Immigration

Chamber of Commerce and Other Employer Groups File Lawsuit Challenging Trump's Employment Visa Ban

The lawsuit raises a variety of important issues, including a nondelegation challenge. It could turn out to be a very significant case.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

Yesterday, major US business associations, including the US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers, and others, filed a lawsuit challenging President Trump's suspension of nearly all employment visas for immigrants, until at least the end of this year. The complaint is available here. The case could result in a ruling with important implications for administrative law, immigration, and separation of powers.

Stuart Anderson has a helpful summary of the issues the lawsuit raises in an article in Forbes:

Major U.S. business organizations used strong language in a legal complaint to dispute a recent Trump administration action to block foreign nationals from entering the United States to work. "The proclamation takes a sledgehammer to the statutes Congress enacted with respect to high-skilled and temporary worker immigration," argued the business groups in a new lawsuit filed against Donald Trump's June 22, 2020, presidential proclamation. "While the President's powers under Section 212(f) are broad, they do not authorize the President to nullify duly enacted statutory provisions."

The recent proclamation suspended the entry of foreign nationals on H-1B, L-1, H-2B and (most) J-1 temporary visas until at least December 31, 2020. The plaintiffs argue that overrides Congress. "The proclamation is unlawful: It exceeds the statutory and constitutional authority of the Executive, and thus the federal departments and officials involved may not lawfully implement or enforce it," according to the plaintiffs. They note that Congress has passed laws to balance the interests of workers, businesses and the U.S. economy.

The plaintiffs argue the proclamation both exceeds the executive branch's authority and violates the Administrative Procedure Act because it is "arbitrary and capricious and not rationally tied to its stated goal." They cite a large body of economic research showing H-1B visa holders (and others) are likely to create additional jobs and write, "There is no basis to conclude that exempting this wide swath of workers from the United States will have a material impact on unemployment rates of U.S. citizens…."

The business organizations argue the decision to block H-1B visa holders, who work primarily in computer-related occupations, on "unemployment" grounds was not rational given the economic data available at the time of the proclamation. The plaintiffs cited a National Foundation for American Policy analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data that showed the unemployment rate for individuals in computer-related occupations remained stable in the United States between January and May 2020….

To prevent the entry of visa holders, in the June proclamation Trump used Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). The Supreme Court decided a case on the president's use of 212(f) in Trump v. Hawaii (the travel ban decision). The plaintiffs objected to the use of Section 212(f) in the latest proclamation: "The foregoing limitations to the scope of the President's authority – including that the Executive may not use Section 212(f) to invalidate duly enacted statutes, that the Executive may not use Section 212(f) in response to a purely domestic economic concern, especially where Congress has addressed the issue, and that the Executive's use of Section 212(f) must be accompanied by rational 'find[ings]' – ensure that authority Congress has bestowed on the President in Section 212(f) is constitutional."

The plaintiffs argued, "If, by contrast, Section 212(f) contains no such limits on the scope of Executive authority, then the proclamation is ultra vires because Section 212(f) effects an unconstitutional delegation of 'the Legislative Power' in Article I, and thus cannot confer lawful authority upon the President. Properly construing the INA as limiting the President's ability to impose the proclamation, however, avoids the grave constitutional doubts otherwise raised by the nondelegation doctrine." (Emphasis added.)

The plaintiffs' Administrative Procedure Act argument could get a boost from the Supreme Court's recent ruling in the DACA case, where a 5-4 majority ruled against Trump's attempt to shut down DACA, because the administration had failed to consider key aspects of the policy, and had ignored relevant reliance interests. In this case, similarly, the administration appears to have ignored the condition of the industries that employ employment visa holders (particularly H-1B visas, which are used by the high tech industry) and also ignored the reliance interests of employers, consumers, and others who depend on these workers. The proclamation could thus be ruled "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, for reasons very similar to those that doomed the administration in the DACA case.

The administration's claim that a near-categorical ban on work visas is necessary to help American workers is at odds with numerous analyses by economists (which show that immigration restrictions do as much to reduce native-born employment as increase it, even during times of crisis such as the Great Depression), and with evidence indicating that immigrant students (severely restricted by the ban on new J-1 visas) and high tech workers are especially crucial to American innovation, which in turn helps facilitate economic growth. Caleb Watney of the conservative R Street Institute recently summarized that evidence here.

The administration is not legally required to base his policies on sound economics. But the DACA ruling suggests it must at least consider these issues—and associated reliance interests.

It's also possible the plaintiffs could prevail on their arguments that the president's authority under Section 212(f) of the Immigration and Nationality Act is limited by Congress' enactment of a visa system for various categories of immigrant workers. However, it will not be easy to overcome the very broad (and in my view, incorrect) interpretation of Section 212(f) that the Supreme Court adopted in Trump v. Hawaii, the 2018 travel ban case.

Section 212(f), codified as 8 USC Section 1182(f),  gives the president the power to bar entry into the US by any foreign national whom he deems to "detrimental to the interests of the United States." In Trump v. Hawaii, Chief Justice John Roberts' majority opinion interpreted this as giving the president the power to exclude almost any alien he wants, so long as he makes a finding that the person's presence is "detrimental to the interests" of the US. Under Roberts' logic, the president need not prove that supposed threat to US "interests" is real, and there is no limitation on what qualifies as a relevant "interest."

The business groups argue there are some limitations on Section 212(f) even in the wake of Trump v. Hawaii. But if the plaintiffs do not prevail under the APA, and cannot persuade the courts to adopt a more limited interpretation of Section 212(f), the case could come down to the nondelegation issue. That question was not addressed in Trump v. Hawaii, and thus could be used to limit the president's power without in any way overruling or limiting the scope of that decision.

I described the importance of the nondelegation issue—and why the Supreme Court's 2019 decision in Gundy v. United States strengthens the case against Trump's sweeping use of Section 212(f)—here and here:

Trump v. Hawaii did not consider the possibility that this view of Section 1182 violates the "nondelegation" doctrine: the principle that Congress cannot delegate sweeping lawmaking power to the executive. In last year's ruling in Gundy v. United States, both liberal and conservative justices indicated the real limits on that delegation of power. In a dissenting opinion joined by two other conservatives, Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized that the Constitution does not allow the president to exercise "the power to adopt generally applicable rules of conduct governing future actions by private persons." Only Congress may do that. Justice Elena Kagan's plurality opinion for the Court held that Congress may not give the president "'unguided' and 'unchecked' authority" to determine the scope of a law, especially when violations carry criminal penalties. Trump's use of Section 1182 to impose a sweeping ban on immigration pretty obviously makes "generally applicable rules of conduct" for private parties—many millions of them. The recent extension and expansion of the policy applies these rules to even more people. Just as clearly, the idea that the president can exclude any potential immigrant for any reason, subject to the imposition of criminal penalties for violators, is a case of"'unguided' and 'unchecked' authority," if anything is.

If we are serious about nondelegation limits on presidential power—as conservatives, in particular, claim we should be—then the courts must either strike down Section 1182(f) or rethink the broad interpretation of the law adopted in Trump v. Hawaii.

As the plaintiffs note in their complaint, courts could adopt a narrower interpretation of Section 212(f) in order to avoid the constitutional problems raised by the broad view relied on by the administration. Supreme Court precedent requires courts to interpret federal law to avoid constitutional problems whenever  it is "fairly possible" to do so.

There is, of course, always a chance that a majority of Supreme Court justices will decide they are not serious about enforcing nondelegation in any meaningful way. Alternatively, it's possible (though I hope not likely) that the five conservative justices will create a kind of ad hoc exception to nondelegation specific to immigration policy. I criticized such ideas here. It could potentially happen. But the conservative justices likely realize that if they start creating exceptions for issues to nondelegation where it's politically convenient for the right, liberal justices will do the same on other issues. The end result will be a nondelegation doctrine that is little more than a paper tiger, if that.

Historically, judicial enforcement of constitutional constraints on government power is effective only if it gets at least some substantial buy-in from judges on both right and left. That won't happen with the nondelegation doctrine, if conservatives decide to exempt immigration policy from its scope.

If the employer groups prevail in this case, it could also pave the way for successful legal challenges to Trump's draconian near-total ban on entry by people seeking permanent residency in the United States, which is subject to most of the same sorts of objections as the ban on work visas, especially the nondelegation argument. The  nondelegation issue can also be used to challenge Trump's earlier, less extreme, travel ban policies.

Because of the implications for immigration, the APA, and nondelegation,  this could turn out to be an extremely important case. There is, however, a chance that it will get resolved before appellate courts have an opportunity to weigh in on it. If Joe Biden wins the presidential election, he is likely to repeal all or most of Trump's new executive immigration restrictions (and the earlier travel bans), thereby potentially rendering this litigation moot.

Advertisement

NEXT: When Choosing What To Believe, People Often Choose Morality Over Hard Evidence

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Joe Biden will rescind the Trump order on H-1b visas, on Day-1. And in doing so ensure the continuing removal of jobs from the U.S. economy, maybe your job. In doing so he will return to the Obama era supporting of Offshore Outsourcing companies, via the H-1b visa. A policy that gave us the SLOWEST recover in U.S. History.

    In the U.S. we have seen most of the generally available H-1b visas go to Offshore Outsourcing companies. Offshore Outsourcing companies specialize in removing jobs, not creating them. Tech companies have huge contracts with these Offshore Outsourcing companies:

    Google earns 140,000$/yr in profit per employee.
    Apple earns 400,000$/yr in profit per employee.
    Facebook earns 635,000$/yr in profit per employee.

    Our domestic (U.S.) companies earn a huge profit per employee, but still they need unlimited visas? Why? Frankly they could have every employee in my company (we are only about 2 miles from Facebook), for 200k/year (less in many cases). That would still get them about 550,000$/year in profit for each engineer they hired away from our company. But they don’t do that because the news would get out and soon everyone in these companies would start asking for a higher salary.

    Further, executive compensation is dependent on increasing profits. If you can quickly replace an American with a cheaper person on an H-1b visa. You can get a salary cost reduction, often across a whole department, without creating conditions where people will ask for a higher salary generally, in fact they will be scared to do so.

    This is why the lottery system for H-1b visas (which is largely gamed and won by Offshore Outsourcing companies) has not changed for 30 years. Trump has as part of his executive order, put in a provision to change this from a lottery system to one based upon a salary ranking.

    The tech companies hate this and that is why Joe Biden (who is completely bought off by donor class political action committees) has said he will completely rescind Trump’s executive order, on Day-1.

    1. Joe Biden will rescind the Trump order on H-1b visas, on Day-1

      That would be in violation of the administration procedure act. Or like lots of judicial decisions, depends if its President Trump or not?

      1. Where is the reliance interest?

        1. Current workers in technology and science, who would find their wages suppressed by the large numbers of new foreign employees

          1. That’s not reliance, chief.

            1. Sure it is.

              1. First, the wage suppression is not clear at all.

                But more importantly, look up what a reliance interest is and when it manifests.

                1. De-Nile isn’t just a river in Egypt.

                  1. The expert speaketh.

          2. The law requires paying of the prevailing wage, so wages shouldn’t be suppressed.

            1. The thing is, if there’s an engineer willing to do the work for $35K, then the engineering is worth $35K, even if the American engineer wants $120K to do it.
              There’s nothing magical about being in the US that makes $35k of engineering worth $120K. That H-1b engineer is still there and can still do the work, whether he is in the US or in India.

              1. He is work 35k/yr, in the other country. When he/she comes to the U.S., they are worth more because the cost of living the U.S. is more.

                It is as simple as that.

                If they stay in their home country, they don’t need an apartment that rents for 24,000$/yr. They don’t need medical insurance for 5k$/yr per family member. They don’t need transportation.

                In short, they don’t take up U.S. infrastructure if they stay over there.

                If in the other country, we determine as a nation that they are dumping (or stealing) or some other thing. We can tariff their output into the United States at any time. That’s why we are in a country, that’s why we have borders.

                The country has the right to determine its future. Protectionism is one factor that all countries use (India and China tariff the heck out of our goods and they severely limit immigration into their country, not to mention inability of foreigners to own real estate)

                That’s the way it goes. We cannot control how they manipulate their currency or how they create substandard and unsafe working and living conditions. We cannot control how they control immigration or extend rights to foreigners. And we have the same kind of system over here. But I think in many ways we are far more open.

                1. “He is work 35k/yr, in the other country. When he/she comes to the U.S., they are worth more because the cost of living the U.S. is more.

                  It is as simple as that.”

                  As simple as you not understanding how economics works? OK, then.

                  1. Yes, it is the case, because you have to attract the worker. We don’t have unlimited immigration in this country, so we can equalize based upon demographics or available population.

                    If we had unlimited housing and transportation, we could, and yes, then the engineer would be worth maybe 6k/year (what they pay in India).

                    Of course the only way to have unlimited housing would be to allow people to pitch tents near to their work, which would also solve the transportation problem.

                    But since that is not allowed (scarcity is driven by local zoning). The reality is the engineer, has to make a decision, Does he/she go to work as an engineer for 35k/yr? Or do they go to work at almost any other profession, and earn 60k/yr. And in many other profession, have the potential to earn 90 or even 6 figures?

                    So you see, the engineer doesn’t become and engineer. He or she maybe becomes a real estate agent, or becomes a supermarket manager, or becomes a police officer, or a teacher. That is why, an engineer is worth more than 35k/yr, even if in other countries an engineer only makes 35k/yr or even 6k/yr.

                    No one is just an engineer. They are people and you need to stop thinking about people as just cogs or goods to be shipped across the ocean. People require a support infrastructure, and if that infrastructure cost is high (in the form of taxes, rent, or some other aspect) they are not going to be engineers for you at a salary that isn’t competitive with other professions.

                    1. I already conceded that you don’t understand economics. You didn’t have to provide proof.

                2. “He is work 35k/yr, in the other country. When he/she comes to the U.S., they are worth more because the cost of living the U.S. is more.
                  It is as simple as that.”

                  Except that’s not how it works. Something is worth exactly what you can convince somebody to pay you for it. If you try telling you the price went up because it costs you money to live in the US, the answer is very likely to be “sucks to be you, then”, and very unlikely to be “Oh, OK, here’s some more money then.”
                  If I need a widget designed and fabricated, the design part of producing that widget can be done anywhere, while the fabrication requires the availability of materials and equipment and people who know how to work the equipment. So, if I want to make a couple of million “mini-Nintendo” consoles, I’ll do some legal work, finding out who owns the intellectual property I want to use and getting it licensed, then I’ll hire some bright engineers to make it work on an ARM processor, then I’ll arrange to have the products actually built. So, the first part of my project will need to be done in the US and in Japan, because that’s where the records are that I’ll need to examine and the companies that I’ll need to negotiate with. The second part can be done literally anywhere. The last part is going to be somewhere in eastern Asia, probably China because that’s where the factories are that can do the work inexpensively and on my deadline(s).

        2. “Where is the reliance interest?”

          Judges in the 5th and 11th circuits will think of something.

          1. Why do you post on a legal blog if you are so committed to the principle that laws don’t matter?

            1. To annoy you mainly.

              1. That seems likely.

  2. If you really are pro immigration, you can see the sense in the President’s order. For decades Offshore Outsourcing have gamed the system, by stuffing a huge number of requests for H-1b visas. The Tech companies have big contracts with these Offshore Outsourcing companies and the big rush on April 1st made it look as though there were not enough H-1b visas.

    It makes no sense, what-so-ever, for the United States to give H-1b visas to companies that specialize in removing jobs from the United States. Such companies can just use the Free Labor Market, you know Capitalism, they don’t need an artificial class
    of worker specially handed to them.

    Further, Offshore Outsourcing companies don’t sponsor people for Green Cards and eventual citizenship. By switching from a lottery to a salary requirement, Offshore Outsourcing companies (which pay the lowest salary of all the H-1b visa dependent companies) will be out of the game. And MORE H-1b visas will be available to our domestic tech companies for direct hiring. And more people will get Green Cards and more of those will eventually become citizens. Which, after all, is the goal of immigration. The goal of immigration is NOT to creat an indentured worker that works for an Offshore Outsourcing company. No, the real goal,of such Visa programs must be to get workers into jobs, where they create wealth in the United States, where they create new jobs. And where those same visa’d workers can eventually get a Green Card and apply for citizenship.

    Everyone else, who says we need unlimited H-1b visas, doesn’t really want a fully enfranchised worker, they want a worker that can’t leave their job until Green Card day. The real anti-immigrant groups, are those that favor H-1b visa. And do not devote 100% of their resource to instead creating an expanded Green Card system. Because they are de-facto, destroying the image of real immigrants, and they are wasting time working for people that don’t want to hire citizens and Green Card holders.

    The truth about how the H-1b visa is used, and the fact that Obama did nothing to stop Offshore Outsourcing companies from abusing the H-1b visa (and the B-1 and L-1) is the reason we just went through the slowest recovery in U.S. History. At the same time that Americans were losing their homes and jobs, India built a 100 billion dollar per year Outsourcing industry, in India. And the U.S. became India’s #1 export destination, where they exported services (previously performed by Americans) back to America.

    If Biden returns to those same policies on Day-1 of his Administration, as he has publicly said he would, we can expect another very slow recovery.

    1. “If you really are pro immigration, you can see the sense in the President’s order.”

      For several decades, the United States has been benefitting from drawing the best scientists and engineers from around he world to come here and work. Telling them to stay home and work there benefits everybody but us.

      If you see the Trump plan as sabotaging the United States federal government as much as possible, yes, the plan is quite clear. He wants to make America great again, which requires him to first make it not great.
      Right now, the plan is to make America sick again.

