"or provide laws requiring these workers to be paid at a premium"
There is no need for a law on this, the market will do the job nicely. Except companies don't like the market when it works to raise wages, so they outsource and create H1B programs, so they wont have to.
"Somebody is WILLING to work for less pay than you"
They are willing, in large part, because they are *able*. Will my house payment go down because I make less? Did the cost of my education go down? Is my food cheaper? Is it possible for me to go without a car? Will that car be cheaper? Will the insurance and gas be cheaper?
No? Would there be an adjustment? Sure, eventually, and after much pain.
Do these companies realize that when they do this, they reduce the number of people who can afford their product/service at the current pricing? That they will have to reduce their prices after the equilibrium has come, and that their percent profit will likely be the same or less? Probably not, companies are pretty dumb.
Microsoft is not *just* an exporter. It is not estabilished that their profitability is made or broken on clients outside the US, I rather expect it is the reverse, as ( at least for now ), US'ians make more, on average, and have more to spend, generally.
As to them moving elsewhere, fat chance. That nation might nationalize the company ( for strategic advantage ), might change the tax structure, and disallow a move elsewhere. There is also the logistics problems that would entail. Further, and most important, the executives would probably have to spend a lot more time overseas, running the business ( or risk it losing control of it ).
And on immigration, perhaps, but that is not what H1B's are about. They are about, for the most part, getting cheap labor.
Precisely what rights do you lose if the company you create loses their special favors?
Rather than losing rights, your elected officials will have to listen to *you* if they are not having to kowtow to corporations in order to be able to run for office.
Except that now that "other guy" only has 20k to spend on things, making it so that the companies trying to sell things have to lower their prices to match, or forgo an additional "sliver" of demographic they can sell to. Either leads to a lose of revenue.
Who made these surrender requests, and what authority did they have to make it?
My understanding is that the surrender feelers came from non-Army people close to the Emperor, but the real power ( and ability to surrender ) was held by the Japanese Army. And they were convinced they were going to win.
"Pst. The original zionists got the entire province of palestine for themselves from someone who was generally referred to as "the caliph". There was no conquest involved."
Define "original zionist". And who is this "caliph", and what authority did he have to give the land, and what were the terms? And what happened after?
"Pst. There is no such thing as "muslim land". The only land that was peacefully converted to islam is a tiny part of 1 city : medina. All the rest was conquered. That would be "muslim-occupied land"."
If "peacefully converted" is a part of "being" a nation, then there also is no such thing as "American land". England and Germany would also suffer on this point, IIRC. I would imagine many lands around the world would also.
"Pst. Let's drive muslims out of every piece of berber land (most of southern sahara). Christian land (north africa, egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and out of Hindu Land (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,...)"
And then drive the Berbers out in favor of those who were there before. Likewise the Christians and others you mentioned. Add to that driving the Americans out in favor of the Mexicans and "American Indians", followed closely by driving the Mexicans back to Spain and other points elsewhere. Here:
Loop For each nation/state/territory
find people who lived in that land before current occupiers, drive out the occupiers in favor of the others. Repeat until no one left.
"Let's be fair, and reject conquest. Let's drive all muslims into one neighboorhood of the only voluntary muslim neighboorhood."
And Israel then should reject conquest and give back the lands gained in the 67 conflict. And maybe the lands they gained by terrorist actions since WWII.
"Let's end the muslim occupation of northern africa ! Let's END islam in Africa, in the middle east and in Asia."
Why just muslim? Why end islam? How are you going to do that?
"Because that would be "just", ending occupation."
Only ending occupation for muslims? Is it only "just" to end muslim occupation? Not others?
That only works as long as there are enough new skills to learn ( or invent ) to keep sufficient people employed. There is no guarantee of this, nor is there a guarantee that the new skill will command "good" wages.
And what about economic conditions at the new location? Sudden influx of new people, new jobs filled with relocating workers, prices go up ( more people chasing same goods ( excepting the Dell products, but you cant eat or live in those ), wages go down ( more people seeking the jobs ).
Is Dell required to keep them if they want to relocate? What happens to their wages if they do?
"I hate what we've become but I'm at a loss for how to fix it. Ideas?"
