201–210 of 451 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the supply of those interpreters is so limited that you have to go outside of the U.S. to find them, then doesn't supply /demand indicate that they should have a high salary?
High as compared to what? Supply curves don't operate in a vacuum.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I agree that this is a really dumb idea. I oppose it completely. I'm just disagreeing with the very specific "breach of contract" claim. I have heard of the US refusing entry to people with visas. I know someone this happened to, in fact. But since Trump (or other similar villain) wasn't the president at the time, no one really cared.
> I have heard of the US refusing entry to people with visas. I know someone this happened to, in fact. That's along the lines of if something happens to one person it is a tragedy but if it happens to a lot of people it is statistics. The numbers are now high enough that it has become a statistic, and one worth noticing. It also draws attention because the list of 7 countries could easily be expanded (on a twitter i…
https://sethfrantzman.com/2017/01/28/obamas-administration-m...
Obama did something similar in 2012 to little protest.
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/03...
Again, I'm against this. But this is hardly unprecedented or shocking - the only shocking thing is that one of our cultural enemies won a popularity contest and then did this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not be the desired tone but essentially that's how America got populated in the first place, a place where foreigners with some disadvantage in their country of origin could get rich. And many did. Kicking the door behind you closed once you've got yours or because you're afraid new immigrants will take your job is hypocrisy of a terrible kind for a nation that was founded on immigration.
I've never understood how it qualifies as hypocrisy to take an opportunity (e.g. get into a country), then shut other people out. If you found a pile of money in the street, is it hypocrisy to shut other people out?
The resource 'a pile of money' is something an individual or a small group of people can hoard and exhaust. Something the size of a continent not so much so yes, that's hypocrisy.
America could easily operate on 25% of the landmass that it currently occupies (and it would probably be a much wealthier country, but that's another subject entirely).
Most of it is empty space anyway (and this even goes for countries that appear at first sight to be densely populated such as the country where I currently reside, the Netherlands).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think one of the Dem senators had proposed a plan that had the floor relative to the location and the job, so in this case you'd have to offer 150-200% of what an Ethiopian translator in Alabama would recieve, before you'd be allowed to hire someone via a Visa. That general principal seems reasonable to me, and less Silicon Valley centric than just a flat floor at whatever they think is reasonable for a software de…
No doubt that would open the door to all manner of skullduggery. Infosys then opens a new operation in West Armpit, Alabama and their employees now make 150% of the going rate for Java developers there in West Armpit. It is just a weird quirk that said employees wind up doing lots of travel...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If you want to hire, say, an interpreter of a specific foreign language to work on a community in rural Alabama temporarily, a $100,000 minimum wage would be absurd. Wow, that's a really important point. I'm so in the tech-news bubble that I'd never heard anybody say that before - thanks for pointing that out!
If an interpreter is so rare that one can't be found in the US and they need to be hired internationally, then maybe it's worth it to pay $100,000?
The problem with a hard salary floor is that it doesn't account for differences in cost of living at all. It would very quickly become the visa of coastal cities and little else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not be the desired tone but essentially that's how America got populated in the first place, a place where foreigners with some disadvantage in their country of origin could get rich. And many did. Kicking the door behind you closed once you've got yours or because you're afraid new immigrants will take your job is hypocrisy of a terrible kind for a nation that was founded on immigration.
>Kicking the door behind you closed once you've got yours or because you're afraid new immigrants will take your job is hypocrisy of a terrible kind for a nation that was founded on immigration. What about immigration from Kansas to California? We all know these tech companies prefer to hire from Stanford, MIT, and each-other. Why not just hire the proverbial kid from Brooklyn if we're so concerned about migration an…
The diversity is just a fig leaf, the migration angle is mostly about money and very rarely about skill.
Also, not everybody is willing to relocate for a job and people from poor countries have usually much less to lose.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I would not invite H1B on that position, I would get one from local market for that amount of money. So you're saying the incentives would work as intended..
Again, my understanding of IT market, is that shortage of candidates Silicon Valley, and not only, so complains about, is because there are NO local candidates willing to take that job, and not because "all those indians steal our young grads jobs". If by saying "So you're saying the incentives would work as intended" you mean minimum salary wage will raise because of that, don't think so.
>not because "all those indians steal our young grads jobs"
Yet we have record numbers of college graduates working at starbucks and other hourly employers.
Do you honestly believe that college graduates would rather work at starbucks or mcdonalds than a tech company doing IT?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not be the desired tone but essentially that's how America got populated in the first place, a place where foreigners with some disadvantage in their country of origin could get rich. And many did. Kicking the door behind you closed once you've got yours or because you're afraid new immigrants will take your job is hypocrisy of a terrible kind for a nation that was founded on immigration.
> that's how America got populated in the first place This isn't 1910. We are the top 5 in the world in population. We don't need as much immigration as we used to. Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works.
There will be specific Americans who benefit less than specific immigrants, but the net effect of immigration has pretty much always been a benefit to the economy.
Why should we put the interests of specific Americans ahead of the interests of Americans overall?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> that's how America got populated in the first place This isn't 1910. We are the top 5 in the world in population. We don't need as much immigration as we used to. Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works.
> Americans should benefit from the American system before foreigners, like, you know, how every other country works. Found the fascist nazi bigot. /s
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It may not be the desired tone but essentially that's how America got populated in the first place, a place where foreigners with some disadvantage in their country of origin could get rich. And many did. Kicking the door behind you closed once you've got yours or because you're afraid new immigrants will take your job is hypocrisy of a terrible kind for a nation that was founded on immigration.
I've never understood how it qualifies as hypocrisy to take an opportunity (e.g. get into a country), then shut other people out. If you found a pile of money in the street, is it hypocrisy to shut other people out?