H-1B visa proposal exceeds corporate expectations

[Brian4Liberty]

This subject has come up in several other threads. Perhaps the topic is better discussed as it's own thread. Or maybe not. :o


Senate’s H-1B visa proposal goes far beyond Microsoft’s

A bipartisan Senate plan to dramatically expand a visa program for highly skilled foreign workers resembles a proposal unveiled by Microsoft last fall, but well exceeds the company’s own goals.

By Kyung M. Song
Seattle Times Washington bureau

WASHINGTON — A bipartisan Senate plan to dramatically expand a visa program for highly skilled foreign workers resembles a proposal unveiled by Microsoft last fall, but well exceeds the company’s own goals.

Led by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, five Republicans and five Democrats rolled out the Immigration Innovation Act on Tuesday to lift the annual quota of H-1B visas for those workers from 65,000 to 115,000. That new cap would grow each year if demand outstrips supply, potentially up to 300,000 visas annually.

In addition, the bill calls for doing away with a separate cap of 20,000 visas for foreigners with graduate degrees from U.S. universities. It also would allow spouses of H-1B visa holders to hold jobs for the first time, and reserve unused green cards for permanent residency for foreigners with technology- and science-related skills.

The bill would charge employers an extra $1,000 for each visa and use the money to bolster so-called STEM education — science, technology, engineering and math — for American students.

Taken together, the provisions largely mirror a blueprint laid out earlier by Microsoft. The Redmond company and others in the technology field seek to liberalize rules to import more workers to fill vacancies for which they say they lack qualified Americans.

Microsoft had previously sought to create 20,000 extra visas for STEM-related jobs. The cap has fluctuated since the visas were created in 1990, and has never topped 195,000.

Microsoft has ratcheted up lobbying on the visa issue in recent years. Immigration now ranks as one of the top issues for Microsoft and its lobbyists, accounting for more visits to members of Congress than all but tax matters, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics.

Microsoft is one of the nation’s heaviest users of H-1B visas, and foreign workers make up about 10 percent of the company’s U.S. workforce.

The pending legislation — which likely will get rolled into the broad immigration debate under way in Congress — is sure to exacerbate the tension between high-tech companies and unemployed Americans who fear they’re being displaced by younger, lower-paid foreigners.

Groups representing engineers and programmers, as well as individual workers, reacted with dismay and disbelief to the bill.

Kim Berry, president of the Programmers Guild, denounced the bill as a product of “backdoor negotiations with industry lobbyists.”

Berry said the new quotas are so generous that “effectively, there is no cap.”

“These U.S. senators are siding 100 percent with multinational corporations and 100 percent against American tech workers,” he said.

The group is demanding changes to the bill, including requiring employers to first advertise the job and attempt to fill it with a qualified American before resorting to a foreign hire. Many employers currently do not need to prove a shortage of domestic applicants.

Ron Hira, associate professor of public policy at Rochester Institute of Technology and an expert on H-1B visas, said he was taken aback by the bill’s scope.

Hira estimates eliminating the cap on foreigners with advanced degrees from American universities could eventually account for 100,000 additional visas a year. Add to that working spouses of visa holders and the Hatch bill could mean an annual influx of 500,000 foreigner workers.

Christina Pearson, a Microsoft spokeswoman in Washington, D.C., declined to say whether the company considers the number of H1-B visas proposed in the bill reasonable.

But in a statement, Brad Smith, Microsoft’s general counsel and executive vice president, called the bill a “major step forward” in addressing the shortage of qualified Americans as well as the lack of visas available for skilled foreign workers.

“They have reached across party lines to craft a meaningful proposal that will positively impact opportunities for America’s students and workers and our economy,” Smith said.

Microsoft has said it pays foreigners the same $100,000-plus salaries as its American employees, and that it would not be hiring from abroad if it could hire at home.

American schools and universities, Microsoft says, simply are not graduating enough people in the science, technology, engineering and mathematics fields.

Foreigners earn nearly half of graduate degrees in computer science or engineering from U.S. institutions. And 95 percent of American high schools do not offer advanced-placement computer-science courses.

Microsoft had previously proposed a fee of $10,000 for each extra visa to fund STEM education. Hatch’s bill would charge employers an extra $1,000 instead on all visas.

The bill’s main sponsors also include Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Democratic Sens. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Chris Coons of Delaware. Hatch, Klobuchar and Coons serve on the Senate Judiciary Committee, which has jurisdiction over immigration issues.

...

More:
http://seattletimes.com/html/localnews/2020238456_microsoftvisaxml.html

[Anti Federalist]

Good luck paying off those student loans.

But, you know, we're all a bunch of backwoods rednecks, "hurr derr, de is takin ur jobz".

Good joke, enjoy your fucking food stamps.

[jkr]

$ELLING US OUT
300,OOO jERBz ADDA TYME

[Mani]

This subject has come up in several other threads. Perhaps the topic is better discussed as it's own thread. Or maybe not. :o


I think the bill is too late. Thy have let the bright minds and graduates of US universities leave for a decade. All that talent has left and Many of them are ahead in their own countries or other parts of Asia. US needs to keep those resources here. Whats the use of bringing in a foreign talent, giving them a great education, and then forcing them back to compete in a global market place??

That pool of talent, those resources should have incentive to stay in the US, become successful and productive members of society, pay taxes, and contribute to competing in a global market.

The world has changed. 20 years ago the influx of these workers was too much so they put a cap, and it sent tHem away. But Asia boomed, and now the jobs and opportunities are better abroad and the talent abroad got better and better. Now I here about people who went back to Asia are far ahead of their peers who stayed in the US. Like the guys who stayed back the last 5-10 years missed the boat in Asia.

We need to stop letting our talent pool drain and bring some incentive for these new resources to stay in the US. Abroad they are offered. Salary plus apartment rent (think gorgeous condo for your whole family for free, no property taxes, no rent, nada ) plus, car included, plus children's education and tons of other perks. Plus an ability to build and create, and not be stifled and restricted in beurocratic messes and sarbanes-oxly idiot compliance.

We need to make America the place where the brightest minds want to come and work, not give them degrees and tell them to GTFO.

[Brian4Liberty]

... Now I here about people who went back to Asia are far ahead of their peers who stayed in the US. Like the guys who stayed back the last 5-10 years missed the boat in Asia.

We need to stop letting our talent pool drain and bring some incentive for these new resources to stay in the US. Abroad they are offered. Salary plus apartment rent (think gorgeous condo for your whole family for free, no property taxes, no rent, nada ) plus, car included, plus children's education and tons of other perks. Plus an ability to build and create, and not be stifled and restricted in beurocratic messes and sarbanes-oxly idiot compliance.

We need to make America the place where the brightest minds want to come and work, not give them degrees and tell them to GTFO.

As you have said, the recession/depression in the US has probably made it a better idea economically for foreign, US educated engineers to go back to their home nation. That's economics.

As far as making extravagant offers to keep foreign workers in the US, depending on the field, they are often given the same or better options than American workers. It would be nice if everyone in the US had better opportunities and less government intrusions. The quality and quantity of opportunity is based on supply and demand. Too many workers, too little demand. Each individual becomes worth less.

[DGambler]

I know people who are now returning to India, they no longer see the benefit of being on the US.

I've worked with other countries where people wanted to get to the US badly... Now, they no longer want to come.

To me, both are bad signs.

[itshappening]

No surprise. They want cheap indian and chinese programmers who will work for $25k a year

[itshappening]

We need to stop letting our talent pool drain and bring some incentive for these new resources to stay in the US. Abroad they are offered. Salary plus apartment rent (think gorgeous condo for your whole family for free, no property taxes, no rent, nada )
-

That's a complete fiction. If you want to live in the desert in Dubai or Saudi Arabia maybe because that's the only places I know where companies will pay for an apartment "abroad". Where else?

[thoughtomator]

We need to make America the place where the brightest minds want to come and work, not give them degrees and tell them to GTFO.

Our first priority needs to be making America a place where Americans can prosper. Foreigners can go fuck themselves.

These people being brought in on H1-Bs have no special talents and more often than not their resumes are complete frauds (I have over a decade of firsthand experience with these people). The cultural barriers are enormous - often insurmountable - and cause no end of problems. They are brought here for one purpose and one purpose only, to drive down the wages of American workers.

[Michelangelo]

Our first priority needs to be making America a place where Americans can prosper. Foreigners can go fuck themselves.

