than 100% of their income.

      The absolute value of their consumption is higher, but absolute value does not tell you anything about the effect your taxes have on that taxpayer. The percent of their income subject to your taxes does.

      All of a poor person's income is subject to your tax, because they're spending all of their paycheck on goods and services. Only a portion of a rich person's income is subject to your tax, because they're not spending all of their "paycheck" on goods and services.

    15. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      First if all, you can fund a country with income taxes if you fund the tax auditors. Spending on tax auditors has a 900%+ ROI. Republicans have cut the IRS every chance they get because they oppose government in principal (unless it is for telling women what to do and jailing darkies).

      It is certainly simpler to impose a billionaire wealth tax. I'd say 1%/yr for millionaires, 2%/yr for $10m, 3%/yr for $100m etc. Any income taxes paid would be deductible, of course, so it wouldn't even affect most single digit millionaires prior to retirement.

      The Gilded age was called such not because of economic growth but because of corruption decadence and rot underneath the gender of growth. The golden future was just toxic lead with a bit of gold paint on top. The roaring twenties was follow directly by the great depression, for a stock market analogy.

    16. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This.

    17. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahhh a repubtard fallacy. Been a while since I seen one. Blame the liberals!!!! They are ruining the world!!!!!!

    18. Re: Wanna Fix It? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Can you think of an experiment we could try to test the consumption tax that wouldn't screw us royally if your hypothesis is wrong?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    19. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And no more exception for long-term capital gains. We don't want to encourage long-term investing.

    20. Re:Wanna Fix It? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Consumption taxes would stagnate the commercial sector.

      Claims the commercial sector, which doesn't want to be taxed.

      Tax all wealth, the more the better.

      Wealth can move beyond tax jurisdictions pretty easily. Consumption can not. Tax what is difficult to hide.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    21. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Their is no left in US politics, you have Centre Right, and Far Right

    22. Re: Wanna Fix It? by PPH · · Score: 1

      Rich people invest what they don't spend and generate economic activity.

      Scrooge McDuck style money bin hoarders

      I see you missed basic economics in school (probably one of those liberal arts places). Rich people don't hide piles of cash in a vault. They invest it in their own businesses or loan it to people who need it.

      And if you DO decide to go after all those evil 'wealthy' investors, keep this in mind: The largest and wealthiest single class of investor in this country are pension funds. So you'll be skimming your 50% off of the retirements of school teachers, cops, firefighters, etc. Good luck getting elected to implement a plan like that.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    23. Re:Wanna Fix It? by sfcat · · Score: 2

      The way to raise taxes on the rich is to pass the consumption tax, because... the rich consume like hell, and consumption taxes are harder to evade, you have to go beyond simply 1 person lying about their income, to 2 people, the buyer and the seller, both putting themselves at risk for prison on a conspiracy charge, to avoid a consumption tax. The seller, BTW, gets nothing out of such a scheme except that risk of prison.

      That's not true. The problem with giving money to rich people is that they don't need it for their daily lives. They already have all the stuff they want. And when they are making 10x, 100x or whatever absurd amount more than the median income, they don't spent it all if they are currently making it. Instead it goes into index funds, bonds, and (often foreign) luxury goods, basically asset bubbles. When you give money to the middle class they usually buy electronics and cars (both exporting to foreign companies or workers) or real estate (creating an asset bubble). When you give money to poor folks it usually goes into the local economy to buy basics. Trickle down economics has been time and time again proved to be false. And a consumption tax would be horribly regressive and since we know trickle down doesn't work, we want to avoid regression taxation. Note: this includes "sin" taxes which are often very regressive.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    24. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude...if you ask for a citation at least provide one yourself. You look like a hypocritical ass.

    25. Re:Wanna Fix It? by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      Try and balance the budget. Between SS / Medicare, and DoD, there's precious little left over to run the rest of the country.

      SS is taxes collected over a lifetime of working. It's invested in treasury bonds which have returns that usually don't even outpace inflation.

      Medicare isn't even allowed to negotiate drug prices.

      DoD spends about what the rest of the world does, combined.

      There is no balancing the budget. Start with reducing corruption and legalized bribery in the form of superpacs and "foundations" run by politicians, then we might get reasonable legislation to reduce overhead. Then we can tackle tax reform.

    26. Re: Wanna Fix It? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Dude...I'm not the one making the claim that income tax cuts massively boost the economy.

    27. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 0

      "'Cause JFK did slash income taxes.....and there was not a corresponding boom of economic activity."""

      How old are you? I lived through that, and yes, there was prosperity all over the place. Good factory jobs, high wages, low unemployment, etc. You know those statistics they're quoting now for, "Best employment figures in 50 years?" 50 years ago was... the 60's.

      "Only if you ignore that they're spending more money to buy goods and services to pay your consumption tax."

      The FairTax is a consumption tax on new items for sale at RETAIL, and services. The businesses don't buy their supplies at retail, they buy at wholesale. The business stream of manufacturing is not taxed by the FairTax.

      "Your plan does not repeal property taxes. Also, car dealers are offering a service, thus putting them under your consumption tax."

      The Federal Gov't doesn't have property taxes, those are state and local taxes. We're dealing with Federal Income Taxes right now, and the FairTax is the solution to its depredations.

      " Also, there are currently no taxes paid when you buy a house, new or "used" (there are various recording fees). However you did just massively jack up the price of all of the components of the house, massively driving up home prices."

      That is not right. There are tons of taxes you're paying, income taxes, when you buy a house right now. If you have a 15% personal income tax, and are paying payroll taxes to the tune of 15.3%, that is 30.3% tax, So if you pay, say $69.7K for a house, you had to earn $100k in order to have the $69.7K to pay for the house after you pay your income taxes and payroll taxes. In contrast, if you earn $100K to buy a house, you will be able to show up at closing with $100K, not $69.7K, because under the FairTax, the personal income taxes and the payroll taxes are repealed.

      "tuition ....isn't taxed today."

      You most certainly are taxed on tuition. Same as buying a house above. You have to earn $100 in order to bring $69.70 to pay for an hour of tuition. $30.30 of the $100 you earned went to the Federal Gov't in income and payroll taxes.

      "money used to pay your state taxes, car license fees... Were deductible until the Republicans decided to raise individual income taxes to offset a fraction of their corporate tax cut."

      First, individual taxes went down, I'm paying $1500 less this year than last year, and I'm nowhere close to rich. And, under the FairTax, the money you use to pay your state income taxes would still not be taxed.

      "No taxes on the money you make and use for savings... Only if your savings is under your mattress. If you invest your savings, guess what? You're using a service and the tax man cometh."

      Nope, incorrect. No savings are taxed under the FairTax. In fact, the FairTax removes income tax expense from the banking industry, so interest on your saved monies in banks would be higher, and loan interest from the banks would be lower, due to their not being taxed and therefore not having to charge you in order to come up with the tax money to send to Washington.

      "Tax income or tax consumption, you're still taking money from the business."

      Businesses aren't taxed under the FairTax, only consumers buying at retail, both items for sale and services, are taxed. Business buy these things at wholesale, and wholesale items aren't taxed.

    28. Re: Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Sure. Texas. They don't have income taxes at all. Florida also doesn't have personal income taxes, but some on business. Also, the USA before 1913 was running quite nicely on consumption taxes which were tariffs and excise taxes, mostly paid by the rich. The rich would be contributing the most again, due to their egregious spending. Donald's 757 retails at $100M, he got it used from a Dutch Airline, but still... at least $50M, wouldn't you think? That'd be $15M direct to the US Treasury in FairTax. The rich willb e carrying a much bigger share of the load. Poor people will pay $0 because of the family allowance that pays people for the FairTax on their spending up to their personal poverty level. Anyone in poverty will not be paying FairTax, the gov't pays it for them.

    29. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, let get the states to pass sales taxes.
      Oh yeah, 45 of 50 already do that.

    30. Re: Wanna Fix It? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Texas has property tax. Do you have a more realistic example?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    31. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The rich don't spend? Who bought Trump's 757? A rich guy, Donald Trump. Who bought John Travolta's 737? A rich guy, John Travolta. Then there is rich guy Nkck Cage that was, at his height, spending every cent he made. Michael Jackson spent more than he made, and the only reason for his involvement in the tour he was planning was to pay the bills. The rich mostly spend out the wazoo - that's who buys the Ferrarris and the Rolls Royces and such. Sure, there are some that will decide not to be taxed, and not buy a lot, and that's their right, but the point of being rich is enjoying your success, and so they spend.

    32. Re: Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Property tax is a state tax. We're attempting to solve Federal Taxation, so property taxes aren't a part of the equation.

      And, you're saying there is STATE property taxes? Yeah, if they have a car tax or something, but real estate taxes are usually local things. And car tax doesn't count for much.

    33. Re: Wanna Fix It? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      That's exactly right, I was asking you to come up with an experiment we could perform at a smaller scale. You agree that Texas doesn't match what you are trying to do.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re: Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      USA before 1913 does. And for practcal purposes, Texas does too, because the STATE is run on sales taxes, the local areas are run on property taxes. We;re only trying to fund the state like the Federal Gov't. Texas runs on sales taxes.

    35. Re:Wanna Fix It? by sfcat · · Score: 1

      The rich don't spend? Who bought Trump's 757? A rich guy, Donald Trump. Who bought John Travolta's 737? A rich guy, John Travolta. Then there is rich guy Nkck Cage that was, at his height, spending every cent he made. Michael Jackson spent more than he made, and the only reason for his involvement in the tour he was planning was to pay the bills. The rich mostly spend out the wazoo - that's who buys the Ferrarris and the Rolls Royces and such. Sure, there are some that will decide not to be taxed, and not buy a lot, and that's their right, but the point of being rich is enjoying your success, and so they spend.

      The plural of antidote isn't data. And the spending of Hollywood actors is hardly representative of the rich. The fact that you think so just shows how out of your depth you are here. The rich do NOT spend in proportion to their income. If you make 50x the normal income do you spend 50x more for your clothes, your house, your car, and every other expense in your life? No. You spend more sure but not the entire amount, not by a long shot. Also, if you are making that amount, you have already met all your needs and you are only spending on whims. People that inherit, win or otherwise receive money they haven't earned usually spend on whims, not those that make it. And even when they do, they still probably don't spend in proportion to their wealth relative to the average person. This is why we get asset bubbles. When there is an asset bubble, its a good sign that income for the highest brackets are too high in proportion to median income. The solution is usually increasing taxes for the highest bracket without increasing deductions but that's the worst solution and there are others.

      --
      "Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
    36. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Uh... yeah... right... you know everything... except the researchers for the FairTax disagree with you. You have a nice day, y'hear?

    37. Re: Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "First if all, you can fund a country with income taxes if you fund the tax auditors. "

      The tax auditors are not going to keep businesses being bankrupted by the high taxes from moving overseas or going out of business so the only provider of whatever they were producing is now coming from foreign sources. Either way, the revenue goes down because the source is now foreign, which is not income-taxable. Only a consumption tax can tax the foreign-built stuff.

      Raise income taxes, and it suppresses prosperity, and the overall revenue goes down eventually. May take a while as it takes some time for companies to realize they can't make a buck here, and then they decide to make a buck there, where "there" is "anywhere but the USA."

    38. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Roger on the communism, its pretty plain from the way they are going now, that's what they want. "Gun Control" means eventual confiscation, otherwise there's no point because not one of the laws, of the 25,000 in existence, is even remotely effective in the stated purpose of reducing crime. Gun control laws don't work AT ALL. And Michelle was controlling her little captive audience of school kids and starving them because some were overweight, while the athletes at the school were nearly malnourished from the dietary restrictions since they were burning 1000's of calories on the gridiron or the cross country and track activities, basketballers, etc... all starving, and now the latest superstar wants to deprive everyone of meat and cars and airplanes. Communism, for sure. We just can't let that happen.

    39. Re:Wanna Fix It? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      I've sketched out a few fair tax scenarios and they don't look good for people making between 15,000-50,000. Most people in that income range pay zero or negative taxes today and would pay substantially more under a fair tax.

      Romney was right when he talked about the 49%. It was dumb of him to say it, but he wasn't wrong.

    40. Re: Wanna Fix It? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      ok, so imagine we went over to a sales tax. In 2017, the tax revenue was $3.3 trillion. If we got rid of income tax, how high would the sales tax need to be to keep the revenue the same?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    41. Re: Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The law as proposed in HR25 in Congress now is 23% inclusive. That is, if you spend $100 on something, 23% of that $100 would go to Washington as FairTax. That was supposed to generate equal revenue to the income taxes back when this was first researched. I'd suspect it might require some adjustment now, but of course the income taxes are not providing enough revenue to keep from borrowing money either, so it is safe to say that in order to cease borrowing money to run the country, the FairTax would have to be adjusted upward.

      The good news is that adjusting the FairTax upward to cover our spending would NOT adversely affect American business. People would adjust their purchases to live within their means, and they may or may not buy the same stuff as they used to. Calculations for American-built stuff are that American-built stuff would fall in price by 11% - 18% by being relieved of their income tax burden in the manufacturing process. Foreign goods would not fall in price at all, since their manufacturing process, not being inside the USA, would not be relieved of US income tax burden. FairTax researchers calculate that 22% of the price of any US built product, on average, is comprised of US income tax burden. So, a $40K SUV has, on average, $8,800 of income tax burden in its price. After deducting 11% - 18% of the price, that makes, say, a $35K Jeep Cherokee made in Toledo, Ohio fall to $28,700 to $31,150, while the equally-priced $35K SUV from outside the country would be, after the FairTax removed income tax burdens from US factory products, $35,000, since it would gain no advantage. THen, if the FairTax is applied to the Jeep, the resultant selling price would be between $37,310 - $40, 495. The foreign SUV would, after FairTax is applied, cost $45,500.

