For an injury-in-fact to be "concrete", it must be "real, and not abstract" and that a "bare procedural violation" under a federal statute, "divorced from any concrete harm" that "may result in no harm" would not "satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement" Id. at 1549
They can potentially sue in Illinois, under Illinois law. They tried to sue under federal law, which has already been explained by courts in other cases as follows: -- For an injury-in-fact to be `âoeconcrete,â it must be âoereal, and not abstract,â and that a `âoebare procedural violationâ under a federal statute, âoedivorced `from any concrete harm,â that âoemay result in no harm,â would not `âoesatisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.â Id. at 1549 --
The federal law allows a federal suit if "concrete injury" comes from violating a state law.
> So, Microsoft is going to go $90 Billion in debt just so it can avoid paying $38 Billion in taxes.
To pay the costs in cash, they need to use $140B. They bring $140B to the US, pay $50 billion in taxes, and have $90 billion left to pay the expense. If that $140B is earning them 6% overseas, that's $8.4 billion in lost income each year, plus losing the liquidity of having cash.
By borrowing, they pay $2 billion in interest and still have their cash for 40 more years.
Bottom line: Since it costs $50 billion in taxes to bring the money to the US, it's much cheaper to leave the money elsewhere and use debt in the US.
As is the case pretty much everywhere, paychecks are taxed MORE than corporate profits, except in a very specific case.
The employer pays unemployment taxes and 7.65% FICA, the employee pays 7.65% FICA, and the employee pays income taxes. Total tax rate on money paid to employees as compensation is around 41%. Much of that is not subject to deductions and credits.
Corporate tax is 34% of the amount over $335,000, with lower rates for the first $335,000.
One big thing the IRS watches out for is businesses paying the owner/managers too much in dividends and not enough salary, since salary is subject to FICA taxes X 2.
Where the US taxes corporate profits heavily is big corporations paying dividends. That would be a Chapter C corp without the subchapter S election paying dividends. They pay the 34% tax in the name of the corporation, then the stockholders pay ANOTHER 25% or so (up to 39%). Plus potentially a 3.4% Obamacare tax. That's a total tax of about 53%, up to 59%. For this reason, some US investors invest their money in other countries, where savings/investment is encouraged by the tax law.
I'd damn sure rather have Paul Ryan as President. Ryan really knows what he's doing. Trump, Pence, and Clinton have never *read* the federal budget, Paul Ryan has *written* the federal budget, more than once.
There's a reason there was no "campaigning" for Speaker of the House this time around, why Paul Ryan was the consensus pick, even though he refused to follow tradition and do campaign appearances for the reps who voted for him. His peers wanted Ryan, without a campaign, because they know Ryan is the smartest of all of them.
The calculation is a multiplier of the "average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment." For some occupations and locations that can be found here:
So a proposed H1-B in Dallas who would be paid twice the Dallas average for a similar position is on equal footing with an application for a job in San Jose who would be paid twice the San Jose average.
Please note I'm not advocating for or against this proposal, just explaining it.
That's basically what we've done, though of course constrained by budget. I think a new approach is needed.
In general, when you pass a law saying "you must _____", then try to enforce that, you can catch maybe 0.1% of the cheaters. To catch anything like even 15% of the cheaters requires a cop on every street corner, and in every office.
More effective is when you can set up the system to reward the behavior you want, without needing cops to investigate and prosecutors to try to prove each violation. As an obvious example, we want people to get off the couch and do something useful. The system is set up so that you get money by getting off the couch and doing something that other people find useful. Therefore, most people go to work. No need for cops to look for people on couches - the system is set up to reward working, not napping.
Which law says that H1-Bs have to be randomly assigned by lottery? Maybe there is one, but not that I know of.
Congress is *supposed* to make the laws, not the executive. Since about the 1970s (and to a lesser extent since 1929), Congress has passed more and more vague laws giving the executive the power to fill in the rest via "regulations". I don't like that, but it's reality. As far as I know, the executive was given significant discretion as to how to allot H1-Bs.
One Congresswoman from California has proposed a bill which make statutory law of the preference for higher salaries (relative to the average for the position). If it's well written, with unintended affects considered, I would support such a bill.
