How does someone's education before joining Microsoft affect Bill's bottom line?
An American with student loans averaging $40,000 will require a higher salary to pay back those student loans than an India Institute of Technology graduate with similar skills on paper who only has $4000 in student loans.
Basic economics- same thing that is driving offshoring- the manufacturer with the lowest cost gets the contract. In the "industry" of human resources, most of that cost is the education.
And of course, you would creep "regardless of skill" in there somehow, wouldn't you?
Creep? Washtech is full of people used up by Microsoft and spit out without any attempt at considering the employee's skill. It's a money game, pure and simple.
By the way, if you actually read what Gates said, you'd see that he's pushing for two things A) more H1B's, and B) bigger investments in education. He's not against improving education locally, in fact, he's actively for it. But he also understands that this is America, founded by immigrants, and that talented individuals around the world should have the opportunity to work at American companies and share in the dream that our immigrant forefathers had.
H-1bs aren't immigrants. In fact, the H-1b is SPECIFICALLY a non-immigrant visa, and holders are supposed to be (but aren't in practice) ineligible for green cards. If it was about immigrants, well, that would change things somewhat, as an immigrant would have to build a life here- including a higher level of investment for retirement.
However, a second part is this- I'm sick and tired of the "creative destruction" of globalism. It doesn't really matter to me if it's software engineers in the United States, or farmers in Mexico and India committing suicide: Free trade is a bad deal for everybody except for the traitors. It's time we gave people a CAREER that they can COUNT ON, not layoffs every two years because of competition from overseas. That alone will change the education demographic- because that's the true American dream, being able to give your kids a better standard of living than you had. Right now, high tech jobs are a WORSE standard of living than our parents- and the non-immigrant visas are a big reason for that.
I am sorry that my response was so abrupt. This whole discussion is depressing in that it is filled with people who are either racist and believe that only Americans should have jobs, or completely ignorant of economics (or both). I should have guessed that with a handle like Marxist Hacker 42 that you would be something else entirely. I don't share your views, but I can understand how you might have come by them. I do find it interesting that on the one hand you are concerned about people that lost their livelihood with the Internet Bubble crash and yet somehow you aren't concerned about the much larger economic fallout that would almost certainly follow the erection of trade barriers with the rest of the world.
I am concerned- but I consider the OUTCOME of that fallout (the equalization of economies) to be a neccessary precursor for the respect of local customs and a successful, non hierarchial, global economy. And without a non-hierarchial global economy, all we're doing is making an underclass of first world citizens without work, an overclass of first world citizens who own everything, and everybody else stuck in dead end jobs since they can't immigrate to get into upper management.
The real problem in most third world countries is corruption. People can't get ahead because corrupt officials guarantee that any profit that gets made on a business ends up in their pockets.
You'd think that in Peru, a country where the Spainish took 3 decades to conquor the Inca just due to the terrain (learned that on the History Channel), it'd be easy to set up small, out of the way local economies not governed by the central government.
Consequently investors aren't willing to put the kind of capital into the system that is needed to really create good jobs and lasting wealth. In countries where this is addressed (like Chile) the economy can grow at a tremendous pace. Trade barriers would do nothing to fix the problem with corruption in the third world, and worse it would cripple the economies of countries that are currently on the right track. The best way to raise the standard of living of countries around the world is to make these countries safe for investment. People (including foreigners) invest in the U.S. (and the rest of the first world) because it is much safer than their local markets. If that wasn't the case then the imbalance between the first and third worlds would disappear rather quickly.
Actually, trade (and visitor/immigration) barriers would quickly fix the corruption the old fashioned way- by REVOLUTION. If NO foreign investment was allowed, people would have no choice other than to invest in their local markets; and if the government was insufficiently clean to do so, a revolution would happen first to make it so. After all, where would the despot get guns if he couldn't import them from first world markets?
But what I find really interesting is that you think the first world isn't corrupt- where by my standards the involvement of corporations in our politics is EXTREMELY corrupt, to the point of the United States no longer actually being a democratic republic. Every representative up for election is already bought and paid for by a conglomerate of the international corporations thanks to the campaign contributions by the rich.
But for the few years where the United States wasn't corrupt (ok, for the CENTURY when we were a bit less corrupt, but hey, we had legal slavery back then) we got there only by revolution- only by stealing control from the King of England, and making royal corportions illegal, and ending the peerage system.
I see NO reason why any of it can't be done in the third world; save one small thing: Interferance in third world governments to keep the status quo. If you end that interferance, which in the United States is primarily the export of weapons and food, and you block the foreign investment into the United States, it'll be just like putting a lava lamp on the stove- eventually it will explode,
There is no suggestion of subsidy simply because the government provides formal recognition of the legal corporate entity for the purposes of adjudicating disputes.
That is a subsidy. It's a waste of taxpayer money when a simple duel of honor between the disputing CEOs would settle the matter nicely.
This is a necessary and proper function of government (there are some after all) in that paperwork is required to properly conduct the affairs of the judicial branch of government.
In a truly free market by libertarian standards, you're not supposed to NEED a judicial branch of government- the free market takes care of disputes on it's own.
There is nothing wrong with the government collecting taxes to fund the legitimate functions of government, which minimal though they may be, are necessary to ensure the coercion is not employed to beat, literally sometimes, the market into submission (i.e. the strong taking what they want and when they want from the weak without recourse).
Ah, but that is the true function of capitalism- without that you don't have a free market.
