I will encourage them to go into medicine where there is actually a future and a much better chance of making a living that keeps up with inflation
Every time I hear someone ask why women and African Americans are underrepresented in CS or engineering, I want to answer that it's because they're not as naive and gullible as white men (as a white man I'm allowed to say that).
How should computers be integrated into math classes? Without computers math is more difficult because you actually have to think. Do you want to do a numerical integration for everything instead of getting analytical solutions where possible? Push computers into K-12 math curricula and you'll have students more concerned with loops and conditionals than actually understanding math.
In Silicon Valley, more than half of CEOs were foreign born. It is likely that educated immigrants create more tech jobs than they take.
You're seriously mis-citing that statistic. The actual statistic is that over half of SV companies include founders that were foreign born. That's a very big difference, since the vast majority of companies have multiple founders. As a matter of fact the proportion of foreign born company founders in SV is lower than the overall proportion of the foreign born in SV. You're citing a statistic like saying that 30% of company founders have blue eyes, therefore we need more blue eyed people. Meanwhile you overlook that 34% of the population in question has blue eyes. Given those statistics, it's hard to see how blue eyed people are better than those who aren't.
Second, which foreign born people are you talking about? Sergey Brin? He came to the US when he was six. I seriously doubt he had an H-1B visa. Jerry Yang? Came to the US when he was ten. Back in the day, Andy Grove? Came to the US as a refugee. My grandparents? (admittedly not SV entrepreneurs) came to the US as immigrants, not "guest workers". And no, I don't give a damn that the H-1B is a "dual use" visa. The bottom line is that H-1B visa holders initially come to the US as guest workers, and serve a period of indentured servitude, at the behest of tech billionaires falsely claiming STEM shortages.
The defeated proposal was to use state-wide income taxes to better fund education. That would have helped overcome exactly the problem you cite. Of course tech billionaires, ever concerned about the education of our children, spent lots of money to defeat it. Obviously feeling great remorse, they now propose to use H-1B fees instead.
Congratulations, you've identified one agricultural product where the US has ridiculous tariffs. Another is orange juice. If you actually consider all agricultural tariffs, the ones in the US are quite low. China's are higher, and the EU's higher still.
No, average US agricultural tariffs are lower than China's. We have a few weird items subject to substantial tariffs, like sugar and orange juice, but our overall agricultural tariffs are low. Looking for high agricultural tariffs? Try the EU.
the customs duty China uses to protect its own auto industry
But remember, we have free trade!
No really, all you have to do is define it such that "free trade" means the US has to bend over, while China, etc. get to do whatever they want to protect their industries.
If side A can deny the sea to side B, then side B can't control the sea, even though side A may lack the ability to control the sea itself. How much of an advantage this is to side A depends on a variety of factors.
Before the Battle of the Atlantic turned, the Germans came close to denying the sea to the Western allies. Whether it would have turned with a slightly different scenario, with slightly different technologies available, is a matter of speculation.
As Churchill said, the only thing that ever really scared him was the U-boats. The UK, and even the US if it was to fight effectively in Europe, completely depended on the sea. Even the USSR depended on the sea for allied aid. The Germans depended on it very little. Sea denial would have been a very effective strategy for the Germans.
The companies are accused of violating the Sherman Act and Clayton Act antitrust laws. Obviously the trial hasn't occurred yet, but they gained approval for a class action suit from both the district court and the court of appeals. The trial of course is what determines whether the companies are guilty, but in order to gain permission for the suit they had to demonstrate that the alleged behavior could violate those laws.
By over-regulating, the US government is gaining more and more control over the means of production.
Which is socialism, not communism. A defining characteristic of communism is an authoritarian government. Marx didn't believe in democracy. He thought change could only be brought about by an elite group running things. We all know how well that works out. By contrast, in the post-WWII era the UK became very socialist, with nationalization of the coal and steel industries, for example. I think it was an economic mistake, but the important thing is that they had free elections and no gulags.
Steve Jobs was not interested in some grand scheme to shave a few % off the salaries of engineers; he was interested in not having projects disrupted by staff turnover.
