71–80 of 111 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Loss of privilege feels like oppression, but it isn't.
That's a rather simple-minded response. You define the person as having privilege without knowing said person, and then dehumanize them by saying their situation is irrelevant to justify your offensive attitude. There are circumstances that the purpose of removal of privileges is specifically for oppression.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I couldn't find the video, i suppose the soundcloud link on Verge has the audio where he does say we should not keep people who went good American schools. link : https://soundcloud.com/breitbart/breitbart-news-daily-donald... The part where he says, "a country is more than a economy, it's also a civic society" in the context that there are more south asian CEO's in silicon valley is terrifying.
Where in the recording is the quote you're talking about?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-bannon-flattered...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was not the OP who you replied to but I assumed that this was what he was referring to. When asked about students staying back in the country after going to Ivy league schools the quote is “When two-thirds or three-quarters of the CEOs in Silicon Valley are from South Asia or from Asia, I think . . . ” Bannon said, not finishing the sentence. “A country is more than an economy. We’re a civic society.” Which implies…
> Steve Bannon would prefer fewer legal immigrants I think that's a fair characterization of his position. Fewer. But I'm asking about a source for the claim "[Steve Bannon] wants to stop skilled immigrants from coming to America".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> for example the minimum wage was set back in 1989 1998, under the American Competitiveness and Workforce Improvement Act[1]. $60,000 in 1998 would be about $89,000 today, after adjusting for inflation. Trump's initiative is around $40K above that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Competitiveness_and_W...
> $60,000 in 1998 would be about $89,000 today, after adjusting for inflation. I have a hard time believing $89k is the equivalent of $60k in 1998. Gas was $1 a gallon, average rent in LA was $900, health insurance was $35 a month, DOW was at 9k.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The argument against H1B isn't an argument against immigration or immigrants, it is an argument against corporate welfare. Which argument against H1Bs are you referring to? Because Steve Bannon's, which may well be the most influential in government policy right now, was embedded against an argument that also specifically called out the overall proportion of immigrants in the US population as a problem. It is, quit…
Do you have a source for Steve Bannon's argument?
FTA: On a March 2016 episode, Bannon said that restoring sovereignty meant reducing immigration. In his radio shows, he criticized the federal H-1B visa programs that permit U.S. companies to fill technical positions with workers from overseas.
The “progressive plutocrats in Silicon Valley,” Bannon said, want unlimited ability to go around the world and bring people back to the United States. “Engineering schools,” Bannon said, “are all full of people from South Asia, and East Asia. . . . They’ve come in here to take these jobs.” Meanwhile, Bannon said, American students “can’t get engineering degrees; they can’t get into these graduate schools because they are all foreign students. When they come out, they can’t get a job.”
“Don’t we have a problem with legal immigration?” asked Bannon repeatedly.
“Twenty percent of this country is immigrants. Is that not the beating heart of this problem?” he said, meaning the problem of native-born Americans being unable to find jobs and rising wages.
_____
edit:
http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/2/14472404/ste...
A Vox piece provides a more detailed transcript of Bannon's views:
"BANNON: You saw these guest workers. You saw the CIS report yesterday. You saw that, what is it, 61 million? Isn’t the beating heart of this problem, the real beating heart of it, of what we gotta get sorted here, is not illegal immigration? As horrific as that is, and it’s horrific, don’t we have a problem, we’ve looked the other way on this legal immigration that’s kinda overwhelmed the country? When you look and there’s got 61 million, 20 percent of the country, is immigrants — is that not a massive problem? You were with Jeff Sessions for many, many years. Is that not the beating heart of this problem?"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The argument against H1B isn't an argument against immigration or immigrants, it is an argument against corporate welfare. Which argument against H1Bs are you referring to? Because Steve Bannon's, which may well be the most influential in government policy right now, was embedded against an argument that also specifically called out the overall proportion of immigrants in the US population as a problem. It is, quit…
Do you have a source for Steve Bannon's argument?
Trump's immigration policies are truly abhorrent. I agree with the article that tech doesn't work like a factory, it's people are not necessarily fungible. However, attracting the very best people is not how the H1B visa system is being (ab)used at the moment - for example the minimum wage was set back in 1989, and should be more like $130,000 in 2017, given inflation. So much as it pains me to agree on anything with…
Now, If we do set the minimum salary at that level SV will be just fine, but what about non-NYC or SV regions, who also have tech companies (believe it or not) and yet much lower income median. We will be embracing newcomers to only come to the coast, which is hardly Trump's point here.
Lower wage, and high wage workers are different and a VISA program designed for one isn't going to necessarily be fair to another.
Currently, employer influence of H1-Bs is high because they can essentially deport you when you get fired and you lose the life you built in the USA. That's not 'fair', but its at least mitigated if (a) you pay a very high wage and (b) the employees are in high demand globally so sending them out of the USA isn't really a downturn in their lives.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But in general it is the rise of anti-immigration sentiment, and the instability with respect to immigration. I guess that makes sense. If you have a low opinion of Trump starting out, then hearing about his upcoming "immigration reform" is like the Pointy-Haired Boss telling you not to worry about that race condition in the billing server because he "fixed" it: It just makes you more worried. > Under the current s…
>Would plans to make the requirements more strict(such as requiring them to work a high-paying job..) help alleviate this, since the queue will be shorter If it does, the effects will only be seen in a couple of decades. A lot things can change by then. What would be better would a system where countries get green cards proportional to their population. It makes no sense for Fiji to be awarded the same number as Indi…
That makes sense, since it's reasonable to assume that high-quality employees are a percentage of the population.
Having a global fixed number of immigrants rather than a per-country pool would also work: If A has a population of 10, B has a population of 20(with similar quality percentage), and the pool is 6, then A gets 1/2 the amount admitted as B. If A's population rises to 20, then they'd get the same amount as B. So it would be proportional to population within the pool.
The only reason to prefer per-country fixed limits is if you wanted diversity. The meaning of "diversity" here is approximated by "variance of sampling immigrants' original home government from a uniform distribution over all governments".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> and those dollars in the economy are concentrated in hands of the very wealthy on the backs of immigrants. You're very obviously wrong. The employees of Tesla and its suppliers will extract the extreme majority of all financial value from the existence of Tesla. If Tesla survives for 20 years, that tally will be in the multiple hundreds of billions. Elon Musk will end up owning a single digit percentage of that val…
Fantasy. The vast overwhelming majority of corporation valuation is in stockholders' hands. By what measure can employees be seen to benefit from this? They are given a tiny stream of revenue for their labor. That's it. Explain.
The market capitalization of listed US companies, according to the World Bank, was $25 trillion. [2]
Assuming average gains of 10% per year in the stock markets, which stockholders would be glad to receive, I think, employees receive 4x as much as stockholders of listed companies.
1: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/A033RC1A027NBEA
2: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/CM.MKT.LCAP.CD?name_desc...