Status Report On Key Internet Legislation 69
HardLogic writes: "Business 2.0 is running descriptions and status updates on five key high-tech bills that are currently before Congress, including the 'PNTR for China bill,' 'American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act,' 'Internet Nondiscrimination Act,' two broadband bills, and the 'Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act.'" It's nice to see that legislation doesn't all fall into the grey and hazy zone after the initial public furor, too.
Spam (Score:2)
What the Bill Proposes: This bill attempts to curtail unsolicited email by requiring senders to have a valid reply address and to stop sending email if a recipient requests it. Internet service providers would also be able to enforce their own spam policies under federal law.
What this is saying, is that I have to first be the target of spam, before I can request not to be the target of spam. And I have to make this request of each and every spammer. Why not have a law that says, in order for people to stop slashing your tires and busting your windshields, you have to ask them to stop?.
Obstacles to Passage: Few. Only one member of Congress, Rep. Ron Paul, R-TX, voted against this bill in the House, and no vocal opponents have emerged in the Senate.
Is he opposed because he knows it's a lame bill and wants to see something stronger? If that's the case, then I say more power to him. What's his reasoning behind this?
Although the Direct Marketing Association (DMA) isn't crazy about this legislation, Senior Vice President for Governmental Affairs Jerry Cerasale says that, for the most part, the bill sets standards already adhered to by DMA members, such as clearly identifying the sender and letting recipients get off the mailing lists.
If they have a right to store their files on my computer, I should have the right to charge them for use of my equipment. They should put that into the bill and see how quickly the whole spam issue fades away when hundreds of thousands of people charge them for storage space. Don't forget the processing fee to remove the spam when they so request it.
--
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
True if you're comparing them to all nations in all of history; false if you're comparing them to the democratic states in the same years. Both the Nazis and the Communists were horribly inefficient at everything except killing civilians.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Knee jerk libertarian? (Score:2)
Agreed, but not letting them in at all is worse, since it's easier to get permanent resident status while an H1B than when you're overseas. Politics is the art of the possible; if you can get them in at all, it's better than denying them the choice.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Just call them what they are.. (Score:1)
Are there things which are particularly nasty about these bills, or is it just government bills in general that bring out this reaction ?
If it's the second, beware of crying wolf. If you complain about everything, then when you have something to really complain about (UCITA, DMCA, etc.) people will say "Ignore them, they're always complaining like this, whatever we try to do".
Mind you, if the US really needs a "Competitiveness in the 21st Century" act, why don't they do something about the fact that every high-tech US company in the 21st century will soon need a vast army of lawyers in order to do business, and big wadges of cash to pay each other's patents - cash that companies in other countries won't need to spend.
Re:Let them all die (Score:2)
---
Another non-functioning site was "uncertainty.microsoft.com." The purpose of that site was not known. -- MSNBC 10-26-1999 on MS crack
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
Re:Spam (Score:2)
Yes, I get a dozen or so UCEs every day -- but it takes me less than 10 seconds to delete them all. Maybe a full minute if I decide they can be added to my anti-spam rules on my e-mail client. This is a hell of a lot less time and effort than it takes me with junk mail (postal). There is no way to automate the processing (trashing) of junk postal mail, but my computer handles most of the spam without my help.
The myth of it costing you more is just that - a myth. 5 years ago you might have paid per message or per byte of e-mail, but not any more. Dial-in accounts have plummeted in price from per hour/per minute charges to flat rate. Some are now under $6.00 per month and there are several "free" ISPs if you'll tolerate their junk.
My point: your cost, as an end user, has not been affected by spam. If you think an ISP is going to lower your price if they stop transmitting spam, you're crazy.
Spam volumes are much, much better dealt with with QoS either in IP and/or the ATM backbone. Proper QoS with e-mail (which you wouldn't notice an extra few seconds delay on e-mail delivery).
For the record: I believe bulk e-mailers should be required to use a valid e-mail address and I agree that relaying off of someone else's mail server should be illegal. (Without paying for it, that is.) I also agree that they should be required to keep and honor opt-out lists, like Florida's for telephone solicitation.
I'm no libertarian. (Score:2)
If they want to inspire entreprenuership [which they need to if they want to compete], they need to give their citizens certain gaurantees. They can't very easily put a gun to someone's head and tell them to innovate. Likewise, you can't put a gun to the entire countries head to tell them to produce at the level of modern day US; every communist system has learned the hardway that they're woefully unproductive. Merely exporting their products is not going to solve their ills. It requires fundamental changes.
Please do tell.
