Yes, but semiconductor fab lines always initially lose money because of the tremendous set up costs. Working with Apple initially may have been a winning strategy, even if you had a net loss averaged over that first 100M sale. Now you can make fat the profits for a few years (before the fab line needs to torn down and replaced).
I am not doubting you anecdote. But it is not necessarily true that working with Apple was not a big win, even if ditching them later was the right decision.
BTW, the claims we need more graduate students to earn PhDs are just FUD. It may or may not be true we need more STEM bachelor degrees. It may or may not be true that we need more STEM masters degrees. The idea that the economy needs more PhDs is pretty laughable. We have lots of those.
Graduate students are a wonderful means of stretching valuable faculty hours by substituting cheap and undertrained student hours.
The idea that the system has to be as masochistic as it is, with people now doing post-docs well into their 30's, having no real financial stability through all of that, and being expected to make huge sacrifices in personal relationships, all for a magical goal of tenure that well over half of those people will never achieve, is flawed. The rigid system of academic levels is flawed. Advancement and reward should be based on research done, quality of publications, and recommendations, period. The stress put on students for quals and dissertations is a huge waste. It's an out-dated hazing ritual. It's a source of cheap labor. And it kills the love that many people, some of them brilliant people, have for science.
When only about 10% of graduates with PhDs will find ever research positions for which their training is highly appropriate, the usual laws of supply & demand, common sense, and simple decency do not really apply. To achieve academic tenure (or the equivalent), you are competing with workaholic lunatics. Not necessarily everyone fits that profile, but that is what you are signing up for when you go on that career path.
Of course the problem here is that your right not to be offended might prevent meaningful discourse. If you try to ban what is basically just blasphemy, then you eventually eliminate any meaningful discussion of religious doctrine.
Yup. Historically speaking...Christianity was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot of Judaism. Islam was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot of Judaism/Christianity. Shia Islam was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot mainstream Islam. Protestantism was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot mainstream Catholicism. The list goes on and on.
Who gets to decide which dangerous blasphemies are okay today? Furthermore, the squeaky wheels getting the oil seems like it will get us ever more squeaky wheels, not fewer.
If one is easily offended, that is just fine: but do not read or watch anything that has not be vetted by a trusted source. Problem solved.
Americans pay on average ~180% as much as citizens in other industrialized countries for health care that is overall no better. So it is provably untrue that expanding coverage to all citizens automatically makes the costs significantly higher than what we are paying now. We are in the ballpark of $1 trillion of inefficiencies in the US health care system.
Now, it is unclear whether the particular reforms on hand are a substantial step in the right direction -- reasonable people can disagree. Sitting on our hands does have a $1 trillion and growing price tag.
Why should we assume that America is so uniquely incompetent that it can never reform health care in a manner that will recoup any of that $1 trillion?
The difference is not as great as you are trying to suggest. Edison's primary accomplishment is a number of little improvements in the widgets that made light bulbs practical at a compelling price point for a merely well-to-do consumer. The basic technology existed and was steadily improving, before Edison happened upon the scene. Sound familiar?
Without Edison we would have had those technologies within just a few years. Arguably Jobs pushed mobile phone technology faster and further, because it was stuck in a rut, at the mercy of the likes of phone companies and Microsoft to drive innovation. The fact that RIM got quickly crushed tells a lot about how small fry their technical innovations really are.
Also, like Jobs, Edison has a legacy of hurting innovation to live down, only Edison makes Jobs look like a pathetic amateur when it comes to squashing innovation. Jobs/Apple politely bullies competitors in the courts. Edison hired goons to physically assault competitors if he was dissatisfied with the efforts of the court system. The main reason Hollywood blossomed was it was a place of cheap land, where a mogul could build a fenced compound with armed guards, far from easy reach of Edison's thugs.
And that is yet another reason I think the selection is artistically dreadful. Sure, put in a military UAV targeting image -- I do not have any problem with one or two such pictures in the lot. But they are all so consistently bleak, and only one shows actual people with any clarity. The whole seems to more than slightly tinged by misanthropy; there is more awe with how beautiful that which not human really is, than even awe of just plain beautiful things.
Scientifically speaking, homo sapiens sapiens is a hypersocial species -- an extreme rarity outside of social insects and herding/schooling animals (and the latter are not necessarily sweetness and light to each other). Most other species that are considered mere highly social tend to avoid interacting with more than one or two dozen individuals ever. (How big is a wolf pack? How big is a whale pod? How big is a troop of other primates?)