You can't have it both ways- either the government allows incorporation for the good of society and ACTIVELY destroys corporations that don't follow the rules, or you have a free market where the corporations (the strong) can take what they want from consumers (the weak). Or rather, you can have it both ways- but the result is that the corporations take over the government with "campaign contributions" (in a democracy) or outright bribery (in other forms of government) and you end up with a free market anyway but this time the corporations control the military.
H1-Bs are not awarded to rank-and-file IT staff. It makes no economic sense for the employer, either.
And yet, I can point to MANY examples of the body shops doing exactly that, including one that was prosecuted for it (ok, really they were prosecuted for check marking the "this business is not H-1b dependant" on their LCAs despite 80% of their for-hire network engineers being H-1bs, but it amounts to the same thing). It makes economic sense when the home grown IT Network Engineers want $77,000/year for an A+ certification, and the H-1bs are willing to accept $48,000/year.
Help desks may be outsourced. Not network engineers.
Yes and no- quite a bit of what a network engineer does can be done over remote desktop software.
Marx's big error to me was that he took things in too big of bites. Communism works best when linked with tribalism and small villages. In other words, situations where you can hunt down and kill the committee that took away your tractor.
I'm not trying to beat you down with a burst of self-righteousness here. I just think that stockholders wield a bit more power, and have access to more information, than you give them credit for.
I agree with your burst of self-righteousness- but disagree with your second point. I think most corporations try to block the shareholders from having this level of power and information- and that's the reason I'm against incorporation in general.
And I, too, lack any sort of real solution. As I said before, if we crack down too hard on these companies, as much as they deserve it, they'd just go someplace more lax in their laws. I mean, for Christ sakes, they don't even have to leave the U.S. You can set up sweat shops in US territories for all the benefits of near-slave labor but still be able to put a "Made in the U.S." sticker on it.
True. Which is why I put it in terms of corporate death penalty and losing the ability to import into the United States- the idea is to deny them the most lucrative consumer group on the planet, the 300 million American Residents and citizens. That WILL hurt their bottom line, even if they "just move elsewhere".
We'll go with that. Your buying power would be about half, which is a big drop in your standard of living. All you patriots can do that right now, but I think its misguided.
Actually, that's the real point- US standard of living is overinflated, and third world standard of living is underinflated. We need to STOP and give the rest of the world a chance to catch up.
When you buy things made in Taiwan, you're buying with US dollars. US dollars are only worth anything to the Taiwanese if they can buy something from the US or trade them with someone else who does. If no one wants US goods/services the value of the US dollar drops. This makes foreign goods more expensive to US citizens and local goods cheaper. (Ignoring problems like child labor, etc. where the Government steps in and says you won't trade.)
And I want to accelerate the process until it no longer matters. Foreign goods should be more expensive- but only due to the shipping. End the inequality.
The US dollar was high because it made the most goods/services because the best, brightest, most ambitious people immigrated to the US where the best jobs were.
Which is what I want to STOP ENTIRELY, as for 99% of the population in the United States, we never see any benefit of the dollar being high.
Feel free not to believe me, as I am a foreigner, but the 'Brain drain' of our best and brightest going to the US used to be (maybe still is) considered a major drain on our economy.
When you covered the Great Depression in the third grade they probably told you that the Great Depression was caused by a stock market correction. Well, that was certainly a trigger, but the real reason that the economy took so long to rebound was that countries around the world drastically increased their import tariffs.
EXACTLY what we need right now. Slow down globalization, lower the standard of living in the first world, raise it in the third, hopefully everybody will meet in the 2nd world (India and China) and we'll be able to trade wants between EQUALS while protecting consumer NEEDS as home industries.
Now, you might think that is a great idea, but I have lived in a country with ridiculously high import tariffs (Peru) and paying more for shoddy products simply because I don't have a choice of manufacturers is not how I would choose to live.
Peru is a bit small- but tell me, why didn't you have a choice of manufacturers? Is there a lack of tool makers or something?
As for the technology "depression" I think that you need to get out more. The technology market got so ridiculously overpriced that the Dutch and their tulip bulbs are finally going to stop being the prime example for a market gone completely batshit crazy. Even so, outside of California it is hard to consider the fallout more than a minor recession, and the reality now is that technology jobs are ridiculously plentiful.
Here in Oregon, several natives lost their housing over it- and we still have large numbers of homeless because of it. Yes, it's begining to rebound- but not in a way that people can rebuild their lives.
If you are still looking for a job then I would seriously consider spending some of your downtime with an economy textbook or two (try and find one with some historical references). You'd be surprised how an understanding of basic economics helps when trying to find a job. Here's how you'll know that you are indeed grokking the concepts. If you can get through a economics textbook and you still believe that "banning exporting and importing" would be beneficial to our standard of living then you need to read it again.
Read the start of my previous post- we don't need to increase our standard of living in the United States- we need to stop and wait for the rest of the world to catch up, and maybe accept a lower standard here to equalize things out a bit. Otherwise what we're headed for is a nation of do-nothing manager class soaking up money from the labor of the rest of the world- who have no right to advance beyond shop foreman status because they don't live in America.
I'm responding to this because I think this is really important, but I'm sure this thread is dead now.
You might wake it up tomorrow- when I read this I entered a post to the Programmer's Guild Yahoo list pointed to your post. You'll probably end up with several people from across the country sending you private e-mail and posting here asking where your company is located.
Now back to the discussion and clearing up points I made previously.
wrt pay college students high enough for them to get training: The skills we needed were always pretty basic C coding skills. Can you impliment a linked list? Can you do a binary search? Can you impliment some basic functions from clib - strstr, atoi, etc. That's all we'd need. The rest can come on the job. But really, if somebody comes out of school and doesn't have those skills, there's nothing we can do to train them. It means they are in the wrong field.
