Displacing US workers does not help our economy. About 80% of h1bs are hired by Indian companies, those companies then contract the workers to US companies. And those Indian contracting companies are making untold billions.
The workers may be paid $15K a year, but the people who hire the h1b contractors pay much more than that. When it is all said and done, the workers cost the US employers about 20% less.
The money that is saved by hiring h1bs goes directly to managerial bonuses.
Be honest, if msft had to pay 20% more for some of it's developers, do you think that would wreck the company? I am very certain it would not.
> If we employ protectionism, jobs will get offshored and that screws us by putting downward pressure on wages at home.
This is a myth, perpetuated by the globalists.
According to economist Dr. Ron Hira:
> "What they're saying is that increasing the guest worker program (H-1B and L-1 visa programs) will keep jobs here and save jobs from being offshored," says RIT's Hira. "When in reality those programs are being used to do knowledge transfer to transfer jobs overseas. The business community is on the one hand saying outsourcing is good, and on the other using the threat of outsourcing to change immigration policy. It's quite cleve
Even after revising the 1985-2007 mpg estimates to make them comparable to the new 2008 mpg estimates, the 1989 Honda CRX-HF is rated at 41 city and 50 highway mpg.
After 20 years of technological innovation, and four years of sky-rocketing fuel costs, shouldn't a new car model get at least 41/50 mpg before that car is considered to be ecologically friendly? Yet greencar.com features the 2008 Nissan Rouge (22 city/27 highway mpg) as a "Top 2008 Fuel Economy Faves." The 2008 Nissan Rouge also has a sticker price of $19,250.
Seems to me that true economy cars been pulled from the market, and replaces with the new hybrids. Major car manufacturers want us to think that 30+ mpg is something miraculous, and requires an expensive, heavy, complicated, hard-to-maintain, hybrid.
In my opinion there is more to ecological friendliness than just mpg (although the present line-up fails at even that). Hybrids have huge batteries, and disposing of those batteries is never ecologically friendly. Then there is the ecological impact of manufacturing and shipping these huge, heavy, vehicles. Furthermore, recent road tests carried out by Auto Express show that hybrids often have worse CO2 emissions than standard autos.
To have a real impact on fuel consumption, and emissions, new vehicles need to be affordable. Hybrids are about the most expensive vehicles on the market. How can hybrids have a positive effect of the environment, if practically nobody can afford the beasts? Even if you can afford the steep sticker price, what about the cost of maintenance? Hybrids have two engines, and use a complicated system to charge their huge batteries. I hate to even think about the cost of maintenance and repair.
It used to be common that most fuel efficient cars also had the lowest sticker price, and lowest maintenance costs. The cars where simply smaller, lighter, and required more manual operations. With smaller, cheaper, parts, and a less complicated design, the cars were cheaper to maintain. When I bought my 1992 Ford Festiva, the 30/37 mpg rating was the least of my criteria, I was also concerned with sticker price, and maintenance costs.
Why can't we do as well now, as we did 16 to 35 years ago?
Efficiency? Think Racing Cars, Not Hybridso A renowned racing car designer has said that car manufacturers should be looking at making cars lighter to improve efficiency, rather than adding complex drive trains. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7387432.stm
Hot Cars Best Gas Milage Welcome to hi-mpg.org. We are automotive enthusiasts and travel aficionados who also love the environment. We appreciate both form and function, all while striving to leave future generations a legacy of clean air, scenic grandeur and a continuum of natural resources. In addition: the freedom to drive. http://hi-mpg.org/best-cars-with-high-gas-mileage.phtml
Bourne is more portable. Sun does not seem to like bash. Maybe it's just the "not invented here" thing.
The way I see it, if you need something more powerful than bourne, use perl or python. Shell scripts are good for ten line throw-aways. The only possible advantage than shell scripting has over perl, is portability, so if you want portability, use bourne.
Just a bunch of random images thrown at you. The only thing anybody could learn from the video is that monks were hurt, and some people are protesting about "free Tibet."
