"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" *** But keep your damn programmers!
***engraved into the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty after the opening of Ellis Island
Concept A: H1-B people take jobs from Americans
While this is true, it is neither the fault of the H1-B foreigners who take the jobs nor the Americans who lose them. Most of the H1-B foreigners were educated an universities here in the US. Back at the beginning of the CS/IT boom, there weren't enough qualified people, so employers petitioned the government to expand visa programs so that they could hire the foreign students that were available in universities here. Once employees started leaving for start-ups employers realized that because of their visa restrictions, most H1-B employees would not or could not leave. So they petitioned Congress again to expand the program. They got what they wanted, and American workers are now paying the price.
Concept B: Outsourcing is taking jobs from Americans
While this is also true, did you expect something different? Corporations are there to make profits for their shareholders. If I tell a corporation that my company in India/China/Eastern Europe can complete the same work their in-house American IT department does for half the cost, no MBA-carrying CEO would ever turn me down. Even if I lied and it's only 2/3, that's reduced operating costs by millions or dollars, thus increasing the return for shareholders.
All of this happened decades ago in agriculture, 20-25 years ago in the textiles industry (remember the by clothes made in the USA campaigns??), 20 years to present in the manufacturing industries (auto, steel, toys, etc.), 5-10 years in semi-conductor and IC manufacturing, and 3-5 years in the call-center industry. Were you naive enough to think it wouldn't happen to us?
Concept C: Foreign workers are less-apt than Americans
This is pure ego run amuck! Since the 80's, every foreign country has been improving their educational systems (most of which are now better than ours), and churning out qualified computer scientists, electrical engineers, and computer engineers. It was only a matter of time before corporations sought to tap into that resource. Why hire a bunch of Americans from average underfunded party schools when you can hire better educated and cheaper foreigners from the best schools in India, China, Czech Republic, etc.? That's capitalism at its best.
I'm all for altruism and idealism, but the reality is that these decisions are driven by $$$, and nothing else. If we want to keep CS/IT jobs here in the USA, we need to create more value for less money. Otherwise, we WILL follow the same path as the industries I mentioned above.
This argument didn't work for auto, steel, textile, plastics, other manufacturing, and call center workers. What could possibly delude you into thinking it will work for technology workers?
The reality is that all of those industries moved away from the US because they couldn't continue to sell products made with US labor. The cost of the end product was more than their customers were willing to pay. Why by Borland's JBuilder (made mostly in N. America) for $2000, when IntelliJ IDEA (made in Czech Republic) costs $700 and works just as well?
Employers don't care about employing quality high-value workers, they care about employing people who will make sellable products. For some years in the technology sector, those two ideals have co-existed, but that's changing rapidly.
1) Most Indian developers are more educated than their counterparts in the US. Check the latest studies comparing US high schoolers to their counterparts. Indian kids spesk 3-5 languages by the time they are 12. They take calculus when they're 15 or 16. And often they have college degrees from the US or Europe. Those that stayed in India for college, went to elite technical colleges. How many MCSEs in the US can say that.
2) "Seasoned tech people" in the US? I've yet to work at a company in the US where there weren't terrible developers, or sysadmins I wouldn't trust with an toaster.
3) I've worked on projects with foreign developers. Yes, it's a challenge. Yes, there are communication issues. But if you put in the time to build a rapport, communicate designs effectively, and stay in touch, projects can run just as successfully as if they were sitting in your building. The fact is that is does take more time and effort than hollaring a change or idea over your cube wall to the co-worker you've known for years. You have to build that trust, and work out a system of communication. In my experience, developers and managers here in the US aren't willing to put in the time to do that, not their foreign counterparts.
Poor project management locally can be overcome more easily than poor project management remotely.
4) Foreign programmers are just as immersed in technology as US programmers. Look at how many Europeans, Candadians, Indians, Israelis, etc. are avid/. readers. Similar percentages are Linux users, OSS fans, etc. The only place the suffer is on equipment because PC hardware doesn't scale down in price as much as salaries do.
While in the Bay Area, I highly suggest visiting The Tech museum. It's got a great history of Silicon Valley as well as computer technology in general.