No employment terms change without all company executives being present at an all hands company meeting. Employees are allowed to ( without any legal repercussions ) kill or maim any and all company executives at said meeting ( and at any other time of their choosing ).
Those are interesting things, so, yes, the Israelis have exhibited some tolerance, more than the Arabs have. I cant see how that makes anything Israel does that I believe to be wrong ( blockades involving food extrajudicial assassinations, etc ) to be OK. Two wrongs do not make a right. Even when the other wrong is worse.
From the article:
"Before the truce between the two sides, Israel has imposed a tight blockade on Gaza. It has barred all kinds of food products and fuels into the enclave, saying the blockade was in response to rockets fire from Gaza at Israel"
This is still punishing innocents for things done by others. Staving people is not OK. Rocket launches against civilians are not OK.
"If it's in their best interest, they will do it without regulators"
US Auto makers have done nothing with respect to fuel efficiency nor emissions excepting when regulation has required them to.
On the number of passengers issue, yes, but how often are they run with even half the maximum number of passengers they can carry? Can carry != does carry.
"If you are not muslim, you are essentially worthless"
My understanding is that being Arab in Israel leads to similar treatment.
"you are either a Muslim, Christian, or Jew. And only the first is to be allowed to live."
I have no doubt this is true for some Arabs. I do not think this is true of all of them, or even most of them.
"If Palestine wants humanitarian aid, then how about they let shipments be inspected for weapons or illegal items?"
Seems reasonable to me.
"I'm sure Israel would have no problem with that"
I'm not as sure, but...
"they've offered many times to simply inspect and send through."
Would you trust another Nation with such power over you, when relations are as bad as they are between Arabs and Israel? I would agree that it would be prideful and silly, but then much of what transpires in that part of the world, Israeli and Arab is prideful and silly.
"Palestinians refuse - they're bringing it on themselves."
Again, I am not claiming that the Arab position is above reproach and the Israeli position wholly in error. They both have issues to take care of. You have rightly pointed out some on the Arab side of the equation. I think I have pointed out that there are issues on the Israeli side as well. Starving babies, children and grownups that want to live and let live in blockaded areas ( yes, along with militants ) is *only* going to foster a hatred of Israel ( both within and outside the blockaded areas. I recall some reading of the turmoil leading to WWI where ( I think it was Churchill or Lord Grey ) it was stated that they needed to be careful of how Arab areas were handled, in order to keep discontent to a minimum in other parts of the ( then ) British Empire. So, nearly a century ago, this *interconnectedness* of Arabs was known, why is it thought that a "bull in a china shop" approach is going to work with them? ) that will not be completely without justification. It will not make for lessened tensions in that area, it will increase them, to Israel's detriment. I understand that Israel has limited options in how to deal with these attacks, but they do have options.
They could keep the blockade, and unilaterally do the inspect and pass option. And talk about how they want to help the common person there, but still respect their security concerns. They could provide food, medicine and other non-militarizable necessities themselves ( yes, there would be a monetary cost, but I would expect they would gain a political bonus, in years to come ). And again, talk about it. In neither case will it convince the hard line haters, but it would defuse militant recruiting.
"So Israel must let Palestinians have complete sovereignty in Gaza, yet must supply any and all needs of the Palestinian state. Regardless of how many rockets are launched into Israel."
When did I say that? How about just stopping the blockade, at least of food and medicines, cooking gas, and other non-military essentials to start. And the rocket attacks are a problem, Palestinians really need to stop launching them. If you imagine I dont see that the Palestinians are a part of the problem, you are incorrect. Both sides have a long list of politically difficult things they need to change.
"How about the Palestinians taking care of themselves. I see they want to destroy Israel and drive all the Jews into the sea, but in the mean time that same hated nation must supply any and all needs demanded."
That sounds good. How about letting the raw materials for them to take care of themselves thru. And the Palestinians should drop the "push Israel into the sea" stuff.
"Is that what passes for balance nowadays?"
Who said anything about "providing all needs demanded"? Lift the blockade, allow food and medicine across. Until then, YES, Israel is responsible for the lack of these things ( and should provide them ). If I hold you in a prison so you cant take care of yourself, then I don't provide you with food, then I have starved you. There are no two ways about that.