      Of course you have to remember you're buying either SUV with money you make that has NO income tax withheld from it, so you have much more money to buy the SUV. Its just that the Jeep has risen 6.6% - 15.7%, while the foreign-built SUV has risen by 30%. That's a built-in tariff inside the FairTax, but don't tell anybody... Anyway, the bottom line is that whether you pay $37,310, $40,495, or $45,000, you can completely avoid paying the FairTax by buying the same car that is a used car, for which the FairTax would be $0. So, actually, the FairTax is a lot like a luxury tax, only being applied to things that are bought with money spent above the buyer's poverty line.

      What would be the rate of FairTax necessary to keep from having to borrow money to run the USA? I don't know. Might be the 23% "embedded", 30% external rate, might be more, might be less. But at least it would be _possible_ to collect enough money to fund the gov't fully. You can't do that with income taxes because the income taxes suppress the prosperity, and drive the money out of the country.

    42. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry realize this was not you but wanted to corroborate a bit. Getting rid of property taxes would be awefull. No one would ever sell property again. It is imperative that just holding property cost money or it will be the ultimate mattress money. I mean forget buying gold.

    43. Re: Wanna Fix It? by phantomfive · · Score: 1
      OK that's interesting, I didn't think of the idea that reducing income (and employment) tax would decrease the price of goods relative to foreign goods. Of course, the immediate result would be to increase the price of things until competition drove prices down.

      The law as proposed in HR25 in Congress now is 23% inclusive.

      How is that calculated?

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    44. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the middle-class people who work for Cessna?

    45. Re: Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      Don't feel like the Lone Ranger on not realizing the huge advantage that nuking the income taxes would give the USA. And that's really it, its not that the FairTax is so great, it is that the income taxes are so awful that is the great advantage of the FairTax. Income taxes are so bad on so many levels that it is just hard to imagine how much improved our situation would be if we got rid of them. And, it took me _years_ to realize that the FairTax would give a special advantage to US business, and be pretty much the same thing as a tariff, without technically being a tariff. US Income Taxes skewer the H out of US industry, costing them (us, actually, we pay "corporate" income taxes in higher prices for domestic goods, lower wages, and lower dividends on our stock purchases (which we do thru pension funds that invest in US corporations)) to the point that corporate income taxes are simply tariffs on US produced goods. Removing those tariffs on US industry, while adding sales taxes on all items sold at retail, would tip the balance greatly in favor of US industries. That's what we want...

      I can't tell you how the 23% is calculated. I don't know, the group of economists that formulated the FairTax about 20 years ago came up with the number. They took all the retail sales and all the services that would be taxed and figured out what percentage of taxation on those would match the revenue from the US Income Taxes. I don't know how to find the retail sales and services costs for US domestic consumptions today. I suspect that the FairTax would be different from simply matching income taxes today, but don't know whether they would be more or less. I suspect that after the FairTax was passed, in the years following, there would be a mass migration of world manufacturing from other countries to the USA because the USA would be the only place on the planet that is industrialized and a place where the gov't doesn't come tromping thru the doors every year demanding to steal a portion of the profits. I also learned a few months ago, after reading an interview with a Chinese businessman that wanted to move his manufacturing here after Trump's tax cuts, that the US electricity and US land were much cheaper than in China. He didn't, however, also mention our 2nd-to-none freight rail system, the best, most extensive freight rail on the planet. Yeah, if we could just get the income taxes off the backs of the people and our industry, we would be so ferociously competitive in domestic and world markets that I believe that eventually we could begin paying down the National Debt. It'd probably take 100 years to do it, but we could see a way out of the debt if we had most of the world's largest manufacturers here.

    46. Re: Wanna Fix It? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      I believe that eventually we could begin paying down the National Debt. It'd probably take 100 years to do it

      All we have to do is not keep increasing our deficit spending (do you know the difference between debt and deficit?). If we hadn't increased spending after the Clinton years, we could have paid off the Reagan debt by now (because GDP has grown so much since then).

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    47. Re: Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      We could have a shot at not increasing our spending if we could stop believing that the gov't has to do everything for everyone because they can't do it for themselves. I believe with the income taxes gone, the level of prosperity amongst the citizens would be so ever increasing that people would stop demanding handouts from the gov't, and instead join a chorus directed at the gov't to, "Get out of my life, stand back, get out of the way, and watch this" as pretty much everyone finds their niche in the system and uses it for personal prosperity. I think those that would be unable to do this would be so few in number that the rest of us who would be prosperous could easily afford to fund the "welfare" that is necessary for those people to not starve, and lead lives at least free of the oppression of poverty. But most everyone would be able to find a way to, if not a wealthy status, at least a not impoverished status. I mean, right now, as I've discovered in just the last few weeks, there are an enormous number of jobs that are most definitely not occupied by people that are "just entering the workforce", but rather real veterans of being in the workforce, and still making only $11 - $12 an hour. That's nuts. But check out the wages of, say, a cook at a place like Applebees. $11 - $12 an hour. I believe, once generalized prosperity is realized, with far more people working factory jobs that pay far more than average wages, those people working the retail oriented jobs would see their wages rise due to competition from the factories for labor. Why sweat your a** off in a kitchen for $11 - $12 / hr when the factory down the road is paying $30 / hr for their help? I mean, if the smell of frying bacon and eggs is so much more preferable to you than the smell of hot oil, then maybe Applebees gets to pay you $11 - $12 an hour for the rest of your life. But I think most people will go for hot oil when it comes at $30 / hr. With a good labor shortage, the $30 may start going up too. If we were to import all the factories that have left the US in the last 30 - 40 years, we would have a really nice labor shortage, and that would drive up wages under the laws of supply and demand. And, getting back to the FairTax, that means that people would have more money, so they would be spending it on things like jet skis and snowmobiles and so forth, the FairTax on which would boost US revenues. The FairTax might actually get to a point, with enough people here in the US working, that its taxation rate could actually be lowered. That's just wild speculation, of course, , but hey, it might happen. But first we have to get rid of the prosperity-killing income taxes.

    48. Re:Wanna Fix It? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      How old are you? I lived through that, and yes, there was prosperity all over the place. Good factory jobs, high wages, low unemployment, etc. You know those statistics they're quoting now for, "Best employment figures in 50 years?" 50 years ago was... the 60's.

      And none of that was in response to JFK's tax cut. You can tell because that "boom" did not start with the tax cut.

      After the tax cut, there was no change that could be distinguished from noise.

      The FairTax is a consumption tax on new items for sale at RETAIL, and services. The businesses don't buy their supplies at retail

      You've apparently never purchased anything for a business. An enormous amount of the things they buy are purchased at retail. Since this is Slashdot, let's use the example of every computer they buy is a retail purchase (Assuming they are not a computer store).

      Retail purchase, from a tax perspective, just means it is not being bought for resale.

      That is not right. There are tons of taxes you're paying, income taxes, when you buy a house right now.

      Ok, let's go through your list and see which ones are paid because you bought a house, since that's what you're claiming you're changing.

      If you have a 15% personal income tax

      Not related to buying a house.

      and are paying payroll taxes to the tune of 15.3%

      Not related to buying a house ...And that's it. Two examples that are utterly irrelevant to buying a house.

      But what's even better, and a better illustration of just how bad your analysis is, is this:

      In contrast, if you earn $100K to buy a house, you will be able to show up at closing with $100K, not $69.7K, because under the FairTax, the personal income taxes and the payroll taxes are repealed.

      YOU ARE PAYING CONSUMPTION TAXES. You do not "show up" with all your income because you paid consumption taxes on the goods and services you bought to stay alive.

      You most certainly are taxed on tuition. Same as buying a house above. You have to earn $100 in order to bring $69.70 to pay for an hour of tuition

      So....in your fantasy world, do you not have to eat? 'Cause you just transferred the tax burden from income taxes to consumption taxes. Raising the price of food by more than the median taxpayer's income taxes.

      In other words, you now only have $55 to pay an hour of tuition, because you're spending $45 more on food and other essential goods and services.

      so interest on your saved monies in banks would be higher

      Why? Interest rates on savings are market-driven. Banks currently pay what the market will bear, including the cost of income taxes on that interest. If you take away income taxes, why would banks keep paying the same interest rate? They'd lower rates to reach to the same after-tax income because that's what the market will bear.

      Same with loans. The interest rate on a loan is what the market will bear. Taking away income taxes on that will simply result in higher profits for banks, because the market has already established the higher interest rate as acceptable.

      Also, your plan to exempt banking and investing from being a "service" is rather capricious, and will result in a massive increase in the tax on everything else. Making this proposal even worse for the middle and lower classes.

      Businesses aren't taxed under the FairTax, only consumers buying at retail,

      BUSINESSES ARE CONSUMERS. Every ream of paper. Every computer. Every desk. Every square foot of office space. Every factory machine. Every cup of coffee. Everything they buy to run the business is a retail purchase. All are taxed under your plan. You can tell because businesses are paying sales tax on all those purchases (in states with s

    49. Re:Wanna Fix It? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      I mean forget buying gold.

      You exempted banking from taxes under your plan. Buying and holding gold would be tax-free.

    50. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "If you have a 15% personal income tax
      Not related to buying a house."

      Of course it is. The money you pay for the house is taxed by the income taxes.

      "YOU ARE PAYING CONSUMPTION TAXES. You do not "show up" with all your income because you paid consumption taxes on the goods and services you bought to stay alive."

      The FairTax on the good and services you buy to stay alive are rebated to you in advance, by a mechanism called the Prebate, that is essentially the gov't paying those taxes for you.

      Otherwise, I feel you have your mind made up no matter what facts I were to be able to find for you, so if you want to find them yourself, you can pull up HR25 from the proposed House Resolutions, and go to www.fairtax.org and read all the info there. Its 131 pages, unlike our 70,000 page income tax code. I don't have time for detailed, point-by-point refutations of what is wrong with the above, but there's a lot. You basically ignore the fact that federal income taxes would go away for all these businesses and can only see the dark side, so you have a nice day, I'm done here.

    51. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      From the bill:

      "‘‘SEC. 102. INTERMEDIATE AND EXPORT SALES.
      4 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—For purposes of this subtitle—
      5 ‘‘(1) BUSINESS AND EXPORT PURPOSES.—No
      6 tax shall be imposed under section 101 on any tax7
      able property or service purchased for a business"

    52. Re:Wanna Fix It? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The FairTax on the good and services you buy to stay alive are rebated to you in advance, by a mechanism called the Prebate, that is essentially the gov't paying those taxes for you.

      No, they're not.

      First, $12k per year is not enough for people in most areas to live on. Which means you're going to be spending far more in consumption taxes than you get "rebated".

      Second, the poverty line is not what you think it is. It is not the minimum you need to survive. It's the line where we say "you are very far up shit creek". If you need some help realizing this, a minimum wage job pays a little under $15k per year. Here, I'll list the US cities where you can rent a one-bedroom apartment and feed yourself on $15k/year:

      No, I didn't forget to type the list. It's empty.

      There are 12 counties in the US where you can afford to rent a one-bedroom apartment on minimum wage and not put yourself in severe financial distress.

      Otherwise, I feel you have your mind made up no matter what facts I were to be able to find for you

      You realized that companies buy stuff at retail yet? 'Cause understanding that might start giving you a clue about just how bad this idea is.

      From there you could start to realize what affects this would have on middle and lower income consumers, which would result in them buying way, way, way, way less in goods and services, thus crashing the economy. But the rich folks behind your proposal would be paying less.

    53. Re: Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Scrooge McDuck style money bin hoarders are the ones that should be taxed
      Nobody does this. Nobody. Why? The USD is an INFLATIONARY currency. The fed makes damn sure that the value of the dollar very slowly goes down over time. Why is this important? Because it means if you just stack all your cash in a vault then your net worth will go down over time. If you want to hold your value, you must invest. You could put it in a bank, where the bank will promise to counteract inflation and in many cases even increase your value (in the form of interest). You can buy bonds, which are pretty much the best guarantee that your money will retain value. Or you can invest in the private sector with some risk, but on average a quite high rate of return. In all of these cases, your money is helping everyone. Everyone! Banks can give loans on your money. The government can spend your money on essential services and improvements. The private sector can employ people and generate value from innovation and work. By taxing the 1% at a huge rate, all you're really doing is taking money from a large group of intelligent spenders and moving it to the government. I'm not sure if you know this, but the government is famous for being corrupt as hell and mismanaging vast sums of money. Instead, it's far better to just ensure the private sector is regulated well (this is important!), and let them have at it. This is a primary principle of the workable capitalistic system we have, and it's wildly successful.

    54. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      The poor are getting raped at 15.3% payroll tax right now, so if they're making $12K, they're really only getting $10.16K.

      With the FairTax, they get the full $12K _plus_ the $2,760 Prebate.

      The excerpt I posted elsewhere shows you that your laser printers, paper, machines in your business are all bought without FairTax applied.

      I get it, you like to argue, but you're posting without even thinking about it. It takes a while to realize how the world of no income taxes works, as well as the world of consumption taxes only on NEW retail items for sale and services. You haven't stopped to think that the poor don't buy a lot at retail. Other than food and shelter, do you think they go down to KMart and get all their clothes? Nope, thrift stores. New TV? Nope, pawn shop or classified ads. New car? Nope, used car. None of those used things are FairTaxed. The poor may not be sitting pretty with the FairTax, but they're waaaaay better off than with income taxes.