What have your attentive eyes done for the Chinese thus far? Even if you don't believe trade itself will help, it gives us far more leverage than your "eyes". Even if you believe that leverage to be worthless, I find it hard to believe that it's going to make things worse for the Chinese.
Yes, If it were my choice I'd give them all green cards. However, it's not my choice. Nor is it these corporations' choice. The only thing they're able to push through is a couple H1B visas a year. Unfortunately, there is far too much resistence in this country from labor, various liberal movements, and the like. Unlike the rest of the developed world, it seems the only people we're willing to admit in quantity are so-called political refugees. Irregardless of whether they're able to pull their own weight or not. It's just plain stupid, and does nothing to help us economically.
Frankly, I don't think the US has any business importing more problems when we have enough here in our ghettos and rural America. These highly educated H1B workers, on the other hand, can and do contribute significantly to our economy on the aggregate. We should encourage it, whether through the H1B Visa or Greencards [preferred]. It helps them, and it helps us.
Re:Spam (Score:2)
I got one the other day. I called their 1-800 number. The telemarketer wouldn't even give me the name of a supervisor. He played it like he didn't even know what spam was. Other calls to the same place yielded the same results. They were obviously instructed what to do in cases like this. Obviously, not a very reputable outfit.
I can understand it, if I bought a book at barnesandnoble.com and get an advertisement in my email. But getting something from a forged email address, with a nonexistent address to remove oneself (or worse, one that works that gurantees you 10 times more spam), is unacceptable.
--
You read union literature, dont you? (Score:2)
Put it this way, while Nazi Germany had to organize a huge police state and hire and bribe thugs, the United States made use of virtually every able bodied man and women. You simply can't put a gun to someone's head to make them produce more to account for that shortfall, it simply doesn't work [in fact, it's been shown they produced less]. Sick and depressed people don't produce.
Simple mathematics. Even if they were lower paid [which they're not], they're less than 1/10th the workforce. They could only drive down wages for US workers so much. Anyways, the fact is they're not. IT salaries have only been consistently rising relative to inflation and other professional jobs.
You are so full of it. They're paid more than most people in IT. When all it said and done, the vast majority of America would still kill for their jobs.
No, I happen to have been involved in the high tech industry for years. I know many entreprenuers who are hurting for want of qualified technical workers [both IT and engineering].
No, you're the one who is full of shit. You don't know the first thing about running a company. No startup can afford the time and the resources to train someone who lacks 4+ years of advanced college education when they need a key project done today. What's more, turnover is a real issue for most of these companies. Employment law is most states is setup such that the employee can walk whenever he or she chooses [or rather, when that employee is offered another job]. So even assuming you could train the employee for 4 years, or whatever, you have absolutely no guarantee you'll reap the rewards. If anything, it is the company that trains the employee that is least capable of matching job offers. They poor half a million dollars per head down the drain, and now they've got to match an offer... Also, I'm sorry, but I'm skeptical if a 25 year old who's spent the last 10 years of his live watching MTV is going to be able to learn the requisite math skills that most college educated foreigners got before they even reached college age.
You know, it's funny, you so-called liberals demonstrate some of the most overt racism. You assume that because these people don't come from the United States, they're comparable to an unskilled/poorly payed Mexican worker. It's just BS. Most of these people are better educated than most of the IT workforce. What's more, they're far more aware of the United States than you give them credit for. I bet you that most of them know more about US politics than you yourself know, not to mention international politics. You think they don't talk to each other? Most of them communicate back home, they know full well the situation when they come here. Also, since H1Bs are in such high demand, there is a little thing called competition...perhaps you've heard of it. H1Bs are highly valuable, and there is lots of salary competition amongst employeers.
Anyways, your whole plug on Mexico indicates to me that this is misguided protectionism, not concern for them.
No, bullshit again. IT is growing overseas. More and more companies are farming IT out, but that's not even what i'm talking about. I'm talking about foreign companies or MNCs simply moving their entire R&D operation oversees. If anything, unlike manufacturing, IT is EASILY moved oversees. The only thing they need to export to the United States is code. Compare this with a manufacturing operation: An expensive manufacturing facility. Roads, wiring, etc have to be built too. Raw materials have to be acquired, which is much harder than you might think. You simply don't have a clue about this.
No, you're don't understand. The savings would not come so much in the form of direct savings in production costs; they already play a very minor role in the costs of a mainstream shrinkwrapped software package. What it will save, however, will be the initial outlay costs that discourage so many startups in this country. That would in turn encourage more competition. Competition could very easily cause prices to fall. The reason MS and company can charge the same prices while their costs remain relatively constant is because they can, they lack competition.