"Oh, and good luck finding churches and synagogues in the middle east outside of Israel and Lebanon; in fact, you'll get scolded at best and arrested and jailed at worst for bringing a Bible into most of the Arabic middle east. Tolerance is not a cultural value for most of that region."
It is entirely possible I know a bit more about that than you. I know one person in my congregation who has spoken about the issues involved in bringing the Word to the middle east. Yes, it is difficult, yes, the Arabs are responsible for this policy. Yes, I believe it to be wrong. If you believe, all is on God's power. If not, why is this Israel's business?
How does the religion issue make it OK for Israel to blockade Gaza?
"from the Egyptian side, if there is a blockade it is not the result of Israeli "oppression""
If they know/believe that Egypt will feel constrainted to keep their part of the border closed, then yes, it is.
Palestinians are the red headed step children of the Arab world, and I don't know, but I can well believe what you say about religion in the Arab world ( my Church is involved in setting up Christian Churches in the Middle East ). I am not sure how that makes the blockade OK. On the "large portion of Israel is Arabic", that is unsuprising, as they were the main people there before the 1947 UN mandate that gave Israel it's original borders( since biblical times, anyway ) in that land.
"So why does Egypt continue to restrict access to Gaza?
THE BURDEN OF GAZA -- Cairo believes that if it left the Egypt-Gaza border wide open Israel would wash its hands of responsibility for ensuring the Gazans receive enough to keep them alive -- food, water, medical supplies, electricity and other essentials. Egyptian diplomats say that Israel would seal the border with Gaza on its side, diverting all trade and traffic through Egypt."
"Final results show that Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45, providing Hamas with the majority of the 132 available seats and the ability to form a majority government on their own.
Of the Electoral Lists, Hamas received 44.45% and Fatah 41.43%[1] and of the Electoral Districts, Hamas party candidates received 41.73% and Fatah party candidates received 36.96%"
"Their vote was, quite literally, a perfect endorsement of Hamas' platform"
If that true, then *everyone* who voted for Bush in 00 and 04 are responsible for the invasion of Iraq, waterboarding, Gitmo, the current economic issues, and other assorted issues? Of course, that is a bit different, as Bush claimed that Nation Building was not part of his agenda.
"The stated purpose of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel"
Again, while I don't agree with it, I am not sure why the residents there would be all that happy about Israel. A UN mandate, in their eyes, took that land from them and gave it to Israel, and Israel, while undoubted provoked, has done little that the Gaza-resident-in-the-street or Palestinian could point to and say "that is good". I mean look at the blockade. Helicopter gunships overflying their areas, shooting at suspected ( but not tried and found guilty ) militants ( taking out, in some cases, relatively innocent bystanders ), tanks and infantry incursions into their areas. So, why would you think that the destruction of Israel would be as repugnant to them as you and I find it? ( Note, I am not taking the Palestinian side here, I am full aware of the rocket attacks, suicide bombers and all the other provocations Israel has had to endure ).
And, you don't think that Hamas being in power gives them absolute power to do anything they want do you?
"just like your vote for Obama was a perfect endorsement of his platform"
1: You make an assumption there. And if I did vote for him, does that mean that I agree with all that he wants to do in government? Because I surely do not.
2: So, Obama has a mandate to enact all of his programs? He won the election, but I think even he knows that this was a reaction to the Bush Administration's foreign policy ( esp the Iraq action ), and the economy tanking from a lack of proper oversight. So, I would say he is in the same boat, no mandate.
If you were trying for funny, you got it, in a twisted sort of way. If this was supposed to be non-funny, then I have to suppose you know already where this goes wrong, I shouldn't have to point it out.
Slashdot Mirror
"Those 5 million educated americans are still going to be 5 million educated americans"
Unemployed, largely, for a longish time, and on the dole.
"or provide laws requiring these workers to be paid at a premium"
There is no need for a law on this, the market will do the job nicely. Except companies don't like the market when it works to raise wages, so they outsource and create H1B programs, so they wont have to.
"Somebody is WILLING to work for less pay than you"
They are willing, in large part, because they are *able*. Will my house payment go down because I make less? Did the cost of my education go down? Is my food cheaper? Is it possible for me to go without a car? Will that car be cheaper? Will the insurance and gas be cheaper?