(because they have to basically do all the infrastructure for their POTS competitors)
Let's not forget the fact that all of the POTS infrastructure was built by government subsidies (i.e. our taxes) prior to the break up of the Baby Bells. Without those subsidies, the Bells would not have such extensive networks or infrastructures.
Rather that legislate that telcos have to share the networks that taxpayers built, we should reclaim the networks and make all of the service providers compete fairly. They each pay the same for use of the wire, and compete based on how well they provide services.
Some industries should not be privatised (electricty, gas, water, telephone, and, yes, broadband). In these cases it is better to place universal service and reliability above profit, and no company listed on any stock exchange would ever do that.
1) When we hear about criminal and civil cases against individuals or corporations for violations of copyright and IP statutes, a key element of proof is revenue/profit made by the defendent(s) because of those violations. What other forms of evidence are used when the defendent makes no profit from the infringement?
2) Trademarks are a common form of IP. Recently, the courts ruled that Victor's Secret was not in violation of trademark infringement because its similarity was ruled not significant enough to cause damage to Victoria's Secret. How does that decision impact the current interpretation of IP laws?
For probably a lot less than half a billion dollars they could hire Linus himself and probably have more than enough left over to hire Alan Cox, RMS, and pretty much whomever else they please.
Sure they could hire those folks, but would those folks pass an intensive background investigation, be trusted top secret clearances, be willing to never talk about what they work on, work for 'da man', and be restricted on how quickly they can incorporate the newest technologies? There are plenty of qualified people out in the world, but when you talk about agnecies that have access to secret information, a technology background is just the beginning of your qualifications.
First my own broadband horror story. When I first moved to Austin, I tried to get DSL through a non-baby-bell ISP. They said that the lines in my apartment building were insuffienct to provide service, as they were told that by SBC, the local Bell. Literally the next day, I got a call from SBC offering me DSL and stating that my line was qualified for it. I told them to stuff it and cancelled my phone line, too. I ordered a Cable modem from TimeWarner.
Then I bought a house and signed up for Sprint ION. Essentially a dry-line with data, VOIP, lots of speed and multiple phone lines. 3 weeks later Sprint pulled the plug on ION, mainly because it was so cumbersome to setup the service via local Bells, and it was probably underpriced at the time.
Next I tried to get DSL through Earthlink. They actually got the line setup within 30 days and sent me the equipment. They must have had a connection with SBC! Unfortunately, it never worked, despite many attempts and 3 different DSL modems.
Next, I tried SpeakEasy DSL. They found that SBC had published 3 differing distances for my house (which hasn't moved) to the LCO (which hasn't moved), 1500ft, 8000ft, and 15000ft. They also said regardless of the correct distance, they couldn't provide me service because SBC had a bridge-tap on my line. Basically, SBC was too cheap to use a copper pair for someone else's phone line and instead they multiplexed it into mine, killing any possibility of either party getting broadband.
I ended up getting a cable modem from Time Warner again.
Now, I live in Albuquerque. New town same story. No go on DSL in my apartment unless I get it through the local bell, Qwest, who won't let me run a server or anything else fun. I ended up with cable modem service through Comcast whose 100x faster than dial up service gets me around 200kb/s download and a paltry 30-40kb/s upload for a measley $40/month!
It's so completely frustrating!
The fundamental problem is that by deregulating, your change the priorities of the organization. As a government entity or regulated company, the #1 priority is reliable service for all. Take away the regulation and allow the company to be listed on public exchanges, and not the #1 priority is to satisfy the demands of shareholders...i.e. profit.
While most conservatives would say that reliability and profit can coexist, the reality is that reliability is possible for the most profitable customers or areas.
This is exemplified by small municipalities that struggled to get broadband service from the telecom conglomerates. They formed municipal entities to invest in the local infrastructure and built broadband networks. Most were able to provide quality service at an affordable price. Many were even able to provide high-quality service using FTTH (fiber to the home).
How did the telecom conglomerates respond, they sued the municipalities saying that a local service providers were anti-competitive?
The nationalization of infrastructure is nothing new. The nationalization of electricity, phone, and water utilities during the early 20th century enabled all Americans, not just those in profitable markets, to participate the industrial and commercial age.
The best way to ensure that all can participate in a Digital Age is by prioritizing fast, reliable broadband access for all. The de-regulated telecom conglomerates neither have done nor have a profitable business model to do this.