    55. Re:Wanna Fix It? by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      The poor are getting raped at 15.3% payroll tax right now

      Ya know, I don't think I've come across anyone as strident in their ignorance about taxes.

      The employee portion of payroll taxes are 6.2% for Social Security, and 1.45% for Medicare. You'll find, through some exceptionally complex mathematics, that this does not add up to 15.3%.

      And no, removing those taxes does not mean the employee gets paid the employer portion of payroll taxes. Companies treat that like an operating expense. Removing that side of the taxes does not mean payroll goes up.

      With the FairTax, they get the full $12K _plus_ the $2,760 Prebate.

      And you're paying about $8k in consumption taxes in order to bring in the same revenue that income and payroll taxes currently collect. If we apply some complex mathematics to that, we find that your "prebate" doesn't quite pay all that.

      The excerpt I posted elsewhere shows you that your laser printers, paper, machines in your business are all bought without FairTax applied.

      Yes, I laughed heartily at that. Jeff4747, LLC will be buying a lot of goods and services for the CEO's use. Thus avoiding all of your taxes. We're a struggling consulting firm that just happens to not make any money, though we do have plenty of clients...who also just so happen to not make any money but they do buy goods and services that happen to be used by their primary shareholders.

      Which is why I'm completely ignoring it. It is monumentally stupid and impossible to implement because there's no way to legally differentiate between my LLC and a "real" company.

      I get it, you like to argue, but you're posting without even thinking about it.

      Says the guy who hasn't quite managed to state what his consumption tax rate would be.

      Go ahead. Show how much you've thought about it by showing everyone just how much you need to tax the purchases of individuals to replace $1.7T in individual income tax revenue, $239B in business income tax revenue and $1.2T in payroll tax revenue.

      Lemme help. That's about $3.15T. US GDP was $19T in 2017. So if we were dumb, we'd just take that income divide it by total GDP and get an answer of 16.5%. Remember how you were talking about the horrors of a 15.3% tax?

      But hang on, it's even worse than that. Because your plan only taxes consumer retail sales and consumer services. US retail sales in 2017 was only $453.5B...including retail sales to businesses. US GDP from the service sector was $15.2T......but about 70% of services are sold to businesses, not individuals. So that's only $4T subject to your tax.

      So, we're gonna ignore the huge swath of retail sales that were to businesses to help you out, and we get $4.45T subject to your consumption tax. We need to raise $3.15T.

      So we get a consumption tax rate of 70%.

      But wait! The Prebate!! That'll save us, right? You gave that $12k/year person about 20% of their income as "prebate". Now, I'm no mathematician, but I'm thinking 70% - 20% is just a teensy-tiny bit more than 15.3%. Oh, the prebate would also cost about $800B, so now we need to raise 3.95T, leaving us with a consumption tax rate of 89%.

      And, btw, this is just to tread water. We haven't dealt with the deficit at all.

      I am not arguing because "I like to argue". I'm arguing because ideas like this are presented full of magic asterisks that enable faulty math, and people like you read the fraudulent plan and think it might be a good idea.

      Leading to nuggets like:

      You haven't stopped to think that the poor don't buy a lot at retail.

      The poor spend about 50%-90% of their post-rent income on food. Show me the "used" food market.

      Show me the "used" gasoline market they can buy from to fill up that used car you were talking about. Show me the "used" electricity market where they can keep the lights on (retail ain't just goods).

    56. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "Most people in that income range pay zero or negative taxes today "

      But they don't pay zero taxes. There are the payroll taxes, which tax at 15.3% - the "employee's share" at 7.65%, and the "employer's share" at 7.65%, which the employer clandestinely lower's the employee's wages to get. The payroll taxes are also horribly regressive, taxing poor people from the 1st dollar they make, and then even more egregiously, failing to tax any dollars earned above about $130K. So, someone earning $500K or $5M or $500M all pay the same amount of payroll tax. Now that's regressive.

      The FairTax would remove this injustice by completely abolishing all income taxes, including the payroll tax. Approximately 35% of all FairTax collected revenues would go to support the Social Security / Medicare programs that the payroll taxes support now. The difference is that the FairTax provides a mechanism for NOT charging poor people tax, and taxes the fairly egregious spending of the rich for every last dollar they spend. They spend a lot.

      When you're figuring the taxes for the $15K - $50K, don't forget that those people can choose not to pay the tax by not buying the new item for sale or the service, and so can control how much tax they pay. Nobody's coming through the door and demanding a citizen's money to cart off to Washington. If one doesn't want to pay the tax, or doesn't have the money to pay the tax, then one simply doesn't buy the item that is taxed, or the service. Can't afford your lawn care company any more? Do it yourself, don't pay any tax on the lawn care service. Also remember that installment loan payments aren't taxed, saving, including retirement savings aren't taxed, taxes paid to the states aren't taxed, earned interest at the bank isn't taxed, etc.

      Also when considering the $15K - $50K person's situation, remember that the removal of business taxes will dramatically boost the economy, resulting in a fairly massive availability of jobs that compete for an ever dwindling pool of workers to do them, which will force wages up. That will improve the $15K - $50K person's situation, possibly shoving them out of the top of the $50K bracket. That's a good thing. And, that person now making more than $50K can still choose not to buy taxed items if he wants to, and instead buy untaxed items, which are untaxed because they are used. I just sold a 2019 Jeep Cherokee with 13K miles on it - traded it in on a Ford Edge ST, and that Jeep is perfect. If bought used off the dealer's lot, it would not be taxed under the FairTax. Someone would get an essentially new Jeep without paying the FairTax on it. But that's how the FairTax works, it gives citizens the freedom to either pay it or not pay it.

    57. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      "The employee portion of payroll taxes are 6.2% for Social Security, and 1.45% for Medicare. You'll find, through some exceptionally complex mathematics, that this does not add up to 15.3%."

      It does, when you add the "employer's share, also 7.65% total, to the "employee's share" at 7.65%. What you have to think deeper to realize is that the employer does, and has been since the inception of this amazingly regressive tax, lower the employee's wages by that amount necessary to be able to send that extra 7.65% to Washington.

      "And no, removing those taxes does not mean the employee gets paid the employer portion of payroll taxes. Companies treat that like an operating expense. Removing that side of the taxes does not mean payroll goes up."

      Yeah, it will eventually, because money will out. That money will be laying around the corporating, unsent-to-Washington, and they have to do something with it. As that company's competitors for the labor in the labor market start paying more, using that money that's laying around doing nothing because it wasn't sent to Washington, the company's employees will say, "Take this job and shove it, I ain't workin' here no more" and trot on down to the other company that is paying their workers that unused, unsent-to-Washington 7.65%. Yeah, the company's employees will eventually get it, when "the labor market" decides it for them.

      "And you're paying about $8k in consumption taxes in order to bring in the same revenue that income and payroll taxes currently collect. If we apply some complex mathematics to that, we find that your "prebate" doesn't quite pay all that."

      That's mysterious math. Who's paying 8K in consumption taxes? Certainly not the poor person making $12K / yr. The "prebate" provides citizens enough money to pay the FairTax on spending up to the poverty level. A single person's poverty level, as determined by the gov't, is around $12K. Married people's poverty level is about twice that. The gov't would send 23% of $12K to the single person in 12 monthly installments, and would send 23% of the poverty level for marrieds to the married couple in 12 monthly installments. Everyone would have enough $$$ to buy brand new stuff for living expenses. Just remember that those people will elect to buy used stuff whenever they can, and avoid the FairTax - used cell phones, used clothing, used cars, etc. They'll also avoid spending money, just like they do now, buy carpooling to work, or moving across the street from work and walking, etc.

      "Yes, I laughed heartily at that. Jeff4747, LLC will be buying a lot of goods and services for the CEO's use. Thus avoiding all of your taxes. We're a struggling consulting firm that just happens to not make any money, though we do have plenty of clients...who also just so happen to not make any money but they do buy goods and services that happen to be used by their primary shareholders."

      Here comes the part where every detractor comes up with their fantasy methods of evading the FairTax. The beauty of the FairTax is that it is collected mostly from businesses, which are far fewer in number than the 160 million or so income tax payers at the moment. That means it doesn't take nearly as many auditors to come by, discover your fraud, and throw your ass in jail. So go ahead, be my guest, see what happens. Kinda like Wyatt Earp's line in the movie "Tombstone", "Go ahead, skin that smokepole, see what happens," said with all the malice befitting the occasion.

      "Go ahead. Show how much you've thought about it by showing everyone just how much you need to tax the purchases of individuals to replace [thebalance.com] $1.7T in individual income tax revenue, $239B in business income tax revenue and $1.2T in payroll tax revenue."

      That adds up to about 3.1T, so 23% of X = $3.1T, so X = $13.4T. And again, showing that you're not stopping to think this thru, the tax is levied not only on domestic goods and services, but also on imported goods, of which there are trillions of dollars worth

    58. Re:Wanna Fix It? by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

      With the utmost of respect, your analysis is wrong. When I say I've run the numbers, I've actually run the numbers.

      Here's an example. A single parent of 1 kid working 40 hours a week at 10.50 an hour. This is the person that sells me twinkies at my Dollar General store.

      With 2 allowances, that paychecks out to
      21840 Gross pay
      964 FICA
      1354.08 Social Security
      316.68 Medicare

      For Federal taxes they get a
      12000 Std deduction
      A federal income tax of 989
      A 2000 child tax credit
      A 2792 Earned income credit

      Total of Federal Tax + Medicare + Social security is what I call "Out of pocket" taxes. That is 2659.76
      Subtract the 4792 credits they get and they pay a -2132.24 tax.

      But whatabout the employer portion. It's not a better story.

      Total of Employee Federal Tax + Medicare + Social security + Employer Fica, Employer Medicare, and Employer Social security = 5294.52
      Take away the same 4792 credits and you get a Kitchen sink Tax number of 502.52. That's an all up tax rate of 2.3%

      Realistically, is this person going to pay less than $500 in flat taxes?

      I've done this a lot. Don't hand wave it away unless you bring numbers to the table.

    59. Re:Wanna Fix It? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cutting through all the crap, it's a general rule that any proposal called 'FairTax' or similar is basically a scheme devised by very rich people to pay less tax than they do at present, dressed up to make it sound like it should help 'the poor', but actually shafting the middle classes while probably making no difference to the poor or making them poorer.

    60. Re:Wanna Fix It? by rally2xs · · Score: 1

      OK, person, 1 kid, make $21840, presumably, since poor, spends it all.

      Go here:

      http://www.fairtaxcalculator.o...

      Plug in $21840, the calculated poverty level spending, where the prebate pays for all the spending on new retail items for sale, and services, is $16,240. So, the spending done on the difference between $21840 and 16,240 is $5,600. FairTax on that would be 23% of $5,600, or $1,288. That's 785.48 more FairTax.

      OK, but there's other factors at work. The "Child Tax Credit" that results in more tax refund than paid is really a subsidy from the gov't. While not in the FairTax bill, I'm pretty certain that, if/when the FairTax is passed, lawmakers will create an actual welfare assistance rule that will result in that much money being available through the welfare system where it belongs, instead of the tax system, where it doesn't belong. If that happens, then that's the big difference, and the FairTax will then beat the income taxes by $2000 - $785.48 = $1014 .52.

      But say that doesn't happen. Remember, this is a tax on spending in retail items for sale and services. And, specifically, not on other gov't's taxes. Assuming that the person is spending all of $21,840 every year, there is state sales tax most everywhere, all but 5 states. Here in Virginia, it's 5%. So, out of $21,840, only $20,748 is actually spent on the items for sale at retail. That's a reduction of $21,840 - $20,748 = $992. 23% of $992 = $228.16. So, the former $785.48 more for FairTax would be $227.16 less, or $558.32 more FairTax than what happens under the income taxes.

      And finally, we get into the area that is harder to quantify. Does this person buy a car? If so, I'm sure it'll be something years old and really cheap, but if that person finds a used car for $5,000, and finances it for 4 years, there will be no FairTax on the $5,000, nor will there be FairTax on the $117.43 car payment for 4 years at 6%. So, 23% of $117.43 = $27 / month that isn't taxed or 12 X 27 = $324 less tax. Now we're down to 558.32 disadvantage for the FairTax - $324 = $232.32 disadvantage for the FairTax.

      What else? This person probably buys things at retail now, but under the FairTax, would likely buy things like a window air conditioner, a television, some of the clothes for herself and the kid, etc. at thrift stores, pawn shops, and ebay or Craigslist. Would that nuke the $232.32 disadvantage for the FairTax over the year? Probably.

      There are state income taxes. At that level of earnings, does this person pay any? Probably not. But if so, they wouldn't be taxed under the FairTax. Does the state have a personal property tax on cars? The FairTax would not be charged against that spending either. Does the person own a home? Then there would be property taxes, which the FairTax does not tax. Also not taxed would be the mortgage payment, and not simply relieving tax on the mortgage interest as the income taxes do, but instead the entire monthly payment of the mortgage is not subject to FairTax.

      If that has worn down that remaining $232.32 to $0, that's great. If it hasn't, I think the welfare department would be coming up with that $2K child tax credit under another name, but am fairly sure that such people wouldn't be left hanging.