Strangely, president Trump has signed an executive order reducing the amount of "law" (regulations) made by the executive, sending that back to the Congress. His order is that for every new regulation made by the executive, they must remove two old regulations that are no longer needed (with exceptions signed off by cabinet level department heads). If we get to the point where we've gotten rid of most of the stupid regulations and we still need that stuff to be law, Congress can do their job and pass it as law, rather than having the executive promulgate more and more law as regulations. I'm sure there will be some unintended consequences, but I like the general concept of that. The executive has grown much more powerful vis-a-vis the Congress than the framers intended. This graph is informative as to the change in the cost of executive regulation: https://regulatorystudies.colu...
I was raised in Colorado. If you like Colorado, Denver has tech jobs, legal weed, pretty mountains nearby, and smog.
Texas has a lot less weed smoking (except in Austin, which is actually a part of California which got stuck in Texas when it's VW bus broke down), no smog, and no mountains.
It'll be interesting to see - I suspect we'll find that the places with legal (or quasi-legal) weed end up losing jobs to places where people get off the couch and go to work. We'll find out. That's one of the cool things about having 50 states - they can each try things their own way, then see how each approach worked.
That's certainly an important issue. Of the last three places I worked, one had a very strong training program for employees, one moderately strong, and one paid for Lynda.com.
To have more of that, we probably need to work on the much larger issue of loyalty between both the employer and the employee. Employees routinely only stay 1-3 years, so investing in a lot of training can be foolish for the employer. On the other hand, employees see little reason to stick around when another company makes them a higher offer. The places I worked that had long employee retention times and good training also had career advancement planned in advance "Chuck is due to retire in a year and half. Bob is training to replace him. Stacy will take over Bob's position." Employees knew there was a plan for them to advance. Still, management had trouble getting employees to complete the training the employees themselves had chosen. That goes to the next issue:
The other day my boss lamented that most employees don't seem to have any interest in advancing. He writes out a plan with them on what they need to do to get a promotion and they just aren't really interested, they don't do the stuff they need to do to get promoted. That's hard for me to understand. I've *always* been working on my next promotion, from the very first day I had a job. Then again, I'm also an entrepreneur - I go so far as to *create* new companies for me to be the president of. Most people don't think that way, they show up for a paycheck, then go home and do whatever they like to do.
The calculation is a multiplier of the "average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment." For some occupations that can be found here:
Age discrimination is illegal in the US, a company can't admit that age affects wages.
By current law, H1-B employers are supposed to pay at least the average wage. Proposals by Trump by a Congresswoman from California leverage the idea that those employees for which someone is willing to pay 200% or 300% of the average wage for a similar position must indeed be highly needed.
Read it again, paying careful atttention to the part after the comma:
(2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
It says that while interference may cause "undesired operation" (the device doesn't work right due to interference), you have to accept that as part of using unlicensed bands shared with other users.
It does NOT say "must never exhibit undesired operation". It says the device may exhibit undesired operation, and you have to accept that fact.
Just *saying* stuff about what you need is the old system.
Trump's draft order says "put your money where your mouth is." If they don't actually need someone with all of those skills, they won't want to *pay* top dollar for someone with all of those skills. The draft (which will hopefully be revised) says whoever is willing to pay top dollar for their H1-B candidates goes to the front of the line. You don't pay top dollar for someone with unique skills unless you *actually* need those unique skills.
* Ps Trump is a jackass and I voted against him - twice.
> in SV... $200K+ that it would cost a live around here
Okay, California is ridiculously expensive. Here in Dallas I just bought a 3,500 square foot house, five bedrooms with a pool, for $245,000. That's AFTER housing values have gone up 8-10% per year for the last few years.
I'm at the border between horse pastures and freeways, 20-30 minute commute to many office jobs. You're welcome to come on out if and when you get tired of paying so much for California. Our unemployment rate is lower here too, you'll have an easier time finding good jobs.
Just one thing - IF you decide you're tired of what California policies have created and you decide you'd rather come here, please remember why you came. Obviously you wouldn't want to bring California policies here - those policies caused the situation you're trying to get away from!
In the US, you need a license to offer attorney services for hire, but you can represent yourself, acting as your own attorney. In most states, you need a license to have people pay you as a locksmith, but you can fiddle with your own lock all day if you choose. You need a license to be hired as an electrician, but you can replace a light switch in your own house.
New construction and certain types of remodeling require that the city inspector check your work - whether you're a professional or not.