If anything, I fear the day when Europe and Asia get their capital markets in better order and start to remove some of the barriers to trade. That's been their primary inhibitor, not want to skilled and trained minds. Startups there can't find the capital that they need. Most of it is tied up by centralized banks or government. And if they do, they face all kinds of silly regulations.
I'm sorry, do you have a Phd in Economics? No? I didnt think so. There are plenty of highly respected economists who would disagree with you, but that's besides the point. This is not reagonomics in the least, and if you think it is, you don't understand diddly.
ISP Thoughts... (Score:1)
Re:Spam (Score:1)
Interesting. I agree with the last paragraph -- forged headers, non-existant remove addresses, etc. But, I take a completely different view of the first part -- it is a function of the time and effort required. There are no absolutes. I pick my battles, and something that wastes a few seconds of my time isn't worth the extra effort to spend thinking about it. For me it's a matter of the value of my time, not an absolute right-wrong issue.
Look at it this way. You probably wasted more time calling that 800-number and following up on all that (one incident) than you would have in deleting unwanted spam for a year.
Thanks for the response. It was insightful.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
Umm, last I looked it up, they crossed into the 21st century almost 20 hours before we did.
Dictatorships don't foster productivity, nor does socialism.
Then why do all the shoes, shirts, and consumer electronics in my house have little stickers that say "Made in China" ?
We're talking about 400k H1B visas in a much much larger industry. These "lower paid" employees, can only do so much to lower salaries.
They're slaves, goddamnit! The wages argument aside, these people are sponsored by that corporation, and then they OWN them - if they quit or are fired, they must return to their home country.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never itemized which companies I like and which ones I don't, so don't say that I have. I fault the system for this, and the citizens for not getting informed on the issues.
They're making much more money than most people in their respective countries. They're even making more money than most Americans. So don't act as if your concern is for them.
So we just wave money underneath their noses and it's then OK if they accept and we strip them of their civil rights? No, I don't think so. Either we do it right and give everyone in this country the same rights, or we don't let them in in the first place. It is an injustice regardless of whether they "want it" or not. Alot of people in Germany liked Hitler and followed him, that doesn't mean their rights weren't violated.
Even if salaries were the sole reason for this law [which it is not],
Clickity-click. You're new around here, aren't you? Everything is about money - this is a capitalist country. Our government is run by money, it collects money, everyone calls the working class "consumers", and people are more concerned about tax raises/cuts than they are about whether or not their local schools are properly funded. Hello? Politics = Money. It is a very simple equation and if you'd pull your head out of your arse and look around, you'd find this is a world run by money the money, for the money.
, it is obvious what your direction is...
Right, of course. The only bill on the list I couldn't find anything bad to say about and my position is "obvious". That's right, I have little to say on the issue.
Yeah, and the evidence of all the damage of regulation is where?
It's on my phone bill.
--
Re:Just call them what they are.. (Score:1)
Re:Let them all die (Score:2)
States losing money? (Score:2)
Re:"American Competitiveness in the 21st Century A (Score:2)
This is an excellent attempt at American bashing, but unfortunatly it is not true. This bill is a legitimate attempt to bring in more highly skilled IT workers. H-1B visas are designed for highly skilled workers, usually with special education and experience requirements. These workers usually go to the US from first world countries in order to get the jobs with the best pay and benfits.
Being from Canada, I would say the greatest problem with this bill is that with more spots open it will be easier to get into the US. This can lead to or increase the 'brain drain' in countries such as Canada and Austrailia. Whether this is a problem for these countries is yet to be seen, but like doctors, it can not be a good thing to have the top IT grads leaving the country.
Re:"American Competitiveness in the 21st Century A (Score:1)
That is, from what I've seen, very true. Most of the older computer scientists that I know have jobs teaching or researching. Companies seem to want cheap labour that can hack together the code, be paid the bare reasonable minimum and sent off again.Maybe that's why there's so many developers willing to go out on a limb and write Free Software?
Does anyone know what the hiring policies of places like VA Linux and RedHat are with regards to more experienced tech workers? (Not the stated policies, the ones that seem to be implied by their actions)
-RickHunter
Re:"American Competitiveness in the 21st Century A (Score:1)
I have to say, it's been my experience that a Brain-Drain is what Canada needs in the IT department; canadian companies need to learn IT costs money, after all, it does run their entire business.