      1. The order has a provision to change from a lottery system to a system based upon salary. Now salary isn’t a perfect proxy for skill, but it is infinitely (well 50% better) better than a lottery. Offshore Outsourcing companies gamed and won more than half the generally available H-1b visas in the past 20 years.

        Offshore Outsourcing companies don’t sponsor people for Green Cards and they Don’t sponsor people for citizenship.

        This simple change, from a lottery system to one based upon salary, could have been done by any Administration. I think the tech companies, that have big contracts with these Offshore Outsourcing companies, really want the Offshore Outsourcing companies to take up the H-1b visas. Because it creates a false impression that is a high demand for engineers. And they were hoping (and you can see it in the bills that almost passed but failed) for a huge increase in the number of H-1b visas.

        Our Domestic tech companies, do sponsor people for Green Cards and in doing so help people on the way to permanent immigration. If they workers are Direct Hires.

        Just continuing to give away H-1b visas to Offshore Outsourcing companies gives immigrants (because people really can’t distinguish between Green Card holders and H-1b holders, let alone understand the difference) a bad reputation as job destroyers.

        These changes will, next year, prevent Offshore Outsourcing companies from taking these visas (because they also coincidentally pay the lowest salaries, hey they are only bring in trainees so you can’t blame them). And will result in more H-1b visas being reserved for our domestic tech companies.

        That’s a HUGE, HUGE positive for future REAL immigration to our country. If you want the old system, then you are for giving away jobs, using foreign workers, at a time when American workers are most vulnerable. And you don’t want immigration, what you want is temporary workforce that will leave the country at your whim. Which is exactly what fits best for the Offshore Outsourcing companies.

        You are in fact (even though you don’t really understand yourself) Anti-Immigrant. If you favor the H-1b visa. Because the H-1b visa destroys opportunities (via the Offshore Outsourcing companies) opportunities for people to be sponsored for Green Cards and citizenship).

        That is why, this order is the right prescription. But you can’t see this unless you are willing to listen. Just go onto you tube and see the videos created by people here on an H-1b visa. There is an excellent set of videos on this, where the details of the problems with the H-1b system are detailed by H-1b holders. They call the H-1b visa, the “Offshore Outsourcing” visa in India.

        1. ” it creates a false impression that is a high demand for engineers.”

          How, exactly, does a tech business benefit from creating a false impression that there is a high demand for engineers?

          1. You know very well that for decades now Big Tech has been asking for “unlimited” numbers of H-1b visas. By having Offshore Outsourcing companies take up all the visa request, Big Tech has pointed to that and said “See there, there is a high demand for H-1b visas and we need more.”.

            That’s why. And it is obvious.

            1. This boogeyman you keep calling “Offshore Outsourcing” sure has you scared… but you still haven’t explained why a business that operates overseas needs any visas of any kind.

              1. They need people on an H-1b to be trained by the Americans who are being replaced by the H-1b workers. This is well documented in many cases most notably Southern California Edison and Disney but there are hundreds of other such cases.

            2. “You know very well that for decades now Big Tech has been asking for “unlimited” numbers of H-1b visas.”

              Did they get them? No? What did they get?

              “That’s why. And it is obvious.”

              It’s obvious that you see something that isn’t actually there.

              1. Bill Gates is on the Congressional record, under oath, asking for unlimited number of H-1b visas. The gang of eight bill would have allowed an expansion in the number of H-1b visas to well above 300,000 per year.

                But, it is become political suicide to support such expansions because the massive negative publicity surrounding ordinary IT workers being replaced by people coming in on an H-1b visa. As a prelude to moving entire departments, Offshore, that many expansion bills fail in the Senate.

        2. “That’s a HUGE, HUGE positive for future REAL immigration to our .. If you want the old system, then you are for giving away jobs, using foreign workers, at a time when American workers are most vulnerable. And you don’t want immigration, what you want is temporary workforce that will leave the country at your whim. Which is exactly what fits best for the Offshore Outsourcing companies.”

          tell me more about what I want. Apparently I don’t know for myself.

          See if you can answer without using the words “offshore” and “outsourcing”, with or without needless capitalization. I’m not interested in your boogeyman, though it seems to be your obsession.

          1. Offshore Outsourcing is a scary thing for my fellow Americans. I care about them and I would like them to be more secure in their jobs.

            And American = (citizens and Green Card holders)

            I don’t want anyone to feel disenfranchised while they are here. So I would like the idiotic per country Green Card limits removed at least to match the back log. Or at the very least have the Green Card process controlled by the worker, not the employer.

            Sometimes people don’t know what they are buying in to when they advocate something. In the case of the H-1b visa, it is sold to us as an immigrant visa by corporate propagandizers. But it is having the exact oposite affect when most of the H-1b visas are taken up by Offshore Outsourcing companies. The H-1b visas is further sold as a way of getting more entreprenuers into the country, but it has the opposite affect because it displaces Americans from starting tech jobs. And it locks up workers forever until Green Card day.

            If you want an indentured workforce that never gets a Green Card or citizenship. That moves in and out of the country at the whim of the business they work for, you are for the H-1b visa, in fact you want things to stay the same only with unlimited numbers of H-1b visas.

            And even if you don’t think you want that. That’s what you are going to get unless you advocate for the reforms I have been talking about and forget about expanding the H-1b program.

            1. For some reason, you want to lecture me about what I want, without actually reading what I said or responding in any meaningful way to it. Why is that?

            2. “Offshore Outsourcing is a scary thing for my fellow Americans.”

              I’ll concede that it’s scare for your fellow stupid people. Can you advance a reason why a person of at least normal intelligence should be concerned about it?

              It sounds like a simple arbitrage operation. A business that supplies a product to a willing buyer at an agreed-upon price. That’s the capitalism you keep saying you support, but don’t really like.

              “Sometimes people don’t know what they are buying in to when they advocate something.”
              Such as when you advocate tinkering with American business and immigration policies.

              1. Immigration has to be limited because we don’t have unlimited housing in the United States. But more importantly, we need real immigration, not an indentured work force, that can never challenge their boss on issues of product quality, pay, work hours.

                The greatest source of innovation in the United States, comes from the fact that workers are able to setup competing business, after working for and leaving a similar business. For example, Intel was founded by two Americans who left Fairchild semiconductor.

                The H-1b visa to Green Card wait prevents this dynamic, and Big Tech loves that.

  3. So Disney tells it’s American IT staff you must train your H-1b replacement. The same thing has happened at dozens of other companies. The American workers were never given a chance to compete for their jobs, they were just told you must train your h-1b replacement, if you want 2 month severance.

    You know, if you ask the Congress people who passed the original H-1b bill, they all said that is not allowed and many are saying that completely violates the intent of the law.

    So I have to ask, at a time when we need every low-level job (accountant, IT person, HR technician…) should we allow a program which clearly is run-a-muck and has completely deviated from its charter, be in place to greatly exacerbate the current economic conditions?

    The last thing we need is for Offshore Outsourcing companies to come in an remove entire departments back to India, in order to export the services back to the United States.

    No this program needs a temporary halt, for the sake of the program’s well being. Because continued export of jobs from United States could be devastating (as it was under Barack Obama) to the U.S. economy.

    Instead, let’s halt for 6 months, do a review. Then further change from a lottery based H-1b system to one based upon salary.

    Those same business groups will find that this order should be a great benefit to them. They will find next year, that Domestic job creating companies will have better and easier access to the H-1b program. Let’s work together on this.

    1. “So I have to ask, at a time when we need every low-level job”

      Do you need a low-level job? I don’t need any low-level jobs.

      1. Millions of Americans start at low-level IT jobs. Low level jobs are critical to developing a skilled IT workforce.

  4. “US Chamber of Commerce, the National Association of Manufacturers”

    Illustrates the folly of unthinking conservative “pro-business” attitudes.

  5. Capitalism is a product of Free Labor and Free Enterprise. Frankly, can we even consider Capitalism to include slavery? I don’t think so. Because slaves cannot own anything, because they don’t own their own time. That’s why the 13th amendment, which ended slavery and indenturement is so important to the continuing innovation within Capitalist countries.

    Because the 13th amendment made Capitalism the force of nature that it is today.

    Listen, and this is important, we innovate in the United States because workers are free to leave their employer, at any time, in order to create their own businesses (often competing businesses).

    And, also very important, because labor comes at an hourly cost. Businesses are motivated to get the most productivity out of their workers. A process of continual improvement that has greatly enhanced the standard of living in the United States.

    Any government program that detracts from either of these 2 TRUE pillars of revolutionary change within our Capitalist system, will not lead to faster improvement in our standard of living. They might increase the employment prospects of some, particularly the 100 billion dollar Offshore Outsourcing industry in India, and the massive human service export. But that doesn’t improve worker productivity, that isn’t an innovation. That is at best, a 1-for-1 swap.

    So let’s, instead, turn our resources to the getting Congress and the President to reform the Green Card system and to getting more people (especially undocumented and disenfranchised people) in the United States, on a path to citizenship. So that they can participate in the 2 main things that spur innovation in the U.S. economy, again those are:

    – The ability of workers (via the 13th amendment) to leave their job at any time, in order to create competing businesses.
    – By increasing the cost per hour of labor and in doing so, increase the motivation of business to improve worker productivity.

    There is a great prejudice about foreign workers and domestic workers. The narrative of that prejudice come in statements such as “We need more H-1b visas to improve innovation in this country”. But that is just a spin and not the real truth. The real truth is that yes, some foreign workers and some domestic workers are especially talented workers. We don’t need more foreign workers, what we need are more “especially talented” workers. And the H-1b visa, as it currently stands (with an idiotic lottery), doesn’t provide us with “especially talented” workers. It often provides us with, untalented freshers who are will work any price.

    We have a huge case history of this. And we know enough now to fix this H-1b program. But why is this not occuring?

    I suspect that tech companies actually are not as interested in getting especially talented workers. We have known for years that PhD carrying workers actually had a hard time getting jobs in the tech industry. No, what they have wanted are workers that can’t exercise their full 13th amendment rights.

    Look, Google, Apple and several other tech companies all colluded to keep workers from leaving for other companies, via a secret and illegal “No Poaching” agreement.

    We have an Email exchange between Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs, where a Google recruiter successfully attracted an engineer from Apple to Google. Steve Jobs wrote to Eric Schmidt to remind him of their “No Poaching” agreement. The recruiter, well she was immediately fired by Eric Schmidt. Eric Schmidt later wrote to the others involved in this secret and illegal conspiracy, that they should take all their messages to verbal an in person, for fear of leaving a paper trail for the law to find.

    Well Obama, never prosecuted them. And all the companies settled out of court in order to avoid a long trial that would have seen the executives forced to testify about their illegal agreement, which violated broadly, the Sherman Anti-Trust act.

    The real motivation of these Tech companies is to use the H-1b visa to create an artificial class of worker. So that these companies can avoid the U.S. Free Market (in this case for labor). And instead be handed, by our government (for the sake of campaign contributions) an indentured workforce.

    Look, Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt all risked Jail Time for their conspiracy. They will stop at nothing for this, and as a result of their wrong-hearted motivations, have created a system that is really Bad for the United States, which in turn is bad for workers and our future rate of innovation.

    1. “Listen, and this is important, we innovate in the United States because workers are free to leave their employer, at any time, in order to create their own businesses (often competing businesses). ”

      We get the best engineers from all over the world, and bring them here to work inventing and developing new products. If we tell them to stay in India or China, those innovative new products will be developed there instead of here and the competing businesses will be Indian and Chinese ones. Intel already manufactures around the world, but all their processor design work is done here in the US, along with their process engineering. If they can’t bring those engineers to the US, they’ll do it in Malaysia instead, to keep them close to the manufacturing assets.

      1. Yes, indeed let’s truly get the best from around the world. Only, under H-1b it doesn’t really happen that way, thanks to the lottery system (which is gamed and mostly won by Offshore Outsourcing companies).

        So let’s put in a salary ranking and choose based upon salary ranking. Forget about the lower salary workers, they are typically trainees, software QA people, sometimes accountants. I mean jobs that people can learn in 2 years at a community college are not worthy of wasting an H-1b visa on.

        Yet that is what is happening with the current system, for the generally available H-1b visas.

        The Offshore Outsourcing companies, and this well documented. Used the H-1b visas to bring in trainees, that are trained by better qualified more experience U.S. workers as a prelude to moving entire departments, overseas. That has to stop immediately, given the high unemployment. It is tough medicine, for the sake of the economy.

        So the other uses of the H-1b visa all have loopholes (if they are really needed) for the sake of national security or to help in finding a solution to the current crisis.

        But do we need people moving around to say study some odd thing or do some odd research. I’d say, for while at least, people should postpone such travel, for their safety and the safety of the public. Literally, if you are moving around and that moving around isn’t to help with the covid-19 emergency, you could well be a part of the problem.

        1. J-1 is also banned.

        2. “The Offshore Outsourcing companies, and this well documented. ”

          Sentence nothing meaning.

        3. “Forget about the lower salary workers, they are typically trainees, software QA people”

          I bet you hate the software QA people. They spend all their time pointing out how you screwed up your job and didn’t do it right. Them and the security pros, all they do is point out that the software you so easily create, as written, is insecure and can’t be trusted.

          1. QA is a critical component and many developers start out in software QA.

            It is developers who find the most bugs. Developers might not write as many bugs (sometimes we do), but software developers point out many of the flaws in design that come out of product design, and that requires QA skills.

      2. If the job the H-1b worker takes up, is some ordinary job they effectively displace an American (and American = citizen or Green Card holder). If that H-1b worker is waiting for Green Card, then they never start a business.

        So with H-1b, employers get the advantage of being able to train a worker without having to worry about that worker setting up a competing shop. And it deprives the U.S. consumer from the benefits of having greater competition for their money. And it deprives American worker of the possible opportunity either at the original position or at possible positions at a company created by that foreign worker.

        As was pointed out by the infamous “No Poaching” scandal, engineers leaving the workplace for competitors is a thing that CEO’s are willing to risk jail time to prevent. Lobbying the government to create some sick program to do the same thing, that something that is worth spending lobbying dollars on.

        1. “So with H-1b, employers get the advantage of being able to train a worker without having to worry about that worker setting up a competing shop.”

          Yes, the H-1b program is designed and intended to help American tech businesses, so it helps American tech businesses.

          Now address the point that if we don’t bring these engineers to the US to do engineering here for American companies, they’ll stay where they are and do engineering for not-American companies (whether they found new ones or not).

          1. Because it is impossible for us to prevent this. We cannot build enough housing, freeways, public transit fast enough to stop this from happening.

            And if we try too hard, we wind up excluding our own local people from entering in to starter jobs. Because those starter jobs are taken up by people here on an H-1b visa.

            Steve Wozniak, co-founder of Apple, worked such a starting job at Hewlett Packard. There are actually thousand of such examples of Americans leaving a company to start a business.

            If a person on an H-1b visa, does not attain a Green Card, they are effectively not immigrating to the United States and they are not starting businesses. The only ones who profit from that are tech executives and investors.

            1. ” There are actually thousand of such examples of Americans leaving a company to start a business. ”

              To effectively start a tech business, you need either an engineer who understands business, or a businessman who understands engineering. It turns out that these combinations are rare.

              ” The only ones who profit from that are tech executives and investors.”

              So invest in a business who understands how to make money and you can have profits, too!

              1. Well I am already heaving invested, as are most of us in our retirement savings.

                Yes, lets trade stocks all day instead of doing our job. Nothing is more pathetic than a software engineer who can’t keep his eyes off the stock market and actively trades all day.

        2. “As was pointed out by the infamous “No Poaching” scandal, engineers leaving the workplace for competitors is a thing that CEO’s are willing to risk jail time to prevent.”

          Yes, IP leakage is a real problem. If I spend money developing products, I don’t want to see those products being offered by other businesses. If I spend money developing production methods that give me a competitive advantage, I want those production processes to remain exclusively mine.

          1. Some states allow a non-compete contract. California does not allow this. That doesn’t mean an employee can steal designs, documents, customer lists and use them at another business. But anything that is part of their skill set is fair for them to use at another job site.

            Copy rights only offer protection from duplication.

            Patents can protect against copying algorithms, but most companies are using patents as a way to protect themselves from patent litigation (from patent trolls).

        3. “So with H-1b, employers get the advantage of being able to train a worker without having to worry about that worker setting up a competing shop.”

          They don’t have to worry about an employer leaving and taking valuable intellectual property with them out the door.

          1. Exactly, so you do agree that H-1b is used to create a locked in worker that doesn’t have the normal free market right to leave for another jobs. And that companies want that kind of protection from normal market forces.

            H-1b is a U.S. government program, it should serve the best interests of the United States, not business. And innovation, in the form of competing businesses located within the United States, serves the best interests of the United States. If it causes some businesses to go bankrupt, well too bad, welcome to Capitalism. The result will be better, more competitive businesses. Instead of being just another Xerox that sits on its technology, or just another Ampex that failed to capitalize on it huge advantage in technology.

  6. “The administration is not legally required to base his policies on sound economics.”

    This line is interesting to say the least, because like lawyers, you can get an economist to give a 180 degree opposite opinion on just about anything.

    1. Opinions are easy to get. Finding someone who actually understands what’s going on well enough to provide accurate predictions of the future, on the other hand, is still an accomplishment.

  7. Lots of Americans are out of work. Shouldn’t we be in the business of giving them jobs before importing labor? That is just about what every other country in the world does.

    1. We’ve been leading the world in science and engineering since the end of the second world war because we’ve been systematically taking the best scientists and engineers from around the world and putting them to work here. They develop new products and even whole new industries right here in the USA. Sending them away is 100% stupid.

      1. No what is stupid is to allow Offshore Outsourcing companies to grab more than half of the H-1b visas. What is stupid is to lock people into a job for 20 years for sake of a broken Green Card system.

