After all, bureaucrats shouldn't be able to just pass any regulations they feel like. Instead, they should be bound by the bills that the Congress passes and the President signs.
Regulatory agencies are bound by the laws, but those laws passed by congress give them enormous latitude. Moreover, if the regulatory agency is, by congress' judgement, too broad in interpreting the rules, congress can pass a bill at any time restricting the latitude. If you think that regulatory agencies are given too much latitude, then your complaint is with congress.
We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share... sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that’s crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver, or less?
-- Ronald Reagan, 1985
These days a remark like that would get him labelled a "Leftist", if not worse.
At this point the whole "this guy, that guy" thing has become such a Gordian knot, that I'm not going to even try to unravel it (I left my sword at home). The two points I will stand by is that it doesn't really matter if you call it race, nation origin, ethnicity, whatever, because anti-discrimination law covers them all. The second point I'll stand by is that in English (I don't know about legalese) race is a very general term. You can define a race almost anyway you want. The notion that there are only some conveniently predefined and unalterably categorized races like black, white, etc., isn't true.
My bad. I don't know the rules for L-2, but L-1 is more wide open than H-1B. Whatever the rules are though, my comment about them not being enforced still stands.
You're implying everyone in India is of a different race which is wrong.
No, I pointed out that ethnicity is a better description. Another responder said nationality, which I'll modify to national origin (IIRC that's the term used in the law). It doesn't matter though, because the anti-discrimination laws cover everything that's been mentioned here.
Moreover, "you're implying that anyone from India has a different skin colour to someone from America" makes no sense, because race is not necessarily a matter of skin color. Merriam-Webster defines race as "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock", or "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics", or "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits". Nothing says that racial categories are limited to black, white, Asian, whatever. You can say "the Indian race", or the "the Slavic race" or even the "blonde haired race". The word race is very general and not limited to the handful of categories that people usually use.
Unfortunately, the most likely outcome of a lawsuit like this one would be a fat settlement for this indivisual, after which, it will be business as usual at Oracle and at other companies with similar hiring practices.
I'm all for the big fat settlement, but it should be followed by something like the EEOC sniffing up Oracle's butt for the next five years, re-examining past discrimination allegations, etc., etc., etc.
Occasionally the US enforces anti-discrimination laws (though not for age discrimination of course). They never enforce the H-1B laws. Write all the laws you want, but if they're not enforced, then they're worse than useless.
You didn't say what his visa was, but the H-1B law says that you must pay someone at least as well as someone with the same skills and experience who is not an H-1B. If you believe that's ever enforced, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
They are in the sense that discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or national origin is illegal. If you want to say "let's hire somebody (citizen or green card holder) who is already here", that's fine. Supposedly some laws even encourage that.
workers from overseas that are in the US and want to become citizens require lawyer time which isn't cheap
An employer has nothing to do with an employee becoming a citizen, nor does an employer care whether an employee is a citizen or a green card holder (unless they need a security clearance). The employer can help an H-1B become a green card holder, but the effort on the company's part is a joke. Basically they're writing a recommendation regarding how essential someone's skills are, blah, blah, blah. That's it. There are no legal ramifications because it's very difficult to contest such statements, and no one even tries anyone.
Once somebody has a green card they can live and work in this country the rest of their lives. If they choose to become a citizen after 5 years, they can. With the possible exception of a few special cases, it does not require any extensive legal help.
It's about race (ethnicity really) being used as a basis to pay someone less money. The motivation might be to save money, but so what? The practice is, and ought to be, illegal.
in China, you can roust several thousand people out of bed at 2 AM and have them start assembling by 3 AM
Only if you have Apple's clout. They're not going to do that for some outfit that needs a measly 100k units/month.
The benefits don't outweigh the costs, or everyone would have moved their manufacturing already.
That doesn't follow - the costs and benefits depend on a number of factors, including production volume. Not everyone produces in Apple's quantities. Also, you seem to think that businesses always make cold rational calculations, and never follow fads. Nothing could be further from the truth.
China's main benefit is a critical mass of manufacturing that's all in one place.
You mean like the US used to? That's the vicious cycle of American stupidity in letting everything be moved to China.
the gap is closing with Central/South American countries like Mexico, which share a US timezone. It makes visiting the factory for quality control much easier and you don't have a 2-week lead time for shipping
A return to the past - Mexico was the place for much of this manufacturing before the US was stupid enough to ship everything to China. I'd rather see the stuff in Mexico (those trans-Pacific flights are a bitch and it's a lot easier to learn Spanish).
So when you complain about Wall Street wanting returns now, bear in mind that this is due to the boomer population retiring and wanting their money right away.
Of course, it's the evil boomers! Never before has Wall Street concentrated on short term gains. The 80's and 90's never happened.
the greatest wealth transfer in recorded history is going on right now. It's not the 99% to the 1% as we like to think; it's the younger generations paying off the Boomers, and it's going on around the world.
