Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:36AM   Printer-friendly
from the you-can't-handle-the-truth dept.

Politico reports that the government is having secret meetings with big corporations about bringing overseas technology workers into America. This report quotes the usual anonymous sources, so take it for what it's worth.

Compare the list of corporations mentioned in this article to the top 25 list of H-1B visa sponsors for 2014: Other than the lobbying groups (Fwd.US and Compete America), the names of Microsoft, Accenture, and Oracle appear on both. Cisco is not on the list, but is partnered with Tata which is.

Should the government be meeting in secret with corporations about bringing in more foreign workers to take American jobs? Why aren't these meetings and what topics are discussed on the public record?

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by sudo rm -rf on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:46AM

    by sudo rm -rf (2357) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:46AM (#83489) Journal

    Sorry to post offtopic, but I was just reading a (newly posted) story here on SN about "Hacienda" (on heise online) and had to close it (boss calling), and now it's gone. I think there are a few more missing, i just can't put my finger on it...

    • (Score: 1) by n1 on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:49AM

      by n1 (993) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:49AM (#83491) Journal

      The story you are looking for: http://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=14/08/19/1237229 [soylentnews.org]

      Not aware of the issue you're talking about, will forward your comment to the dev team.

      • (Score: 1) by sudo rm -rf on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:28PM

        by sudo rm -rf (2357) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:28PM (#83498) Journal

        Thank you, everything seems to have returned to normal, maybe some weird Firefox caching "feature"...

      • (Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:10PM

        by RobotMonster (130) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:10PM (#83503) Journal

        While we're hijacking threads, I've noticed some oddness with a story submission I made earlier today (Australia's tax office announces it will not treat Bitcoin as money).
        It has disappeared out of the "submission queue", and if I use "Search Submissions" I can see it has a state of rejected.
        What's weird is that on My User Page [soylentnews.org] the story is listed as Accepted, and if I click on the link in that list [soylentnews.org], it is characterised as an "Accepted submission by RobotMonster".

        To summarise, some parts of the system view the submission as accepted, and others view it as rejected. I don't mind which state, but pick one! :-)

        • (Score: 2) by RobotMonster on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:16PM

          by RobotMonster (130) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:16PM (#83506) Journal

          Looking at this further, it appears to be more that the "submission queue" does not show stories that have been accepted but not yet published, compounded by the way that the submission search results all run together and it's impossible to see where one result ends and the next begins...

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:48AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:48AM (#83490)

    With a government like this, who needs Al Qaeda?

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by davester666 on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:51PM

      by davester666 (155) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @05:51PM (#83623)

      al qaeda is a not-for-profit group. That just isn't right in the USA.

  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:00PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:00PM (#83493)

    Immigrant labour drives economic growth. Bringing in more immigrants is a good thing!

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:50PM

      by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 20 2014, @12:50PM (#83501) Homepage Journal

      What AC said. Jobs are not something you can steal. They are not a finite resource. They are created by human ambition. The more humans, the more ambition, the more jobs.

      --
      My rights don't end where your fear begins.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:18PM

        by VLM (445) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:18PM (#83507)

        That would be awesome if it were true.

        Under that scenario, given all the unemployed people sitting there, Detroit should be a bustling paradise. Oh wait, it isn't.

        Nope sorry its even worse, its zero sum in the short term. Given conditions you got say X number kindergarden teaching "slots" or lawyer "slots" and thats it. You can graduate whatever percentage of open slots you want, including way over 200%. Doesn't mean more slots will magically open. True in the medium term churning out twice as many as needed will collapse salaries and result in more loan collections agents and more criminal activity (which is highly profitable to some) but ...

        • (Score: 5, Funny) by Nerdfest on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:21PM

          by Nerdfest (80) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:21PM (#83510)

          In the case of lawyers, creating more lawyers does seem to create the need for more lawyers.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:04PM

            by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:04PM (#83533)

            Actually, not so [nalp.org]: It turns out that only about 2/3 of law school graduates become lawyers, and about 1/4 are either unemployed or in jobs that are in no way related to the legal profession.

            --
            The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
            • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:37PM

              by frojack (1554) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:37PM (#83645) Journal

              what happened to the other 9%?