An individual human in an urban environment going to an office job many have a minor social contact with one or two hundreds individuals and significant social contact with dozens of individuals in a single workday. Of those reactions, each is about 100X (or more) as likely to be highly friendly than obviously hostile. (Did that stranger glare at you for daring to get in the same elevator? Or hold the door?)
For all that bemoan human failings, the underlying reason we do so is we are a species with such high standards to live up to, and we have high standards precisely because we are extraordinarily "cuddly" as a species.
Yes, we absolutely should highlight the morally questionable things we do. That we do so is something to be proud of. But let's also keep the greater context in mind at the same time.
In particular, the pictures show very, very little about who this mysterious species that created the disk happens to be. I like the cave paintings, but who cares what a glacier looks like? Or a tornado? Or big waves? Or the inside of a mine/tunnel? How about showing a boat where you can actually see the people? Any space-faring race that finds Earth will have trillions of photographs of interesting geology in their libraries.
Voyager was a sincere attempt to be testimony on the human species. This is just a testimony on the grandiose artistic pretensions of one specific human.
You want to do the one thing today that would have the biggest impact on reducing Healthcare costs?
End Patents on Drugs, Genes, Medical devices, and Medical procedures.
Not even close.
The total US expenditure for pharmaceuticals is only 10% of the aggregate medical bill. Medical devices are far smaller piece of the pie. You might realize a one time 4% or 5% downward notching of the costs by radical legislature means, but that is all.
In the long run, pharma research and medical device research brings downs costs; in context, the savings to be gained by gutting that system are small potatoes. The real problem is more fundamental: we need to get away from pay for service -- that is bribing doctors to keep you sick.
Seems like there must be better ways to get kids to think about problem solving that is more easily related to than a subject they have already convinced themselves they will never use again in their life.
Not likely. If they are in just for the grade, then learning to think will be staunchly resisted regardless of the topic on hand. Once you throw in the towel on teaching general principles that are widely applicable across the generations, you are left with a million losing battles on which factoids Johnny gets to veto because he decided they do not "feel relevant".
Numeracy and simple algebra is extremely useful for financial decision-making. If we cannot make a course that is compelling based on lucre-sweet-lucre then the problem really is the students who decided "they will never use [this] again". There is only so much we can do for people who will sign up to self-fulfilling prophecies in order to justify their own laziness.
Agreed. Somehow lots and lots of suburban households are able to be serviced with telephone, electricity, water, natural gas, and even cable television for ballpark $50-$100 per month each. It is just a basic consumer infrastructure problem, one that has been solved before literally billions of times already. Why are broadband companies so especially less competent than others at providing this kind of service?
I am paying $45 per month for a decent DSL service. There is plenty of money up for grabs to pay for these things, if the malignant monopolies can be pushed aside.
If aircraft carriers are obsolete, what is going to replace them? Submarines can't project force outside of the water except to launch a limited number of missiles. Sub Carriers were tried by the Japanese in WWII, but were never especially practical. If your planes have to fly across three countries to get to their destination from the nearest airbase they aren't going to be able to offer much support.
A supercarrier can be replaced by a pocket carrier designed for UAVs, at a fraction of the cost. The UAVs can fly even longer distances, can have decent autopilots, the human pilots can be switched out when tired, and it is even theoretically possible to re-fuel in air.
Is a UAV really as good as a F-18 at all missions? Of course, not. But UAVs are better at the more common missions, and they are vastly cheaper both in terms of money and the political calculations around losing a human pilot.
The vulnerability of carriers has been proven. A very long reach may allow them to outclass other surface ships in a duel, but they are still just very long armed boxers with glass jaws. We know what happens when carriers meet carriers. We expect must the same when surface-based craft hunt carriers.
In today's world there are many weapon systems that can match the long reach of a carrier, although it is (so far) unproven how accurately they can target a ship 400-600 miles out to sea. Targeting will inevitably improve, and then it becomes a matter of numbers where the missiles are cheap going up against an expensive carrier.
The US can do a lot more for vastly less money with 4 supercarriers and 10 pocket carriers designed for helicopters and UAVs than 11 supercarriers. And we still get the prestige of the supercarriers.
A "D" may be harsh, but in the real world, writing the tests and/or getting your code to validate its prerequisites and fail gracefully early is every bit as important as writing a good algorithm. Algorithms can be improved and most problems fit within known patterns. Opaque and untested code can burn tens or hundreds of hours much easier than one might think.