Slashdot Mirror
"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!" ***
But keep your damn programmers!
***engraved into the pedestal of the Statue of Liberty after the opening of Ellis Island
Concept A: H1-B people take jobs from Americans
While this is true, it is neither the fault of the H1-B foreigners who take the jobs nor the Americans who lose them. Most of the H1-B foreigners were educated an universities here in the US. Back at the beginning of the CS/IT boom, there weren't enough qualified people, so employers petitioned the government to expand visa programs so that they could hire the foreign students that were available in universities here. Once employees started leaving for start-ups employers realized that because of their visa restrictions, most H1-B employees would not or could not leave. So they petitioned Congress again to expand the program. They got what they wanted, and American workers are now paying the price.
Concept B: Outsourcing is taking jobs from Americans
While this is also true, did you expect something different? Corporations are there to make profits for their shareholders. If I tell a corporation that my company in India/China/Eastern Europe can complete the same work their in-house American IT department does for half the cost, no MBA-carrying CEO would ever turn me down. Even if I lied and it's only 2/3, that's reduced operating costs by millions or dollars, thus increasing the return for shareholders.
All of this happened decades ago in agriculture, 20-25 years ago in the textiles industry (remember the by clothes made in the USA campaigns??), 20 years to present in the manufacturing industries (auto, steel, toys, etc.), 5-10 years in semi-conductor and IC manufacturing, and 3-5 years in the call-center industry. Were you naive enough to think it wouldn't happen to us?
Concept C: Foreign workers are less-apt than Americans
This is pure ego run amuck! Since the 80's, every foreign country has been improving their educational systems (most of which are now better than ours), and churning out qualified computer scientists, electrical engineers, and computer engineers. It was only a matter of time before corporations sought to tap into that resource. Why hire a bunch of Americans from average underfunded party schools when you can hire better educated and cheaper foreigners from the best schools in India, China, Czech Republic, etc.? That's capitalism at its best.
I'm all for altruism and idealism, but the reality is that these decisions are driven by $$$, and nothing else. If we want to keep CS/IT jobs here in the USA, we need to create more value for less money. Otherwise, we WILL follow the same path as the industries I mentioned above.
http://www.cmpco.com/about/system/blackout.html
This argument didn't work for auto, steel, textile, plastics, other manufacturing, and call center workers. What could possibly delude you into thinking it will work for technology workers?
The reality is that all of those industries moved away from the US because they couldn't continue to sell products made with US labor. The cost of the end product was more than their customers were willing to pay. Why by Borland's JBuilder (made mostly in N. America) for $2000, when IntelliJ IDEA (made in Czech Republic) costs $700 and works just as well?
Employers don't care about employing quality high-value workers, they care about employing people who will make sellable products. For some years in the technology sector, those two ideals have co-existed, but that's changing rapidly.
*cough* Bullshit *cough*
/. readers. Similar percentages are Linux users, OSS fans, etc. The only place the suffer is on equipment because PC hardware doesn't scale down in price as much as salaries do.
1) Most Indian developers are more educated than their counterparts in the US. Check the latest studies comparing US high schoolers to their counterparts. Indian kids spesk 3-5 languages by the time they are 12. They take calculus when they're 15 or 16. And often they have college degrees from the US or Europe. Those that stayed in India for college, went to elite technical colleges. How many MCSEs in the US can say that.
2) "Seasoned tech people" in the US? I've yet to work at a company in the US where there weren't terrible developers, or sysadmins I wouldn't trust with an toaster.
3) I've worked on projects with foreign developers. Yes, it's a challenge. Yes, there are communication issues. But if you put in the time to build a rapport, communicate designs effectively, and stay in touch, projects can run just as successfully as if they were sitting in your building. The fact is that is does take more time and effort than hollaring a change or idea over your cube wall to the co-worker you've known for years. You have to build that trust, and work out a system of communication. In my experience, developers and managers here in the US aren't willing to put in the time to do that, not their foreign counterparts.
Poor project management locally can be overcome more easily than poor project management remotely.
4) Foreign programmers are just as immersed in technology as US programmers. Look at how many Europeans, Candadians, Indians, Israelis, etc. are avid
While in the Bay Area, I highly suggest visiting The Tech museum. It's got a great history of Silicon Valley as well as computer technology in general.