These people being brought in on H1-Bs have no special talents and more often than not their resumes are complete frauds (I have over a decade of firsthand experience with these people). The cultural barriers are enormous - often insurmountable - and cause no end of problems. They are brought here for one purpose and one purpose only, to drive down the wages of American workers.

Lower cost of labour inputs means a lower cost of production and in turn lower prices for consumers. In real terms the wealth of Americans increases.

[Natural Citizen]

That pool of talent, those resources should have incentive to stay in the US, become successful and productive members of society, pay taxes, and contribute to competing in a global market.



They're not being forced out. They are leaving on their own. Many "Silicon Valley's" all over the world now.

[Natural Citizen]

I know people who are now returning to India, they no longer see the benefit of being on the US.



Yep.

[Natural Citizen]

This is a pretty good listen for those who don't understand the process or aquisition. Well...depending upon which side(s) of the issue one wants to look at.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvjeNIK5Tvg

[AGRP]

Pay your taxes to build and maintain schools like a good citizen. Then pay your tuition. Then upon graduation, youll be competing with someone whos not even a citizen of your country because the politicians dont really care for you. Isnt statism fun?

[Brian4Liberty]

They are brought here for one purpose and one purpose only, to drive down the wages of American workers.

Truth. Alan Greenspan himself would admit as much.

Then they spin the propaganda around that simple truth. They lie. They make up stories about the best and brightest. They make up stories about the "American Dream". They appeal to open borders advocates. They appeal to economic (and pyramid) growth advocates. They appeal to a sense of fairness that many Americans had recent ancestors that were immigrants. They resort to accusations of racism when all else fails. They publish stories in trade journals. They pay lobbyists and politicians. They teach in business schools. They give seminars on Wall St and in boardrooms. They make speeches and make sure that the talking heads repeat their propaganda. They write bills and try to get them passed every session of Congress.

And the essential truth remains. Their only objective, their only real motivation, is to lower wages. On Wall St, they want to increase profit margins. At the Treasury and Fed, they want to offset the inevitable inflation caused by money printing and government debt.

The Democrats and socialists have a secondary desire to gain voters. But the establishment doesn't care whether it's a Republican or Democrat government. The money is green either way.

[Anti Federalist]

Lower cost of labour inputs means a lower cost of production and in turn lower prices for consumers. In real terms the wealth of Americans increases.

I don't want to be a consumer any longer.

I want to be a free man.

[DGambler]

No surprise. They want cheap indian and chinese programmers who will work for $25k a year

You can't get them at that price in the States... It's not much cheaper than a US programmer.

Problem is, a lot of the younger US programmers are lazy and have no initiative.

At the end of the day, I want someone that is competent, works hard and solves problems (not causes them)... If they can do that, I don't care what nationality they are and I'll pay above market rates for them.

[Michelangelo]

I don't want to be a consumer any longer.

I want to be a free man.

What does that mean? You want freedom, but not freedom for others?

And is this really the Ron Paul forum? I thought you were all free market advocates here. Some posts here though better resemble the sort of thing you'd expect a party line Republican or Democrat to say.

[HOLLYWOOD]

FASCISM at it's Finest.


Corporations and Lobbyists have been bribing Washington DC for decades. We no longer have representation, just CON-ARTISTS.

[Mani]

We need to stop letting our talent pool drain and bring some incentive for these new resources to stay in the US. Abroad they are offered. Salary plus apartment rent (think gorgeous condo for your whole family for free, no property taxes, no rent, nada )
-

That's a complete fiction. If you want to live in the desert in Dubai or Saudi Arabia maybe because that's the only places I know where companies will pay for an apartment "abroad". Where else?

India, Dubai, and a few other places (don't remember all the advertisements, I've been out of IT for 3-4 years now). And Hong Kong.

All the bankers here get AMAZING packages (and some upper management corporate people as well outside of banking). Hasbro, Cisco, and a few other non-banking corporates as well.

These people get $15-25K USD tuition per year paid for their kids at the best private school.. FREE apartment rent which cost from 10K - 17K usd per month. The best of the best healthcare for their family.

How is this fiction??? I know over 30 families that have these packages. Some of these packages include membership to private clubs which would otherwise cost $100,000 USD to join.

I'm not talking any fiction. There are a lot of packages to attract talent to Asia. I know of someone who worked in Thailand and they actually had paid trips to go back to the US and other crazy incentives that made my mouth drop.

I know someone who is working in Manila, Philippines and I KNOW he has an amazing contract there but I barely know him enough to ask him what are his benefits.


I'm NOT advocating America needs to offer these incentives to bring in talent, I'm saying we should STOP THE TALENT DRAIN. America was a place where EVERYONE used to want to come to, a long time ago. That's not as true anymore. Contrary to what the US media will show you, that the US is the shining beacon on Earth and the rest of the world is a desert, shit hole jungle, or 3rd world country....besides Europe. That's not the truth. America is so far behind it frustrates me.

Now when I hear people who LOVE to visit the USA, there number #1 reason isn't because it's a place of technological wonder or awe or anything like that....It's just because it's the cheapest shopping place on the planet. I love AMERICA! Shopping is GREAT! Those Outlet malls are amazing! FOOD IS SO CHEAP! It's a shopping paradise!

What have we become mexico now??? People love to visit for a cheap getaway??? Cheap drinks, food, and shopping, and affordable clean hotels! Great vacation!!

Honest to God, that's the only thing people talk about when they go to America. Because it's becoming the shit hole now and other parts of the world are moving ahead.

Sorry for that rant, the point is, America does need to compete for talent, and they already have home field advantage when they do bring in people to get educated in their country. Those kids often had to be the best of the best to get into the better US universities. I'd think it's a good idea to offer them Visas with their spouses having the flexibility to work. These kids have lived in the US for a a few years and are usually open to the idea of working in the US, but the Visa process is archaic and a hellish process and we do lose talent.

I'm also not talking about bringing in low waged people with minimal skills from foreign countries, I'm referring to US educated, top Students who are foreigners, we need these type of people in the US, we can't let them all go back. It is a Talent Pool drain and it's been happening for too long. Not only that, but many Top executives and US BORN talent is leaving, many entrepreneurs are leaving the US as well. Why go through the trouble of Sarbanes-Oxly and punish new creative development? Just go abroad and work without all the restrictions!

America is losing the brightest minds, US born and foreign born but US educated. It is very sad to see it happen.

[RickyJ]

This is nuts! The American people have no representation at all in this country at the Federal level. The first revolution was started precisely because of no representation. The second American revolution is coming if they don't start representing the American people instead of corporations and the elite.

[Anti Federalist]

What does that mean? You want freedom, but not freedom for others?

And is this really the Ron Paul forum? I thought you were all free market advocates here. Some posts here though better resemble the sort of thing you'd expect a party line Republican or Democrat to say.

*sigh*

Oh god, here we go again.

Here, let me blow your mind right off the bat so as to not waste any time:

I distrust Big Business as much as I distrust Big Government.

The corporation can and will tyrannize you just as quickly as the government will.

When the two collude together, as we currently have now, you have what is called fascism.

Oh, and fuck Wal-Marx.

There, now you say: "Omigod! Commie!"

And throw a million Bastiat and Smith and Ricardo and Rothbard quotes at me.

[MRK]

Well, at least the business owning American in the tech world is happy.

And no one else. Muah. Ha ha. Ha ha. Ha.

[RickyJ]

//

[thoughtomator]

Lower cost of labour inputs means a lower cost of production and in turn lower prices for consumers. In real terms the wealth of Americans increases.

Human beings are more than economic units, and wealth can be measured in more than money.

Also, your statement is incorrect. In real terms, the wealth of the entire system increases, but NOT in America. In America, wealth decreases from this arrangement as that wealth is shipped abroad.

[JorgeStevenson]

I am 27 years old living in Brazil. My company pays for my apartment. It does happen.

And I can also confirm that a lot of what Mani said is true. What's the most popular destination for Brazilians in the US? New York? Los Angeles? Nope.

Orlando.

Everybody down here goes to Orlando when they're about to have a kid so that they can shop for strollers, clothes, and other baby supplies. Sure, they pay $1500 for the flight to Orlando. But when a stroller here costs $1000 more than it does in the US, that doesn't seem so bad. Seeing the sights in the US, or experiencing the culture, take a major backseat to shopping.

[itshappening]

America doesn't have much of a "brain drain". It's a lot worse in Europe who have higher taxes and regulations. American's tend not to want to leave their country and if they move it's to another state.

