Reply With Quote
content to rely on anecdote for your sweeping assertions? unsurprising.
I remember reading an article a couple years ago by an national association of computer engineers saying precisely that, not green cards, but H1B visas.
content to rely on anecdote for your sweeping assertions? unsurprising.
A lot of these people are already in the country. They're just trying to move from H1B visas (temporary worker) to green cards (permanent resident).
It's a PITA for companies. They hire these talented people who become an integral part of the success of the company, but after 8 years or so, they cannot get residency, and so they have to leave the country (and the companies).
Basically, the companies end up scrambling to replace this high-skilled worker, while the person goes overseas with 8 years of experience under his belt after working for Microsoft, Google, Oracle, etc.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/the_h...ar_within_ieee
The H-1B visa program, as we know it today, was created to support business (and politicians’) claims that they could not find enough qualified employees. The myth of the qualified labor shortage grew during late 1980s with the Y2K bug and peaked in the 1990s during the dot.com boom. Many of the initial misconceptions about the perceived labor shortage were due to flawed analysis by the National Science Foundation in the 1980s [25]. The Millennium bug passed without incident and the dot.com bubble burst, and the labor market expanded and contracted, but claims of shortages persist [5].
http://www.todaysengineer.org/2012/Mar/STEM-Careers.asp
etc, etc
thanks for the link, boutons
you see this part?
Although the business claim is flawed, some aspects of the issue cannot be casually dismissed. For example, American university graduate programs in engineering today are dominated by foreign nationals as demonstrated in a table from a study sponsored by the Semiconductor Industries Association [7].
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...387770718.htmlForget the debt ceiling. Forget the fiscal cliff, the sequestration cliff and the en lement cliff. Those are all just symptoms. What America really faces is a demographic cliff: The root cause of most of our problems is our declining fertility rate.
The fertility rate is the number of children an average woman bears over the course of her life. The replacement rate is 2.1. If the average woman has more children than that, population grows. Fewer, and it contracts. Today, America's total fertility rate is 1.93, according to the latest figures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; it hasn't been above the replacement rate in a sustained way since the early 1970s.
The nation's falling fertility rate underlies many of our most difficult problems. Once a country's fertility rate falls consistently below replacement, its age profile begins to shift. You get more old people than young people. And eventually, as the bloated cohort of old people dies off, population begins to contract. This dual problem—a population that is disproportionately old and shrinking overall—has enormous economic, political and cultural consequences.
For two generations we've been lectured about the dangers of overpopulation. But the conventional wisdom on this issue is wrong, twice. First, global population growth is slowing to a halt and will begin to shrink within 60 years. Second, as the work of economists Esther Boserups and Julian Simon demonstrated, growing populations lead to increased innovation and conservation. Think about it: Since 1970, commodity prices have continued to fall and America's environment has become much cleaner and more sustainable—even though our population has increased by more than 50%. Human ingenuity, it turns out, is the most precious resource.
Low-fertility societies don't innovate because their incentives for consumption tilt overwhelmingly toward health care. They don't invest aggressively because, with the average age skewing higher, capital shifts to preserving and extending life and then begins drawing down. They cannot sustain social-security programs because they don't have enough workers to pay for the retirees. They cannot project power because they lack the money to pay for defense and the military-age manpower to serve in their armed forces.
Given popular support for legal abortion and birth control, the most viable way to change this trend would seem to be immigration reform. Immigration from Roman Catholic (or otherwise traditional/paternalistic) countries might be a plus.
WSJ doesn't distinguish between birth rate by race, ethnic group. Mort 's WSJ toilet paper rag is really complaining about the WHITE birth rate, not the black, brown birth rates.
btw, your immigration "solution" is already in place with mostly Catholic immigrants from Central/South America, NOT what the WSJ wants.
People don't have kids if they are assured of their future income to pay for a family, housing. The 1%/VWRC Class War, Globaliization, the War on Employees, vehemently supported by WSJ, blackens the future current college grads in $25K+ debt, "23 Million" un/under-employed, ty growth and only in ty jobs, etc, etc.
no, it does not
no, it isn't.
what costs more to the govt, illegals who want to contribute or already contributing.....or freeloaders?
Criminal financial sector, by orders of magnitude, but we won't hear any Repug whining about punishing banksters the way they whine about punishing illegal aliens.
America's Genius Glut
WHILE genuine immigration reform has the potential to fix a seriously broken system, four senators have introduced a bill to solve a problem we don't have: the supply of high-tech workers.
The bill's authors, led by Senator Orrin G. Hatch, Republican of Utah, argue that America would benefit from letting more immigrants trained in science, technology, engineering and math work in the country, with the sponsorship of high-tech companies like Microsoft and I.B.M.
But the opposite is the case:
the bill would flood the job market with indentured foreign (cheap) workers, people who could not switch employers to improve their wages or working conditions;
damage the employment prospects of hundreds of thousands of skilled Americans;
and narrow the educational pipeline that produces these skilled workers domestically.
The impetus for the bill, which would give six-year visas to as many as 300,000 foreign high-tech workers a year, is the longstanding lament by business leaders that they cannot find the talent they need in the American labor market. In their version, there is a shortage of scientists and engineers, and the United States is failing to keep substantial numbers of foreign students in the country. As a result, our position as the world's leading high-tech economy is in danger.