              --
              No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
              • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:52PM

                by Thexalon (636) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:52PM (#83652)

                The other 9% are typically working as law clerks or paralegals, where their legal training is very useful but not strictly necessary.

                --
                The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday August 20 2014, @09:50PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 20 2014, @09:50PM (#83713) Journal

          Under that scenario, given all the unemployed people sitting there, Detroit should be a bustling paradise. Oh wait, it isn't.

          That's a non sequitur. Detroit has a lot of unemployed because it's a terrible place to employ people and because a large portion of those people would be huge risks (at the least) to employ.

          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:27PM

            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:27PM (#83722)
            I've lived in Detroit, and this is about as true as you being a 35 year old virgin living in your parent's basement with a poster of Princess Leia wearing the slave outfit on your wall. It seems likely to a group of people, I mean for some it's easy to picture, but in reality it's probably a poster of Felicia from Darkstalkers.
            --
            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
            • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 21 2014, @12:07AM

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 21 2014, @12:07AM (#83759) Journal

              I don't see living in Detroit as contributing anything useful to this discussion. Detroit still has those obvious flaws whether or not you lived there. A lot of places have the advantages of Detroit without the glaring disadvantages.

              For example, the city has a long and continuing history of decline to the extent that a considerable portion [wikipedia.org] of the city is outright abandoned. The city government is epically corrupt and incompetent with the state government while not as corrupt and incompetent, still having a long history of not helping Detroit's situation. Insurance rates are very high (car insurance highest [michigancitizen.com] in the US in 2011 - I gather it's somewhere around $4000 per year above the national average). I suspect everyone's property being one riot away from burning to the ground would also raise the price of insurance a little. The place is heavily unionized (and those unions can work with the local government to fleece would-be employers).

              And there's high crime. I gather it's relatively contained to the poorer areas, there's no guarantee that the crime will stay there in the future since that depends on a city government which has a decades long history of cutting back on police and emergency services.

              And of course, Detroit is currently bankrupt in the legal sense [wikipedia.org]. That might result in a positive change, but I think it would be foolish for most employers to take that gamble.

              Thus, I think it's a poor idea to treat Detroit as simply the negative side of a zero sum employment game. Sure, they had some bad luck when the auto industry declined, but they were going down years before the industry did (one can trace the decline back at least to the 1967 riots rather than late 70s and 80s competition from foreign auto makers). There are a bunch of structural problems that make it a terrible place to employ people and these have just gotten worse over the decades.

              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 21 2014, @12:32AM

                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 21 2014, @12:32AM (#83767)
                "I don't see living in Detroit as contributing anything useful to this discussion."

                I got to know a lot of people you lumped together as 'huge risks to employ'. Oh also it means I worked there, and since you're talking about businesses operating there....
                --
                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:53AM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 21 2014, @02:53AM (#83806) Journal

                  Again, so what? You can't even be bothered to acknowledge that Detroit city is bankrupt or that they've been going downhill for fifty years with no sign of stopping? And yes, there are that lot of people in Detroit that I wouldn't trust to flip burgers. And while I was throwing together that previous list, I ran across a number of businesses in Detroit with crazy exposure to crime in Detroit - multiple cars stolen, arson, etc. This is stuff that just doesn't happen in most of the rest of the US. And you can avoid all that by simply not being there, just like half the old population of Detroit.

                  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Thursday August 21 2014, @03:47AM

                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 21 2014, @03:47AM (#83819)
                    "Again, so what?"

                    Practice has no value against theory? Really...?!
                    --
                    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:08PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:08PM (#84121) Journal

                      I see no evidence of your practice. Just an assertion that your limited experience somehow is more important or relevant than the huge, well-known negatives of Detroit.

                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday August 22 2014, @02:17AM

                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 22 2014, @02:17AM (#84189)
                        "I see no evidence of your practice."

                        You're right, you only see the evidence in the cherry-picked statistics that support the view you already have and see no need to explore it any further. You have an opinion on something that to you is only theoretical. Somebody comes along with practical experience that they could share with you and BAM, you dig your heels in because you want to have been right all along. According to your 'evidence', we shouldn't have finished our project within budget. Instead all of our cars should were missing tires and airbags, half our workers had to be replaced because they were put in jail, and our building was burned down. Your 'evidence' sure painted a colorful picture that you firmly believe is accurate, but ... welp, it's not.

