You seem to mistakenly think Im arguing for one type of visa or immigration or another.
Im not, Im commenting on the attitudes I see, and trying to come up with a reason why the job market should be restricted as it is. Maybe it should be, the reason I posted was I wanted people's takes on it.
Thank you (and others) for giving good answers. I suppose a lot of it boils down to how you view the role and nature of government; all of this is good food for thought.
Conservative used to mean "Stingy and Self-Sufficient". What does it mean now?
Conservative means to me that generally I am against trying to fix all of the world's problems through government intervention. In this case, I viewed it as government intervention that actually perpetuates world problems (rather than allowing workers to freely enter and exit); but I think there are good points I had not considered regarding short-term status + long term damage.
1) Why should I care about the "barriers" and wages of other countries when there are people unemployed and starving here?
The starvation rate in the US is staggeringly low (theres not even a statistic for "starved", they lump it in with "died of exposure"), and the people who starve are not people who could remotely enter the work force. The large majority of them are elderly and die because they are unable to care for themselves; the remainder are generally either mentally ill, or are too young to care for themselves.
I challenge you to find either by name or by statistic anyone in the US who, though employable, starved due to unemployment. I would challenge you to even find a solid statistic of how many people starve annually in the US; as far as I can tell it too low to track.
2) Why should we help these other countries reform their own labor practices at our expense?
Because "all people are created equal.... and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" leaves no room in my mind for "except people from other countries". Because it seems remarkably cold to bitch about "fat cats on wall street" on your ipad twitter account as millions of potential workers in india live in abject poverty.
I hear the guys in the FoxConn plants can empathize, and they do so for less than the average US unemployment check.
Apparently Im a corporate bootlicker for thinking the entire scenario is grossly unfair, and that everyone cries bloody murder when we dare to let a few of them have a crack at "livable wages" that dont involve 100-hour work weeks.
Its not really debateable that if you allow historically lower-paid individuals to enter a higher-salaried job market, the average salary will fall. One would expect it to reach a middle ground somewhere.
But Im not understanding why we should prevent that scenario, so that we might make more money and they less, simply by merit of where everyone happened to be born.
Here I thought the rallying cry of the masses was "help the 99%; and here we are, 95th percentile in world wealth, and we're bitching about jobs and the fact that poorer immigrant workers might actually have a shot at rising above the US's poverty level.
What makes you think I care in the least about whether it helps or hurts the corporation? My questions are centered around the question of who deserves to work where, and what justification there is for saying "this person may not work in this country because he was not born here".
I had thought generally it is recognized that competition in general allows inequalities to be balanced out, and yet people are defending the idea of setting up barriers to who can work where. I am simply asking for an explaination, and yet somehow you (and the mods) feel it appropriate to call me names? Im not "arguing a point" as much as asking for a "please defend your position".
You are being forced into a race to the bottom. Races to the bottom have no winners.
Why must it be a race to the bottom? Wages in the US have not been on an inevitable downward march, they have fluctuated over time. There are various ways to combat what you suggest that can even the balance of power between worker and employer.
But absolutely I think it is hard to justify that you should prevent someone from another country from entering your job market so that you may continue to make $85k / year whilst he makes $15k / year (all currencies being equal). No, im not socialist, or OWS, or any of that, I just have friends from a number of these countries and have never been able to adequately justify these restrictions.
I dont think the workers from poorer countries think they are being screwed. I mean, from the standpoint of what they could be making, maybe, but from the standpoint of what they were making, not really.
Why do you deserve a job (while waiting on your relatively lavish unemployment) more than Raj from india who would kill for a chance at more than $100 USD / month, and has a masters in CS?
Agree with all of the above except granting citizenship rights. There is something to be said for requiring those with citizenship rights to actually be invested long term in the well-being of the country.
You werent paying attention with the whole "Arizona wants to check your immigration status" episode, were you? Or when Obama specifically said he was "deprioritizing" the enforcement of immigration law on certain groups?
The current atmosphere is to try to minimize enforcement of immigration law while things are "worked on", or at least that is how it seems.-
Forgive me, but I dont really understand why people in this country deserve jobs more than people in another country, particularly if theyre more skilled or asking for less money.
Its funny because as a conservative I regularly get accused of hating workers, or loving the corporations, or hating immigrants, but really I just think of all the friends I have who are here on visas, and have to ask, "why do I deserve a job more than them, particularly those with better degrees than I?"