With the H1B's the global corporates like Microsoft want to just recruit programmers directly from China and India and ship them into the US on lower wages. That's what they do! They bring them in en masse, they get a visa and they pay them lower wages.

Simple supply and demand. The pool of graduates in China and India is massive so the price of labor gets bidded down especially with plentiful H1B's available

Companies care about their bottom line so if they can save a few thousand hiring an Indian graduate on an H1B, why wouldn't they do it?

[thoughtomator]

Companies care about their bottom line so if they can save a few thousand hiring an Indian graduate on an H1B, why wouldn't they do it?

There are very compelling reasons not to do it, but none of those are of concern to a CEO who plans to cash in on short-term rises in the stock price, and bail before the consequences are suffered.

[DGambler]

Guess no one is interested in the fact that hiring managers want the best people regardless of the nationality.

As someone who deals with this daily, the quality of entry level US programmers is declining, specifically the work ethic.

[thoughtomator]

Guess no one is interested in the fact that hiring managers want the best people regardless of the nationality.

Perhaps, but the hiring managers aren't the ones making the decisions we are concerned with here. These are executive-level decisions. And the underlying reason why Americans are not preferred is that foreigners are here on terms of indentured labor, while Americans are free to quit if they choose. It's not an even playing field. Americans assert rights where foreigners don't. The goal of this process is to reduce all US workers to conditions of indentured servitude.

There is explicit fraud in the process of bringing H1-Bs here - this video is years old, and the problem has only gotten worse as none of these frauds and illegal schemes have been prosecuted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

"Our goal is to avoid hiring an American worker"



As someone who deals with this daily, the quality of entry level US programmers is declining, specifically the work ethic.

That's common to all US workers (education system has failed them utterly) and is in no way specific to the programming profession.

[DGambler]

That's common to all US workers (education system has failed them utterly) and is in no way specific to the programming profession.

So, what am I to do? Hire someone who is unqualified to solve business problems and will generate more issues than they solve or hire someone competent, regardless of nationality? When I construct project teams, my first order of business is to put together the best team, based on qualifications, to solve the problem.... anything else will cause me issues over the long term of a project.

[thoughtomator]

So, what am I to do?

Nothing you can do because you're not in the role that makes decisions over the issues in question. The issues are those that make the cost of foreign labor artificially low, and the cost of US labor artificially high.

The issue is a political one, and the politicians are betraying US workers by making importation of indentured labor possible despite the explicit Constitutional bar to such activities.

The core issues in question are:

1) Indentured servitude being permitted
2) Foreigners present a far lower risk profile because they can't sue over grievances
3) The cost of US workers has shot the moon due to the combination of requiring college degrees for work that shouldn't require them, and jacking up the cost of the degrees to an unconscionable level.

Absolutely nothing you can do as a hiring manager - but as a citizen, you can get active in the political process to put a stop to these abuses.

[Barrex]

Why do I get a lot of advertisements on websites to apply for a green card and go to USA?

[Brian4Liberty]

India, Dubai, and a few other places (don't remember all the advertisements, I've been out of IT for 3-4 years now). And Hong Kong.

All the bankers here get AMAZING packages (and some upper management corporate people as well outside of banking). Hasbro, Cisco, and a few other non-banking corporates as well.

These people get $15-25K USD tuition per year paid for their kids at the best private school.. FREE apartment rent which cost from 10K - 17K usd per month. The best of the best healthcare for their family.

How is this fiction??? I know over 30 families that have these packages. Some of these packages include membership to private clubs which would otherwise cost $100,000 USD to join.

I'm not talking any fiction. There are a lot of packages to attract talent to Asia. I know of someone who worked in Thailand and they actually had paid trips to go back to the US and other crazy incentives that made my mouth drop.

I know someone who is working in Manila, Philippines and I KNOW he has an amazing contract there but I barely know him enough to ask him what are his benefits.


I can confirm that other corporations in other countries provide all kinds of fringe benefits. No debate here. Programmers in the US on H-1Bs complained to me years ago about the superior living conditions they enjoyed in other countries. The US corporations were essentially cashing in on the mystique of the US.


I'm NOT advocating America needs to offer these incentives to bring in talent, I'm saying we should STOP THE TALENT DRAIN. America was a place where EVERYONE used to want to come to, a long time ago. That's not as true anymore. Contrary to what the US media will show you, that the US is the shining beacon on Earth and the rest of the world is a desert, shit hole jungle, or 3rd world country....besides Europe. That's not the truth. America is so far behind it frustrates me.


Yes, when it comes to immigration policy, the best and brightest need to be first in line. The fact is that many of us have seen the opposite in reality. It's not the best and brightest, it's a cattle call, and often it includes downright fraudulent resumes, as others have talked about. The current system is a failure, no doubt about that; a government program that sounds good in theory, failing miserably in practice. Who would have thought?


Now when I hear people who LOVE to visit the USA, there number #1 reason isn't because it's a place of technological wonder or awe or anything like that....It's just because it's the cheapest shopping place on the planet. I love AMERICA! Shopping is GREAT! Those Outlet malls are amazing! FOOD IS SO CHEAP! It's a shopping paradise!

What have we become mexico now??? People love to visit for a cheap getaway??? Cheap drinks, food, and shopping, and affordable clean hotels! Great vacation!!

The cheap products come from China. Why don't people from India get products directly from the source? So the US is now nothing more than a clean and friendly shopping mall? Not many high paying jobs can come from that economic model.

[Brian4Liberty]

Speaking of the national economic model of "Outlet Mall USA", this brings us back to an essential issue. Whenever immigration levels are debated, the argument generally starts out with a statement about how bad the economy is in the US, followed by the hypothesis that more immigration will solve that problem.

Really? Immigration of low skill workers has been pretty much unhindered for the past 20 years, despite the fear mongering. Immigration of high-skill workers has been slightly limited, but not by much. How has this helped the US economy over the past 15 years?

How in the world does more immigration solve the problems of an overwhelmingly wasteful socialist government, that deficit spends and lives on debt? How does it solve the problem of a monetary policy of money printing, debt and debasing the currency? How does it solve the problems of crony corporatism, Wall St fraud and massive taxpayer bailouts of failed pyramid schemes? How does more immigration solve the problem of massive spending on wars and policing the world?

In other words, the "immigration" problem is another emotional red herring, meant to distract from the true problems we face. We could make every person in the world a US citizen tomorrow, and include a Democrat voter registration and EBT card in the process. Would that fix our economy? Hell, let's do it anyway. At least it will be interesting. US Passports for everyone! How did we miss out on this easy fix?!

[erowe1]

Berry said the new quotas are so generous that “effectively, there is no cap.”


What does your mindset have to be to think this is a bad thing?

[BAllen]

Perhaps, but the hiring managers aren't the ones making the decisions we are concerned with here. These are executive-level decisions. And the underlying reason why Americans are not preferred is that foreigners are here on terms of indentured labor, while Americans are free to quit if they choose. It's not an even playing field. Americans assert rights where foreigners don't. The goal of this process is to reduce all US workers to conditions of indentured servitude.

There is explicit fraud in the process of bringing H1-Bs here - this video is years old, and the problem has only gotten worse as none of these frauds and illegal schemes have been prosecuted.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU

"Our goal is to avoid hiring an American worker"




That's common to all US workers (education system has failed them utterly) and is in no way specific to the programming profession.

That video explains the fraud involved in bringing in foreign hi tech labor.
Concerning free market argument: Lower wages cannot benefit America because there is no free market for necessities such as housing. It is being artificially propped up. Excessive regulations add to the cost of housing. Were it a free market, housing could drop to affordable levels, to compensate for lower wages. That is not happening b/c of government regulations and taxes. The only thing they're allowing for 'free market', is labor in tech fields.

[Michelangelo]

*sigh*

Oh god, here we go again.

Here, let me blow your mind right off the bat so as to not waste any time:

I distrust Big Business as much as I distrust Big Government.

The corporation can and will tyrannize you just as quickly as the government will.

When the two collude together, as we currently have now, you have what is called fascism.

Oh, and fuck Wal-Marx.

There, now you say: "Omigod! Commie!"

And throw a million Bastiat and Smith and Ricardo and Rothbard quotes at me.

You yourself said it, what we have now is fascism. This isn't the free market by any means. By no means is libertarianism pro-big business. I agree with you, to hell with big business.