        Innovation comes about because people can start a company here in the United States (we need an entrepreneur Green Card). Instead we tie them to a job. Instead of starting an Intel (which was started by 2 Americans) they get wasted in some Xerox or IBM or some Offshore Outsourcing companies expansion.

        1. ” what is stupid is to allow Offshore Outsourcing companies to grab more than half of the H-1b visas. ”

          Why, exactly, would a business predicated on employing foreign workers in foreign countries need any kind of visas to employ foreign workers in the United States? Are these Offshore Outsourcing companies of yours operating here in the states?

          1. Yes they do operate in the United States. The U.S. is India’s principle export market (mostly services). In India, the H-1b visa is called the “Offshore Outsourcing” visa.

            And exactly, why do they have to use these H-1b visas? Because these visas allow them to completely avoid have to hire Americans, that’s why. Yet they bring in only trainees, who are trained by the Americans they are replacing, as a prelude to moving entire departments offshore.

            No, they should not be taking up H-1b visas. These visas should be reserved for companies that are creating (not duplicating and removing) jobs from the United States.

            So long as we choose to allow them to operate in the United States (and it is our choice). They should just use the U.S. Free Labor market, same as any other ordinary business.

            Why our government helps such companies, by allowing them to use visas. Is completely FUBAR. But it wreaks of the what can be bought with PAC $$.

            1. If your “Offshore Outsourcing” companies aren’t offshore, why do you keep capitalizing it?

              “So long as we choose to allow them to operate in the United States (and it is our choice). They should just use the U.S. Free Labor market, same as any other ordinary business.”

              So long as there are enough engineers to do all the engineering work that needs to be done, there’s no upward pressure for engineer salaries. You’re the one advocating against a free market.

              1. Look, the free market extends to the border of the United States. Just past the border you are not in a free market. You are in a market that is controlled by country-to-country treaty. We still have a free market in the United States, even if we tariff goods coming in. Even if we limit immigration, it is still free market capitalist system.

                The degree to which countries tariff goods and limit immigration is entirely a political decision. And countries enact tariffs and limit immigration for many different reasons.

                If we had a truly world level free market system.

                Any American could move to India and do 5 years of on the job training at local wage levels. That’s 2k for any regular job, 6k for any engineering job. But, India limits immigration, as an American you can’t work there for less than 25k/year.

                I could take my savings, say to India, buy 20 room Victorian mansion, have 10 servants (Imperialist) And pass that on to my kids.

                If we had world-level-free-market system, China wouldn’t tariff the hell out of American made autos, including and especially electric cars made in the United States.

                But clearly, we do not have a free market system beyond the border of the United States. Every good may be tariffed, any person excluded. So when we unilaterally give up our right to impose tarrifs and immigration limits, we have to be on very sound economic footing (which we are not right now).

                Because the U.S. and its people have debts, we have taxes that must be paid. Bankers are expecting mortgage payments. Kids got to go to college. The whole shebang is built an an expectation of certain returns. The U.S. cannot just fail and then rebuild, that would cause a long-term 10-20 year depression.

                What would happen in failure is then we might turn to some other system, I don’t know “Communism” or some radical Socialism. And business, consumers, and workers would all be in worse shape, only potentially a true dictator would be in power.

                Our stability is based upon a partnership between government, the people, and business. All three must be in place and stable in order for the system to continue. Unless you like South America, where these is revolution every week end, after the old bosses are executed.

                1. ” We still have a free market in the United States”

                  Until you get what you want, which is a method of suppressing competition from other people willing to do your job for less money.

                  1. We could replace every worker in the United States with someone who will work for 10$/day if we decided to really open up the border and let everyone in who is:

                    “Willing to the your job for less money.”

                    But the problem will be that those new people will have to live in shanty towns for decades while local government slowly sees to their needs, if ever. But that does not happen because most people in the United States recognize that we need controlled immigration, if for no other reason than because decent housing is limited. And most law makers realize it is political suicide, at some point, to allow immigration to be used as a way to bring in unlimited numbers of replacement workers.

                    Too many workers can damage innovation and productivity. And this is because employers stop working on ways to increase output per worker and instead work on trying to increase scale by just repeating the same time-inefficient methods by just incorporating more workers.

                    Automation is a critical component, but Automation, typically, requires a higher initial investment, so with an unlimited workforce employers will hold back on that higher initial cost.

                    But automation pays off big in worker productivity and this is what has led to a high standard of living in the United States. That’s a big part of the reason why we need high employment levels and we can’t spoil business whiners with unlimited numbers of transient workers.

          2. Because they need liaison workers at the customer’s site. This has been well documented. The liaison workers are just trainees and documentation people. We have ample such people in the United States, they don’t H-1b people to do this. It isn’t a STEM oriented position.

            So why waste H-1b visas on such positions? Well the reason, is that our politician have been paid off by the busness lobby and the PACs to just ignore it, until Trump came in to office and reversed the situation.

            1. H-1b is a subsidy program for technology businesses. It’s designed and set up to benefit technology businesses that operate in the US. As such, it’s not a surprise to find that it has benefits for technology businesses that operate in the US. It’s currently cheaper to bring engineers and technically trained workers to come here and integrate them into stateside operations. If you drive up their cost to operate here, you’re going to have the problem that it may well be cheaper to move the entire operation overseas. That doesn’ t give you American software engineers making $200K/yr to write buggy code, that gives you Indian software engineers making $35K/yr to write buggy code, and unemployed American software engineers looking for work in Bangalore. Is that the outcome you prefer? Being out of work and having to look for opportunity outside the United States?

              1. We are finding that many people scam the H-1b system. In some cases warm bodies are used to apply for the H-1b visa, and if won, they funnel the work back to India (which is a huge corporate security breach), where it is performed by workers at night and submitted by the H-1b scammer.

                Also, H-1b workers are brought in, even if there is no job and told to go an find a job. Meanwhile the H-1b worker pays a huge kick back to the agent who filed the H-1b visa. When the worker finds the job, the new employer is unwittingly paying both the kick back and very little remains in the hands of the H-1b worker.

                There are only 2 things that prevent buggy software, one is an experienced developer (which you will not get when you try to hire the cheapest worker, or a fresher from India or China). The other is by having Software QA people that are not afraid to speak up and document defects with software. Unfortunately, people in other countries often have cultural or affiliatory restraints (such as payoff and kickbacks) that can get in the way of this process.
                And, fortunately, I am aware of this problem and take active steps to prevent this at with my current employer, by making sure to question QA people closely, audit their work, and make useful additions to test plans, this is a big part of my company’s branding success.

        2. “No what is stupid is to allow Offshore Outsourcing companies to […]”

          What is stupid is capitalizing the words “offshore” and “outsourcing” every time to use the words. These are not proper nouns, nor are they starting a sentence, which is when it is correct to capitalize nouns.

  8. How many times have myself, NToJ, bernard, DMN, posted studies and papers showing that immigration restrictions don’t create jobs?

    And yet, one cannot reason people out of positions they did not reason themselves into.

    1. Ok what exactly is the standard for arbitrary and capricious? Because it seems everything is arbitrary and capricious. I would assume a law is not arbitrary if it has a rational basis and sufficient notice and comment was provided … which it was. The comment came in the form of massive lawsuits.

      The standard for DACA was basically, unless you can read John Robert’s mind and implement the law exactly how he wants it, it fails. Which is ludicrous. And it is going to hurt Biden when he wins.

      In DACA, Robert’s said it fails because Trump did not properly apply the Supreme Courts severability doctrine. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court doesn’t have a clear severability doctrine, as many cases this term pointed out! These arguments fall apart very quickly, and I dont know if they will suffice here, unless you want to just strike down every regulation.

      Now, I do think the non-delegation doctrine argument has a lot of merit, and was the strongest argument for Trump vs. Hawaii. But even then … at the founding the executive had a lot more powers over immigration, which was seen as related to national security (and the president is commander in chief) than economic powers. So it’s not an ad hoc exception, rather, it is a legitimate problem that will have to be overcome.

      1. ” at the founding the executive had a lot more powers over immigration”

        Back when the standard for entry was being able to stand on the dock and request it, while not being infected with a communicable disease.

      2. “Ok what exactly is the standard for arbitrary and capricious? Because it seems everything is arbitrary and capricious.”

        Pull out a dictionary. These are ordinary words with ordinary meanings. If it seems that everything someone is doing is “arbitrary and capricious”, maybe that guy shouldn’t be in charge of anything.

    2. The problem is that the H-1b visa is not the same thing as immigration. If we instead gave people Green Cards, further a path to citizenship (and especially for the undocumented-disenfranchised), it would not guarantee creation of more jobs. But it would be the right thing to do and it would give the working immigrants their full worker rights, without fear of repercussion.

      And it would feed the real factors that lead to innovation in the U.S. economy:
      – The ability of workers to set up competing business
      – The increasing cost of labor necessitating investments by businesses that improve worker output per hour.

      This is important. The U.S. economic strength isn’t about creating jobs, hey in North Korea they give everyone a job, and if you don’t take it you go to a concentration work-camp. The real strength is the net increase for American worker productivity and that comes through when employers are will to spend on productivity improvements, per unit of consumption.

      Hey, the H-1b visa has created a lot of jobs. It is just that those jobs are all in India, not the United States. During the Obama administration (which was easy going with the Offshore Outsourcing companies) people lost jobs and homes. But India created a 100 billion dollar Offshore Outsourcing sector and the U.S. was their #1 service export destination.

      As we gave away our jobs, via the H-1b usage by Offshore Outsourcing companies (companies that don’t sponsor people for permanent immigration), we decreased out standard of living. Because people in the other countries were able to consume more and that impacted commodity prices, increase Green house gas production and so on.

      Instead of creating an artificial class of workers. An act which is exactly the same government picking the winners and losers in the market place. We should instead return to worker Green Card process that is controlled by the worker. Business people are great at expanding/scaling existing processes. But they need additional motivation to invest in improvements that are risky and actual results are not guaranteed. I mean hey, how are we going to explain this to our investors?

      1. You seem confused. H1-b visas are how we get engineers into this country to do engineering. Once they’re here, we convince them that freedom and opportunity is available here, so this is where they should want to live and work.

        If you turn off the H1-b visas, they won’t be able to come here and work, so they’ll stay in India developing new products and technologies in Bangalore rather than in Sunnyvale. How, exactly, does that help anyone in America? We already shipped most of the unskilled labor overseas. We don’t make iphones or laptops in America anymore, they’re all assembled in China. But at least the work of designing the products was done here. And the industrial process engineering was still being done here. Tell the industrial process engineers that we don’t want them here and they’ll go to work making Chinese semiconductor factories more efficient than ours are. Poof! there went our world leadership in science and technology! Good work, Mr. Trump!

        1. I work with people here on an H-1b and they would all exchange that H-1b for Green Card. More than half of the H-1b visas are taken up by Offshore Outsourcing companies. The result is they have no access to a Green Card.

          But wait, it gets worse, there is a huge Green Card back log. And people from some countries are waiting forever for a Green Card.

          No, we don’t need H-1b visas. What we need are an appropriate number of Green Cards.

          And some learn that the U.S. is in the class-stratification business the same as people back home. Only, in our case, the Federal Government uses laws (written by business lobbyists, thank you Jack Abramoff) to create that stratification.

          No, you are wrong. The H-1b program is Bad government program that has been parasitized by Offshore Outsourcing companies and actually turns people off from staying in the United States thanks to the complete and deliberate inattention (by those same business lobbyists) who work for employers that actually want an indentured and trapped workforce.

          That is why Steve Jobs and Eric Schmidt were willing to risk jail time in the infamous “No Poaching” scandal. That’s the real motivation and you need to do some critical thinking and historical research.

          We stopped making iphone, laptops and other because of the high value of the American dollar. Not because we lack engineers. Local inflation doesn’t help either, and importing too many workers increases those costs. Also, the U.S. dollar (thank you independent Federal Reserve) is a reserve currency and in demand when trading commodities. Other countries (China for example) don’t care because they don’t want riots toppling the government.

          Look Google earns 135$k/yr per employee each year. Apple 400k. Facebook 635$k/yr.

          Where does that money go? It goes into the bank because they can’t spend their profits quickly enough. Yet, frankly, these companies could have every experienced engineer at my company for a less than 200k/year. No, they are not experiencing inability to find engineers.

          They are unwilling to compete for workers in the U.S. Free Labor market. That is all that holds them back.

          If they started hiring people for higher salary, word would get around and then everyone in their company would ask for more money. But if they hire an H-1b engineer and replace one of their people with that person, they get 2 benefits. Lower salary paid to that H-1b worker and they scare the heck out of the rest into never asking for a raise.

          That’s the reality bro, just face it.

          1. “I work with people here on an H-1b and they would all exchange that H-1b for Green Card. ”
            “What we need are an appropriate number of Green Cards.”

            Because they want it?
            There are a lot of people in prison. They would all prefer to be not in prison. Do we need an appropriate number of “Get out of jail free” cards? Do you understand why not?

            “They are unwilling to compete for workers in the U.S. Free Labor market.”

            In today’s business management class, we learn that profits come when your revenues exceed your expenses. From this we project that increasing your expenses reduces your profitibility. So, big surprise, that successful businesses aren’t looking for opportunities to increase their expenses unless they can simultaneously increase their revenues. I bet if you look they look for opportunities to cut expenses every chance they can.

            1. Many of these tech companies that whine the loudest for unlimited H-1b visas are immensely profitable:

              – Google earns 135,000$/yr per employee
              – Apple earns 400,000$/yr per employee
              – Facebook earns 635,000$/yr per employee

              Despite massive profits, Apple and Google had a “no poaching” agreement. And the reason is because they know they are immensely profitable but executives don’t earn bonuses when profits shrink. And having to actually compete in the Free Market for employees would blow that whole thing up for the top executives. Well actually, it might cut in to profits by 5-10%, and that is enough to reduce executive bonuses.

              Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs were willing to risk jail time in order to avoid the having to deal with Free Market Capitalism when it came to getting human resources. These guys were no true Libertarians. And they played both sides by requesting unlimited numbers of H-1b visas, so that their Offshore Outsourcing providers were not hindered.

              What managers learn today, is that you can go to the government for relief from such awful things as the 13th amendment, which allows any worker, at anytime to leave the job without repercussion. Executive in Silicon Valley can’t stand that. That’s why Eric Schmidt fired the recruiter after she successfully recruited an engineer from Apple.

              Get real. If it was as simple as a motive for just marginal profits at Facebook, Apple, or Google, QA Test engineers at these companies would make 200,000$/yr and software developer 400,000$/yr in fixed salary. But it isn’t.

              Executives are motivated by big bonus payouts, which the board awards only when profits increase. You could be at already massive profits, but if you just stay the course, your nothing, you don’t get that big bonus.

              1. “Many of these tech companies that whine the loudest for unlimited H-1b visas are immensely profitable:”

                So they’re run by competent businessmen. People who, unlike you, understand the business they’re in.

                “Executives are motivated by big bonus payouts, which the board awards only when profits increase. You could be at already massive profits, but if you just stay the course, your nothing, you don’t get that big bonus.”

                Bonuses come from keeping the stock price high. Profitability helps with that, but isn’t the whole story.

                1. I fully understand that I am in a country, not a business. So the fact that I want to maximize the value of tech employment to my country and all Americans is not a problem. That is exactly what I should be doing. That’s the purpose of our political processes.

                  1. “the fact that I want to maximize the value of tech employment to my country and all Americans is not a problem.”

                    You don’t like competing in a free market, because apparently you aren’t competitive.

                    1. The ability of other countries to lower wages really knows no bounds. In India, the average worker makes 2k/yr, the average engineer 6k/yr. We cannot compete with that, no one can really.

                      Well we could compete with that, if we are willing to give up:
                      – All health benefits
                      – Live in a cockroach infested shack
                      – Walk to work from our shanty-town
                      – Not pay any significant taxes

                      Yes, then I could compete with against any worker in the entire world.

                      But you cannot do this in the United States. The Sheriff will kick you out of the shanty town. You are forced to earn at least the minimum wage. If you are paid minimum wage, you are likely going to pay more in sales tax than the average Indian worker earns in a year.

                      These are just the facts of life. And you need to realize that the entire U.S. Free Market economy only exists within the border of the United States. Just past the border, it is no longer free market capitalism. When you cross the U.S. border (at any port, including shipping ports and air ports) you are passing into a zone that is controlled by the laws of other countries and the cost of such exchange is at the whim of other countries and only partially in the realm of treaties between countries (to the extent such treaties are honored).

                    2. “The ability of other countries to lower wages really knows no bounds. In India, the average worker makes 2k/yr, the average engineer 6k/yr. We cannot compete with that, no one can really.”

                      I’ll cut you off there, before you go on to explain how you could compete with that.
                      The short answer is that you want to avoid competing on price but you won’t put forth the effort to compete on qualifications. Since there’s no winning fork there, you switch to asking the government to help you compete by limiting the availability of competition. If you can’t win the fair competition see if you can rig the competition instead.
                      You try to make this more palatable by trying to dress it up in patriotic clothing, but, you didn’t fool anyone with that.

                      And we come back to what I said before.
                      You don’t like competing in a free market, because apparently you aren’t competitive.

                    3. “If you are paid minimum wage, you are likely going to pay more in sales tax than the average Indian worker earns in a year.”

                      Actually, for most of my life, I successfully avoided paying any sales tax. Via the simple expedient of living someplace that didn’t have any sales tax.

                    4. At some point all American jobs are sheltered by the U.S. national franchise. Even American business are shielded to an extent. This leads the reality that if you hire a contractor to say fix your garage door they are going to charge you at least 75$/hr to do the work (probably a lot more).