But will you be able to keep it? At my last job, the entire department was offshored to Argentina. Everybody was doing a good job, but Argentina was cheaper.
Maybe you can get a job if you are good, but can also expect to be training your replacement within two years.
I happen to be a F/OSS advocate. But, I'm a little skeptical about the career value of volunteering your time for F/OSS projects. The problems, as I see it, are:
1) Most employers want five years of recent, verifiable, full-time, professional experience. That would be an awful lot of time to volunteer.
2) Offshore, and guest workers are still much cheaper. Maybe it's best for Americans to give up on software development, and let the offshore workers have it.
3) Even if an American can manage to get a development job, salaries are going down the toilet, as the market becomes glutted.
Both presidential candidates, and almost all of congress, are pushing for more guest workers. Bill Gates is petitioning for unlimited guest workers. Once the election is over, I think guest worker caps will be raised substantially, if not eliminated entirely.
What I am objecting to is the excuse, used by employers, that the USA needs more offshore workers because there is a sever shortage of tech workers in USA. Employers have been claiming these "sever shortage" at least since the early 1990s. Even with massive unemployment in IT, employers stiff claim that.
I can not account for every individual circumstance. But, I can say with complete confidence that, such a wide-spread shortage could not possibly exist for 15 years. The claim makes no sense.
As to your assertions:
> Regardless of the wage, the supply of broadly employable PHP developers can only increase slowly
But the demand for PHP developers is not growing that explosively either. As I said, shortage can exist for short time, if something sudden, unexpected, and major, happens; but those events are rare, and short lived.
> Unfortunately, con artists can easily be attracted by higher wages, and are not limited by this phenomenon because their experience is fake
This really has nothing to do with a sustained shortage. And please be aware that con-artists can exist off-shore as well. In fact, off-shore workers not only fake experience, but degrees as well:
I am sorry but you are just not making sense. Corporate American has been claiming a sever shortage of STEM since the early 1990s, at least. There is absolutely no way that a "shortage" like that could exist for so long. There is no shortage of Doctors or Lawyers, why do suppose that is?
You can call me names all you want. But your "reasoning" defies the laws of supply and demand.
FWIW: I have worked in IT for 28 years. I have worked for several major US corporations, and in several different specializations. This is where I see IT heading:
In the near future, IT will be an outsourced serviced, like janitorial work. The outsource companies will hire both off-shore workers, and on-site workers. The on-site workers will mainly be guest workers from the same country as the off-shore workers. The lower level managers will also come from the same country, and the outsource companies themselves will often come from the same country. This will create a homogeneous, and insulated environment within IT. Everybody within IT, off-shore or on-site, will speak the same language, and come from the same culture. The IT workers will be moved around so they can get experience in the USA as guest workers, then they will be sent back off-shore to work for lower wages.
The reason it will happen like this is because it is significantly cheaper for the employers.
If you happen to be a US IT worker, be prepared to train your replacement. Also be prepared to listen to a lot of slogans like: "US and Indian workers proudly working together to achieve a common goal" before you get the boot.
Of course, there will be some exceptions, like jobs that require a security clearance. But, for the most part, the demand for US IT workers in nearly zero.
I tend to agree. But you must remember most don't understand what is happening. Even here on slashdot most IT workers are unaware of the real situation.
The MNCs have essentially limitless resources to flood the pop-media with bogus reports of how IT is "recession proof" and how there is a sever shortage of IT workers, and so on.
Other groups, like Doctors, are protected by the powerful AMA. But, IT workers will never have a powerful advocacy agency, because most IT workers are unaware of the present situation,
Non-sense. In a free market place, a sustained labor shortages can not possibly exist. In fact, the very idea does not even make sense. In a truly free market: if demand starts to exceed supply, then prices will go up, which will cause supply will go up with the prices, thereby leveling out the equation.
The truth is, you just don't want to pay a competitive rate.