Does Australia have big hardware / home improvement stores like the US, where you can buy drywall, light switches, wire, and plumbing pipe? I'd bet most of the customers in those stores aren't licensed professionals, they are working on their own home. The home improvement store near me has a guy who has worked there over 20 years and really knows his stuff. If your local store has a guy like that, I might be interesting to ask him if Aus sn't similar - you need to be licensed to work on someone else's house for a fee, but you're free to work on your own house, so long as you follow code (ie do the job correctly).
Some people are good at music, some people are good at math, some people are good at following instructions.
The various building codes are quite thorough, specifying the measurements and everything needed for safe construction. A typical construction site isn't a bunch of geniuses, it's a bunch of average people who more or less know how engineers and predecessors decided their job should be done (in terms of safety). Electricians refer to a table of wire gauge vs length - a set of instructions. (If they bother to do that, rather than just always use the same gauge for all 20-amp circuits). The electrical code says what size wire they must use. Plumbers put in whatever size pipe is required by code, etc. They don't calculate the velocity of drain flow at each job, they just refer to the code (instructions).
The inspectors then check the work as it progresses to make sure it's done according to code.
If a person is good at finding and following instructions, there's little to nothing about building a house they can't do themselves. I've built a room onto a house, from foundation to roof. It just so happens I'm terrible at music, but very good at following instructions. My current house needs a lot of work. When I moved in, several electrical outlets weren't working. I spent an hour to fix them all, paying attention to have my work meet code, and common-sense safety. I had to tear out a wall and two sinks and replace them. I followed instructions. I'm not a construction genius, I'm just bad at dancing and good at following instructions.
You may recall the University of California was in the news for having their US IT workers train their Indian replacements.
You may also recall the same UC gave Obama four million dollars. Microsoft is another big Obama donor, at $1.7 million, and Obama needed the money - he's never earned significant money himself. Shockingly, Obama never stopped the people paying his way from doing what they wanted, abusing H1-Bs.
Trump (who is a blowhard, btw) put up $54 million of his own money to campaign. Some PACs who had supported Cruz switched to supporting Trump, so he benefited from donations, but he's not *dependent* on big donors.
The old way was a lottery, with H1-B applications approved randomly. Oh and companies would say there were no American workers available, pinky swear.
Trump's draft order has taken a hint from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's approach - if people are motivated by money, you set it up so that they make the most money by doing what you want.
The draft order says that instead of approving H1-B applications at random, via a lottery, as it's done now, they are to use a different approach. Preference is given to applications paying the highest salary. If a company truly can't find American workers with the required skills, if the imported labor actually has special skills, the company will be willing to *pay* for those skills. Companies wanting to import cheaper entry-level prpgrammers won't pay them $180,000 / year. That's why Trump's order is to prioritize H1-Bs by salary. You want to import someone and pay them $40K? Go to the back of the line. You're willing to pay $200K salary because there truly aren't any Americans available with those skills? You're at the front of the line.
It totally removes the motivation to use H1-Bs as cheaper replacements for American workers, because it makes H1-Bs cost more than American workers. The company who wants to minimize costs will hire Americans, whenever possible.
Though it's not perfect, there is a certain genius to using their desire to minimize costs to get them to avoid H1-Bs. The founding fathers wrote about doing something similar. They deliberately set up a power struggle. It's designed so that a president could increase their power mainly by taking power away from Congress. On the other hand, Congress is a bunch of people who like having power and won't give it up easily. So to fight the President's desire for power, they used the Congresscritters' desire for power.
The old way was "make a law telling companies they must ____." You pointed out how well that worked.
Trump's draft order has taken a hint from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's approach - if people are motivated by money, you set it up so that they make the most money by doing what you want.
The draft order says that instead of approving H1-B applications at random, via a lottery, as it's done now, they are to use a different approach. If a company truly can't find American workers with the required skills, if the imported labor actually has special skills, the company will be willing to *pay* for those skills. Companies wanting to import cheaper entry-level prpgrammers won't pay them $180,000 / year. That's why Trump's order is to prioritize H1-Bs by salary. You want to import someone and pay them $40K? Go to the back of the line. You're willing to pay $200K salary because there truly aren't any Americans available with those skills? You're at the front of the line.
It totally removes the motivation to use H1-Bs as cheaper replacements for American workers, because it makes H1-Bs cost more than American workers. The company who wants to minimize costs will hire Americans, whenever possible.