How do you justify infringing on the rights of others to move and work where they wish though?



Human beings are more than economic units, and wealth can be measured in more than money.

Also, your statement is incorrect. In real terms, the wealth of the entire system increases, but NOT in America. In America, wealth decreases from this arrangement as that wealth is shipped abroad.

I never said money is the only measure of wealth. In fact I have used the term wealth in my prior posts, not money.

'Shipped abroad'? You are incorrect. Over all wealth increases in both global and local terms. The nominal wages of certain sectors may decrease, but it is made up by the general decrease in the cost of goods and services.

I really don't get some of you. You're against the Federal Reserve monopolizing banking, but you're in favor of monopolizing labour?

I repeat my earlier question. Is this really the forum devoted to Ron Paul, Mr. Free Market?

[BAllen]

You yourself said it, what we have now is fascism. This isn't the free market by any means. By no means is libertarianism pro-big business. I agree with you, to hell with big business.

How do you justify infringing on the rights of others to move and work where they wish though?



I never said money is the only measure of wealth. In fact I have used the term wealth in my prior posts, not money.

'Shipped abroad'? You are incorrect. Over all wealth increases in both global and local terms. The nominal wages of certain sectors may decrease, but it is made up by the general decrease in the cost of goods and services.

I really don't get some of you. You're against the Federal Reserve monopolizing banking, but you're in favor of monopolizing labour?

I repeat my earlier question. Is this really the forum devoted to Ron Paul, Mr. Free Market?

You didn't read my post, did you? Housing is not a free market. That is why labor needs to be higher. You get rid of excessive taxes and regulations, the market would adjust to lower labor. That is not happening, is it?
Oh, and our country is not fascist, it's cultural marxist. Fascist is national socialism like Mussolini or Hitler.

[Brian4Liberty]

I really don't get some of you. You're against the Federal Reserve monopolizing banking, but you're in favor of monopolizing labour?


And I don't get how a person can fully understand the workings of the Federal Reserve without knowing that immigration policy (cheap labor) is an integral part of their scheme.

[HOLLYWOOD]

Why do I get a lot of advertisements on websites to apply for a green card and go to USA?Here's the past...
I miss those odd local channels on Spanish TV that used to advertise, "Welcome to the USA... learn English audio tapes/CDs, learn how to get assistance from the state and from the federal government for children, family... learn how to collect Medical/Social security/welfare/... etc.

Buy Now and receive a FREE BOOM BOX."


Before going to my opinion... Jackie Chan was ,'Oh So Correct' US governments are the most corrupt in the world. So now, the US government besides bombing other nations into Fascism and stealing their natural resources and laundering federal tax dollars to US corporations, with partner token nations(UK.France/Italy/etc) payoffs, now want to steal the Best educated of other nations. Putting educated Americans on the street or dependence on the government to survive. We know "THE GAME"... lowering wages, cutting benefits you paid into, and also add the pushing of U.N. Agenda 21, on the "WASTEFUL/POLLUTING/CONSUMING middle classes of planet earth". Economic indebtedness and lowering the fiscal security of American citizens, is the main goal to government empowerment and individual open air enslavement.

This Forum has covered the H-1B/H2-C VISA con game numerous times.

I think Brian4Liberty and others on this forum can give an insight/information on how this scam works for US High Tech jobs. In the past, I dated an HR director of a large hightech corporation and witnessed first hand, how this complete sham is run by corporations and politicians(gov). VISA workers are entrapped to the 'Work hard and produce or you will be deported'.

For the politicians(that are lawyered-up on manipulative loophole law writing) again, the big con on the public, having cleverly passing labors laws that "you cannot fire someone and rehire a replacement at a lower wage". The "CONMEN" don't tell you, the campaign donors (corporations/big business/special interest/etc) are given nice loopholes in the labor laws and sometimes even write the legislation for the politicians. e.g. 'reclassifying the same work requirements/job skill under a different title/name/dept/profession' to get around laws.

Remember in the US today, corporations have HR (Human Relations) departments, which used to be called Industrial Relations, but that sounded too harsh and bias towards the corporations, so they changed it to from I.R. to H.R..

People have to realize, government gets their revenue off the laborers back, not the corporation. Government gets their campaign donations mainly from corporations. All you have to do is review the Daily/Monthly/Annual US TREASURY reports and look at effective tax rates between the business and laborer. Small business(Flea Markets/Farmer's Markets/Black Markets) are the last examples of Free market capitalism. The rest is RICO = Racketeering, Influenced, and Corrupt Organizations. It's all fraud committed by the politicians for campaign donations, power and advancement and the TRUST of big crony corporations/powerful special interest.

The independent individual is always sold-out by the politician/government to special interest. Just little highlights of crumbs to buy the votes at election time.
Even with all the record high unemployment, record amount of Americans no longer seeking employment(currently 89+ Million), add to, of course, the formulated scammed .GOV statistics; unemployment/earnings/economic/currency devaluation/Inflation... all due to government fraud/waste/abuse, and spending/borrowing, racketeering, etc... but through it all, H-1B VISAs have increased each year.

reference NEW BILL reported from India media: http://www.indiawest.com/news/9070-senate-bill-could-lift-h-1b-worker-visa-cap-to-300-000.html


Senate Bill Could Lift H-1B Worker Visa Cap to 300,000
United States
http://www.indiawest.com/indiawest_cms/gall_content/2013/2/2013_2$largeimg216_Feb_2013_132104380.jpg
File photo of Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah. (Getty Images)
Senator Orrin Hatch, R-Utah (http://www.hatch.senate.gov/), has introduced a bipartisan bill to increase H-1B visas for skilled workers from 65,000 to 115,000 a year, and possibly as many as 300,000 a year.

The bill — the Immigration Innovation Act (http://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/news/2013/02/13/new-startup-30-immigration-bill.html)— would exempt from the H-1B cap dependents of employment-based visa holders, advanced degree holders in science, technology, engineering and math, “persons with extraordinary ability," and “outstanding professors and researchers.”
Technology firms have lobbied Congress for more H-1B workers and quick visa approvals for foreign graduates of U.S. universities in STEM fields, saying the country needs highly qualified professionals to remain competitive.

U.S. technology worker groups, labor unions and their supporters in Congress counter that the tech industry just wants cheap labor.
President Obama favored the technology industry Feb. 5 in a speech in Las Vegas, Nev.
“Right now, there are brilliant students from all over the world sitting in classrooms at our top universities,” he said. “They’re earning degrees in the fields of the future, like engineering and computer science.”
“We’re giving them all the skills they need to figure that out, but then we’re going to turn around and tell them to start that business and create those jobs in China or India or Mexico or someplace else," Obama said. “That’s not how you grow new industries in America.”
The bill, co-sponsored by Senators Amy Klobuchar, Marco Rubio and Chris Coons, would create an automatic escalator, so the cap could adjust — up or down — depending on the economy, with a total ceiling of 300,000. Depending on how quickly the annual limit is reached, an additional 20,000 visas could be made available immediately.

Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., will push for expanded temporary slots for farm workers, the San Francisco Chronicle reported. (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/) The bipartisan Senate framework introduced recently by the Gang of Eight — four Democratic and four Republican senators —has placeholders for tech and farm workers.

President Obama has endorsed inclusion of bi-national same-sex couples in his immigration framework, in contrast to the bipartisan Senate framework, which omitted mention of gays and lesbians, the Chronicle pointed out.
Currently, married gay and lesbian couples with one partner a U.S. citizen and the other a foreigner are banned under the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-104hr3396enr/pdf/BILLS-104hr3396enr.pdf) from the spousal immigration preference given to straight couples.

[thoughtomator]

What does your mindset have to be to think this is a bad thing?

The kind that thinks that a return to free markets should not be done in a way that puts the US worker in a grossly uncompetitive position for no fault of his own.

Free trade is a losing proposition if the financial burden on employing your citizens - in terms of taxes, regulations, risk management, labor certifications and legal obligation - is vastly higher than that of your trade partners.

It exposes that the burden on Americans is way too high. For example, the cost of a college degree - by convention, a prerequisite labor certification in the fields in question - in the US - is dramatically higher than getting a degree abroad and going through the H1-B process. So given two entirely equal in all other respects individuals, one in India and one in the US, each one graduating with equivalent degrees, the salary required by the foreigner is significantly lower than that required by the American.