No? Would there be an adjustment? Sure, eventually, and after much pain.
Do these companies realize that when they do this, they reduce the number of people who can afford their product/service at the current pricing? That they will have to reduce their prices after the equilibrium has come, and that their percent profit will likely be the same or less? Probably not, companies are pretty dumb.
Microsoft is not *just* an exporter.
It is not estabilished that their profitability is made or broken on clients outside the US, I rather expect it is the reverse, as ( at least for now ), US'ians make more, on average, and have more to spend, generally.
As to them moving elsewhere, fat chance. That nation might nationalize the company ( for strategic advantage ), might change the tax structure, and disallow a move elsewhere. There is also the logistics problems that would entail. Further, and most important, the executives would probably have to spend a lot more time overseas, running the business ( or risk it losing control of it ).
And on immigration, perhaps, but that is not what H1B's are about. They are about, for the most part, getting cheap labor.
Precisely what rights do you lose if the company you create loses their special favors?
Rather than losing rights, your elected officials will have to listen to *you* if they are not having to kowtow to corporations in order to be able to run for office.
"Cheap labor is good...."
Except that now that "other guy" only has 20k to spend on things, making it so that the companies trying to sell things have to lower their prices to match, or forgo an additional "sliver" of demographic they can sell to. Either leads to a lose of revenue.
"can't treat non-americans like disposable resources as a lot of people is advocating here"
Great, but in making sure we don't treat Americans like disposable resources in order to avoid so treating non-Americans.
Policy wise, for the US, having more Americans employed is probably better than having H1B's.
Who made these surrender requests, and what authority did they have to make it?
My understanding is that the surrender feelers came from non-Army people close to the Emperor, but the real power ( and ability to surrender ) was held by the Japanese Army. And they were convinced they were going to win.
"Pst. The original zionists got the entire province of palestine for themselves from someone who was generally referred to as "the caliph". There was no conquest involved."
Define "original zionist". And who is this "caliph", and what authority did he have to give the land, and what were the terms? And what happened after?
"Pst. There is no such thing as "muslim land". The only land that was peacefully converted to islam is a tiny part of 1 city : medina. All the rest was conquered. That would be "muslim-occupied land"."
If "peacefully converted" is a part of "being" a nation, then there also is no such thing as "American land". England and Germany would also suffer on this point, IIRC. I would imagine many lands around the world would also.
"Pst. Let's drive muslims out of every piece of berber land (most of southern sahara). Christian land (north africa, egypt, Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia) and out of Hindu Land (Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, ...)"
And then drive the Berbers out in favor of those who were there before. Likewise the Christians and others you mentioned. Add to that driving the Americans out in favor of the Mexicans and "American Indians", followed closely by driving the Mexicans back to Spain and other points elsewhere. Here:
Loop
For each nation/state/territory
find people who lived in that land before current occupiers, drive out the occupiers in favor of the others.
Repeat until no one left.
"Let's be fair, and reject conquest. Let's drive all muslims into one neighboorhood of the only voluntary muslim neighboorhood."
And Israel then should reject conquest and give back the lands gained in the 67 conflict. And maybe the lands they gained by terrorist actions since WWII.
"Let's end the muslim occupation of northern africa ! Let's END islam in Africa, in the middle east and in Asia."
Why just muslim? Why end islam? How are you going to do that?
"Because that would be "just", ending occupation."
Only ending occupation for muslims? Is it only "just" to end muslim occupation? Not others?
"...learn new skills"
That only works as long as there are enough new skills to learn ( or invent ) to keep sufficient people employed. There is no guarantee of this, nor is there a guarantee that the new skill will command "good" wages.
But can they afford to do so?
And what about economic conditions at the new location? Sudden influx of new people, new jobs filled with relocating workers, prices go up ( more people chasing same goods ( excepting the Dell products, but you cant eat or live in those ), wages go down ( more people seeking the jobs ).
Is Dell required to keep them if they want to relocate? What happens to their wages if they do?
"I hate what we've become but I'm at a loss for how to fix it. Ideas?"
No employment terms change without all company executives being present at an all hands company meeting. Employees are allowed to ( without any legal repercussions ) kill or maim any and all company executives at said meeting ( and at any other time of their choosing ).
True for the owning and dividend production part of stock. Not true for the buying and selling among third parties part.
