Your reply is cryptic so I'm not confident I understand your point. But in case mine was unclear, H1-B is worthwhile for many companies, but they are large companies or sponsorship shells. Small volume participation is cost prohibitive.
H1-B sponsorship is expensive. You need to be a decent size company to deal with the process and take on the sponsorship cost risk. We don't sponsor and most companies our size do not sponsor. In fact, I can't think of any.
He did say he would reduce/reform H1-B... and then he was educated by some facts and reversed himself, suggesting he would INCREASE "high skilled visa programs" like H1-B. Premise of this entire article is wrong, I guess because people here did not follow Trump during the primary.
Again, you people have no interest in data and prefer to rely on "the feelings" to get perspective. The majority of tech workers do not live in the areas you list.
Tech wages are falling like a rock. There are no jobs in tech! We must do something about the millions of poor tech workers who are being paid very low six figures and have unemployment rates of 3-4%! Please, Trump, end this victimization of our tech industry by high skilled visa programs!
Do your domestic developers have equity? If not, they don't have any more incentive to care about your business than your contracting partner. The cost of finding another job is similar to the cost of finding another customer. And employees get unemployment compensation. Salaried employees don't have much skin in the game.
This is pretty close to correct. But tech folks like to pretend that the split is domestic vs foreign. Sorry, but most domestic tech talent is not competent. Outsourcing occurs because foreign incompetent talent is far cheaper than domestic competent talent, and management needs are similar. Meanwhile, there is a cutthroat bidding war for competent domestic talent, which is in seriously short supply.
Wages are not proportional to profit you generate. The profitability question is binary. If you generate profit above your cost, you may be employed. How much you are paid depends only on supply of labor and the demand for that labor.
Tech workers who have been in the field for long enough are unable to analyze it like you have. You are detecting a market issue. Partly, wages are sticky. For jobs where this is the problem, you see complaints about outsourcing and H1-Bs. Secondly, the market is actually extremely tight for competent domestic tech workers, and employers are in a constant bidding war for these few folks. This bleeds into the majority of less-than-competent domestic tech folks through a number of mechanisms, including employers lowering the bar on unfilled positions with salary range already set, dumb employers being unable to differentiate between competent and incompetent, etc.
The answer to your question is that it is a temporary distortion. I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't claim to know how it plays out. But these high wages for less than competent domestic tech staff is not sustainable.
I don't know why you or ComputerWorld brought the H1-B visa program into this. This is conflating two issues. Outsourcing a function of your company to another company is a business-to-business transaction and does not require any employees of the outsourcing provider to be eligible to work in the United States on a visa basis or any other basis. The ComputerWorld lists a number of activities of the IT function that have matured to the point of mcdonaldization and require less skill. But wages are sticky and ratcheting -- current employees are unlikely to take lower pay, and the domestic market takes a while to adjust downward as well.
We outsourced our IT support functions to a local firm in our city. This is all they do, and their processes and ability to staff for average ticket volume across all their customers meant they provide better service at lower cost than our internal IT support. It is also a lot easier to manage -- and if needed, replace -- a vendor than employees.
You need to process a lot of air to get that much water out. At 100% humidity, there is only 0.000017 liters of liquid water per liter of air at room temperature. So you need to process 4,882,353 liters of air per hour to extract 83 liters of water per hour. And if you have less than 100% humidity, then its worse.
Income disparities encourage people to enter fields they would not otherwise select. If this study is correct even with the inflated wages in a number of tech fields, is a government program or an "awareness" effort going to change that? Why do we insist on goalseeking to 50-50 gender split in engineering disciplines but not other fields like medicine?
I have no idea why the split is what it is, and neither does anyone else. But it is not de facto evidence of discrimination or improper socialization.
Is this satire? Laying infrastructure for fast speeds cost money, and it doesn't scale up and down based on how many at the target location will buy the high speeds. Should companies be shamed into running T1 lines to 5,000 acre farmhouses, too? Rural customers are "discriminated against" far more than urban poor customers!!
