But what is this job that used to pay $80k - $100k exactly and has now dropped to $40k? It's certainly not software development because wages there have not declined - on the contrary, they've been increasing. Why are you certain the H1-B hires are the reason the average salary has dropped? Another thing I've pointed out previously is that the number of H1-B hires isn't even large enough to have much of an impact on any particular field - they're still a vast minority relative to the numbers in most fields in general.
The wages of tech workers are less than pre-recession levels and are increasing at a rate lower than inflation. http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
So sure, maybe you do work at one of the companies that does bring in cheap overseas hires, but my point remains that all the big boys are not doing this. The big tech companies are all paying well above the average. I can't find the site I used last time I looked into this as it had more uptodate data, this one only goes to 2010, but if you find such a site with more recent data you'll see it's the exact same pattern.
The big boys are definitely hiring the most H1B visas. Whether or not that is driving down their wages is debatable. The top requester of H1B visas is Microsoft. http://www.geekwire.com/2012/4... . Intel, IBM and Oracle are also high on the list. (Yeah, I know, that list is a bit dated, but you get the point.) Actually, the largest recipients of H1B visas may be firms specializing in off-shoring jobs. They bring people over here to learn the jobs and then they can do the work from India or wherever after the visa expires. Apparently, these kind of companies got 40,000 out of the 85,000 visas that were issued in 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/allte...
Bullshit it's "well-established". What you are talking about is essentially a subsidy to labor by limiting the size of the labor pool. Limit supply and prices for the labor and every product that labor produces has to rise. Make labor cost more and you will pay more for the results of that labor. What you are forgetting is that we are in a GLOBAL economy. There are very few unskilled jobs that cannot be done elsewhere. Limit the supply of labor in the domestic market and much of that production will migrate elsewhere. If labor costs are too high relative to those available elsewhere then labor-intensive work will migrate to areas with lower labor costs like osmosis. Try to stop it and you will only drive prices higher and hurt the economy in the long run.
This is probably true for factory workers. It is not necessarily true when it comes to jobs like construction, maids in hotels, or picking vegetables in a field somewhere. These sorts of jobs generally must be performed locally. Coincidentally, these are the jobs that many illegal aliens are performing here.
Lastly, the nice thing about blaming education is that you can say that if we fix the education in this country, it will still take at least 10 years to bear fruit. Therefore we need interim measures, like increased H-1B quotas. Did you think it's a coincidence that pro-H-1B outfits like fwd.us are linked to silly things like "hour of code"?
How do you arrive at "10 years"? Do you assume that education must be fixed in elementary school? Perhaps education needs to be fixed in high school, college or in grad school. H-1B quotas are only going to fix things 4 years faster than making college free in all STEM fields.
But, they may believe that the publicity behind having a bunch of people pay large fines may deter other people from infringing on their copyright. They are probably right about that. I know several people who don't download movies/songs because they fear being sued for it.
>Of course the physicist doesn't have free will. No one has free will. If the universe is controlled by natural laws everything that has happened or ever will happen must be preordained. Every synapse that has ever fired in our brains is just an electrochemical event caused by a long chain of other events that can be traced back to the big bang.
That is assuming that natural laws actually are complete and consistent. But why would this be true of natural law, when it is not even true in mathematics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
You can't spend thousands of years oppressing a group of people and then one day say "oh, we are all equal now by the way," expecting it to be true. There are lingering inequalities that can ONLY be rectified by temporarily overbalancing in the other direction. If you don't realize that then you are blinded by your own privilege.
How do you know that is the only way? Is that true of every lingering inequality? Some lingering inequalities do not even need to be fixed. For example, for a long time, people who didn't own land weren't able to vote. Then, we gave them the right to vote. But, it is still kind of unfair because they are making less money on average than people who own land. Likewise, if women have equal opportunity, but choose careers with good fringe benefits and lower pay, why is that a problem?