So there's something wrong with retired people cashing in on the investments they made so they could retire? If it's happening on such a vast scale, it should mean there are some great deals for younger generations to invest in. BTW, which cliche is correct, the one that says boomers didn't invest for their retirement, or the one that says them cashing in on those investments they didn't make is a problem?
P.S. You're falling for the oldest trick in the book - letting your attention from the actual responsible parties be distracted by a convenient "them". After Bacon's Rebellion the colonial authorities helped push the idea of racial conflict. In the rebellion it didn't matter if you were black or white, which made for a dangerously united front. Of course racism is rather passe these days, so you're helping to foster the diversion to a different group to be referred to as "those people".
Even as a damnyankee I recognize that the South is part of the US. Actually our position has always been that states can't secede, so despite the late unpleasantness, you never left the union. Language can be a problem, but an English speaker can usually get the hang of it more easily than Mandarin.
All joking aside, I would love to see more of this stuff built in any part of the US. I pray this is not some overly hopeful perception on your part.
As for semiconductor foundries though, Dallas and Austin have long been big, North Carolina has some specialty fabs, but what are you referring to?
"You realize that you can’t make many more products in-house, and you can’t do it in the United States—you have to go overseas."
I would disagree. You may not be able to make or source every little component here in the US, but the overall product certainly could be built here. It would cost more, that is true, but in many cases the benefits will outweigh the costs IMHO.
Building everything in China is a mindless reflex. These startups are often only looking to make a thousand pieces or so at first. I can tell you from experience that it's not worth making that in China - the headaches, other costs, delays and quality and communication problems vastly outweigh the small cost savings. Just the airfare will kill you. If you're making millions of pieces, it's another story.
The problem from my experience is that American manufacturers, including small contract manufacturers (which is what you need for a few thousand pieces), have pretty much given up. I'm not sure I blame them, but they don't even try as hard to be competitive as they did in the 80's and 90's. Their attitude is that if you're making more than 10 pieces, and don't have some mandate to make it in the US, then some genius will insist on making it in China anyway, and they're probably right. It's a vicious cycle.
I do think that's changing with the arrival of cheap pick and place machines (another fallout from the 3D printer revolution)
Pick-and-place machines were not terribly expensive to begin with, there haven't been any recent big cost reductions, it has little or nothing to do with 3D printing, and pick-and-place machines cost the same here or in China. For many years now even small job shops (fewer than a dozen people) have had their own pick-and-place and reflow equipment.
I did overgeneralize. The state average is nothing to write home about, but there are lots of exceptions. As I'm sure you already know, Round Rock, and most of the school districts in the Austin area, are amongst the best in the state.
It is THE reason we moved here from California.
I don't know about CA in general, but I understand from my brother-in-law that the San Diego schools suck. It astounds me. Right now he can afford to send his three girls to a private school, but only because of a special break they get. As they get older it gets more expensive, so they're thinking of moving to Colorado, largely for the better schools.
GP is talking about the high-achieving students doing even better, but most global tests are looking at averages. So you are not addressing his point at all...
He didn't address his own point. Did he cite any evidence, such as the standard deviation (or more importantly the right tail) of the distributions being lower for Finland? Did he cite anything else? Did he make any useful argument about his assertion that "other nations spend their money where it will bring the highest returns"? Did he even attempt to describe what he means by "highest returns"? Such a "mouth breathing" comment is especially ironic (ok, funny) coming from someone who is self-aggrandizing and contemptuous.
Your teachers let philosophy overwhelm pragmatism.
I didn't know that contempt is an important part of pragmatism.
The world's idiots will cure no disease, make no great discoveries.
Will you?
At best you can train them to show-up on time and sober for their McJobs.
That sounds pretty good. The "best and the brightest" got us into Vietnam. The great minds on Wall Street blew up the world's economy. But the McJob people will reliably serve me a burger and fries. At least they know how to do their job.
You accept tests that support your worldview without question.
No, nor did I say anything that implied that. I simply cited certain tests as a useful metric, just as upthread I cited nationally standardized tests the same way. What other metric are you using?
Perhaps your teachers should have put more emphasis on critical thinking.
Says the poster who summarizes a a vaguely sourced argument as 'testing sucks'.
Slashdot Mirror
After all, bureaucrats shouldn't be able to just pass any regulations they feel like. Instead, they should be bound by the bills that the Congress passes and the President signs.
Regulatory agencies are bound by the laws, but those laws passed by congress give them enormous latitude. Moreover, if the regulatory agency is, by congress' judgement, too broad in interpreting the rules, congress can pass a bill at any time restricting the latitude. If you think that regulatory agencies are given too much latitude, then your complaint is with congress.
