I can read at least an order of magnitude faster than you can talk.
Standard lectures are spoken at about 145-160 words per minute, while average readers read at about 200 words per minute. Considering most lectures are very watchable at 1.25x speed, the average lecture can be listened to at about the same speed as you can read similar content. Even if you are twice the speed of average readers, which is quite possible, you would be nowhere near an order of magnitude faster.
Nope. The ideal solution is to encourage teachers/professors to specialize in teaching to a specific mode of learning, and encourage students to pick the teachers that best suit their preferred learning styles.
You must haven went to very large schools, but many if not most kids don't have that luxury. Many students have just one or two science / math / etc. teachers for their entire grade. And there probably aren't enough kids to segregate them into groups of similar skill levels in each subject. One of the benefits of virtual classrooms would be you having tens of millions of fellow students and hundreds of thousands of teachers to pull from.
A video lesson is still fundamentally a lecture. Students that learn better by hearing and seeing will do well with any well-crafted lecture, but students that learn better by doing won't.
Who says it would be just lectures? I carefully used the word "lesson" not lecture. I'm not sure if you have ever played a video game, but there are plenty of ways to make online content interactive.
It doesn't scale. Frequently, the questions that one student asks are the questions that another student are thinking about but are either afraid to ask or can't quite put into words.
Great! In no time you will have these questions in a database so you can present them to students who aren't asking them. All of your follow up comments on this topic are some of the easiest to solve problems once you start teaching more topics virtually.
Humans are very social animals. A big part of education is socialization. We tend to pretend that this isn't important, but arguably it is at least as important as the actual knowledge, at least at the primary and secondary education levels.
Which is why I mentioned doing group activities, and having some in person instruction and student interaction. Obviously school isn't just about learn the three R's.
If I'm supposed to work through the problems before the lecture, then why would I even be in class?
Because chances are you struggled with at least some of the problems, or perhaps did some wrong without even knowing. If you really were capable of learning everything you need to know without the instructor, you probably should have tried to exempt yourself from the class in the first place. I have found that even in my best subjects there was also something to learn from someone with more experience.
The primary reason I enjoyed this method of teaching is it does a much better job of preparing students for continuing learning throughout their life. Too many recent grads struggle in the workplace because they don't know how to learn without instruction. Some people use excuses for why that isn't their "learning style", but it simply isn't acceptable to not be capable of learning a significant amount about any topic by yourself. If someone really does struggle with that, the first goal of teachers should be getting them better at it, not coddling them. A worker who cannot learn without instruction is borderline useless in any job with real responsibilities.
Students learn differently. Some respond to visual learning methods. Some to auditory methods. Some respond best to experiment. The point being, instructor input is vital. During a lecture, the instructor can see the "deer in the headlights" look, and adjust the instruction style and content appropriately. Videos can't do that. Self-study only works with brilliant, entirely self-motivated individuals, and those are rare indeed.
You explain the exact reason modern and near-future technology is necessary to solve our education problems. It is incredibly inefficient for a human teacher to adjust his teaching style for each of 20+ students in his class. And adjusting for a few struggling students at the expense of the other 15? Is that really your ideal solution?
There is no reason we couldn't have 1000+ video lessons for any given topic; each slightly different. Periodic 3-5 question quizzes would be able to tell how well students are picking up the material, and machine learning could help identify which lessons work better for each student based on billions of other student interactions and learning results. They could be a combination of lectures, demonstrations, group work with students at the same ability level anywhere in the country, and VR experimentation. All including quick help features where both AI bots and real human teachers can jump in for more specialized situations. Even if image processing has a hard time identifying the "deer in the headlights" look (unlikely) students would be far more willing to ask for help in a 1 on 1 setting between them and the computer / online teaching support staff. Combined with a small amount of traditional teaching to fill in the gaps this is bound to be far better than current teaching techniques.
It's going to take a while to get here though, but not because we don't already have the technology. Implementation will certainly not be easy and there will be many interest groups fighting against these improvements.
a good lecture reduces the time to learn for many. For me, I figure at least 2x. The interactions rapidly clarify areas of confusion. A great lecture inspires.