About half the ostensively dedicated people I have met in the Valley are truly impressive. The other half wear their Firefighter merit badge on their sleeve (and leave smoldering cigarettes everywhere they have been).
It is easy for a Type A manager to get a short term burst of increased productivity. But these same managers usually encourage the bad kind of firefighter behavior, as well.
Based on observations of a sometimes-workaholic SO, I endorse the idea that 4-5 hours per day on average is the rough limit of what is sustainable. Keep mind mind that our jobs often involve a lot of stuff that may not require hard mental effort in the least, so an 8-9 hour day can still be very reasonable.
I would further note that what is "hard mental effort" for me might be easy for you (and perhaps vice versa). That is why the old saw that 20% of the people do 80% of the work might be true.
True. And the VCs are going to be put off by anyone who does not seem savvy when it comes to spending more money to save money, and spending more money to cut time to market for the big win. Not being within shouting distance of Sand Hill (or other tech hub) screams "amateur".
Sometimes it is better to dive into the deep water with both feet. Sometimes it is better to wade slowly in from the shallow end. There are a few big companies that started with the latter, but almost all eventually move to bigger cities when making a play for the big time.
Dear allston, who seems preoccupied with the disadvantages of the first and the advantages of the second, really understands neither option.
If you have a so-so idea that could maybe go somewhere in 10+ years, set up in Riverside. Or better still, find some college town with a good local engineering program in flyover land. You can find a steady stream of decent students who are used to living on a shoestring. A few will like the college town vibe and choose to linger for a few years. That can work. Running a company on inexperienced people of modest ability on the cheap is a reasonable model.
If you have a genuinely good idea that can go somewhere impressive in five years (or less if you are really ambitious), you would be an idiot for not going to Silicon Valley of some similar tech hub.
For many genuinely good ideas, it is too costly to be cheap. Top talent can get your idea off the ground in 1 year where the cheap inexperienced talent will flounder with mediocre results for 3 or 4 years. In fact, it does not matter that top talent in Silicon Valley costs 5X as much, because your upside potential for getting to market sooner can easily go up by a factor of 10X or even 100X.
Yes, setting up in Silicon Valley increases your initial risks because everything is more costly here. But if you are a gambling man, the advantages can very easily outweigh the risks.
Interesting point. When the cost of assessment is expensive or you recognize your own outright incompetence in this area (HR does not give you a good enough pipeline of candidates, you are too busy to interview carefully, you are a clueless ingenue, you already with a track record of picking men who are bad for you, etc.), then simply trusting someone else's judgement is a pretty good guess.
The article pretty clearly states the real underlying problem: Companies strongly prefer hiring experienced people who are doing the exact same job, right now. But they are not owning up to the fact they may be poaching from a limited pool, because they and all their competitors are bidding for the same people. Obviously that will inevitably create a bidding war when the sector is doing well.
Investment in training people can help here -- that is the traditional answer. But companies are scared of that investment because their competitors will poach once the investment finally begins to really pay off, of course.
Now we come what we slashdotters see as the elephant in the room: the the H1B visas. The visa process is so long that provides a partial lock in, and therefore a measure of safety for the employers. Not only will many H1B visa candidates accept slightly lower salary offers, but they are more likely to accept lesser raises until they has their visa.
I do not feel strongly one way or another about more or fewer H1B visas. But it is clear that large companies have a powerful incentive to simply throw up their hands and claim they need more H1B visas, regardless of the underlying reality. They do not care if there is a thousand potential employees who be fabulous after 12 months of in house experience lining up on the street, clamoring for a chance.
The truly smart people marry raw brain power and personal passion together -- those people have more good ideas than can be pursued in a hundred lifetimes. They get better and better at everything by doing, not dicking around with "training" software.
Nonsense. The difference is gov't is usually has to say out loud how badly things went because they are accountable to the voters at large.
Corporations do not brag about $100 million thrown down the toilet from a failed 5 years effort. It happens all the time. How often? Hard to say, because this is not something that anyone wants to be easy to track.
For really complex projects, the failure rate could easily be 50%. But it is not reported as a failure. A new contractor comes in to finish the work and the end result is a 200% cost overrun, it is just spread out over the years. The people who should have known better find "new exciting opportunities" elsewhere.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, but semiconductor fab lines always initially lose money because of the tremendous set up costs. Working with Apple initially may have been a winning strategy, even if you had a net loss averaged over that first 100M sale. Now you can make fat the profits for a few years (before the fab line needs to torn down and replaced).