I think men and women are both trying to maximize their happiness, but because of the structure of society, different strategies are optimal. I assume that people are motivated by having the best possible mate and having the largest amount of money to spend. For men, in order to find the best mate, making money is a good strategy. For women, a higher salary has a negligible effect on attracting the best mate. Also, for women, getting a better mate is a more effective strategy for having lots of money to spend than having a high paying career. As a result, if you want to have an optimal happiness, it is not rational for women to waste their time optimizing their career when they could be spending more time finding an ideal mate. Now, I do not think this whole thing is the best for society. It would be better if women did not consider money when they picked their mates. It would be better if men could pick lower paying but more fulfilling careers without sacrificing their ability to get the best mate possible. But, I am not sure how society could get from where we are now to such a place.
When we judge people only by the strength of their contributions, and give them equal opportunity to pursue the fields of their choice, then we have met our social obligation.
But until our expectations of others are truly equal, any answer to this question will simply reflect our own prejudices.
In societies where there is the most gender equality where feminism is crammed down everyone's throats their whole life and where women have the most opportunity to pick whatever career they want, where the government provides universal free daycare, even a smaller percent of women choose STEM fields. Sweden spent like the last 50 years working really hard to educate their youth that men and women are exactly equal (except for a few physical differences.) And yet, men and women have increasingly gone into more segregated career fields. It seems like gender expectations are not responsible for less women picking STEM fields.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
This seems like a really good opportunity for Google. They should start running their own journals. They make the rules of the game fair. They would likely get massive support if they did it. They would just need a large PR campaign.
the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention.
Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes? If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed. A cynical person might point to places where they wanted to shift to using OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office. It seems like large companies have tactical units that can be deployed to influence government on more local levels when it is in their best interests.
That's an interesting idea you have there. Since the planet's maximum capability of humans is about 500 million, and we're at 7 billion and growing, what would be your solution? I like your "just get over it" solution. How can we make this work?
Do you have a source for that claim? Because it seems to contradict the point that we have survived for several thousand years with quite a larger population than 500 million
The sky did fall. The protestors of the 1800's were correct. The people displaced by technology in the 1800s fell into poverty and early death, and England, for instance, was home to immense poverty and despair.
Do you have any sources for that claim?
From wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment
"The Luddite events of 1811 were the beginning of humankind's analysis of whether it is possible for technological unemployment to be other than temporary and confined to particular industries and firms. Contrary to the Luddites' fears, technological advancement did not ruin Britain's economy or systemically lower standards of living throughout the following decades of the 19th century. In fact, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the opposite happened, as technology helped Britain to become much less impoverished than before. For this reason, some economists think that the general Luddite premise is fundamentally flawed, and thus they apply the term Luddite fallacy to it."
It's not long. And I don't think people will be ready to cope with the change.
They haven't thought about what a tool which completely replaces a human and which costs less than a human salary means.
You mean like computers? One computer can do the math that it used to take large groups of manual labor to accomplish. So, now we have tech industry that employs far more people than the ones it replaced. And railroads put a lot of wagon drivers out of work. And yet, I'm sure the shipping industry spends billions of dollars per year. Historically speaking, replacing human labor with something more efficient has happened quite a lot.
Should we dig ditches using tea spoons? Because after all, using a shovel replaces dozens of workers using tea spoons...
Against vehicles I would expect it would be done from a UAV instead. Speaking of which, if you could target aircraft with this someone would have a really bad day...
Ruling seems pretty reasonable to me. If Amazon ditched it's local 3rd party partners then Quill Corp vs North Dakota would apply to the products Amazon itself sells. As it stands Amazon's 3rd party partners are no different than dealerships are to a car company.
Is the summary misleading, or are they taking about 3rd party partners and not "affiliates" like the summary said. Amazon Affiliates just put a banner add on their web site. It is more like running an advertisement inside the state than it is like a car dealership.
Yes. The right to remain silent is good for society.