      And, in the long run, that $10.50 / hr would be destined to go up, probably fairly dramatically, as the world's manufacturers likely injure themselves in the stampede to build factories in the USA to take advantage of income-tax-free manufacturing. Millions of jobs would be created, and either this person would be trotting out of the Dollar General to go down the street to the new factory manufacturing wire and cable, such as the factory locally that left this area for an overseas location, and probably be making $15 to start with progressive pay increases to higher wages as the person learns the jobs there. Either that, or the Dollar General will start coughing up

  14. Someone wants the local population to benefit... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...instead of shifting around cheap labor from the third world for the benefit of large multinational corporations?

    How dare he!

  15. Didn't the movie studios already do this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's an easy way to "lay off" personnel without actually having to pay severance, the tax rate is better, and the employees are cheaper. The only link this has to immigration is that the new laws make it difficult to bus in slave labor for ridiculous savings.

  16. not my experience by mejustme · · Score: 5, Interesting

    As a Canadian working many years as a software developer, while I'm sure examples can be found where this is happening, 99% of the work is still in the U.S. And U.S. employers, as much as they like to complain they cannot find enough developers, are reluctant if not outright 100% against hiring people working in Canada, even with the CAD USD difference.

    Just try and convince a hiring manager that you'll get the work done from Canada while the company is U.S. based! I've tried several hundreds of times over the last few decades.

    Unless you're willing to move down to the U.S. and be sitting in an office chair at their location 9-5 M-F, you'll never get a call back from HR or the hiring manager.

    1. Re:not my experience by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This just as true within the US. Try applying for a job in Philadelphia living an hour away. You may as well be stationed on Mars.

    2. Re:not my experience by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      But if you move down here, the housing is cheaper than Vancouver and you get paid more in USD, so it's win win for Canadians working in the US.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    3. Re:not my experience by mejustme · · Score: 1

      But if you move down here, the housing is cheaper than Vancouver [...]

      Canada != Vancouver

    4. Re:not my experience by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      I thought we were talking about tech outsourcing? It usually does mean that. Some of my old friends from BC teach at college there in IT and gaming.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    5. Re:not my experience by mejustme · · Score: 1

      I know Americans are notoriously bad at geography, but take a look at a map and find Vancouver. You'll find that Canada is much larger than 1 medium-sized city. (Vancouver itself is only 600K people while Vancouver + lower mainland is 2.7 million.)

      And the cost of housing is through the roof, while the tech salaries are the lowest of all the large Canadian cities. Unless you are born there and have ties that keep you there, the best thing you can do for your tech career is to move somewhere else. Calgary, Toronto, Ottawa, and Montréal, all have better pay and lower cost of home ownership than Vancouver + suburbs.

      If you're willing to look at smaller cities (Regina, Winterpeg, Guelph/Waterloo, etc) you can slash the cost of owning a home while keeping a mostly decent salary.

      The only really great thing about Vancouver is the weather, which is much milder than the rest of Canada. As long as you can mentally deal with the 6 months of constant rain in winter.

    6. Re:not my experience by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      Not according to the CBC documentary series "Statistics of Canada".

      I find your concept of cheap housing in Toronto and Edmonton to be laughable. Maybe you should wake up and realize it's 2019, not 1967.

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    7. Re:not my experience by mejustme · · Score: 1

      Not according to the CBC documentary series "Statistics of Canada".

      I find your concept of cheap housing in Toronto and Edmonton to be laughable. Maybe you should wake up and realize it's 2019, not 1967.

      You're inventing things! I never even mentioned Edmonton in my post. And when I wrote Toronto, I mentioned "lower cost of home ownership" compared to Vancouver, I didn't say it was cheap.

      While I do have years of experience, and I've lived and worked in both the U.S. and Canada, I wasn't born in 1967. All my posts referenced recent experiences. (I sold my home in Vancouver just a few years ago.)

    8. Re:not my experience by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      That's nice. Again, your basic premise does not appear to be backed by government provided documentation, and it doesn't jibe with my experience, including working for Century 21 Real Estate Canada, but hey, have a nice day, eh?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    9. Re:not my experience by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Guelph and Waterloo are big cities in Canada, and even at that housing prices are passing the $750k range in both places. Mostly because people are fleeing from the GTA and the "well a starter home in the ghetto will only run you $1.2m" type of bullshit. Think of it this way, there is now commuter service to Toronto from London and Woodstock because housing prices are so out-of-wack that people who live ~200+km away pay that price, and some are just making ends meet. But to be honest, if you could buy in at Woodstock for $350k attached, and still keep the job in Toronto that's clearing $140k(where you were barely making ends meet) you're far a head.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  17. Import tariffs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Import tariffs on software and remote labor.

  18. Corporations will do anything to avoid paying... by WCMI92 · · Score: 1

    the salaries they have to pay to have the best.

    So they can't import cheap ass Indians by the gross anymore so they will go to Canada where they can...

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market
  19. Both sides of their mouths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    H-1B recipients are all backed by US companies that say they are in need of specialized labor that isn't readily available in the US

    So we do not have the skills or the labor market is tight. But then here's this from the other day on slashdot:

    U.S. Students Have Achieved World Domination in Computer Science Skills -- For Now

    Therefore we have higher skills in the US. So it is about the labor market, and especially the ability to pay foreign workers much less and tie them to their jobs by threats of deportation. Instead of training more students here and shuffling older IT staff off the books.

  20. Don't blame Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Blame the traitorous companies that are selling the US out. Trump cares about the US and workers, Democrats and big companies don't. Traitors.

    1. Re:Don't blame Trump by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lol lol lol

      Do you know how many undocumented workers work in his Hotels? 96% of all the hotel employees don't have green-cards.

      Try another one bubba gump

  21. Let's follow the Canadian model by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    From the article:

    "Its Global Skills Strategy program — Canada’s equivalent to the H-1B — expedites the immigration process for high-skilled workers to just two weeks or less. Last year, the program brought in more than 12,000 workers, approving 95 percent of applicants. A quarter of those came from India and another quarter came from the US."

    I propose we follow the Canadian model and cap H1-B's at 12,000 annually.

  22. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like, if companies have a lot of demand for workers, and it's harder to reign in foreign workers, that it's good news for legal U.S. workers already here...

    It "seems" that way, but it actually isn't. What is actually good for legal US workers is if more legal US workers actually get hired.

    And this story is saying companies they're not really being hired. Companies still prefer foreign workers. The story is suggesting companies would rather setup shop outside the country than hiring American.

    You also have to consider the ripple or trickle down effects. When a foreign worker is hired and moves to the US, they're gonna be spending their pay check in the US to buy food, clothes, services, etc. Those are jobs for legal American workers. When companies setup shop outside the country, those foreign workers are no longer need to move to the US, which in turn means less jobs for local Americans.

  23. Hey! We're The Foreign Nationals Now by Bigbutt · · Score: 2

    We can then get H1B's and abuse the system.

    [John]

    --
    Shit better not happen!
  24. Re:Not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    Just like how the R's stole money from the middle class with the tax code change. If you don't understand that both sides do this shit, you are a fucking moron. But going by what you wrote, yeah, you are a fucking moron.

  25. Expand HIPA and SOX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Make it illegal for Financial, Medical and personally identifiable information to leave US borders. Including "remote display of that information".

    Once that's done, 99.99% of outsourcing has to die.

    No more remote call centers, programming, etc.

    1. Re:Expand HIPA and SOX by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      Because of legal restrictions on the movement of data outside of the US, I now have some additional roles to fill, and my position is more secure than it would be otherwise. The offshore team cannot yet replace me, after all...

      While you were thinking up clever fixes, these were continuing to be implemented, as they have been, for decades.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    2. Re:Expand HIPA and SOX by PPH · · Score: 1

      No thanks. If I want to do my banking or other business with a foreign institution, that's my business. We are approaching an economic Iron Curtain as it is.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  26. Bye by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

  27. Mexico seems like it would be cheaper by MooseTick · · Score: 1

    If they are presumably moving people from India, I would think they could plop them down in Mexico and it would be a lot cheaper. They could...
              pay them less that in US or Canada but more than India
              have them in the same time zone
              only be a few hours or less away by air
              minimal employment laws compared to US/Canada
              dangle US employment as a carrot

    There are probably other benefits I'm not even thinking of.

    1. Re:Mexico seems like it would be cheaper by AmazingRuss · · Score: 1

      If they get out of line, you can hire cartel to make an example of one!

    2. Re:Mexico seems like it would be cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting anonymously as this information identifies my company. Plus also lets me moderate the discussion.

      We are a consulting company with both onsite and offshore resources in India and Singapore. We had clients in Mexico for whom we positioned people in Mexico City. We ended up having to pay them more than what we pay people in the Bay Area. In the Bay Area people will live in apartments paying around 3000 dollar rent. In Mexico city due to security issues they lived in gated expat compounds with extremely high rents. The cost of living was higher than in the Bay Area. The guy who we would pay 8000 a month in Sunnyvale we had to pay 10000 a month in Mexico city.
      Now with Trump's tantrums we are putting people into Vancouver and Toronto. Mexico city is too costly.

    3. Re:Mexico seems like it would be cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico primarily grants long term residency visas only to people with family and rich retirees. They do not even document how to become a long term resident for employment purposes though I know that people in the timeshare sales residence businesses accomplish this. As this likely requires bribery and American business won't (or at least shouldn't) play that game, Mexico cannot be the host of U.S. company off-shoring.

      https://www.mexperience.com/lifestyle/living-in-mexico/visas-and-immigration/

    4. Re: Mexico seems like it would be cheaper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should you as an employer care how much they pay in rent? That is none of your concern. The salary should be in line with what others are being paid. Not how much rent is paid.

      If you are basing your salaries off of peoples rent, then you are doing something wrong.

    5. Re:Mexico seems like it would be cheaper by walterbyrd · · Score: 2

      Also healthcare benefits.

      I used to work with an Indian visa worker. He could hardly believe US healthcare expenses. Even with health insurance he could barely afford the deductibles and the stuff the insurance would not pay for.

      Healthcare in Mexico is much more affordable.

  28. Do you think I could get one of these jobs if I... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...illegally crossed the border into Canada? Sauce for the goose?

  29. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And their children do not need education, and they do not bring their relatives that need medical care, and they do not drive up housing costs...yaddah yaddah yaddah
    Woohooo, bye bye h1bs, nice knowing you.

  30. Re:Not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The Repugs used to be for the middle class, i.e. we won't tax you to hell like the Dems. But that stopped with the drug-cartel giveaway. But the commoners will keep fighting over whose team is better, while the top laugh all the way to the bank and piss on the yet-to-be-born children of America.

  31. They are spending time in China, too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And they are idiots.

  32. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by lgw · · Score: 2

    I'm more than happy to let Canada win the race to the bottom. The "disaster" of big west coast tech employers having to *gasp* hire US citizens hasn't kept them from expanding.

    When I was at Amazon, it was amazing how fast the story on my team switched from "we'd be happy to hire US citizens, we just can't find qualified people" to "we hired 3 US citizens this quarter, no problem" when we needed 3 people who could apply for top secret clearance. Amazing coincidence, really, how those previously non-existent qualified US workers suddenly appeared from nowhere when it became a benefit to the company.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  33. Honesty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even for us citizens the prospects look better in Canada.

  34. Top quality Indian talen is not emigrating anymore by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Times have changed a lot since my immigration. Those days, (1990s) most top quality graduates emigrated. Education is the classic ticket out of poverty, out of India. These are the ones that came to USA worked their butts off and impressed their bosses and made them think, "ALL Indians are smart, well educated and hard working". The supply is not all that deep. Once you get past IITs, IISc, RECs, NITs the quality drops precipitously. Emigrants till about 2002 - 2005 were decent.

    Then the H1B to green card transition became hard, the waiting lists got longer, and USA was losing its charm for the elite graduates. At the same time, Indian economy boomed, these grads were getting great career prospects back at home. The stream of resumes with IIT BTech has dwindled to nearly nothing.

    Let Canada keep them. When USCompanies realize most of them are duds, it will be Canada's problem, bot ours.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
  35. fucking stinkdus by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Specialized my ass

  36. Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    1. Nice lie. It's not "get rid of CAFE standards". It's "don't price the working class out of cars". Physics is a bitch, and she doesn't care about your green agenda.

    2. It's not about the trade balance; it's about unfair competition and dumping. The Chinese were deliberately, and successfully, dumping to destroy the US steel industry. Jobs are the campaign slogan, but the real problem is national security. Without domestic steel production, our entire economy is completely vulnerable to the Chinese Navy. Just like China and electric vehicles: with only a trivial petroleum reserve, they realize their economy is completely vulnerable to the US Navy or Lloyds shutting down their economy.

    3. Keep out the damn illegals. You keep lying and lying and lying, but the republicans are tired of the left-wing importing illegals in the hope of getting more voters. Stop lying. It's not about immigration, it's about illegals. In fact, when you narrow down to groups, it's the progressives who are being hurt the worst, and most aware of the damages from H1B abuses.

    It's sad that we're going to suffer batshit insane because so many people like you are incapable of critical thought and unwilling to consider the geopolitical context or listen to your neighbors.

    1. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Maybe you do not understand CAFE Standards. Please help me understand how producing more expensive and profitable SUVs (after killing CAFE) helps Americans buy cars, when the net result of CAFE was US companies produce more inexpensive (and economic) cars?

      2. Simple economics, if a country has a high standard of living, then countries with lower standards of living can perform work for less. The only way to counteract that is to force the high standard of living people into a lower standard of living to compete. Is that the conservative plan?

      3. Your lie, "the left-wing importing illegals in the hope of getting more voters", is truly laughable.
      The real driver here is that the primary employers of illegal immigrants are agricultural corporations (farming, meat packing) and service industries (landscaping, food service), who want to employ people at low wages, who cannot contact police or unionize if abused by their employer due to their "illegal" status.