Though it's not perfect, there is a certain genius to using their desire to minimize costs to get them to avoid H1-Bs. The founding fathers wrote about doing something similar. They deliberately set up a power struggle. It's designed so that a president could increase their power mainly by taking power away from Congress. On the other hand, Congress is a bunch of people who like having power and won't give it up easily. So to fight the President's desire for power, they used the Congresscritters' desire for power.
Currently there is a lottery every year to see which companies get the H1-Bs, they are not prioritized. (Other than having a couple types of H1-B).
> Thing is, this is already how H1-Bs are supposed to work.
It's already WHY, not HOW. Currently, companies (mostly a few staffing companies) put in applications in which they simply *state* that talent isn't available locally. They provide no *evidence* that Americans aren't available to do the job. There is then a lottery, and H1-Bs applications are randomly approved. The staffing firms, who submit hundreds of thousands of applications, then essentially resell the H1-Bs at a profit.
Trump's order is to give preference to applications which provide *evidence* that there is no local talent available because the employer is willing to pay the H1-B a high salary. A company wouldn't pay an imported worker $200,000 if an American will do the same job for $150,000. Therefore the high salary proves that the H1-B is being used as intended.
As I mentioned before, this plan is of course not perfect, but it's clearly an imprpvement. Perhaps Congress or the4 administration will make further improvements next week, next month, or next year - he's only been in office ten days.
ABC Inc wants to bring over someone who is actually special, who has skills not available locally. Since they have special skills, ABC Inc is willing to pay them $190,000
XYZ Inc wants to import some entry-level coders, for $40K each ($20K cheaper than entry-level US workers)
ABC Inc wins. They are getting someone with special skills not available locally, as *evidenced* by fact that they are willing to pay for those special skills.
It's not perfect, but it's an improvement. No system is perfect.
There are two reasons this doesn't run afoul of the FCC rules on harmful interference.
First, "routers may effect the monitor". The monitor isn't *causing* interference, it's having problems because the *router* is causing interference with the monitor (which the monitor isn't protected against). The "accepting interference" clause means LG (or their customers) can't sue whoever is causing the interference.
Second, it's actually perfectly legal and normal for your wifi to interfere with mine (or with my monitor) because we're both on the same level, the third-level priority called "unlicensed". What an unlicensed evice may NOT do is interfere with users at the "primary" or "secondary" levels, which are licensed levels. A secondary user, such as a mobile phone operator, may not cause harmful interference to a primary user, such as an ambulance service.
It seems some people confuse "homeopathic" with "holistic". Those are of course two very different things.
A short explanation of homeopathy for those unfamiliar:
For any ailment, you find something that will *cause* that ailment (ie a poison). You then place a drop of the poison in a bucket of water and mix it up. Then you take a drop from that bucket and put it into another bucket of water. Do this several hundred times. (This is why it's labeled "300X", it's been diluted 300 times). In the end, they'll be no poison left the last bucket, but because you had put poison in the other bucket, the water in the last bucket will do the opposite of what the poison does.
That is of course, utterly and completely ridiculous. If done correctly, there will be zero molecules of the poison in the bucket - it's 100% water. You just paid $8.99 for WATER. If it's done incorrectly, as Hyland's did, you end up with poison in the product.
Reading the way you wrote (as opposed to what you wrote), you do not seem to be a drooling idiot, so you must be misinformed / uninformed about the definition of homeopathy. In other words, a reasonably intelligent person who got scammed. I've seen intelligent people confuse "homeopathic" with "holistic", that can certainly happen.
Here's the theory of homeopathy, how proponents claim it works: For any ailment, you find something that will *cause* that ailment (ie a poison). You then place a drop of the poison in a bucket of water and mix it up. Then you take a drop from that bucket and put it into another bucket of water. Do this several hundred times. (This is why it's labeled "300X", it's been diluted 300 times). In the end, they'll be no poison left the last bucket, but because you had put poison in the other bucket, the water in the last bucket will do the opposite of what the poison does.
That is of course, utterly and completely ridiculous. If done correctly, there will be zero molecules of the poison in the bucket - it's 100% water. You just paid $8.99 for WATER. If it's done incorrectly, as Hyland's did, you end up with poison in the product.
Please double check to confirm my explanation is 100% correct.
Slashdot Mirror
Federal law:
For an injury-in-fact to be "concrete", it must be "real, and not abstract" and that a "bare procedural violation" under a federal statute, "divorced from any concrete harm" that "may result in no harm" would not
"satisfy the injury-in-fact requirement" Id. at 1549
They can potentially sue in Illinois, under Illinois law.