As far as talking to the police when you are pretty sure you will be convicted anyway... When exactly do you know that? Are you a lawyer? The evidence you think they have might not be admissible for some reason. The lab might screw up the forensics. The cop involved might be found to have planted evidence in some other case. They can and will lie to you about what evidence they have collected. So, yes, you may get a better deal by cooperating. But you should never do so unless you have a lawyer first.
I think other than Jar Jar, the thing that killed the newest 3 Star Wars movies was the horrible acting. It is like every actor everywhere wanted to be in the movies, but they cast extras who stood around in swimsuits from the background of Bay Watch. (Not really. But it kind of seemed that way.) Then, there was the writing. I mean, take young Anikin Skywalker. The one thing they needed to demonstrate about him is a strong emotional connection with his mother. It should have been a little bit like Heavy Rain. There should have been a strong bond there and he should have been sad to leave her but done it anyway. Instead, it seemed they wanted to make him like Wesley Crusher from Star Trek.
Then, the love scenes were like watching Natalie Portman try and do a love sceen with a wall. They were just so flat and unbelievable. Seriously, did the casting director from Star Wars go on to cast people from Twilight?
Then, there was Jar Jar. I actually could have forgiven them for Jar Jar if they would have done the third one right. I would have had Jar Jar say something inane to Anikin like "Don't worry about your mother. Meesa think a slave is not worth worrying about." Then Anikin would have went all darkside on him and obliterated him. That would have been epic.
You can program games in Unity http://www.unity3d.com/ in JavaScript and release them on Windows, Mac, Android, IOS, Playstation 3 (4 is probably coming soon), Xbox 360, etc. They have a full fledged debugging support using Monodevelop.
Slashdot Mirror
But what is this job that used to pay $80k - $100k exactly and has now dropped to $40k? It's certainly not software development because wages there have not declined - on the contrary, they've been increasing. Why are you certain the H1-B hires are the reason the average salary has dropped? Another thing I've pointed out previously is that the number of H1-B hires isn't even large enough to have much of an impact on any particular field - they're still a vast minority relative to the numbers in most fields in general.
The wages of tech workers are less than pre-recession levels and are increasing at a rate lower than inflation. http://www.motherjones.com/pol...
So sure, maybe you do work at one of the companies that does bring in cheap overseas hires, but my point remains that all the big boys are not doing this. The big tech companies are all paying well above the average. I can't find the site I used last time I looked into this as it had more uptodate data, this one only goes to 2010, but if you find such a site with more recent data you'll see it's the exact same pattern.
The big boys are definitely hiring the most H1B visas. Whether or not that is driving down their wages is debatable. The top requester of H1B visas is Microsoft. http://www.geekwire.com/2012/4... . Intel, IBM and Oracle are also high on the list. (Yeah, I know, that list is a bit dated, but you get the point.) Actually, the largest recipients of H1B visas may be firms specializing in off-shoring jobs. They bring people over here to learn the jobs and then they can do the work from India or wherever after the visa expires. Apparently, these kind of companies got 40,000 out of the 85,000 visas that were issued in 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/allte...
Bullshit it's "well-established". What you are talking about is essentially a subsidy to labor by limiting the size of the labor pool. Limit supply and prices for the labor and every product that labor produces has to rise. Make labor cost more and you will pay more for the results of that labor. What you are forgetting is that we are in a GLOBAL economy. There are very few unskilled jobs that cannot be done elsewhere. Limit the supply of labor in the domestic market and much of that production will migrate elsewhere. If labor costs are too high relative to those available elsewhere then labor-intensive work will migrate to areas with lower labor costs like osmosis. Try to stop it and you will only drive prices higher and hurt the economy in the long run.
This is probably true for factory workers. It is not necessarily true when it comes to jobs like construction, maids in hotels, or picking vegetables in a field somewhere. These sorts of jobs generally must be performed locally. Coincidentally, these are the jobs that many illegal aliens are performing here.