An alternative to illegal collusion would be paying them more money to stay around. Give them a contract that says stick around for X years and you'll get big fat bonus Y. It worked for Henry Ford. It's called a free market, which CEO's seem to be all in favor of when it's lining their pockets, but not so much when it's lining somebody else's pockets.
who'd pay for a $300K/yr J2EE architect? Really? The demand chain would realize these social apps have zero business value aside from advertising and next thing you know J2EE architect would be making 70K
So if the demand was so high that salaries would climb to $300k, they would drop to $70k? I'm having trouble understanding your supply and demand curve, and your propensity for responding to anti-labor collusion with "thank you sir, may I have another?"
The salary is just a stipend. You forget all the real perks of being in congress, like having stock portfolios with amazing rates of return, those wonderful jobs their relatives get, and the even better jobs waiting for them if they decide to leave congress.
It's the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard, other than my favorite: William Shockley's mother happened to live there.
That brings up 2 points: 1. Nobody wants to admit that Shockley is such a key figure in creating Silicon Valley. 2. Which other states have similar labor laws? I find it hard to believe that CA is unique.
The same is true of the poor in America, who generally live better than the middle class in 3rd world countries. Given how well off the American poor are, maybe they should avoid "resentment not having the same path in life" as the middle class. Obviously they are "doing nothing but complaining of living [their] life as it is instead of [middle class]".
Who cares? It affects wages even if it is about retention (since a company might have to offer more money to retain someone). Moreover, whatever it's about, it's collusion. Restraint of trade. A whole bunch of terms apply, and none of them are good. There is no defense of this, regardless of the motivation.
Slashdot Mirror
Not either all immigrants are smart too.
But some of them can speak English.
I will encourage them to go into medicine where there is actually a future and a much better chance of making a living that keeps up with inflation
Every time I hear someone ask why women and African Americans are underrepresented in CS or engineering, I want to answer that it's because they're not as naive and gullible as white men (as a white man I'm allowed to say that).
How should computers be integrated into math classes? Without computers math is more difficult because you actually have to think. Do you want to do a numerical integration for everything instead of getting analytical solutions where possible? Push computers into K-12 math curricula and you'll have students more concerned with loops and conditionals than actually understanding math.
In Silicon Valley, more than half of CEOs were foreign born. It is likely that educated immigrants create more tech jobs than they take.
You're seriously mis-citing that statistic. The actual statistic is that over half of SV companies include founders that were foreign born. That's a very big difference, since the vast majority of companies have multiple founders. As a matter of fact the proportion of foreign born company founders in SV is lower than the overall proportion of the foreign born in SV. You're citing a statistic like saying that 30% of company founders have blue eyes, therefore we need more blue eyed people. Meanwhile you overlook that 34% of the population in question has blue eyes. Given those statistics, it's hard to see how blue eyed people are better than those who aren't.
Second, which foreign born people are you talking about? Sergey Brin? He came to the US when he was six. I seriously doubt he had an H-1B visa. Jerry Yang? Came to the US when he was ten. Back in the day, Andy Grove? Came to the US as a refugee. My grandparents? (admittedly not SV entrepreneurs) came to the US as immigrants, not "guest workers". And no, I don't give a damn that the H-1B is a "dual use" visa. The bottom line is that H-1B visa holders initially come to the US as guest workers, and serve a period of indentured servitude, at the behest of tech billionaires falsely claiming STEM shortages.
RTFA.
The defeated proposal was to use state-wide income taxes to better fund education. That would have helped overcome exactly the problem you cite. Of course tech billionaires, ever concerned about the education of our children, spent lots of money to defeat it. Obviously feeling great remorse, they now propose to use H-1B fees instead.
Congratulations, you've identified one agricultural product where the US has ridiculous tariffs. Another is orange juice. If you actually consider all agricultural tariffs, the ones in the US are quite low. China's are higher, and the EU's higher still.
No, average US agricultural tariffs are lower than China's. We have a few weird items subject to substantial tariffs, like sugar and orange juice, but our overall agricultural tariffs are low. Looking for high agricultural tariffs? Try the EU.
the customs duty China uses to protect its own auto industry
But remember, we have free trade!