-Me; president, MDS Networks (Small Business Solutions Providers)
Thanks, Hardlogic... (Score:4)
...for lifting that submission off my site [libertyboard.org] verbatim without crediting the person who wrote the words (aka me).
Not the world's biggest deal, but it would have been a nice gesture...
--
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
If you looked it up, you'd know it's about 20 hours before we WILL.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
Do you deny that you've said words to that effect that big corporations are evil?
Yes. That is a unilateral statement which, if I have ever said, was meant in general and not specific terms. Not all corporations are evil. Corporations are organizations of men, and if those men are of good moral character, they cannot be evil. It is only when the men of these corporations persue the dollar that they do harm to society.
That is your "evidence"?
Show me more than hot air and I might be inclined to believe you. For now, any link is sufficient because I know most people who argue with me are too slothful to actually go through the effort of backing up their claims.
No, it does not disagree with the fact that genuine deregulation has been shown to be a good thing.
Coulda fooled me.
a) The source is not exactly an unbiased ones, much of the content in there is conjecture and opinion, not hard statistics and facts.
There's alot more facts in that "conjecture and opinion" article than has been put forward in this entire thread.
b) Texas is only one state.
True, but they'd have you believe they're a seperate country. And even if it is a small sample, it is still beats the opposition's comments (that would be you), which to date have been nothing more than chest beating.
No matter what your opinion of deregulation, it is not reasonable to expect instant results.
This deregulation has been going on for several years. I've seen its impact, as have many other people. The deregulation started before the 'net was more than an idle curiosity and BBS' reigned supreme. If you shrink the time-frame enough, anyone can claim "nothing happened!" Look at the bigger picture here.
e) One of the key factors these companies look to if they're going to expand their networks and facilities is some basic assurances that the government won't turn around on them in another year or two and pull the carpet out from under them.
US West, now "QWest" in my area, has a 85 billion dollar market capitalization right now. I think they can divert a few thousand for contributinos to local politicians to keep this from happening.
No, you're not. You're going to sit around slashdot and poh poh everything that you deam "establishment", "corporatist", or what have you.
The "establishment" (that would be the government) created the internet. I'm not complaining. They created a police force which guards my house from criminals. I'm not complaining. The "establishment" is responsible for putting men on the moon and providing the funding for Hubble, arguably the biggest thing (excuse the pun) in astronomy right now. The establishment has contributed immeasurably to my quality of life. Corporations too, as they have provided me the clothes on my back, the food that I eat, even the keyboard that I type this to you now. I'm very selective about who I "poo-bah" as you put it.
I do, however, think your viewpoint is shared by the French. I dare you to look at what it's cost them.
If you could be more specific with what you are referring to (names of people, businesses, etc) it would assist me greatly.
--
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
Well I shouldn't really need to, since there is realms of empirical evidence showing the benefits of deregulation over the past 3 decades. If you studied economics even modestly, you'd be familiar with them. However, here is one link: The Economist on Deregulation [economist.com] They are arguably one of the most reasonable and respected sources on matters of this nature.
Oh really where? Ok they say there are X many companies in markets Y, Y, and Z. But very little discussion about the actual rate hikes. The only market that they bring up hard facts in, is in the worst market, pre-paid phone service. These tend to be the same people that have been proven to be uncredit worthy. Given the extent of previous regulation, it is more than likely that this just more reflective of the actual costs [though I think they're still capped].
No where is there any mention that bills have risen on the aggregate, nor do they deny that they've fallen.
See above.
See above.
Uh no. You obviously lack even the most basic comprehension of what market capitalization is. It does not mean the company has even 1/10 that in assets, never mind cash. Market capitalization is simply the markets current percieved value per share multiplied by the number of outstanding shares. 9/10th of the businesses on NASDAQ today would have to fold if they had to produce even 1/10 that figure, they simply don't have the cash flows.
That being said, I'm sure Qwest can spare a "few thousand", but it's got absolutely nothing to do with their market capitalization [well nothing concrete]. I'm also sure you'd be the first to criticize them if they found out they did such a thing. Hell, you probably assert that this deregulation thing is the direct result of their own lobbying, not the peoples. [Never mind the fact that MOST lobbied against it, because they had a monopoly before. The utilities have long been seen as being cash cows. That is changing today, because they now are facing competition.]
The French have consistently had some of the most socialized and protectionist politics in Europe, and they've had broad support at that. From labor, to high tarrifs, to protectionism, to excessive regulation.... They've been paying for it for a couple decades now. Just look. Now they're starting to make something of a turnaround, but it's no small coincidence that this is coming about in areas where they're converting to a more free market based system.