The solution to this problem is not "let in more foreigners". It is "remove the burdens on the American worker so he doesn't need to charge a higher price for the same product".

Attacking a small advantage Americans presently have - one that doesn't even come close to tipping the scales given the disadvantages piled upon them - is not the route to the solution, it's a route towards turning the US into a third world country.

[Brian4Liberty]

Putting educated Americans on the street or dependence on the government to survive.

Thanks for reminding me. Government dependence doesn't necessarily mean getting welfare and food stamps (although that is what sometimes happens). It also means that American engineers who can no longer find work in the private sector now have to work for the government or the MIC. Now that I think about it, every American IT worker that I know is now a government employee, and no longer in the private sector. It's the only place to find work, if you're lucky.

[Brian4Liberty]

The solution to this problem is not "let in more foreigners". It is "remove the burdens on the American worker so he doesn't need to charge a higher price for the same product".

Unfortunately, it's worse than that. An American can offer to work for much less than an imported worker, and they will still be turned down. It's about more than economics. It's about favoritism and a carefully cultivated perception.

[jabowery]

The longer we put off sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them, the longer we're going to be building up an explosive situation that cannot be relieved short of massive bloodshed.

See Sortocracy.org (http://sortocracy.org).

[Brian4Liberty]

Guess no one is interested in the fact that hiring managers want the best people regardless of the nationality.

As someone who deals with this daily, the quality of entry level US programmers is declining, specifically the work ethic.

In my experience, it's not the work ethic that is different, it's the attitude and communication (based on cultural norms). Managers do love employees who jump when they walk into the room, and always give the answer that the boss wants to hear. That doesn't necessarily mean that the quality or quantity of work is any better. It means that there are subtle cultural and situational differences. Appearances can be deceiving.

And let's look at the unintended consequences of massive importation of cheap labor. Fifteen years ago I was talking to engineering students and asked them why no one was going into computer science anymore. The answer was "they are getting rid of those jobs, and importing workers". The pool of US Computer Science students is dwindling precisely because of outsourcing and importing workers. All of this talk about "educating Americans" is a crock of shit. The industry disincentivized US students from going into the major.

It's the same thing are doing to Medical Doctors now. "Hey, we have this difficult major for you kids to go into. It will be tough, stressful and expensive, and when you are done, we will make sure that you make less than an insurance salesman".

[DGambler]

In my experience, it's not the work ethic that is different, it's the attitude and communication (based on cultural norms). Managers do love employees who jump when they walk into the room, and always give the answer that the boss wants to hear. That doesn't necessarily mean that the quality or quantity of work is any better. It means that there are subtle cultural and situational differences. Appearances can be deceiving.

And let's look at the unintended consequences of massive importation of cheap labor. Fifteen years ago I was talking to engineering students and asked them why no one was going into computer science anymore. The answer was "they are getting rid of those jobs, and importing workers". The pool of US Computer Science students is dwindling precisely because of outsourcing and importing workers. All of this talk about "educating Americans" is a crock of shit. The industry disincentivized US students from going into the major.

It's the same thing are doing to Medical Doctors now. "Hey, we have this difficult major for you kids to go into. It will be tough, stressful and expensive, and when you are done, we will make sure that you make less than an insurance salesman".

Guess I'm different than most... I don't want "yes men" on my projects, I want people that can solve problems and come up with creative solutions... doesn't matter to me if they're white, black, brown, red or purple if they can do the job.

[Barrex]

Here's the past...
l (http://www.indiawest.com/news/9070-senate-bill-could-lift-h-1b-worker-visa-cap-to-300-000.html)

But how do they know that I am highly educated?

[Brian4Liberty]

But how do they know that I am highly educated?

They don't. You're just a commodity that they want to sell. Your resume will be (re)written by them to match an appropriate requisition.

[erowe1]

The kind that thinks that a return to free markets should not be done in a way that puts the US worker in a grossly uncompetitive position for no fault of his own.

If they want the government to protect someone from competition, then they don't want a free market at all.

[Michelangelo]

The kind that thinks that a return to free markets should not be done in a way that puts the US worker in a grossly uncompetitive position for no fault of his own.

Free trade is a losing proposition if the financial burden on employing your citizens - in terms of taxes, regulations, risk management, labor certifications and legal obligation - is vastly higher than that of your trade partners.

It exposes that the burden on Americans is way too high. For example, the cost of a college degree - by convention, a prerequisite labor certification in the fields in question - in the US - is dramatically higher than getting a degree abroad and going through the H1-B process. So given two entirely equal in all other respects individuals, one in India and one in the US, each one graduating with equivalent degrees, the salary required by the foreigner is significantly lower than that required by the American.

The solution to this problem is not "let in more foreigners". It is "remove the burdens on the American worker so he doesn't need to charge a higher price for the same product".

Attacking a small advantage Americans presently have - one that doesn't even come close to tipping the scales given the disadvantages piled upon them - is not the route to the solution, it's a route towards turning the US into a third world country.

... So you're using the infant industry argument for labour? I want to sympathize, but infant industries never grow up if you cuddle them by restricting foreign competition.

Open the borders. If American labour is genuinely incapable of competing then we will see things restructured in order to allow them to better compete. By keeping the borders closed all you're doing is encouraging the continuance of these policies.


And let's look at the unintended consequences of massive importation of cheap labor. Fifteen years ago I was talking to engineering students and asked them why no one was going into computer science anymore. The answer was "they are getting rid of those jobs, and importing workers". The pool of US Computer Science students is dwindling precisely because of outsourcing and importing workers. All of this talk about "educating Americans" is a crock of shit. The industry disincentivized US students from going into the major.

Unintended consequences? Its simply the market process. If foreigners have a comparative advantage in computer science then let them go into computer science. If the comparative advantage of American workers is in engineering let them go into that.


Oh, and our country is not fascist, it's cultural marxist. Fascist is national socialism like Mussolini or Hitler.

?Cultural Marxist?

From an economic perspective the USA is closer to the fascist model. It has nominal property rights, but frequent collision between industry and the government. Alternatively the USA is a 'mixed market economy'.

[thoughtomator]

... So you're using the infant industry argument for labour?

No. Rest of strawman ignored.

[thoughtomator]

If they want the government to protect someone from competition, then they don't want a free market at all.

That's not what they want. They want their government to stop making them compete with a ball and chain clamped to their legs, a perfectly reasonable position to take.

[thoughtomator]

'Shipped abroad'? You are incorrect. Over all wealth increases in both global and local terms. The nominal wages of certain sectors may decrease, but it is made up by the general decrease in the cost of goods and services.

Your assertion flatly contradicts the reality. We have "free traded" with virtually everyone and had virtually unlimited immigration for decades now. Instead of prices going down, they've gone up - substantially. Businesses are hurting because their customers have no money to spend. The cost of the service didn't decrease, that money just went to some executive playing manipulations of the law rather than to people doing actual work.

And wealth levels? They've dropped a ton and aren't looking to recover anytime soon.

At some point one's theory has to match up with reality or be thrown out the window. The "imported labor is always good" theory has had its time, and failed (catastrophically) against the test of reality.

[Michelangelo]

No. Rest of strawman ignored.

Not a strawman at all. You are using a infant industry argument. "American workers have institutions that put them at a disadvantage against foreign workers. Until such time that said institutions are changed we can't have free trade in labour."

It is in principle no different than when Argentina restricted car sales because the Argentina's car industry couldn't compete with foreigners or how airlines in the USA are protected from foreign competition right now.

You want the institutions changed? Allow a free market in labour and we will see those institutions changed.

[thoughtomator]

Not a strawman at all. You are using a infant industry argument. "American workers have institutions that put them at a disadvantage against foreign workers. Until such time that said institutions are changed we can't have free trade in labour."

It is in principle no different than when Argentina restricted car sales because the Argentina's car industry couldn't compete with foreigners or how airlines in the USA are protected from foreign competition right now.

You want the institutions changed? Allow a free market in labour and we will see those institutions changed.

You've got it exactly backwards. The way to get to a free market from here is not to further undercut the disadvantaged-by-law worker, it's to attack the institutions that prevent the free market from existing. A free market is a two-way street, it's not just an excuse to depress wages. In exchange for being exposed to competition, the worker gets a fair shot to compete, himself - which is not the case now. Give the worker a fair shot FIRST, then those other measures are reasonable and agreeable.

Do it in the wrong order and you end up impoverishing the people and will get yourself civil disorder.