No really, all you have to do is define it such that "free trade" means the US has to bend over, while China, etc. get to do whatever they want to protect their industries.
SEA CONTROL vs. SEA DENIAL
If side A can deny the sea to side B, then side B can't control the sea, even though side A may lack the ability to control the sea itself. How much of an advantage this is to side A depends on a variety of factors.
Before the Battle of the Atlantic turned, the Germans came close to denying the sea to the Western allies. Whether it would have turned with a slightly different scenario, with slightly different technologies available, is a matter of speculation.
As Churchill said, the only thing that ever really scared him was the U-boats. The UK, and even the US if it was to fight effectively in Europe, completely depended on the sea. Even the USSR depended on the sea for allied aid. The Germans depended on it very little. Sea denial would have been a very effective strategy for the Germans.
They don't work either. It doesn't matter what country you go to - defense contracting is a scam.
It's not illegal.
The companies are accused of violating the Sherman Act and Clayton Act antitrust laws. Obviously the trial hasn't occurred yet, but they gained approval for a class action suit from both the district court and the court of appeals. The trial of course is what determines whether the companies are guilty, but in order to gain permission for the suit they had to demonstrate that the alleged behavior could violate those laws.
By over-regulating, the US government is gaining more and more control over the means of production.
Which is socialism, not communism. A defining characteristic of communism is an authoritarian government. Marx didn't believe in democracy. He thought change could only be brought about by an elite group running things. We all know how well that works out. By contrast, in the post-WWII era the UK became very socialist, with nationalization of the coal and steel industries, for example. I think it was an economic mistake, but the important thing is that they had free elections and no gulags.
Call me when they get rid of the last nuke.
Do you also believe in frictionless surfaces? Hint: crude approximations often don't reflect the real world very well.
Steve Jobs was not interested in some grand scheme to shave a few % off the salaries of engineers; he was interested in not having projects disrupted by staff turnover.
An alternative to illegal collusion would be paying them more money to stay around. Give them a contract that says stick around for X years and you'll get big fat bonus Y. It worked for Henry Ford. It's called a free market, which CEO's seem to be all in favor of when it's lining their pockets, but not so much when it's lining somebody else's pockets.
Does this mean Eric Schmidt and Shona Brown could be going to jail?
Just as soon as the Easter Bunny arrests them.
I'd rather try to get a Gen. Sherman memorial built in Atlanta.
Do you seriously think that Jobs is going to get a fair shake around here?
Who gives a damn? He's dead. What I care about are the live people who are, or will be, engaged in this crap with no real repercussions.
Why is it that Slashdotters are so humor impaired?
who'd pay for a $300K/yr J2EE architect? Really? The demand chain would realize these social apps have zero business value aside from advertising and next thing you know J2EE architect would be making 70K
So if the demand was so high that salaries would climb to $300k, they would drop to $70k? I'm having trouble understanding your supply and demand curve, and your propensity for responding to anti-labor collusion with "thank you sir, may I have another?"
The salary is just a stipend. You forget all the real perks of being in congress, like having stock portfolios with amazing rates of return, those wonderful jobs their relatives get, and the even better jobs waiting for them if they decide to leave congress.
It's the only reasonable explanation I've ever heard, other than my favorite: William Shockley's mother happened to live there.
That brings up 2 points:
1. Nobody wants to admit that Shockley is such a key figure in creating Silicon Valley.
2. Which other states have similar labor laws? I find it hard to believe that CA is unique.
The same is true of the poor in America, who generally live better than the middle class in 3rd world countries. Given how well off the American poor are, maybe they should avoid "resentment not having the same path in life" as the middle class. Obviously they are "doing nothing but complaining of living [their] life as it is instead of [middle class]".
What I am saying is that I don't think they had a large effect.
What I'm saying is that Bob is a crook, but he never stole nearly as much as he wanted, so what's the big deal?
I suspect that this was not overtly about wages.
Who cares? It affects wages even if it is about retention (since a company might have to offer more money to retain someone). Moreover, whatever it's about, it's collusion. Restraint of trade. A whole bunch of terms apply, and none of them are good. There is no defense of this, regardless of the motivation.