Lastly, the nice thing about blaming education is that you can say that if we fix the education in this country, it will still take at least 10 years to bear fruit. Therefore we need interim measures, like increased H-1B quotas. Did you think it's a coincidence that pro-H-1B outfits like fwd.us are linked to silly things like "hour of code"?
How do you arrive at "10 years"? Do you assume that education must be fixed in elementary school? Perhaps education needs to be fixed in high school, college or in grad school. H-1B quotas are only going to fix things 4 years faster than making college free in all STEM fields.
But, they may believe that the publicity behind having a bunch of people pay large fines may deter other people from infringing on their copyright. They are probably right about that. I know several people who don't download movies/songs because they fear being sued for it.
>Of course the physicist doesn't have free will. No one has free will. If the universe is controlled by natural laws everything that has happened or ever will happen must be preordained. Every synapse that has ever fired in our brains is just an electrochemical event caused by a long chain of other events that can be traced back to the big bang. That is assuming that natural laws actually are complete and consistent. But why would this be true of natural law, when it is not even true in mathematics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
Convince your opponent to visit a web page that causes dns lookups of all the major cheating sites.
You can't spend thousands of years oppressing a group of people and then one day say "oh, we are all equal now by the way," expecting it to be true. There are lingering inequalities that can ONLY be rectified by temporarily overbalancing in the other direction. If you don't realize that then you are blinded by your own privilege.
How do you know that is the only way? Is that true of every lingering inequality? Some lingering inequalities do not even need to be fixed. For example, for a long time, people who didn't own land weren't able to vote. Then, we gave them the right to vote. But, it is still kind of unfair because they are making less money on average than people who own land. Likewise, if women have equal opportunity, but choose careers with good fringe benefits and lower pay, why is that a problem?
I think men and women are both trying to maximize their happiness, but because of the structure of society, different strategies are optimal. I assume that people are motivated by having the best possible mate and having the largest amount of money to spend. For men, in order to find the best mate, making money is a good strategy. For women, a higher salary has a negligible effect on attracting the best mate. Also, for women, getting a better mate is a more effective strategy for having lots of money to spend than having a high paying career. As a result, if you want to have an optimal happiness, it is not rational for women to waste their time optimizing their career when they could be spending more time finding an ideal mate. Now, I do not think this whole thing is the best for society. It would be better if women did not consider money when they picked their mates. It would be better if men could pick lower paying but more fulfilling careers without sacrificing their ability to get the best mate possible. But, I am not sure how society could get from where we are now to such a place.
When we judge people only by the strength of their contributions, and give them equal opportunity to pursue the fields of their choice, then we have met our social obligation.
But until our expectations of others are truly equal, any answer to this question will simply reflect our own prejudices.
In societies where there is the most gender equality where feminism is crammed down everyone's throats their whole life and where women have the most opportunity to pick whatever career they want, where the government provides universal free daycare, even a smaller percent of women choose STEM fields. Sweden spent like the last 50 years working really hard to educate their youth that men and women are exactly equal (except for a few physical differences.) And yet, men and women have increasingly gone into more segregated career fields. It seems like gender expectations are not responsible for less women picking STEM fields. http://www.theglobeandmail.com...
This seems like a really good opportunity for Google. They should start running their own journals. They make the rules of the game fair. They would likely get massive support if they did it. They would just need a large PR campaign.
How does it work when a company copyrights something rather than a person? Companies are people, now, right?
the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention.
Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes? If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed. A cynical person might point to places where they wanted to shift to using OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office. It seems like large companies have tactical units that can be deployed to influence government on more local levels when it is in their best interests.
That's an interesting idea you have there. Since the planet's maximum capability of humans is about 500 million, and we're at 7 billion and growing, what would be your solution? I like your "just get over it" solution. How can we make this work?
Do you have a source for that claim? Because it seems to contradict the point that we have survived for several thousand years with quite a larger population than 500 million
The sky did fall. The protestors of the 1800's were correct. The people displaced by technology in the 1800s fell into poverty and early death, and England, for instance, was home to immense poverty and despair.