                        Basically you've got your head up your butt, or at least that's the way we describe our managers that operate the way you are right now.
                        --
                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday August 22 2014, @08:33PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 22 2014, @08:33PM (#84467) Journal

                          Cherry picked statistics like Detroit being bankrupt, a significant portion of the city being abandoned (sometimes for decades), and half the population having fled for elsewhere? Yea, my cherrypicked statistics trump your vague and unstated experiences on the matter.

                          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Friday August 22 2014, @09:03PM

                            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 22 2014, @09:03PM (#84482)
                            Thanks for proving my point.
                            --
                            🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                            • (Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 23 2014, @04:09PM

                              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 23 2014, @04:09PM (#84691) Journal

                              Guess, that's it for rational argument then. I might as well thank you for showing the Moon is made of green cheese.

                              • (Score: 2) by Tork on Saturday August 23 2014, @07:15PM

                                by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 23 2014, @07:15PM (#84736)
                                If we were ever having a rational argument at some point you would have asked a question like: "I read a statistic that says this, how did that impact your work while you were there?" Instead of being rational, you doubled down on ignorant. You'll pardon me for not accepting the blame on that.
                                --
                                🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                • (Score: 2) by khallow on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:24PM

                                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday August 23 2014, @11:24PM (#84778) Journal

                                  Why? You have implied you have knowledge relevant to the conversation, but you haven't given any evidence of this alleged knowledge. Further, from what you've implied, I don't see relevance. That's it as far as I'm concerned. I don't have time to deeply interrogate everyone who thinks they have know something, but refuses to say what that is.

                                  • (Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday August 24 2014, @12:16AM

                                    by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @12:16AM (#84798)
                                    "Why? You have implied you have knowledge relevant to the conversation..."

                                    Well... except for doing business there and directly contradicting how your 'evidence' compared against what the company I worked with really experienced.

                                    "... but you haven't given any evidence of this alleged knowledge." That's because we're still stuck on you seeing any value in firsthand experience. I don't even really think that's the issue, it's more of your "I gotta be right the first time!" attitude.

                                    "I don't have time to ask a single specific question. That's the equivalent of a deep interrogation! I do, however, have time to reply endlessly as long as I need to save face." FTFY.
                                    --
                                    🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday August 24 2014, @02:21AM

                                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @02:21AM (#84832) Journal

                                      Ok, what is your experience there and how is that relevant?

                                      • (Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:45AM

                                        by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @03:45AM (#84848)
                                        Pity you didn't ask that about 7 posts ago, I might have had the inclination to write something detailed enough to answer such a broad question. Given the vagueness of your question I don't think you're taking it too seriously. But you did ask so I'll dig into one of the specifics:

                                        "Detroit has a lot of unemployed because it's a terrible place to employ people and because a large portion of those people would be huge risks (at the least) to employ."

                                        The company I worked with had a short-term project there. I was living there for something like six months but it went on for more like a year. I'm fuzzy on the exact numbers of how many people we brought over but I know we hired at least a hundred locals there. Some where hired for their specialties, a bunch were hired as entry-level sorts of people. We had exactly one incident that should have landed with a police report, and that was with one of our own guys being an idiot. Actually we found the Detroit people to be hard working and talented. The biggest issue we had was not one of reliability or trustworthiness, it was more about expanding their talents into our field. Basically we have a significant amount of specialty in our field and some areas of the country have more people that can do that work than others. We had to import a few people from Chicago. That's not specifically a Detroit issue.

                                        It worked out really well and I think if that sort of project comes along we'll do it again in Detroit. Even my wife is okay with going despite the fact that downtown has buildings with no glass in the windows. I know a couple of our competitors have done several projects there, too. Assuming you're taking in what I'm saying (note: I'm not saying 'agree', I'm fine with you not agreeing with me, all I ask for is understanding) I hope you understand why I took issue with that remark. If your statement were true that project would have fallen on its face instead of being successful, and frankly several others that I know about would have needed rescuing... that never happened.