In free market place, a sustained labor shortages can not possibly exist. In fact, the very idea does not even make sense. In a truly free market: if demand starts to exceed supply, then prices will go up, which will cause supply will go up with the prices, thereby leveling out the equation.
For example: if there were a shortage of Perl developers, then wages for Perl developers would go up, thereby attracting more Perl developers. A long term shortage would be impossible.
I lost my last job because the entire department was off-shored to Argentina. The people in that department were very highly skilled, many had worked for the company for over 10 years.
But, bottom line, off-shore workers, and guest workers, are cheaper. For US citizens, acquiring IT skills is a waste of time, money, and effort. US employers only want cheap foreign labor.
You are saying that are a shortage of the most highly skilled workers. But, isn't that a shortage by definition? Isn't that like saying there is a shortage of athletes who will win a gold medal in the Olympics?
Slashdot Mirror
I thought the H-1B was a temporary work visa? Is that the same as an immigrant?
The post is referring to the program, not the person.
The pay taxes, but they get all of their social security money back.
H-1Bs do not buy homes. The h1b is a temporary work visa. Besides, what kind of a home are you going to buy with $15K?
Rather, h1bs displace American workers who could buy homes, if the Americans had not lost their job to the h1bs.
Displacing US workers does not help our economy. About 80% of h1bs are hired by Indian companies, those companies then contract the workers to US companies. And those Indian contracting companies are making untold billions.
The workers may be paid $15K a year, but the people who hire the h1b contractors pay much more than that. When it is all said and done, the workers cost the US employers about 20% less.
The money that is saved by hiring h1bs goes directly to managerial bonuses.
Be honest, if msft had to pay 20% more for some of it's developers, do you think that would wreck the company? I am very certain it would not.
> If we employ protectionism, jobs will get offshored and that screws us by putting downward pressure on wages at home.
This is a myth, perpetuated by the globalists.
According to economist Dr. Ron Hira:
> "What they're saying is that increasing the guest worker program (H-1B and L-1 visa programs) will keep jobs here and save jobs from being offshored," says RIT's Hira. "When in reality those programs are being used to do knowledge transfer to transfer jobs overseas. The business community is on the one hand saying outsourcing is good, and on the other using the threat of outsourcing to change immigration policy. It's quite cleve
This is not bootstrapping the US economy, it's making the economy worse - much worse. This is causing the US to lose jobs.
This will eventually cause the US to lose it's technological edge.
1) why would that warrant an investigation?
2) be specific about this "FUD" what did IBM say that was untrue? if you can not be specific, then it's clear to me that you are just lying.
Even after revising the 1985-2007 mpg estimates to make them comparable to the new 2008 mpg estimates, the 1989 Honda CRX-HF is rated at 41 city and 50 highway mpg.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/5263.shtml
After 20 years of technological innovation, and four years of sky-rocketing fuel costs, shouldn't a new car model get at least 41/50 mpg before that car is considered to be ecologically friendly? Yet greencar.com features the 2008 Nissan Rouge (22 city/27 highway mpg) as a "Top 2008 Fuel Economy Faves." The 2008 Nissan Rouge also has a sticker price of $19,250.
http://www.greencar.com/features/fuel-economy/
Seems to me that true economy cars been pulled from the market, and replaces with the new hybrids. Major car manufacturers want us to think that 30+ mpg is something miraculous, and requires an expensive, heavy, complicated, hard-to-maintain, hybrid.
In my opinion there is more to ecological friendliness than just mpg (although the present line-up fails at even that). Hybrids have huge batteries, and disposing of those batteries is never ecologically friendly. Then there is the ecological impact of manufacturing and shipping these huge, heavy, vehicles. Furthermore, recent road tests carried out by Auto Express show that hybrids often have worse CO2 emissions than standard autos.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article3958376.ece
To have a real impact on fuel consumption, and emissions, new vehicles need to be affordable. Hybrids are about the most expensive vehicles on the market. How can hybrids have a positive effect of the environment, if practically nobody can afford the beasts? Even if you can afford the steep sticker price, what about the cost of maintenance? Hybrids have two engines, and use a complicated system to charge their huge batteries. I hate to even think about the cost of maintenance and repair.
