Posted on 10/29/2005 7:25:40 AM PDT by vrwc0915
Programmers that wrote this are not worth a penny because this thinking reveal shear stupidity and ignorance of the author. How does wage differential "prove" the intention?
An employer looks for a particular skill and submits an application for the visa. If it is proven that he cannot hire an American with that skill, the visa is granted. The relationship with state ends at this point, and the market begins. The law of supply and demand determines the price (wage). Since the supply of foreign labor is higher than domestic, the price is lower. That's all.
H1-B vigilantes, such as this author, are socialist that hate markets. They want the rest of Americans to subsidize their standard of living.,
Firstly, there is nothing more prone to error than to impute intentions to people, and to try it without overwhelming evidence is stupid.
Secondly, you are appear to aspire to socialist views and dislike the markets, which made this country the most prosperous in the world. The truth is that programmers enjoyed inflated salaries because of their shortage for decades --- just like gas prices were higher due to the shortage caused by the hurricane. These inflated salaries were paid by the rest of us, Americans.
These shortage are over: both gas prices and IT salaries are coming down. This is normal action of market forces, and you appear to hate that. Why do you like government intervention and socialism? Rather, why do you do that while thinking of yourself as being conservative?
Also, why is that you, supposedly a conservative, have no clue about how your country works? You should know that presidents, whether Bush or any other, have nothing to do with the economy.
Wouldn't you think that the .coms and major manufacturers sponser these people in? As I said in my original post they are essentially indentured servants, the company that they work for sponsered them in.
Two problems with this reasoning. Firstly, most money is recycled because that employee pays for his housing, food, transportation, etc, here in the country. And, secondly, you do not take into account the product (s)he creates --- that very product that would not exist without him.
An important omission on my part: he also pays taxes.
[...] Before making an H1B application, an H1B dependent employer must make "good faith" attempts to recruit resident US workers using "procedures that meet industry-wide standards" and "offering compensation at least as great as that offered to the H1B alien".
[...]
To pay the H1B worker at least the higher of the wage paid to similar workers in the same company or the "prevailing wage" (usually determined by the relevant State Employment Services Agency) for the occupation in the area the worker will be employed; [...]
Suppose that is true. How do you know that are "companies are screwing the US" employees? Perhaps, it is the other way around --- the U.S. employees are trying to screw the rest of us (companies) by demanding wages that are not worth their keep? Outsourcing prevents them from doing so.
As for H1-B, it's kind of tiring to hear programmers' whining that they, with barely any education, cannot make $150,000/year any more. Great many H1-B visas go to college and university faculty. Go count how many American-born faculty are professors in major universities. Then ask yourself, why? The check how well Americans read and write in their native language, how many of them have even basic quantitative skills, how many have even basic awareness of different times and countries. The truth is, Americans don't want to do this hard work as they used to; they do not want to become professors of mathematics, engineering and business administration. Foreigners do. They get H1-B visas.
Gladly. Please explain why socialism that you advocate is better and what makes it consistent with conservative ideology.
I re read and am unable to find any post that says..As Cynicom I advocate socialism....
This has been going on for years.
The middlemen (contract agencies) pay the Indian and Pakistani programmers small money, bill the customer big money and keep the difference.
It's public knowledge and everyone knows it.
It is inconceivable that a company can "sponsor" 2 or 3 families of a H1-B visa holder. A spouse of a H1-B visa holder may (or may not, depending) enter the country but cannot work (legally). Families of H1-B visa holders are not permitted into the U.S.
So, what about the taxes they pay, rent, food, transportation? How much do YOU save? That amount is what they say, approximately, and possibly send it oversees. It's a small percentage.
Most importantly, you do not take into account the product these foreigners produce, which would not be created at all in their absence. Your account for the impact on the economy is very incomplete.
One last thing. An H1-B visa holder is not an "indentured servant" under the common definition of the term. If you are speaking figuratively, fine.
What was infuriating about this was that at the time, the unemployment rate for US citizens with new PhDs in math was 14% (this was 1992), with maybe 10% underemployment on top of that. This company would have had no trouble at all getting a US citizen for that position -- if they were sincere.
So how badly are you screwing your employer?
Well, Bush is allowing a flood of illegals in to do the work at the bottom of the labor chain, driving down wages for the unskilled Americans, I see no reason to favor any group.
This statement implies that Bush must intervene in labor markets --- to prevent "driving down wages" of skilled workers. Labor markets are markets largely like any other, and as such are part of capitalism. Just as each of us competes in production and sale of goods, we compete in selling ourselves. When we are successful, we get "high" wages and "low" wages or no job at all when we are unsuccessful.
You advocate government intervention into markets, which is a socialist idea. It assumes that the government can allocate resources better than markets. This idea is very appealing to people and seems reasonable to many. The biggest mistake is that it compares real-life, imperfect markets to an idealized government. Naturally, any real-life phenomenon seems worse that ideal.
The mistake, as you can see is logical to begin with. What is a government? It's a collection of people --- real people, with their limited knowledge and their OWN interests. How do you make those people do what is "right?" You have to give them costly incentives --- paid by you and me. How do those people even know what is needed in the economy? They don't. An owner of a diner know immediately when he needs an extra waiter. Compare that to a bureaucrat in Washington --- what will it take and what will it cost for him to even learn what's needed in the labor market, that is, even before he can start thinking about what to do.
In sum, governments are WORSE informed and LESS effective than markets in the real-world, changing environment. By the time they "solve" the problem, the problem itself has changed. As I said earlier, if you compare the real-world, not idealized, governments to real-world markets, the markets always win. You have every bit of interest to keep any president --- whether BUsh or any other --- and any Congress --- whether dominated by Republicans or Democrats --- as far away from the markets as possible. That includes the labor market.
Moreover, what I said has been shown empirically many times. The central planning system of the Soviet Union destroyed that economy (the same thing: by the time Moscow learned that a tractor was needed 10,000 miles away, that tractor was no longer needed, etc.) China is now growing rapidly because it turned away from socialism to markets. And, more interestingly, socialism of Western Europeans --- the same as the Soviet one economically but without the dictatorship and prisons --- is failing. The MSM does not let you know that at at all times we have a higher labor participation rate (the percentage of population working), and twice or three times lower unemployment. This is despite the fact that we've been paying for decades for all innovation and defense. Markets win hands down.
Now, please don't be offended, but why should I not be disappointed to see a conservative like you advocating measures --- BUsh, government must do something --- that will destroy the very foundation of this great society? This attack is perpetrated by the media every day: they never report positive effects of markets (that gas prices stayed low for 25 years, for instance) but scream at the top of their lungs when effects are adverse (gas prices spiked during a NATURAL disaster, which no government can control). They will not tell you that precisely because gas prices went up, gas itself was purchased by those that needed it MOST --- something that no government can do in principle. True, you should not rely on the MSM for this: people you should get it from basic courses in high school and college. But they don't. So many self-desribed conservatives on this board are completely ignorant of what markets are and yet advocate government intervention (gas prices, outsourcing, programmers' salaries) at every turn.
It appears that you've done it unknowingly, but your remark did advocate socialism. In case this was not clear, let me assure you that I had no intent to offend you. But I readily admit that any attack on markets and support for bigger government is an affront to conservatism. THat, and not you personally,is what I attacked in my previous post.
A really silly non sequitur. Why don't you ask, or state, something intelligent.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.