That last is EXACTLY the point. If we want more highly skilled workers, we need to pay to drag people who understand analogy away from Advanced Shakespear (an English Major class) and to Advanced C (a computer science major class). But congradulations on suggesting the ONE skill in computer science that is closest to an inborn talent (in that you either have it or you don't, and if you don't, you're not smart enough to be in this industry): abstraction. Pointer abstraction, object abstraction, doesn't matter what kind of abstraction- you've either got a brain that can handle it or you don't.
'm confused by your last statement. You're saying you spent 3 years sending out resumes and in that time didn't get any second interviews, and you feel that this is due to lack of training? Wouldn't you have learned some things on your own in that time?
Sorry, should have made that more clear. I feel my lack of second interviews was *directly* linked to bigotry and the fact that I don't understand Hindu or any of the other languages spoken of on the Indian Subcontinent. I did learn things on my own during that time- but I needn't have bothered since I ended up landing a job in VB 6.0, VBA, and SQL Server 2000 anyway (governments are noitorously behind on upgrades....)
I have worked at places with unions in the past (that's how I put myself through college). What you will find is that they foster an environment where nobody feels they need to work hard because nobody else is, and as you say, raises are considered a 'right'. I recognize that they were very helpful for different folks and different times, but my experiences have not been positive.
Where I went the other direction- and raises being considered a right rather than an unneeded perk is a much more comfortable situation for raising a family. Most of my previous jobs ended in "Here's your paycheck, but don't cash it, I think it's going to bounce" anyway.
Can you code C? Can you do those basic things I describe? Do you need a job?
I can, but I'm comfortable now in government. However, as I said at the beginning, I've sent a link to this post to the Programmer's Guild- you might get a huge response from that.
I haven't noticed Mexico asserting any territorial claim over the US lately which is usually what an invasion is all about.
Then apparently you haven't been paying much attention to Mexican Politicians- reconquistada is a pretty standard campaign promise there.
Land borders are blatantly impossible to police well because there's a near infinite number of crossing points.
I'll repeat my first reply here that failed to post: The Berlin Wall is outdated tech. Bluetooth networked adaptive minefields (where each mine is a small robot that repositions itself with respect to it's neighbors when breached) are the new version, and theoretically could do sea and air as well as land quite efficiently.
But (And I am not an economist) then wouldn't these companies then just pack their bags and move to a country where supporting its own people is not so valued?
Yes. Thus losing their access to the American market. At which point some young entrapreneur will see the hole left in the demand side of the economy and fill it with a company that DOES support American citizens.
This is a cynical and exaggerated example, I know, but it really does seem to me that the sad fact is, some people will do ANYTHING for money and power, and will go wherever they have to and hurt whoever they need to to change their yearly income from 4.5 billion to 5.4 billion.
And by changing the law to require accountability in the board for their actions (do this or lose your consumers) I'm downright counting on it.
you are saying that bangalore programmers are inherently worse than US programmers?
I've seen too much crapy code from outsourcing to believe otherwise. My current theory is that this is due to a serious lack of internal locus of control in that society.
Absolutely. And here's a solution- hire the out-of-work American HTML "programmers" to revamp the immigration system. Change the law to eliminate non-tourist non-immigrant visas, and replace it with a global green card quota. The web site submission CGI would be easy:
If quota>#greencards issued then if Backgroundcheck>minimumscore then IssueGreenCardOnPrintableHTMLScreen.
Anybody should be able to apply for a green card from any browser in the world, and get an answer within a few minutes and the ability to print the green card *before* they apply for work in the United States. Tune quota and minimum background check as needed to keep America safe and wages high.
A provision which you mention would be good for those citizens of the parent country who work in the company's industry; it would be bad for those citizens of the parent country who consume that industry's products.
If you're not willing to help support your neighbor's standard of living, why should he support YOUR standard of living?
Cheaper labour for computer companies is bad for IT folks; it is, however, good for anyone who uses IT products (everyone else). Expensive labour for computer companies is good for IT folks and bad for everyone else.
Or it could be good for everybody, as the additional salary for IT folks will make them more able to be consumers of other people's goods. This is why inflation supports a growing economy.
Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is pretty much the only thing proven to be true in all of economics;
Except for the fact that it has pretty much been proven to be false by the last 40 years of American trade deficits.
what's remarkable is how many folks are still ignorant of it. If we're better at producing maize than wheat and China's better at producing wheat than maize, it's better for us to focus on maize and for China to focus on wheat; we sell them some of our maize in return for some of their wheat, and there's actually more maize & wheat to go around. This is true even if we're better at producing wheat than China--pretty counter-intuitive, but true nonetheless.
It's also a complete lie when it comes to economies with a huge differnce in cost of labor- for China is actually better at producing *BOTH* maize and wheat than we are, and the only reason the export is flowing the other direction at all is because of government subsidies interfering in the marketplace.
That said, I don't at all approve of the way that Microsoft and other tech companies abuse the H1-B system. It's not a good system, but the rules are the rules, and the game should be played in accordance with them.
Are you for real? Microsoft, like many companies,is a global company. They operate in dozens if not hundreds of coutnries. In some case they are incorporated in those countries as well as in the US. While they may be a company founded in the US, more than 1/2 of their business/revenue/profit comes from outside of the US. Sure, they're obligated to be good corporate citizens in every country they operate in. Suggesting that a country be "disbanded" because they're trying to ensure that they have the highest quality workers is rather bizarre. By the way, "disbanding" a company sounds downright un-American. Land of the free and all?