Do you have any sources for that claim? From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment "The Luddite events of 1811 were the beginning of humankind's analysis of whether it is possible for technological unemployment to be other than temporary and confined to particular industries and firms. Contrary to the Luddites' fears, technological advancement did not ruin Britain's economy or systemically lower standards of living throughout the following decades of the 19th century. In fact, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the opposite happened, as technology helped Britain to become much less impoverished than before. For this reason, some economists think that the general Luddite premise is fundamentally flawed, and thus they apply the term Luddite fallacy to it."
not everybody will be in the top 1%
In fact, I'd be willing to say about 1% of people will be in the top 1%
Unless there is a tie.
It's not long. And I don't think people will be ready to cope with the change. They haven't thought about what a tool which completely replaces a human and which costs less than a human salary means.
You mean like computers? One computer can do the math that it used to take large groups of manual labor to accomplish. So, now we have tech industry that employs far more people than the ones it replaced. And railroads put a lot of wagon drivers out of work. And yet, I'm sure the shipping industry spends billions of dollars per year. Historically speaking, replacing human labor with something more efficient has happened quite a lot.
Should we dig ditches using tea spoons? Because after all, using a shovel replaces dozens of workers using tea spoons...
I'm pretty sure if the guy plugged his laptop into the wall or his cell phone, no one would complain.
Against vehicles I would expect it would be done from a UAV instead. Speaking of which, if you could target aircraft with this someone would have a really bad day...
Ruling seems pretty reasonable to me. If Amazon ditched it's local 3rd party partners then Quill Corp vs North Dakota would apply to the products Amazon itself sells. As it stands Amazon's 3rd party partners are no different than dealerships are to a car company.
Is the summary misleading, or are they taking about 3rd party partners and not "affiliates" like the summary said. Amazon Affiliates just put a banner add on their web site. It is more like running an advertisement inside the state than it is like a car dealership.
The "F" in F-Droid stands for Free. That's not what I was thinking it stood for at first...
Yes. The right to remain silent is good for society. As far as talking to the police when you are pretty sure you will be convicted anyway... When exactly do you know that? Are you a lawyer? The evidence you think they have might not be admissible for some reason. The lab might screw up the forensics. The cop involved might be found to have planted evidence in some other case. They can and will lie to you about what evidence they have collected. So, yes, you may get a better deal by cooperating. But you should never do so unless you have a lawyer first.
I think other than Jar Jar, the thing that killed the newest 3 Star Wars movies was the horrible acting. It is like every actor everywhere wanted to be in the movies, but they cast extras who stood around in swimsuits from the background of Bay Watch. (Not really. But it kind of seemed that way.) Then, there was the writing. I mean, take young Anikin Skywalker. The one thing they needed to demonstrate about him is a strong emotional connection with his mother. It should have been a little bit like Heavy Rain. There should have been a strong bond there and he should have been sad to leave her but done it anyway. Instead, it seemed they wanted to make him like Wesley Crusher from Star Trek. Then, the love scenes were like watching Natalie Portman try and do a love sceen with a wall. They were just so flat and unbelievable. Seriously, did the casting director from Star Wars go on to cast people from Twilight? Then, there was Jar Jar. I actually could have forgiven them for Jar Jar if they would have done the third one right. I would have had Jar Jar say something inane to Anikin like "Don't worry about your mother. Meesa think a slave is not worth worrying about." Then Anikin would have went all darkside on him and obliterated him. That would have been epic.
In modern society, people who don't know how to use computers are handicapped. People who don't know how to program are functionally illiterate.
You can program games in Unity http://www.unity3d.com/ in JavaScript and release them on Windows, Mac, Android, IOS, Playstation 3 (4 is probably coming soon), Xbox 360, etc. They have a full fledged debugging support using Monodevelop.
Apple said that you don't need 3G and even that it is bad since it kills battery life. Remember?