If you look at the actual recommendations in even the summary, it doesn't suggest no lecturing at all. The best teacher I had did exactly what they suggest; he had us read the chapter and do homework for the chapter before the lecture. Then students would be picked at random to put the answers on the board and we would in turn explain our approach. He would correct us if necessary and field questions from the class. He would then tailor his lecture to the parts students struggled with. I never learned any subject matter more thoroughly than during those three semesters of Engineering Physics.
I didn't even know there was a way to tell Zillow the level of finish in your house, just the square footage and other objective measures. Even when the Zestimate is fairly accurate, I have never seen it take into account how nice the finish of the house is. The Zestimate often does a good job of estimating the price of a home with average finishes for the area, and then you need to do your own adjustment based on how much renovations have been done or need to be done.
I for instance bought my home for nearly $100k under the Zestimate, but have put $75k into renovations over the first few years. The Zestimate took a slight dip based on my low purchase price, but within three years was back in line with its fair market value. But I live in a fairly easy to estimate area, in a neighborhood with about 1200 homes and around 10 floor plans. Finding comps is quite easy in that scenario.
It isn't fraud [to put in incorrect details in your favor].
The English language begs to differ. Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain. Whether or not you could be prosecuted for it under US law doesn't change the fact that it is fraud. Fraud is not just a legal term. Although even though IANAL, intentionally altering details about your home on online real estate sites for the purpose of financial gain sounds like false representation to me.
While there are probably all manner of fraudulent behaviors which can help you sell a house for more if you don't get caught, it's probably better to just be truthful.
Take ownership of the property on Zillow and at least put in the correct details. Zillow doesn't even have the square footage of the apartment; of course it's Zestimate is going to be worthless. There are no details other than it is a 3 bedroom 3 bath townhouse. This is one dumb real estate agent.
It's certainly harder than sitting down and clacking on a keyboard for a few hours a day.
I have worked fast food and retail before I began my software development career, and those jobs were far easier. They may have included more physical labor, but it's not like it was construction (which I did for one summer and realized I wasn't cut out for it). These jobs take very little effort, even for model employees, and have little to no stress (other than the stress of not being able to pay your bills). The only two reasons I wouldn't go back to those jobs are the lack of pay and lack of intellectual stimulation. But as for how relaxing the standard work day is, I would choose a retail job in a heart beat.
Ha, over 30 is when the pay starts rolling in. This is when you start seeing 5 figure raises each year. Plateauing should not set in until closer to 40.
Thank you for displaying your ignorance of reality. In IT, your age is held against you.
I have only seen this to be true when you cannot show a natural progression of job responsibilities throughout your career. And this seems to be true in most professions. I don't see too many 62 year olds being hired into middle management either. In most careers if you want to stick with a role traditionally held by 25-35 year olds until retirement it is a risk.
I see plenty of IT and soft dev workers employed in their late 50's and early 60's, but they are all in very senior roles. Not necessarily management, but perhaps enterprise architect or a similar role. Their experience is very valuable in leading projects because they have led dozens of large projects managing at least dozens of people (either with direct reports or as a team lead). Any company worth working for treats these employees as very valuable.
But all of that extra experience is not very valuable if you aren't taking on an ever increasing level of responsibility throughout your career. In that case you will have a very hard time finding work at 60, just like in most other industries.
Which is why the question is stupid. This is not how advancements are made, this is how people are lead down false paths with a dead end. Advancements are made by considering the impact of all important factors...
This line of thinking is foolish. Advancements are made from all kids of approaches. If you want to think innovatively, you should probably be following paths you assume will lead to a dead end. If are aren't failing most of the time, you aren't thinking very innovatively.
One of the ridiculous problems you'll encounter when trying to design a UBI policy is that UBI advocates keep asking how the fuck UBI recipients are going to live on your paltry income in New York City or San Francisco.
That isn't a very ridiculous problem. UBI is not intended to make all income inequality go away, since some level of inequality is considered a good thing by just about everyone on all sides of the debate. It is simply about reducing inequality to a more reasonable level, and ensuring everyone has the right to a base-level standard of living. That base-level will not include a New York City penthouse.