I am not doubting you anecdote. But it is not necessarily true that working with Apple was not a big win, even if ditching them later was the right decision.
BTW, the claims we need more graduate students to earn PhDs are just FUD. It may or may not be true we need more STEM bachelor degrees. It may or may not be true that we need more STEM masters degrees. The idea that the economy needs more PhDs is pretty laughable. We have lots of those.
Graduate students are a wonderful means of stretching valuable faculty hours by substituting cheap and undertrained student hours.
The idea that the system has to be as masochistic as it is, with people now doing post-docs well into their 30's, having no real financial stability through all of that, and being expected to make huge sacrifices in personal relationships, all for a magical goal of tenure that well over half of those people will never achieve, is flawed. The rigid system of academic levels is flawed. Advancement and reward should be based on research done, quality of publications, and recommendations, period. The stress put on students for quals and dissertations is a huge waste. It's an out-dated hazing ritual. It's a source of cheap labor. And it kills the love that many people, some of them brilliant people, have for science.
When only about 10% of graduates with PhDs will find ever research positions for which their training is highly appropriate, the usual laws of supply & demand, common sense, and simple decency do not really apply. To achieve academic tenure (or the equivalent), you are competing with workaholic lunatics. Not necessarily everyone fits that profile, but that is what you are signing up for when you go on that career path.
Of course the problem here is that your right not to be offended might prevent meaningful discourse. If you try to ban what is basically just blasphemy, then you eventually eliminate any meaningful discussion of religious doctrine.
Yup. Historically speaking...Christianity was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot of Judaism. Islam was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot of Judaism/Christianity. Shia Islam was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot mainstream Islam. Protestantism was considered a dangerous, blasphemous offshoot mainstream Catholicism. The list goes on and on.
Who gets to decide which dangerous blasphemies are okay today? Furthermore, the squeaky wheels getting the oil seems like it will get us ever more squeaky wheels, not fewer.
If one is easily offended, that is just fine: but do not read or watch anything that has not be vetted by a trusted source. Problem solved.
Americans pay on average ~180% as much as citizens in other industrialized countries for health care that is overall no better. So it is provably untrue that expanding coverage to all citizens automatically makes the costs significantly higher than what we are paying now. We are in the ballpark of $1 trillion of inefficiencies in the US health care system.
Now, it is unclear whether the particular reforms on hand are a substantial step in the right direction -- reasonable people can disagree. Sitting on our hands does have a $1 trillion and growing price tag.
Why should we assume that America is so uniquely incompetent that it can never reform health care in a manner that will recoup any of that $1 trillion?
The difference is not as great as you are trying to suggest. Edison's primary accomplishment is a number of little improvements in the widgets that made light bulbs practical at a compelling price point for a merely well-to-do consumer. The basic technology existed and was steadily improving, before Edison happened upon the scene. Sound familiar?
Without Edison we would have had those technologies within just a few years. Arguably Jobs pushed mobile phone technology faster and further, because it was stuck in a rut, at the mercy of the likes of phone companies and Microsoft to drive innovation. The fact that RIM got quickly crushed tells a lot about how small fry their technical innovations really are.
Also, like Jobs, Edison has a legacy of hurting innovation to live down, only Edison makes Jobs look like a pathetic amateur when it comes to squashing innovation. Jobs/Apple politely bullies competitors in the courts. Edison hired goons to physically assault competitors if he was dissatisfied with the efforts of the court system. The main reason Hollywood blossomed was it was a place of cheap land, where a mogul could build a fenced compound with armed guards, far from easy reach of Edison's thugs.
And that is yet another reason I think the selection is artistically dreadful. Sure, put in a military UAV targeting image -- I do not have any problem with one or two such pictures in the lot. But they are all so consistently bleak, and only one shows actual people with any clarity. The whole seems to more than slightly tinged by misanthropy; there is more awe with how beautiful that which not human really is, than even awe of just plain beautiful things.
Scientifically speaking, homo sapiens sapiens is a hypersocial species -- an extreme rarity outside of social insects and herding/schooling animals (and the latter are not necessarily sweetness and light to each other). Most other species that are considered mere highly social tend to avoid interacting with more than one or two dozen individuals ever. (How big is a wolf pack? How big is a whale pod? How big is a troop of other primates?)
