Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"There come the "bitter" working class voters, who "vote against their interests". "So stupid." They don't appreciate the generosity and sophistication of modern day progressives. You know what, these bitter voters know progressives very well. And you have criticized the Democratic Party enough too. If I were poor, I wouldn't necessarily prefer the progressives personally, and their policies are separate. Spend sometime in mainstream affluent intelligentsia progressive circles, if you are a poor white man, you are always seen "trailer trash" and it shows whether or not you come to a disagreement. God forbid Im not a poor white man, heck, I'm not even white. But let's be honest. If you are white and poor, you have no little scholarships and special opportunities. In fact your poverty is the source of ridicule for your assumed trashy lifestyles and food choices. And how much have eat pray love progressives done for African Americans? Ah, adding labor competition at their level! Helpful!"
I agree with this statement as I think it comes the closest to what has happened in our political realm, and that is the real shame in America today..I don't subscribe to either party as I know they only represent the interests of of those who pay their way.
We have several blocs. First, there is the business community, which is headquartered in America and projects its power around the world. We have the best economic structure for the free enterprise system. Even though China does capitalism with amazing results, ours is still a more advanced and organized system. Of course the chinese are ideologically confused, but save that for another discussion.
Second, we have social advocates on the left and right. Pro immigration is dominated by and presented as social advocacy, supported by the business wing. The economic side of things is much ignored by our media.
Third, we have two political parties whose constituencies are deeply divided. Take a look at the GOP, is there much in common between the multinational conservative yuppies in raleigh and the religious conservatives in its outskirts? Each support the party for different reasons. But immigration is where it conflicts. You have poor conservatives yelling that they would never vote GOP again if amnesty is passed. You get similar things from some of the occupy movement people. They are kept from associating with one another because of their stands on social issues.
The two parties are very good at turning economic issues into social ones and make people think emotionally.
The republicans are inconsistent. Their liberty cause is compromised by religious insanity and social conservativism. Liberty can't go along with racism, sexism, and bigotry on sexuality. The republicans need to work on that. Social conservatives can be charitable people, but their politics is too exclusive to win young voters. I don't agree with their social conservatism. It's like they want people out for social reasons and in for economic reasons. At any Republican Party gatherings, mentioning scholarships to black students gets a sort of an uncomfortable vibe and silence. That is very telling. I can understand it if it is because of a white student being unfairly rejected, and trust me it happens a lot, but if it is just an automatic response based on no personal grievance, it seems bluntly unreasonable.
The progressives have a lot to work on. First, which side are they on? Lol. I can't argue on something with people who seem both pro and against that thing. On gay rights, I am with liberals. But I can't stand this criticism on personal responsibility and grit, even saying that hardwork is some sort of a myth. Truth is somewhere in the middle.
As much as meritocracy is subjective, I still believe that a society operates the best when we prioritize merit. The Democratic Party is over the top on social issues. Somehow this big of an america is reduced to catering to single women. Give me a break. Social dimensions can be considered in merit discussions, but only when there is a significant need for it. The GOP did well in the midterm last year. Their focus was economics and the middle class, while the democrats were still on race, gender, and transgender. The American people are tired of this divisive politics and ready to discuss how to fix the economy.
I support political liberty and economic freedom. Meritocracy is at the center of it. I also support capitalism and technology innovation. I believe handing money to people won't make them successful. It is given to those who are disabled and or truly in need for humanitarian reasons. For everybody else, The best way is to give people the recipes for success---fight but not victimhood, confidence but not arrogance, running scared but not complacent, and a sense of discipline and self control. Nothing comes easy. Million dollar retirement comes from small investments every month. Happiness comes from the contrast between the starting and end points. It comes from the difference between initial expectations and accomplishments. It comes from true validation and assurance, not generous gifts.
1. Someone has to make the decisions of which immigrants are highly skilled.
2. Nobody in the government is competent to make such decisions.
3. Companies that hire immigrants have ulterior motives.
4. Therefore, the whole scheme, while good in theory, is very bad in practice.
To make it work, we need the decisions to be made by competent neutral 3rd parties. And we need to be very selective, not accepting masses of "highly skilled" immigrants, but only the very top of the most highly skilled. We also need to detach the acceptance process from the employment process. No immigrant should ever have their immigration status depend on their continued employment with a particular company, because that makes them slaves.
Would you support the idea to eliminate high skill visa caps?
american competitiveness is based on talent driven innovation. If we want to grow our economy, we must attract and retain the best and brightest. They are the engine of innovation. We must also grow the population so that we have enough tax payers, customers, and young people.
Suppose the jobs in question are filled by immigrants. This displaces the workers that would otherwise have those positions. What happens to them? Since we are talking about people with Ph.D.'s or otherwise highly qualified, it's unlikely they will be unemployed. What will happen is that they will take some slightly less skilled jobs. This will in turn displace those that would otherwise work those jobs, forcing them to take lower-skill jobs. This will in turn displace those workers. This will continue "down the ladder", so to speak, until, at the bottom, the last group is left - you guessed it - unemployed.
That is a zero-sum view of employment, and the real world doesn't work that way. Fully 40% of the Standard & Poors 500 Companies were founded by immigrants or the children of immigrants. That is, immigrants don't merely take the job that otherwise would go to a native-born American; they sometimes go on to found companies that in turn employ large numbers of people and bring important products to market.
I doubt it would make any significant difference to american society or the economy.
It would be interesting to learn about what other provisions are being padded into the model legislation. What's the real purpose? Sadly, I'm cynical regarding american politics and don't believe the simple "make it easy for smart people to immigrate" is really what this is all about. However, I also don't really believe the simple "make it easy for tech companies to hire cheap labor" is the main bogeyman, either.
My first inclination is to think that the groups behind this have figured out a way to make huge sums of money inserting themselves into the process as the gatekeeper of the "high skill" immigration standards. Designing testing standards, exams, software for the exams, selling the whole package to INS, maybe even go so far as to become the de facto INS.
My second inclination is that anti-immigration groups will be silently piggybacking onto this and it's more about denying entrance to people who don't fit the "high skill" standards set up by the group described above.
Hiring high tech employees is hand-to-hand combat. There just are not enough to fulfill demand.
I disagree. The tech shortage in my state is caused by companies who are unwilling to pay market wages or provide any kind of training.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
