Some of us have friends and families we'd like to see regularly. I do not consider my ability to move to India or China - not that those countries would let us all move there if we wanted to - to be a justification for trashing protections we have here.
If the company didn't want to bring a foreign worker to the U.S., they already would have outsourced the job. Thus all your points about how the company and/or H1-B employee are contributing "enough already" to the American economy are moot. The worker wanted to come here, they may decide to stay here, and they certainly shouldn't be used as leverage to depress wages here.
It's really annoying that I can't set something to fullscreen on my second monitor anymore. When I go fullscreen, the OS decide to move it to the top monitor. It used to go fullscreen on whichever monitor the window was already on.
After seeing how it felt for an hour or so, I reverted to Snow Leopard. I can wait for a few patches.
If you didn't pay, then you'd be cheaper to employ than an American worker. The H1-B program isn't intended to displace American workers but to complement them. Americans are still supposed to come first (sorry) as it's our country and our government is supposed to favor our employment over that of other people.
I'd be okay with them eliminating the social security contribution if they replaced it with an equal tax on H1-B workers that contributed toward, for example, education for American workers. Either way the employer needs to pay it.
The story, at least, doesn't give Clinton's response, or indicate if she likes H1-B VISAs at all, so anything you are reading into it is part of your own bias.
Note that it was India who was pressing this. They were acting in the best interests of their citizenry, by making it more attractive for companies to hire Indians.
The story, at least, doesn't give Clinton's response, so anything you are reading into it is part of your own bias. It does say that this has been a "persistent irritant" between the countries, which implies that India has asked for this before, and the U.S. hasn't given in to it yet. That makes it sound like she and her predecessors are looking out for U.S. worker interests so far.
Non-citizens in the country, and indeed most countries, regularly face taxation without representation. Heck, the U.S. now charges all guests to the U.S. a tax just to enter. If you want not to be taxed in a country in which you are a guest, don't visit the country. If you want representation in a country in which you pay tax, become a citizen.
Or the first person who, having received the memory stick, runs it over with a steam roller while filming it all for YouTube, ends the game in exchange for 4 minutes of fame.
There's one person who has an incentive to reduce costs: your employer. They could reduce their costs by asking you to share in the expense of your health care. Were they to do so, even a little, you could make different choices (like using your homeopathic doctor) that could save the company a lot of money. This is especially true if your company is self insured, because then they directly save each time an employee chooses a less expensive health care option.
The fact that your employer pays $1700 a month for a Cadillac health care plan for you completely baffles me. Why would they spend that much money per employee on straight health care? My plan runs under $500 a month (with about 13% paid by me) for my wife and I, and has good copays, prescription rates, etc. And since we're self insured, they are working to reduce cost by improving our health: subsidizing healthy choices in the cafeteria, sponsoring sports leagues, improving the on-campus gym and recreation facilities, even installing an on-site clinic to encourage engineers to see someone quickly and easily when they don't feel well before it becomes something worse and causes them to miss work or have larger health expenses.
Maybe if you add up all the other costs for these other programs, they might come to another $500 per employee, but they also make the company a better place to work in a variety of ways, making it easier for the company to attract top talent. So those programs can help pay for themselves in other ways.
The original source of the infection was perceived to be the rhesus monkey, because it was the only thing with antibodies that wasn't sick (and thus was presumed to be the carrier). The virus either passed from rhesus to human to titi, or from rhesus to titi to human.
Either way, a monkey made a human sick. The article specifically points out that this isn't a common human ailment, so it didn't originate in a human. A human wasn't the "source" of the virus. That's the entire reason it's usable for gene therapy; humans don't already carry antigens for it so we won't immediately kill it if it is introduced into our body with a beneficial payload. Theoretically. After all, even with no previous human exposure, the humans in this case managed to kill it off in four weeks.
The median household income in these areas is between $40,100 and $50,900. The median home prices are between $94,400 and $189,000.'
First of all they're dirt poor and not going to pay for broadband or own a computer.