                      This is just the price structure in the United States and it extends to all levels in every career choice.

                      If we could hire people for 10$/day, the cost to build a home would plummet to a few thousand dollars. The resulting drop in the value of homes would be enourmous, and property tax revenue would plummet. Local schools would be impacted by drop in tax revenue, and so on and so forth.

                      But if you look at it from my perspective. It would be great to hire people for 10$/day to work on my house. That fence I just put in would have cost 800$ instead of 10x that cost. Paint my house, sure, I’ll pay the contractor 300$ to paint my McMansion.

                      I have a huge savings so I would actually benefit from a huge drop in wages. Cash would be king in an economy with an unemployment rate of say 75%.

                      But we don’t do this in the country, every single person has a voice and they are free to bring up immigration as a topic of economic security. I am sure, if we had a different system, with say death squads, such voices would be quickly silenced. But we have a government that must be accountable to the people. And if you can’t handle that, then I welcome you to vote with your feet. You are going to find it is much worse in other countries that are ruled by war lords and gangs.

                2. Business people often do think very selfishly and put the needs of their business ahead of the needs of their country.

                  As a voter, a commenter, a citizen, I am going to put the needs of my country ahead of the selfish needs of businesses.

                  If we take the 50% of the H-1b visas that are given to Offshore Outsourcing companies, and instead reserve them for businesses that actually create jobs. That should be a win-win. And the President Trump’s order to change from a lottery to a salary ranking should help that immensely. As Offshore Outsourcing companies pay the lowest salary of all the H-1b users.

                  Why no one in the business lobby every suggested that to any of the previous 4 presidents is something very strange. And it must be that these tech companies actually like the lottery as it gives a huge number of H-1b visas to the Offshore Outsourcing companies.

                  The selfishness of business people is at odds with the needs of the country. And so, as a voter and commenter I am pointing this out at every opportunity.

                  Bill Gates was able to get an expansion of the STEM OPT visa by just suggesting it at a cocktail party. I would think they knew about the massive overusage by low paying Offshore Outsourcing companies, and they deliberately never meantioned this to any of the previous administrations.

                  1. “As a voter, a commenter, a citizen, I am going to put the needs of my country ahead of the selfish needs of businesses.”

                    All I see is you trying to put YOUR needs ahead of the selfish needs of businesses. “Hey government, stop those other people from competing with me when they offer to the do the kind of work I do for a lot less money Don’t let them do that!”

                    1. The extent of U.S. immigration is entirely determined by a political process. That is true for every country on this Earth.

                      The U.S. has a fairly liberal immigration policy. I actually want it to be made better by increasing the number of Green Cards.

                      And by reducing the number of non-immigrant visas given to Offshore Outsourcing countries (which do not sponsor people for green cards and only remove jobs from the United States).

                    2. “The extent of U.S. immigration is entirely determined by a political process. That is true for every country on this Earth.”

                      Not even. The extent of US immigration is entirely determined by the number of people who want to live here more than they want to live where they were born.

                    3. Not true, every voluntary U.S. immigration program has limits. Even involuntary immigration, such as refugee status, can be limited by the executive branch.

                      Non-immigrant visas have time limits. And even some of those non-immigrant programs have limits on numbers, such as the H-1b visa.

                      The mismatch between these limits in the H-1b program and the Green Card system has led to a huge back log for people from China and India.

                      Surveys done outside the United States put the number of people who want to immigrate to the United States at 160 million. We, at best, are only admitting around 1 million people per year for permanent residency. What about the other 159 million? They are not admitted because we have an immigration policy limit in the United States.

                      And literally we can limit the number of people entering the United States at any time, on any visa program. In many cases the President has direct control. In all other cases the Congress can enact laws defining such limits at any time.

              2. “What managers learn today, is that you can go to the government for relief from such awful things as the 13th amendment, which allows any worker, at anytime to leave the job without repercussion. ”

                With this sentence, you reveal that you do not understand law.

                “Executives are motivated by big bonus payouts, which the board awards only when profits increase. You could be at already massive profits, but if you just stay the course, your nothing, you don’t get that big bonus.”

                Whereas with this one, you reveal that you do not understand business.

                1. Your dismissal of the importance of the 13th amendment to modern Capitalism proves you know nothing about Capitalism.

                  The 13th amendment ended slavery and indenturement. Before this change, people could be leased or owned. That meant that employers could tie up labor and take it off the free market (at least for a while under indenturement).

                  Because of the 13th amendment, willing labor is all employers could bargain with. The moment labor is unwilling to participate, that bargain ends and the labor goes back on the Free Market.

                  Frankly, if you can’t own your own time, what can your really own? If someone owns you either through an indentured working relationship or by permanent enslavement, you might have possessions but you are not free to enjoy those possessions.

                  The 13th amendment ended this insanity (which often led to great violence, whippings, hangings and deservedly bloody revolts).

                  Now, that businessmen have to assign a value to every minute of voluntary work, they are motivated to maximize the productivity of that worker. This has led to huge advances in productivity of the U.S. workforce and adoption of this system, which includes free labor, is the greatest single contributor world living standards.

                  The true mother of invention is the necessity to maximize the output of free labor.

            2. If you agree H-1b is like prison, which apparently you do. Advocating for more, or unlimited, H-1b visas run counter the very fabric of the United States.

              As Abraham Lincoln once said “Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves.”.

              I think you need to check your values.

              1. “If you agree H-1b is like prison, which apparently you do.”

                Stop trying to restate what I said into something you find easier to argue with.

                “I think you need to check your values.”

                I think you need to get your own brain working properly before you try lecturing anybody else.

          2. “We stopped making iphone, laptops and other because of the high value of the American dollar. Not because we lack engineers.”

            We stopped making electronic products here in the states because it is cheaper to do it elsewhere. Agreed that it has nothing to do with engineers.
            The engineers who design the manufacuring processes still work here, for the most part. Intel does its process engineering in Oregon, then they actually do the process in fabrication plants around the world. They import process engineers for this purpose. They actually pay fab techs to learn how to run the fab line, and they have trouble finding enough people to take those jobs. They have to advertise that people can take the local community college’s semiconductor fab technician program for free, and come out into a job. Those are job openings that are open (WIDE open) to Americans because the process engineering is being done here in the states, using foreign engineers.

            1. Intel earns over 500,000$ per employee. I have to wonder if they just raised salaries could they attract more people? Hey, pay me 200,000$/year an I would relocate to Oregon (after selling my cherry silicon valley home). And then buy a mansion, and earn 200,000$/year to educate people on Intel’s processing methodologies.

              But that doesn’t happen, because Intel knows, if they paid some new guy 200k/year, they would have to start paying everyone else a higher wage. And that would kill the profits and the executive bonuses would go out the window at the board meeting.

              These guys are whining so they can preserve their bonuses. They don’t care about the company, the consumer, or the workers.

              1. ” I have to wonder if they just raised salaries could they attract more people? Hey, pay me 200,000$/year an I would relocate to Oregon”

                So you’re mad that your skills aren’t worth $200K per year. Get better skills.

                “These guys are whining so they can preserve their bonuses. They don’t care about the company, the consumer, or the workers.”

                Whereas your whining is entirely principled. You fool nobody.

                1. Apparently our skills are worth much more, did you see the profit per employee at Google (135k), Apple (400k), and Facebook (635k)?

                  Did you see the revenue per employee of Intel (500+k)?

                  If engineers had a UAW like union, these companies would have to raise salaries.

                  And we know they fear a run on salaries and will collude, illegally, to prevent that.

                  You confuse defending people’s rights with whining.

                  A person exercising their right to speak out about this obvious huge disparity is not a whiner. Whining is when companies ask for the Federal Government to create a new class of person who does not have their full rights that citizens enjoy. That is whining and it is worse, it is a using the Federal Government to pick the winners and losers in the market place. It perverts the market so that it can never get back to an equilibrium. It is inherently, Anti-Capitalist.

                  Seems normal that if tech companies are enjoying massive profits, and claim to have a shortage of engineers, the solution is to simply offer more cash incentives. They will attract people, and people who were trained in STEM but could not find a STEM job (or were not interested in working for low wages) (which by the way is 50% of our Domestic STEM graduates).

                  That’s just plain old Capitalism.

                  Getting the government to create a new class of people, and worse colluding in a conspiracy to prevent engineers from switching companies.

                  That’s called Corruption.

                  1. “A person exercising their right to speak out about this obvious huge disparity is not a whiner. ”

                    You. You ARE a whiner. “WAH! I want to make more money. It’s not fair that there are other people who’ll do the kind of work I do for a lot less money. WAH! Why won’t the government keep those other people from competing with me for jobs?”

                    1. We’ll see yeah at the ballot box.

                    2. “We’ll see yeah at the ballot box.”

                      Not a problem.

                    3. Immigration, is a political and labor issue. Labor certainly has the right to bargain. And voting citizens have the right to elect leaders that will set immigration however they choose. That’s not whining, that’s action, learn the difference.

                    4. ” Labor certainly has the right to bargain.”

                      Those foreign programmers are labor, too, idiot. They don’t get to vote here but keeping them out of this country doesn’t keep them from competing with you for the opportunity to sell labor on the open market.

                    5. If a person is willing to work for a wage level that would make it impossible to live in the United States. Then it is better, for everyone (except greedy whiney business people), that they stay in their home country.

                      If the U.S. admits people in to the country that will work for less than a living wage, it winds up putting pressure on the local economy in the form of higher rents and more crowded living situations.

                      If, on the other hand, people are admitted to the United States at a living wage, then they are able to afford livable housing and are not overcrowded. In that situation, at least, they are not having an impact on local government.

                      If they are admitted with the right wage level, then they can actually contribute enough to the local economy to support local workers. That wage level must include the ability to buy local services, hire local contractors, and so on.

                      If we allowed every worker in the world to compete with every worker in the United States (or any subset we decide to throw under the bus, such as local engineers) then we simply demotivate Americans to take such jobs. And while we get workers in, those workers are not on a living wage so wind up in unsafe living conditions or shanty towns, that again put pressure on the local government.

          3. “I work with people here on an H-1b and they would all exchange that H-1b for Green Card.”

            How many would exchange for having no visa at all?

    3. Oh fine, we’ll play.

      Hypothetically speaking SarcastrO, what would happen, in your opinion, if the US removed all immigration restrictions. Anyone who want to come to the US can come to the US and get a job, immediately. No restrictions.

      Keep in mind, at least 160 million people say they would move to the US immediately, if they could, as their first choice. Estimates put another 500 million immigrating to the US million as their second choice.

      So, what would happen to the current job market? And current wages? In your opinion?

      1. “Hypothetically speaking SarcastrO, what would happen, in your opinion, if the US removed all immigration restrictions. Anyone who want to come to the US can come to the US and get a job, immediately.”

        That was our policy for much of our history. The answer is the transcontinental railroads got built, and America became a major center of technological innovation and our economy thrived as people who’d never had a whole range of products suddenly found that they wanted them.

        1. Yeah, and during that “much of history,” we didn’t guarantee these people housing, food, health care and education for their illegitimate 85 IQ children.

          1. ” their illegitimate 85 IQ children.”
            You and your kids were born here.

        2. The problem is that our infrastructure costs will rise. Rents will rise. People will be turned out onto the street. That’s what happens. It happens all over Silicon Valley. Our high gas prices are a consequence of fast growth in numbers of workers.

          Now that the dynamic has changed, businesses are mute on these costs. Yet, in recent years past the Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership, were all pushing taxes for infrastructure improvements. Mostly on the executive golf course meme, that coming in to work and squashing them into cramped offices results in serendipitous innovation.

          Well, business people are good at expansion of proven cases, but terrible at seeing the dynamic let alone crafting law that can deal with the dynamic. Hence the call for “unlimited” numbers of H-1b visas. A thing that would have brought tragedy of slum living to the U.S. shores if not for the case that we have a controlled immigration system in the United States.

          1. ” Rents will rise. People will be turned out onto the street. That’s what happens.”

            This is what is already happening. It happens any time you live where lots of people would like to live.

            “Well, business people are good at expansion of proven cases, but terrible at seeing the dynamic let alone crafting law that can deal with the dynamic.”

            That’s an argument against having business people making law. Say, what did Trump claim as qualification for the job he currently holds?

            1. Trump is an exception because he has fully admitted his motivations as a business person are going to be different than those while in office. He understands this. Unemployment was at record lows just before this crisis. That obviously doesn’t benefit Trump’s business. But he was doing everything he could do to get that unemployment rate even lower.

              Biden, on the other hand, needs campaign donations and support from wealthy business Political Action Committees. This has, unfortunately, shaped his platform. And he refuses to talk about the realities of the H-1b visa. He is so unwilling to think about or talk about it, the only thing he can say is exactly what the business lobby wants. Rescind the entire Trump executive order on Day-1, include the part that would change from an idiotic lottery to one based upon salary ranking.

              That show that Biden is under undue and improper influence from people who only care about profits but do not care about improving the job prospects of the American people.

              1. “Trump is an exception because he has fully admitted his motivations as a business person are going to be different than those while in office. He understands this.”

                He lies about this, and stupid people believe him. Betting on having enough stupid people on your side to win an election sometimes works in the short term, but usually won’t hold up long term.

                “That show that Biden is under undue and improper influence from people who only care about profits but do not care about improving the job prospects of the American people.”

                You do know that business interests typically support

                1. “You do know that business interests typically support ” (Not Mr. Biden’s party).

                  1. Actually they swing back and forth between the two parties to the extent that they can get what they want, even if they do not really need it.

                    1. So they’re flexible, and able to adapt to differing circumstances, unlike partisans who’ll stick to their preferred brand of politicians no matter how obviously corrupt they are.

                    2. Biden co-opted the entire executive branch while Vice President.

                      He unmasked General Flynn so the FBI could create an entrapment case against him. Which is a massive civil rights violation.

                      He withheld funds from Ukraine, unless the Ukranian President fired a special prosecutor who was investigating Burisma and its CEO in a case of corruption within Ukraine. Because his son had a million dollar per year do-nothing job at Burisma. Think about it, Burisma paid Joe Biden’s son, 1 million dollars a year, just so Burisma would have a friend in the White House in the form of Vice President Joe Biden.

                      Hunter Biden, was given a 1 million dollar salary, right out of college. With no experience in natural gas, no corporate experience, no business sense what-so-ever. His only qualification was that he was Joe Biden’s son.

                      The prosecutor that Joe Biden had fired, wasn’t looking into frivolous claims of corruption within Burisma, the hiring of Joe Biden’s son was just one example of such corruption. And when the Democrats didn’t want that information brought out, they used the threat of discontinuing aide as a way to prevent investigation into that corruption.

                      Joe Biden is massively corrupt. People who have followed him closely throughout his career as a politician have the evidence in mind.

                    3. And by unmasking General Flynn, I mean this:

                      The CIA can record any telephone conversation we are make and it routinely records conversation between Americans (who have rights of privacy) and foreign officials. The CIA doesn’t unmask the Americans involved because (ha ha) that would be a violation of the Constitution. But it will unmask the Americans if requested by the executive branch. Joe Biden was, likely, the one who requested the unmasking, for the reason of entrapping General Flynn.

                      https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/855610826/unmasking-of-michael-flynn-who-did-it-and-why-it-is-important

                      Joe Biden is a terrible candidate for President. He has already proven to have motivations that are not in line with the needs of the American people. And the Democrats know this. When Trump asked the Ukranian president to look into the corruption within Burisma and Joe Biden, the Democrats wanted to find anything at all to have an impeachment procedure. If you can’t see the pattern in that and how the Democrats are just going to use the White House for the sake of terra-forming the electorate into a bunch welfare addicts you are just not trying.

                      For example, the Democrats could expand the OPT tax break to all students (that does nothing for me by the way). But instead they are pushing for a huge give away in the form of Student loan debt forgiveness. Why? expanding the OPT tax break to all students would do very nearly the same thing, but force people to find jobs in order to take advantage of it.

                      No, what the Democrats prefer is dependence on a handout from them. A job? Actually work? No, there’s universal income for that. Can’t you see how insane it will be to put the Democrats in power, just because of medical blip. A medical blip that we will very likely conquer with a vaccine, as most virus outbreaks have been small pox, measles are just two example of viruses conquered by a vaccine.

        3. “That was our policy for much of our history.”
          There were certain, practical differences for “much of our history”.

          When those practical differences began to change distinctly, you saw a sharp rise in immigration, and a corresponding increase in immigration laws.

          The most notable difference was the relative expense and time of the trip and the lack of communications, compared with today. A trip to America used to take weeks (if not months) by ship, cost thousands of dollars (adjusted for inflation), and to communicate you would need to do it by mail, relatively infrequently. Now, you can get a flight to the US for a few hundred dollars, and be here in hours, and communicate instantly with your family at home.

          In addition, there is the relative economic wealth of the US versus other countries, over time. The US wasn’t always as well off compared to other countries as it is today. That multiplier has dramatically increased.

          Finally, you can add on certain social laws in the US during its early history that made it unadvisable for people from certain countries to immigrate here. Notably slavery.

          These all had practical effects to suppress excess immigration, and laws weren’t required. It’s the same reason we don’t need immigration laws to Luna currently.

          1. “The most notable difference was the relative expense and time of the trip and the lack of communications, compared with today. A trip to America used to take weeks (if not months) by ship, cost thousands of dollars (adjusted for inflation), and to communicate you would need to do it by mail, relatively infrequently. Now, you can get a flight to the US for a few hundred dollars, and be here in hours, and communicate instantly with your family at home.”

            OK, so now you don’t have to get on a ship to get here (unless you want to come from Cuba) the huddled masses still yearn to breathe free. the bastards. Dammit! That’s MY free air!