But you *do* see individuals that renounce their US citizenships (e.g., Eduardo Saverin)
But you don't see that happening very much, which is why I said you don't see too many rich people leaving instead of saying no rich people leave. In the situation you gave he left because of a US tax code loophole to help the rich avoid taxes. It only happened after he was involved in creating a company in the US, not his home country, and he wouldn't have saved a dime if our tax code wasn't so porous.
Rich people tend to want to live in nice places, and generally have the extra money to pay for that privilege. Living in a place with good schools, good health care, and a good safety net creates the type of society where the wealthy and upper middle class want to live. The lower crime alone which comes from these services is arguably worth it.
You don't see too many rich people leaving for third world countries just because the taxes are lower. You may see some middle class people moving to Thailand to make their retirement money stretch, but those with real wealth paying most of the taxes tend to desire well countries with the powerful governments necessary to run a modern society. And they have the money to pay for it.
Considering how many students are actually cheating in college now a days, this goes to show Harvard mostly only admits students smart enough to not get caught.
> Chinese domestic makers are faaaaar more concerned with issues of high return rate
Where do all these high quality products end up? They certainly don't seem to export them because all the non-Western or noname Chinese stuff I've had is even worse than the Western-branded ones.
If a type of product is made in both the West and China, the Chinese product is likely of lower quality. For both products to exist in the marketplace it is usually because there is a very small market for the more expensive product and a much larger market for the less expensive product. If there is a large market for the more expensive product, like iPhones for instance, it is likely still made in China but at the same high standards of quality you would expect from high-end Western products.
The GP is still correct that China makes products which can compete with the best and worst products in the world. It all depends on the specs they are given.
Yes, but your exact words were "Most visa workers are not immigrants." This is a false statement. You clearly didn't mean most H1B visa workers are not immigrants, because 100% of H1B visa workers are not immigrants. Your statement was merely derogatory towards all visa holders, and I was merely calling you out on that.
And as for H1B visa holders wanting to become citizens, they are by far the largest source of green card applications from visa holders. In 2016 117,189 visa holders petitioned for their green card, and 89,907 of them came from H1B holders. The #2 source was from L-1 visas, with a grand total of 7,871.
So it is quite accurate to state H1B holders are a significant source of our immigrants, and an even more significant source of our non-family related immigrants. There is no way you can honestly spin H1B visa holders as anything but at the core of what makes our country great.
And a permanent visa holder is an immigrant by definition. And since there are nearly 10 green card holders for every 1 temporary visa holder, most visa holders are immigrants. By a large margin.
Big cities do not universally attract the best and brightest, merely a percentage of them and only for certain industries.
Of course they don't attract all of them, simply a greater percentage of them than smaller cities or rural areas. If you are an amazing doctor or engineer or lawyer, you are more likely to move to Chicago than Indianapolis.
Finance? Sure you probably want a big city. Agriculture? Not so much. Manufacturing? Depends on the product.
Certain industries in general tend to attract more capable people. This is basically just because of salary levels, but also to a lesser extent because of prerequisite ability to succeed in the industry. If you take the top 10% of nearly any high school graduating class, in urban or rural areas, they are more likely to go into finance / medicine / law / engineering than agriculture / manufacturing. The result is the best and brightest are drawn to these industries. Not 100% of them, but a disproportionate amount.
And I would disagree that the food is universally better in cities or that there is better entertainment. It depends on what suits you. I live in a semi-rural area and I guarantee you I get better produce than almost any restaurant in NYC right off the farm. Same with meat if I want it.
I have lived in a farm town (where I lived until college), a fairly rural college town, and suburbs close to Chicago. And I have visited many rural areas in other states to see extended family, plus many large cities for conferences or just vacationing. There is a reason high school football is such a big deal in many rural towns (like my home town); there is literally nothing else to do on a Friday night. Maybe you can go hang out in the Walmart parking lot instead, or the bowling alley. In cities you have Broadway theater, comedy clubs, museums, etc. where you can even find great entertainment options on weekdays.
