The problem is that the H1B's are not sent home if the economy or IT crashes. When the econ crashes, H1B's will often work for desperate wages/hours so they won't be sent home while trying to find a better gig, clogging up the limited jobs for citizens.
Further, I doubt most H1B's are paid the higher salaries, for the very reason most companies use them is for cheaper labor that have no families and work long hours.
Save up guys, it smells like a bubble and quacks like a bubble. It may not be, but better to be safe than sorry. Those who don't learn from history live in the back of 1992 Honda Civics.
HR often focuses on the technology first, not the organization's industry. If they value company knowledge they'd pay more to keep existing staff. But, they instead often want to dump the older people for those allegedly knowledgeable in the shiny new thing of the month.
I don't want to go into details, but basically it was we actually used component brand X to build an application with when the customer wanted brand Y. I never learned why they were picky about such, for as far as I could tell it didn't matter much. Either way, there was not enough time to recode it and rather than tell the customer, my boss & owner wanted me to lie with them.
In that case, show me the "proper" complex model and explain, with evidence, why it is correct, and perhaps I'll start to agree with you. I'm open to good old-fashioned logic, science, and reason.
You are putting words into my mouth. Basically I'm saying that IF you want to change behavior on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the reward system(s) on a large scale.
Nagging people to "be good" and accept the down-sides of honesty for altruistic reasons alone will not work well in the longer run. I'm not saying whether asking them to do such is good or bad, I am only saying it won't work on a large scale. I'm trying to explain it in terms of cause and effect rather than give it a good/bad value judgement.
X will change Z but Y won't change Z. Whether doing Y is "good" even though it won't change Z is another issue that I didn't address either way.
Those options don't scale. Honest people will receive less resources and have less influence and perhaps have less children, leaving the world full of slimebags and enablers of slimebags.
It's probably why so many slimebags exist today. If you want to solve the issue on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the system(s) to not reward slimebags, not rely on futile individual volunteerism.
Why do investors think they are entitled to growth?
It's the sociopathic religion of Ayn Rand, or the Christian-influenced variation: "God wants me to be rich because I'm special and thus entitled to step on the lazy slothful poor".
I've been in a situation where I pretty much had to lie or lose my job. This was just after the dot-com crash in California and new gigs were hard to find and I had a family to support. If I were single, I'd tell them to shove it and find a gig in the north east, which still had "legacy" openings at the time. But that wasn't a real option.
I had knots in my stomach over that conundrum; it's not pleasant. I could relate a little bit with the dude in Les Miserables who had to choose between theft or starvation.
Even now I have to often live with foolish choices by PHB's simply because they are the boss. It may not be "unethical", but often it's bone-headed unprofessionalism. I try to CYA as much as possible, but sometimes you just have to shut up and play the game if you want the rewards of the game. The work world is messy Dilbertism in most orgs.
Another thing that struck me* is that metal and metal working was relatively expensive in the olden days. Deflective wing-like doo-dads may improve safety, but perhaps at the cost of more metal and/or metal-working effort. Remember, they didn't value individual lives as much back then: life was brutal and short and they accepted that. (Besides, if you put an eye out, you always had a second career as a pirate:-)
But we don't know if Earth's path to complex life is the only viable path. There may be "other angles" to get to complex life. We only have one sample to judge on.
I never said other sports didn't have problems (tradeoffs) also. Baseball's slow pace is driving away the younger generation, I would note. The offense-oriented "steroid bubble" in baseball created more interest (ratings), before it was exposed and fell apart.
But even in American football, typical scores are around the 20's, which corresponds to roughly 4 goals per team, which is still more than typical soccer. And there are also field goals (3 points) which are sort of like half-goals. Thus each team will "score" something about 5 or 6 times on average per game.
I am not trying to start a nationalistic squabble, I am only reporting US fan psychology as I observe it, and not intending to give it value judgement. It's simply a cause-and-effect observation: if you want to increase x, you do y based on past patterns.
Based on my observations, as a general rule, offense (scoring) increases audience interest in the US. Whether that is good or bad is probably another debate. In the NBA lately they have been altering the refereeing guidelines to create more offense and a quicker pace after losing interest to college games. They are trying to grow the sport. (As a side-effect, injuries may be increasing, which is hurting "star power" draw. There may be a happy medium in terms of ratings.)
Some will say jacking up the offense ruins the "art" of the game, but whether one prefers popularity or "art" is a personal judgement. Different people have different goals (no pun intended).
Slashdot Mirror
So now they need workers who can actually build stems.
If so, when does the Game Over banner come on?
The problem is that the H1B's are not sent home if the economy or IT crashes. When the econ crashes, H1B's will often work for desperate wages/hours so they won't be sent home while trying to find a better gig, clogging up the limited jobs for citizens.
Further, I doubt most H1B's are paid the higher salaries, for the very reason most companies use them is for cheaper labor that have no families and work long hours.