In 2006 the median household income in the U.S. was about $50,200. I doubt the median has gone up much since then. They aren't dirt poor; they're right about in the middle. I think your sense of proportion is way off on economics, which makes most of the rest of your argument must less viable.
The mercury in CFLs is a red herring. There's more mercury spewed from power plants.
And don't think that the light bulb/CFL factories wouldn't have moved to China anyway. Do you somehow think this one industry would have stayed in the U.S. if not for this legislation, while every other industry not subject to it moved regardless?
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply in this case. If I shiver in the dark the power plant down the road will still create nearly the same pollution as if I didn't. What's more, I'm paying for using that extra power. But it's cool, we can just shift from pollution at the power plant to mercury and other pollution in different places. Unless you think those CFLs grow on trees.:)
Your "nearly" defeats your own argument. The difference in pollution versus not is proportional to the savings on your power. Multiply that by every household and it becomes a lot of savings.
And the mercury in CFLs is much less than the mercury spewed by the power plant.
And yes, I'd be fine with requiring electricity plants to capture and store all pollutants (including CO2) and repealing the efficiency standards. Let people pay the true cost for their electricity and they can decide how to waste it (or not).
Save up the CFLs in a plastic bag and return them to Ikea once a year, when you were going to drive there anyway. That's basically what I do with batteries, which I save up and take to work every few months where I can recycle them (as I can't at home).
brian0918 claimed that he didn't think "anyone" properly disposed of these bulbs. When someone makes a claim in the absolute, it only takes one anecdote to disprove it.
I don't think Congress has the power to regulate what sales tax individual municipalities choose to charge. States do, so this would take each state banning its own cities from charging sales tax. How would cities replace that revenue? Most cities can charge property tax, sales tax, and fees for some services. Property taxes and fees tend to be paid by businesses, so increasing them encourages businesses to move outside of the city.
What else do you suggest that doesn't involve A) transfer of revenue from incorporated to unincorporated areas, or B) vice versa?
Britain can impose a tariff on imported goods that haven't paid the VAT and solve this. It's Britain's fault if they signed a treaty that gave away their right to do so.
Rich people spend less of their income on sales tax, because they spend less of their income buying basic, taxable needs and more of it buying untaxed services, or just saving it. Poorer people spend more of their income on a flat-rate sales tax than rich people. Hence, it's regressive.
Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?
Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.
My CFLs have long outlasted their budgeted lifetime, so I've taken your savings. And I properly recycled the one that failed and the one that broke in the past decade. Ikea has a drop-off point right in the front of the store.
Taxes are lower now than they have been in decades. If your argument were true, why hasn't this translated into a low unemployment rate?
Might the fact be that companies and rich individuals, who are reaping the benefits of the existing ultra-low rates, are simply not using their money to create jobs in the United States? That perhaps a sizable number of them are either sitting on cash or investing overseas?
The government spends every penny they take in. (I doubt you'll argue with that.) If that money is given to rich people, some of them will spend some of it here to create jobs. I'd rather see the government spending redirected to domestic programs that will build infrastructure, invest in the future, and create jobs here than give it to people who might or might not (but probably won't) use it to benefit their country at all.
This is the budget submitted by Congress, which by the Constitution must originate in the House, which is run by Republicans. Parent mentions that the President's requests were different.
But listening to the recording by bouncing light off its surface and receiving the reflections is a lot like viewing the real Mona Lisa by bouncing ambient light off its surface and receiving the reflections in your eyeballs. It's your brain's fault that you can't see sound or smell colors or hear scents.
Slashdot Mirror
This made me laugh. I'm glad I went back to check on replies to my old comments.
Some of us have friends and families we'd like to see regularly. I do not consider my ability to move to India or China - not that those countries would let us all move there if we wanted to - to be a justification for trashing protections we have here.
