Only if you broadly define welfare to include things that are not welfare and you make the system such that there is a a large disadvantage to improving yourself, such is the case in many programs.
Have you thought that the teenagers you are talking about do that because they have little to no money and cannot find good work?
I think you may be the idiot here. The idea is that you make a min salary, lets use your 40k (although it is high, lets go with it), then the company pays you a reasonable salary for your job, but it is less than you would make now doing that job, lets say 15k for your scrubbing toilets. So now you can get paid 40k for sitting on your ass, or you can make 55K to scrub toilets, only 15k of it comes from the company... However the GPs comment was about necessary jobs, I am not sure scrubbing toilets counts in that.
under the conditions of an H1-B? or under the conditions of infosys you stated? From my understanding once the employee leaves infosys for another company then infosys does not have control anymore. the expense is a very small portion of the person's salary, so really that just means some extra paperwork.
I assume you mean Resession, not Depression. Also even if it were at 25% that would still not equate to 100m workers, so that still does not make sense...
you realize there is only about 167m Americans of working age right? You mean that the unemployment rate is at 60%? Out of 318m people, 47.4% are not of the working age. http://quickfacts.census.gov/q...
There is a fundamental difference. Offsoring requires you to either give up control of hte workers, via third party companies, or build an office in the country. In addition importing labor allows you to continue to use the infrastructure in the host country, which may not be good in the other country.
these workers are completely at the whim of the company because once the company is done with them they can't seek another job they must return home. That lets them abuse the crap out of them and if they complain they get sent home and someone else is brought in to take their place.
That is incorrect. If the management thinks that they probably have not researched it properly. Once here on their H1-b can moe to any company willing to take over the H1-B.
It matters a lot. For example what is the price that MS gave on office for that city, did they give it to them for free now to do so? Then that would matter greatly.
Except there is no evidence that they are "so awesome that hiring them is better than hiring a local. Cost does not make the employee better at his job.
That does not answer my questions at all. That does not define the American worker as entry level, and it does not mean the foriegner is entry level either. It also does not mean the job was entry level, just that it was claimed to be.
being required to own a business license does not stop the market from being free, just like being required to be a citizen does not stop the market from being free. the market is the US when we talk about the US job market, so therefore requiring that you are legally allowed to be here does not impose any restriction on the market itself.
That does not really counter my argument. If you want cheaper jobs then move the jobs overseas, dont try and keep the jobs in the US and import cheaper workers.
Where do you get that the 2001 job was entry level? It seems you are just pulling that out of your, well you know. Also how do you figure that an entry level of h1-b is an entry level programmer? He could be a programmer with 10 years of experience, coming to the US to take the job of a 10 years of experience citizen, because he is willing to take less money.
No, that is not free market labor. Free market labor is anyone who can get a job offer in an area they are allowed to be in can take the job. it is what we have now, minus the h1-b program.
Ahh calling a fallacy at the same time as committing a fallacy, always entertaining. There is no "protectionism" involved. if the company wants to give the foriegner a job, then give it to them, in their home country. If tech has destroyed millions of jobs in the USA, then you dont need to come here to take it. The problem is it has not destroyed the jobs you are talking about, it is that the company wants a cheap source of labor, cheaper then it is valued at in the USA, but they dont want to give up the benefits of the USA job market, and what it has paid into the system, which is what caused the job to be valued at that rate in the first place.
Slashdot Mirror
Except you are not removing motivation. Motivation for working is not just making rent and putting food on the table.
I dont think the amount of rent/mortgage would make someones life cushy..
Where is the evidence that this would happen?
Only if you broadly define welfare to include things that are not welfare and you make the system such that there is a a large disadvantage to improving yourself, such is the case in many programs.
Have you thought that the teenagers you are talking about do that because they have little to no money and cannot find good work?
you realize the middle class was larger when there was higher taxes on the upper class and corps?
And you do realize there are a lot of reasons why someone may not be able to, right?
the finnish Unemployment rate isnt quite 75% and no it would not be with this.
most people care about it,because most people do not realize it only affects the .1%, they think it applies to them.
I think you may be the idiot here. The idea is that you make a min salary, lets use your 40k (although it is high, lets go with it), then the company pays you a reasonable salary for your job, but it is less than you would make now doing that job, lets say 15k for your scrubbing toilets. So now you can get paid 40k for sitting on your ass, or you can make 55K to scrub toilets, only 15k of it comes from the company... However the GPs comment was about necessary jobs, I am not sure scrubbing toilets counts in that.
Where did you get your number for kids and 65+? According to the link I provided they are ~about 50% of the population, not 30% of the population.
under the conditions of an H1-B? or under the conditions of infosys you stated? From my understanding once the employee leaves infosys for another company then infosys does not have control anymore. the expense is a very small portion of the person's salary, so really that just means some extra paperwork.
I assume you mean Resession, not Depression. Also even if it were at 25% that would still not equate to 100m workers, so that still does not make sense...
you realize there is only about 167m Americans of working age right? You mean that the unemployment rate is at 60%? Out of 318m people, 47.4% are not of the working age. http://quickfacts.census.gov/q...
There is a fundamental difference. Offsoring requires you to either give up control of hte workers, via third party companies, or build an office in the country. In addition importing labor allows you to continue to use the infrastructure in the host country, which may not be good in the other country.
these workers are completely at the whim of the company because once the company is done with them they can't seek another job they must return home. That lets them abuse the crap out of them and if they complain they get sent home and someone else is brought in to take their place.
That is incorrect. If the management thinks that they probably have not researched it properly. Once here on their H1-b can moe to any company willing to take over the H1-B.
It matters a lot. For example what is the price that MS gave on office for that city, did they give it to them for free now to do so? Then that would matter greatly.
Except there is no evidence that they are "so awesome that hiring them is better than hiring a local. Cost does not make the employee better at his job.
That does not answer my questions at all. That does not define the American worker as entry level, and it does not mean the foriegner is entry level either. It also does not mean the job was entry level, just that it was claimed to be.
No, you are changing the scope of the market to fit your needs.
being required to own a business license does not stop the market from being free, just like being required to be a citizen does not stop the market from being free. the market is the US when we talk about the US job market, so therefore requiring that you are legally allowed to be here does not impose any restriction on the market itself.
That does not really counter my argument. If you want cheaper jobs then move the jobs overseas, dont try and keep the jobs in the US and import cheaper workers.
I am not saying you cant leave, that was the other poster, I was just pointing out that your statement was factually incorrect.
Where do you get that the 2001 job was entry level? It seems you are just pulling that out of your, well you know. Also how do you figure that an entry level of h1-b is an entry level programmer? He could be a programmer with 10 years of experience, coming to the US to take the job of a 10 years of experience citizen, because he is willing to take less money.
No, that is not free market labor. Free market labor is anyone who can get a job offer in an area they are allowed to be in can take the job. it is what we have now, minus the h1-b program.
Ahh calling a fallacy at the same time as committing a fallacy, always entertaining. There is no "protectionism" involved. if the company wants to give the foriegner a job, then give it to them, in their home country. If tech has destroyed millions of jobs in the USA, then you dont need to come here to take it. The problem is it has not destroyed the jobs you are talking about, it is that the company wants a cheap source of labor, cheaper then it is valued at in the USA, but they dont want to give up the benefits of the USA job market, and what it has paid into the system, which is what caused the job to be valued at that rate in the first place.