Fortunately, they argue, H-1B visas - our guest-worker program for high-tech workers - brings us "the best and the brightest" in the world. We just don't give out enough of them.
But America's technology leadership is not, in fact, endangered. According to the economist Richard B. Freeman, the United States, with just 5 percent of the world's population, employs a third of its high-tech researchers, accounts for 40 percent of its research and development, and publishes over a third of its science and engineering articles. And a marked new crop of billion-dollar high-tech companies has sprung up in Silicon Valley recently, without the help of an expanded guest-worker program.
Nor are we turning away foreign students, or forcing them to leave once they've graduated. According to the Congressional Research Service, the number of full-time foreign graduate students in science, engineering and health fields has grown by more than 50 percent, from 91,150 in 1990 to 148,900 in 2009. And over the 2000s, the United States granted permanent residence to almost 300,000 high-tech workers, in addition to granting temporary work permits (for up to six years) to hundreds of thousands more.
The bill's proponents argue that for the sake of our global compe iveness, we shouldn't train and then return the tens of thousands of Chinese and Indian students who come here every year. But almost 90 percent of the Chinese students who earn science and technology doctorates in America stay here; the number is only slightly lower for Indians. If they're talented enough to get a job here, they're already almost guaranteed a visa.
If anything, we have too many high-tech workers: more than nine million people have degrees in a science, technology, engineering or math field, but only about three million have a job in one. That's largely because pay levels don't reward their skills. Salaries in computer- and math-related fields for workers with a college degree rose only 4.5 percent between 2000 and 2011. If these skills are so valuable and in such short supply, salaries should at least keep pace with the tech companies' profits, which have exploded.
And while unemployment for high-tech workers may seem low - currently 3.7 percent - that's more than twice as high as it was before the recession.
If there is no shortage of high-tech workers, why would companies be pushing for more? Simple:
workers under the H-1B program aren't like domestic workers - because they have to be sponsored by an employer, they are more or less indentured, tied to their job and whatever (LOW) wage the employer decides to give them.
Moreover, too many are paid at wages below the average for their occupation and location: over half of all H-1B guest workers are certified for wages in the bottom quarter of the wage scale.
Bringing over more - there are already 500,000 workers on H-1B visas - would obviously darken job prospects for America's struggling young scientists and engineers. But it would also hurt our efforts to produce more: if the message to American students is, "Don't bother working hard for a high-tech degree, because we can import someone to do the job for less," we could do significant long-term damage to the high-tech educational system we value so dearly.
There is no question that the immigration system needs major reform. But let's not break anything else in the process.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/article?a=...ub=Contributor
iow, the high-tech companies want more FOREIGN INDENTURED high-tech employees because they are CHEAPER and less mobile than US employees.
Yep, the wages of us "parts changers" is getting ready to break 6 digits. Supply is is limited.
genius glut includes WC? no comment.
Didn't you know, I am in the High Tech industry. My base pay in 2001 was $72k. I think I made $118k that year with overtime and bonuses. My current job has finally taken me a little above $72k. I could go back to a higher paying High Tech job, but I feel secure where I am now. I was laid off from that other job in 2002.
I don't judge anyone by their salary. do you?
No, I was making the point that there really isn't a need to bring in the VISA people. They just want to cut the amount of money they pay. increase the supply of labor vs. the work demand.
Now it is getting harder for High tech to keep good people, even at the wages they pay, because it is so cyclical. Nobody likes a job industry that goes through hiring and layoff cycles.
Why do you hate Ayn Rand?
free marketers don't believe in free movement of labor. as usual, free enterprise thinking ceases at the water's edge.
'Free market' is ideology and not reality. It exists nowhere on this planet not even in the freest economies on Earth such as Singapore.
The argument stating that lower fertility leading to a higher aging population is only true in the short term. The problem is a population boom. Going forward we aren't going to have a third of the population as the older demographic.
'Growth' is certainly an American ideal but I find it a lie. You end up as a dog that chases it's own tail and most especially at the expense of future generation. I am sick of that thinking as much as the demographic in the power structure follows it.
As for the myth that population growth is going to halt, those that are saying that have been wrong. Case in point is India where they have massive social programs including things such as paying people to sterilize themselves. Eugenics WC style. They just did their census and the tabulations are coming out. One thing is clear: the population predictions were wrong. Exacerbating the issue both there and pretty much everywhere else is disproportionate demographic growth and widening of the rich poor gap.
Resource scarcity and supply and demand are not going to go away. And the 'growth will save the day' and 'building them more infrastructure and will save the day' is at best poor planning. Hope is not a plan and the technology needed to make sure that all the disease, famine, violent conflict and water shortages simply does not exist.
I have a hard time believing this. To be true you would have to view a person making $1.5m a year the same as someone making $9/hr. Sounds like a good ideal to strive for nonetheless.
LOL...
The Fuzzy Gay is back. Can't help but think of me in every thread.
Did you or did you not say that you supported a program where mothers who sought AFDC or similar programs would have to surrender their reproductive rights?
What I did or did not say doesn't matter. What matters is you are a chronic . You find any reason to about the people you don't like.
baby ...
That's all you are is a .
^that post is rich on Vitamin I
Mocking the village idiot is not ing. I wasn't even addressing you in that original comment and there is no one else here that supports those types of programs. You do support such programs.
Complaining about me like the post I am quoting IS ing. It's hilarious watching you own yourself over and over and over again.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