For starters: prosecute the people in that video who are very clearly conspiring to break the law. The Rule of Law is integral to a free market and its absence hurts prosperity far more than the absence of unlimited immigrants.

[Michelangelo]

Your assertion flatly contradicts the reality. We have "free traded" with virtually everyone and had virtually unlimited immigration for decades now. Instead of prices going down, they've gone up - substantially. Businesses are hurting because their customers have no money to spend. The cost of the service didn't decrease, that money just went to some executive playing manipulations of the law rather than to people doing actual work.

And wealth levels? They've dropped a ton and aren't looking to recover anytime soon.

At some point one's theory has to match up with reality or be thrown out the window. The "imported labor is always good" theory has had its time, and failed (catastrophically) against the test of reality.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s6FmhXQ32Wo

Real wealth has increased. A few decades ago the wealthiest of us were lugging around cellphones the equal in size to two or three pickles taped together. Now we have smartphones in the hands of a large portion of the populace with computing power that would shock past generations. All things said we continue to see a real improvement in our lives every year.

[Keith and stuff]

This is 1 of the top pro-liberty bills the US Senate may consider this year. What a fantastic bill!

[Anti Federalist]

Real wealth has increased. A few decades ago the wealthiest of us were lugging around cellphones the equal in size to two or three pickles taped together. Now we have smartphones in the hands of a large portion of the populace with computing power that would shock past generations. All things said we continue to see a real improvement in our lives every year.

Says you.

Those same gadgets are electronic dog collars that spy on you and disclose you location 24/7.

The bars have become greater in number, but are gilded more.

[erowe1]

That's not what they want. They want their government to stop making them compete with a ball and chain clamped to their legs, a perfectly reasonable position to take.

That is perfectly reasonable.

One of the balls and chains the government clamps to our legs, that we should demand it remove, is restrictions on immigration.

You seem to acknowledge the big government problem of regulating American businesses and workers, and you seem to admit that the correct solution to that problem is to remove those regulations. But then somehow you stumble back into this idea that there's some kind of interim solution of even bigger government, where the regulations they put on us can be partially made up for by even more regulations limiting our ability to do business with people who aren't subject to, or aren't abiding by, those other regulations.

[Brian4Liberty]

This is 1 of the top pro-liberty bills the US Senate may consider this year. What a fantastic bill!

Yep. We can rest assured that when Hatch, Rubio, McCain, a bunch of Democrats and Obama come to agreement that it will benefit the middle class and lead to liberty and prosperity for all...

[Brian4Liberty]

A few decades ago the wealthiest of us were lugging around cellphones the equal in size to two or three pickles taped together. Now we have smartphones in the hands of a large portion of the populace with computing power that would shock past generations. All things said we continue to see a real improvement in our lives every year.

Lol. Ok, Pollyanna.

[Keith and stuff]

Yep. We can rest assured that when Hatch, Rubio, McCain, a bunch of Democrats and Obama come to agreement that it will benefit the middle class and lead to liberty and prosperity for all...

Amen brother! Preach it.

[thoughtomator]

That is perfectly reasonable.

One of the balls and chains the government clamps to our legs, that we should demand it remove, is restrictions on immigration.

No, it isn't. We've had in-practice unrestricted immigration and that has not helped the US worker in any way at all.

Seriously, I don't see what's hard to understand about the concept of "labor dumping".

[thoughtomator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s6FmhXQ32Wo

Real wealth has increased. A few decades ago the wealthiest of us were lugging around cellphones the equal in size to two or three pickles taped together. Now we have smartphones in the hands of a large portion of the populace with computing power that would shock past generations. All things said we continue to see a real improvement in our lives every year.

Epic fail. His stats go to 2006. Have you seen the condition of labor since? There's been a historic breakdown in the share of wages going to labor since.

[BAllen]

?Cultural Marxist?

From an economic perspective the USA is closer to the fascist model. It has nominal property rights, but frequent collision between industry and the government. Alternatively the USA is a 'mixed market economy'.

Wrong again!
Fascists are protectionists. They protect their country over others. Due to our high immigration, work visas, and lack of tariffs to protect our industries, this is FAR from a fascist country.

So far, you're batting .000 on all pitches. Better call it a day, and go back to the minors.
;)

[thoughtomator]

Wrong again!
Fascists are protectionists. They protect their country over others. Due to our high immigration, work visas, and lack of tariffs to protect our industries, this is FAR from a fascist country.

So far, you're batting .000 on all pitches. Better call it a day, and go back to the minors.
;)

Well, the international fascists are anti-protectionists, as they know no allegiance to any nation. The fascists in this country are all pro-immigration, they're the ones who foisted this mess on us with the excuse that it was good for the economy.

Either way, though, immigration pro or con is not a key component of Fascism - the relationship between government and corporations is. The US in 2013 is most definitely Fascist.

[jj-]

You're not going to attract real talent with such an awful bill. Talented people won't agree to work in a situation where they are not allowed to look for work in some other place. Even if you don't intend to quit, having the possibility to quit is an incentive for your company to treat you better.

[BAllen]

Well, the international fascists are anti-protectionists, as they know no allegiance to any nation. The fascists in this country are all pro-immigration, they're the ones who foisted this mess on us with the excuse that it was good for the economy.

Either way, though, immigration pro or con is not a key component of Fascism - the relationship between government and corporations is. The US in 2013 is most definitely Fascist.

You are SO wrong! If that were true, China would be fascist, which it is NOT! It is communist. Communists also support corporations who are in their favor. Fascists promote national pride over other countries, which we clearly do not. Fascists protect their own economy, which we do not.

[erowe1]

No, it isn't. We've had in-practice unrestricted immigration and that has not helped the US worker in any way at all.

Seriously, I don't see what's hard to understand about the concept of "labor dumping".

Any economic change will have winners and losers. I don't know who the winners and losers will be in allowing unrestricted immigration versus restricting it. Obviously, what you call "labor dumping" must be beneficial for some people, especially the employers and immigrant employees involved, or it wouldn't happen. But what I know is that unrestricted is the right way to go, and that doesn't change just because someone can point at some particular group of individuals and demand that they should be the winners and everyone else the losers. If I want to hire someone whose college degree cost less than yours because they're from India, you don't have the right to stop me. Neither does anyone else.

[erowe1]

You are SO wrong! If that were true, China would be fascist, which it is NOT! It is communist. Communists also support corporations who are in their favor. Fascists promote national pride over other countries, which we clearly do not. Fascists protect their own economy, which we do not.

So you're saying China does not promote national pride over other countries or practice protectionism?

Also, I get this eerie feeling from posts 66 and 69 that you think fascism is a good thing. Is that not what you're getting at?

[thoughtomator]

You are SO wrong! If that were true, China would be fascist, which it is NOT! It is communist. Communists also support corporations who are in their favor. Fascists promote national pride over other countries, which we clearly do not. Fascists protect their own economy, which we do not.

I'm not sure we're working with the same definitions here. The Chinese are only Communist in name today, they are Fascist in reality - they made this shift when they embarked on the "steal the US economy" strategy a couple of decades back. There's not actually a whole lot of difference between Communism and Fascism in practice, but where there is a difference it is that under Communism, the state owns the means of production directly, whereas under Fascism production is privately owned but dances to the tune of the government at its whim (and often vice versa as well). China's hybrid system permits widespread corporatism, but limited to what serves the interests of the ruling oligarchy.

[thoughtomator]

Any economic change will have winners and losers. I don't know who the winners and losers will be in allowing unrestricted immigration versus restricting it. Obviously, what you call "labor dumping" must be beneficial for some people, especially the employers and immigrant employees involved, or it wouldn't happen. But what I know is that unrestricted is the right way to go, and that doesn't change just because someone can point at some particular group of individuals and demand that they should be the winners and everyone else the losers. If I want to hire someone whose college degree cost less than yours because they're from India, you don't have the right to stop me. Neither does anyone else.

The economics with respect to labor is simple supply and demand. Increase the supply without increasing the demand - our immigration policy of the last 2 decades - decreases the price of labor. This would be well and good if labor got the benefits of a free market, but it doesn't - it gets the parts that are bad for it, exclusively, and that is not free market philosophy but Fascist philosophy - it is what is good for the corporations and government but not the people at large.

[erowe1]

The economics with respect to labor is simple supply and demand. Increase the supply without increasing the demand - our immigration policy of the last 2 decades - decreases the price of labor. This would be well and good if labor got the benefits of a free market, but it doesn't - it gets the parts that are bad for it, exclusively, and that is not free market philosophy but Fascist philosophy - it is what is good for the corporations and government but not the people at large.

