Study: IT worker unemployment at 'unprecedented' levels

Good info - thanks. And I agree, money withheld for retirement should go to the person it was withheld for, no matter where they retire.

It's only fair.

The "handing out" of a visa is the removal of specific government prohibitions against travel, not a gift.

Taking your words at face value it appears that what you are saying is that America should be wide open with no limits on immigration. I take it you think that any limits on immigration is an anomaly and the H-1B, L-1 and other work visa's are a much needed correction. With logic like that I can see why you do not think the government is "helping" corporate America by handing out work visas. If we take your words literally and carry them out to there ultimate conclusion the entire world population would be at our doorsteps. There would be thousands of job applicants for every job available. The unemployment rate would skyrocket as there is a finite number of jobs for an infinite labor pool. The end result is that we would have a country not much different from China or India. Once you have a wide open immigration policy with no limits I contend you no longer are a sovereign nation and you most certainly can not have a large middle class. Even the governments of India and China know better than to do what we are doing. They know the effects of massive unemployment. While they are trying their hardest to protect the jobs for "their" citizens we in America are doing just the opposite mainly because the corporations in America desire it to be that way. And yes our government is "allowing" it to occur by being an able and willing partner in the free-for-all immigration policies currently in effect.

I don't expect you will ever understand my perspective on this subject matter as I will most likely never understand yours. For certain I will never understand the logic you have employed to come to the conclusion that the visa's are not a "gift" or helping hand to corporate America.

As far as me being burned by this I would have to say that I have been extremely lucky so far, but I know that eventually my luck may run out and I may find myself unemployed again. Also, I have a lot of empathy for my fellow citizens who have not been as lucky as I have been and who are struggling to survive. Maybe I am just old fashioned but in my humble opinion I think our government should not be handing out work visa to foreigners when our own citizens are unemployed.

Taking your words at face value it appears that what you are saying is that America should be wide open with no limits on immigration. I take it you think that any limits on immigration is an anomaly and the H-1B, L-1 and other work visa's are a much needed correction. With logic like that I can see why you do not think the government is "helping" corporate America by handing out work visas. If we take your words literally and carry them out to there ultimate conclusion the entire world population would be at our doorsteps. There would be thousands of job applicants for every job available. The unemployment rate would skyrocket as there is a finite number of jobs for an infinite labor pool. The end result is that we would have a country not much different from China or India. Once you have a wide open immigration policy with no limits I contend you no longer are a sovereign nation and you most certainly can not have a large middle class. Even the governments of India and China know better than to do what we are doing. They know the effects of massive unemployment. While they are trying their hardest to protect the jobs for "their" citizens we in America are doing just the opposite mainly because the corporations in America desire it to be that way. And yes our government is "allowing" it to occur by being an able and willing partner in the free-for-all immigration policies currently in effect.

I think I can address that entire paragraph with one sentence: supporting limited government does not, by itself, constitute advocacy of anarchy. In other words, my point was that allowing any person, for better or worse, into the country is a removal of government intervention, not the application of intervention, as you had tried to argue. It was a point of distinction in definition, not a statement of political or ideological belief. That's all...nothing more.

I don't expect you will ever understand my perspective on this subject matter as I will most likely never understand yours.

Here, here!, but I respect your opinion in any case. I'm glad to know that you did not get burned and good luck in your future endeavors!

implication that foreign workers don't pay taxes, and that they stiff U.S. citizens with the bill was, at best, misleading.

What I said is that the American taxpayer is subsidizing them via the taxes we pay for schools, roads ect. Have they paid the taxes that build the schools and the roads? Do they pay state taxes? Do they own property? Do they pay property taxes? Do they retire here and spend their money in America or do they take all their savings back to their home land? I do not think I ever said that they do not pay any taxes. My contention is that they use more of our tax paying dollars than they contribute. This is especially true of the L-1 visa's.

In other words, my point was that allowing any person, for better or worse, into the country is a removal of government intervention, not the application of intervention, as you had tried to argue.

The same can be said for allowing killers to roam the streets. The line you have drawn for what is government intervention and what is not depends on what your definition of a government role should be. In the case of immigration the line is a subjective one, in the case of letting murderers walk the streets I would expect you would agree the line to be much clearer.

Here, here!, but I respect your opinion in any case.

And I yours.