      2. I can be against these bans and yet not for open borders.

        Excluding the middle is weak.

        1. You “could be”…. But you fail to cite any logic for the “just the middle” argument. You simply believe that immigration restrictions don’t create jobs. Taken to its logical conclusion, Open Borders is entirely logical.

          So, unless you have more, you’re being illogical.

          1. Do you get paid extra for building a bigger straw man than usual?

            “I’ve decided this is your thought process. Don’t argue with me about it.”

        2. Yes, you can. Definitely. Many of us have a dynamic view on this.

          I for one, want to see more Green Cards. I can’t stand the thought of people working in a disenfranchised state of being. Would be far better if we had Green Cards match the H-1b admittance numbers.

          And I say this, still wanting limited immigration. But I recognize the big problem with H-1b isn’t that it exists. It is that businesses can use the H-1b visa to limit the ability of workers to leave the job, and for example setup businesses or seek a better salary.

          We can’t employ everyone in world. Hey we can’t even employ 1/10 of the worlds engineers in the United States for lack of space in our engineering centers. But we can create a dynamic of capitalism that forces business to value labor, even engineering labor, maybe especially engineering labor.

          1. “I recognize the big problem with H-1b isn’t that it exists. It is that businesses can use the H-1b visa to limit the ability of workers to leave the job, and for example setup businesses or seek a better salary.”

            That’s the big problem with paying your workers. It gives them access to capital needed to set up businesses or to advocate for better pay. That’s your argument, applied.

          2. “I for one, want to see more Green Cards. I can’t stand the thought of people working in a disenfranchised state of being.”

            Permanent residents are just as disenfranchised as the temporary ones, genius. Only citizens get to vote.

            1. Do yourself a favor look up the meaning of the “disenfranchised”, which also includes being deprived of a right, any right. Not just the right to vote, which is only one of those rights.

              James do realize how ignorant you are?

          3. You know there are thousands of rights enjoyed by Americans.

            H-1b workers do not have the right to start an independent business here in the United States.

            People with Green Cards can become founding members of new businesses. And that is a huge economic advantage.

            And with a Green Card you can work on your citizenship. If you are here on an H-1b you know there are time limits and your company could yank you or your job and you would have to leave within 2 months. That limitation on an H-1b visa makes it impossible for people to plan future here in the United States.

            Voting is a right enjoyed by citizens. Citizens can also be drafted and have to server on juries. That’s the deal with citizenship.

    4. “How many times have myself, NToJ, bernard, DMN, posted studies and papers showing that immigration restrictions don’t create jobs?”

      Studies done by pro-immigration groups or “think tanks” [like here] beholden to big business.

      “they did not reason themselves into”

      My views are based on reason, yours are not. Yawn.

      My reason tells me that at least some of these jobs are going to be filed by Americans. They cannot all be done remotely or the companies would not want the people admitted to the US. Cheaper and easier to hire them overseas. Yet they sue to get the visas.

      1. ” Cheaper and easier to hire them overseas.”

        That isn’t going to change, so the operations that need those technical workers will go overseas, too, to be closer to the manufacturing centers.

        1. The only thing that can stop manufacturing from moving overseas are the general economic conditions that exist between the U.S and other countries. Which has favored such movement since about 10 years after the WWII.

          High labor costs are a factor in this. But look, and American making minimum wage pays more in taxes than the average worker in India, so you can’t really stop that by importing more engineers.

          Innovation industry, well that is dependent on venture capital. And that has been centered around the venture capital firms. Did it have to be centered around Sandhill road. And this is because venture capitalists want to keep on eye on their investments. That dynamic hasn’t changed. But what has changed is that people in other countries are getting rich, so naturally they are also investing locally.

          So what we can do is stop the Offshore Outsourcing companies from using the H-1b system. We can monitor closely their use of the B-1 visa (which is only for training). And the L-1, which is for really needed company experts.

          Look, people living and growing up in the United States are diverse too. We have are share of natural born technical genius. We have our fair share of natural born hard workers. There is a sick stereotype that is frankly nothing but a sick prejudice that Americans will not do some jobs. Simply not true. We waste more than half our black STEM graduates. We waste more than half our hispanic STEM graduates. And some of that waste is because of a stereotype of Americans as lacking something. But it is a vicious racist lie.

          Let’s all realize that we don’t need unlimited numbers of foreign engineers. What we need is a healthy mix of truly highly skilled foreign and domestic people training our workers, on the job, for these tech jobs. I benefited greatly from that kind of training, and I have been in software engineering for 30 years.

          I don’t have a degree, I might not have even graduated highschool. But hey, see the movie the Social Network. This country is filled with people who love to code and can, with some training, be excellent contributors.

          But I will tell you, right now, if I had to compete with the foreign workers that companies bring in today. I might be flipping burgers somewhere instead of writing code and contributing at a high level. I think that would have been an awful waste. But that is what today’s highschool and college grads have to contend with.

          And I will tell you it is wrong. Because most of the software dev jobs I have been involved with required only basic algebra augmented with heavy dose of self training.

          Again Zuckerberg. Coding nerd created theFacebook at Harvard. And we should not let prejudice against the American Highschoold grads prevent this kind of business innovation.

          1. “most of the software dev jobs I have been involved with required only basic algebra augmented with heavy dose of self training.”

            That heavy dose of self-training requires a strong interest in understanding how things work combined with access to tech. Americans have a strong access to tech, but the singular drive to understand how things work is rare. Bill Gates had it, and enough business sense to leverage knowing someone who’d developed a CP/M-like operating system for the 8086 processor when IBM came to him asking him if he could develop an operating system for the 8088 processor. Gates is rich today because he was smart enough to reserve the right to sell the operating system to others, when he sold an operating system to IBM. Then he used control of the operating system market to seize control of the the productivity software market. WordPerfect never saw it coming, and Lotus couldn’t do anything about it.

            1. Yes, there is entrepreneurial luck involved with the success of many tech companies.

              But the drive to write software is not rare, it is abundant. There is tons of free software out there, written by unpaid contributors. I used to write a lot of free software myself and I would put it out there. What stopped me was that I found a software job that paid a living wage and so I worked hard for my employer.

              Software jobs are cushy jobs. But they require a lot of mental work. That hard mental work is great to do, because it actually expands your mind in a lot of area. That may be because of blood flow through your brain, or the fact that you have to keep dozens of variable in your head at the same time, or just the wide range of areas of the brain that are stimulated by software work. I just know, that after doing a coding for several days, my guitar my violin playing are massively bright and energetic.

              But it doesn’t ware you out physically (like for example landscaping or other kinds of hard physical work). So you can do it as long as your brain keeps functioning. Here I am, almost 60 still doing software engineering.

              And lastly I want to say. The hiring decisions are unfortunately shaped by people’s stereotypes of what a typical software engineer is. And that winds up wasting a lot of talent. There is a huge amount of discrimination against minorities and people who are older, such as myself.

              Zuckerberg used to spread some of the vicious lies about older software engineers. He has since recanted most of this.

              1. “But the drive to write software is not rare, it is abundant.”

                Not so much, no. Lots of people wish they could write good software. They want to have written it. But doing the actual writing? Not a lot of people want to do that. Just like other kinds of writing. lots of people want to have written, but not many want to write. If more people wanted to write good software, there’d be more good software. A lot more. And being a security administrator would be much, MUCH easier.

                “Software jobs are cushy jobs.”

                Not if you’re doing a good job of it, it isn’t.

                1. There are extremely cushy compared to Machine shop, car mechanic, contractor, … Americans do those jobs abundantly.

                  Software Design and coding is nothing compared to these other jobs, which I have also done in the years leading up to my software career.

                2. Wrong, Software Development gets hectic when people are not doing it correctly.

                  When it is done well it is an extremely easy and peaceful way to spend your time.

                  But it will still cost you some eye strain maybe some finder and wrist strain. I find though, after week of coding while I am not as sharp on Friday night for coding, for many other tasks music or art I am actually quite bright.

                  1. ” I find though, after week of coding while I am not as sharp on Friday night for coding, for many other tasks music or art I am actually quite bright.”

                    So what happened THIS week, to make you so dim?

                    1. Idiotic taunt, do you have anything intelligent add? Seem doubtful from you last comment.

                    2. “Idiotic taunt, do you have anything intelligent add?”

                      English grammar, perhaps?

                    3. I do make a lot of typos. And unfortunately in too big a hurry to proof read. And this site doesn’t allow correction. Bummer.

                      If you can understand what I am writing, then that is good enough I think for this conversation.

                    4. I do make a lot of typos. And unfortunately in too big a hurry to proof read.

                      I know, you said you were a programmer.

                    5. “If you can understand what I am writing, then that is good enough I think for this conversation.”

                      This, in a nutshell, is what’s wrong with software production as an industry. You’re not motivated to get it right, you just want it “good enough” to almost work.

                    6. I have answered all your responses with reason. You are left with only taunts not reasons as your response. This shows you are nothing but a whining child.

                  2. “Wrong, Software Development gets hectic when people are not doing it correctly.”

                    Which is the vast majority of the time. Software production is terrible, both foreign and domestic. Inefficient and riddled with flaws.

                    1. Exactly, only experience and empowerment helps us in preventing big mistakes in oversight that prevent the serious flaws that result in brand devaluation.

                      And by empowerment, I mean the ability of engineers to challenge their bosses on the quality and feature requirements of the product.

              2. “Yes, there is entrepreneurial luck involved with the success of many tech companies. ”

                You need one of two things to run a successful tech business: Either an engineer who understands business or a businessman who understands engineering. Both of these are fairly rare.

                1. And then you need the 99% of those combinations that fail. Don’t forget that. 99% of businesses fail, even when they have great business people and engineers.

                  Don’t confuse luck with skill or some magic sauce.

                2. ” 99% of businesses fail”

                  Largely due to undercapitalization.

                  Whereas 100% of the tech businesses that have a business guy running it who doesn’t understand engineering fail (Sometimes they fail slowly (and reversibly) as with Apple during the Sculley tenure. But they do not thrive without either a business guy who understands engineering or an engineer who understands business running the show.

                  1. Exactly, Only the negative case is true, not the positive. If the business doesn’t have the founders, it surely will not have existed.

                    Boom town economics.

                    The best we can do is make sure there are many chances. And that is why we need Green Cards not the H-1b visa. That is why we do not need Offshore Outsourcing companies taking up half the H-1b visas. Both situations lock potential founders into jobs and further deprives other founders (Americans) of the means to create a competitive business.

                    That is why we need workers to earn a salary that will see them through tough times. And if as a by-product of those higher salaries, they have the means to strike out on their own, then that is for the better, and will lead to more business to be created.

                    1. “The best we can do is make sure there are many chances. And that is why we need Green Cards not the H-1b visa. That is why we do not need Offshore Outsourcing companies taking up half the H-1b visas.”

                      Do you get paid extra for every time you include the words “Offshore Outsourcing” with capitalization? You’re already on record as conceding that these “Offshore” operations are operating in the US, which is kind of the opposite of what “offshore” actually means.
                      Are you referring, by this term, to companies like IBM Global Services, Dell Managed Services, or DXC, which used to be part of HP?

                    2. I mean the 100 billion dollar per year Offshore Outsourcing business that reside in India today, thanks to the deliberately lax oversight of the Obama administration.

            2. On Bill Gates:
              – He dropped out of college
              – He bought the CP/M-like operating system and turned over porting it to his other partners.
              Bill Gates had a great deal of luck. He almost missed a flight to Florida to present to IBM. But diverted a flight (forced it to return to the dock) by telling a terrible lie. A lie, that today would have landed him in jail.

              Bill Gates, he is a smart guy and a liar, but he isn’t the reference on what a great software engineer is. Frankly, he is a borrower and stealer. Like, for example, Steve Jobs. Who got the idea for the GUI from Xerox (which sat on it for years).

              When we talk about software engineers we need to talk about the people doing the coding and what they are and what they need. The guys at the top of most of these companies are not dynamic thinkers, they are scalers. They take a system that works and they scale it. That system, isn’t software, it is how to make deals with people, which is more akin to game playing, poker, some chess… It is a different set of skills.

              1. “When we talk about software engineers we need to talk about the people doing the coding and what they are and what they need.”

                What they need, in most cases, is someone who sees what can be done, and figures out what can be done profitably, and then takes the financial risk to pay the coders to do it until the profits show up. There’s a reason your project manager makes more money than you do. They have skills that are rarer and responsibilities beyond yours.

                1. The financial risk is over for many of the big tech companies.

                  Executives are now motivated by increasing profits and the resulting bonuses.

                  I don’t believe there skills are rarer than mine. I could frankly do their job. But we are stuck with chosen few who the board trusts. They in turn anoint the middle managers. We have see such folly play out at numerous companies.

                  I have to point out the case of Marissa Mayer, who was given a huge guaranteed payout by the Yahoo board. She implemented “no work from home” edict (after she finished her work from home stint of course). And then proceeded to do numerous acquisitions of great folly, pointed out at a stock holder’s meeting.

                  These people that run these companies they are not more intelligent, nor more skilled. But as we see in the case of Marissa Mayer, they are well placed for quick sale to a board of directors.

                  You have to skeptical about this and be willing to take into consideration the bad cases, before you make the assumption that management possesses rarer skills than that of the engineers.

                  As far as more responsiblity, yes they do and should have that. They should be on call 24×7. I have no issue with manager working harder, I encourage it all the time with my boss. I don’t kow-tow to anyone at my company, including the CEO. Who before this great sequester would pass by my desk every day.

                  1. “I don’t believe there skills are rarer than mine.”

                    Your employer does.

                    1. Not really, I have been asked to do management work many times. But I have had to bow out of that work because of familial responsibility and the stress of devoting all my time to work, which is just not possible when you have family. Just being there is not a skill.

                    2. “I have been asked to do management work many times.”

                      And yet you seem to know nothing whatsoever about business management. From this I deduce that I don’t want to own stock in any business that hires you or asks you to do management work.

                    3. I made enough in stock options to buy a house in Silicon Valley. My company is still going after 30 years. Apparently Wall Street loves my company.

                    4. “I made enough in stock options to buy a house in Silicon Valley.”

                      Which proves that you worked for someone who knew how to run a business. Such as, for example, offering stock options to employees instead of money as a tax strategy.

                    5. I am all for creating more founders. That is why we need the Green Card process controlled by the workers, not the businesses.

                      And we do not need H-1b visas going to Offshore Outsourcing companies, who never sponsor workers for a Green Card.

                    6. “I am all for creating more founders. ”

                      So, create away. Hire all your friends for $200K each at your new company, and sponsor some foreigners for Permanent Residency (that’s what a Green Card is) Keep all the profits for yourself.

                  2. “The financial risk is over for many of the big tech companies.”

                    The financial risk is never over, for any business. Tech businesses in particular tend to have network effects, which can be catastrophic if lost. So they always have to be redeveloping their product to respond to market pressures. WordPerfect was fat and happy, then they got pushed right out of their market. Novell, too. AOL was once big enough to buy Time-Warner. How are they doing now? Yahoo was once a dominant Internet index. The list goes on and on.

                    1. In your previous post James, you attempt (and fail) refute the reality that 99% of businesses fail. By saying:

                      “Largely due to undercapitalization. ”

                      The undercapitalization problem is over for Apple, Google, and even Facebook. These companies are pocketing a 100 billion a year.

                      Financial risk is over for these companies.

                  3. “I don’t believe there skills are rarer than mine.”

                    People who know what they’re talking about do.

                    1. “People who know what they’re talking about do.”

                      Another idiotic taunt.

                      I think you mean the voices in your head.

                    2. “Another idiotic taunt.”

                      I’m trying to reach you, and the smarter arguments went over your head.

                    3. Simply because you have no other information on which you can say “People who now …”. It could only be voices in your head telling you this. You should get checked out.

                2. A lot of companies implement a 2-track system for tech employees.

                  One is to go into management. Which frankly I find very stressful.

                  The other is a technical pathway, which I have followed.

                  They both pay well. Obviously the bonuses are higher for managers and likely the ultimate compensation. But that does not mean that engineers are not worthy of being paid well. In many cases design work qualifies as management planning and resource allocation. So there is a component of management in advance engineering work.

                  Good companies to work for recognize this. Bad companies to work for fail miserably at this.

                  1. ” that does not mean that engineers are not worthy of being paid well.”

                    If an engineer is available and willing to do the job for less than you want, then he gets the job and you don’t because you priced yourself too high.
                    Those engineers exist. That’s why you don’t make as much money as you wish you did.

                    1. Yes but only if they have the right to work here. And for non-citizens the right to work is a political issue which we Americans are free to debate. And ideally, we should debate with the best interests of the country at heart.

                    2. ” only if they have the right to work here.”

                      Engineering doesn’t have to be done here.
                      Focus on trying to be a more valuable engineer by advancing your own capability, instead of trying to push others down.

                      “for non-citizens the right to work is a political issue which we Americans are free to debate.”

                      You have exactly zero authority to tell foreign engineers what kind of work they can do. And there’s no debate about that.

                    3. “ideally, we should debate with the best interests of the country at heart.”

                      Ideally, I’d be debating with someone who didn’t keep confusing his own best interests with the best interests of the country, but that guy didn’t show up to the debate and you did.

                    4. A nation can tell foreign workers what jobs they can and cannot do.

                      And of course that is exactly why Silicon Valley companies love the H-1b + (infinite Green Card delay) combination. Because the government gives, by defaulting on the responsibility to reform the Green Card process, the ability to tell workers on an H-1b that they cannot leave the job.

                      That is something I abhor.

                    5. “A nation can tell foreign workers what jobs they can and cannot do.”

                      Even if this were true, you apparently need to be told that you are not a nation. And, of course, it isn’t true.