They tried to sue under federal law, which has already been explained by courts in other cases as follows:
--
For an injury-in-fact to be
`âoeconcrete,â it must be âoereal, and not abstract,â and that a
`âoebare procedural violationâ under a federal statute, âoedivorced
`from any concrete harm,â that âoemay result in no harm,â would not
`âoesatisfy the injury-in-fact requirement.â Id. at 1549
--
The federal law allows a federal suit if "concrete injury" comes from violating a state law.
> So, Microsoft is going to go $90 Billion in debt just so it can avoid paying $38 Billion in taxes.
To pay the costs in cash, they need to use $140B. They bring $140B to the US, pay $50 billion in taxes, and have $90 billion left to pay the expense. If that $140B is earning them 6% overseas, that's $8.4 billion in lost income each year, plus losing the liquidity of having cash.
By borrowing, they pay $2 billion in interest and still have their cash for 40 more years.
Bottom line:
Since it costs $50 billion in taxes to bring the money to the US, it's much cheaper to leave the money elsewhere and use debt in the US.
As is the case pretty much everywhere, paychecks are taxed MORE than corporate profits, except in a very specific case.
The employer pays unemployment taxes and 7.65% FICA, the employee pays 7.65% FICA, and the employee pays income taxes. Total tax rate on money paid to employees as compensation is around 41%. Much of that is not subject to deductions and credits.
Corporate tax is 34% of the amount over $335,000, with lower rates for the first $335,000.
One big thing the IRS watches out for is businesses paying the owner/managers too much in dividends and not enough salary, since salary is subject to FICA taxes X 2.
Where the US taxes corporate profits heavily is big corporations paying dividends. That would be a Chapter C corp without the subchapter S election paying dividends. They pay the 34% tax in the name of the corporation, then the stockholders pay ANOTHER 25% or so (up to 39%). Plus potentially a 3.4% Obamacare tax. That's a total tax of about 53%, up to 59%. For this reason, some US investors invest their money in other countries, where savings/investment is encouraged by the tax law.
I'd damn sure rather have Paul Ryan as President. Ryan really knows what he's doing. Trump, Pence, and Clinton have never *read* the federal budget, Paul Ryan has *written* the federal budget, more than once.
There's a reason there was no "campaigning" for Speaker of the House this time around, why Paul Ryan was the consensus pick, even though he refused to follow tradition and do campaign appearances for the reps who voted for him. His peers wanted Ryan, without a campaign, because they know Ryan is the smartest of all of them.
The calculation is a multiplier of the "average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment." For some occupations and locations that can be found here:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/
So a proposed H1-B in Dallas who would be paid twice the Dallas average for a similar position is on equal footing with an application for a job in San Jose who would be paid twice the San Jose average.
Please note I'm not advocating for or against this proposal, just explaining it.
That's basically what we've done, though of course constrained by budget. I think a new approach is needed.
In general, when you pass a law saying "you must _____", then try to enforce that, you can catch maybe 0.1% of the cheaters. To catch anything like even 15% of the cheaters requires a cop on every street corner, and in every office.
More effective is when you can set up the system to reward the behavior you want, without needing cops to investigate and prosecutors to try to prove each violation. As an obvious example, we want people to get off the couch and do something useful. The system is set up so that you get money by getting off the couch and doing something that other people find useful. Therefore, most people go to work. No need for cops to look for people on couches - the system is set up to reward working, not napping.
Which law says that H1-Bs have to be randomly assigned by lottery? Maybe there is one, but not that I know of.
Congress is *supposed* to make the laws, not the executive. Since about the 1970s (and to a lesser extent since 1929), Congress has passed more and more vague laws giving the executive the power to fill in the rest via "regulations". I don't like that, but it's reality. As far as I know, the executive was given significant discretion as to how to allot H1-Bs.
One Congresswoman from California has proposed a bill which make statutory law of the preference for higher salaries (relative to the average for the position). If it's well written, with unintended affects considered, I would support such a bill.