How to view any voting change suggested by a sitting politician or political party: whatever he/she is suggesting will help their party get more votes, based on research and data mining of coring patterns conducted by a top firm during a 6 or 7 figure project.
It depends. If you are looking for raise in your current job, making people nervous to leave can be effective. If you are looking for a promotion to a more important role, making people nervous you're going to leave can be counterproductive
It's a rare disease and Daraprim cures it after about 80 pills. The market is super tiny, and unfortunately R&D for a new drug doesn't shrink in cost just because the target market is tiny. When you biggie sized your dinner tonight, you paid many times more than the premium increases from Daraprim's price change. On the flip side, a market that has been dormant for 75 years is now active and innovating through R&D. Patients with rare diseases are fucked because almost no pharma company gives a shit about them. Shkreli, whether you agree with him or not, is trying to make the numbers work so he can innovate in these diseases with tiny markets.
> Clearly he fucked over people who were totally powerless
Is this clear to you? It isn't clear to me. I think you're referring to people who get Toxoplasmosis, and if so you're simply uninformed. They don't pay anything for Daraprim. Their insurance company pays for the drug, and if they have no insurance they get it for free (or $1; can't remember). In theory this does increase insurance premiums, but we are only talking about 2,000 patients per year each taking something like 80 pills before cured. So, the apportioned cost of your Internet connection during the time you are complaining about Shkreli is many many times more than any theoretical increase in your health insurance premium from the Daraprim price increase.
Let's take a deep breath for a second and talk about what Shkreli is doing. If you take him at his word, and I do, he is interested in the niche market of pharmaceuticals for rare diseases. In the case of Daraprim (the drug he increased to $750 per pill), it cures Toxoplasmosis. Only a couple thousand people get Toxoplasmosis each year, which might not sound like a small number, except that Daraprim cures it after one regimen.
Daraprim has the market cornered not because the FDA is slow to approve alternatives, but because companies don't give a shit about a drug that sells a couple hundred thousand pills per year. Daraprim has been the drug for 75 years. There has been no innovation, and luckily there have been no mutations that have made Daraprim ineffective. If there had been, those couple thousands of people would just die each year, because it's unlikely anyone would invest R&D into developing a new drug. Even so, Shkreli believes Daraprim is not that great and he can do better.
Shkreli's theory is that you can actually make money in the rare drug business and that it's morally right to do so (and morally wrong to ignore these patients just because their disease is too rare to be a worthwhile market). He raised money on this theory, bought Daraprim, and increased the price *to insurers* as planned to make the acquisition worthwhile and fund the development of a better drug for Toxoplasmosis.
Does this mean anyone is paying $750 per pill out-of-pocket? No.
Does this mean hospitals are paying $750 per pill to stock the drug? No. Almost all hospitals pay somewhere around $1 per pill.
Does this mean people without insurance are screwed? No. Shkreli gives away the pills to these people as inexpensively as he is legally allowed to (I can't remember if that's free or if he is required to sell it for what he charges the hospitals, but in either case it's as cheap as he's allowed to make it.)
Is $750 per pill a large amount for a rare-disease cure? Absolutely not. It's small relative to many other drugs with even larger markets.
Does this mean our insurance rates go up? In theory, yes. That is what insurance is for. You pay a little bit more than your expected benefit (probability X $amount) in order to cap your downside risk. In this case, the diseases are so incredibly rare that its contribution to your health insurance premium is not measurable.
Shkreli's point is that areas of the rare disease pharma market are not functioning, and he believes he can make them function. In this case, that means these drugs are mis-priced.
For someone to be controversial, there has to be two sides. Reading the comments here, there is clear universal hatred for Shkreli. That is not controversy and suggests that people here have not spent any time trying to understand what Shrkeli is doing. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it.
Slashdot Mirror
Your reply is cryptic so I'm not confident I understand your point. But in case mine was unclear, H1-B is worthwhile for many companies, but they are large companies or sponsorship shells. Small volume participation is cost prohibitive.
H1-B sponsorship is expensive. You need to be a decent size company to deal with the process and take on the sponsorship cost risk. We don't sponsor and most companies our size do not sponsor. In fact, I can't think of any.