                    6. You are wrong, it is true that a nation can tell foreign workers what jobs they can do. H-1b, for example, has several such categories. The broadest of this is the STEM category. But within that there are numerous restrictions (which are often selectively enforced depending on how dedicated an administration is about getting Americans into jobs).

                      If the Congress and President wanted to enact a law that made H-1b only available to say Doctors, they could have that done in a week.

                      Other nations are actually far more restricted on the types of work that foreign workers can do than the United States.

                      And saying that I need to be told that I am not a nation, is a Paranoid delusion on your part. You should have that checked out.

              2. “On Bill Gates:
                – He dropped out of college
                – He bought the CP/M-like operating system and turned over porting it to his other partners.”

                Yes, Gates dropped out of college. That was a smart move (for him).
                He bought the CP/M-like operating system and sold it to IBM.
                He got the opportunity to make this deal because the guys at Digital Research, who owned CP/M (and CP/M-86) overestimated how badly IBM needed them, and their product. IBM was fairly sure they could sell their product by affixing the letters “I”, “B”, and “M” to the front of it (which was accurate in 1981, but not in 1987 when they tried to re-invent the PC to add patented technology.) CP/M was the far-dominant operating system for business microcomputers in 1981 so IBM went to them first. They blew off the meeting and IBM moved on. The approached Gates about an operating system and Gates made the deal. The original PC also came with a built-in BASIC interpreter provided by Microsoft. The BASIC interpreter used in the Apple II and the Commodore 64 were Microsoft products, too. Atari and Radio Shack computers had Microsoft BASIC interpreters, too.
                Gates was brilliant as a businessman and it made him rich. You can gloss over whether he was truly an engineer if you want, but he understood how to run a company whose value came from engineers, and there’s no denying that.

                1. Yes, indeed he is a businessman, with a strong motivation to help his business, not the country. And that is why we are need to treat his statement, some of which are lies, as being motivated only by greed.

                  In particular is the lie that he told Congress that we need unlimited H-1b visa. A lie only motivated by his greed, not by his desire to help the United States. The H-1b visa is currently, a bad program. It could be reformed to be a lot better. But that reform doesn’t mean an increase in the number of H-1b visas. But rather a better distribution away from Outsourcing companies and towards companies that will use the Visa to bring in experienced and capable engineers.

                  Not low paid freshers as the Offshore Outsourcing companies do routinely.

                  Further reform should be done to the Green Card system, so that the back log is cleared and the worker controls the Green Card process.

              3. “Bill Gates, he is a smart guy and a liar, but he isn’t the reference on what a great software engineer is. Frankly, he is a borrower and stealer. Like, for example, Steve Jobs. Who got the idea for the GUI from Xerox (which sat on it for years).”

                Xerox did a lot of good engineering, but they didn’t know how to profit from it. Other people did, and did profit from it. There are very few great software engineers, software engineering is a job title promotion for programmers, and back when they were still just called programmers they’d admit that a lot of the work they did was crap. Take, for example, the Y2K problem. The problem was first detected in 1970. So why did software written in the 80’s and 90’s have Y2K bugs in it? Laziness is why.

          2. “The only thing that can stop manufacturing from moving overseas are the general economic conditions that exist between the U.S and other countries.”

            The only thing that can stop manufacturing from moving overseas is a functional time machine. People in other countries can do the same work but are willing to do them for less money. You get two choices: Either be so good at the job that the durn furriners can’t do the same work, or compete on price.

            1. Well things can reverse. For example if the U.S. were to default on the debt. Or if the dollar was no longer the reserve currency. If the dollar wasn’t the principle exchange for oil.

              But such conditions can come about for a lot of reasons, not all good.

              1. Sure, our “chief executive” might run the country into the ground, thus negating any reason why any foreigners might want to come here. But stop wishing for that.

                1. Biden will raise corporate taxes. Reinstate the idiotic visa lottery.

                  Tell me, how’s that going to help bring in business? It won’t.

                  The only reason some PACs are backing Biden is because he will, for a short while, do their bidding.

                  After that it is just the same old policies of scaring capital out of the country. This Trump H-1b ban is temporary, not permanent, done of necessity.

                  Biden will bring us another record slow recovery, just like Obama gave us the slowest recovery in U.S. History. If not for corona, the stock market would be well above 30k, and unemployment would be at 3%.

                  1. That slow recovery sure looks good compared to the losses under Trump’s “leadership”.
                    Millions of unemployed. Economy in freefall. These are things you appreciate?

                    1. A pandemic could have happened at anytime in the last 30 years. It had little to do with Trump. The one thing I would fault Trump on is not wearing a mask. But Trump has to rely on his people. Early on in the pandemic, Dr. Anthony Fauci is on video at a press conference, saying that Americans don’t need to wear masks.

                      Due to my wife’s weakened immune system I have had to wear a mask for 4 years now. And they are remarkably effective at preventing colds. I use to catch 2-3 colds a year, but since wearing a mask (and even while working closely with people who had colds at work) I have not had a cold.

                      I cannot say whether masks have prevented flu for me. Because I get a flu shot every year through Kaiser. But there was a study in Japan on the flu and masks. They found that when family members wear masks, when another member has the flu, the rate of transmission to other family member is cut by 80%.

                      KQED forum used to support comments, now they only have a facebook page. I tried to get the word out on their facebook page, the moment I heard Fauci talk about not needing to wear masks.

                      Dr. Fauci (and he is really great guy) has walked back his early statements on not needing to wear masks. And at least now Trump is starting to wear a mask. Masks are effective as is some level of shutdown, until and unless we develop an effective vaccine.

                      But masks are a tough sell to the American public. I talked with grocery store clerks on this, they hate them. They are tough to wear and the better they are the tougher they are to wear.

                      Oddly, early on most of my Asian colleagues at work were really cool about my wearing a mask. But the CEO hated it, he walked by my desk everyday on his way in. My boss was okay with it. And frankly, they could not do anything overt to prevent it, it was for medical reasons. But oddly, in the first few months when the virus spread, one guy (asian) are real nice guy, did ask if I was wearing the mask because he was in the elevator with me. I explained it was for my wife and I had been wearing it for years. We both laughed it off.

                      I think we can blame the Chinese government on much of this as they knew about Corona in the summer of 2019, but kept it quiet. And many people were arrested for speaking out about it and the nearby disease/defense research center. But it is also plausible (as these things often are spun into a state of plausible denial) that they either accidentally spilled a bad virus or it came from a live animal food market.

                      A lot of these new viruses come from the wild. This is not an asian thing, it is just that in some places they eat bush meat. And even in America, people hunt animals, and so risk a high probably of getting a new virus. Several other, serious diseases, also can come from domesticated animals.

                      On 60 minutes, some years back, a Russian scientist working on germ warfare said that the Russians were working on a virus that would cause the immune system to attack the human body. For some patients, it seems, the corona virus does exactly that. That scientist was horrified by the work he was doing, but hey in Communist countries it is either that or Goolag or execution.

                      A disease can be a very effective, but dangerous to handle, weapon. It has the effect of really tying down a lot of resource (as do war casualties). The bad news is that now the terrorists know this.

                    2. “A pandemic could have happened at anytime in the last 30 years.”

                      It sure could have. Alas, it happened while our federal government was particularly ill-equipped to deal with it. The problem with putting an incompetent buffoon in charge of your country is that when something important happens, such as, just for instance, a pandemic, the response to the pandemic is likely to be ineffective.

                      “The one thing I would fault Trump on is not wearing a mask”

                      Maybe the whole “wish it away” approach to pandemic? Just a suggestion. “It’s not happening if we don’t test for it” and “it’ll go away by itself when the weather gets warmer” turned out to be (surprise!) not very effective at limiting the effect of a pandemic virus on the US economy.

                      Hint: Not blaming Trump for a pandemic doesn’t mean he gets a free pass for mismanaging the response to the pandemic.

                      “Due to my wife’s weakened immune system I have had to wear a mask for 4 years now. ”

                      Good for you. My exwife didn’t get diagnosed with leukemia until after the divorce, so when she caught coronavirus disease last spring it wasn’t exactly a shocker.

                    3. We had decades of warning about a potential pandemic. The Sars cases for example. So this is a system failure over decades.

                      Trump was initially criticized for blaming China’s response. For shutting down travel. The only real mistake was Fauci and other doctors saying we did not need to wear masks.

                      Trump is like most American, he hates wearing a mask. That part is not really unusual. But for many hygiene is cultural, not scientific.

                      Biden is likely to reinstate the idiotic lottery. The Democrats as a whole will probably reinstate the higher corporate tax on profits. These things will give us a slow recovery.

                      If we stayed with Trump and Republicans (I guess I Republican now after voting for Obama 2x, but came slowly to realize that he was deliberately easy on the Offshore Outsourcing companies, and the damage that caused to the economy). We would see a much faster recovery.

                      And we won’t have a President that will mess with economy for the sake of having some insane treaty on climate change. A treaty that gave a Free pass to India and China, while at the same time costing our U.S. industries trillions in added cost. When Obama started talking about his ‘legacy’, somehow that triggered an awareness that he didn’t really care about working class people or even the ability of business to be motivated to stay in the U.S.

                    4. “We had decades of warning about a potential pandemic. The Sars cases for example. So this is a system failure over decades.”

                      That’s not how it works. The pandemic happened this year, so the failure to deal with it properly is a failure of the guy who happened to be President this year. The fact that the potential for this problem has been known for decades makes that failure worse, not better. If you screw up a crisis that you knew was coming, that’s worse than if you screw up a crisis that nobody saw coming.

                      “And we won’t have a President that will mess with economy for the sake of having some insane treaty on climate change.”

                      No, re-elect Trump and you’ll have a President that will mess with the economy just because he can, and because he doesn’t understand the impact of what he does (because trade wars are easy to win), and who completely ignores climate change so it can continue to get worse because he doesn’t understand that, either. I imagine he thought that would go away with the summertime, too. It’s supposed to be hot in the summertime, right, so it’s not a problem that it’s hotter than it used to be because of greenhouse gases.

                    5. You should watch the event201 video (10/19/19) and there are a few other podcasts out there. They make it plain that the Federal government Never had a team and a plan in place to deal with a fast spreading pandemic like covid.

                      I do find it odd that Bill Gates did event201, just a few months after the first signs of the virus in China (that China kept secret). But nevertheless, if does appear more likely to be a case of reasonable foresight on his part. I just wish they had done this seminar a year or two earlier.

                      Trump was on the spot in implementing travel restrictions and marshaling existing Federal resource towards treating and fighting this disease.

                      All at a time when the preexisting Federal medical experts, particularly Dr. Fauci, were giving misinformation about the effectiveness of personal protective equipment. This cost thousands of lives.

                      I think Trump could be better role model and wear the mask, and stop touting false claims about particular medicines. Why are we Americans so stubborn about mask wearing? There is definitely a cultural mental block for many of us.

                      In 2008 a study was done in Japan that found that masks were 80% effective at preventing the spread of flu, within a family household. Why didn’t Obama do something then? Obama could have looked at previous epidemics in China and Africa and foreseen the risk. Obama could have stock piled PPE at far lower cost than we have to pay today. But Obama did nothing.

                      Even our top medical experts at the CDC didn’t seem to have a clue as to how effective masks were, until recently. Fauci is on tape, at a press conference saying that masks were unnecessary.

                      Masks, travel restrictions (which Trump, under much criticism, put in place early), shutdown of places of close congregation are the only things you can do early on.

                      In the case of Covid it appears that getting the disease leads to a strong immunity from reinfection. Much as with other viruses, measles, small pox, … getting it once supresses or eliminates the threat. So on that (and this is important), a vaccine will likely be very effective at eliminating the danger of the disease from our populations.

                      Obama, Bush I could have all worked at develop quick strike teams to get to work on vaccines more quickly. The rapid spread of Covid (actually exponential) is a huge factor in the effectiveness of shaving a few months off the vaccine process.

                      As a result the Trump administration has had to devote a lot of time to originating these protocols and gathering industry together. That’s a big task, and frankly I am shocked that we even have a vaccine in trial right now, that appears to work remarkably.

                      This recession will likely be temporary. What we can control is the speed of recovery. We need to keep corporate taxes low. Low corporate taxes will encourage investment into the United States.

                      We should keep the provision Trump’s executive order to rank H-1b awards based upon a salary ranking. This will prevent Offshore Outsourcing companies from taking the lion’s share of H-1b visas. And, theoretically, should help startups and U.S. business get more of the H-1b visas, as they tend to pay higher salaries to H-1b workers than Offshore Outsourcing companies.

                      Biden’s plan will be to raise corporate taxes, go easy on the Offshore Outsourcing companies, create an eco-tax that will make our domestic businesses less competitive. In short Biden’s plan is to have slowest recovery in U.S. history and blame that slow recovery on Trump, just as Obama blamed the slowest recovery in U.S. history on Bush I. With resulting dependence on Federal handouts by business and citizenry that will eventually, and rather quickly ruin the nations ability to recover from anything (welcome to a South American economy).

          3. “I don’t have a degree, I might not have even graduated highschool.”

            That explains the support for Trump.

            ” This country is filled with people who love to code and can, with some training, be excellent contributors.”

            This country is not filled with people who can code well. So employers have to hire whoever they can get who can produce functioning code that almost meets the specification requested by almost the deadline, and there’s a lot of those overseas who think the work is worth around 30-35K. An American who wants 120K to do the same work that can be generated overseas for 35K is going to be disappointed.

            1. Experience generally the best contributor. But software experience can initially cost a lot more than freshers. But the long term cost to branding and/or having competitive product, can be devastating to a company.

              1. Yeah, providing software that is free of defects is too much to ask software engineers to do, so they continue to produce software that is full of flaws. Experience makes that better, how? This is what you get when you hire whoever you can get, instead of demanding defect-free programming as a condition of continued employment.

                1. Software is too complex to be defect free at the outset. The cost is having people who can review the software and detect the problems. This detection capability comes from experience. It comes out of being a domain expert or having a good sense of how to unit test your output. It could be a myriad of things, such as know that some systems experience race conditions, things you cannot teach in a text book because they are of a detailed and rarely encountered nature.

                  1. “Software is too complex to be defect free at the outset. ”

                    This is bullshit. If you want to be paid more money, produce more functioning software.
                    What would happen if a civil engineer tried your attempt to bullshit away their failure. “Well, bridges are too complex to remain intact. Airplanes are too complex to stay in the air. What you’re saying is that software engineering is too hard for you do it right on the first try.

                  2. No it isn’t BS. The cost of finding and fixing software defects rises exponentially as you progressively find rarer and harder to reproduce defects. Formal Software Validation is at least 6x (often more) expensive than most other kinds of software development, and requires a platform that is also, formally validated.

                    Keep in mind that “mission critical” refers to situations where human life is at stake, or if the financial costs of failure are unrecoverable.

                    You can see this rise in the cost of developing (non mission critical) server software. Often server software will have race conditions that only occasionally occurs because of the interactions of multi-threaded APIs. In some cases it can take weeks to discover memory leaks or security issues. Those weeks equate to more worker time and time-to-market loss cost.

                    All of the consumer software companies wind up releasing software with bugs, that often they fix on a cost (to find and fix) versus customer/brand exposure basis.

                    On this, prior experience, domain knowledge are extremely valuable at finding and prevent such bugs. But almost never are they perfect. Experience on the design and developer side is particularly valuable, because it greatly shortens the loop and in doing so saves a lot of money. Since QA is avoided, we don’t have to find the defect in QA, notify development, implement the fix, then retest the fix, which isn’t always fixed in the first iteration of the loop. If QA is in the loop, the time and money increase exponentially. If the problem is hard/(time consuming) to find and fix, the cost again goes up exponentially.

                    Mission critical software has a different expectation. On these systems often medical, transporation, irrecoverable business transactions. So such systems require Software Validation. This means developing a test plan that exercises every line of code and all possible interactions between systems.

                    This kind of software testing and development is extremely expensive, but necessary for some companies in some industries. I would say, it takes at least 6 times longer to develop software (often running on dedicated hardware) than for consumer software.

                    It can create, a virtually bug-free, and provably bug free code. But it impossible to do with multithreaded systems that are susceptible to race conditions. And you can’t do software validation running on hardware (which is often a mix of software and hardware) that is not itself formally Validated.

                    The best we can do (when developing software that is not formally validated, running on platforms that are also not formally validated) under such conditions is to test on a modular basis, and hope no one violates the specification of multi-threaded and API interaction.

                    This has been Microsoft’s approach for decades, it saves money and time to market costs, but it often results in a need to do near constant patch fixes to the software. Hey, even Apple does updates to its O.S. So even the best consumer hardware and software companies are not immune from release software with some number of bugs.

      2. ” They cannot all be done remotely or the companies would not want the people admitted to the US.”

        It costs more to move some operations overseas. That doesn’t make it impossible, just more expensive. If your goal is to make more jobs available, you better make sure it’s cheaper to hire American than to move operations out of America. Farming jobs have to be here. Engineering jobs don’t.

    5. Exactly why sanctuary cities never get any amount of Federal aid: they get this huge — and totally not fictional — economic benefit from acting as a sanctuary for these amazing job creators. The can just use that vast economic windfall to pay for everything they could ever need.

      1. “Exactly why sanctuary cities never get any amount of Federal aid:”

        Sanctuary cities become sanctuary cities because the federal government doesn’t remove the illegals. If the feds budgeted enough to enforce their own laws, there wouldn’t be any sanctuary cities.

    6. An American individual who needs a job doesn’t need some total number of macroeconomic aggregate jobs. An American individual who needs a job needs a job opening. When that job opening is filled by someone from outside the country, that job is unavailable to that American individual.