For freedom to be ensured, it must be limited. I no more have the right to murder you than you have the right to murder me. But international corporations have the "right" to murder us all- because they are global companies and are NOT subject to our laws. I would suggest breaking up the ownership of such companies- and selling off portions to local citizens of thsoe other countries.
You falsely assume more expensive education makes better skill.
Are you trying to tell me that computer programming, a skill under 30 years old, is genetically determined?
As my grandfather has always said, only those don't have a job who don't want one. While I thought that to be laughable for a long time, now I also am standing firmly with that opinion. "There are no jobs" is an excuse I'd never accept.
Then you're just very badly informed about the situation in the first 5 years of this century in this industry.
Other than that, maybe you should try how it's like to obtain a h1b (if you can, that is), renew once than get out.
I tried when it became obvious that would be the only way I could stay in private industry in 2002. I failed to get one.
Many h1bs are there for the money, so after a few years they can go home and begin something with their lives and some money they've earned - with rightful work, that is, and you really should keep that in mind.
Tell me, why can't they do that in their home country?
Additionally, also keep in mind that in time, when the average life quality will raise (yes, I'm optimistic) nobody will want to go to the US, why ? because most people like their home country.
Agreed. I happen to think that will happen a lot QUICKER if US companies weren't allowed to treat the home country like a slave.
Right now, with two degrees and a phd I earn about as much at a fairly good position as a Joe working at a gas station in the US. Yet I'm staying because I value what I have here. But for most, it's hard to argue with the paychecks.
However the comparison is really apples to oranges- because the US economy is simply not at the same level. If US companies were forbidden to export or import for a couple of decades, then we could compare adequately.
Wow. Thank you for that. You must be the most hated/.er, btw.
If I wasn't hated, would I be able to get such great discussions to read from a single post? There is what, 50-60 posts in the thread below the GP?
I agree mostly. But some degree of corporation will always be necessary in the modern world. Sure it should be regulated to ensure it remains beneficial to its host society, and it should be taxed so it is forced to support the culture which allowed it to strive and be profitable.
Agreed. I'm not saying ban corporations outright. I'm saying that we need a death penalty for corporations that do not support society and culture.
On the other hand we, for some odd reason, have a double standard when it comes to corporations, we legally treat them as individuals, but also treat them as pure capitalist constructs. The boards and leaders of these corporations should be held culpable for their actions, as well as the corporate entity itself.
In my more lucid moments, I actually think it would be sufficient for a corporate's assets and incorporation papers to be hostage to the actions of the corporation. The boards and leaders have enough investment in the corporation itself to lose a lot should the corporation go down with all of it's assets seized and given to the small business administration for redistribution.
Oddly I think the libertarians have some degree of a point when they want the economy to be free from government. But I see this in a positive sense, corporations should be divorced from government in the same way religion ought to be, it has no influence over government, but government can still touch its harmful practices. Of course Mr. Gates likes immigration, he benefits from it, but due to our system he has more of a voice than you or me, or most other/.ers or lay public.
And I think a corporate death penalty would be sufficient to change that in most situations- Microsoft would have certainly garnered such a punishment in the original Apple lawsuit had it been available.
Oddly, to go back more OT, I think Mr. Gates is confused. I haven't seen much initiative to reduce legal immigration, and if there is it too is misguided since it is already well night impossible for skilled immigrants to come to the US, especially those from Europe, and other developed nations.
Well, certainly it's had a chilling effect (in 2001 we imported 140,000 H-1b workers, in 2007, 65,000, with both numbers mainly due to visa quota limitations). Personally, I'd be for an end to guest worker visas (which are NON-immigrant, btw) if we could just modernize and set a worldwide instead of a country-by-country immigration quota for true immigrants. In today's instant-background-check world, I see no reason for 3-4 year delay in immigration visas, or for non-immigrant visas. Anybody in the world should be able to hop on the web, find out if the United States is still under it's worldwide quota of green cards, apply for one, and print it out the same day, and then hop on a plane tomorrow to work in the United States under the same rights as anybody else on the path to citizenship.
Why does your son have more of a right to pick berries than a Mexican? Because he was lucky enough to be born on the right patch of dirt?
Yes and no. The Mexican has just as much of a right to pick berries in Mexico. A large part of this would be ending NAFTA's destruction of the Mexican Agricultural Industry, thus restoring Mexican farms so that the Mexican illegal immigrants can have a job at home instead of breaking laws to come here.
I'm saying that people should have a right to stay at home, build a culture, and live secure in that culture.
Great, then American companies all shut down and move abroad.
At which point they lose the American market, since they won't be allowed to import their shoddy goods here. And other TRUE American companies will step up to the plate and make products for Americans.
Then it is a good thing that such decisions are not left up to you and your Marxist friends. The corporation exists to benefit and enrich the shareholders (hopefully) and other than compliance with laws that are designed to mitigate negative externalities and prevent outright fraud there is no obligation to the public at large in the manner that you suggest nor, in my opinion, should there be. This video sums it up nicely, albeit in a somewhat corny fashion.
In that case, would you agree that incorporation papers are a government subsidy that should be eliminated outright? Otherwise you're taking MY tax money to "benefit and inrich the shareholders".
Slashdot Mirror
How does someone's education before joining Microsoft affect Bill's bottom line?
An American with student loans averaging $40,000 will require a higher salary to pay back those student loans than an India Institute of Technology graduate with similar skills on paper who only has $4000 in student loans.