      Are you a paid shill, or just stupid enough to believe the vomit that you spew?

    2. Re: Nice Propaganda by PCM2 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Funny you should mention "batshit insane"... you seem to believe illegal immigrants can vote, when not even Green Card holders can do that.

      Better close your curtains; Hillary Clinton and the CIA might be spying on you while you post!

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    3. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How do you know they don't vote? The left goes, um, batstuff, whenever a state tries to enact voter ID.

    4. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How do you know they are voting? Because Fox News says they are?

    5. Re: Nice Propaganda by Terwin · · Score: 2

      Funny you should mention "batshit insane"... you seem to believe illegal immigrants can vote, when not even Green Card holders can do that.

      You need not be a citizen to be counted in the census, which is used to apportion state representatives(and electoral votes). And for the last few it did not even ask about legal status, allowing democratic 'sanctuary' cities and states increase their apparent population.

      Democrats also consistently vote against any sort of voter ID requirements or any other method that would help prevent non-citizens from either using the name of a citizen to have their vote counted or registering to vote under their own name. (Motor-voter laws are a great way to register non-citizens to vote for example)

      So, sure it is not legal for a non-citizen to vote in national elections, but even if those laws are followed, illegal immigrants are still useful for pulling more legislative and electoral votes into liberal areas.

    6. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you seem to believe illegal immigrants can vote

      to the letter of the law, no, but wasn't it Bill Clinton the one who pulled a fast one
      to get a whole mess of 'em legalized so they could vote -- If I remember correctly...?

      CAP === 'commando'

    7. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      yeah, why the fuck is that nonsense modded "insightful"? I've been here over 15 years and the technolibertarians didn't used to be this retarded

    8. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Um, that was Reagan under the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, aka Reagan Amnesty

      Funny, huh?

    9. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

      This is seriously funny, let me know when you take off your tin-foil hat for some serious discussion!! (FWIW I did not know until now the the MAGA hats are tin-foil lined)

      You know that steel production is a) not a trade secret that you forget over time, b) only available in China if it is not done here. Steel is a commodity product that is traded on world markets. If/when it is not economical to produce locally you can get it from a variety of countries based on who has the best price. *If* those markets dry up or become constrained, or are people you don't want to do business with then local suppliers will increase supply at inflated prices to meet demand. You know, much like oil that we buy from a variety of world suppliers as well as increasing our own supply. To think that this is a 'national security' issue is a complete sign that you have consumed the Trump kool-aid.

      You may now return to working on your construction bid for The Yuge Wall of Trumpiness

    10. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny you should mention "batshit insane"... you seem to believe illegal immigrants can vote, when not even Green Card holders can do that.

      That would matter if there was one political party so against voter authentication that no voter ID laws are getting through. Who is checking legal documentation if people are who they say they are and have the right to vote? Nobody, because the blue team wants it that way.

      I'd expect tech people to know that with no user authentication there is no user security, but politics throws sense out the window.

    11. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The discussion on immigration leaves one question unanswered.

      Who is mowing the fairways and cleaning the hotel rooms of your President's commercial interests nowadays?

    12. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I fall in the category against voterid, namely because there's a lot of screwed over Americans living in this country whose only remaining touch of power is their ability to vote. They don't have cars or homes and often no state ids but are certainly American and they should have a right to vote.

    13. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You keep lying and lying and lying, but the republicans are tired of the left-wing importing illegals in the hope of getting more voters.

      Hypocrite. The dry-foot Cubans who still think Reagan's ghost is going to give them their plantations back are one of the biggest reasons you still win in Florida, but god forbid refugees from the "capitalist" banana republics show up on our doorstep.

      Stop lying. It's not about immigration, it's about illegals. In fact, when you narrow down to groups, it's the progressives who are being hurt the worst, and most aware of the damages from H1B abuses.

      H1Bs are legal, and you just voted in Trump on the promise of a Muslim ban. Of course people are going to think its about immigration if there is no immigration that you like.

    14. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2. It's not about the trade balance; it's about unfair competition and dumping. The Chinese were deliberately, and successfully, dumping to destroy the US steel industry.

      I agree with you. China has a long history of dumping, and is a long-term strategic threat.

      So, clearly, the solution is put big tariffs on Canadian steel:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    15. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice rant,. but physics and physicists the world over know that reality demands a green agenda - or bye bye economy.

      Trump wanted to increase tariffs on foreign cars - working class affording cars?

      Damn illegals? No, it is about all immigration and you know it - so YOU stop lying. 'Left-wing' importing illegals? What about Trump? He actually employs them illegally HIMSELF.

      Wake up.

    16. Re:Nice Propaganda by eaglesrule · · Score: 2

      "Stop lying. Stop with the Fox talking points."
      Association fallacy

      "Just stop. We have heard it all before."
        'old news' fallacy

      "The evidence, the data says otherwise."
      What evidence since you couldn't be bothered to provide any?

      Other countries following the US lead with steel tariffs?
      2016 election results by county and the Census bureau map of hispanic population?
      More countries phasing out ICE vehicles, thus dramatically decreasing their demand and profitability?

      "This is the worst kind of decision making by feelz instead of facts and reason."
      Projection.

    17. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Guess what? The conspiracy to import undocumented workers across the border isn't something drummed up by Democrat politicos or groups like La Raza, etc.

      The reality is that the undocumented workers are coming across the border to find work...any work. And they want to be paid cash under the table because it avoids them getting picked up by ICE. And the employers who want cheap labor are more than happy to encourage if not actively engage this illegal activity, because every dollar they don't have to pay in labor wages is a dollar in their bank account.

      Go to the kitchen of any restaurant or find any construction crew, and you will find that English is a second language. In some cases, English isn't even spoken or understood. In fact, for almost any supervisor or crew lead position, being able to speak both English and Spanish to be able to translate management instructions to the crew is the ONLY qualification the employer is looking for.

      So we are going after these undocumented workers...is anything being done about the companies that are employing them? I think that as soon as you start throwing some of these ass-clowns in jail for involvement in a criminal scheme, you'll see that the undocumented workers will stop coming across the border because all the job magically dried up. Sure, companies will have to pay more and look further afield to find workers who aren't undocumented, so we kill multiple birds with the same stone by also raising the de facto minimum wage.

      Hell, this shit goes all the way to the top even. The President's son (who runs the Trump Empire) could very well be one of these individuals complicit in this crime, as the Trump Corporation has multiple former employees willing to testify that they were both undocumented and worked for Trump. On top of that, the company was complicit in arranging the fake documents for these employees. As this crosses state and even international lines, this could even meet RICO standards.

      But will this happen? Would the state or federal prosecutors take this on? I think that this is a "Emperor's New Clothes" situation, where the status quo is more than happy to let things lie, because to force the truth would risk a massive economic and political fallout. It would be a big shit-show as it would be hard to find an industry that isn't rife with this illegal behavior. And the perpetrators are all the people donating to both political parties. On both local, state and federal levels.

    18. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A lot of these so called 'techies' with don't know shit about security or don't care. They're glorified MBAs and artists. Just check out the recent incident at Facebook and let's be honest, this isn't even uncommon. Security is such a joke right now. Yes, we know what to do, but 'no one' will allow it too happen.

    19. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Why are you marked insightful on such garbage?

      1. More people can afford more cars today than anytime in US history. Maybe you were part of the privileged few in past generations and actually didn't know how hard the rest had it.

      2. Steel was never a national security issue. We made far more steel than our armed forces, government, and government service sectors needed or wanted. Also the first two are almost always required to purchase domestically for exactly the national security reason (otherwise it would go against WTO rules).

      3. If you want to tackle the 3% illegal immigration problem maybe you should deal with all the illegals already in the country first. They make up 60% of the topic. They came here legally via the shitty US visa process and stayed too long. Maybe fix your immigration process so it's not so shitty and more would like to participate in it. Maybe by making it so hard to come in and being so disrespectful, you incentivized those who came LEGALLY to just stay and lose respect for you. Putting up a border wall is about as useful as putting a "Come back" sign on the open barn door.

    20. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      LOL at the Chinese deliberately dumping steel to destroy the US steel industry. First of all, just about 2% of US steel imports were from China. Secondly, most of the steel that China produces WAS USED IN CHINA. The rest of the steel was exported to various locations around Asia, which was also experiencing a building boom. Out of the hundreds of millions of tons of steel that China was producing, at least 85% of the steel was being used in China, to make sure that they could continue building using cheap steel. The rest of the world wanted there to be a supply issue so that China would have to import steel at inflated prices, that's not going to happen.

    21. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fallacy only until you are bothered check facts and not just linking slightly related news but nice try

    22. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean to deny the rich and the right-wing their gardeners and maids?

    23. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The trade deficit has only grown with China, steel industries are driving up costs to the consumer or laying off workers, farmers are getting less money for their crops or having to find other markets, and more business is fleeing the US economy.

      To look the other way on these absolutely terrible economic policies and their negative effects on our economy would be an exercise in God-tier willful ignorance.

      Stop defending poor policy and blaming the victims. Stop being misinformed and lied to by TV pundits with no understanding of economic policy.

      Republicans agree:
      https://terribletariffs.com/stories/

    24. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And we see what Democrats did to Elian Gonzales.

    25. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Because my illegal friends voted in California with no problem. They even have drivers licenses.

      As a Democrat myself I will admit that yeah, illegals vote and they largely vote Democrat. Not ALL of them do, but the vast majority of them do for obvious reasons.

    26. Re:Nice Propaganda by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      Stop lying. Stop with the Fox talking points.

      Just stop.

      We have heard it all before. The evidence, the data says otherwise. This is the worst kind of decision making by feelz instead of facts and reason.

      Projection much? Your go-to argument for everything is narrative-based, not facts. Have you never noticed that your arguments are almost always in the form of a story?

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    27. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is nothing wrong with voter ID as long as those without a high enough income are provided the card for free

    28. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I checked this:
      Other countries following the US lead with steel tariffs? [theguardian.com]

      Article is 3 years old, is speculative, and as far as I know, the answer to the question in the title is "no".

      Are the rest of your links as old and irrelevant as that one?

    29. Re:Nice Propaganda by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      My arguments are based on evidence, but I use stories to illustrate them because it's an effective tactic.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    30. Re:Nice Propaganda by goose-incarnated · · Score: 1

      My arguments are based on evidence, but I use stories to illustrate them because it's an effective tactic.

      Your arguments never have any evidence, you have only your stories that apply to (perhaps) outliers.

      I'm pretty certain I've encouraged you to take a course or two on basic statistics, or to read up why studies need to be double-blinded. The "evidence" you've always presented has always been stories.

      --
      I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
    31. Re: Nice Propaganda by Highdude702 · · Score: 2

      In Nevada it is illegal as an adult to not have an ID on you. They will arrest you as John/Jane Doe. They can hold you up to 72 hours until they figure out who you are. If you are poor or homeless the state gives you a voucher to get an ID. For free. I support voter ID.

    32. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would matter if there was one political party so against voter authentication that no voter ID laws are getting through. Who is checking legal documentation if people are who they say they are and have the right to vote? Nobody, because the blue team wants it that way.

      I'd expect tech people to know that with no user authentication there is no user security, but politics throws sense out the window.

      Because the Red Team is trying to use the "voter ID" requirements to impose a de-facto poll tax. If you weren't in the habit of closing DMVs in blue areas and cutting hours in the states you control (That's today, not even referencing the "literacy tests" that got the amendment passed in the first place), the ID requirements wouldn't be facing as much opposition.

    33. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Both from wikipedia:

      A Florida family court judge revoked Lázaro's temporary custody, clearing the way for González to be returned to his father's custody. On April 20, Reno made the decision to remove González from the house and instructed law enforcement officials to determine the best time to obtain the boy. After being informed of the decision, Marisleysis said to a Justice Department community relations officer, "You think we just have cameras in the house? If people try to come in, they could be hurt."[22]

      After González was returned to his father's custody, he remained in the U.S. while the Miami relatives exhausted their legal options. A three-judge federal panel had ruled that he could not go back to Cuba until he was granted an asylum hearing, but the case turned on the right of the relatives to request that hearing on behalf of the boy.[36] On June 1, 2000, the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Elián was too young to file for asylum; only his father could speak for him, and the relatives lacked legal standing.[37] On June 28, 2000, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the decision.[38] Later the same day, seven months and one week after Elián González left Cuba, he and his family returned there.[39]

      SWAT got involved because the mother's side of the family threatened violence, and the legal system decided the custody dispute for the father, who declined to make the asylum case (because he wanted to bring Elian back to Cuba). If Democrats hated Cubans as much as Republicans hate everyone else south of the border, both sides of the family would have been shipped to Cuba, and Elian would be with neither of them.

      And I'll remind you that the original point was "You keep lying and lying and lying, but the republicans are tired of the left-wing importing illegals in the hope of getting more voters." By the Republican standard, you shouldn't be able to vote for them, either because they would have sent you back or because your parents would have been sent back and you therefore weren't born here. They're afraid the people hurt by the fallout of Nixon's drug policies, and Reagan's work with the Contras might do as you have (Or your parents did to your benefit, etc).

    34. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She will never take a stats class because who needs facts when you have very strong feelings?

    35. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if the illegals themselves do not vote, they pump out anchor babies who inherit citizenship, and all of the rights that come with it, and then in 18 years THEY vote almost 100% blue, because blue promises them benefits, childcare, medical care, amnesty for their parents and grandparents, you name it.

