I sincerely hope that the anti-H1B folks don't hate you, the person who left their friends and family to come work in the US for far more than you could make in their home country. You did what you could to earn as much money as you can for yourself and your loved ones. Fair enough, I don't begrudge anyone doing that.
But what there is is evidence that many companies that hire a lot of resident aliens do so because those non-citizens have fewer legal rights than their citizen coworkers. For example, if an American worker is underpaid or mistreated they can easily hunt for a new job and leave the company. By contrast, when an H1B recipient is underpaid or mistreated, if they try to do something about it they risk being deported. The perfect employee for many companies accepts whatever wage the company feels like paying them, accepts any demands the company makes of them, and has no option to leave this arrangement, so it's no surprise that these companies prefer the H1B recipient (who can't leave without serious consequences) to the American (who can leave at any time).
In addition, there were recent legal changes that meant that companies who were looking to hire people no longer had to offer the same opportunity to Americans before trying to get H1B applicants. The effect of this is that there are, right now, open jobs for non-citizens only. That will create resentment among unemployed Americans who would take those jobs if they were available. There also have been cases of companies (illegally) firing entire departments and replacing them with lower-paid H1B recipients.
The workers shouldn't the target of the hatred. The companies who exploit those workers should be.
Seriously, thank Al Gore. All the techies are very clear that he was the geeky guy in government who made sure that they had the funding and support they needed to create the Internet.
As someone who voted for her, in what was considered a critical swing state no less, I consider it pretty close to a complete victory: 1. The Republican jackass lost. 2. I didn't have to vote for the Democratic jackass who beat him. 3. My vote was among many others that suggested that the Democrats had something to lose if they continued their current trend of embracing Reagan-style conservatism.
I'd call him that. Here's how Bain Capital typically made money: 1. Buy a controlling interest in a business that's going through a rough patch. 2. Break that business's contracts with employees (including pensions) and suppliers. 3. Use the extra cash from step 2, and borrow whatever else you need (in the name of the business, not Bain) to pay back Bain their entire investment in the company and then some. 4. When the business goes bankrupt, lenders and employees have to take the loss, while Bain already made its investment back.
In other words, he legally stole millions of dollars from ordinary people and other investors. And his skill at doing that was Mitt Romney's key reason why he thought he was qualified to be president of the United States.
In Ohio, there was a voter ID amendment passed 2 years ago, so I showed my driver's license to identify myself. I observed someone who had moved and not yet registered in her new residence have to vote provisionally.
OH - Cleveland suburb: Went fine, filled out a paper optical scan ballot (good work, former Sec of State Brunner!), and the only guy actually politicking at my polling place was doing so for a county judge that happened to be a friend of his.
Who are we more worried about, the people who want to pay us for votes, or the people who count the votes?
The people who count the votes are watched carefully by representatives of both major parties and sometimes by minor party candidates, looking for signs of errors or cheating. By contrast, the people who want to pay us for votes are harder to keep track of.
The way I voted earlier today, in the mother of all swing states (Ohio): 1. Verify who I am and sign for a paper ballot. The ballot has a number on it corresponding to me. 2. In the booth, fill in the bubbles on the paper ballot. 3. Give ballot stubs to a poll worker, so there's no matching the ballot number with the votes themselves. 4. Send the paper ballot into a machine that reads my bubbles and tallies the votes. That machine sits on top of a sealed container where all the ballots go.
The idea is: The machine provides a quick count. If there's any kind of question whatsoever about the machine count, then election officials can (in full view of everyone) open the box and either run the ballots through a machine again or count everything by hand. There's no juggling of receipts or anything else: The ballot is the ballot, with my duly recorded vote.
Incidentally, this system is in place for most of Ohio. Fears of Romney stealing the election through electronic voting machines are thoroughly misplaced.
How about that one that says that I can't shoot you just for the heck of it? How about the one that says that I can't smash the window of your house, go in and grab your stereo and laptop, and leave?
