Who's gonna buy the 1st-generation device if it doesn't have those things?
Google should have done this as a joint venture with Apple. With the latter's design and marketing genius, stores would have been fighting consumers willing to pay $2K+ off with a shitty stick.
Plus, all of us non-believers could focus our energies more easily on a single Goo-ple.
p.s., she obtained an awesome education from american universities for free, so i have a hard time feeling sorry for her. it's going to cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the same for my son
If it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to get your son through university, you're either very rich or he's very stupid.
And the "free market" solution is to open the borders. Eventually, it will equalize. That's a quick and easy fix.
I'd love to see the libertarian computer scientists here (currently on $200K+ a year) cope with a sudden influx of several million Chinese and Indian people with equivalent qualifications to their own.
Still, I suppose you'd all still have your guns to employ some rough justice.
The key, again, is to set the bar high enough. Obviously you don't want to make it easy for immigrants to come in and work as truck drivers or in retail. But in jobs where their value is extremely high, such as at companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc., where salaries are extremely high and it's therefore clear there aren't enough American workers, it should be an easy argument that these employees bring a lot of value and the cost to the US is not all that high.
I think the key would be simply to enforce the test, so that if (say) Google genuinely couldn't find an American with a PhD in a certain area, with x years' research experience or whatever THEN they should be allowed to recruit a foreigner.
The H1B people we're talking about are not Nobel Prize winning scientists: they don't have a problem moving round the world anyway. They're just cheaper versions of US programmers.
How can anyone who is not blessed with rich parents afford the cost of getting a PhD nowadays unless it's in CS or something else that gives you a good chance of getting an overpaid job at the end of it?
There is a fallacy that there is a set amount of technology work to do, and if you increase the labor supply, that makes everyone worse off. The labor supply is actually endogenous to the demand for labor. More skilled labor allows people to be able to rely more on skilled labor. It's counterintuitive I know, but it absolutely is.
So shouldn't the US be paying for its citizens to get CS degrees and let the immigrants/visitors do the crappy jobs that the US citizens will be too qualified for?
Why is it a good idea to increase the amount of skilled labour from outside instead of inside the country?
Skilled trades, actual physical skill trades. Welding, fabrication, millwright, crane operator, etc. there are so many open jobs for people with training, skills, certifications/licenses. Problem is for the last two decades we have been pushing everyone to go get a 4 year degree to get a cushy office job. the reality is there are only so many of them, in the end someone has to go out in the field and do the work.
The point is that you don't need to be capable of getting even a Bachelor's degree to do those sort of jobs, and so there will inevitably be an excess of people who can do them (once everybody realises there's no point spending $100K to get a good CS degree). One of the reasons that it is hard to qualify as a lawyer or doctor is because those professions are basiclly a closed shop and don't want too much competition.
Right, but studying medicine is a piece of cake. Think of something besides the "hard work" line; it's getting old.
Rubbish, qualifying as a doctor is very definitely hard work. I'm sure you worked for 27 hours a day for a cup of frozen sick for twenty nine years to qualify as a web designer (or whatever you do), but in comparison with most normal jobs, it is a lot, lot harder to qualify as a doctor.
The best STEM people don't do it for the money. We'd do it for half what it pays, because we love the work
If that were actually true, you'd be donating half your salary to charity.
Unless you're a fool, you work for money. Being a universityresearcher in something fascinating isn't commercial work. I'm not knocking it, but you can't compare it to real work.
If you're (say) interested in maths and working in a job that lets you do lots of maths stuff, I bet you're not allowed just to ignore the uninteresting bits, however great your sense of entitlement as a genius.
But none of the locals we interviewed actually passed the technical interviews.
That is an entirely different problem. I'm pretty sure you mean that, for the salary you wanted to pay you couldn't find any one local who was qualified enough.
Blame it on public education, TV or just family values - the truth is, industrialized countries all suffer the same problem, and its not (only) about cheap salaries - its about talent.
Are you seriously saying that only people from non-industrialized countries have the intellectual and technical background to do certain jobs? That the education system in India is better than in Germany or the US? Really?
"Family values" probably just means that someone who is highly educated isn't prepared to work for shit wages 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's called progress, not a lack of talent.
Hard work is vastly over-rated by Americans, due to the historic "Protestant work ethic" idea.
Most sane people want to do as little work as possible for a reasonable lifestyle. It is better to have 2 people working a 7 hour day than 1 person working a 14 hour one, both economically and socially. This is especially true if it is intellectually demanding work, since whatever the people on slashdot think, you cannot think sensibly if you're working 100 hour weeks.
The UK government don't give 2 shits about EU citizens getting jobs because legally there's nothing they can do about it, what with the UK being part of the EU.