      Those blues (or reds) who participate in this game should be tried as traitors, for aiding and abettting a foreign invasion.

    36. Re:Nice Propaganda by mjwx · · Score: 1

      1. Nice lie. It's not "get rid of CAFE standards". It's "don't price the working class out of cars". Physics is a bitch, and she doesn't care about your green agenda.

      I think you mean economics, not physics. But don't worry, it's not the worst factual error you've made.

      But here is a novel idea, instead of trying to make cheaper and crappier cars (developing nations have you licked there, they're making cheaper and more modern cars), why don't you try raising your standard of living so that the working class can afford a decent car, instead of having to buy an Ignition Deathtrap that struggles to get 20 MPG due to it's ancient engine design. Raising living standards, just a crazy idea.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    37. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Nevada it is illegal as an adult to not have an ID on you. They will arrest you as John/Jane Doe. They can hold you up to 72 hours until they figure out who you are. If you are poor or homeless the state gives you a voucher to get an ID. For free. I support voter ID.

      Land of the Free!

    38. Re: Nice Propaganda by eaglesrule · · Score: 1

      The trade deficit has only grown with China, steel industries are driving up costs to the consumer or laying off workers, farmers are getting less money for their crops or having to find other markets, and more business is fleeing the US economy.
      To look the other way on these absolutely terrible economic policies and their negative effects on our economy would be an exercise in God-tier willful ignorance. Stop defending poor policy and blaming the victims. Stop being misinformed and lied to by TV pundits with no understanding of economic policy. Republicans agree:
      https://terribletariffs.com/st...

      That was impressive. The half truths mixed in with hyperbolic adjectives, with a good dose of attempted shaming, followed by a link to an obvious shill site.. it's just about perfect. Well done.

      Sorry if I don't feel much sympathy for the businesses that profited from the chinese market dumping. They're going to have to adjust, because domestic steel production is critical to national security.

      Food farmers losing business because of Chinese retaliatory tariffs? It's sad they hitched their wagon to a country that intends to stab the US in the back every chance it gets. Really, it is. It's like those short-sighted greedy CEO's that took their manufacturing to China, was forced to give the state an ownership position, and then are amazed when low-cost competitors spring up using their own IP. Then they take their golden parachute and leave investors holding the bag. If only someone could have predicted it.

      We should never have gotten in bed with China to begin with. Now we're reaping the results.

    39. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But you can get the ID card for free? Through the mail...or is that too much effort for someone who REALLY cares about voting?

    40. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I understand CAFE standards just fine. It's not about standards. It's about what kind of vehicles people want to buy. Anyone who doesn't live in a city, has more than two children, needs to tow a trailer, etc. doesn't want to buy a cracker jack toy car.

      SUVs are popular. Trucks are popular. Vans are popular. What are not popular are roller skate cars.

      It's not primarily about countries having low standards of living as much as it is about the individuals being perfectly happy to allow the unfettered exploitation of workers in other countries. No one pillers that bastion of liberal politics Apple for running sweatshops in China. No one cares that the factories in China pollute. They make things cheaper there because they exploit the workers and destroy the planet. The proper response is for the U.S. to require any imports be made at factories in countries with environmental laws which are at least as good as the U.S., and that separate from actual pay require humane working conditions with similar protections to OSHA.

      I have no sympathy for corporations who exploit illegals, any more than I have for those who exploit them in other ways. Big supporter of legal immigration. Conflating lagal and illegal immigration to cover for illegals is a dick move.

    41. Re:Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " The Chinese were deliberately, and successfully, dumping to destroy the US steel industry."

      AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA best joke ever. You must think everyone is subordinate to you and will swallow your bullshit without questioning.

      The assholes from US are responsible for this, not chinese. They willingly and with clear understanding decided to dump US workers and embrace china. China merely provided the 'opportunity', you assholes GRABBED it and went for it. But hey, nobody is responsible now, its all evil chinese fault. Say thanks to your own 'greed and stupidity' - and fuck off.

    42. Re: Nice Propaganda by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In Nevada it is illegal as an adult to not have an ID on you.

      Wow. And they say we've got a police state in the UK. At least we don't have "papers please!" here.

    43. Re: Nice Propaganda by Mashiki · · Score: 0

      Remember that the IRCA was based on a "gentlemen's agreement" between the the house, senate, dnc, rnc, and president. That if the president agreed to the above, one-time only, that the democrats would agree to more funding for a wall, apprehension of illegals and everything else. If you don't believe me? Fine. Go look up the congressional and senate records, along with the media of the day.

      Simply put: Republicans and the President did what they agreed to, and the Democrats then pulled a "but we didn't say so.."

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
  37. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by lgw · · Score: 2

    No one cares about your time working in the warehouse fatboy.

    I can guarantee you I'd weigh a lot less if I had worked at the warehouse!

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  38. H-1B: Theory vs. Reality by Nova+Express · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Theory: "We want the very best developers and engineers from around the world to supercharge the American economy!"

    Reality: "Hey, my cousin Sanjay knows Sharepoint. Let's write the job rec so narrowly tailored that we can get him into the country on an H-1B."

    --
    Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

    http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

    1. Re:H-1B: Theory vs. Reality by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Sharepoint is a project that makes jobs. It's analogous to base-line budgeting in government finances whereas in IT, it consumes more resources to the point you get an entire IT sub-division of a Sharepoint department.

      It's beast, slay it while you still can!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    2. Re:H-1B: Theory vs. Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharepoint has got to be the most roundabout, convoluted, server-intensive, slow, and frustrating way to make simple lists of items appear in a web browser that has ever been created.

      That said, in a race to the bottom of IT products, it has nothing on Documentum.

    3. Re:H-1B: Theory vs. Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sharepoint is a project that makes jobs.

      Jira is the new thing for my group. They have processes on top of processes on top of processes.

      Personally if I want to spend all day writing requirements and tests and such, I want it to be in files that are part of the regular source control and as simple as possible. I'm hoping for problem reports and such I can export Jira entries to get them part of something that lives beyond one project.

      The main thing is not to have valuable IP permanently on some cloud infrastructure you know will eventually become lost for one reason or another.

    4. Re:H-1B: Theory vs. Reality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this all that bad? We've had a lot of employees express interest in moving to Canada since Trump was elected, not necessarily for political reasons. Thanks to the low cost of living in some parts of Ottawa, it's just a great place to live, freezing winters notwithstanding. Our business, which is headquartered in lower Michigan, provides endpoint cloud security for SMEs. Perhaps it's because of the proximity, but we're warming (no pun intended) to our neighbors to the north. Thanks to applicants like "your cousin Sanjay" we've opted to open a satellite office there (Hosting Canada), and we've seen an uptick in Canadian business as a result... all thanks to immigrants who were rejected at U.S. borders. As our government sorts out its immigration policy, new opportunities are being created every day.

  39. Re: Yay, let's celebrate shitty companies outsourc by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not outsourcing if they're directly hiring the employees, which this seems to describe. Outsourcing is when you hire another company to do the work for you, and that doesn't mean the company you hired is in another country (typically that is referred to as offshoring in the business world.)

    Most outsourcing ends up being domestic. For example, many companies outsource their supply chain management to UPS rather than hire their own supply chain management staff. Often outsourcing (and even offshoring) can cost more than insourcing, but the management may not want to go through the hassle of finding the talent for it and waiting for process flows to develop before things are done efficiently, and then having yet another department to deal with.

  40. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    You think Amazon only sells consumer goods. That's sort of cute. Uninformed, but sort of cute.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  41. So Tech Companies firing US workers is OK??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "H-1B recipients are all backed by US companies that say they are in need of specialized labor that isn't readily available in the US"

    So, whenever US tech companies each fire, all of their IT division (US) workers altogether & replace all of them w/ H-1B workers altogether, they are doing it because they cannot find IT workers in the US???

  42. Re: So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just because you are lazy and born of an intellectually retarded peoples doesnâ(TM)t give you a right to judge.

    No go get your shine box, boy. Run, I donâ(TM)t have all day, dumbkaupf

  43. Did they pay any taxes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If not, then they were never "US companies" to begin with.

    Good riddance.

  44. Re: So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are still full of crap.

  45. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Canadians have been getting pissed off over this the last few years under Trudeau because it's expanded. A company is more likely to claim that they can't find anyone to work a PT job in a fast food joint and then hire a TFW(temporary foreign worker) to cover it, but it hasn't stopped companies that hire skilled trades from pulling the same stuff, or banks doing the same. The problem is that while the Trudeau government likes to claim "unemployment historic lows!" and all the rest, wages have entered a stagflation phase with the cost of goods going up.

    The Trudeau government also doesn't like to point out that the jobs mostly being created are low wage service jobs either. Or that a lot of people are working 2-4 PT jobs just to make ends meet. Pretty easy to figure out why substance abuse, theft and so on is going through the roof isn't it. Even things 5 years ago that were uncommon like entering a dwelling house with a person inside were rare crimes in Canada, simply because the law punishes "entry on a B&E with a person inside" harshly. Now? There are cities where 70% of entries are with a person inside, because robbery is also a motive.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  46. Foreign to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Foreign Workers" means people foreign to Canada. The Great White North has an open borders policy to accept workers from places like India. No one is talking about Canadian citizens travelling to the U.S. for work here.

  47. Re: DNC Shill Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Uh Huh....suuuure. Whateva you say, Russian penis breath.

  48. This is how it used to be. by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

    Back in the 50s, 60s, and 70s, Canada was consider the prime outsourcer for American white collar work. Lots of benefits to this such such as having the same time zone or close to it, cultural similarities, and a lack of a language barrier (eh?).

    And honestly, I'm ok with that. I'd like to support countries that are similar in values, culture, politics, and legal systems. Outsourcing work to the lowest bidders ends up supporting at best cronyism and bribery. And at worst totalitarian regimes.

    1. Re:This is how it used to be. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except, this time, the companies aren't outsourcing to hire Canadian workers that have "cultural similarities, and a lack of a language barrier". They are outsourcing to Canadian companies that are hiring cheaper (than American or Canadian) foreign workers.

      So really, this is nothing like it used to be.

  49. Re:Top quality Indian talen is not emigrating anym by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, of course now that you're here close the borders.

    "Fuck you, I got mine!"

  50. Re: So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because nothing was ever bad or getting worse under the right wing party? Because the PM personally sets wage policy for fry cooks?

    Shit, you can blame Trudeau for winter being cold and summer being hot, space being dark and electrons repelling each other by that standard.

  51. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need someone in the US to adopt a Canadian in his 40's. I want the hell out of here.
    I'd be happiest in a small poor city in the south, seriously. Help

  52. I don't think it's about exploiting them anymore by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the ones I know work the same hours as the Americans. Rather, it's about keeping wages down and about not having to pay to train. And not just the training the business does. Don't forget that the US has been slashing funding to education for decades. We couldn't get away with that if we didn't have a supply of trained people.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  53. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    "When a foreign worker is hired and moves to the US, they're gonna be spending their pay check in the US to buy food, clothes, services, etc."

    Minimally. The countries which export these workers run investment programs to give better returns from home. Meaning a huge chunk of their salaries get funneled directly out the US. And then of course there are the workers who send money back to their families. We really shouldn't allow visa workers either option.

  54. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by swillden · · Score: 2

    Not from where I'm sitting. We hire all the Americans we can find, but we just can't find enough who can meet our requirements. We pay very well, have great benefits, etc. Doesn't matter. It's not a problem of finding people willing to work, it's a problem of finding people who can do the job. The only way to get enough good people is to hire globally. If that means more teams have to be based outside of the US, so be it.

    If the process continues for long enough that our teams are primarily based outside of the US, then that will mean that Americans who want those jobs will have to move out of the country to get them. Assuming the other countries don't decide to reciprocate on the visa policies... if they do, then the Americans will just be SOL.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  55. Re:Not possible by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    So, you live in California, New York, IL?

    The rest of the country got a tax cut, actually you did as well, what paid for the tax cut is no longer allowing your city/state to hijack income tax dollars. Since your state/city still hasn't fixed their taxes to no longer attempt to hijack income tax from the feds you should take the issue up with them. They'll just have to cut costs/programs or increase sales/gross receipt taxes instead of pilfering income taxes.

    Really that is the best thing. People in New York shouldn't get out of paying their fair share of federal income tax which should look just like someone in Alabama with the same income. That is one step. The next is wealthy areas incorporating separately so their income taxes go entirely to their schools and rob poor neighborhoods of their funding.

  56. Re: So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    Because nothing was ever bad or getting worse under the right wing party? Because the PM personally sets wage policy for fry cooks?

    I didn't know that Harper was Trudeau Sr., who implemented wage and price controls. And then experienced massive nationwide wildcat strikes. FYI, provinces are responsible for hourly wages these days, and it was Wynne(Ontario Liberals), who tried to set the wage policy for fry cooks. That was after her brilliant plan to jump the min.wage from 12/hr to 15/hr in 2 years.

    Shit, you can blame Trudeau for winter being cold and summer being hot, space being dark and electrons repelling each other by that standard.

    I can blame Trudeau's plan to implement a carbon tax, and bankrupting people over it. But what do I know? Because the same architect who did the same in Ontario - which has killed it's carbon tax was G.M. Butts. The same asshole who was Trudeau Jr's bestest buddy in the whole world, until the SNC-Lavalin scandal broke and he left to "spend more time with his family" was the same architect behind the federal Liberals plan.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  57. Re:Not possible by cayenne8 · · Score: 2

    Just like how the R's stole money from the middle class with the tax code change.