                                        You're not getting a complete picture of Detroit from your 'evidence'. I happen to know this because I had the exact same reaction you did when they first proposed that I go. "Umm isn't that the city that built Robocop?" Turns out it was a great experience.

                                        * Note: Just after writing all my wife reminded me that there actually was one local that did do something illegal that got her fired. I'm not interested in going into detail but what she did was really inconvenient laziness. I don't think that affects the point of my post, mainly because I wasn't exaggerating about hiring over a hundred people, but I am here to be truthful and not as some sort of Detroit salesman.

                                        Have a good weekend.
                                        --
                                        🏳️‍🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️‍🌈
                                        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:20AM

                                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @05:20AM (#84865) Journal

                                          I want to note a couple of things here. First, you're speaking of short term work. Not everyone would be interested in going into an area for six months or be able to pack up without leaving valuable assets behind. Second, you're hiring people for a short term project and willing to train them? While US employers rightfully get disparaged for their allergy to training their employees, it still remains that training makes more sense with long term employees.

                                          Also, there are legit employers will to hire people in warzones, nuclear accidents, oil fires, and other extremely hazardous environments. They get amply paid for the risks they take. A normal business isn't going to be so compensated nor is it prepared to take on those sorts of risks.

                                          And what's special about Detroit? Couldn't you do the same thing in say, Cleveland or Pittsburgh - rustbelt cities with people, glass windows, much lower risk from crime, and a non-bankrupt (well at least currently non-bankrupt) local government? Or just hire people in Detroit and move them someplace else? The thing, this is still just one story, and one where I think you got lucky.

                                          I still don't get why employers are supposed to consider Detroit.

                                          • (Score: 2) by Tork on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:05AM

                                            by Tork (3914) Subscriber Badge on Sunday August 24 2014, @06:05AM (#84873)
                                            "First, you're speaking of short term work. Not everyone would be interested in going into an area for six months or be able to pack up without leaving valuable assets behind."

                                            Two points on this: 1. Nobody said anything about a one-size-fits-all solution so I'm not sure why you're taking that stance. 2. I already told you our competitors have been going down there, too. Now I do agree that there you are raising legitimate concerns, but frankly *EVERY* location has issues like that. Don't you think it matters that we did land on that location where there are tons of others? I'll tell you this much: Safety of the employees is a very high priority and there is plenty of valuable property to protect. The reality of using Detroit as a location like this is in direct conflict with your assertions.

                                            "Also, there are legit employers will to hire people in warzones, nuclear accidents, oil fires, and other extremely hazardous environments. They get amply paid for the risks they take. A normal business isn't going to be so compensated nor is it prepared to take on those sorts of risks."

                                            ... Wow I wish you had listened to me earlier, this would have been a much shorter post. Your picture of Detroit is a humorous made-up caricature of what it's really like. I'm flattered that you think I've been trained to work in hazardous environments, but this project was 0% different than the other ones I've been on. I did not have hazard pay. I did not get training in how to defend myself or deal with ransom situations. No, my rental car was not stolen. No, my apartment wasn't broken into. No, I didn't have to dodge IEDs. No, I didn't have to watch a training video covering who I should and shouldn't talk to. No, I didn't have to get vaccinated. No, I didn't have to bring my own food. It was just like being anywhere else in the United States. The big difference is that I did see that a Dairy Queen nearby had closed down. The main reason this was so shocking is that I don't have a Dairy Queen near where I live so it was sad to see it down. Frankly I've seen more closed businesses where I live now. Anyway I really really wish I could get you to understand this Not because I'm a Detroit fanboy but because I'm worried about what other false impressions you have.

                                            "And what's special about Detroit? Couldn't you do the same thing in say, Cleveland or Pittsburgh - rustbelt cities with people, glass windows, much lower risk from crime, and a non-bankrupt (well at least currently non-bankrupt) local government? "

                                            I assume you mean "same thing with the same efficiency". The answer is blurry because each city has pros and cons. It's like asking which Android phone to get when nearly all of them will at least succeed in giving you a device that will run most of the apps. We actually did look at a few east and southern coast options. Detroit has a lot of welders and painters, which we needed. They had space at a good price and the history of a few other similar projects successfully completed. You're overstating the crime aspect of the statistic and the effects of the bankruptcy. That's the problem with looking at a number and not actually talking to somebody to get an actual feel for it. I don't know the precise reasons they ultimately went with Detroit but I do know that the history with our industry helped quite a bit, whereas only one of the other cities we looked at had a similar reputation. No, it wasn't a scenario where we just looked at Detroit. In fact I remember a lot of people doing a double-take when they had heard that, mainly because they heared the same things about it that you've mentioned.