It's well and good regardless what benefits labor gets. Also, when you say "labor" I assume you're not including the immigrant workers.

Since when does the rightness or wrongness of a policy depend on picking some group ahead of time and saying this is the group we want to help?

[BAllen]

I'm not sure we're working with the same definitions here. The Chinese are only Communist in name today, they are Fascist in reality - they made this shift when they embarked on the "steal the US economy" strategy a couple of decades back. There's not actually a whole lot of difference between Communism and Fascism in practice, but where there is a difference it is that under Communism, the state owns the means of production directly, whereas under Fascism production is privately owned but dances to the tune of the government at its whim (and often vice versa as well). China's hybrid system permits widespread corporatism, but limited to what serves the interests of the ruling oligarchy.

Okay, you do have a point there. China dumps on competitors and manipulates currency for their own benefit.

[BAllen]

The economics with respect to labor is simple supply and demand. Increase the supply without increasing the demand - our immigration policy of the last 2 decades - decreases the price of labor. This would be well and good if labor got the benefits of a free market, but it doesn't - it gets the parts that are bad for it, exclusively, and that is not free market philosophy but Fascist philosophy - it is what is good for the corporations and government but not the people at large.

Exactly! As has been pointed out, education and housing is more expensive here, so we cannot allow free market labor until those things are fixed.

[erowe1]

Exactly! As has been pointed out, education and housing is more expensive here, so we cannot allow free market labor until those things are fixed.

Sure we can.

When you try to solve big-government based problems with big-government based solutions, you just make more problems that you'll end up trying to solve with more big government again.

[BAllen]

Sure we can.

When you try to solve big-government based problems with big-government based solutions, you just make more problems that you'll end up trying to solve with more big government again.

I didn't say use big government. Stop the regulations that keep housing prices high. Find a way to lower education costs. I don't know what keeps it high, but I would imagine it's some regulations.

[RickyJ]

What does your mindset have to be to think this is a bad thing?

What does your mindset have to be to think this a good thing?

[thoughtomator]

Since when does the rightness or wrongness of a policy depend on picking some group ahead of time and saying this is the group we want to help?

It starts with "We the people..."

The government exists as our servant, as our agent. It is our interests that it exists to pursue - not the interests of foreigners.

[RickyJ]

I am 27 years old living in Brazil. My company pays for my apartment. It does happen.

And I can also confirm that a lot of what Mani said is true. What's the most popular destination for Brazilians in the US? New York? Los Angeles? Nope.

Orlando.

Everybody down here goes to Orlando when they're about to have a kid so that they can shop for strollers, clothes, and other baby supplies. Sure, they pay $1500 for the flight to Orlando. But when a stroller here costs $1000 more than it does in the US, that doesn't seem so bad. Seeing the sights in the US, or experiencing the culture, take a major backseat to shopping.

Wait a minute, are you telling me that baby strollers cost over $1,000 in Brazil? Really?

[thoughtomator]

Sure we can.

When you try to solve big-government based problems with big-government based solutions, you just make more problems that you'll end up trying to solve with more big government again.

And when you try to implement things that work in a free market without first actually having a free market, you just make more problems that you'll end up trying to solve with more big government again.

[RickyJ]

The bottom line that most people are missing on all this is patriotism. Some people, despite all of the bad associated with this country, actually like this country and want it to succeed. Multinational corporations have no American patriotism to speak of, they are patriotic only to their bottom line. It was not that long ago that corporations doing business in the USA would be considered traitorous to this nation to put foreigners ahead of Americans when it came to open positions in their companies. Now it is not that they "hate" America, but rather that they want short-term gain for themselves and their company without even thinking long-term at all. They can and do hire foreigners cheaper than Americans and do prefer to hire them over Americans because they know they must keep a job in order to remain in this country on a work visa. First of all this a legal problem, second of all it is a patriotic problem, and last of all and most importantly, it is a problem of short-term thinking.

Short-term gains made by hiring foreign workers over Americans only last short-term. However there is a price to be paid for this, and that is sacrificing long-term company profits for short-term gains. When a company hires a foreign worker that worker's first allegiance is not to that company, or to the USA, it is to themselves and their homeland. There is nothing wrong with that and that is perfectly normal. But the problem is that when they become homesick and go back home, they take with them their knowledge of the systems they made which means the company loses that valuable experience in an employee that is worth much more to them after a few years than a new hire. They can then use that knowledge and go to work for a competing company in their homeland and in no time the "America" company finds new competition that it never had before. Sure all of this can happen with an American doing the same thing in America, but it is much less likely because they are more likely to stay with the company if they are treated fairly and feel some loyalty to them because they are an American company.

Now if you think all of what I just wrote is bunk, you won't have to wait long to see the results. America is in decline and it is not solely due to the government, "American" corporations are a big part of the problem as well.

[thoughtomator]

The displaced US worker doesn't just disappear, either. Often enough they end up going on the dole, which ends up being a long term liability for those very same companies in terms of an increasing tax burden to support the increase in the number of unemployed. If the foreigner came here to create a job that wouldn't otherwise exist, that would be a good thing, but that's not what's happening, they're just displacing US workers who end up on food stamps, housing subsidies, etc.

[JorgeStevenson]

Wait a minute, are you telling me that baby strollers cost over $1,000 in Brazil? Really?

Really nice ones, for sure. Here's a baby stroller for twins that Walmart Brasil is selling for R$ 2290 (roughly USD $1145): http://www.walmart.com.br/produto/Bebes/Carrinho-de-Passeio-para-Gemeos/Baby-Jogger/369008-Carrinho-para-Gemeos-City-Mini-Double-Baby-Jogger

Here's the 2012 version of that stroller selling at Amazon US for $480: http://www.amazon.com/Baby-Jogger-Double-Stroller-Black/dp/B006QH440S/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1361452350&sr=8-1&keywords=city+mini+double+stroller

I doubt the Brazilian version is the 2012 version, though. It takes a really long time for new stuff from the US to filter its way down to here.

[JorgeStevenson]

The bottom line that most people are missing on all this is patriotism. Some people, despite all of the bad associated with this country, actually like this country and want it to succeed. Multinational corporations have no American patriotism to speak of, they are patriotic only to their bottom line. It was not that long ago that corporations doing business in the USA would be considered traitorous to this nation to put foreigners ahead of Americans when it came to open positions in their companies. Now it is not that they "hate" America, but rather that they want short-term gain for themselves and their company without even thinking long-term at all. They can and do hire foreigners cheaper than Americans and do prefer to hire them over Americans because they know they must keep a job in order to remain in this country on a work visa. First of all this a legal problem, second of all it is a patriotic problem, and last of all and most importantly, it is a problem of short-term thinking.

Short-term gains made by hiring foreign workers over Americans only last short-term. However there is a price to be paid for this, and that is sacrificing long-term company profits for short-term gains. When a company hires a foreign worker that worker's first allegiance is not to that company, or to the USA, it is to themselves and their homeland. There is nothing wrong with that and that is perfectly normal. But the problem is that when they become homesick and go back home, they take with them their knowledge of the systems they made which means the company loses that valuable experience in an employee that is worth much more to them after a few years than a new hire. They can then use that knowledge and go to work for a competing company in their homeland and in no time the "America" company finds new competition that it never had before. Sure all of this can happen with an American doing the same thing in America, but it is much less likely because they are more likely to stay with the company if they are treated fairly and feel some loyalty to them because they are an American company.

Now if you think all of what I just wrote is bunk, you won't have to wait long to see the results. America is in decline and it is not solely due to the government, "American" corporations are a big part of the problem as well.

So why don't you just let them hire the foreign workers? If it's such a bad idea in the long run, then the companies that do it will be punished and the ones that don't will be successful. Isn't that what we're all about here? Why is everybody so gung-ho for the government to tell businesses what is and is not in those businesses' long-term economic interests?

[erowe1]

It starts with "We the people..."

The government exists as our servant, as our agent. It is our interests that it exists to pursue - not the interests of foreigners.

I don't believe that. I see the first three words of the Constitution as propaganda to make it look like the regime has our consent to rule over us.

But let's say you're right, and the federal government exists for our own good. If I want to hire somebody to work for me, and somebody else prevents me from doing that using violence, then clearly that person isn't acting on my behalf.