We’re going to close the unproductive tax loopholes that allow some of the truly wealthy to avoid paying their fair share ... sometimes made it possible for millionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary – and that’s crazy. Do you think the millionaire ought to pay more in taxes than the bus driver, or less?
-- Ronald Reagan, 1985
These days a remark like that would get him labelled a "Leftist", if not worse.
At this point the whole "this guy, that guy" thing has become such a Gordian knot, that I'm not going to even try to unravel it (I left my sword at home). The two points I will stand by is that it doesn't really matter if you call it race, nation origin, ethnicity, whatever, because anti-discrimination law covers them all. The second point I'll stand by is that in English (I don't know about legalese) race is a very general term. You can define a race almost anyway you want. The notion that there are only some conveniently predefined and unalterably categorized races like black, white, etc., isn't true.
My bad. I don't know the rules for L-2, but L-1 is more wide open than H-1B. Whatever the rules are though, my comment about them not being enforced still stands.
You're implying everyone in India is of a different race which is wrong.
No, I pointed out that ethnicity is a better description. Another responder said nationality, which I'll modify to national origin (IIRC that's the term used in the law). It doesn't matter though, because the anti-discrimination laws cover everything that's been mentioned here.
Moreover, "you're implying that anyone from India has a different skin colour to someone from America" makes no sense, because race is not necessarily a matter of skin color. Merriam-Webster defines race as "a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock", or "a class or kind of people unified by shared interests, habits, or characteristics", or "a category of humankind that shares certain distinctive physical traits". Nothing says that racial categories are limited to black, white, Asian, whatever. You can say "the Indian race", or the "the Slavic race" or even the "blonde haired race". The word race is very general and not limited to the handful of categories that people usually use.
Unfortunately, the most likely outcome of a lawsuit like this one would be a fat settlement for this indivisual, after which, it will be business as usual at Oracle and at other companies with similar hiring practices.
I'm all for the big fat settlement, but it should be followed by something like the EEOC sniffing up Oracle's butt for the next five years, re-examining past discrimination allegations, etc., etc., etc.
Occasionally the US enforces anti-discrimination laws (though not for age discrimination of course). They never enforce the H-1B laws. Write all the laws you want, but if they're not enforced, then they're worse than useless.
You didn't say what his visa was, but the H-1B law says that you must pay someone at least as well as someone with the same skills and experience who is not an H-1B. If you believe that's ever enforced, then I've got a bridge to sell you.
But we're just talking about the opening offer, aren't we?
We're talking about an initial offer that was lowballed because the guy was Indian. That's discrimination.
that is illegal in the state of California
It's illegal anywhere in the US.
I hope he gets enough money that he doesn't need employment.
a criminal case and Oracle may lose it's ability to hire H1-B visa holders
And then you wake up.
They are in the sense that discrimination on the basis of ethnicity or national origin is illegal. If you want to say "let's hire somebody (citizen or green card holder) who is already here", that's fine. Supposedly some laws even encourage that.
workers from overseas that are in the US and want to become citizens require lawyer time which isn't cheap
An employer has nothing to do with an employee becoming a citizen, nor does an employer care whether an employee is a citizen or a green card holder (unless they need a security clearance). The employer can help an H-1B become a green card holder, but the effort on the company's part is a joke. Basically they're writing a recommendation regarding how essential someone's skills are, blah, blah, blah. That's it. There are no legal ramifications because it's very difficult to contest such statements, and no one even tries anyone.
Once somebody has a green card they can live and work in this country the rest of their lives. If they choose to become a citizen after 5 years, they can. With the possible exception of a few special cases, it does not require any extensive legal help.
It's not about race, it's about money.
It's about race (ethnicity really) being used as a basis to pay someone less money. The motivation might be to save money, but so what? The practice is, and ought to be, illegal.
in China, you can roust several thousand people out of bed at 2 AM and have them start assembling by 3 AM
Only if you have Apple's clout. They're not going to do that for some outfit that needs a measly 100k units/month.
The benefits don't outweigh the costs, or everyone would have moved their manufacturing already.
That doesn't follow - the costs and benefits depend on a number of factors, including production volume. Not everyone produces in Apple's quantities. Also, you seem to think that businesses always make cold rational calculations, and never follow fads. Nothing could be further from the truth.
China's main benefit is a critical mass of manufacturing that's all in one place.
You mean like the US used to? That's the vicious cycle of American stupidity in letting everything be moved to China.
the gap is closing with Central/South American countries like Mexico, which share a US timezone.
It makes visiting the factory for quality control much easier and you don't have a 2-week lead time for shipping
A return to the past - Mexico was the place for much of this manufacturing before the US was stupid enough to ship everything to China. I'd rather see the stuff in Mexico (those trans-Pacific flights are a bitch and it's a lot easier to learn Spanish).