As for food, if you hear your favorite TV Chef is opening a new restaurant, it probably isn't in a rural area. It is probably New York, Chicago, Vegas, etc. I grew up on a farm eating steaks from our family cattle and produce from our gardens, but a dry aged prime steak from Gibsons blows that experience away. Even for quality "poor-man" genres like BBQ and Tex-Mex, I'll take the highest rated BBQ joint in Chicago over the highest rated BBQ restaurant in a random 10,000 population town in the south. There are plenty of diamonds in the rough in rural areas, but for a variety of amazing culinary options you cannot beat a large city.
Most visa workers are not immigrants. Some may become immigrants, sure, but they are two different things.
In January 2010 there were 12.6 million permanent visa (green card) holders in the US. (source) In 2013 there were about 1.4 million temporary visa holders working in the US. (source)
While not all green card holders are working, it is clear that most visa workers are immigrants. Probably around 80-90%. All temporary visa holders are not immigrants, by definition, but that is clearly not what you meant since you used the word "most". Then again I don't think you knew what you meant, or understand the actual definitions of these terms.
yet you actually have to make 80% more to actually be able to live in Chicago.
Not really. Chicago is less than 30% more expensive than Indianapolis. Housing may be nearly double the price, but your car / groceries / utilities / etc. are going to be similarly priced in both cities. Add in the intangible benefits of more culture / entertainment, better food, and overall more job opportunities, it's not surprising that major cities attract the best and brightest in our society.
You really can't blame the Indian companies as it's the onshore CIO who's outsourcing this stuff and the executive team who makes the decision to outsource to offshore.
No, I really can blame both. If someone pays a hit-man to kill his spouse, I want both of them to be punished. The hit-man certainly shouldn't be able to claim he was just responding to an RFP.
In the case of Infosys, they are even more complicit since their marketing and sales claim they are providing a quality service when in fact they are preying on either inept management or ineffectual board / shareholder governance.
Slashdot Mirror
I can read at least an order of magnitude faster than you can talk.
Standard lectures are spoken at about 145-160 words per minute, while average readers read at about 200 words per minute. Considering most lectures are very watchable at 1.25x speed, the average lecture can be listened to at about the same speed as you can read similar content. Even if you are twice the speed of average readers, which is quite possible, you would be nowhere near an order of magnitude faster.
Nope. The ideal solution is to encourage teachers/professors to specialize in teaching to a specific mode of learning, and encourage students to pick the teachers that best suit their preferred learning styles.
You must haven went to very large schools, but many if not most kids don't have that luxury. Many students have just one or two science / math / etc. teachers for their entire grade. And there probably aren't enough kids to segregate them into groups of similar skill levels in each subject. One of the benefits of virtual classrooms would be you having tens of millions of fellow students and hundreds of thousands of teachers to pull from.
A video lesson is still fundamentally a lecture. Students that learn better by hearing and seeing will do well with any well-crafted lecture, but students that learn better by doing won't.
Who says it would be just lectures? I carefully used the word "lesson" not lecture. I'm not sure if you have ever played a video game, but there are plenty of ways to make online content interactive.
It doesn't scale. Frequently, the questions that one student asks are the questions that another student are thinking about but are either afraid to ask or can't quite put into words.
Great! In no time you will have these questions in a database so you can present them to students who aren't asking them. All of your follow up comments on this topic are some of the easiest to solve problems once you start teaching more topics virtually.
Humans are very social animals. A big part of education is socialization. We tend to pretend that this isn't important, but arguably it is at least as important as the actual knowledge, at least at the primary and secondary education levels.
Which is why I mentioned doing group activities, and having some in person instruction and student interaction. Obviously school isn't just about learn the three R's.
If I'm supposed to work through the problems before the lecture, then why would I even be in class?
Because chances are you struggled with at least some of the problems, or perhaps did some wrong without even knowing. If you really were capable of learning everything you need to know without the instructor, you probably should have tried to exempt yourself from the class in the first place. I have found that even in my best subjects there was also something to learn from someone with more experience.