                                            "The thing, this is still just one story, and one where I think you got lucky."

                                            You're talking about a success story across several projects and hundreds of people. Now you do have a point in that it worked in our favor, but if you ever get into working on projects outside of your locality you're going to find that they ALL have different requirements where the pros and cons of a place weigh more heavily than they did on a different, even if similar, project. In a more general sense Detroit is nothing like you saw in Robocop 3. We didn't find a lucky stretch of time where the building didn't burn down, and frankly I haven't been hearing stories of anything like that from my buddies in the industry that have been there on different projects.

                                            "I still don't get why employers are supposed to consider Detroit."

                                            I don't get why you're bringing this up now because it was never part of the conversation.
                  • (Score: 2) by monster on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:06AM

                    by monster (1260) on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:06AM (#83872) Journal

                    Going down from being the industrial heart of USA (automobile), full with auxiliary and service industries, to almost nothing automobile-related would be a heavy blow to any city. What do you think would happen to NY if the financial enterprises started fleeing en masse to other states, for example?

                    Such destruction of productive tissue has a lot of effects on the region because of the presence of a business cluster [wikipedia.org]. And, since it's the most talented or affluent who have better chances to find jobs in other places and relocate, the place ends up with a lot of lower class, low education people. Recovering the place from such situation is neither fast nor cheap, and usually requires a lot of state or federal-level aid.

                    • (Score: 2) by khallow on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:05PM

                      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday August 21 2014, @10:05PM (#84120) Journal

                      What do you think would happen to NY if the financial enterprises started fleeing en masse to other states, for example?

                      I expect a) they'd figure out how to stem the loss (say by stop doing whatever's scaring off the financial enterprises) and b) work on attracting other businesses to compensate. It's worth noting here that Detroit could have remained the heart of the automobile industry. The industry remains pretty large despite all the losses of the past few decades. The forces at play are beyond mere economic bad luck.

                      • (Score: 2) by monster on Friday August 22 2014, @06:44AM

                        by monster (1260) on Friday August 22 2014, @06:44AM (#84245) Journal

                        But sometimes it's not about scaring off business. Sometimes your competition set shop in another place (New Mexico in this case, IIRC), you start losing market share and suddenly your really big factories are no longer sustainable, given your current workload. Also, attracting new business is hard, you have to offer something that gives a huge bonus to that business, be it tax exemptions (the typical case), lower costs to operate, a big pool of qualified workers, some kind of network effect or something other. For business of a new kind in the area, this is hard and costly.

                        I agree with you that it's much more than just economic bad luck, but the phenomenon is not new. You can see something alike with former industrial hubs like some mining areas, some of the cities which used to build a lot of ships but lost workload to Korean other asian industries, or the formerly massive steel industry (was it Pittsburg? I'm not really sure about this one).

                        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Friday August 22 2014, @08:47PM

                          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday August 22 2014, @08:47PM (#84474) Journal

                          Also, attracting new business is hard, you have to offer something that gives a huge bonus to that business, be it tax exemptions (the typical case), lower costs to operate, a big pool of qualified workers, some kind of network effect or something other.

                          They had qualified workers and that network effect. And of course, now cheaper property helps with the lower costs to operate. Most of that is gone now.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by DaTrueDave on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:19PM

        by DaTrueDave (3144) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:19PM (#83509)

        While I agree that there are economic complexities involved, that's not what we're discussing here. There are definitely a finite number of jobs that are being referred to here. And they can definitely be filled by either Americans or foreigners. It's very disingenuous to say that jobs can't be stolen. The reality is that there are Americans that have spent a lot of time and money to qualify for jobs that are now being given to foreigners in order to save the company a few bucks. The H1B program is intended to be used only when American labor can't be found, which isn't the case for many of the jobs we're discussing here.