An individual human in an urban environment going to an office job many have a minor social contact with one or two hundreds individuals and significant social contact with dozens of individuals in a single workday. Of those reactions, each is about 100X (or more) as likely to be highly friendly than obviously hostile. (Did that stranger glare at you for daring to get in the same elevator? Or hold the door?)
For all that bemoan human failings, the underlying reason we do so is we are a species with such high standards to live up to, and we have high standards precisely because we are extraordinarily "cuddly" as a species.
Yes, we absolutely should highlight the morally questionable things we do. That we do so is something to be proud of. But let's also keep the greater context in mind at the same time.
In particular, the pictures show very, very little about who this mysterious species that created the disk happens to be. I like the cave paintings, but who cares what a glacier looks like? Or a tornado? Or big waves? Or the inside of a mine/tunnel? How about showing a boat where you can actually see the people? Any space-faring race that finds Earth will have trillions of photographs of interesting geology in their libraries.
Voyager was a sincere attempt to be testimony on the human species. This is just a testimony on the grandiose artistic pretensions of one specific human.
You want to do the one thing today that would have the biggest impact on reducing Healthcare costs?
End Patents on Drugs, Genes, Medical devices, and Medical procedures.
Not even close.
The total US expenditure for pharmaceuticals is only 10% of the aggregate medical bill. Medical devices are far smaller piece of the pie. You might realize a one time 4% or 5% downward notching of the costs by radical legislature means, but that is all.
In the long run, pharma research and medical device research brings downs costs; in context, the savings to be gained by gutting that system are small potatoes. The real problem is more fundamental: we need to get away from pay for service -- that is bribing doctors to keep you sick.
Seems like there must be better ways to get kids to think about problem solving that is more easily related to than a subject they have already convinced themselves they will never use again in their life.
Not likely. If they are in just for the grade, then learning to think will be staunchly resisted regardless of the topic on hand. Once you throw in the towel on teaching general principles that are widely applicable across the generations, you are left with a million losing battles on which factoids Johnny gets to veto because he decided they do not "feel relevant".
Numeracy and simple algebra is extremely useful for financial decision-making. If we cannot make a course that is compelling based on lucre-sweet-lucre then the problem really is the students who decided "they will never use [this] again". There is only so much we can do for people who will sign up to self-fulfilling prophecies in order to justify their own laziness.
Agreed. Somehow lots and lots of suburban households are able to be serviced with telephone, electricity, water, natural gas, and even cable television for ballpark $50-$100 per month each. It is just a basic consumer infrastructure problem, one that has been solved before literally billions of times already. Why are broadband companies so especially less competent than others at providing this kind of service?
I am paying $45 per month for a decent DSL service. There is plenty of money up for grabs to pay for these things, if the malignant monopolies can be pushed aside.
If aircraft carriers are obsolete, what is going to replace them? Submarines can't project force outside of the water except to launch a limited number of missiles. Sub Carriers were tried by the Japanese in WWII, but were never especially practical. If your planes have to fly across three countries to get to their destination from the nearest airbase they aren't going to be able to offer much support.
A supercarrier can be replaced by a pocket carrier designed for UAVs, at a fraction of the cost. The UAVs can fly even longer distances, can have decent autopilots, the human pilots can be switched out when tired, and it is even theoretically possible to re-fuel in air.
Is a UAV really as good as a F-18 at all missions? Of course, not. But UAVs are better at the more common missions, and they are vastly cheaper both in terms of money and the political calculations around losing a human pilot.
Akagi.
The vulnerability of carriers has been proven. A very long reach may allow them to outclass other surface ships in a duel, but they are still just very long armed boxers with glass jaws. We know what happens when carriers meet carriers. We expect must the same when surface-based craft hunt carriers.
In today's world there are many weapon systems that can match the long reach of a carrier, although it is (so far) unproven how accurately they can target a ship 400-600 miles out to sea. Targeting will inevitably improve, and then it becomes a matter of numbers where the missiles are cheap going up against an expensive carrier.
The US can do a lot more for vastly less money with 4 supercarriers and 10 pocket carriers designed for helicopters and UAVs than 11 supercarriers. And we still get the prestige of the supercarriers.
"test your work". Mod this guy up, please.
A "D" may be harsh, but in the real world, writing the tests and/or getting your code to validate its prerequisites and fail gracefully early is every bit as important as writing a good algorithm. Algorithms can be improved and most problems fit within known patterns. Opaque and untested code can burn tens or hundreds of hours much easier than one might think.
No, you are a despicable troll who does not know squat about his own tax bill.