The primary reason I enjoyed this method of teaching is it does a much better job of preparing students for continuing learning throughout their life. Too many recent grads struggle in the workplace because they don't know how to learn without instruction. Some people use excuses for why that isn't their "learning style", but it simply isn't acceptable to not be capable of learning a significant amount about any topic by yourself. If someone really does struggle with that, the first goal of teachers should be getting them better at it, not coddling them. A worker who cannot learn without instruction is borderline useless in any job with real responsibilities.
Students learn differently. Some respond to visual learning methods. Some to auditory methods. Some respond best to experiment. The point being, instructor input is vital. During a lecture, the instructor can see the "deer in the headlights" look, and adjust the instruction style and content appropriately. Videos can't do that. Self-study only works with brilliant, entirely self-motivated individuals, and those are rare indeed.
You explain the exact reason modern and near-future technology is necessary to solve our education problems. It is incredibly inefficient for a human teacher to adjust his teaching style for each of 20+ students in his class. And adjusting for a few struggling students at the expense of the other 15? Is that really your ideal solution?
There is no reason we couldn't have 1000+ video lessons for any given topic; each slightly different. Periodic 3-5 question quizzes would be able to tell how well students are picking up the material, and machine learning could help identify which lessons work better for each student based on billions of other student interactions and learning results. They could be a combination of lectures, demonstrations, group work with students at the same ability level anywhere in the country, and VR experimentation. All including quick help features where both AI bots and real human teachers can jump in for more specialized situations. Even if image processing has a hard time identifying the "deer in the headlights" look (unlikely) students would be far more willing to ask for help in a 1 on 1 setting between them and the computer / online teaching support staff. Combined with a small amount of traditional teaching to fill in the gaps this is bound to be far better than current teaching techniques.
It's going to take a while to get here though, but not because we don't already have the technology. Implementation will certainly not be easy and there will be many interest groups fighting against these improvements.
a good lecture reduces the time to learn for many. For me, I figure at least 2x. The interactions rapidly clarify areas of confusion.
A great lecture inspires.
If you look at the actual recommendations in even the summary, it doesn't suggest no lecturing at all. The best teacher I had did exactly what they suggest; he had us read the chapter and do homework for the chapter before the lecture. Then students would be picked at random to put the answers on the board and we would in turn explain our approach. He would correct us if necessary and field questions from the class. He would then tailor his lecture to the parts students struggled with. I never learned any subject matter more thoroughly than during those three semesters of Engineering Physics.
I didn't even know there was a way to tell Zillow the level of finish in your house, just the square footage and other objective measures. Even when the Zestimate is fairly accurate, I have never seen it take into account how nice the finish of the house is. The Zestimate often does a good job of estimating the price of a home with average finishes for the area, and then you need to do your own adjustment based on how much renovations have been done or need to be done.
I for instance bought my home for nearly $100k under the Zestimate, but have put $75k into renovations over the first few years. The Zestimate took a slight dip based on my low purchase price, but within three years was back in line with its fair market value. But I live in a fairly easy to estimate area, in a neighborhood with about 1200 homes and around 10 floor plans. Finding comps is quite easy in that scenario.
It isn't fraud [to put in incorrect details in your favor].
The English language begs to differ.
Fraud: wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
Whether or not you could be prosecuted for it under US law doesn't change the fact that it is fraud. Fraud is not just a legal term. Although even though IANAL, intentionally altering details about your home on online real estate sites for the purpose of financial gain sounds like false representation to me.
While there are probably all manner of fraudulent behaviors which can help you sell a house for more if you don't get caught, it's probably better to just be truthful.
Take ownership of the property on Zillow and at least put in the correct details. Zillow doesn't even have the square footage of the apartment; of course it's Zestimate is going to be worthless. There are no details other than it is a 3 bedroom 3 bath townhouse. This is one dumb real estate agent.
It's certainly harder than sitting down and clacking on a keyboard for a few hours a day.