I mean, if "every" law is corruption, then you have to be prepared to back that up and explain what you have to offer that might be better.
If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.
That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.
Not as much as, say, a legislator or mayor, but judges definitely are part of the political process. For example, right now, judges in the Bronx are heavily involved in the stop-and-frisk policy debate, mostly because they've been throwing out bogus "trespassing" charges caused by the police randomly harassing people in the hallways of public housing projects.
Good judges see their role as the umpire calling balls and strikes, but like umpires the size of the strike zone varies a bit: Some are more friendly to prosecutors / plaintiffs, some more friendly to defendants. Some are more concerned about taking the time to ensure fairness, some are more concerned with not wasting the court's valuable time with trivialities. Some will be faced with completely unprecedented sets of facts where there isn't good guidance from the legislature or legal precedent, and under those circumstances only have their own opinions and sense of fairness to draw on. Some will be more strict about when they should recuse themselves than others.
How do you know that judges aren't doing useful things like throwing out bad evidence and bad cases? How do you know that the incumbent isn't leading the charge against bad laws?
The "throw them all out" idea is incorrect because it fails to reward good public officials, thus providing no incentive for a public official to do the job well.
Things to check: - Your local bar associations often provide ratings of who they think is good. - Your local papers will probably have endorsements and explain why. - Any organizations you support may have voting guides. - Of course, if you've had any dealings with the court system in question, you can use your own experience to decide on incumbents at least. For example, I could intelligently vote on 1 of the judges running this year because I'd been in her courtroom as a juror.
Oh, come on, what are they worried about? Next thing you know, you're going to be telling us that the guy who organized terrorist attacks on the US had gotten CIA training and funding, or that the guy who the US decided was evil incarnate in 2003 only had gotten his hands on WMDs through the largess of the Reagan administration. I mean, that's just crazy talk.
Then the value of the union to you is that if you have a legitimate complaint with management, you have an organization with all of your coworkers to back you up.
I highly highly doubt that. - Do you know a language that nobody else can read? - Do you work in a shop with no other developers? - Do you not belong to any professional organizations that include people with similar skills or backgrounds? You're probably good at what you do. You might even be very good. But I doubt that if you got hit by a bus, your employer / clients would not be able to find somebody to do what you do.
There are approximately 1 million developers in the US, making about $90K on average a year. That means that if every developer in the country (completely implausibly) donated their entire earnings to that PAC, it would have $90 billion annually. The US CoC represents, among other things, the Fortune 500, who earned a total profit of $824.5 billion annually.
That means that if your developer PAC ever went up against the CoC, they'd lose. Every single time.
Or, for that matter, the professional athletes' unions. It's all in what the union membership and organizers decide is important.
For instance, if I were in an IT pro's union, here would be the kind of things I'd want the union bargaining for: - No requirements of overtime (beyond 45-hour work weeks). If the developer chooses to accept overtime work, they get 1.5 * hourly rate. - Bonus of 2*hourly rate for on-call work or other responsibilities outside of the normal work day.
Notice that neither of these preclude the top performer's salary from being much higher than mine. What it does, though, is provide financial incentives to hire more developers rather than overwork existing developers.
Unions are for supporting interchangeable employees. Developers have very specific skill sets.
Not as much as you'd think. The simple reason: Think about how long it's taken you to go from "completely new with the organization" to "productive employee". Realize that most developers are capable of doing the same thing. That's how interchangeable you are. Sorry, I know that's not what you'd like to hear, but it's absolutely the truth.
Slashdot Mirror
I sincerely hope that the anti-H1B folks don't hate you, the person who left their friends and family to come work in the US for far more than you could make in their home country. You did what you could to earn as much money as you can for yourself and your loved ones. Fair enough, I don't begrudge anyone doing that.