It used to be common that most fuel efficient cars also had the lowest sticker price, and lowest maintenance costs. The cars where simply smaller, lighter, and required more manual operations. With smaller, cheaper, parts, and a less complicated design, the cars were cheaper to maintain. When I bought my 1992 Ford Festiva, the 30/37 mpg rating was the least of my criteria, I was also concerned with sticker price, and maintenance costs.
Why can't we do as well now, as we did 16 to 35 years ago?
1973 Honda Civic rated 35/40 mpg
1986 VW Golf Diesel rated 31/40 mpg *
1989 Geo Metro rated 43/51 mpg
1989 Honda CRX-HF rated 41/50 mpg
1992 Ford Festiva rated 30/37 mpg
* I got over 50mpg driving from Florida to New Jersey, while running the air conditioner.
Related:
57 mpg? That's so 20 years ago
Want to drive a cheap car that gets eye-popping mileage? In 1987 you could - and it wasn't even a hybrid.
http://money.cnn.com/2007/12/17/autos/honda_civic_hf/index.htm
Efficiency? Think Racing Cars, Not Hybridso
A renowned racing car designer has said that car manufacturers should be looking at making cars lighter to improve efficiency, rather than adding complex drive trains.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7387432.stm
Hot Cars Best Gas Milage
Welcome to hi-mpg.org. We are automotive enthusiasts and travel aficionados who also love the environment. We appreciate both form and function, all while striving to leave future generations a legacy of clean air, scenic grandeur and a continuum of natural resources. In addition: the freedom to drive.
http://hi-mpg.org/best-cars-with-high-gas-mileage.phtml
Bourne is more portable. Sun does not seem to like bash. Maybe it's just the "not invented here" thing.
The way I see it, if you need something more powerful than bourne, use perl or python. Shell scripts are good for ten line throw-aways. The only possible advantage than shell scripting has over perl, is portability, so if you want portability, use bourne.
Just a bunch of random images thrown at you. The only thing anybody could learn from the video is that monks were hurt, and some people are protesting about "free Tibet."
Isn't it just another torrent? Why does the Pirate's Bay get so much more press than all the other torrents?
>>If you are good, you'll get a job.
But will you be able to keep it? At my last job, the entire department was offshored to Argentina. Everybody was doing a good job, but Argentina was cheaper.
Maybe you can get a job if you are good, but can also expect to be training your replacement within two years.
I happen to be a F/OSS advocate. But, I'm a little skeptical about the career value of volunteering your time for F/OSS projects. The problems, as I see it, are:
1) Most employers want five years of recent, verifiable, full-time, professional experience. That would be an awful lot of time to volunteer.
2) Offshore, and guest workers are still much cheaper. Maybe it's best for Americans to give up on software development, and let the offshore workers have it.
3) Even if an American can manage to get a development job, salaries are going down the toilet, as the market becomes glutted.
Both presidential candidates, and almost all of congress, are pushing for more guest workers. Bill Gates is petitioning for unlimited guest workers. Once the election is over, I think guest worker caps will be raised substantially, if not eliminated entirely.
> Do we become rent-seekers and demand that the government stop outsourcing somehow?
We could demand an end to the flood of unneeded guest workers. If you think things are bad now, wait until after the election.
Employers may continue to off-shore jobs as aggressively as they can, but never every can be off-shored, for practical reasons.
> how does a visa that enables people to work in the USA (thereby keeping jobs in the country) have anything to do with a cut in IT jobs in the USA?
Because every h1b displaces a US IT worker. There may be just as many jobs, but those jobs are going to guest workers, not Americans.
What I am objecting to is the excuse, used by employers, that the USA needs more offshore workers because there is a sever shortage of tech workers in USA. Employers have been claiming these "sever shortage" at least since the early 1990s. Even with massive unemployment in IT, employers stiff claim that.