        If America doesn't look out of the best interests of Americans, our economy will continue to decline.

        Side note: The H1B program is for non-immigrants. It's for people from other countries to come here to work for a period of time, and then return to their home. Immigrants, on the other hand, intend to settle in their new country permanently. H1B holders are, by definition, not immigrants.

        • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:57PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:57PM (#83528)

          Just to paint some numbers on this.

          There are ~2.5 million 'IT jobs' in the US. 500k of those are H1B.

          If the h1b visa program was to bring in the brightest of the bright it would make sense. But then why not use the O visa program for which there is no cap? The rub is there is a shortage, of people willing to take low pay for what is really a high paying job. Many companies try to outsource to get around the cap. But what they find is that the company you contract to is not beholden to you and you get what you pay for. So you end up with even more work to fix it if it can be fixed. So they are now floundering around trying to raise the caps as if that will fix the problem. You buy a cheap stereo you get junk. You hire cheap labor you tend to get lower quality work.

          The real problem is a lack of training. Companies became enamored with the idea of 'hit the ground running'. Instead of 'this guy is pretty close lets send him to 1-2 classes and get him up to speed'. I talk to older generation 'get a gold watch after 30 years working' guys. They look at what we have done with amazement and disdain. We took what they built up and threw it away. They ask 'so where is your company sending you for training?' I tell them 'very little training usually just a 1 hour course on a procedure on how to use the new time card system'. They then look back and say 'no wonder companies are not doing so good'.

          The h1b visa was meant to be 1-2 weeks. Not 3 years with an option for 3 more. After contracting for 3 years perhaps you should HIRE that someone. Its obvious you need them.

          Having worked in a few companies where h1b was abused. I can say it helps no one involved other than the owners. Not even the company itself. One dude I knew got so tired of being jerked around with the green card carrot he quit mid week and just moved to canada with no job.

          It should be easy to catch the people who are gaming it. Open a rec for someone. If that rec is not filled in 6 years thats ok. But say do that across all of your recs. Now at least 10% of those recs should be filled by perm employees after 3 years. If not you lose the right to 10% of your previous h1b quota. Dropping the job and just opening another job does not count. It is just total # of open recs dont care how long they were open. External contractors count towards your total as well. So either the recs are decreasing and you are upping your training game or lose the right altogether.

        • (Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:15PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:15PM (#83717) Journal

          There are definitely a finite number of jobs that are being referred to here.

          But they can be fewer or more jobs depending on the policies and what they obstruct.

          Side note: The H1B program is for non-immigrants.

          That has never been true. It's another avenue for immigration else they wouldn't be able to try for green cards.

          A key problem here is not that there are a fixed number of jobs, but rather that the developed world has priced itself out of a large portion of the job market. I'm reminded of the PvP (Player vs Player) term, "L2P" - "Learn to Play". You fell into some non-consensual PvP. Why not learn to suck it up and fight back rather than creating yet another society-destroying safety cocoon? Or if you plan to change the rules of the game, how about doing so in a constructive, informed manner?

          I get that rich people (the primary owners of another major economic input, capital) are benefiting from the current situation and that nobody likes rich people. But that still doesn't change that either labor drops in cost (that means wages and benefits drop) or jobs and related meaningful economic activity become harder to come by.

      • (Score: 2) by clone141166 on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:34PM

        by clone141166 (59) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:34PM (#83517)

        The premise of your argument is flawed. There aren't more humans. They have simply moved from point A to point B.

        If the number of humans has not increased, then by your logic the number of jobs at point A and point B will remain fixed.

        Ergo the number of job opportunities available per person to the people at point B will now be fewer. QED.

        • (Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:58PM

          by The Mighty Buzzard (18) Subscriber Badge <themightybuzzard@proton.me> on Wednesday August 20 2014, @01:58PM (#83530) Homepage Journal

          My premise is fine, your logic is flawed. As humans move, so move the number of jobs in location A vs B. You allowed only for movement of people rather than both people and jobs.

          --
          My rights don't end where your fear begins.
        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by dublet on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:01PM

          by dublet (2994) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:01PM (#83531)

          Not entirely so. You're discounting the networking effects [cornell.edu] (PDF alert) of the economy. If you have a concentration of skilled workers, they amplify each other. This is why cities are more productive in GDP terms.