It seems to me that a more "open" workforce market can only be a good thing if it breaks down the barriers that allow companies in India, China, wherever to offer work for a pittance, when those workers can just go to another country and get a better living wage.
Depends on what terms you agreed to with the bank; but in that case I believe you truly have ownership of the house and have just taken out a loan against the value of the house.
Thats not the same as with your phone, where the purchase at a certain price was pursuant to terms-- no loan is taken out, and Im fairly certain you cant just sell your under-contract phone without violating the contract.
TFA seems to indicate that if they refuse, you have the right to unlock it-- so long as you have fulfilled contract terms. Perhaps the article is wrong?
You misunderstand, I dont think businesses are "entitled" to a thing. I just think that A) entertainment is not a fundamental right, nor something you are "entitled" to, and B) once you sign a contract, you are bound to it, EVEN IF it prevents you from fulfilling your "entertainment needs".
Once that plant is in operation, its not going anywhere. It will represent a huge chunk of Intel's assets, and you dont just decide one day youre going to pick up your fab and relocate it to india. These sites cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
Slashdot: A place where people think their entertainment needs and entitlements allow them to violate contract law (and whatever other laws they want) at will.
You own the phone, implying your hire it is a disgrace
Unless Im mistaken, you own the phone pursuant to contract terms. The whole reason youre getting that Galaxy S3 for $200 instead of $600 is because Verizon agreed to the $200 price SO LONG AS you signed a 2 year agreement.
Im not clear if Im missing the real problem here, or if people are really arguing that we should say "to hell with contract law".
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to mistakenly think Im arguing for one type of visa or immigration or another.
Im not, Im commenting on the attitudes I see, and trying to come up with a reason why the job market should be restricted as it is. Maybe it should be, the reason I posted was I wanted people's takes on it.
I was not aware we had an infinite supply of anything, let alone of skilled / employable CS or IT workers.
And being pedantic,
APPROACHES zero.
You failed calculus, didnt you? (kidding)
Thank you (and others) for giving good answers. I suppose a lot of it boils down to how you view the role and nature of government; all of this is good food for thought.
Conservative used to mean "Stingy and Self-Sufficient". What does it mean now?
Conservative means to me that generally I am against trying to fix all of the world's problems through government intervention.
In this case, I viewed it as government intervention that actually perpetuates world problems (rather than allowing workers to freely enter and exit); but I think there are good points I had not considered regarding short-term status + long term damage.
1) Why should I care about the "barriers" and wages of other countries when there are people unemployed and starving here?
The starvation rate in the US is staggeringly low (theres not even a statistic for "starved", they lump it in with "died of exposure"), and the people who starve are not people who could remotely enter the work force. The large majority of them are elderly and die because they are unable to care for themselves; the remainder are generally either mentally ill, or are too young to care for themselves.
I challenge you to find either by name or by statistic anyone in the US who, though employable, starved due to unemployment. I would challenge you to even find a solid statistic of how many people starve annually in the US; as far as I can tell it too low to track.
2) Why should we help these other countries reform their own labor practices at our expense?
Because "all people are created equal.... and are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights" leaves no room in my mind for "except people from other countries". Because it seems remarkably cold to bitch about "fat cats on wall street" on your ipad twitter account as millions of potential workers in india live in abject poverty.
Because turn about is fair play. Try going to one of those countries that "your friends" are from and getting a job.
Now, is that the fault of the workers, or their governments?
Is it possible that if we opened up, and wealth started improving globally, that people over there might be incentivized to try to improve things?
I hear the guys in the FoxConn plants can empathize, and they do so for less than the average US unemployment check.
Apparently Im a corporate bootlicker for thinking the entire scenario is grossly unfair, and that everyone cries bloody murder when we dare to let a few of them have a crack at "livable wages" that dont involve 100-hour work weeks.
Its not really debateable that if you allow historically lower-paid individuals to enter a higher-salaried job market, the average salary will fall. One would expect it to reach a middle ground somewhere.
But Im not understanding why we should prevent that scenario, so that we might make more money and they less, simply by merit of where everyone happened to be born.
Here I thought the rallying cry of the masses was "help the 99%; and here we are, 95th percentile in world wealth, and we're bitching about jobs and the fact that poorer immigrant workers might actually have a shot at rising above the US's poverty level.