So when you complain about Wall Street wanting returns now, bear in mind that this is due to the boomer population retiring and wanting their money right away.
Of course, it's the evil boomers! Never before has Wall Street concentrated on short term gains. The 80's and 90's never happened.
the greatest wealth transfer in recorded history is going on right now. It's not the 99% to the 1% as we like to think; it's the younger generations paying off the Boomers, and it's going on around the world.
So there's something wrong with retired people cashing in on the investments they made so they could retire? If it's happening on such a vast scale, it should mean there are some great deals for younger generations to invest in. BTW, which cliche is correct, the one that says boomers didn't invest for their retirement, or the one that says them cashing in on those investments they didn't make is a problem?
P.S. You're falling for the oldest trick in the book - letting your attention from the actual responsible parties be distracted by a convenient "them". After Bacon's Rebellion the colonial authorities helped push the idea of racial conflict. In the rebellion it didn't matter if you were black or white, which made for a dangerously united front. Of course racism is rather passe these days, so you're helping to foster the diversion to a different group to be referred to as "those people".
Because while getting them built overseas is hard, getting them built in the US is impossible.
And on what experience do you make that statement?
Even as a damnyankee I recognize that the South is part of the US. Actually our position has always been that states can't secede, so despite the late unpleasantness, you never left the union. Language can be a problem, but an English speaker can usually get the hang of it more easily than Mandarin.
All joking aside, I would love to see more of this stuff built in any part of the US. I pray this is not some overly hopeful perception on your part.
As for semiconductor foundries though, Dallas and Austin have long been big, North Carolina has some specialty fabs, but what are you referring to?
"You realize that you can’t make many more products in-house, and you can’t do it in the United States—you have to go overseas."
I would disagree. You may not be able to make or source every little component here in the US, but the overall product certainly could be built here. It would cost more, that is true, but in many cases the benefits will outweigh the costs IMHO.
Building everything in China is a mindless reflex. These startups are often only looking to make a thousand pieces or so at first. I can tell you from experience that it's not worth making that in China - the headaches, other costs, delays and quality and communication problems vastly outweigh the small cost savings. Just the airfare will kill you. If you're making millions of pieces, it's another story.
The problem from my experience is that American manufacturers, including small contract manufacturers (which is what you need for a few thousand pieces), have pretty much given up. I'm not sure I blame them, but they don't even try as hard to be competitive as they did in the 80's and 90's. Their attitude is that if you're making more than 10 pieces, and don't have some mandate to make it in the US, then some genius will insist on making it in China anyway, and they're probably right. It's a vicious cycle.
I do think that's changing with the arrival of cheap pick and place machines (another fallout from the 3D printer revolution)
Pick-and-place machines were not terribly expensive to begin with, there haven't been any recent big cost reductions, it has little or nothing to do with 3D printing, and pick-and-place machines cost the same here or in China. For many years now even small job shops (fewer than a dozen people) have had their own pick-and-place and reflow equipment.
Your view of Texas may need some updating.
Hopefully you're right.
We have great schools here in Round Rock.
I did overgeneralize. The state average is nothing to write home about, but there are lots of exceptions. As I'm sure you already know, Round Rock, and most of the school districts in the Austin area, are amongst the best in the state.
It is THE reason we moved here from California.
I don't know about CA in general, but I understand from my brother-in-law that the San Diego schools suck. It astounds me. Right now he can afford to send his three girls to a private school, but only because of a special break they get. As they get older it gets more expensive, so they're thinking of moving to Colorado, largely for the better schools.
GP is talking about the high-achieving students doing even better, but most global tests are looking at averages. So you are not addressing his point at all ...
He didn't address his own point. Did he cite any evidence, such as the standard deviation (or more importantly the right tail) of the distributions being lower for Finland? Did he cite anything else? Did he make any useful argument about his assertion that "other nations spend their money where it will bring the highest returns"? Did he even attempt to describe what he means by "highest returns"? Such a "mouth breathing" comment is especially ironic (ok, funny) coming from someone who is self-aggrandizing and contemptuous.
Your teachers let philosophy overwhelm pragmatism.
I didn't know that contempt is an important part of pragmatism.
The world's idiots will cure no disease, make no great discoveries.
Will you?
At best you can train them to show-up on time and sober for their McJobs.
That sounds pretty good. The "best and the brightest" got us into Vietnam. The great minds on Wall Street blew up the world's economy. But the McJob people will reliably serve me a burger and fries. At least they know how to do their job.
You accept tests that support your worldview without question.
No, nor did I say anything that implied that. I simply cited certain tests as a useful metric, just as upthread I cited nationally standardized tests the same way. What other metric are you using?
Perhaps your teachers should have put more emphasis on critical thinking.
Says the poster who summarizes a a vaguely sourced argument as 'testing sucks'.