I can not account for every individual circumstance. But, I can say with complete confidence that, such a wide-spread shortage could not possibly exist for 15 years. The claim makes no sense.
As to your assertions:
> Regardless of the wage, the supply of broadly employable PHP developers can only increase slowly
But the demand for PHP developers is not growing that explosively either. As I said, shortage can exist for short time, if something sudden, unexpected, and major, happens; but those events are rare, and short lived.
> Unfortunately, con artists can easily be attracted by higher wages, and are not limited by this phenomenon because their experience is fake
This really has nothing to do with a sustained shortage. And please be aware that con-artists can exist off-shore as well. In fact, off-shore workers not only fake experience, but degrees as well:
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Many_job_aspirants_give_fake_educational_documents/articleshow/3129453.cms
Therefore, it seems that expanding the guest worker program will not address your issues anyway.
I am sorry but you are just not making sense. Corporate American has been claiming a sever shortage of STEM since the early 1990s, at least. There is absolutely no way that a "shortage" like that could exist for so long. There is no shortage of Doctors or Lawyers, why do suppose that is?
You can call me names all you want. But your "reasoning" defies the laws of supply and demand.
FWIW: I have worked in IT for 28 years. I have worked for several major US corporations, and in several different specializations. This is where I see IT heading:
In the near future, IT will be an outsourced serviced, like janitorial work. The outsource companies will hire both off-shore workers, and on-site workers. The on-site workers will mainly be guest workers from the same country as the off-shore workers. The lower level managers will also come from the same country, and the outsource companies themselves will often come from the same country. This will create a homogeneous, and insulated environment within IT. Everybody within IT, off-shore or on-site, will speak the same language, and come from the same culture. The IT workers will be moved around so they can get experience in the USA as guest workers, then they will be sent back off-shore to work for lower wages.
The reason it will happen like this is because it is significantly cheaper for the employers.
If you happen to be a US IT worker, be prepared to train your replacement. Also be prepared to listen to a lot of slogans like: "US and Indian workers proudly working together to achieve a common goal" before you get the boot.
Of course, there will be some exceptions, like jobs that require a security clearance. But, for the most part, the demand for US IT workers in nearly zero.
I tend to agree. But you must remember most don't understand what is happening. Even here on slashdot most IT workers are unaware of the real situation.
The MNCs have essentially limitless resources to flood the pop-media with bogus reports of how IT is "recession proof" and how there is a sever shortage of IT workers, and so on.
Other groups, like Doctors, are protected by the powerful AMA. But, IT workers will never have a powerful advocacy agency, because most IT workers are unaware of the present situation,
> There IS a shortage of certain types of IT
Non-sense. In a free market place, a sustained labor shortages can not possibly exist. In fact, the very idea does not even make sense. In a truly free market: if demand starts to exceed supply, then prices will go up, which will cause supply will go up with the prices, thereby leveling out the equation.
The truth is, you just don't want to pay a competitive rate.
> the quality of IT workers out there is pretty low
Offer CEO pay for IT workers and see what happens. The truth is you don't want to pay for quality IT workers.
In free market place, a sustained labor shortages can not possibly exist. In fact, the very idea does not even make sense. In a truly free market: if demand starts to exceed supply, then prices will go up, which will cause supply will go up with the prices, thereby leveling out the equation.
For example: if there were a shortage of Perl developers, then wages for Perl developers would go up, thereby attracting more Perl developers. A long term shortage would be impossible.
I lost my last job because the entire department was off-shored to Argentina. The people in that department were very highly skilled, many had worked for the company for over 10 years.
But, bottom line, off-shore workers, and guest workers, are cheaper. For US citizens, acquiring IT skills is a waste of time, money, and effort. US employers only want cheap foreign labor.
You are saying that are a shortage of the most highly skilled workers. But, isn't that a shortage by definition? Isn't that like saying there is a shortage of athletes who will win a gold medal in the Olympics?