Save up guys, it smells like a bubble and quacks like a bubble. It may not be, but better to be safe than sorry. Those who don't learn from history live in the back of 1992 Honda Civics.
brought to you by No Duh Airlines.
HR often focuses on the technology first, not the organization's industry. If they value company knowledge they'd pay more to keep existing staff. But, they instead often want to dump the older people for those allegedly knowledgeable in the shiny new thing of the month.
I don't want to go into details, but basically it was we actually used component brand X to build an application with when the customer wanted brand Y. I never learned why they were picky about such, for as far as I could tell it didn't matter much. Either way, there was not enough time to recode it and rather than tell the customer, my boss & owner wanted me to lie with them.
In that case, show me the "proper" complex model and explain, with evidence, why it is correct, and perhaps I'll start to agree with you. I'm open to good old-fashioned logic, science, and reason.
You are putting words into my mouth. Basically I'm saying that IF you want to change behavior on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the reward system(s) on a large scale.
Nagging people to "be good" and accept the down-sides of honesty for altruistic reasons alone will not work well in the longer run. I'm not saying whether asking them to do such is good or bad, I am only saying it won't work on a large scale. I'm trying to explain it in terms of cause and effect rather than give it a good/bad value judgement.
X will change Z but Y won't change Z. Whether doing Y is "good" even though it won't change Z is another issue that I didn't address either way.
Those options don't scale. Honest people will receive less resources and have less influence and perhaps have less children, leaving the world full of slimebags and enablers of slimebags.
It's probably why so many slimebags exist today. If you want to solve the issue on a large scale, you need to find a way to change the system(s) to not reward slimebags, not rely on futile individual volunteerism.
Smells like a sneaky way to bring back Clippy: "It looks like the page is missing. Would you like me to run a Bing search for you?"
Let's see if he retains that skill in the Hague.
It seems to mostly apply to men also. Congressmen as a whole look like a Crypt Keeper gathering.
Spot the contradiction in the above sentence.
It's the sociopathic religion of Ayn Rand, or the Christian-influenced variation: "God wants me to be rich because I'm special and thus entitled to step on the lazy slothful poor".
I've been in a situation where I pretty much had to lie or lose my job. This was just after the dot-com crash in California and new gigs were hard to find and I had a family to support. If I were single, I'd tell them to shove it and find a gig in the north east, which still had "legacy" openings at the time. But that wasn't a real option.
I had knots in my stomach over that conundrum; it's not pleasant. I could relate a little bit with the dude in Les Miserables who had to choose between theft or starvation.
Even now I have to often live with foolish choices by PHB's simply because they are the boss. It may not be "unethical", but often it's bone-headed unprofessionalism. I try to CYA as much as possible, but sometimes you just have to shut up and play the game if you want the rewards of the game. The work world is messy Dilbertism in most orgs.
Sure it is, remember when W said, "Make the pi higher"?
Fine, but doing the Macarena well is much more profitable for a monkey.
Another thing that struck me* is that metal and metal working was relatively expensive in the olden days. Deflective wing-like doo-dads may improve safety, but perhaps at the cost of more metal and/or metal-working effort. Remember, they didn't value individual lives as much back then: life was brutal and short and they accepted that. (Besides, if you put an eye out, you always had a second career as a pirate :-)
* No pun intended
But we don't know if Earth's path to complex life is the only viable path. There may be "other angles" to get to complex life. We only have one sample to judge on.
So:
babies = people
corporations = people
Therefore:
corporations = babies
Does this mean we can spank corporations and give them time-outs?
So, where are all the "why are you sitting in the snow" jokes?
Industry over-extends usage of fad and is disappointed when it can't produce magic.
Gee, would've never seen that coming.
With a name like "Tiger", waddya expect?
I never said other sports didn't have problems (tradeoffs) also. Baseball's slow pace is driving away the younger generation, I would note. The offense-oriented "steroid bubble" in baseball created more interest (ratings), before it was exposed and fell apart.
But even in American football, typical scores are around the 20's, which corresponds to roughly 4 goals per team, which is still more than typical soccer. And there are also field goals (3 points) which are sort of like half-goals. Thus each team will "score" something about 5 or 6 times on average per game.
I am not trying to start a nationalistic squabble, I am only reporting US fan psychology as I observe it, and not intending to give it value judgement. It's simply a cause-and-effect observation: if you want to increase x, you do y based on past patterns.
Based on my observations, as a general rule, offense (scoring) increases audience interest in the US. Whether that is good or bad is probably another debate. In the NBA lately they have been altering the refereeing guidelines to create more offense and a quicker pace after losing interest to college games. They are trying to grow the sport. (As a side-effect, injuries may be increasing, which is hurting "star power" draw. There may be a happy medium in terms of ratings.)
Some will say jacking up the offense ruins the "art" of the game, but whether one prefers popularity or "art" is a personal judgement. Different people have different goals (no pun intended).