Basic economics- same thing that is driving offshoring- the manufacturer with the lowest cost gets the contract. In the "industry" of human resources, most of that cost is the education.
And of course, you would creep "regardless of skill" in there somehow, wouldn't you?
Creep? Washtech is full of people used up by Microsoft and spit out without any attempt at considering the employee's skill. It's a money game, pure and simple.
By the way, if you actually read what Gates said, you'd see that he's pushing for two things A) more H1B's, and B) bigger investments in education. He's not against improving education locally, in fact, he's actively for it. But he also understands that this is America, founded by immigrants, and that talented individuals around the world should have the opportunity to work at American companies and share in the dream that our immigrant forefathers had.
H-1bs aren't immigrants. In fact, the H-1b is SPECIFICALLY a non-immigrant visa, and holders are supposed to be (but aren't in practice) ineligible for green cards. If it was about immigrants, well, that would change things somewhat, as an immigrant would have to build a life here- including a higher level of investment for retirement.
However, a second part is this- I'm sick and tired of the "creative destruction" of globalism. It doesn't really matter to me if it's software engineers in the United States, or farmers in Mexico and India committing suicide: Free trade is a bad deal for everybody except for the traitors. It's time we gave people a CAREER that they can COUNT ON, not layoffs every two years because of competition from overseas. That alone will change the education demographic- because that's the true American dream, being able to give your kids a better standard of living than you had. Right now, high tech jobs are a WORSE standard of living than our parents- and the non-immigrant visas are a big reason for that.
I am sorry that my response was so abrupt. This whole discussion is depressing in that it is filled with people who are either racist and believe that only Americans should have jobs, or completely ignorant of economics (or both). I should have guessed that with a handle like Marxist Hacker 42 that you would be something else entirely. I don't share your views, but I can understand how you might have come by them. I do find it interesting that on the one hand you are concerned about people that lost their livelihood with the Internet Bubble crash and yet somehow you aren't concerned about the much larger economic fallout that would almost certainly follow the erection of trade barriers with the rest of the world.
I am concerned- but I consider the OUTCOME of that fallout (the equalization of economies) to be a neccessary precursor for the respect of local customs and a successful, non hierarchial, global economy. And without a non-hierarchial global economy, all we're doing is making an underclass of first world citizens without work, an overclass of first world citizens who own everything, and everybody else stuck in dead end jobs since they can't immigrate to get into upper management.
The real problem in most third world countries is corruption. People can't get ahead because corrupt officials guarantee that any profit that gets made on a business ends up in their pockets.
You'd think that in Peru, a country where the Spainish took 3 decades to conquor the Inca just due to the terrain (learned that on the History Channel), it'd be easy to set up small, out of the way local economies not governed by the central government.
Consequently investors aren't willing to put the kind of capital into the system that is needed to really create good jobs and lasting wealth. In countries where this is addressed (like Chile) the economy can grow at a tremendous pace. Trade barriers would do nothing to fix the problem with corruption in the third world, and worse it would cripple the economies of countries that are currently on the right track. The best way to raise the standard of living of countries around the world is to make these countries safe for investment. People (including foreigners) invest in the U.S. (and the rest of the first world) because it is much safer than their local markets. If that wasn't the case then the imbalance between the first and third worlds would disappear rather quickly.
Actually, trade (and visitor/immigration) barriers would quickly fix the corruption the old fashioned way- by REVOLUTION. If NO foreign investment was allowed, people would have no choice other than to invest in their local markets; and if the government was insufficiently clean to do so, a revolution would happen first to make it so. After all, where would the despot get guns if he couldn't import them from first world markets?
But what I find really interesting is that you think the first world isn't corrupt- where by my standards the involvement of corporations in our politics is EXTREMELY corrupt, to the point of the United States no longer actually being a democratic republic. Every representative up for election is already bought and paid for by a conglomerate of the international corporations thanks to the campaign contributions by the rich.
But for the few years where the United States wasn't corrupt (ok, for the CENTURY when we were a bit less corrupt, but hey, we had legal slavery back then) we got there only by revolution- only by stealing control from the King of England, and making royal corportions illegal, and ending the peerage system.
I see NO reason why any of it can't be done in the third world; save one small thing: Interferance in third world governments to keep the status quo. If you end that interferance, which in the United States is primarily the export of weapons and food, and you block the foreign investment into the United States, it'll be just like putting a lava lamp on the stove- eventually it will explode,
There is no suggestion of subsidy simply because the government provides formal recognition of the legal corporate entity for the purposes of adjudicating disputes.
That is a subsidy. It's a waste of taxpayer money when a simple duel of honor between the disputing CEOs would settle the matter nicely.
This is a necessary and proper function of government (there are some after all) in that paperwork is required to properly conduct the affairs of the judicial branch of government.
In a truly free market by libertarian standards, you're not supposed to NEED a judicial branch of government- the free market takes care of disputes on it's own.
There is nothing wrong with the government collecting taxes to fund the legitimate functions of government, which minimal though they may be, are necessary to ensure the coercion is not employed to beat, literally sometimes, the market into submission (i.e. the strong taking what they want and when they want from the weak without recourse).
Ah, but that is the true function of capitalism- without that you don't have a free market.
You can't have it both ways- either the government allows incorporation for the good of society and ACTIVELY destroys corporations that don't follow the rules, or you have a free market where the corporations (the strong) can take what they want from consumers (the weak). Or rather, you can have it both ways- but the result is that the corporations take over the government with "campaign contributions" (in a democracy) or outright bribery (in other forms of government) and you end up with a free market anyway but this time the corporations control the military.