Strangely, president Trump has signed an executive order reducing the amount of "law" (regulations) made by the executive, sending that back to the Congress. His order is that for every new regulation made by the executive, they must remove two old regulations that are no longer needed (with exceptions signed off by cabinet level department heads). If we get to the point where we've gotten rid of most of the stupid regulations and we still need that stuff to be law, Congress can do their job and pass it as law, rather than having the executive promulgate more and more law as regulations. I'm sure there will be some unintended consequences, but I like the general concept of that. The executive has grown much more powerful vis-a-vis the Congress than the framers intended. This graph is informative as to the change in the cost of executive regulation:
https://regulatorystudies.colu...
I was raised in Colorado. If you like Colorado, Denver has tech jobs, legal weed, pretty mountains nearby, and smog.
Texas has a lot less weed smoking (except in Austin, which is actually a part of California which got stuck in Texas when it's VW bus broke down), no smog, and no mountains.
It'll be interesting to see - I suspect we'll find that the places with legal (or quasi-legal) weed end up losing jobs to places where people get off the couch and go to work. We'll find out. That's one of the cool things about having 50 states - they can each try things their own way, then see how each approach worked.
That's certainly an important issue. Of the last three places I worked, one had a very strong training program for employees, one moderately strong, and one paid for Lynda.com.
To have more of that, we probably need to work on the much larger issue of loyalty between both the employer and the employee. Employees routinely only stay 1-3 years, so investing in a lot of training can be foolish for the employer. On the other hand, employees see little reason to stick around when another company makes them a higher offer. The places I worked that had long employee retention times and good training also had career advancement planned in advance "Chuck is due to retire in a year and half. Bob is training to replace him. Stacy will take over Bob's position." Employees knew there was a plan for them to advance. Still, management had trouble getting employees to complete the training the employees themselves had chosen. That goes to the next issue:
The other day my boss lamented that most employees don't seem to have any interest in advancing. He writes out a plan with them on what they need to do to get a promotion and they just aren't really interested, they don't do the stuff they need to do to get promoted. That's hard for me to understand. I've *always* been working on my next promotion, from the very first day I had a job. Then again, I'm also an entrepreneur - I go so far as to *create* new companies for me to be the president of. Most people don't think that way, they show up for a paycheck, then go home and do whatever they like to do.
The calculation is a multiplier of the "average wage paid to similarly employed workers in a specific occupation in the area of intended employment." For some occupations that can be found here:
http://www.flcdatacenter.com/
Age discrimination is illegal in the US, a company can't admit that age affects wages.
By current law, H1-B employers are supposed to pay at least the average wage. Proposals by Trump by a Congresswoman from California leverage the idea that those employees for which someone is willing to pay 200% or 300% of the average wage for a similar position must indeed be highly needed.
Read it again, paying careful atttention to the part after the comma:
(2) this device must accept any interference received, including interference that may cause undesired operation.
It says that while interference may cause "undesired operation" (the device doesn't work right due to interference), you have to accept that as part of using unlicensed bands shared with other users.
It does NOT say "must never exhibit undesired operation". It says the device may exhibit undesired operation, and you have to accept that fact.
Just *saying* stuff about what you need is the old system.
Trump's draft order says "put your money where your mouth is." If they don't actually need someone with all of those skills, they won't want to *pay* top dollar for someone with all of those skills. The draft (which will hopefully be revised) says whoever is willing to pay top dollar for their H1-B candidates goes to the front of the line. You don't pay top dollar for someone with unique skills unless you *actually* need those unique skills.
* Ps Trump is a jackass and I voted against him - twice.
> in SV ... $200K+ that it would cost a live around here
Okay, California is ridiculously expensive. Here in Dallas I just bought a 3,500 square foot house, five bedrooms with a pool, for $245,000. That's AFTER housing values have gone up 8-10% per year for the last few years.
I'm at the border between horse pastures and freeways, 20-30 minute commute to many office jobs. You're welcome to come on out if and when you get tired of paying so much for California. Our unemployment rate is lower here too, you'll have an easier time finding good jobs.
Just one thing - IF you decide you're tired of what California policies have created and you decide you'd rather come here, please remember why you came. Obviously you wouldn't want to bring California policies here - those policies caused the situation you're trying to get away from!
In the US, you need a license to offer attorney services for hire, but you can represent yourself, acting as your own attorney. In most states, you need a license to have people pay you as a locksmith, but you can fiddle with your own lock all day if you choose. You need a license to be hired as an electrician, but you can replace a light switch in your own house.
New construction and certain types of remodeling require that the city inspector check your work - whether you're a professional or not.