          By having people from point A go to point B, there will be more economic activity at point B, creating more jobs, thus attracting more people from points C, D and E. By doing this, you could create more employment in A, C, D and E, if they are well connected to B. Again by virtue of the network effect.

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:30PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @02:30PM (#83537) Journal

        The more humans, the more ambition, the more jobs.

        Not to worry -- they're currently planning to make sure those "more jobs" don't get filled with Americans.

        The ideas under discussion for executive action include allowing spouses of workers with high-tech visas to work, recapturing green cards that go unused and making technical changes for dual-purpose visa applications. Agriculture industry representatives have also been included in the meetings, discussing tweaks in the existing agriculture worker program.

        The administration is also considering provisions for low-skilled workers for industries, like construction, that would allow individuals with temporary work authorization to gain work permits.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:49PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:49PM (#83576) Journal

          low-skilled workers for industries, like construction

          I just love when lawyers, a class of people with no discernible ability to add value to the world in any way, dismiss people who actually know how to do things as "low-skilled." There needs to be a reality show where we take lawyers, politicians, and MBAs and plunk them on top of an 8" steel girder 15 stories up and tell them to finish out the floor by the end of the day, so we can all see exactly how well they can perform such a "low-skilled" job like construction. Or we could give them a hard hat and a pick and stuff them down into the new aquifer they're digging to New York City to risk their lives with the rest of the sandhogs. Or a coal mine. The ratings bump when the first litigator gets chewed up in mining equipment would be huge.

          In fact, it ought to be a constitutional requirement that before you can hold office or run a company that you must work in a "low-skilled" job like construction for 5 years, and then for another 5 years immediately following your term in office, to forestall asshole comments, policies, and attitudes like these.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Wednesday August 20 2014, @07:09PM

            by Hairyfeet (75) <{bassbeast1968} {at} {gmail.com}> on Wednesday August 20 2014, @07:09PM (#83660) Journal

            It don't matter as they have let the corps destroy construction as a trade with the illegals. its gotten so bad that the cops here had to talk to the HS kids here to keep them from saying "Immigra!" and making them scatter like deer because they was running into traffic. Of course its gonna be the taxpayers that pay for this thanks to the illegals being treated as disposable people, kicked to the curb in front of an ER when the unsafe conditions cause them injury...oh and of course the young families that burn to death because the companies are using substandard wiring via shell corps now that they can't compete on price thanks to all of them using illegals.

            --
            ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
            • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday August 21 2014, @01:33AM

              by Phoenix666 (552) on Thursday August 21 2014, @01:33AM (#83784) Journal

              I'm curious how far the elites think they can hollow out the country before the rest of the country comes knocking. They've outsourced or in-sourced everyone but lawyers, doctors, and MBAs, and I've even been seeing reports they've started to do that by sending X-rays to doctors in other countries for analysis, outsourcing legal research overseas, etc. And they're doing it so fast, it's not like Americans will have generations to adjust to their new slave status; they'll still be alive, decently armed, and extremely pissed.

              --
              Washington DC delenda est.
      • (Score: 1) by Ethanol-fueled on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:43PM

        by Ethanol-fueled (2792) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @10:43PM (#83734) Homepage

        Buzzard, only if you work in the healthcare or burrito industries.

        We should just throw 'em in the FEMA camps and use 'em as slave labor. Beats the hell out of being pimped out or shot by violent savages. With a new and content workforce of slaves, America can again have a productive manufacturing industry and a high standard of living. Or, figuratively, we could have our burritos and eat them too!

  • (Score: 5, Informative) by MrGuy on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:03PM

    by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:03PM (#83552)

    Slant much, PizzaRollPlinkett?

    Politico reports that the government is having secret meetings with big corporations about bringing overseas technology workers into America.

    No, that is NOT what Politico reports. Here's what Politico reports:

    Obama was initially expected to focus only on slowing deportations of potentially millions of undocumented immigrants and altering federal enforcement policies. Now top aides are talking with leaders in big companies like Cisco, Intel and Accenture, hoping to add more changes that would get them on board. Representatives for high-tech, agriculture and construction interests have put forward a range of fixes, from recapturing unused green cards to tweaking existing work authorization programs.