As a UK citizen, I can go and live/work in Spain or Italy or wherever tomorrow if I want to.
However, try being an Australian or Indian citizen and getting a job in the UK. Good luck.
I believe these companies when they say that they can't find hard working native talent because, if you think about it, it's a pain to have to hire someone from another country. It's not like ordering a pizza, there's effort involved.
There is certainly some effort involved, but if you do it often enough, the marginal cost in terms of time and money reduces, and you do end up saving money. (Or else the companies wouldn't bother doing it).
The simple fact is, there are plenty of talented and hard working people in the US, they just expect to earn a lot more than someone talented and hard-working from India.
Immigrants don't "steal" jobs, because the economy expands.
Not in a recession it doesn't.
Look, if capitalism worked so that the econnomy continually grew, wealth continually increased and unemployment was virtually non-existent, a lot of us would have fewer problems with it, apart from the issue of equality (which I know is irrelevant for most people anyway).
The only people who benefit are the tiny capital/management class, who "earn" their wages for taking money away from everyone else.
That is pretty much the definition of capitalism isn't it?
The only issue is whether it still leaves the majority of people at the bottom better off in absolute terms, even if the relative gap to the top is greater
The question then is how important is equality compared with wealth. And assuming that increasing GDP is the only important definition of success is begging the question.
there was one in CA where the guy had a gun he grabbed during the home invasion.
"Home invasion" is emotive bullshit and an attempt to justify reaching for a weapon when confronted by the police, by stating the police action as a criminal one.
I'm not American, and from my point of view if you wave a gun around near an armed cop you're asking to be shot.
corporations, which are not natural persons but creatures of government
Only in the sense that Trades Unions are creatures of government, that is because their existence is legally recognised. Corporations were invented for the benefit of their shareholders, just as Trades Unions were for their members.
If you had no government, you would still have corporations (trades unions, not so much). The idea that everyone would become a one-man Free Market Adventurer is absurd on any level of civilisation above the hunter-gatherer.
Slashdot Mirror
Who's gonna buy the 1st-generation device if it doesn't have those things?
Google should have done this as a joint venture with Apple. With the latter's design and marketing genius, stores would have been fighting consumers willing to pay $2K+ off with a shitty stick.
Plus, all of us non-believers could focus our energies more easily on a single Goo-ple.
p.s., she obtained an awesome education from american universities for free, so i have a hard time feeling sorry for her. it's going to cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the same for my son
If it's going to cost hundreds of thousands of dollars to get your son through university, you're either very rich or he's very stupid.
I suppose they'd have to live south of the Mason-Dixon line though...
And the "free market" solution is to open the borders. Eventually, it will equalize. That's a quick and easy fix.
I'd love to see the libertarian computer scientists here (currently on $200K+ a year) cope with a sudden influx of several million Chinese and Indian people with equivalent qualifications to their own.
Still, I suppose you'd all still have your guns to employ some rough justice.
The key, again, is to set the bar high enough. Obviously you don't want to make it easy for immigrants to come in and work as truck drivers or in retail. But in jobs where their value is extremely high, such as at companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, etc., where salaries are extremely high and it's therefore clear there aren't enough American workers, it should be an easy argument that these employees bring a lot of value and the cost to the US is not all that high.
I think the key would be simply to enforce the test, so that if (say) Google genuinely couldn't find an American with a PhD in a certain area, with x years' research experience or whatever THEN they should be allowed to recruit a foreigner.
The H1B people we're talking about are not Nobel Prize winning scientists: they don't have a problem moving round the world anyway. They're just cheaper versions of US programmers.
The fact that someone would bother to get 2 Master's degrees just says to me that US first degrees must be almost worthless.
How can anyone who is not blessed with rich parents afford the cost of getting a PhD nowadays unless it's in CS or something else that gives you a good chance of getting an overpaid job at the end of it?
There is a fallacy that there is a set amount of technology work to do, and if you increase the labor supply, that makes everyone worse off. The labor supply is actually endogenous to the demand for labor. More skilled labor allows people to be able to rely more on skilled labor. It's counterintuitive I know, but it absolutely is.
So shouldn't the US be paying for its citizens to get CS degrees and let the immigrants/visitors do the crappy jobs that the US citizens will be too qualified for?
Why is it a good idea to increase the amount of skilled labour from outside instead of inside the country?
unfortunately I don't know what that is
Skilled trades, actual physical skill trades. Welding, fabrication, millwright, crane operator, etc. there are so many open jobs for people with training, skills, certifications/licenses. Problem is for the last two decades we have been pushing everyone to go get a 4 year degree to get a cushy office job. the reality is there are only so many of them, in the end someone has to go out in the field and do the work.