      Numbers on spreadsheets go up while American individuals languish in poverty and hopelessness. And you and those others congratulate yourselves for your accomplishment.

      1. No skilled engineer or computer scientist is languishing in poverty and hopelessness in this country.

        Look, I’m on the board of a small software company, not anywhere near Silicon Valley. Recruitment is consistently one of our biggest problems. And we pay well. That’s one data point of course, but we hear the same thing a lot from others.

        As to the economic impact. An engineer comes here from India, say, to take a well-paying job. What does he do? Well, he rents an apartment, or buys a place eventually, buys a car, furniture, buys groceries, clothes, goes to the doctor, etc. forever. All these activities stimulate the economy, they add to aggregate demand, they help create jobs.

        1. “No skilled engineer or computer scientist is languishing in poverty and hopelessness in this country. ”

          Inaccurate.

          “As to the economic impact. An engineer comes here from India, say, to take a well-paying job.”

          Joins a team. A team with other engineers, and the team has several technicians to assist them. And the business has administrative workers that support the team. A receptionist answers the phones, and an administrative assistant schedules meetings and meeting rooms, and an IT staff keeps their computers and networks running. Take a bunch of engineers off the team, and put them back in Bangalore since they can’t come here. All those support jobs are in Bangalore, too, now.
          Your decision that was allegedly to improve American employment just moved a bunch of jobs to India. Good job.
          Here’s the thing… if you want Sandeep the engineer’s job, be a better engineer than Sandeep. If you aren’t a better engineer than Sandeep is, you want a national policy that will help you get a job helping Sandeep do engineering.

        2. They “help create jobs” for other foreign individuals to fill. Jobs “created” are not job openings for American individuals.

          You’re on the board of a software company. Recruiting is hard because you list the qualifications and exclude everyone who doesn’t meet them. Recruiting would be easier if you recruited people who need jobs, but instead you recruit people who already have similar jobs or can easily get them.

          I have my own personal story about this. I work in engineering and I’m excellent at my job. I have well over 12 years of experience at it. I applied to work at an engineering software company as a sort of field engineer doing work very similar to what I do now. I applied because the VP at the company personally called me and asked me. Then I talked to HR. HR said they couldn’t even interview me because I don’t have the qualifications listed. They would risk getting sued by everyone they didn’t hire if they interviewed me. I’m not diverse, so it’s doubly-important not to bend the rules to hire me. I’m not sure they ever got that position filled.

          American government should advocate for Americans to get good jobs, not the leftover jobs at the grocery store serving the engineers you import.

          Once Americans’ problems are addressed, then let’s bring in people. But not while Americans’ problems are ignored.

          1. ” Recruiting is hard because you list the qualifications and exclude everyone who doesn’t meet them.”

            Only wanting to hire people who can do the work you need done. Shocking.

            I spent ten years working at a vocational college, teaching people the skills they needed to get work in the IT field. Some were voc rehab, people who’d gotten hurt in their previous field of work to the point they were unable to return to the work they’d previously done. Re-training them to do IT work instead was popular because there was higher pay in that field, so it appealed to the people who’d previously held jobs in the skilled trades. No amount of schooling can substitute for years of experience doing network engineering, so those top-end network engineering jobs were out of their reach. But there wer plenty of junior roles they could be, and were, properly prepared for.

            1. A list of qualifications is not “people who can do the work”. Qualifications lists exclude people from being considered, regardless of their ability.

              I know people who are great at IT work. They didn’t need to be “trained”. They learned it themselves. They are not “qualified”. Someone who gets a D- and barely passes your training is “qualified” though.

              1. “A list of qualifications is not “people who can do the work”. Qualifications lists exclude people from being considered, regardless of their ability.”

                You sound like someone who isn’t qualified for the job you wish you had. I would like a contract like the one Pat Mahomes recently signed. Alas, I can’t throw a football as well as Mr. Mahomes can. Which is one of the qualifications for getting that job and contract. I also can’t hit the three like Steph Curry, or dunk on a chump like Lebron James can, so I won’t get those jobs, either.

                “I know people who are great at IT work. […] They learned it themselves. They are not ‘qualified’.”
                Sounds about right.

                ” Someone who gets a D- and barely passes your training is ‘qualified’ though.”
                Our grade scale didn’t have a D-, and people who got a D had to re-take the class. Other than being totally wrong, your analysis is spot-on.

                1. Yeah, I already pointed out how I’m “not qualified” for the engineering job I’ve held for almost two decades. I’m far better at it than most other people who are qualified.

                  I understand you don’t care about Americans like me who can’t get better opportunities because lists of qualifications reserve the jobs for foreign workers. I hope others are less dismissive of their fellow Americans’ lives than you.

                  1. I don’t care about Americans like you who think they deserve more despite not being willing to pursue qualifications that would allow them to earn more.

                    My grandfather was an engineer without an engineering degree. He worked harder than the rest of his office because he knew that if they had to make cuts, he’d be first to go because of his lack of a degree. So he had to work hard to make sure not having a degree didn’t impact the quality of his work.

                    1. You might not care about qualifications. But many hiring managers have those qualifications and they often (wrongly) see it as an overriding factor.

                      A long time ago (about 18 years ago) we interviewed a candidate that had a masters degree, but could not answer basic question about the software development process. Myself and 2 other people were shocked by this. When we mentioned this to the hiring manager that we felt she was not qualified based upon her responses, he claimed we were wrong because she had this advanced degree in computer science (I believe a Master’s degree).

                      I don’t know what his motivations were. There doesn’t seem to be any racism involved. I am a Caucasian, the other two guys rejecting the candidate one was from India and the other guy was Burmese (he was also a part-time monk, he was great friend, very interesting person).

                      The manager was an Asian, the candidate a Russian lady.

                      At some point they let that manager go. I think he was just obsessed with some factors so he wound up hiring mediocre developers.

                    2. “You might not care about qualifications. But many hiring managers have those qualifications and they often (wrongly) see it as an overriding factor. ”

                      I believe I took the other side of that debate, actually. It was Ben who took issue with the concept that job candidates should be qualified to do the job they are seeking.
                      In the IT field, qualifications rest on three pillars, experience, education, and certification, with experience being the top one. The best qualification you can offer to a hiring manager is “I did the exact same work for someone else for the last year, and I left that job because the work was finished.” Certification is second-best, because it amounts to somebody who is trusted saying that you know a subject well. A degree shows that you stayed with something, and kept working at it until you were finished, which is why it often turns out that the employer will accept a degree in any field.

                    3. “At some point they let that manager go. I think he was just obsessed with some factors so he wound up hiring mediocre developers.”

                      If this manager wasn’t good at selecting developers, then the firing is justified. Selecting and retaining good employees is part of the job of management. If someone is not good at their job, they shouldn’t have it, and that applies to management, too.

                    4. I agree, letting him go was the right thing to do. It just takes time for executives to get around to seeing the pattern. This is a business reality and shows the exploitable imperfections in the market place.

                  2. “Yeah, I already pointed out how I’m “not qualified” for the engineering job I’ve held for almost two decades. I’m far better at it than most other people who are qualified.”

                    A vivid imagination must be something you use every day.

        3. Part of President Trump’s executive order is to change from a lottery based system to one based upon salary. So presumably, you should have better chance at getting people in on an H-1b visa as you won’t have to compete with lower paying companies (such as the Offshore Outsourcing companies). And that overall, such a change will result in more money flowing to rent, groceries, cars and other products and services sold locally.

          Yes, there is a temporary halt to these visas. But we are in dire circumstance. I know some tech companies are laying off people. And frankly, if you are willing to pay around 180-200k, you could recruit from any software company.

          So let’s get real. Just pay more and let it be known what you are willing to pay for a full time positions with benefits for good candidates. I don’t think you will have a problem. Again, tech companies are something of a lagging indicator, but they are starting to lay people off.

          1. ” if you are willing to pay around 180-200k”

            If you’re willing to grossly overpay people you will get all sorts of applicants, sure. But you won’t be in business for very long, because you don’t understand how business works.

            If you want to be paid 200K, do something that no one else can do, and then announce your price to keep doing it as 200K. Or do something that someone else will do for 35K, and complain that the stupid company you work for would rather pay someone else 35k than give you the 200K you imagine you’re worth.
            Alternatively, start your own business, do 200K worth of business, and then reward yourself for your good work. Every great company was founded on the one thing that the founders could do better than the competition. Microsoft was built on their ability to build programming tools, and they expanded from there. Google had a better search engine product and parlayed that into a number of other lines of business. Sometimes the trick is better marketing rather than better engineering (see,e.g. Nike, although Nike’s initial business was built on the waffle sole of Bannerman and Knight, now their money comes from getting Americans to pay $200/pair for shoes that Nike makes for $2/pair in Southeast Asia.)

            1. Well you won’t be in business very long if you create a lot of buggy software. I have been with my company for 20 years, we have never seen a layoff, only costant growth. And customers are willing to pay 100k to several million dollars for our permanently licensed products. And they routinely pay millions a year in subscription costs for our Cloud product.

              1. If your company is doing so well, and you produce non-buggy software, why aren’t you getting your $200K/yr already? Are you the Dak Prescott of programming?

              2. “Well you won’t be in business very long if you create a lot of buggy software.”

                The state of the current software industry suggests otherwise.

      2. ” An American individual who needs a job needs a job opening”

        Specifically, they need a job opening for a job they can perform. Having a job open that requires skills or abilities I don’t happen to have does me no good whatsoever.

        1. Tom Brady moved to Florida and left a job opening in Boston. Good for Cam, but it did nothing for me. And Cam isn’t making what Tom was making before he left.

        2. There are lots of Americans languishing in underpaid, mediocre jobs or on unemployment who could perform well at a better job. But those jobs aren’t available.

          1. There are lots of people everywhere languishing in underpaid mediocre jobs. We didn’t invent that.

            1. Why shouldn’t American government try to improve things for Americans instead of “people everywhere”?

              1. American government tends to try to improve things for campaign donors. Tech companies donate to political campaigns, so they get subsidies and I don’t.

      3. “An American individual who needs a job doesn’t need some total number of macroeconomic aggregate jobs. An American individual who needs a job needs a job opening.”

        Hello WPA, how’ve you been? We haven’t seen you for quite a while.

  9. Somin is a one trick pony. There’s no amount of immigration he thinks is too much.

    1. He is a libertarian. Entirely out of place at this right-wing blog.

  10. The H-1b program is a subsidy to American technology companies to keep technical jobs in America. Take it away, and those companies will do one of two things: Convert their technical operations to support doing the work overseas, or hire from the remaining pool of America-based engineers. Whichever one is cheaper is the one they’ll pick.
    We don’t seem to have done anything in the way of national policy to keep those operations jobs from going overseas where the cheaper foreign workers are, so guessing that this move leads to more employed Americans seems like wishful thinking. On par with believing that coronavirus would disappear by itself when the weather got warmer.

    1. Over the last 20 years, half of the generally available H-1b visas have been taken by Offshore Outsourcing companies. In India, the H-1b visa is called the “Offshore Outsourcing” visa. The Outsourcing companies need a way to get people, and onsite, so they can be trained, by fully qualified and more experienced Americans, as a prelude to moving entire departments to another country.

      Changing from a lottery system, to a ranking based upon salary, with median salary being the lowest allowed salary, will raise the cost of Outsourcing jobs to another country. Reverting Trump’s order on day-1 (as Joe Biden has said he would do) will undo that cost increase.

      Big Tech actually wants most of the H-1b visas to be taken by Offshore Outsourcing companies, because they have big contracts with such companies. That’s all previous, PAC donation dependent, administrations kept the idiotic visa lottery. It could have been changed at anytime, but never was changed.

      I don’t know, is it just me? Anything we can do to raise the initial cost to Outsource jobs to other countries, is a good thing for the U.S. economy, right now while unemployment is extremely high.

      Nothing, except a decrease in the value of the dollar relative to that of other currencies can reverse the trend. We all know this. There are other things though, and other countries routinely practice them. At some point we may decide that employing Americans is more important than cheap appliances. China, India made that decision a long time ago, they tariff everything.

      Every country has their share of potential mechanics, software engineers, design engineers… and so on. The U.S. has many gifted, home grown, hard working people. The world has hundreds of millions of people who could supplant these domestic workers. Many of them would work for 10$/day. Imagine, hiring a plumber, for 10$/day. It would never happen because politicians play one group of workers over another, in the Visa business. For years, engineers were easy pickings, but in the last decade numerous political careers have come to an end over this issue.

      While the politicians aren’t really thinking yet about ways to improve the h-1b program, they are mortally afraid to be seen throwing part of the domestic workforce under the bus.

      There’s nothing worse than a politician that just mouths the lines of the Business lobby, without thinking. Joe Biden did this all through his career as a Vice President, in regard to the H-1b visa. That deliberate ignoring of what the Offshore Outsourcing companies did, gave us the slowest recovery in U.S. history. While Americans were still losing jobs and their homes, the Obama administration did nothing about the oversubscription of the H-1b program by the Offshore Outsourcing companies. Joe Biden, in particular, was seen exactly repeating the lines of PAC groups such as the Chamber of Commerce, Silicon Valley Leadership group, and the Compete America political action and lobbying committee.

      Electing Joe Biden will just reinstate the policies that led to the slowest recovery in U.S. history. We will wallow in high unemployment, even as Offshore Outsourcing companies have easy access to the H-1b visas. Our tech CEO’s will continue to whine that the way to fix this is with unlimited numbers of H-1b visas (as they did all through the Bush II and Obama administrations).

      Why repeat the same mistake? H-1b is a government program. If an H-1b visa goes to an Offshore Outsourcing company, we waste an opportunity to create a new American citizen. If a company uses the H-1b visa to bring in a foreign worker, we waste an opportunity to create a potential domestic tech worker that could go to found another Apple or Intel. Because the H-1b worker will be stuck in the job forever until Green Card day.

      1. “I don’t know, is it just me?”

        No, you’re probably not the only person who badly misunderstands what’s going on. There’s also Trump, for example, he doesn’t exactly have a strong track record for understanding complex topics.

        ” If a company uses the H-1b visa to bring in a foreign worker, we waste an opportunity to create a potential domestic tech worker that could go to found another Apple or Intel.”

        Whereas if we tell him to stay in Bangalore, he’ll be founding his “other Apple or Intel” there. How is that a win?

        1. As for people in other countries founding great companies. Nothing can stop that. We should not be worried about that.

          Here is what we should worry about. Whether or not people in this country have the freedom to actually found great companies. The H-1b visa prevents that from happening, right here in the United States.

          And it prevents it in 2 ways:
          – It prevents Americans, who have the right to leave and form another company, from ever receiving on the job training.
          – It brings in a person who can never leave their job to form a competing company, in this country.

          Instead of an H-1b visa, we need an entrepreneur Green Card.

          Is there any way I can help you understanding this dynamic?

          1. “As for people in other countries founding great companies. Nothing can stop that.”

            Bringing them here to work is pretty effective.

            “Is there any way I can help you understanding this dynamic?”

            Based on your own sad state, you need to start by first learning to understand the dynamic before worrying about anyone else.

            1. I worked for Japanese electronics company for several years. And many other Americans work for Japanese and Asian manufacturing companies. I don’t really have an issue with people in other countries starting businesses. As an engineer I only have a problem with a company be they foreign or domestic, bypassing the U.S. Free Labor market in order to hire people from overseas and bring them over on a visa. When that happens, they are typically just removing jobs from the United States.

              The President’s order has a provision to prevent this by switching from a lottery to a selection based upon salary ranking, and I think that is great. That’s exactly what we need to make the H-1b program a great program for America.

              So I think, if our tech companies were honest about, they should call Biden and tell him, hey keep that provision to change over to a salary based ranking. And we should hear from Biden on this sometime later. That might even switch my vote to Biden.

              I understand the dynamic. And further you need to do some research. Here are some suggestions:

              Google for profit per employee for Google, Apple, and Facebook.

              Search for Business Insider, top-12 tech companies by revenue per employee.

              Read the Emails, made public by a judge in the original Federal lawsuit, in the “No-Poaching” scandal in Silicon Valley.

              And let’s give some credit to Facebook and Sheryl Sandberg for refusing to participate in this illegal no poaching scam, when asked to participate by the Google lawyer Jonathan Rosenberg.

              These companies aren’t hurting for money. They are hurting because executives need to increase already astronomical profits and earnings per employee. And also preventing a run on some small part of that profit, when employees work together to stop them flooding the market with indentured workers and never considering Americans for the job.

              1. ” executives need to increase already astronomical profits and earnings per employee.”

                why, exactly, would an executive care what the profits were, per employee? They care what the profits are, per shareholder, because shareholders get to vote on who their executives are. Mostly, execs get evaluated on share price, which adjusts to reflect profit and expected profit as well as smaller fluctuations for dividend payments. Most tech companies have huge reserves of contingent workers, making profit per employee a particularly worthless metric for anything except pension plan management, and most tech companies lack pension plans.

                1. I only bring up profits per employee to point out the disparity. You are right profits overall are the critical factor. So on that, it is probably better to increase employee productivity.

                  1. “I only bring up profits per employee to point out the disparity.”

                    You must think it’s important, because you keep coming back to the subject.
                    alas, it brings nothing whatsoever to your argument. Bet you’ll keep doing it, though.

                    1. “I only bring up profits per employee to point out the disparity.”

                      It’s totally relevant if you are a Marxist, trying to argue that capitalists extract value from the employee’s labor but don’t share it with the actual employees who provide the value in the first place.

                    2. Free Labor is also part of the Capitalist system. People marketing themselves are as much Capitalist as any business. On that, knowing what the customer can afford to pay is a key piece of information in any free market bargaining operation. Business are always concerned with the buying power of their consumers. A worker, marketing his talents, should also be aware of the buying power of their customers (in this case we also know the customer is called an employer).