If the company didn't want to bring a foreign worker to the U.S., they already would have outsourced the job. Thus all your points about how the company and/or H1-B employee are contributing "enough already" to the American economy are moot. The worker wanted to come here, they may decide to stay here, and they certainly shouldn't be used as leverage to depress wages here.
It's really annoying that I can't set something to fullscreen on my second monitor anymore. When I go fullscreen, the OS decide to move it to the top monitor. It used to go fullscreen on whichever monitor the window was already on.
After seeing how it felt for an hour or so, I reverted to Snow Leopard. I can wait for a few patches.
Posted from my iPad.
If you didn't pay, then you'd be cheaper to employ than an American worker. The H1-B program isn't intended to displace American workers but to complement them. Americans are still supposed to come first (sorry) as it's our country and our government is supposed to favor our employment over that of other people.
I'd be okay with them eliminating the social security contribution if they replaced it with an equal tax on H1-B workers that contributed toward, for example, education for American workers. Either way the employer needs to pay it.
Note that it was India who was pressing this.
The story, at least, doesn't give Clinton's response, or indicate if she likes H1-B VISAs at all, so anything you are reading into it is part of your own bias.
Note that it was India who was pressing this. They were acting in the best interests of their citizenry, by making it more attractive for companies to hire Indians.
The story, at least, doesn't give Clinton's response, so anything you are reading into it is part of your own bias. It does say that this has been a "persistent irritant" between the countries, which implies that India has asked for this before, and the U.S. hasn't given in to it yet. That makes it sound like she and her predecessors are looking out for U.S. worker interests so far.
Non-citizens in the country, and indeed most countries, regularly face taxation without representation. Heck, the U.S. now charges all guests to the U.S. a tax just to enter. If you want not to be taxed in a country in which you are a guest, don't visit the country. If you want representation in a country in which you pay tax, become a citizen.
Or the first person who, having received the memory stick, runs it over with a steam roller while filming it all for YouTube, ends the game in exchange for 4 minutes of fame.
There's one person who has an incentive to reduce costs: your employer. They could reduce their costs by asking you to share in the expense of your health care. Were they to do so, even a little, you could make different choices (like using your homeopathic doctor) that could save the company a lot of money. This is especially true if your company is self insured, because then they directly save each time an employee chooses a less expensive health care option.
The fact that your employer pays $1700 a month for a Cadillac health care plan for you completely baffles me. Why would they spend that much money per employee on straight health care? My plan runs under $500 a month (with about 13% paid by me) for my wife and I, and has good copays, prescription rates, etc. And since we're self insured, they are working to reduce cost by improving our health: subsidizing healthy choices in the cafeteria, sponsoring sports leagues, improving the on-campus gym and recreation facilities, even installing an on-site clinic to encourage engineers to see someone quickly and easily when they don't feel well before it becomes something worse and causes them to miss work or have larger health expenses.
Maybe if you add up all the other costs for these other programs, they might come to another $500 per employee, but they also make the company a better place to work in a variety of ways, making it easier for the company to attract top talent. So those programs can help pay for themselves in other ways.
I think you read the article wrong.
The original source of the infection was perceived to be the rhesus monkey, because it was the only thing with antibodies that wasn't sick (and thus was presumed to be the carrier). The virus either passed from rhesus to human to titi, or from rhesus to titi to human.
Either way, a monkey made a human sick. The article specifically points out that this isn't a common human ailment, so it didn't originate in a human. A human wasn't the "source" of the virus. That's the entire reason it's usable for gene therapy; humans don't already carry antigens for it so we won't immediately kill it if it is introduced into our body with a beneficial payload. Theoretically. After all, even with no previous human exposure, the humans in this case managed to kill it off in four weeks.
There used to be some bonafide investment in infrastructure in the US, so where did all that go?
Tax cuts for the "job creators" mostly. That's why our unemployment rate is so low and the economy is thriving.
The median household income in these areas is between $40,100 and $50,900. The median home prices are between $94,400 and $189,000.'
First of all they're dirt poor and not going to pay for broadband or own a computer.