But what there is is evidence that many companies that hire a lot of resident aliens do so because those non-citizens have fewer legal rights than their citizen coworkers. For example, if an American worker is underpaid or mistreated they can easily hunt for a new job and leave the company. By contrast, when an H1B recipient is underpaid or mistreated, if they try to do something about it they risk being deported. The perfect employee for many companies accepts whatever wage the company feels like paying them, accepts any demands the company makes of them, and has no option to leave this arrangement, so it's no surprise that these companies prefer the H1B recipient (who can't leave without serious consequences) to the American (who can leave at any time).
In addition, there were recent legal changes that meant that companies who were looking to hire people no longer had to offer the same opportunity to Americans before trying to get H1B applicants. The effect of this is that there are, right now, open jobs for non-citizens only. That will create resentment among unemployed Americans who would take those jobs if they were available. There also have been cases of companies (illegally) firing entire departments and replacing them with lower-paid H1B recipients.
The workers shouldn't the target of the hatred. The companies who exploit those workers should be.
Seriously, thank Al Gore. All the techies are very clear that he was the geeky guy in government who made sure that they had the funding and support they needed to create the Internet.
As someone who voted for her, in what was considered a critical swing state no less, I consider it pretty close to a complete victory:
1. The Republican jackass lost.
2. I didn't have to vote for the Democratic jackass who beat him.
3. My vote was among many others that suggested that the Democrats had something to lose if they continued their current trend of embracing Reagan-style conservatism.
I'm not even calling him an evil corporate CEO
I'd call him that. Here's how Bain Capital typically made money:
1. Buy a controlling interest in a business that's going through a rough patch.
2. Break that business's contracts with employees (including pensions) and suppliers.
3. Use the extra cash from step 2, and borrow whatever else you need (in the name of the business, not Bain) to pay back Bain their entire investment in the company and then some.
4. When the business goes bankrupt, lenders and employees have to take the loss, while Bain already made its investment back.
In other words, he legally stole millions of dollars from ordinary people and other investors. And his skill at doing that was Mitt Romney's key reason why he thought he was qualified to be president of the United States.
In Ohio, there was a voter ID amendment passed 2 years ago, so I showed my driver's license to identify myself. I observed someone who had moved and not yet registered in her new residence have to vote provisionally.
How's the weather in Chicago?
OH - Cleveland suburb: Went fine, filled out a paper optical scan ballot (good work, former Sec of State Brunner!), and the only guy actually politicking at my polling place was doing so for a county judge that happened to be a friend of his.
Did you do any business of any kind this Saturday, including shopping or housework? If so, I'm afraid we're going to have to stone you to death.
Who are we more worried about, the people who want to pay us for votes, or the people who count the votes?
The people who count the votes are watched carefully by representatives of both major parties and sometimes by minor party candidates, looking for signs of errors or cheating. By contrast, the people who want to pay us for votes are harder to keep track of.
The way I voted earlier today, in the mother of all swing states (Ohio):
1. Verify who I am and sign for a paper ballot. The ballot has a number on it corresponding to me.
2. In the booth, fill in the bubbles on the paper ballot.
3. Give ballot stubs to a poll worker, so there's no matching the ballot number with the votes themselves.
4. Send the paper ballot into a machine that reads my bubbles and tallies the votes. That machine sits on top of a sealed container where all the ballots go.
The idea is: The machine provides a quick count. If there's any kind of question whatsoever about the machine count, then election officials can (in full view of everyone) open the box and either run the ballots through a machine again or count everything by hand. There's no juggling of receipts or anything else: The ballot is the ballot, with my duly recorded vote.
Incidentally, this system is in place for most of Ohio. Fears of Romney stealing the election through electronic voting machines are thoroughly misplaced.
AFAIC every law is corruption.
How about that one that says that I can't shoot you just for the heck of it? How about the one that says that I can't smash the window of your house, go in and grab your stereo and laptop, and leave?
I mean, if "every" law is corruption, then you have to be prepared to back that up and explain what you have to offer that might be better.
If you can prove how you voted, to anybody, you can demonstrate to some interested third party that you voted the way they wanted you to. Which means you could sell your vote, or be coerced into voting a certain way.