    Funny....My taxes went down due to the tax cuts, and I"m firmly middle class.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  58. It's called Consequences by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    The data must flow.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  59. Re: So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wouldn't go that far. Maybe put a limit on the amount of money they can send back PER year.

  60. Re: DNC Shill Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, every news article I've read says that taxes for the middle class have gone up across the board. From property tax to school taxes.

  61. Re: Not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, my taxes went up, and I'm middle class.

    Last year I had to pay the feds $300, this year I had to pay them $700. Go figure.

  62. Re:Not possible by burtosis · · Score: 1

    Funny my taxes (I'm not talking withholding, but the actual taxes) went up and I'm firmly upper middle class. Further my tax breaks end 2024 and the corporate and 0.1% tax cuts are permenant.

  63. Re: Top quality Indian talen is not emigrating any by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LOL! Exactly this.

  64. Highly skilled, retired in 2007. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Around 2009, I started getting bored and looked at the job market. I don't **need** to work, but I would like to work, at the right job, for the right pay.
    It is 2019 and employers and I cannot agree about the right location or pay, so I've been volunteer teaching seniors and college kids Linux on the weekends.
    10 yrs as cross-platform developer. C/C++. A few other languages. I haven't kept those up.

    7 yrs as technical architect and enterprise architect, but I'm hands-on.

    After an interview for an Enterprise Architect role at a very large financial services company, they asked me to take a C programming test - no warning. I hadn't written C using Windows tools in 10+ yrs, at least.
    If they wanted a programmer, I wasn't the guy. After staring at a PC running Windows with a compiler I'd never used and the test for a few minutes, I got up and walked out. Told the proctor I wasn't the right person if they wanted to hire a programmer. Said the same in my "thank you" for the interview note. Never heard a word again. The pay was about 2x the going rate for a senior C programmer. We used Unix systems for all our development and ported to Windows. I'd setup the scripts to build all the code on all the platforms around 1996 and they worked with minor changes/updates until 2000 - when I left that company.

    Took a job at a startup for stock (real, not options), and setup all their infrastructure. They were anti-cloud, which I liked. Followed all the security best practices, no Windows, no public PHP. VPN, backup, remote desktops, email, document management, accounting, project management, CRM, our own text, voice, video chat server, and external VoIP connections to POTS, etc. Wrote a few RoR and Perl-Dancer webapps there too. All running on commodity HW with redundant, replicated storage. Never had a server fail, but I did test failovers every weekend A-->B, then the next week, B-->A. When the company got bought, I walked away. Wasn't interested in being a cog in a Windows IT shop.

    If you hate Cloudy services, love F/LOSS and virtualization, don't need me to be on-site all-the-time, won't make me deal with Windows or PHP - ever - leave a reply. I'm looking for the right situation again.

  65. Scumbag companies by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will do anything to avoid having to hire Americans.

  66. Enough already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just ban bringing in/hiring foreign workers

  67. Re:Yay, let's celebrate shitty companies outsourci by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 2

    in a few shitty companies outsourcing.

    Hey Anonymous Coward, here in Vancouver, the large offices of "a few shitty companies outsourcing" include Amazon, Microsoft, SalesForce, Slack and Electronic Arts.

    https://www.straight.com/files...

  68. those nazi roaches aren't afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's sad is that old ass 6-digit user didn't feel the need to check Anonymous before going on a Hitler praise-fest. They are emboldened these days to show and be proud of their hate right out in the open. Slashdot is lost. I'm pretty sure the country isn't far away from it either.

    1. Re:those nazi roaches aren't afraid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AC who Andy_Poloni was replying to here,

      TBF, I pretty much stopped using my 6-digit UID and started posting as AC when Dice sold /. out to a media company.

      I half-expect to see some astro-turfing troll using my old UID, since it appears that 'somebody' is selling UIDs and Karma Points

      I will never give up the fight and will slay the fools as AC until /. and the country have been relieved of this burden

  69. Re:I don't think it's about exploiting them anymor by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .... Don't forget that the US has been slashing funding to education for decades.

    The US government statistic disagree. K-12 educations funding is up almost 20% 2000- to 2015 that latest I found numbers for,

    https://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=66

  70. Because you love CAPITALISM? FACT. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because that's how Capitalism works. FACT. Ya know that thing you republicans worship more than the Bible?
    Because republicans gutted Unions. FACT. Ya know those people you keep voting for?
    Because you can't get your head out of your ass long enough to realize the slogan you posted is a SOCIALIST meme. FACT.

  71. Who'd thunk it? by smoot123 · · Score: 1

    Gee, if only there were a field of study which tried to understand how people respond to incentives. If only there were only a way to predict if you make something more difficult, you'll get less of it. And that if you make something harder, organizations will use the easiest possible answer (which might not be the outcome you were hoping for).

    1. Re:Who'd thunk it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They could take the 10 floors of the building I work in and outsource the whole thing and NO ONE would notice. There is maybe a couple dozen Americans amongst the 500 or so people that work there.

      So if it all goes to canada who cares? As an american what do I care? I am locked out by definition for that job.

      But you can get back to me when economics figures out how to actually measure 'happiness' and 'utility' and uses something more complex than curve fitting (source degree in econ).

      I can even put this in econ terms. It is called artificial demand. Basically there are 1000 jobs. Lets pretend that 100% of them are VISA jobs. That is 1000 jobs that can go anywhere. They are by definition not take by the local population. Those people are effectively something that the local population has 0 demand for. If those jobs leave there is no real change in the job market. There may be some change on the local market for taxes and money spent. However it is an inflated demand that effectively does not exist.

  72. Re:Yay, let's celebrate shitty companies outsourci by Hognoxious · · Score: 2

    Those are big and fairly famous. But it doesn't necessarily follow that they aren't shitty, though.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  73. Re: Not possible by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Funny, my taxes went up, and I'm middle class.

    Last year I had to pay the feds $300, this year I had to pay them $700. Go figure.

    Are you saying over the entire year, including withholding, you paid more federal taxes this year than last...OR, are you saying that due to less being withheld over the year, you had to pay in $400 more than last year at EOY?

    There's a big difference....you're tax debt to the Feds should be lower for the fiscal 2018 year, but you may be paying a bit more at EOY due to less tax being withheld over the course of the year from your paycheck, if you are a W2 employee. The part that matters is your total tax debt to the Feds over the year 2018 which for most middle class folks is less.

    Unless you happen to live in one of the HIGH state tax states, which you can no longer write off your high state taxes, in which case you did likely have to pay a bit more, but that can be taken care of by getting your elected state officials to lower the damned state taxes.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  74. You proved Rally wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And your statement disproves Rally's assertion. Texas and yourself were not making more money and 1 out of every 3 jobs in America because Texas has no Income Tax. You guys were doing so because you were extracting a real, tangible resource out of the ground and selling it.

  75. Re:Yay, let's celebrate shitty companies outsourci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congrats? Most of those offices were there well before Orange. Man. BAD!

  76. Re: DNC Shill Liar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny, you are too stupid to realize over half of the news is fake now.

  77. Re:Not possible by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Funny my taxes (I'm not talking withholding, but the actual taxes) went up and I'm firmly upper middle class. Further my tax breaks end 2024 and the corporate and 0.1% tax cuts are permenant.

    Does that mean you live in one of those HIGH state tax states?

    If so, then yes, since you cannot write off state taxes, that likely hits you, BUT , you can address this by getting your elected state legislators to lower the damned overly high state taxes.

    I would suggest, maybe you look into incorporating yourself for your work, or side work...so that you an gain on the 'corporate' tax breaks and write off a BUNCH of stuff, which helps me.

    Most of the corporations that are single person corps (like me) are middle class and small businesses....I'm certainly not in the 1% or higher crowd, but I did benefit from the fall though corporate tax breaks. I have a S-Corp, and it works out quite well.

    This is a very common corp for small businesses or individual contractors, etc. It does help a lot of us that are middle class, many times over the number of the few 1%'ers keep trying to refer to.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  78. Re: So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the sad song I hear over and over but it's pure lies. I've worked with hiring groups that had listings for speciality tech workers in small US towns in states no one wants to live. Those slightly underpaid positions had hundreds of applicants per position. I've read through the resumes and even sat through many interviews. Most were qualified (some were not). There's no shortage, it's a complete and utter joke, you just want to minimize labor costs, that's it. That or your HR department and hiring strategies are horrible.

    The fact is companies won't run away, they absolutely will not. Our military and cultural commitment to maintain and protect cronyism as a nation is what keeps companies from jumping borders. They won't leave, the consumer market and protections afforded here are too great. This is a idle threat playing against fear and I've heard that same salesmanship many times. Don't let the door hit you on the way out, good luck protecting and maintaining your IP and often stolen or exploited capital in most of the world. Most other citizens won't put up with it because they're more dire (except China, then you have to deal with the government which you don't have a finger on like you do in the US).

    Please stop playing your sad song, no one believes it anymore.

  79. Re:Not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Debt free, paid well into six figures and my taxes went down. Sucks fo you.

  80. on foreign workers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    recent example. Install an application on a virtual machine. Following the instructions takes maybe 1 day max, including documentation. Another day to script and automate the whole thing.

    It took our foreign workers from east asia a good two month and several night shifts. It is still not automated and hardly documented. They claim the instructions were not clear.

    Meanwhile I took about 3 days to script another 5 applications and tested them on sevearl virtual machines. Can now be deployed automatically on any number of machines without operator intervention and is professionally documented.

    But of course my rate is about 5 times theirs, so technically management thinks they have saved a lot of money hiring the remote team.

  81. Re: Not possible by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Funny my taxes also went up this year and I'm middle class.

  82. MCGA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Making Canada Great Again!

  83. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Re 'to buy food, clothes, services, etc."
    A US citizen working for decades in the US supporting US tax payments is what the US needs more of.
    The US needs citizens to pay in a lot of tax every year for decades. Not send their wage out of the USA ever year for a few years.
    A foreign worker would never spend all their wage in a foreign nation. That wage is going back to their own nation as savings.
    Why would anyone come to another nation and not save their wage? The project could end in a short time and that have no money saved?
    Better to hire US citizens and have them spend their wage and pay more tax in the USA for decades.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  84. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you care to share the name of the company that you work for and which jobs that you have that you cannot fill with American talent? Otherwise your just blowin' in the wind. A corporate shill conscious or not.

  85. H1B solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe I'm just dumb, but it seems to me that the solution is to require companies to pay H1Bs 20-25% more than a local hire.

    If there is truly a need, they'll pay the extra. If a local worker is cheaper, then they'll look harder for them.

  86. Re:I don't think it's about exploiting them anymor by RalphSlate · · Score: 1

    If you plug $10,000 into the US CPI Calculator from 2000 to 2015, you will find that it is worth $13,905. That means an increase from $10,000 to $12,000 over that period of time is an effective cut.

    Cuts to higher education are more prominent:

    https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/a-lost-decade-in-higher-education-funding

  87. canada is not the place by unixman99 · · Score: 1

    Don't be led to believe this kind of propaganda, canada has always tried advertising itself as the best country and looking to get top rankings, that should be a big red flag right there. I left canada after years of problems dealing with cheap companies and bad management, and i'm so glad I did. Taxes are much higher, and there are far fewer good jobs, most of this growth they mention is short term beginner level jobs that aren't very well paid or last long. The difference in pay is dramatic. Just look at all the big business and money the US has, canada has nothing like this, not even 1 big player. When I read some of the positive comments in here it makes me think what the heck is wrong with you. Try going to canada and i'll be laughing at you. And if anyone doesn't like what i'm saying and doesn't want to believe me, just wonder WHY are all these people in the world looking to come to the US to work in the first place!

    1. Re:canada is not the place by unixman99 · · Score: 1

      because i've got good access to demand for my skills, pay several times higher, and finally got to move up in my career and actually get to do something. If you have low ambitions and abilities, and are looking for healthcare and retirement, then canada is for you. They'll give away citizenship, but they won't do a dam thing for people in their own country. Disagree? look at me.

  88. Re: So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers by swillden · · Score: 1

    That's the sad song I hear over and over but it's pure lies. I've worked with hiring groups that had listings for speciality tech workers in small US towns in states no one wants to live.

    My employer has engineering offices in ~40 US cities, including a dozen or so major metropolitan areas.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  89. 350-750/mo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Before costs for visits for health insurance here in the US pre-obamacare.

    I'm not sure what it is like since.

  90. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by swillden · · Score: 1

    Would you care to share the name of the company that you work for and which jobs that you have that you cannot fill with American talent?

    Google (er, Alphabet). Software engineers.

    And to be clear, it's not that there isn't any American talent, it's that there isn't enough. Google hires at a voracious pace, hundreds per week, about half of them SWEs. And not because of turnover, because of growth. To sustain that rate, and maintain a high bar for talent, Google's recruiters have to find 50K-100K new prospects every week. You can't do that if you restrict yourself to 1/26th of the world's population.

    And I don't think the problem is the Bay Area. There are lots of Google engineering sites around the country, and all of them struggle to hire enough SWEs to keep up with demand. Google teams are perpetually understaffed. The Bay Area sites do struggle a little more, but not much more.

    --
    Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
  91. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 1

    Minimally. The countries which export these workers run investment programs to give better returns from home. Meaning a huge chunk of their salaries get funneled directly out the US. And then of course there are the workers who send money back to their families. We really shouldn't allow visa workers either option.

    Respectfully, fuck that. Being able to spend or not spend your money the way you choose is a basic freedom of speech issue. Yes, money is speech.