Your corporate bootlicking is disgusting.
What makes you think I care in the least about whether it helps or hurts the corporation? My questions are centered around the question of who deserves to work where, and what justification there is for saying "this person may not work in this country because he was not born here".
I had thought generally it is recognized that competition in general allows inequalities to be balanced out, and yet people are defending the idea of setting up barriers to who can work where. I am simply asking for an explaination, and yet somehow you (and the mods) feel it appropriate to call me names? Im not "arguing a point" as much as asking for a "please defend your position".
You are being forced into a race to the bottom. Races to the bottom have no winners.
Why must it be a race to the bottom? Wages in the US have not been on an inevitable downward march, they have fluctuated over time. There are various ways to combat what you suggest that can even the balance of power between worker and employer.
But absolutely I think it is hard to justify that you should prevent someone from another country from entering your job market so that you may continue to make $85k / year whilst he makes $15k / year (all currencies being equal). No, im not socialist, or OWS, or any of that, I just have friends from a number of these countries and have never been able to adequately justify these restrictions.
I dont think the workers from poorer countries think they are being screwed. I mean, from the standpoint of what they could be making, maybe, but from the standpoint of what they were making, not really.
Why do you deserve a job (while waiting on your relatively lavish unemployment) more than Raj from india who would kill for a chance at more than $100 USD / month, and has a masters in CS?
Agree with all of the above except granting citizenship rights. There is something to be said for requiring those with citizenship rights to actually be invested long term in the well-being of the country.
You werent paying attention with the whole "Arizona wants to check your immigration status" episode, were you? Or when Obama specifically said he was "deprioritizing" the enforcement of immigration law on certain groups?
The current atmosphere is to try to minimize enforcement of immigration law while things are "worked on", or at least that is how it seems.-
Forgive me, but I dont really understand why people in this country deserve jobs more than people in another country, particularly if theyre more skilled or asking for less money.
Its funny because as a conservative I regularly get accused of hating workers, or loving the corporations, or hating immigrants, but really I just think of all the friends I have who are here on visas, and have to ask, "why do I deserve a job more than them, particularly those with better degrees than I?"
It seems to me that a more "open" workforce market can only be a good thing if it breaks down the barriers that allow companies in India, China, wherever to offer work for a pittance, when those workers can just go to another country and get a better living wage.
and North Korea isn't threatening to spread their ideology anywhere.
Except southward, which is essentially the whole of the problem.
Credit is a type of loan, this is not.
Depends on what terms you agreed to with the bank; but in that case I believe you truly have ownership of the house and have just taken out a loan against the value of the house.
Thats not the same as with your phone, where the purchase at a certain price was pursuant to terms-- no loan is taken out, and Im fairly certain you cant just sell your under-contract phone without violating the contract.
TFA seems to indicate that if they refuse, you have the right to unlock it-- so long as you have fulfilled contract terms. Perhaps the article is wrong?
One wonders if the irony of your statement was intentional, or whether you were even aware of it.
You misunderstand, I dont think businesses are "entitled" to a thing. I just think that
A) entertainment is not a fundamental right, nor something you are "entitled" to, and
B) once you sign a contract, you are bound to it, EVEN IF it prevents you from fulfilling your "entertainment needs".
That makes sense, but the phone isnt fully yours until the contract terms are fulfilled anyways, is it?
Agree with contract law etc, but that boat sailed 10 years ago with the DMCA.
Who's talking about AGP? That hasnt been in PCs for like 8 years now.
Once that plant is in operation, its not going anywhere. It will represent a huge chunk of Intel's assets, and you dont just decide one day youre going to pick up your fab and relocate it to india. These sites cost billions of dollars and take years to build.
The law was made 10 years ago, but Im glad youre paying attention now.
Slashdot: A place where people think their entertainment needs and entitlements allow them to violate contract law (and whatever other laws they want) at will.
You own the phone, implying your hire it is a disgrace
Unless Im mistaken, you own the phone pursuant to contract terms. The whole reason youre getting that Galaxy S3 for $200 instead of $600 is because Verizon agreed to the $200 price SO LONG AS you signed a 2 year agreement.
Im not clear if Im missing the real problem here, or if people are really arguing that we should say "to hell with contract law".