H1-Bs are not awarded to rank-and-file IT staff. It makes no economic sense for the employer, either.
And yet, I can point to MANY examples of the body shops doing exactly that, including one that was prosecuted for it (ok, really they were prosecuted for check marking the "this business is not H-1b dependant" on their LCAs despite 80% of their for-hire network engineers being H-1bs, but it amounts to the same thing). It makes economic sense when the home grown IT Network Engineers want $77,000/year for an A+ certification, and the H-1bs are willing to accept $48,000/year.
Help desks may be outsourced. Not network engineers.
Yes and no- quite a bit of what a network engineer does can be done over remote desktop software.
Marx's big error to me was that he took things in too big of bites. Communism works best when linked with tribalism and small villages. In other words, situations where you can hunt down and kill the committee that took away your tractor.
All of which we have the resources to make right here in America. In fact, at one time, we made these for the world and were net exporters.
I'm not trying to beat you down with a burst of self-righteousness here. I just think that stockholders wield a bit more power, and have access to more information, than you give them credit for.
I agree with your burst of self-righteousness- but disagree with your second point. I think most corporations try to block the shareholders from having this level of power and information- and that's the reason I'm against incorporation in general.
And I, too, lack any sort of real solution. As I said before, if we crack down too hard on these companies, as much as they deserve it, they'd just go someplace more lax in their laws. I mean, for Christ sakes, they don't even have to leave the U.S. You can set up sweat shops in US territories for all the benefits of near-slave labor but still be able to put a "Made in the U.S." sticker on it.
True. Which is why I put it in terms of corporate death penalty and losing the ability to import into the United States- the idea is to deny them the most lucrative consumer group on the planet, the 300 million American Residents and citizens. That WILL hurt their bottom line, even if they "just move elsewhere".
We'll go with that. Your buying power would be about half, which is a big drop in your standard of living. All you patriots can do that right now, but I think its misguided.
Actually, that's the real point- US standard of living is overinflated, and third world standard of living is underinflated. We need to STOP and give the rest of the world a chance to catch up.
When you buy things made in Taiwan, you're buying with US dollars. US dollars are only worth anything to the Taiwanese if they can buy something from the US or trade them with someone else who does. If no one wants US goods/services the value of the US dollar drops. This makes foreign goods more expensive to US citizens and local goods cheaper. (Ignoring problems like child labor, etc. where the Government steps in and says you won't trade.)
And I want to accelerate the process until it no longer matters. Foreign goods should be more expensive- but only due to the shipping. End the inequality.
The US dollar was high because it made the most goods/services because the best, brightest, most ambitious people immigrated to the US where the best jobs were.
Which is what I want to STOP ENTIRELY, as for 99% of the population in the United States, we never see any benefit of the dollar being high.
Feel free not to believe me, as I am a foreigner, but the 'Brain drain' of our best and brightest going to the US used to be (maybe still is) considered a major drain on our economy.
All the more reason to stop it from this end.
When you covered the Great Depression in the third grade they probably told you that the Great Depression was caused by a stock market correction. Well, that was certainly a trigger, but the real reason that the economy took so long to rebound was that countries around the world drastically increased their import tariffs.
EXACTLY what we need right now. Slow down globalization, lower the standard of living in the first world, raise it in the third, hopefully everybody will meet in the 2nd world (India and China) and we'll be able to trade wants between EQUALS while protecting consumer NEEDS as home industries.
Now, you might think that is a great idea, but I have lived in a country with ridiculously high import tariffs (Peru) and paying more for shoddy products simply because I don't have a choice of manufacturers is not how I would choose to live.
Peru is a bit small- but tell me, why didn't you have a choice of manufacturers? Is there a lack of tool makers or something?
As for the technology "depression" I think that you need to get out more. The technology market got so ridiculously overpriced that the Dutch and their tulip bulbs are finally going to stop being the prime example for a market gone completely batshit crazy. Even so, outside of California it is hard to consider the fallout more than a minor recession, and the reality now is that technology jobs are ridiculously plentiful.
Here in Oregon, several natives lost their housing over it- and we still have large numbers of homeless because of it. Yes, it's begining to rebound- but not in a way that people can rebuild their lives.
If you are still looking for a job then I would seriously consider spending some of your downtime with an economy textbook or two (try and find one with some historical references). You'd be surprised how an understanding of basic economics helps when trying to find a job. Here's how you'll know that you are indeed grokking the concepts. If you can get through a economics textbook and you still believe that "banning exporting and importing" would be beneficial to our standard of living then you need to read it again.
Read the start of my previous post- we don't need to increase our standard of living in the United States- we need to stop and wait for the rest of the world to catch up, and maybe accept a lower standard here to equalize things out a bit. Otherwise what we're headed for is a nation of do-nothing manager class soaking up money from the labor of the rest of the world- who have no right to advance beyond shop foreman status because they don't live in America.
I'm responding to this because I think this is really important, but I'm sure this thread is dead now.
You might wake it up tomorrow- when I read this I entered a post to the Programmer's Guild Yahoo list pointed to your post. You'll probably end up with several people from across the country sending you private e-mail and posting here asking where your company is located.
Now back to the discussion and clearing up points I made previously.
wrt pay college students high enough for them to get training: The skills we needed were always pretty basic C coding skills. Can you impliment a linked list? Can you do a binary search? Can you impliment some basic functions from clib - strstr, atoi, etc. That's all we'd need. The rest can come on the job. But really, if somebody comes out of school and doesn't have those skills, there's nothing we can do to train them. It means they are in the wrong field.