I have worked fast food and retail before I began my software development career, and those jobs were far easier. They may have included more physical labor, but it's not like it was construction (which I did for one summer and realized I wasn't cut out for it). These jobs take very little effort, even for model employees, and have little to no stress (other than the stress of not being able to pay your bills). The only two reasons I wouldn't go back to those jobs are the lack of pay and lack of intellectual stimulation. But as for how relaxing the standard work day is, I would choose a retail job in a heart beat.
Over 30 is as good as dead.
Ha, over 30 is when the pay starts rolling in. This is when you start seeing 5 figure raises each year. Plateauing should not set in until closer to 40.
Thank you for displaying your ignorance of reality. In IT, your age is held against you.
I have only seen this to be true when you cannot show a natural progression of job responsibilities throughout your career. And this seems to be true in most professions. I don't see too many 62 year olds being hired into middle management either. In most careers if you want to stick with a role traditionally held by 25-35 year olds until retirement it is a risk.
I see plenty of IT and soft dev workers employed in their late 50's and early 60's, but they are all in very senior roles. Not necessarily management, but perhaps enterprise architect or a similar role. Their experience is very valuable in leading projects because they have led dozens of large projects managing at least dozens of people (either with direct reports or as a team lead). Any company worth working for treats these employees as very valuable.
But all of that extra experience is not very valuable if you aren't taking on an ever increasing level of responsibility throughout your career. In that case you will have a very hard time finding work at 60, just like in most other industries.
Which is why the question is stupid. This is not how advancements are made, this is how people are lead down false paths with a dead end. Advancements are made by considering the impact of all important factors...
This line of thinking is foolish. Advancements are made from all kids of approaches. If you want to think innovatively, you should probably be following paths you assume will lead to a dead end. If are aren't failing most of the time, you aren't thinking very innovatively.
One of the ridiculous problems you'll encounter when trying to design a UBI policy is that UBI advocates keep asking how the fuck UBI recipients are going to live on your paltry income in New York City or San Francisco.
That isn't a very ridiculous problem. UBI is not intended to make all income inequality go away, since some level of inequality is considered a good thing by just about everyone on all sides of the debate. It is simply about reducing inequality to a more reasonable level, and ensuring everyone has the right to a base-level standard of living. That base-level will not include a New York City penthouse.
But you *do* see individuals that renounce their US citizenships (e.g., Eduardo Saverin)
But you don't see that happening very much, which is why I said you don't see too many rich people leaving instead of saying no rich people leave. In the situation you gave he left because of a US tax code loophole to help the rich avoid taxes. It only happened after he was involved in creating a company in the US, not his home country, and he wouldn't have saved a dime if our tax code wasn't so porous.
Rich people tend to want to live in nice places, and generally have the extra money to pay for that privilege. Living in a place with good schools, good health care, and a good safety net creates the type of society where the wealthy and upper middle class want to live. The lower crime alone which comes from these services is arguably worth it.
You don't see too many rich people leaving for third world countries just because the taxes are lower. You may see some middle class people moving to Thailand to make their retirement money stretch, but those with real wealth paying most of the taxes tend to desire well countries with the powerful governments necessary to run a modern society. And they have the money to pay for it.
He said a bunch of shit to get elected, and apparently intends to keep pretending he ever thought it was possible or even a good idea.
FTFY
Considering how many students are actually cheating in college now a days, this goes to show Harvard mostly only admits students smart enough to not get caught.
> Chinese domestic makers are faaaaar more concerned with issues of high return rate
Where do all these high quality products end up? They certainly don't seem to export them because all the non-Western or noname Chinese stuff I've had is even worse than the Western-branded ones.
If a type of product is made in both the West and China, the Chinese product is likely of lower quality. For both products to exist in the marketplace it is usually because there is a very small market for the more expensive product and a much larger market for the less expensive product. If there is a large market for the more expensive product, like iPhones for instance, it is likely still made in China but at the same high standards of quality you would expect from high-end Western products.
The GP is still correct that China makes products which can compete with the best and worst products in the world. It all depends on the specs they are given.
Yes, but your exact words were "Most visa workers are not immigrants." This is a false statement. You clearly didn't mean most H1B visa workers are not immigrants, because 100% of H1B visa workers are not immigrants. Your statement was merely derogatory towards all visa holders, and I was merely calling you out on that.