Those are interesting things, so, yes, the Israelis have exhibited some tolerance, more than the Arabs have. I cant see how that makes anything Israel does that I believe to be wrong ( blockades involving food extrajudicial assassinations, etc ) to be OK. Two wrongs do not make a right. Even when the other wrong is worse.
From the article:
"Before the truce between the two sides, Israel has imposed a tight blockade on Gaza. It has barred all kinds of food products and fuels into the enclave, saying the blockade was in response to rockets fire from Gaza at Israel"
This is still punishing innocents for things done by others. Staving people is not OK. Rocket launches against civilians are not OK.
"If it's in their best interest, they will do it without regulators"
US Auto makers have done nothing with respect to fuel efficiency nor emissions excepting when regulation has required them to.
On the number of passengers issue, yes, but how often are they run with even half the maximum number of passengers they can carry? Can carry != does carry.
When you have had the wolf for long enough, choosing the lion might seem rational. Especially if the lion seems focused on some other meal than you.
I am well aware that Hamas is very anti-Israel. I believe, though, that a part of that is PR.
And yes, blood is in the air, not all of it is Israeli.
"If you are not muslim, you are essentially worthless"
My understanding is that being Arab in Israel leads to similar treatment.
"you are either a Muslim, Christian, or Jew. And only the first is to be allowed to live."
I have no doubt this is true for some Arabs. I do not think this is true of all of them, or even most of them.
"If Palestine wants humanitarian aid, then how about they let shipments be inspected for weapons or illegal items?"
Seems reasonable to me.
"I'm sure Israel would have no problem with that"
I'm not as sure, but...
"they've offered many times to simply inspect and send through."
Would you trust another Nation with such power over you, when relations are as bad as they are between Arabs and Israel? I would agree that it would be prideful and silly, but then much of what transpires in that part of the world, Israeli and Arab is prideful and silly.
"Palestinians refuse - they're bringing it on themselves."
Again, I am not claiming that the Arab position is above reproach and the Israeli position wholly in error. They both have issues to take care of. You have rightly pointed out some on the Arab side of the equation. I think I have pointed out that there are issues on the Israeli side as well. Starving babies, children and grownups that want to live and let live in blockaded areas ( yes, along with militants ) is *only* going to foster a hatred of Israel ( both within and outside the blockaded areas. I recall some reading of the turmoil leading to WWI where ( I think it was Churchill or Lord Grey ) it was stated that they needed to be careful of how Arab areas were handled, in order to keep discontent to a minimum in other parts of the ( then ) British Empire. So, nearly a century ago, this *interconnectedness* of Arabs was known, why is it thought that a "bull in a china shop" approach is going to work with them? ) that will not be completely without justification. It will not make for lessened tensions in that area, it will increase them, to Israel's detriment. I understand that Israel has limited options in how to deal with these attacks, but they do have options.
They could keep the blockade, and unilaterally do the inspect and pass option. And talk about how they want to help the common person there, but still respect their security concerns. They could provide food, medicine and other non-militarizable necessities themselves ( yes, there would be a monetary cost, but I would expect they would gain a political bonus, in years to come ). And again, talk about it. In neither case will it convince the hard line haters, but it would defuse militant recruiting.
"So Israel must let Palestinians have complete sovereignty in Gaza, yet must supply any and all needs of the Palestinian state. Regardless of how many rockets are launched into Israel."
When did I say that? How about just stopping the blockade, at least of food and medicines, cooking gas, and other non-military essentials to start. And the rocket attacks are a problem, Palestinians really need to stop launching them. If you imagine I dont see that the Palestinians are a part of the problem, you are incorrect. Both sides have a long list of politically difficult things they need to change.
"How about the Palestinians taking care of themselves. I see they want to destroy Israel and drive all the Jews into the sea, but in the mean time that same hated nation must supply any and all needs demanded."
That sounds good. How about letting the raw materials for them to take care of themselves thru. And the Palestinians should drop the "push Israel into the sea" stuff.
"Is that what passes for balance nowadays?"
Who said anything about "providing all needs demanded"? Lift the blockade, allow food and medicine across. Until then, YES, Israel is responsible for the lack of these things ( and should provide them ). If I hold you in a prison so you cant take care of yourself, then I don't provide you with food, then I have starved you. There are no two ways about that.