One the nose, Emperor of Canada.
About half the ostensively dedicated people I have met in the Valley are truly impressive. The other half wear their Firefighter merit badge on their sleeve (and leave smoldering cigarettes everywhere they have been).
It is easy for a Type A manager to get a short term burst of increased productivity. But these same managers usually encourage the bad kind of firefighter behavior, as well.
Based on observations of a sometimes-workaholic SO, I endorse the idea that 4-5 hours per day on average is the rough limit of what is sustainable. Keep mind mind that our jobs often involve a lot of stuff that may not require hard mental effort in the least, so an 8-9 hour day can still be very reasonable.
I would further note that what is "hard mental effort" for me might be easy for you (and perhaps vice versa). That is why the old saw that 20% of the people do 80% of the work might be true.
Why does everyone assume the Earthians will be the ones hacking Curiosity? Maybe the hacking will go the other direction?
True. And the VCs are going to be put off by anyone who does not seem savvy when it comes to spending more money to save money, and spending more money to cut time to market for the big win. Not being within shouting distance of Sand Hill (or other tech hub) screams "amateur".
Sometimes it is better to dive into the deep water with both feet. Sometimes it is better to wade slowly in from the shallow end. There are a few big companies that started with the latter, but almost all eventually move to bigger cities when making a play for the big time.
Dear allston, who seems preoccupied with the disadvantages of the first and the advantages of the second, really understands neither option.
Want a serious answer?
If you have a so-so idea that could maybe go somewhere in 10+ years, set up in Riverside. Or better still, find some college town with a good local engineering program in flyover land. You can find a steady stream of decent students who are used to living on a shoestring. A few will like the college town vibe and choose to linger for a few years. That can work. Running a company on inexperienced people of modest ability on the cheap is a reasonable model.
If you have a genuinely good idea that can go somewhere impressive in five years (or less if you are really ambitious), you would be an idiot for not going to Silicon Valley of some similar tech hub.
For many genuinely good ideas, it is too costly to be cheap. Top talent can get your idea off the ground in 1 year where the cheap inexperienced talent will flounder with mediocre results for 3 or 4 years. In fact, it does not matter that top talent in Silicon Valley costs 5X as much, because your upside potential for getting to market sooner can easily go up by a factor of 10X or even 100X.
Yes, setting up in Silicon Valley increases your initial risks because everything is more costly here. But if you are a gambling man, the advantages can very easily outweigh the risks.
Interesting point. When the cost of assessment is expensive or you recognize your own outright incompetence in this area (HR does not give you a good enough pipeline of candidates, you are too busy to interview carefully, you are a clueless ingenue, you already with a track record of picking men who are bad for you, etc.), then simply trusting someone else's judgement is a pretty good guess.
The article pretty clearly states the real underlying problem: Companies strongly prefer hiring experienced people who are doing the exact same job, right now. But they are not owning up to the fact they may be poaching from a limited pool, because they and all their competitors are bidding for the same people. Obviously that will inevitably create a bidding war when the sector is doing well.
Investment in training people can help here -- that is the traditional answer. But companies are scared of that investment because their competitors will poach once the investment finally begins to really pay off, of course.
Now we come what we slashdotters see as the elephant in the room: the the H1B visas. The visa process is so long that provides a partial lock in, and therefore a measure of safety for the employers. Not only will many H1B visa candidates accept slightly lower salary offers, but they are more likely to accept lesser raises until they has their visa.
I do not feel strongly one way or another about more or fewer H1B visas. But it is clear that large companies have a powerful incentive to simply throw up their hands and claim they need more H1B visas, regardless of the underlying reality. They do not care if there is a thousand potential employees who be fabulous after 12 months of in house experience lining up on the street, clamoring for a chance.
Mod parent up.
The truly smart people marry raw brain power and personal passion together -- those people have more good ideas than can be pursued in a hundred lifetimes. They get better and better at everything by doing, not dicking around with "training" software.
Nonsense. The difference is gov't is usually has to say out loud how badly things went because they are accountable to the voters at large.
Corporations do not brag about $100 million thrown down the toilet from a failed 5 years effort. It happens all the time. How often? Hard to say, because this is not something that anyone wants to be easy to track.
For really complex projects, the failure rate could easily be 50%. But it is not reported as a failure. A new contractor comes in to finish the work and the end result is a 200% cost overrun, it is just spread out over the years. The people who should have known better find "new exciting opportunities" elsewhere.