Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

cloud.app.box.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 221 posts

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#71

Post by foota »

donaldguy wrote: post #24
johnloeber wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be clear: it's not just hard, it is explicitly wrong . A more correct measure is a much simpler one: the aggregate product of all these companies over the GDP. Note that this aggregate product is of course a component of the GDP, so you can express this neatly as a percentage. I see only one major accounting complication in constructing this metric, and that's the inclusion/exclusion of foreign products and subsid…

Are product numbers (domestic or multimarket) accessible somewhere to construct this? (Would revenue numbers suffice or is there more that should be factored in?) Or is there an accepted measure of national economy that might play a sensible denominator for the sum I put together? As I said, I don't know enough about economics to pretend to be making a reasonable comparison, I just went for the numbers I could find o…

Could look at the GNI, gross national income. It's gdp plus net foreign income

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#72

Post by leereeves »

pas wrote: post #69
leereeves wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The State of Washington sued to block the EO. The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed. Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the ap…

Immigration? What about those with valid visas? It was a travel ban also. It was a very simple order to don't let anyone in from those countries, wasn't it?

Yes, corrected.

The specific phrasing in the order was "suspend entry into the United States, as immigrants and nonimmigrants, of such persons".

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#73

Post by downandout »

While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#74

Post by Ensorceled »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #23
jondubois wrote: post #18

I don't know what Americans are protesting about. I don't agree with the bans at all but at least you have a president who is true to his words for once - For me that is a higher moral value. You have to take the good with the bad. I don't agree with Trump on a lot of things but I can respect a politician who does what he says he'll do. It's a refreshing break from the typical Washington charlatans who don't do anyth…

> I can respect someone who does what he says he'll do The point of a leader is to do what's right, not what's popular. Short-circuiting our republic into a direct democracy defeats its purpose.

Trump lost the popular vote. The Republic is the only reason he can do this at all.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#75

Post by _delirium »

hueving wrote: post #56
leereeves wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trump issued an executive order (EO) temporarily suspending entry to the US for nationals of 7 countries listed by the DHS as "Countries of Concern", and temporarily suspending the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program. The State of Washington sued to block the EO. The lower court judge issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EO and Trump appealed. Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion with the ap…

>Now these 97 tech companies are sharing their opinion To clarify, this is the leadership of those 97 companies. There is no indication whether or not that this is how the majority of their employees feel. This is the same virtue signaling that resulted in Trump being elected in the first place. An employee of one of these companies wouldn't dare now to express their agreement with Trump's policy because it's against…

Isn't that always the case? I've rarely been in particularly strong agreement with the politics of upper management almost anywhere I've worked, but upper management doesn't care. That's capitalism: we don't work in worker-run organizations (most of us, anyway), and company political stands aren't submitted to an internal vote.

Trump supporters disagreeing with their management from the right are hardly a unique case; many of us also disagree with our management from the left (e.g. being union supporters in a company whose management is anti-union, or being in favor of a carbon tax in a company whose management lobbies against one).

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#76

Post by foota »

flexie wrote: post #64

Some notable American tech companies that didn't sign: - Tesla - SpaceX - Amazon - HP - IBM - Dell - Oracle - VMware - Palantir - Priceline - Expedia - Yahoo - Groupon - TripAdvisor - Symantec - Fiserv - Intuit There could be many reasons. Maybe they weren't invited to participate, maybe they choose to stay out of a political discussion, maybe they thought it could hurt their business interests, and maybe they didn't…

As noted elsewhere, Expedia and Amazon have joined in on the suit against Donald Trump, and so likely can not file an amicus brief.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#77

Post by _delirium »

jondubois wrote: post #68
celticninja wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about his statements on the crowd sizes? He also said Mexico was going to pay for the wall and that doesn't look like it will happen at all.

He said he will impose a tax on Mexican imports and use the proceeds to pay for the wall - That sounds on track.

A 20% import tariff was floated, but was fairly quickly walked back after a cold reception from the Texas GOP delegation and strong opposition from the Texas Association of Business (Texas does a lot of import/export business with Mexico). Now they're looking into unspecified other mechanisms.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#78

Post by ig1 »

downandout wrote: post #73

While I disagree with the travel ban, let's remember that the primary objection that the tech industry has to it is that it will disrupt the flow of cheap talent that it uses to boost its multi-billion dollar profits at the expense of US-educated engineers that would demand higher salaries and benefits. This group of companies may not garner much sympathy.

H1B salaries are public information, if you work at any of these companies it's trivial to check if your company is underpaying H1B holders and report them if that's the case.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#79

Post by ageofwant »

Ensorceled wrote: post #70
return0 wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that argument won't fly well: "Bunch of rich guys want to go against the will of the people"

Didn't Trump actually lose the popular vote? The USA isn't a democracy, it's a republic.

When the union formed concessions were made... An Ohian's vote weighs, say 1.4, a californian 0.6. So depending on where you vote, your vote weighs more or less. I read Trump lost the popular vote by 3M. But then so did Bush.

I'm not American, my opinion is about as much worth as my passport.

Re: Amicus brief on behalf of 97 tech companies

#80

Post by jahnu »

chx wrote: post #47

> If this approach were upheld, future orders might apply to any nation, and suddenly and unexpectedly bar its nationals from entering or returning to the United States. Aye, this is the crux of the matter, isn't it? I have a plane ticket from Canada to Europe in August, transiting in the USA and I have already contemplated changing my routing because who knows whether I will be admitted? Yes, the chances are heavily…

I really really wish the U.S. would implement some sort of transit facilities and regulations for airports. Needing a visa just to pass through without ever needing to leave a secure section of an airport is ridiculous and anachronistic.
Post reply on HN