[erowe1]

And when you try to implement things that work in a free market without first actually having a free market, you just make more problems that you'll end up trying to solve with more big government again.

Hogwash.

If we don't have a free market, then everything we can do to make it more free is a good thing, and everything we can do to make it less free is a bad thing.

Having a minimum wage is bad. Having a minimum wage plus restrictions on immigration is an even worse thing.

[erowe1]

I didn't say use big government.

Yes you did. You said, "we cannot allow free market labor until those things are fixed."

Allowing free market labor needs to happen, the sooner the better. Eliminating regulations on American businesses needs to happen, the sooner the better. It doesn't matter which happens first.

[Natural Citizen]

The bottom line that most people are missing on all this is patriotism. Some people, despite all of the bad associated with this country, actually like this country and want it to succeed. Multinational corporations have no American patriotism to speak of, they are patriotic only to their bottom line. It was not that long ago that corporations doing business in the USA would be considered traitorous to this nation to put foreigners ahead of Americans when it came to open positions in their companies. Now it is not that they "hate" America, but rather that they want short-term gain for themselves and their company without even thinking long-term at all.

Yep. Yet these entities possess the gift of Constitution and personhood. As such representation is aquired through lobby. Ultimately they are government as a result of this representation. Until that problem is addressed then any speak of "free market" from anyone is laughable.

What we have are government controlled markets. I don't know that the bulk who always yap about the free market actually know that much of their history. "We the people"...as was left to us by our founders meant living, breathing, walking and talking humans. Not multinational entities that exist solely on paper. Yet these are the theoretical "people' that these minions have propped up and allowed to assume the power that they have through their ignorance to what surmises natural citizenship.

I'd like for one person...just one...to show me some place where there is a legitimate ruling on paper from a judge that says corporations are people. Just one. That's all I ask. Until that happens, any spew of free markets is simple ignorance to what we have which are government controlled markets via the corporations that act of, by and for themselves through representation. As such they are government.

And there is a word for this phenomenon.

You deserve a medal for just knowing that. But it's citizenship, to be clear. Not so much patriotism. Use of that language will surely guarantee these entities remain well on their way to repatriating the lands in the form of those terms of service I'm always yapping about. That language breeds the idea that it's acceptable for the living, breathing citizens of this nation to have not a bit of say so regarding the transition. That "God damned" piece of paper was for citizens as they were once recognized. Now they are referenced as consumers in the context of these discussions. Their relevance no longer required under said repatriation model of the entity. You know? Growth? Not at all relative to survival. That's a human phenomenon after all.

Dennis Kucinich is the only one that has it right as far as I've seen. He's the only one.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6FY3YlxND4

[thoughtomator]

If we don't have a free market, then everything we can do to make it more free is a good thing, and everything we can do to make it less free is a bad thing.

That sounds very nice, but in practice it's a catastrophically flawed route towards total impoverishment of the population. You can adhere to your divorced-from-reality doctrine as stolidly as you please, but everyone else can see that massive immigration has been tried and failed miserably as a method of increasing general prosperity.

A thesis, in order to be sound, must eventually be tested in the real world. Your thesis has been extensively tested and found to be terribly wanting. It does not produce the result you insist it does, and no matter how hard you insist otherwise, the result is still negative - and not just slightly, but massively negative.

Free markets, in order to produce positive results, must necessarily rest on the Rule of Law. In the absence thereof it is not free markets, and a policy that might be a free market policy within a Rule-of-Law context is something else entirely outside it.

[erowe1]

That sounds very nice, but in practice it's a catastrophically flawed route towards total impoverishment of the population. You can adhere to your divorced-from-reality doctrine as stolidly as you please, but everyone else can see that massive immigration has been tried and failed miserably as a method of increasing general prosperity.

A thesis, in order to be sound, must eventually be tested in the real world. Your thesis has been extensively tested and found to be terribly wanting. It does not produce the result you insist it does, and no matter how hard you insist otherwise, the result is still negative - and not just slightly, but massively negative.

Free markets, in order to produce positive results, must necessarily rest on the Rule of Law. In the absence thereof it is not free markets, and a policy that might be a free market policy within a Rule-of-Law context is something else entirely outside it.
This is a basic ethical question. It doesn't need experimentation to figure out what's right. You may believe that theft is good for the economy, on the grounds that it's good for your economy, so long as you're the thief. But whatever pragmatic justification you have for it doesn't make it right. Similarly, if I want to hire someone that you don't want me to hire because you think it will make it harder for you to charge as much as you want for your own labor, you don't have the right to stop me. If you think you do have such a right, then you care nothing about any rule of law. Belief in the rule of law would obligate you to bow to what's right, whether it benefits you or not, whereas you seem to see the law as a set of rules that people can make up as they please based on whatever they think is good for them.

[thoughtomator]

No it's not an ethical question at all. For some theoretical utopia, I actually agree with the policy you propose. But not under present conditions.

And here's the reason why - if you have an ethical problem with theft, and you want to stop it, who do you go after first - the petty thief who steals a candy bar, or the thief who steals billions?

In the context of the stealing-billions thief getting away with it, the petty thief may not have a choice but to steal to survive. It's easy to be ethical when you're not starving. And here you come along, all self-righteous about how the petty thief should burn in hell for his sins, while completely ignoring the thief of billions.

I say you've got it exactly the wrong way around. Stop the big thieves first, then you've got the ethical credibility to go after the little one. Otherwise, no matter how self-righteous you pretend to be, you're working for the big thief by ignoring him in favor of the little one.

[erowe1]

No it's not an ethical question at all.

Please answer the following ethical question:

If I want to hire someone to work for me, do you have the right to stop me?

[thoughtomator]

Please answer the following ethical question:

If I want to hire someone to work for me, do you have the right to stop me?

No, but if you want to enslave someone and call it employment (which is what these H1-B visas are) I sure as hell not only have the right but the obligation to stop you.

[erowe1]

No, but if you want to enslave someone and call it employment (which is what these H1-B visas are) I sure as hell not only have the right but the obligation to stop you.

If both I, the employer, and my employees agree on the terms of my hiring them, then it is not enslavement. In that case, do you have the right to prevent us from fulfilling the agreement with one another that we both make?

[thoughtomator]

If both I, the employer, and my employees agree on the terms of my hiring them, then it is not enslavement. In that case, do you have the right to prevent us from fulfilling the agreement with one another that we both make?

I'm not going to indulge your strawmen further. You have a serious problem with perspective and priorities. If a lawless world is what you want, then anyone has the natural right to do anything they can accomplish, by force or fraud. If you want to return to a world with the Rule of Law, then we can go back to discussing how to get to a free market from present conditions, putting first things first.

[erowe1]

I'm not going to indulge your strawmen further. You have a serious problem with perspective and priorities. If a lawless world is what you want, then anyone has the natural right to do anything they can accomplish, by force or fraud. If you want to return to a world with the Rule of Law, then we can go back to discussing how to get to a free market from present conditions, putting first things first.

Wouldn't a world with rule of law entail that, if you do not have the right to prevent me from hiring someone, then you do not do it?

Isn't claiming the right to do whatever you want by force or fraud exactly what you would be doing if you claimed to have the right to stop me from hiring someone, when both I wanted to hire them and they wanted to work for me?

[jabowery]

I'm not going to indulge your strawmen further.

Actually, you don't have a choice because erowe1 and his comrade pseudo-libertarians have the backing of the leadership of both political parties as well as a majority of the world's population that want to invade US territory.

A state of undeclared war of aggression against the US and its Constitution exists and has been so successful that we now have no operating government to declare a defense against it.

The answer is a fifth generation war (http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2006/03/starting_an_ope.html) waged with the plausible promise (http://blog.chromium.org/2009/06/plausible-promise.html) of sorting proponents of political theories into governments that test them: Sortocracy (http://sortocracy.org).

Within fifth generation warfare, the "plausible promise" takes the de facto place of a de jure declaration of war. Military actions in a fifth generation war are self-organizing and require no communication or coordination. Individuals, entirely alone, at their leisure and convenience, based entirely on their unique circumstances, skills and resources and acting so as not to be caught, cause harm to anything blocking delivery of the plausible promise. This works even in a surveillance state with massively deployed foreign mercenaries armed to the teeth.

[erowe1]

A state of undeclared war of aggression against the US and its Constitution exists and has been so successful that we now have no operating government to declare a defense against it.

If only.