That's also why any voting proposals that involve a receipt showing that your vote for Smith rather than Jones are a bad idea, as are any proposals involving a way to look up your own vote online after the election.
Not as much as, say, a legislator or mayor, but judges definitely are part of the political process. For example, right now, judges in the Bronx are heavily involved in the stop-and-frisk policy debate, mostly because they've been throwing out bogus "trespassing" charges caused by the police randomly harassing people in the hallways of public housing projects.
Good judges see their role as the umpire calling balls and strikes, but like umpires the size of the strike zone varies a bit: Some are more friendly to prosecutors / plaintiffs, some more friendly to defendants. Some are more concerned about taking the time to ensure fairness, some are more concerned with not wasting the court's valuable time with trivialities. Some will be faced with completely unprecedented sets of facts where there isn't good guidance from the legislature or legal precedent, and under those circumstances only have their own opinions and sense of fairness to draw on. Some will be more strict about when they should recuse themselves than others.
Saddam never got any weapons from Reagan.
Yes he did. The Reagan administration was in fact supplying both sides of the Iran-Iraq War in the hopes that they'd basically destroy each other.
How do you know that judges aren't doing useful things like throwing out bad evidence and bad cases? How do you know that the incumbent isn't leading the charge against bad laws?
The "throw them all out" idea is incorrect because it fails to reward good public officials, thus providing no incentive for a public official to do the job well.
Things to check:
- Your local bar associations often provide ratings of who they think is good.
- Your local papers will probably have endorsements and explain why.
- Any organizations you support may have voting guides.
- Of course, if you've had any dealings with the court system in question, you can use your own experience to decide on incumbents at least. For example, I could intelligently vote on 1 of the judges running this year because I'd been in her courtroom as a juror.
Oh, come on, what are they worried about? Next thing you know, you're going to be telling us that the guy who organized terrorist attacks on the US had gotten CIA training and funding, or that the guy who the US decided was evil incarnate in 2003 only had gotten his hands on WMDs through the largess of the Reagan administration. I mean, that's just crazy talk.
Then the value of the union to you is that if you have a legitimate complaint with management, you have an organization with all of your coworkers to back you up.
I have a monopoly on my skillset
I highly highly doubt that.
- Do you know a language that nobody else can read?
- Do you work in a shop with no other developers?
- Do you not belong to any professional organizations that include people with similar skills or backgrounds?
You're probably good at what you do. You might even be very good. But I doubt that if you got hit by a bus, your employer / clients would not be able to find somebody to do what you do.
There are approximately 1 million developers in the US, making about $90K on average a year. That means that if every developer in the country (completely implausibly) donated their entire earnings to that PAC, it would have $90 billion annually. The US CoC represents, among other things, the Fortune 500, who earned a total profit of $824.5 billion annually.
That means that if your developer PAC ever went up against the CoC, they'd lose. Every single time.
Or, for that matter, the professional athletes' unions. It's all in what the union membership and organizers decide is important.
For instance, if I were in an IT pro's union, here would be the kind of things I'd want the union bargaining for:
- No requirements of overtime (beyond 45-hour work weeks). If the developer chooses to accept overtime work, they get 1.5 * hourly rate.
- Bonus of 2*hourly rate for on-call work or other responsibilities outside of the normal work day.
Notice that neither of these preclude the top performer's salary from being much higher than mine. What it does, though, is provide financial incentives to hire more developers rather than overwork existing developers.
And the guy who doesn't want to retire, ever.
Unions are for supporting interchangeable employees. Developers have very specific skill sets.
Not as much as you'd think. The simple reason: Think about how long it's taken you to go from "completely new with the organization" to "productive employee". Realize that most developers are capable of doing the same thing. That's how interchangeable you are. Sorry, I know that's not what you'd like to hear, but it's absolutely the truth.
My point is that even people who dislike Obama don't think he's an idiot.
Why would you want a Union?
Because unionized workers make, on average, about 15% more than non-unionized workers in the same industry.