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.
Populists? If the Republican candidate doesn't support corporations, what's left is their social conservatism. I don't think that'll make them popular. If they turn fiscally liberal, they would lose a whole lot of voters.
I share with you in terms where I think this country is going. It is inevitable. The future has long been set. We are just gradually seeing it played out. The wealth gaps in the world are evening out slowly. This isn't something voters of any particular country can change.
If people really talk about fixing the system, the fix is actually going to be less for the first world, and more for the third world. Is that the fix you want?
The two Senators at the forefront of doing something to help the American worker against abuse of H-1B are both Republicans.
I wonder. It seems to me that American IT workers have simply resigned themselves to this way of thinking. I don't recall ever seeing where a group of them came together and filed a lawsuit against the federal government. I recall a case of an individual who sued the Feds over immigration issues---only, his case got thrown out because he couldn't prove how non-enforcement of immigration laws caused hardship for him personally.
Unfortunately, this is going to get a whole lot worse unless people get together and start seriously putting pressure on Congress to do something to stop it. Soon, the TPP will kick in and once its TISA component rolls out the corporations won't even need to apply for H1B visas to bring foreigners here anymore. All that they have to do is say that they need to move their foreign employees here to make their business operations more efficient, and the US consular officers abroad will simply rubber stamp a TISA visa into the foreigner's passport---without even interviewing him/her face to face. And just like that, you are replaced. Its not only IT workers who will be impacted by this, its every professional type of job for which they can find somebody abroad who will do the work cheaper.
There is a reason why Obama rushed this thing through in secret. A lot of American workers are going to be VERY angry when they find out what's coming.
Just a with any successful movement, it would require a turnout in numbers to support any effort to stop the H1B process. Even now, large Indian IT firms are winning blanket contracts and importing thousands of workers to fulfill "needed positions" on said contract. Interviews are almost never conducted by the U.S. firm and the skills brought in are mediocre at best. But the kicker is that Americans get displaced by poor communicating "talent" from India. I suspect that some of these Indian firms will establish offices in one of the participating TPP countries to make it even easier to flood the U.S. with Indian IT workers.
How is this happening ? Non-accountability, corporate greed and lots of money changing hands at the top.
I'm assuming this is directed at me? So I shall respond.
America doesn't have a monopoly on talent, especially high end. H1B Visas should not be given to a low level IT worker at the expense of a Scientist, or a Tax lawyer who is an expert in both US and International Taxation, or a start-up entrepreneur who invested a good chunk of his/her own money and employs an X number of US employees. Well, right now that is exactly what happens. A physicist is grouped in the same Visa pool as a "network administrator" from India. Surely, we need the first lot more, rather than the second.
We do not have a shortage of scientists. There is an oversupply of scientists, including physicists. We have a shortage of funding for science.
This displacement of good jobs in our nation is justified on the grounds that enough good jobs will appear to replace the ones that are outsourced. If the good jobs aren't replaced, we'll become a 3rd-world nation in no time.
For example, let's pretend that Microsoft lays off all its engineers and hires $16/hr H1B Visa workers and doesn't lose any productivity in the process. Who is going to buy Microsoft's expensive software if every big company does the same? There will be no U.S. customer base, unless the laid-off workers are somehow able to "create their own job" that makes as much money as before. The big companies understand this. The scary part is how they plan to deal with the disappearing U.S. consumer base.
This displacement of good jobs in our nation is justified on the grounds that enough good jobs will appear to replace the ones that are outsourced. If the good jobs aren't replaced, we'll become a 3rd-world nation in no time.
For example, let's pretend that Microsoft lays off all its engineers and hires $16/hr H1B Visa workers and doesn't lose any productivity in the process. Who is going to buy Microsoft's expensive software if every big company does the same? There will be no U.S. customer base, unless the laid-off workers are somehow able to "create their own job" that makes as much money as before. The big companies understand this. The scary part is how they plan to deal with the disappearing U.S. consumer base.
The h1b workers aren't paid that little.
Corporations don't rely on the USA. They have China, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia, etc. in fact, they cultivated the market and middle class over the last 30 years.
Did anyone read the link? Intel is trimming low(er) performers.
Work life balance? Paid maternity/paternity leave? Race/gender quotas? Sky-high minimum wage laws? Unions? H1-B visa workers don't push for any of this, so of course they are more attractive to employers.
But also, Americans don't put in the necessary time to earn those high-paying tech jobs, so there's that too.
Did anyone read the link? Intel is trimming low(er) performers.
Work life balance? Paid maternity/paternity leave? Race/gender quotas? Sky-high minimum wage laws? Unions? H1-B visa workers don't push for any of this, so of course they are more attractive to employers.
But also, Americans don't put in the necessary time to earn those high-paying tech jobs, so there's that too.
The point was that that's inadequate. For good or ill, the Senate and the House are now just mechanisms for obstructing governance (negative action), not for effecting governance (positive action). Your own examples showed that dichotomy well. There is an ever-decreasing chance for legislative passage of anything that requires positive action. So that begs the question: What can be accomplished mostly with negative action? Again: For good or ill, that which favors employers tends to be more achievable mostly with negative action (defeating new regulations), while that which favors employees tends to require substantial positive action (jobs bills and such).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
But I was commenting on the irony of the left, intentions versus results.
In a vacuum there would be irony. Outside of that, when there is significant opposition to intentions, it is reasonable to expect that results won't match intentions. As a matter of fact, I would go so far as to say that whenever results match intentions, it is either a case of lack of opposition to the intentions or corruption. There is no longer the third choice (one idea prevailing over another). This is, too, in the context of positive actions. With negative actions, that third choice is still quite viable.
This is what people mean when they say the system is broken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
Anyway, on your other comments.
The essential aspect was that beyond the mainstream candidates on both sides, there are significant edge candidates on both sides this year. The edge candidates have no chance of winning, as you indicated. What I was saying was that the edge candidates can cause the mainstream candidate on their side of center to lose, and not just from running as a third party candidate, but even just from a contentious campaign for the nomination.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Costaexpress
Populists? If the Republican candidate doesn't support corporations, what's left is their social conservatism.
You're assuming that populism means opposing corporations. Many Republicans are driven by populist messages that have no place within them for demonizing corporations - messages built up on top of themes of absolute self-reliance, self-motivation and acquisition of personal advantage. These messages may not resonate with you - you may even find them to be explicitly antisocial or perhaps even morally bankrupt, and you wouldn't be alone there - but there are many Americans who have integrated these messages into their core values.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheLonelyStoner
The scary part is how they plan to deal with the disappearing U.S. consumer base.
One of the only candidates that has made an issue of the H1B fraud is Mike Huckabee which is why so far he is in the lead for who I intend to vote for.
You might want to read his Twitter feed this morning. While many may choose to forgive (or even praise) his behavior in today's matter of interest, many others see it as clear indications of deeper concerns about his ability to lead this nation. And this really shows the problems with getting anything accomplished vis a vis the issues affecting work and employment: First: There is the matter that reasonable people disagree, even just within the context of these issues. Second: Even if you end up supporting someone's positions on these issues, they could support positions on other issues that are far more offensive than the advantage they gain from their stance on these issues.
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.