And as for H1B visa holders wanting to become citizens, they are by far the largest source of green card applications from visa holders. In 2016 117,189 visa holders petitioned for their green card, and 89,907 of them came from H1B holders. The #2 source was from L-1 visas, with a grand total of 7,871.
So it is quite accurate to state H1B holders are a significant source of our immigrants, and an even more significant source of our non-family related immigrants. There is no way you can honestly spin H1B visa holders as anything but at the core of what makes our country great.
And a permanent visa holder is an immigrant by definition. And since there are nearly 10 green card holders for every 1 temporary visa holder, most visa holders are immigrants. By a large margin.
Big cities do not universally attract the best and brightest, merely a percentage of them and only for certain industries.
Of course they don't attract all of them, simply a greater percentage of them than smaller cities or rural areas. If you are an amazing doctor or engineer or lawyer, you are more likely to move to Chicago than Indianapolis.
Finance? Sure you probably want a big city. Agriculture? Not so much. Manufacturing? Depends on the product.
Certain industries in general tend to attract more capable people. This is basically just because of salary levels, but also to a lesser extent because of prerequisite ability to succeed in the industry. If you take the top 10% of nearly any high school graduating class, in urban or rural areas, they are more likely to go into finance / medicine / law / engineering than agriculture / manufacturing. The result is the best and brightest are drawn to these industries. Not 100% of them, but a disproportionate amount.
And I would disagree that the food is universally better in cities or that there is better entertainment. It depends on what suits you. I live in a semi-rural area and I guarantee you I get better produce than almost any restaurant in NYC right off the farm. Same with meat if I want it.
I have lived in a farm town (where I lived until college), a fairly rural college town, and suburbs close to Chicago. And I have visited many rural areas in other states to see extended family, plus many large cities for conferences or just vacationing. There is a reason high school football is such a big deal in many rural towns (like my home town); there is literally nothing else to do on a Friday night. Maybe you can go hang out in the Walmart parking lot instead, or the bowling alley. In cities you have Broadway theater, comedy clubs, museums, etc. where you can even find great entertainment options on weekdays.
As for food, if you hear your favorite TV Chef is opening a new restaurant, it probably isn't in a rural area. It is probably New York, Chicago, Vegas, etc. I grew up on a farm eating steaks from our family cattle and produce from our gardens, but a dry aged prime steak from Gibsons blows that experience away. Even for quality "poor-man" genres like BBQ and Tex-Mex, I'll take the highest rated BBQ joint in Chicago over the highest rated BBQ restaurant in a random 10,000 population town in the south. There are plenty of diamonds in the rough in rural areas, but for a variety of amazing culinary options you cannot beat a large city.
Most visa workers are not immigrants. Some may become immigrants, sure, but they are two different things.
In January 2010 there were 12.6 million permanent visa (green card) holders in the US. (source) In 2013 there were about 1.4 million temporary visa holders working in the US. (source)
While not all green card holders are working, it is clear that most visa workers are immigrants. Probably around 80-90%. All temporary visa holders are not immigrants, by definition, but that is clearly not what you meant since you used the word "most". Then again I don't think you knew what you meant, or understand the actual definitions of these terms.
yet you actually have to make 80% more to actually be able to live in Chicago.
Not really. Chicago is less than 30% more expensive than Indianapolis. Housing may be nearly double the price, but your car / groceries / utilities / etc. are going to be similarly priced in both cities. Add in the intangible benefits of more culture / entertainment, better food, and overall more job opportunities, it's not surprising that major cities attract the best and brightest in our society.
You really can't blame the Indian companies as it's the onshore CIO who's outsourcing this stuff and the executive team who makes the decision to outsource to offshore.
No, I really can blame both. If someone pays a hit-man to kill his spouse, I want both of them to be punished. The hit-man certainly shouldn't be able to claim he was just responding to an RFP.
In the case of Infosys, they are even more complicit since their marketing and sales claim they are providing a quality service when in fact they are preying on either inept management or ineffectual board / shareholder governance.