Does Australia have big hardware / home improvement stores like the US, where you can buy drywall, light switches, wire, and plumbing pipe? I'd bet most of the customers in those stores aren't licensed professionals, they are working on their own home. The home improvement store near me has a guy who has worked there over 20 years and really knows his stuff. If your local store has a guy like that, I might be interesting to ask him if Aus sn't similar - you need to be licensed to work on someone else's house for a fee, but you're free to work on your own house, so long as you follow code (ie do the job correctly).
> Fuck females
I certainly prefer that to the alternative.
I suspect that your subject line may be something you have little experience doing, though.
Some people are good at music, some people are good at math, some people are good at following instructions.
The various building codes are quite thorough, specifying the measurements and everything needed for safe construction. A typical construction site isn't a bunch of geniuses, it's a bunch of average people who more or less know how engineers and predecessors decided their job should be done (in terms of safety). Electricians refer to a table of wire gauge vs length - a set of instructions. (If they bother to do that, rather than just always use the same gauge for all 20-amp circuits). The electrical code says what size wire they must use. Plumbers put in whatever size pipe is required by code, etc. They don't calculate the velocity of drain flow at each job, they just refer to the code (instructions).
The inspectors then check the work as it progresses to make sure it's done according to code.
If a person is good at finding and following instructions, there's little to nothing about building a house they can't do themselves. I've built a room onto a house, from foundation to roof. It just so happens I'm terrible at music, but very good at following instructions. My current house needs a lot of work. When I moved in, several electrical outlets weren't working. I spent an hour to fix them all, paying attention to have my work meet code, and common-sense safety. I had to tear out a wall and two sinks and replace them. I followed instructions. I'm not a construction genius, I'm just bad at dancing and good at following instructions.
You may recall the University of California was in the news for having their US IT workers train their Indian replacements.
You may also recall the same UC gave Obama four million dollars. Microsoft is another big Obama donor, at $1.7 million, and Obama needed the money - he's never earned significant money himself. Shockingly, Obama never stopped the people paying his way from doing what they wanted, abusing H1-Bs.
Trump (who is a blowhard, btw) put up $54 million of his own money to campaign. Some PACs who had supported Cruz switched to supporting Trump, so he benefited from donations, but he's not *dependent* on big donors.
The old way was a lottery, with H1-B applications approved randomly. Oh and companies would say there were no American workers available, pinky swear.
Trump's draft order has taken a hint from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's approach - if people are motivated by money, you set it up so that they make the most money by doing what you want.
The draft order says that instead of approving H1-B applications at random, via a lottery, as it's done now, they are to use a different approach. Preference is given to applications paying the highest salary. If a company truly can't find American workers with the required skills, if the imported labor actually has special skills, the company will be willing to *pay* for those skills. Companies wanting to import cheaper entry-level prpgrammers won't pay them $180,000 / year. That's why Trump's order is to prioritize H1-Bs by salary. You want to import someone and pay them $40K? Go to the back of the line. You're willing to pay $200K salary because there truly aren't any Americans available with those skills? You're at the front of the line.
It totally removes the motivation to use H1-Bs as cheaper replacements for American workers, because it makes H1-Bs cost more than American workers. The company who wants to minimize costs will hire Americans, whenever possible.
Though it's not perfect, there is a certain genius to using their desire to minimize costs to get them to avoid H1-Bs. The founding fathers wrote about doing something similar. They deliberately set up a power struggle. It's designed so that a president could increase their power mainly by taking power away from Congress. On the other hand, Congress is a bunch of people who like having power and won't give it up easily. So to fight the President's desire for power, they used the Congresscritters' desire for power.
The old way was "make a law telling companies they must ____." You pointed out how well that worked.
Trump's draft order has taken a hint from Thomas Jefferson and James Madison's approach - if people are motivated by money, you set it up so that they make the most money by doing what you want.
The draft order says that instead of approving H1-B applications at random, via a lottery, as it's done now, they are to use a different approach. If a company truly can't find American workers with the required skills, if the imported labor actually has special skills, the company will be willing to *pay* for those skills. Companies wanting to import cheaper entry-level prpgrammers won't pay them $180,000 / year. That's why Trump's order is to prioritize H1-Bs by salary. You want to import someone and pay them $40K? Go to the back of the line. You're willing to pay $200K salary because there truly aren't any Americans available with those skills? You're at the front of the line.
It totally removes the motivation to use H1-Bs as cheaper replacements for American workers, because it makes H1-Bs cost more than American workers. The company who wants to minimize costs will hire Americans, whenever possible.