That last is EXACTLY the point. If we want more highly skilled workers, we need to pay to drag people who understand analogy away from Advanced Shakespear (an English Major class) and to Advanced C (a computer science major class). But congradulations on suggesting the ONE skill in computer science that is closest to an inborn talent (in that you either have it or you don't, and if you don't, you're not smart enough to be in this industry): abstraction. Pointer abstraction, object abstraction, doesn't matter what kind of abstraction- you've either got a brain that can handle it or you don't.
'm confused by your last statement. You're saying you spent 3 years sending out resumes and in that time didn't get any second interviews, and you feel that this is due to lack of training? Wouldn't you have learned some things on your own in that time?
Sorry, should have made that more clear. I feel my lack of second interviews was *directly* linked to bigotry and the fact that I don't understand Hindu or any of the other languages spoken of on the Indian Subcontinent. I did learn things on my own during that time- but I needn't have bothered since I ended up landing a job in VB 6.0, VBA, and SQL Server 2000 anyway (governments are noitorously behind on upgrades....)
I have worked at places with unions in the past (that's how I put myself through college). What you will find is that they foster an environment where nobody feels they need to work hard because nobody else is, and as you say, raises are considered a 'right'. I recognize that they were very helpful for different folks and different times, but my experiences have not been positive.
Where I went the other direction- and raises being considered a right rather than an unneeded perk is a much more comfortable situation for raising a family. Most of my previous jobs ended in "Here's your paycheck, but don't cash it, I think it's going to bounce" anyway.
Can you code C? Can you do those basic things I describe? Do you need a job?
I can, but I'm comfortable now in government. However, as I said at the beginning, I've sent a link to this post to the Programmer's Guild- you might get a huge response from that.
I haven't noticed Mexico asserting any territorial claim over the US lately which is usually what an invasion is all about.
Then apparently you haven't been paying much attention to Mexican Politicians- reconquistada is a pretty standard campaign promise there.
Land borders are blatantly impossible to police well because there's a near infinite number of crossing points.
I'll repeat my first reply here that failed to post: The Berlin Wall is outdated tech. Bluetooth networked adaptive minefields (where each mine is a small robot that repositions itself with respect to it's neighbors when breached) are the new version, and theoretically could do sea and air as well as land quite efficiently.
But (And I am not an economist) then wouldn't these companies then just pack their bags and move to a country where supporting its own people is not so valued?
Yes. Thus losing their access to the American market. At which point some young entrapreneur will see the hole left in the demand side of the economy and fill it with a company that DOES support American citizens.
This is a cynical and exaggerated example, I know, but it really does seem to me that the sad fact is, some people will do ANYTHING for money and power, and will go wherever they have to and hurt whoever they need to to change their yearly income from 4.5 billion to 5.4 billion.
And by changing the law to require accountability in the board for their actions (do this or lose your consumers) I'm downright counting on it.
"They'll go for cheap over quality ..."
you are saying that bangalore programmers are inherently worse than US programmers?
I've seen too much crapy code from outsourcing to believe otherwise. My current theory is that this is due to a serious lack of internal locus of control in that society.
I hope you're either being satirical, or that you know that there is nothing Marxist about that argument at all.
Marx's big error to me was that he took things in too big of bites. Communism works best when linked with tribalism and small villages.
Absolutely. And here's a solution- hire the out-of-work American HTML "programmers" to revamp the immigration system. Change the law to eliminate non-tourist non-immigrant visas, and replace it with a global green card quota. The web site submission CGI would be easy:
If quota>#greencards issued then if Backgroundcheck>minimumscore then IssueGreenCardOnPrintableHTMLScreen.
Anybody should be able to apply for a green card from any browser in the world, and get an answer within a few minutes and the ability to print the green card *before* they apply for work in the United States. Tune quota and minimum background check as needed to keep America safe and wages high.
A provision which you mention would be good for those citizens of the parent country who work in the company's industry; it would be bad for those citizens of the parent country who consume that industry's products.
If you're not willing to help support your neighbor's standard of living, why should he support YOUR standard of living?
Cheaper labour for computer companies is bad for IT folks; it is, however, good for anyone who uses IT products (everyone else). Expensive labour for computer companies is good for IT folks and bad for everyone else.
Or it could be good for everybody, as the additional salary for IT folks will make them more able to be consumers of other people's goods. This is why inflation supports a growing economy.
Ricardo's Law of Comparative Advantage is pretty much the only thing proven to be true in all of economics;
Except for the fact that it has pretty much been proven to be false by the last 40 years of American trade deficits.
what's remarkable is how many folks are still ignorant of it. If we're better at producing maize than wheat and China's better at producing wheat than maize, it's better for us to focus on maize and for China to focus on wheat; we sell them some of our maize in return for some of their wheat, and there's actually more maize & wheat to go around. This is true even if we're better at producing wheat than China--pretty counter-intuitive, but true nonetheless.
It's also a complete lie when it comes to economies with a huge differnce in cost of labor- for China is actually better at producing *BOTH* maize and wheat than we are, and the only reason the export is flowing the other direction at all is because of government subsidies interfering in the marketplace.
That said, I don't at all approve of the way that Microsoft and other tech companies abuse the H1-B system. It's not a good system, but the rules are the rules, and the game should be played in accordance with them.
Which tells me we should change the rules.