He did say he would reduce/reform H1-B... and then he was educated by some facts and reversed himself, suggesting he would INCREASE "high skilled visa programs" like H1-B. Premise of this entire article is wrong, I guess because people here did not follow Trump during the primary.
No he didn't actually. He trashed H1-B and then smarter people explained why the program is beneficial to the economy and he reversed himself.
You can call me whatever you'd like. Or, you could look at the actual data.
Again, you people have no interest in data and prefer to rely on "the feelings" to get perspective. The majority of tech workers do not live in the areas you list.
Most tech workers are just getting by? Do you people ever look at actual data, or do whining anecdotes from your brother supersede?
We do have immigration problems and deflated wages. Just not in tech. Will the whining on slashdot ever end?
Tech wages are falling like a rock. There are no jobs in tech! We must do something about the millions of poor tech workers who are being paid very low six figures and have unemployment rates of 3-4%! Please, Trump, end this victimization of our tech industry by high skilled visa programs!
Hasn't this garbage been debunked?
Do your domestic developers have equity? If not, they don't have any more incentive to care about your business than your contracting partner. The cost of finding another job is similar to the cost of finding another customer. And employees get unemployment compensation. Salaried employees don't have much skin in the game.
This is pretty close to correct. But tech folks like to pretend that the split is domestic vs foreign. Sorry, but most domestic tech talent is not competent. Outsourcing occurs because foreign incompetent talent is far cheaper than domestic competent talent, and management needs are similar. Meanwhile, there is a cutthroat bidding war for competent domestic talent, which is in seriously short supply.
Wages are not proportional to profit you generate. The profitability question is binary. If you generate profit above your cost, you may be employed. How much you are paid depends only on supply of labor and the demand for that labor.
Tech workers who have been in the field for long enough are unable to analyze it like you have. You are detecting a market issue. Partly, wages are sticky. For jobs where this is the problem, you see complaints about outsourcing and H1-Bs. Secondly, the market is actually extremely tight for competent domestic tech workers, and employers are in a constant bidding war for these few folks. This bleeds into the majority of less-than-competent domestic tech folks through a number of mechanisms, including employers lowering the bar on unfilled positions with salary range already set, dumb employers being unable to differentiate between competent and incompetent, etc.
The answer to your question is that it is a temporary distortion. I don't have a crystal ball, so I don't claim to know how it plays out. But these high wages for less than competent domestic tech staff is not sustainable.
I don't know why you or ComputerWorld brought the H1-B visa program into this. This is conflating two issues. Outsourcing a function of your company to another company is a business-to-business transaction and does not require any employees of the outsourcing provider to be eligible to work in the United States on a visa basis or any other basis. The ComputerWorld lists a number of activities of the IT function that have matured to the point of mcdonaldization and require less skill. But wages are sticky and ratcheting -- current employees are unlikely to take lower pay, and the domestic market takes a while to adjust downward as well.
We outsourced our IT support functions to a local firm in our city. This is all they do, and their processes and ability to staff for average ticket volume across all their customers meant they provide better service at lower cost than our internal IT support. It is also a lot easier to manage -- and if needed, replace -- a vendor than employees.
Water vapor is the most abundant greenhouse gas
You need to process a lot of air to get that much water out. At 100% humidity, there is only 0.000017 liters of liquid water per liter of air at room temperature. So you need to process 4,882,353 liters of air per hour to extract 83 liters of water per hour. And if you have less than 100% humidity, then its worse.
What do you do with all the heat? And wouldn't you need a very large volume of air?
Income disparities encourage people to enter fields they would not otherwise select. If this study is correct even with the inflated wages in a number of tech fields, is a government program or an "awareness" effort going to change that? Why do we insist on goalseeking to 50-50 gender split in engineering disciplines but not other fields like medicine?
I have no idea why the split is what it is, and neither does anyone else. But it is not de facto evidence of discrimination or improper socialization.