Let's not forget the fact that all of the POTS infrastructure was built by government subsidies (i.e. our taxes) prior to the break up of the Baby Bells. Without those subsidies, the Bells would not have such extensive networks or infrastructures.
Rather that legislate that telcos have to share the networks that taxpayers built, we should reclaim the networks and make all of the service providers compete fairly. They each pay the same for use of the wire, and compete based on how well they provide services.
Some industries should not be privatised (electricty, gas, water, telephone, and, yes, broadband). In these cases it is better to place universal service and reliability above profit, and no company listed on any stock exchange would ever do that.
1) When we hear about criminal and civil cases against individuals or corporations for violations of copyright and IP statutes, a key element of proof is revenue/profit made by the defendent(s) because of those violations. What other forms of evidence are used when the defendent makes no profit from the infringement?
2) Trademarks are a common form of IP. Recently, the courts ruled that Victor's Secret was not in violation of trademark infringement because its similarity was ruled not significant enough to cause damage to Victoria's Secret. How does that decision impact the current interpretation of IP laws?
Sure they could hire those folks, but would those folks pass an intensive background investigation, be trusted top secret clearances, be willing to never talk about what they work on, work for 'da man', and be restricted on how quickly they can incorporate the newest technologies? There are plenty of qualified people out in the world, but when you talk about agnecies that have access to secret information, a technology background is just the beginning of your qualifications.
First my own broadband horror story. When I first moved to Austin, I tried to get DSL through a non-baby-bell ISP. They said that the lines in my apartment building were insuffienct to provide service, as they were told that by SBC, the local Bell. Literally the next day, I got a call from SBC offering me DSL and stating that my line was qualified for it. I told them to stuff it and cancelled my phone line, too. I ordered a Cable modem from TimeWarner.
Then I bought a house and signed up for Sprint ION. Essentially a dry-line with data, VOIP, lots of speed and multiple phone lines. 3 weeks later Sprint pulled the plug on ION, mainly because it was so cumbersome to setup the service via local Bells, and it was probably underpriced at the time.
Next I tried to get DSL through Earthlink. They actually got the line setup within 30 days and sent me the equipment. They must have had a connection with SBC! Unfortunately, it never worked, despite many attempts and 3 different DSL modems.
Next, I tried SpeakEasy DSL. They found that SBC had published 3 differing distances for my house (which hasn't moved) to the LCO (which hasn't moved), 1500ft, 8000ft, and 15000ft. They also said regardless of the correct distance, they couldn't provide me service because SBC had a bridge-tap on my line. Basically, SBC was too cheap to use a copper pair for someone else's phone line and instead they multiplexed it into mine, killing any possibility of either party getting broadband.
I ended up getting a cable modem from Time Warner again.
Now, I live in Albuquerque. New town same story. No go on DSL in my apartment unless I get it through the local bell, Qwest, who won't let me run a server or anything else fun. I ended up with cable modem service through Comcast whose 100x faster than dial up service gets me around 200kb/s download and a paltry 30-40kb/s upload for a measley $40/month!
It's so completely frustrating!
The fundamental problem is that by deregulating, your change the priorities of the organization. As a government entity or regulated company, the #1 priority is reliable service for all. Take away the regulation and allow the company to be listed on public exchanges, and not the #1 priority is to satisfy the demands of shareholders...i.e. profit.
While most conservatives would say that reliability and profit can coexist, the reality is that reliability is possible for the most profitable customers or areas.
This is exemplified by small municipalities that struggled to get broadband service from the telecom conglomerates. They formed municipal entities to invest in the local infrastructure and built broadband networks. Most were able to provide quality service at an affordable price. Many were even able to provide high-quality service using FTTH (fiber to the home).
How did the telecom conglomerates respond, they sued the municipalities saying that a local service providers were anti-competitive?
The nationalization of infrastructure is nothing new. The nationalization of electricity, phone, and water utilities during the early 20th century enabled all Americans, not just those in profitable markets, to participate the industrial and commercial age.
The best way to ensure that all can participate in a Digital Age is by prioritizing fast, reliable broadband access for all. The de-regulated telecom conglomerates neither have done nor have a profitable business model to do this.