"Oh, and good luck finding churches and synagogues in the middle east outside of Israel and Lebanon; in fact, you'll get scolded at best and arrested and jailed at worst for bringing a Bible into most of the Arabic middle east. Tolerance is not a cultural value for most of that region."
It is entirely possible I know a bit more about that than you. I know one person in my congregation who has spoken about the issues involved in bringing the Word to the middle east. Yes, it is difficult, yes, the Arabs are responsible for this policy. Yes, I believe it to be wrong. If you believe, all is on God's power. If not, why is this Israel's business?
How does the religion issue make it OK for Israel to blockade Gaza?
"from the Egyptian side, if there is a blockade it is not the result of Israeli "oppression""
If they know/believe that Egypt will feel constrainted to keep their part of the border closed, then yes, it is.
Palestinians are the red headed step children of the Arab world, and I don't know, but I can well believe what you say about religion in the Arab world ( my Church is involved in setting up Christian Churches in the Middle East ). I am not sure how that makes the blockade OK. On the "large portion of Israel is Arabic", that is unsuprising, as they were the main people there before the 1947 UN mandate that gave Israel it's original borders( since biblical times, anyway ) in that land.
"So why does Egypt continue to restrict access to Gaza?
THE BURDEN OF GAZA -- Cairo believes that if it left the Egypt-Gaza border wide open Israel would wash its hands of responsibility for ensuring the Gazans receive enough to keep them alive -- food, water, medical supplies, electricity and other essentials. Egyptian diplomats say that Israel would seal the border with Gaza on its side, diverting all trade and traffic through Egypt."
From here
"In Wednesday's voting, Hamas claimed 76 of the 132 parliamentary seats,"
From here
And
"Final results show that Hamas won the election, with 74 seats to the ruling-Fatah's 45, providing Hamas with the majority of the 132 available seats and the ability to form a majority government on their own.
Of the Electoral Lists, Hamas received 44.45% and Fatah 41.43%[1] and of the Electoral Districts, Hamas party candidates received 41.73% and Fatah party candidates received 36.96%"
From here
I was with you up till
"Their vote was, quite literally, a perfect endorsement of Hamas' platform"
If that true, then *everyone* who voted for Bush in 00 and 04 are responsible for the invasion of Iraq, waterboarding, Gitmo, the current economic issues, and other assorted issues? Of course, that is a bit different, as Bush claimed that Nation Building was not part of his agenda.
"The stated purpose of Hamas is the destruction of the state of Israel"
Again, while I don't agree with it, I am not sure why the residents there would be all that happy about Israel. A UN mandate, in their eyes, took that land from them and gave it to Israel, and Israel, while undoubted provoked, has done little that the Gaza-resident-in-the-street or Palestinian could point to and say "that is good". I mean look at the blockade. Helicopter gunships overflying their areas, shooting at suspected ( but not tried and found guilty ) militants ( taking out, in some cases, relatively innocent bystanders ), tanks and infantry incursions into their areas. So, why would you think that the destruction of Israel would be as repugnant to them as you and I find it?
( Note, I am not taking the Palestinian side here, I am full aware of the rocket attacks, suicide bombers and all the other provocations Israel has had to endure ).
And, you don't think that Hamas being in power gives them absolute power to do anything they want do you?
"just like your vote for Obama was a perfect endorsement of his platform"
1: You make an assumption there. And if I did vote for him, does that mean that I agree with all that he wants to do in government? Because I surely do not.
2: So, Obama has a mandate to enact all of his programs? He won the election, but I think even he knows that this was a reaction to the Bush Administration's foreign policy ( esp the Iraq action ), and the economy tanking from a lack of proper oversight. So, I would say he is in the same boat, no mandate.
If you were trying for funny, you got it, in a twisted sort of way. If this was supposed to be non-funny, then I have to suppose you know already where this goes wrong, I shouldn't have to point it out.
Ah, yes, I remember those days well.
"apparently a terrorist used that stove to make a meal to give him strength to launch another rocket."
All the effort that went into creating that stove could have launched a lot of rockets.
I have to disagree. The votes are *enabling* to their platform, but not a mandate.