The point is that you don't need to be capable of getting even a Bachelor's degree to do those sort of jobs, and so there will inevitably be an excess of people who can do them (once everybody realises there's no point spending $100K to get a good CS degree). One of the reasons that it is hard to qualify as a lawyer or doctor is because those professions are basiclly a closed shop and don't want too much competition.
Right, but studying medicine is a piece of cake. Think of something besides the "hard work" line; it's getting old.
Rubbish, qualifying as a doctor is very definitely hard work. I'm sure you worked for 27 hours a day for a cup of frozen sick for twenty nine years to qualify as a web designer (or whatever you do), but in comparison with most normal jobs, it is a lot, lot harder to qualify as a doctor.
The best STEM people don't do it for the money. We'd do it for half what it pays, because we love the work
If that were actually true, you'd be donating half your salary to charity.
Unless you're a fool, you work for money. Being a universityresearcher in something fascinating isn't commercial work. I'm not knocking it, but you can't compare it to real work.
If you're (say) interested in maths and working in a job that lets you do lots of maths stuff, I bet you're not allowed just to ignore the uninteresting bits, however great your sense of entitlement as a genius.
Being deported to get shot in the head and as you're being shot in the head the last song you hear is a Justin Bieber song.
You're an evil, evil person.
But none of the locals we interviewed actually passed the technical interviews.
That is an entirely different problem. I'm pretty sure you mean that, for the salary you wanted to pay you couldn't find any one local who was qualified enough.
Blame it on public education, TV or just family values - the truth is, industrialized countries all suffer the same problem, and its not (only) about cheap salaries - its about talent.
Are you seriously saying that only people from non-industrialized countries have the intellectual and technical background to do certain jobs? That the education system in India is better than in Germany or the US? Really?
"Family values" probably just means that someone who is highly educated isn't prepared to work for shit wages 12 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's called progress, not a lack of talent.
Most sane people want to do as little work as possible for a reasonable lifestyle. It is better to have 2 people working a 7 hour day than 1 person working a 14 hour one, both economically and socially. This is especially true if it is intellectually demanding work, since whatever the people on slashdot think, you cannot think sensibly if you're working 100 hour weeks.
Add the ethnic diversity of the area, and you end up with a further restriction of the availabilty of housing
What does that mean? Rich white geeks won't live near to poor black or Hispanic workers? Lucky there's no racism in the US, eh?
As a UK citizen, I can go and live/work in Spain or Italy or wherever tomorrow if I want to.
However, try being an Australian or Indian citizen and getting a job in the UK. Good luck.
I believe these companies when they say that they can't find hard working native talent because, if you think about it, it's a pain to have to hire someone from another country. It's not like ordering a pizza, there's effort involved.
There is certainly some effort involved, but if you do it often enough, the marginal cost in terms of time and money reduces, and you do end up saving money. (Or else the companies wouldn't bother doing it).
The simple fact is, there are plenty of talented and hard working people in the US, they just expect to earn a lot more than someone talented and hard-working from India.
Immigrants don't "steal" jobs, because the economy expands.
Not in a recession it doesn't.
Look, if capitalism worked so that the econnomy continually grew, wealth continually increased and unemployment was virtually non-existent, a lot of us would have fewer problems with it, apart from the issue of equality (which I know is irrelevant for most people anyway).
The only people who benefit are the tiny capital/management class, who "earn" their wages for taking money away from everyone else.
That is pretty much the definition of capitalism isn't it?
The only issue is whether it still leaves the majority of people at the bottom better off in absolute terms, even if the relative gap to the top is greater
The question then is how important is equality compared with wealth. And assuming that increasing GDP is the only important definition of success is begging the question.
Google's just happens to involve being good at Computer Science buzzword bingo instead of the more normal MBA buzzword bingo.
Amazing.
People here seem to find it logically impossible to believe anyone can criticise Google unless they're being paid to do so.
there was one in CA where the guy had a gun he grabbed during the home invasion.
"Home invasion" is emotive bullshit and an attempt to justify reaching for a weapon when confronted by the police, by stating the police action as a criminal one.
I'm not American, and from my point of view if you wave a gun around near an armed cop you're asking to be shot.
Just saying.
Cheers.
corporations, which are not natural persons but creatures of government
Only in the sense that Trades Unions are creatures of government, that is because their existence is legally recognised. Corporations were invented for the benefit of their shareholders, just as Trades Unions were for their members.
If you had no government, you would still have corporations (trades unions, not so much). The idea that everyone would become a one-man Free Market Adventurer is absurd on any level of civilisation above the hunter-gatherer.