In 2006 the median household income in the U.S. was about $50,200. I doubt the median has gone up much since then. They aren't dirt poor; they're right about in the middle. I think your sense of proportion is way off on economics, which makes most of the rest of your argument must less viable.
The mercury in CFLs is a red herring. There's more mercury spewed from power plants.
And don't think that the light bulb/CFL factories wouldn't have moved to China anyway. Do you somehow think this one industry would have stayed in the U.S. if not for this legislation, while every other industry not subject to it moved regardless?
Tragedy of the commons doesn't apply in this case. If I shiver in the dark the power plant down the road will still create nearly the same pollution as if I didn't. What's more, I'm paying for using that extra power. But it's cool, we can just shift from pollution at the power plant to mercury and other pollution in different places. Unless you think those CFLs grow on trees. :)
Your "nearly" defeats your own argument. The difference in pollution versus not is proportional to the savings on your power. Multiply that by every household and it becomes a lot of savings.
And the mercury in CFLs is much less than the mercury spewed by the power plant.
And yes, I'd be fine with requiring electricity plants to capture and store all pollutants (including CO2) and repealing the efficiency standards. Let people pay the true cost for their electricity and they can decide how to waste it (or not).
Save up the CFLs in a plastic bag and return them to Ikea once a year, when you were going to drive there anyway. That's basically what I do with batteries, which I save up and take to work every few months where I can recycle them (as I can't at home).
brian0918 claimed that he didn't think "anyone" properly disposed of these bulbs. When someone makes a claim in the absolute, it only takes one anecdote to disprove it.
I don't think Congress has the power to regulate what sales tax individual municipalities choose to charge. States do, so this would take each state banning its own cities from charging sales tax. How would cities replace that revenue? Most cities can charge property tax, sales tax, and fees for some services. Property taxes and fees tend to be paid by businesses, so increasing them encourages businesses to move outside of the city.
What else do you suggest that doesn't involve A) transfer of revenue from incorporated to unincorporated areas, or B) vice versa?
Britain can impose a tariff on imported goods that haven't paid the VAT and solve this. It's Britain's fault if they signed a treaty that gave away their right to do so.
Rich people spend less of their income on sales tax, because they spend less of their income buying basic, taxable needs and more of it buying untaxed services, or just saving it. Poorer people spend more of their income on a flat-rate sales tax than rich people. Hence, it's regressive.
Why ban anything just because it's inefficient? If you want to ban it cause it's toxic, that's one thing, but if you want to ban it just because it is a waste of money, isn't that what market forces are for?
Because market forces ignore the tragedy of the commons, especially when it's abstracted away as increased pollution at a plant you can't see and distributed out as an extra few dollars a month on an electric bill.
My CFLs have long outlasted their budgeted lifetime, so I've taken your savings. And I properly recycled the one that failed and the one that broke in the past decade. Ikea has a drop-off point right in the front of the store.
Taxes are lower now than they have been in decades. If your argument were true, why hasn't this translated into a low unemployment rate?
Might the fact be that companies and rich individuals, who are reaping the benefits of the existing ultra-low rates, are simply not using their money to create jobs in the United States? That perhaps a sizable number of them are either sitting on cash or investing overseas?
The government spends every penny they take in. (I doubt you'll argue with that.) If that money is given to rich people, some of them will spend some of it here to create jobs. I'd rather see the government spending redirected to domestic programs that will build infrastructure, invest in the future, and create jobs here than give it to people who might or might not (but probably won't) use it to benefit their country at all.
And what function exactly are you proposing for the MBAs?
Would you like fries with that?
This is the budget submitted by Congress, which by the Constitution must originate in the House, which is run by Republicans. Parent mentions that the President's requests were different.
But listening to the recording by bouncing light off its surface and receiving the reflections is a lot like viewing the real Mona Lisa by bouncing ambient light off its surface and receiving the reflections in your eyeballs. It's your brain's fault that you can't see sound or smell colors or hear scents.