    And later:

    The ideas under discussion for executive action include allowing spouses of workers with high-tech visas to work, recapturing green cards that go unused and making technical changes for dual-purpose visa applications....The administration is also considering provisions for low-skilled workers for industries, like construction, that would allow individuals with temporary work authorization to gain work permits.

    Does that sound like "bringing overseas tech workers into America" to you? I see ZERO mention of allowing additional technical workers to the US, or of expanding the H1B program.

    Are changes to technology worker programs potentially on the table? Sure-per the article, everything is. Are they the focus of the conversations? Not according to Politico.

    I get that we're a tech focused organization, and that a lot of us are skeptical of H1B's. And yes, the tech industry is a big sponsor of H1B's. But there is ZERO MENTION of H1B's in TFA. There's not even really anything that LOOKS like a discussion of H1B's. The ONLY link to H1B's is the "editor" of this article saying "hey, tech companies are involved and they use H1B's."

    You want to start a discussion on H1B's? Fine. Do that.

    You want to discuss a news article? Fine. Do that.

    But using a not-very-related news article to whip people into an "OMG the government is expanding H1B's behind closed doors!" frenzy, with no evidence to support it, offends me. This isn't editing content. It's authoring it.

    • (Score: 2) by MrGuy on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:05PM

      by MrGuy (1007) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @03:05PM (#83554)

      My apologies - the "bad editing" comments should be directed at n1, who published this wholesale without (in my opinion) reading it.

      PizzaRollPlinkett was the submitter (and source of the dubious H1B linkage), whose viewpoint I still very much disagree with.

    • (Score: 2) by PizzaRollPlinkett on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:14PM

      by PizzaRollPlinkett (4512) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @04:14PM (#83588)

      The editing tried to say two things at once: (1) there are secret meetings going on behind closed doors between corporations and the government about immigration policy that the public isn't aware of, when any such meetings ought to be conducted on the record; and (2) the corporations in the meeting are overwhelmingly H-1B visa users, so this issue is of great importance to Americans who make a living in the technology field and sunlight needs to be shined on it.

      The connection between the two is that the corporations meeting secretly with the government are all heavy users of H-1B visas, and therefore this issue is of interest to anyone who makes a living in the computer industry.

      I don't know how this became "scaremongering" when corporations committed to using H-1B visas are meeting in secret with the government about immigration policy. I can't make stuff like that up.

      BTW - Please disagree with me all you like. I encourage people to discuss issues from all sides. I think it's healthy.

      --
      (E-mail me if you want a pizza roll!)
      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:33PM

        by frojack (1554) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:33PM (#83642) Journal

        H-1B was never mentioned in the story at all.

        The summary threw that in gratuitously. Further, we don't know anything at all about what exactly the meeting, entailed other than vague reference to spouses of foreign workers. Its pretty much all speculation.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:53PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:53PM (#83654)

          If the contents of the meetings are not known, then that doesn't make them secret??
          Explain why the meetings are needed at all, what is the current issue that the White House needs to address with these large tech companies? (Take your best guess.)

    • (Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:13PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Wednesday August 20 2014, @06:13PM (#83633) Journal

      But using a not-very-related news article to whip people into an "OMG the government is expanding H1B's behind closed doors!" frenzy, with no evidence to support it, offends me.
       
      Agreed 100%.
       
      Amusingly, the word "secret" does not occur in the linked article even once.
       
      FTA:
        said White House spokesman Shawn Turner. “The meetings were in keeping with the president’s commitment to do whatever he can, within the constraints of the law, to address the immigration issue.”

      Turner said the meetings with business leaders were among more than 20 “listening sessions” with outside groups.
       
       
      Such a big secret that the freaking White House Spokespersion is discussing it in an interview with Politico.

      • (Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:59PM

        by HiThere (866) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:59PM (#83754) Journal

        Disclosing the existence of the meeting isn't disclosing the substance of the meeting. So secret is reasonable. Whether such a secret meeting should be legal is a separate, and more difficult question.

        --
        Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:56PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20 2014, @11:56PM (#83752)

    Because Obama is an asshole.