Though it's not perfect, there is a certain genius to using their desire to minimize costs to get them to avoid H1-Bs. The founding fathers wrote about doing something similar. They deliberately set up a power struggle. It's designed so that a president could increase their power mainly by taking power away from Congress. On the other hand, Congress is a bunch of people who like having power and won't give it up easily. So to fight the President's desire for power, they used the Congresscritters' desire for power.
Currently there is a lottery every year to see which companies get the H1-Bs, they are not prioritized. (Other than having a couple types of H1-B).
> Thing is, this is already how H1-Bs are supposed to work.
It's already WHY, not HOW. Currently, companies (mostly a few staffing companies) put in applications in which they simply *state* that talent isn't available locally. They provide no *evidence* that Americans aren't available to do the job. There is then a lottery, and H1-Bs applications are randomly approved. The staffing firms, who submit hundreds of thousands of applications, then essentially resell the H1-Bs at a profit.
Trump's order is to give preference to applications which provide *evidence* that there is no local talent available because the employer is willing to pay the H1-B a high salary. A company wouldn't pay an imported worker $200,000 if an American will do the same job for $150,000. Therefore the high salary proves that the H1-B is being used as intended.
As I mentioned before, this plan is of course not perfect, but it's clearly an imprpvement. Perhaps Congress or the4 administration will make further improvements next week, next month, or next year - he's only been in office ten days.
It means that if when this happens:
ABC Inc wants to bring over someone who is actually special, who has skills not available locally. Since they have special skills, ABC Inc is willing to pay them $190,000
XYZ Inc wants to import some entry-level coders, for $40K each ($20K cheaper than entry-level US workers)
ABC Inc wins. They are getting someone with special skills not available locally, as *evidenced* by fact that they are willing to pay for those special skills.
It's not perfect, but it's an improvement. No system is perfect.
There are two reasons this doesn't run afoul of the FCC rules on harmful interference.
First, "routers may effect the monitor". The monitor isn't *causing* interference, it's having problems because the *router* is causing interference with the monitor (which the monitor isn't protected against). The "accepting interference" clause means LG (or their customers) can't sue whoever is causing the interference.
Second, it's actually perfectly legal and normal for your wifi to interfere with mine (or with my monitor) because we're both on the same level, the third-level priority called "unlicensed". What an unlicensed evice may NOT do is interfere with users at the "primary" or "secondary" levels, which are licensed levels. A secondary user, such as a mobile phone operator, may not cause harmful interference to a primary user, such as an ambulance service.
It seems some people confuse "homeopathic" with "holistic". Those are of course two very different things.
A short explanation of homeopathy for those unfamiliar:
For any ailment, you find something that will *cause* that ailment (ie a poison).
You then place a drop of the poison in a bucket of water and mix it up.
Then you take a drop from that bucket and put it into another bucket of water.
Do this several hundred times. (This is why it's labeled "300X", it's been diluted 300 times).
In the end, they'll be no poison left the last bucket, but because you had put poison in the other bucket, the water in the last bucket will do the opposite of what the poison does.
That is of course, utterly and completely ridiculous. If done correctly, there will be zero molecules of the poison in the bucket - it's 100% water. You just paid $8.99 for WATER. If it's done incorrectly, as Hyland's did, you end up with poison in the product.
Reading the way you wrote (as opposed to what you wrote), you do not seem to be a drooling idiot, so you must be misinformed / uninformed about the definition of homeopathy. In other words, a reasonably intelligent person who got scammed. I've seen intelligent people confuse "homeopathic" with "holistic", that can certainly happen.
Here's the theory of homeopathy, how proponents claim it works:
For any ailment, you find something that will *cause* that ailment (ie a poison).
You then place a drop of the poison in a bucket of water and mix it up.
Then you take a drop from that bucket and put it into another bucket of water.
Do this several hundred times. (This is why it's labeled "300X", it's been diluted 300 times).
In the end, they'll be no poison left the last bucket, but because you had put poison in the other bucket, the water in the last bucket will do the opposite of what the poison does.
That is of course, utterly and completely ridiculous. If done correctly, there will be zero molecules of the poison in the bucket - it's 100% water. You just paid $8.99 for WATER. If it's done incorrectly, as Hyland's did, you end up with poison in the product.
Please double check to confirm my explanation is 100% correct.