  92. Semantics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    US tech companies have been recruiting heavily from Canadian universities for decades. The only difference now is that those companies are going to open offices in Canada rather than sponsor those new hires to work in the US. Those workers would probably rather be paid in strong US dollars than Canadian loonies at the moment but there is no guarantee the US dollar will remain strong.

  93. Re:Not possible by meglon · · Score: 1

    People in those high tax states don't "get out of" paying their fair share... in fact, they have been paying MORE than their fair share for decades as those low tax red states litteraly steal money from blue states to make their state function. Red states take far more money from the feds than they give... they are leeches on this country. Blue states have to not only make up for the red state leeches who are the ones who are actually not paying their fair share, but they also have to pay more in taxes to keep their states running because they don't get back as much from the fed.

    We need a constitutional amendment that bars any state from getting back more than 1.05 of what it puts in, nor less than .95 what it puts in. Then we'll see what you ungrateful "low state" people in red states think.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  94. Re: Not possible by meglon · · Score: 1

    Or it can be taken care of by getting those "low tax" state leeches to pay their fair share instead of leeching money off blue states. Any state that has to take more from the feds than it puts in is a leech state... and those mostly seem to be the red states. Leeches; ungrateful leeches at that.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  95. Re:Not possible by meglon · · Score: 1

    Why is it that those always whining about people taking responsibility are the ones that never do themselves. Any "low tax" state that leeches money off the fed (almost all of those seem to be red states) are NOT paying their fair share of taxes. Then, some ungrateful hypocrite like you comes along and says the people ALREADY paying more than their fair share should pay more, so you can continue to be a leech. You shouldn't have to wonder why people think conservatives have no integrity.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  96. Canada is the Best by Emporiaz1 · · Score: 1

    I don't think so, Canada is best place and projecting itself as a fast growing country. www.emporiaz.com

  97. article summarized by astrofurter · · Score: 0

    Evil megacorps owned by Corporate Progressive nazis indignantly deplore President Trump's modest efforts to protect American workers despite their failed efforts to lawfully-bribe his administration. The evil megacorps threaten to move operations to Canada, a more easily exploited country ruled by a goofy muppet who apparently values suitcases full of dirty cash more than he values the well-being of his own people. Corporate Progressive nazi fake news journalist applauds megacorp efforts to extort favoritism from the US government, deplores its surprising ineffectiveness. President Trump continues to stand strong for American workers, even in the face of yet another coordinated and well financed anti-worker propaganda campaign.

  98. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If the process continues for long enough that our teams are primarily based outside of the US, then that will mean that Americans who want those jobs will have to move out of the country to get them. Assuming the other countries don't decide to reciprocate on the visa policies... if they do, then the Americans will just be SOL."

    The army will be sent instead. As they say: Traitors before enemies, in the service provisioning..

  99. Good luck with your Indian programmers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Because most of them are incompetent and can't write decent code.

    Why aren't you importing AFRICAN programmers? IQ, perhaps?

  100. This is belied by another recent article. by sabbede · · Score: 1
    Specifically, this one: https://news.slashdot.org/stor...

    If our universities are #1, why do we need to import talent?

  101. American developers are not competitive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in global economy, let's admit that. In price terms. Why should anyone go to California and live sligtly above poverty line on $120-150K, giving most of that to landlords, medical insuranse and other leeches, when he can live like a king in his home country on a fraction of that income, doing remote work

  102. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    Yet wages have not gone up significantly at all. So maybe these companies aren't as desperate as they say they are.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  103. Wages by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

    I will "grow concerned" about these companies when they show any attempt to raise wages. That is their way to raise the red flag that they cannot find workers. They have not done that yet, so right now they are not as desperate as people say they are.

    --
    Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  104. So? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Enjoy undercutting the Canadian labor market and the much more expensive cost of living. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face. I love the brag while tossing Canadian workers under the bus.

  105. Re:Not possible by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Why is it that those always whining about people taking responsibility are the ones that never do themselves. Any "low tax" state that leeches money off the fed (almost all of those seem to be red states) are NOT paying their fair share of taxes. Then, some ungrateful hypocrite like you comes along and says the people ALREADY paying more than their fair share should pay more, so you can continue to be a leech. You shouldn't have to wonder why people think conservatives have no integrity.

    I don't really get this meme....

    "States" don't pay taxes or monies to the Feds.

    People in states pay taxes to the Feds, as to corporations.

    These people pay as they are required....perhaps they don't earn as much, so therefore don't pay as much. Cost of living in some states is lower than others, so salaries aren't as high....

    Are you saying a person in state #1 making $40K/hy should pay as much federal income tax as a person in state #2 making $100K/yr?

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  106. Re:Not possible by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    "People in those high tax states don't "get out of" paying their fair share... in fact, they have been paying MORE than their fair share for decades as those low tax red states litteraly steal money from blue states to make their state function."

    This is how our tax system works, just like citizens with more income owe a larger share, states which contain more of them owe a larger share. Just because your state pays more than another state in doesn't mean the people of your state paid their full share. It means your incomes are so disproportionate that you were able to dodge a large chunk of your fair share and still paid more. No small part of that is the people in blue states have advanced economic agendas that hurt the trades of midwestern and southern states while promoting their own trades. They then impose local and state taxes that have erroneously diverted federal income tax and then promoted increasing federal programs and subsidies. The other states see a larger increase with every additional program tacked on.

    Corrections like this serve to help give you perspective on the cost of taxes and federal programs. It really is no different on the state level than the individual but people in blue states don't like to have the same logic applied to the state level as the individual. Want states to pay more than they take, start cutting out the programs that pay money to states and implement a tax cut for what they cost.

    There is no way to untangle this broken and twisted knot that doesn't negatively impact both red and blue states at many stages. There is also no fair way that doesn't put a squeeze on high earners to pay their entire fair share. This is going to put a squeeze on state programs, then local programs. Eventually this will require increases to property taxes and there won't be havens for the wealthy to dodge by sinking their wealth into real estate.

  107. Additional Pros to placing jobs in Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1) Lower health care costs - gov health care paid for mostly by personal income taxes shifts the responsibilities of health care costs onto the state and their (working) citizens.

    2) Weak Canadian Dollar - salaries in Canada when converted into USD make Canadian R&D CHEAP. $100K CAD is less than $75K USD, and the CAD is forecasted to remain weak or get weaker over the next 12 months. So R&D/tech workers in Canada are CHEAP CHEAP CHEAP for a US based company.

    3) Numerous government sponsored tax rebates for R&D. At a federal and provincial level there are many programs that allow corporate tax rebates for R&D work that allow companies (including foreign owned companies) to significantly reduce the cost of their R&D.

    So yes, Canada does on a per capita basis allow way more skilled immigrants into our country, but there are MANY reasons that have existed for years that make Canada a place for R&D work, partly the low costs, availability of new graduates for our educational institutions, as well as the 300K+ immigrants we welcome into our country (30+ new immigrants per year per 1,000 citizens in Canada, vs the US ~15).

  108. Re:Yay, let's celebrate shitty companies outsourci by CohibaVancouver · · Score: 1

    Congrats? Most of those offices were there well before Orange. Man. BAD!

    It's true they were here prior to Trump Anonymous Coward - But MUCH smaller. Microsoft, Amazon and Salesforce in particular have exploded in Vancouver hiring in the last 2 years.

    ...but you can basically track it back to the the Republicans taking congress, being obstructionist and refusing to pass any immigration reform. Trump just added massive amounts of fuel to that fire.

    PS And oh BTW, you Anonymous Cowards know you look like utter and complete morons every time you write "Orange Man Bad," right? Just wanted to confirm.

  109. Re:Not possible by meglon · · Score: 1

    No small part of that is the people in blue states have advanced economic agendas that hurt the trades of midwestern and southern states while promoting their own trades.

    What utter and complete bullshit. Many of these red states lure businesses away from the blue states by lowering business taxes. This requires them to also lower services to the people living in the state... we see a great example of that being Kansas, a place that third world countries look at with disgust. Then they lower regulations on those businesses,and you end up with things like drinking water being so fouled with pollution that people have to buy bottled water just to drink. Red states have proven to be nothing more than a race to the bottom on governing, and incubators for self serving conmen posing as politicians.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  110. Re:Not possible by meglon · · Score: 1

    I'm stating the obvious: red states are subsidized by blue states. It's not that blue states are paying so much, it's that red states aren't paying their fair share. Perhaps if the politicians in those states worked to make their states a place where people actually want to live, they'd draw more high income people.

    --
    Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
  111. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  112. Re:Not possible by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

    Perhaps if the politicians in those states worked to make their states a place where people actually want to live, they'd draw more high income people.

    Perhaps in some of those states....it just doesn't COST as much to live there (general cost of living) hence the gross salaries needn't be so high, yet they still have the quality of living...the dollar goes further, etc.

    I'm not saying that is all of it, no....but I would say it is a good sized contributing factor.

    I mean, you can have a 2000+ sq ft house for say like $250K in TX or other places....whereas in NYC, a one room apartment can cost $1M or so....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  113. Re:Yay, let's celebrate shitty companies outsourci by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are you sure they are shitty? Aren't you a bit worried about the effect talking like this will have on your 'citizen score' point? Imagine yourself in 5 years, interview for new job.

        our 'ai' found some interesting things, there seems to be comment 5 years ago on Slashdot, related to you, showing dangerous thought patterns. What did you mean by 'it doesn't necessarily follow the amazon is not shitty' ? Do you consider someone with such views would be a good fit in our company?

        ummmm.... eeehhh... hmmmmm....

    You must be more careful what you say, this is after all the 'land of the free and the brave' and it has 'free speech' written in constitution even :DDDDD

    Use it or lose it.

  114. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A US citizen working for decades in the US supporting US tax payments is what the US needs more of.

    ...and this story is saying we aren't getting more of them despite implementing policies we thought would help, or the conditions you outlined in the OP

    I'm not arguing that it'd be better for American workers if they were hired. I'm pointing out that they AREN't getting hire (as much as they could, I mean overall economy is still improving slowly), so things aren't better for them.

  115. Re:Not possible by Shaitan · · Score: 1

    I live in a red state but I've lived in many states. Honestly the only differences from one to the next are minor. The water is treated in much the same manner everywhere. People are choosing to drink bottled water while regulations declare it to be perfectly fine that doesn't mean they have to. People who actually need to drink bottled water usually have well problems. I'd certainly drink a glass in Georgia before I'd drink in LA or NYC which are by far the most polluted places I've been. In general you find the most pollution in heavily populated places.

    In this particular red state I've found utility rates to the be lowest I've seen in the country, not the average but the low rates are available to anyone who bothers to shop on the deregulated market. Currently I pay less than $0.04/KWH net after everything is included for 100% renewable. You can choose dirty power, up to a couple years ago it was cheaper but now there is so much renewable that the state is on track to be 100% renewable within the next couple years without any special state level incentives. The market has just chosen renewable and driven down prices. Housing costs are low. I live in a reasonably wealthy suburb and you can rent a 1200 sq ft 3 bedroom house with a pool here for $1200/mo while I hear SF is sitting at 3x that. I've looked into tech positions in CA but the salaries aren't higher the cost of living is just dramatically higher. The air is clear, there is no smog, there is no income tax, businesses don't pay tax either unless they gross more than a million so that small business ventures and startups aren't hurt and the rates are reasonable.

    You also don't have extra and unreasonable firearms restrictions and registration so crime is low and neighborhoods are safe. Even the 'bad' parts of town aren't really that bad compared to other places I've been. The politicians do tend to be nutballs but the economic policy actually plays out better in the real world so I don't worry about it much.

    Nope the red states that are doing poorly are gutters largely because you've gutted their industry and outsourced it to China. You've tried to replace it with a growing financial and tech industry which is the primary export of blue states. Oh and you've pumped millions into bottom rate agricultural labor with lax immigration policies crushing those states agriculture economies. +Tech +Finance +Mexican labor subsidized agriculture +Cheap Chinese goods is a recipe for boosting the economies of blue states while depressing the industry of entire regions of red states.

  116. Re:So that seems to be good news for U.S. workers. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

    Tell the parts of the US education system what is needed.
    What math and computer code is getting so well educated in different nations that US educators can't/won't teach.
    What do US brands so crave that no smart person in the USA can study?

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  117. Chicken Tax by DarthVain · · Score: 1

    "Net result, elimination of all car production lines as auto companies abandon them for more profitable SUV/light truck production resulting in off shoring of car production and loss of American manufacturing jobs"

    Only commenting on this piece as it is particularly wrong. While some auto companies may offshore some SUV production, the most profitable light truck production ABSOLUTELY does NOT go offshore. I know this because of a long existing tariff I personally hate called the "Chicken Tax". You can google it if you want all the details, but the bottom line is that many years ago because of a trade dispute (on chickens and a few other things) the US implemented a 25% tax on all imported light trucks, which more less makes it unprofitable to do so. That means that ALL truck production, regardless of brand happens solely in the US. Some parts might be imported, but that is about it. This is also why you get the trend of trucks all being huge behemoths, and more and more trucks being built (profit margins high, no competition, and the bread and butter of the auto industry of the US). The end result being if companies want to sell trucks in the US they have to build a plant and build them there.

    So no, it will not be lost light truck production jobs overseas... (as mentions SUV's are different). As for why I dislike the chicken tax, it is only because the truck market is so monotonous in the US because of it. There are tons of cool, interesting trucks, particularly of the smaller and inexpensive variety that never reach the shores of north america because it isn't worth anyone's time to try and market them here due to the 25% tariff making them essentially unprofitable.