Are you for real? Microsoft, like many companies,is a global company. They operate in dozens if not hundreds of coutnries. In some case they are incorporated in those countries as well as in the US. While they may be a company founded in the US, more than 1/2 of their business/revenue/profit comes from outside of the US. Sure, they're obligated to be good corporate citizens in every country they operate in. Suggesting that a country be "disbanded" because they're trying to ensure that they have the highest quality workers is rather bizarre. By the way, "disbanding" a company sounds downright un-American. Land of the free and all?
For freedom to be ensured, it must be limited. I no more have the right to murder you than you have the right to murder me. But international corporations have the "right" to murder us all- because they are global companies and are NOT subject to our laws. I would suggest breaking up the ownership of such companies- and selling off portions to local citizens of thsoe other countries.
You falsely assume more expensive education makes better skill.
Are you trying to tell me that computer programming, a skill under 30 years old, is genetically determined?
As my grandfather has always said, only those don't have a job who don't want one. While I thought that to be laughable for a long time, now I also am standing firmly with that opinion. "There are no jobs" is an excuse I'd never accept.
Then you're just very badly informed about the situation in the first 5 years of this century in this industry.
Other than that, maybe you should try how it's like to obtain a h1b (if you can, that is), renew once than get out.
I tried when it became obvious that would be the only way I could stay in private industry in 2002. I failed to get one.
Many h1bs are there for the money, so after a few years they can go home and begin something with their lives and some money they've earned - with rightful work, that is, and you really should keep that in mind.
Tell me, why can't they do that in their home country?
Additionally, also keep in mind that in time, when the average life quality will raise (yes, I'm optimistic) nobody will want to go to the US, why ? because most people like their home country.
Agreed. I happen to think that will happen a lot QUICKER if US companies weren't allowed to treat the home country like a slave.
Right now, with two degrees and a phd I earn about as much at a fairly good position as a Joe working at a gas station in the US. Yet I'm staying because I value what I have here. But for most, it's hard to argue with the paychecks.
However the comparison is really apples to oranges- because the US economy is simply not at the same level. If US companies were forbidden to export or import for a couple of decades, then we could compare adequately.
Wow. Thank you for that. You must be the most hated /.er, btw.
/.ers or lay public.
If I wasn't hated, would I be able to get such great discussions to read from a single post? There is what, 50-60 posts in the thread below the GP?
I agree mostly. But some degree of corporation will always be necessary in the modern world. Sure it should be regulated to ensure it remains beneficial to its host society, and it should be taxed so it is forced to support the culture which allowed it to strive and be profitable.
Agreed. I'm not saying ban corporations outright. I'm saying that we need a death penalty for corporations that do not support society and culture.
On the other hand we, for some odd reason, have a double standard when it comes to corporations, we legally treat them as individuals, but also treat them as pure capitalist constructs. The boards and leaders of these corporations should be held culpable for their actions, as well as the corporate entity itself.
In my more lucid moments, I actually think it would be sufficient for a corporate's assets and incorporation papers to be hostage to the actions of the corporation. The boards and leaders have enough investment in the corporation itself to lose a lot should the corporation go down with all of it's assets seized and given to the small business administration for redistribution.
Oddly I think the libertarians have some degree of a point when they want the economy to be free from government. But I see this in a positive sense, corporations should be divorced from government in the same way religion ought to be, it has no influence over government, but government can still touch its harmful practices. Of course Mr. Gates likes immigration, he benefits from it, but due to our system he has more of a voice than you or me, or most other
And I think a corporate death penalty would be sufficient to change that in most situations- Microsoft would have certainly garnered such a punishment in the original Apple lawsuit had it been available.
Oddly, to go back more OT, I think Mr. Gates is confused. I haven't seen much initiative to reduce legal immigration, and if there is it too is misguided since it is already well night impossible for skilled immigrants to come to the US, especially those from Europe, and other developed nations.
Well, certainly it's had a chilling effect (in 2001 we imported 140,000 H-1b workers, in 2007, 65,000, with both numbers mainly due to visa quota limitations). Personally, I'd be for an end to guest worker visas (which are NON-immigrant, btw) if we could just modernize and set a worldwide instead of a country-by-country immigration quota for true immigrants. In today's instant-background-check world, I see no reason for 3-4 year delay in immigration visas, or for non-immigrant visas. Anybody in the world should be able to hop on the web, find out if the United States is still under it's worldwide quota of green cards, apply for one, and print it out the same day, and then hop on a plane tomorrow to work in the United States under the same rights as anybody else on the path to citizenship.
Why does your son have more of a right to pick berries than a Mexican? Because he was lucky enough to be born on the right patch of dirt?
Yes and no. The Mexican has just as much of a right to pick berries in Mexico. A large part of this would be ending NAFTA's destruction of the Mexican Agricultural Industry, thus restoring Mexican farms so that the Mexican illegal immigrants can have a job at home instead of breaking laws to come here.
I'm saying that people should have a right to stay at home, build a culture, and live secure in that culture.
Great, then American companies all shut down and move abroad.
At which point they lose the American market, since they won't be allowed to import their shoddy goods here. And other TRUE American companies will step up to the plate and make products for Americans.
Then it is a good thing that such decisions are not left up to you and your Marxist friends. The corporation exists to benefit and enrich the shareholders (hopefully) and other than compliance with laws that are designed to mitigate negative externalities and prevent outright fraud there is no obligation to the public at large in the manner that you suggest nor, in my opinion, should there be. This video sums it up nicely, albeit in a somewhat corny fashion.
In that case, would you agree that incorporation papers are a government subsidy that should be eliminated outright? Otherwise you're taking MY tax money to "benefit and inrich the shareholders".