Is this satire? Laying infrastructure for fast speeds cost money, and it doesn't scale up and down based on how many at the target location will buy the high speeds. Should companies be shamed into running T1 lines to 5,000 acre farmhouses, too? Rural customers are "discriminated against" far more than urban poor customers!!
What a joke.
Govt says I can't say something? There's an amendment for that.
How to view any voting change suggested by a sitting politician or political party: whatever he/she is suggesting will help their party get more votes, based on research and data mining of coring patterns conducted by a top firm during a 6 or 7 figure project.
It depends. If you are looking for raise in your current job, making people nervous to leave can be effective. If you are looking for a promotion to a more important role, making people nervous you're going to leave can be counterproductive
It's a rare disease and Daraprim cures it after about 80 pills. The market is super tiny, and unfortunately R&D for a new drug doesn't shrink in cost just because the target market is tiny. When you biggie sized your dinner tonight, you paid many times more than the premium increases from Daraprim's price change. On the flip side, a market that has been dormant for 75 years is now active and innovating through R&D. Patients with rare diseases are fucked because almost no pharma company gives a shit about them. Shkreli, whether you agree with him or not, is trying to make the numbers work so he can innovate in these diseases with tiny markets.
> Clearly he fucked over people who were totally powerless
Is this clear to you? It isn't clear to me. I think you're referring to people who get Toxoplasmosis, and if so you're simply uninformed. They don't pay anything for Daraprim. Their insurance company pays for the drug, and if they have no insurance they get it for free (or $1; can't remember). In theory this does increase insurance premiums, but we are only talking about 2,000 patients per year each taking something like 80 pills before cured. So, the apportioned cost of your Internet connection during the time you are complaining about Shkreli is many many times more than any theoretical increase in your health insurance premium from the Daraprim price increase.
Wow, that's a lot of pitchforks, Slashdot.
Let's take a deep breath for a second and talk about what Shkreli is doing. If you take him at his word, and I do, he is interested in the niche market of pharmaceuticals for rare diseases. In the case of Daraprim (the drug he increased to $750 per pill), it cures Toxoplasmosis. Only a couple thousand people get Toxoplasmosis each year, which might not sound like a small number, except that Daraprim cures it after one regimen.
Daraprim has the market cornered not because the FDA is slow to approve alternatives, but because companies don't give a shit about a drug that sells a couple hundred thousand pills per year. Daraprim has been the drug for 75 years. There has been no innovation, and luckily there have been no mutations that have made Daraprim ineffective. If there had been, those couple thousands of people would just die each year, because it's unlikely anyone would invest R&D into developing a new drug. Even so, Shkreli believes Daraprim is not that great and he can do better.
Shkreli's theory is that you can actually make money in the rare drug business and that it's morally right to do so (and morally wrong to ignore these patients just because their disease is too rare to be a worthwhile market). He raised money on this theory, bought Daraprim, and increased the price *to insurers* as planned to make the acquisition worthwhile and fund the development of a better drug for Toxoplasmosis.
Does this mean anyone is paying $750 per pill out-of-pocket? No.
Does this mean hospitals are paying $750 per pill to stock the drug? No. Almost all hospitals pay somewhere around $1 per pill.
Does this mean people without insurance are screwed? No. Shkreli gives away the pills to these people as inexpensively as he is legally allowed to (I can't remember if that's free or if he is required to sell it for what he charges the hospitals, but in either case it's as cheap as he's allowed to make it.)
Is $750 per pill a large amount for a rare-disease cure? Absolutely not. It's small relative to many other drugs with even larger markets.
Does this mean our insurance rates go up? In theory, yes. That is what insurance is for. You pay a little bit more than your expected benefit (probability X $amount) in order to cap your downside risk. In this case, the diseases are so incredibly rare that its contribution to your health insurance premium is not measurable.
Shkreli's point is that areas of the rare disease pharma market are not functioning, and he believes he can make them function. In this case, that means these drugs are mis-priced.
For someone to be controversial, there has to be two sides. Reading the comments here, there is clear universal hatred for Shkreli. That is not controversy and suggests that people here have not spent any time trying to understand what Shrkeli is doing. It doesn't mean you have to agree with it.