                      It isn’t Marxist to talk about the actual buying power of corporations in regards to human labor. It is actually just business information being disseminated to people working in the open and free market so they can do better business with their customers (in this case an employer).

                      The fact that corporations have given up some of their privacy, in order to receive liability protection for their owners, is part of the bargain corporations made with the government. If they want to keep the amount they make a secret, they should stay a private business (but of course with likely increase liability).

              2. “I understand the dynamic. And further you need to do some research. Here are some suggestions:
                Google for profit per employee for Google, Apple, and Facebook.”
                Nah. Show off your great understanding by explaining how “profit per employee” is relevant to anything.

                1. It is relevant to the political discussion of how we regulate immigration into this country.

                  1. Show off your great understanding by explaining how “profit per employee” is relevant to anything. Just saying “it’s totally relevant” is not an explanation of anything, and it’s worth as much as the rest of your word salad sandwich. Which, for the slow, is nothing. It’s entirely worthless.

                    What you want is the US government to protect you from competition from furriners who’ll do the same work you do for less money that you want.

            2. “Bringing them here to work is pretty effective.”

              Actually is completely ineffective. We can sequester only a few of the engineers the World produces every year. And, further we cant sequester the non-engineers that also create businesses overseas. And for H-1b visa purposes, an engineer must possess a bachelors degree.

              To make it effective we need a better Green Card process.

              BTW Gates, Zuckerberg, Jobs… They didn’t get degrees before starting a business, so your reasoning here is faulty. As H-1b requires a college degree, we won’t get the actual would-be entrepreneurs in with unlimited H-1b visas.

              In addition to fixing the Green Card process, we need an entrepreneur Green Card or Visa.

              If we bring in a person on an H-1b visa, and they have trouble getting Green Card, as many people from India and China are having right now. They don’t create businesses. And again, we can only take in a small percentage of the World’s engineering graduates.

              But we wind up displacing an American from those jobs. It’s those Americans that actually found most of the businesses in Silicon Valley. And by American, I mean = citizen or Green Card holder. And I say that because both have about the same amount of worker rights.

              So my point is, we are actually better off developing our engineer producing eco-system. And improving the Green Card system.

              It still has to be limited, if we let in every engineer that wanted to come in to Silicon Valley, we wouldn’t have any place for them to live. They would displace even more residents than they currently have. It would be a big mess, well really it would quickly become a political fight. And then things would swing too far, and we would have a far worse outcome.

              Residents are complaining about people living in vans and campers on the Streets of Silicon Valley. There are people living in shanty towns around the Bay Area. We don’t need the problems of the 3rd world to grow out here. We need companies to pay the living wage (which is far higher than in other states thanks to zoning and regulations) so that we can get housing developers busy and keep local regulators satisfied.

              There is actually a great deal of space in the Bay Area. But environmental groups oppose every development, and I don’t think money is always going to solve the problem.

              1. “BTW Gates, Zuckerberg, Jobs… They didn’t get degrees before starting a business, so your reasoning here is faulty.”

                Or it would be, if I’d said anything about needing a degree to start a business, which I did not. That’s you. What I said is that if the engineers are here working in the US, they aren’t starting businesses overseas. See how those things are totally different? This level of analysis on your part is how you wound up so cockeyed.
                Gates got rich because he was able to recognize an opportunity created when the guys running Digital Research screwed up the meeting with IBM when IBM came ’round looking for someone to provide a working operating system for their new computer system. That’s got nothing to do with his skill as an engineer, except that IBM only came to talk to him because he had another product, a BASIC interpreter, that they were also interested in. Jobs got rich by harvesting the skills of engineers (some who worked for him, and some who worked for Xerox.)

                1. We can never stop other businesses from starting overseas, that’s just impossible. For a lot of reasons. Too many people can start businesses overseas, China and India graduate an excess number of engineers and they have millions of entrepreneurs. We would have to admit 10 million people a year just to have any small chance of preventing a few businesses from starting overseas.

                  Encourage some entreprenuers to come here, a special Green Card might make this possible, I say great let’s do it. Oh, it never happened, I wonder why? Well it could be that business interests in the United States don’t want to hang themselves, so they never make such suggestions at White House cocktail parties.

                  Businessmen don’t grease the guillotine at their own executions.

                  The H-1b visa requires a bachelors degree, so right there we might be closing off a lot of good overseas entrepreneurs. If a person came over, with enough cash, to start a business and hire Americans, I think we are fools to exclude all of them for not having a degree. But we don’t have room for all such overseas entrepreneur, only a small number could make it over or be allowed in. Because of local resource contraints.

                  Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba is a teacher born in China. Just how can we prevent people in other countries from starting businesses in other countries via the H-1b visa? It simply isn’t possible.

                  Further, other countries enact protectionist measure that give their local business head start. Just how are we going to prevent that? Immigration won’t help us with that problem.

                  So we have to be real. We have to have a limited visa system. Ideally we should have a matching Green Card system and path to citizenship. That way locals are stuck with big taxes trying beef up infrastructure, that might become obsolete (covid 19 for example).

                  CalTrain rider ship is down 95% since the crisis. Will it return? Doubtful. Yet 3 counties are already talking about a sales tax increase just to keep it going. And the same goes for recent fuel taxes and bridge tolls. Are they still necessary? Doubtful. Thank you Silicon Valley Leadership for pushing more flat taxes on us.

                  1. ” how can we prevent people in other countries from starting businesses in other countries via the H-1b visa? It simply isn’t possible.”

                    Well, the ones that have H-1b visas definitely aren’t starting businesses in other countries, because they aren’t IN other countries.
                    ” Thank you Silicon Valley Leadership for pushing more flat taxes on us.”

                    vote with your feet. Leave Silicon Valley and move somewhere else. Start yourself a new business if you have to. There are plenty of places in the world where they won’t put taxes on you to keep the infrastructure working. Of course, that’s largely because they don’t have infrastructure so you’ll have to fund any that you happen to need, like communication or transportation.

                    1. “Voting with your feet”, a refugee by another other name be they economic or political, would by any other name be a terrible abdication of social responsibility.

                      We don’t have to vote with our feet in this country, and I intend to do everything I can to prevent that.

                      Now as for people in other countries, that are forced to neglect their political responsibility (for economic reasons) or are intimidated from speaking out (China). Well that is exactly the problem which we need to prevent in the United States by speaking out on the need to have an immigration policy on this or any other forum.

                    2. Cue the patriotic music while you try to change the subject. You have mobility, if and when you choose to use it. Until then whining seems the choice you prefer. And you don’t seem to like being called on it, either.
                      You also can choose to learn skills that will make your labor more valuable, but you’ve decided not to go down that path.

                  2. “We can never stop other businesses from starting overseas, that’s just impossible.”

                    Why don’t you argue this point with someone who claims that we can stop businesses from starting overseas?

                    For me, just stick with the point I actually made, which is that the engineers who are working as engineers here in the USA are not starting businesses overseas. As you answer that question try to avoid using the phrases “Offshore Outsourcing” or ” profits per employee”, because we’ve already established that you have nothing to offer in those areas.

                    1. Jack Ma, founder of Alibaba is a teacher born in China. Just how can we prevent people in other countries from starting businesses in other countries via the H-1b visa? It simply isn’t possible.

                      We can’t even house every engineer graduating abroad. Someone like Jack Ma (and there are literally millions of such people) will simply gather available local talent and start a competing business. In China, internet businesses are sheltered from competition so their business will always grow quickly. Other countries, India for example, will start doing the same thing.

                      It simply isn’t possible for us to sequester all the engineers of the world in the United States. Therefore, there is nothing we can practically do to prevent people in other countries from starting competitive business.

                      Nor should we.

                      What we should do is make sure that our country is the best place we can make it for citizens, workers, investors, and business people. That takes a careful balance in which not everyone gets what they want. But we all get what we need.

                      The simple change from a lottery system to a system based upon salary ranking by the Trump administration is a great step in that direction. Because it does something to ensure that the engineers we do bring in are at least self-vetted by their salary requirements. And it will help businesses that truly need the best engineers will have an ability to hire those foreign engineers (as opposed to a roll of the dice and losing 80% of the time).

          2. “Whether or not people in this country have the freedom to actually found great companies.”

            That takes capital. And if a new business is short on capital, they need to hire employees at low salaries. Many startups get around this by hiring entry-level professionals, who’ll take less money to do the work because they need experience doing the work to demand a higher salary. And yes, sometimes, they have to hire cheap foreign labor. If they are run well, eventually, they will get rich enough to pay the more productive employees more salary. If not, they’ll disappear and the carcass will be picked clean by their more-successful competitors.

            1. Extend the STEM OPT tax break to all students, not just foreign grads. I am surprised that neither party has thought of putting this into the campaign platform. This would help new businesses and give our grads and equal chance at a job. It would be a massive win-win for business and our newly graduated students.

  11. Another great meeting of Libertarians For Authoritarian, Bigoted, And Cruel Immigration Policy And Practice, convened by the fans of an ‘often libertarian’ blog.

    If there is anything the fans of a right-wing blog can’t abide, it is libertarian content.

    1. I think Tech CEO’s have a romantic view of themselves as “Libertarian” but they are actually Oligarchianist.

      You can see this apparent in the Email exchange between Eric Schmidt and Steve Jobs in the infamous, and illegal “No poaching” scandal here in Silicon Valley.

      Steve Jobs wrote to Eric Schmidt that a Google recruiter was about to sign on an Apple engineer. Eric Schmidt promptly fired the female Google recruited who had successfully hired the Apple engineer. These Tech companies are afraid of the U.S. Free Labor market, they colluded to remove it from their risk portfolio. In criminal violation of the Sherman Anti-Trust act.

      There were called out on this by the Federal Government and Obama gave them a slap on the wrist. But a judge in the case insisted that the Emails be made public. That started a huge civil case. Which again was quickly settled out of court.

      That is why they want unlimited H-1b visas. Not necessarily for direct hire, but for the Outsourcing companies they do business with.

      Joe Biden has promised to rescind the entire Trump executive order. An order which includes a provision to change from a lottery system (which was gamed and largely won by Offshore Outsourcing companies) to a system based upon a salary ranking.

      Such a provision surely will help Silicon Valley tech companies do more direct H-1b hiring? Why can’t one of those CEO’s tell Joe Biden, hey keep the provision to change from a lottery for a salary ranking (so we can get the Best and Brightest as direct hires.

      But that hasn’t happened. And that’s insane. And I am calling it out whereever I can.

      It must be that Silicon Valley really doesn’t want the best and the brightest, they want the unlimited number of cheap-indentured workers, preferably from a 3rd party company so they can bypass the normal labor laws and rules regarding H-1b usage, and simply replace their workforce with an indentured 3rd party workforce.

      I mean, it’s like obvious Silicon Valley Leadership. You know about the provision, based upon what has been disclosed by you, it should be obvious you want to keep it. Why the silence on this particular provision?

      1. ” Why the silence on this particular provision?”

        By silence you mean pointing out to you that it won’t work the way you seem to think it will. OK, I’ll say that again.

        As to the political sense of the silicon valley leadership, they make the best decisions they can make for the long-term profitability of their companies, because that’s their job.

        1. More on the silicon valley leadership.

          You seem to assume that because what they choose to do isn’t what you seem to think they should do, it proves that they don’t understand what they should do. What it actually proves is that they know more than you do.

        2. On the contrary, changing from a random chance system for choosing who gets and H-1b visa, to one where visas are awarded based upon a salary ranking should (based upon what these companies have said in the past) work out beautifully for these tech companies.

          Based upon what these companies have said, “apparently” they can’t get all the H-1b visas they want each year. And for those who study the issue, it is clear this is because more than half the generally available H-1b visas are taken up by Offshore Outsourcing companies.

          With the Offshore Outsourcing companies priced out of the H-1b Federal Government program. Google, Apple, Facebook and the others should all receive an ample supply of H-1b visas, without the need to raise the overall number of H-1b visas.

          So why the silence? I can tell you it is the quietest con job in U.S. history, that’s why.

  12. “I think Tech CEO’s have a romantic view of themselves as “Libertarian” but they are actually Oligarchianist. ”

    they’re capitalists. They do what makes their companies more money. That’s why they don’t want to give you any more of their companies’ money.

    “Why can’t one of those CEO’s tell Joe Biden, hey keep the provision to change from a lottery for a salary ranking”

    Because the change doesn’t do what you seem to think it will do, that’s why.

    1. When you use money to buy new laws, you are not a Capitalist anymore. You are an Oligarchianist. A capitalist would just deal with the competitive environment, as it stands.

      No what these guys want is to create laws that create a trapped kind of worker that is forever indentured until Green Card day. Which never arrives.

      If they were interested in changing away from that they would have pushed for an end to the idiotic lottery 25 years ago. If they were truly capitalist, they would not have had a secret and illegal no poaching conspiracy.

      Eric Schmidt knew what he was doing was illegal, that’s why he asked the others to go verbal only and stop sending Emails. And that by the way is in an Email from Eric Schmidt to the conspirators at other companies.

      Again, you only see the reality when it is accidentally exposed. Either in recording or in the exposed emails. That’s when you see the reality.

      Capitalism includes Free Labor, and when you seek to constrain labor via secret collusion that violates the Sherman Anti-trust act (and you know you are) then you are no longer a Capitalist.

      You are an Oligarchianist. And you are doing exactly what they do in Russia or in other Mob and organized crime infested countries.

      And we don’t need that in the country.

      It is Anti-Capitalist. Further it destroy the very dynamic that makes the United States an innovative country.

      1. ” A capitalist would just deal with the competitive environment, as it stands.”
        “Capitalism includes Free Labor”
        so you’re not capitalist. You’re demanding that the US government protect you from competition from foreigners. That’s ineffective in the long-term.
        Either compete with them by being better and more valuable, or compete on price. Quit trying to get anyone else to help you from having to compete on price.

        1. People have fantasies that Capitalism is a cross border phenomena. It is not. Business in this country must deal with tariffs and exclusions when sending goods outside the United States. People leaving the United States often cannot purchase property in other countries (at best lease). People from the United States cannot set up shop in other countries (unless they are in partnership with a local business, sometime not at all). People from the United States cannot work in other countries, without meeting high bars to entry. And of course, we do the same, only we are far more liberal than China or India.

          I am a Capitalist within the United States, because that’s where the capitalism resides. But when you cross the border, it depends entirely on treaty and laws which vary widely. That’s the reality. We live in a world with borders. When you open your eyes and acknowledge that fact, then you can really talk realistically about how to promote the fortunes of the people and businesses within this country.

          If you don’t acknowledge that, then you will often have big holes/flaws in your logic. And people with ulterior motives will exploit that and you will vote in a way you think is right, but is actually counter productive to your actual goals.

          1. “People have fantasies that Capitalism is a cross border phenomena.”

            The observe it in reality, too. In 1789 they gave the newly-created Congress the authority to regulate it, although they called it “commerce” rather than “capitalism”.

          2. “I am a Capitalist within the United States, because that’s where the capitalism resides.”

            You are a twit, explicitly espousing anti-capitalist policies. If you don’t acknowledge that, then you will continue to have big holes/flaws in your logic. And people with ulterior motives will exploit that and you will vote in a way you think is right, but is actually counter productive to your actual goals.

            1. The moment you get insulting is the moment you give in and actually are acknowledging the truth of what I have written. Because you have no effective counterpoint you cry like a baby-man.

              1. There is no truth in what you have written, and if you find it insulting that I keep pointing this out to you its just too fucking bad.

                You can’t compete on fair terms, so you want somebody to handicap the competition for you. No sale.

                1. I can’t debate a baseless insult, simply because it is obvious that you have no knowledge or frame of reference. What you are pointing out is that you disagree for the sake of disagreeing with me, not for any reason that can be debated. It is just another way for you to close your eyes and say I give in you but boils down to nothing more than a circular argument involving your hurt feelings.

        2. It is actually massively effective, China has been doing in for decades.

          1. It is actually massively effective, China has been shutting us out of their market for decades. If you want to do business in China, you must first Partner with a local Chinese company.

            You can’t get a job in India, unless you are paid 12x the average earnings of any worker in India.

            India built a 100 billion dollar per year IT service industry, while our economy languished with the slowest recovery in U.S. history, under Obama.

            China is almost at parity with the United States in economic activity, employment, and military power.

            These countries shelter their own businesses and workers from foreign competition.

            Because it helps them to develop a skilled workforce.

            People grow they are never static.

            And they can either grow at a job site and learn job skills. Or they can grow in an unemployment line and learn protest skills. In some countries, they join a militia or gang for employment and they learn war skills, and the country is forever at war.

      2. ” what these guys want is to create laws that create a trapped kind of worker that is forever indentured until Green Card day”

        What you want is to create laws that keep those durn furriners from competing with you on price in the labor market.

        1. The moment you get insulting is the moment you give in and actually are acknowledging the truth of what I have written. Because you have no effective counterpoint you cry like a baby-man.

          1. You’re a whiner, and also a tad bit repetitive.

            1. Plus you forgot to work the words “Offshore Outsourcing” into your current whining.

              1. The moment you get insulting is the moment you give in and actually are acknowledging the truth of what I have written. Because you have no effective counterpoint you cry like a baby-man.

                1. The moment you started offering a cut&paste response is the moment you demonstrated that you never had anything to say that wasn’t stupid in the first place.

                  thank you for finally conceding that point.

                  1. You mean the part that you are whining for unlimited number of cheap foreign workers. Because you don’t really care what happens you only care about what you can profit from. Yeah, I concede your point. You have won that debate mightily.

Please to post comments