Re:Let them all die (Score:1)
A weak anti-spam act. Preempts state laws. No "ADV:" tag required. The DMA approves. Enough said.
Where does it say it preempts state laws? On the contrary, Sec 5(b)(3) says
That seems to explicitly allow existing state laws in addition to this one.
As for the "ADV:" tag, it was originally proposed in the infamous Murk bill that they use "advertisement:" in the subject. Notice that, even in adopting a bill that never left Congress as their guidelines, couldn't follow that properly. "ADV", "ADVERT", "AD", and all sorts of variations popped up. The HR.3113 does call for conspicuous and clear identification that the message is UCE, so I suspect the "industry" (ha!) will settle on some set of identifiers that will end up being filterable.
As far as the DMA goes, notice that they are really against the part of HR.3113 that allows ISPs to post enforcable "no-UCE" signs on their web pages. They hate that, and it appears that one might be able to convince a judge that a personal domain that provides services to other users as an ISP to use that enforcement clause.
I would have preferred the Smith bill, but this one is better than Murk.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
First, thank you for providing a link that requires a subscription to view. That will be ever so helpful to me. Not.
You do, however, exhibit an obvious bias against corporations, especially big ones.
No argument there. My contention is that this is a general statement, not one that is true for all businesses (large or small). I must object to anyone who would say that because I say something is generally true it is always true, it's stretching things just a tad!
Your claiming corporations are out to screw the little guy is no better than my claiming that Open Source advocates are just trying to create communism.
Well, actually, I'd say Open Source is a closer to being socialist ideal than a communist one. That aside, there's no single label one can use, but a combination of a meritocracy, alittle democracy, alittle anarchy, and alittle socialism all go into the mix. That being said, yes, I do believe the vast majority of large corporations got to be where they are by "screwing over the little guy". Economic darwinism, if you will... you only get more powerful if you are aggressive in this economy.
Well I shouldn't really need to, since there is realms of empirical evidence showing the benefits of deregulation over the past 3 decades. If you studied economics even modestly, you'd be familiar with them.
Well, I did study economics, actually. It was one of the first two courses I signed up for - Macroeconomics and Philosophy, a bad mix if you ask me. Anyway, that aside, any economics book will also talk to you about the fallacy of assuming that because Event A preceeded Event B, Event B was caused by Event A. Deregulation may improve things. Then again, it may not. Then again, modern economics only recently aquired a decent enough theoretical framework to start making good guesses about how things interoperate - 30 years ago they were still using symbols for "customer happiness", among other unmeasurable things. That aside, I've been living in a "deregulated" market for several years and have yet to see any improvement as a result. Infact, quite the opposite, my bill keeps going up.
You obviously lack even the most basic comprehension of what market capitalization is.
Ngggh, it was the first stat I found on their website, give me some credit. My point is they can spare a few bucks to bribe, er, persuade the politicians to see things their way. The Minnesota PUC is wrapped around the finger of their local encumbant, one QWest - just try filing a complaint and see what the reply will be. Static on the lines? Must be RFI, go bug the FCC. Getting crossover? Nothing we can do about it! Prices went up again? Hey, not our department. Ngggh, very useful, those fellows. Sorry, getting alittle offtopic...
The utilities have long been seen as being cash cows. That is changing today, because they now are facing competition.
I can't speak for the entire country, but up here in the Minneapolis / St. Paul area (aka the Twin Cities) there are only two incumbent providers to choose from - QWest and Sprint. The CLECs here are mainly for businesses. Sure, they do residential lines, but even those are specialized - xDSL, dry lines (for security circuits), etc. It just occurred to me, why the hell are we arguing about deregulation? The point of my original post was to underscore that H1B workers are being foisted onto the tech industry because companies don't want to pay the high rates that techs currently make around here...
The French have consistently had some of the most socialized and protectionist politics in Europe, and they've had broad support at that.
Well, that has less to do with their government than the fact that they were involved in a war that completely destroyed the infrastructure of their entire country, and in the past 10 years have they started to move forward again. I think it might have had something to do with that Hitler fellow I mentioned earlier.
~ Signal 11
--
Re:I'm no libertarian. (Score:2)
Who said anything about asking them to produce? I may be misinterpreting, but this sentence seriously makes me worry that you are no longer even able to distinguish between increased GNP and improved human rights.
Please do tell.
I was held in jail in DC for 5 days after crossing police lines april 17th. My own experience is a very complicated, multifaceted issue and there's not space to discuss it here. The (IMO indisputable) fact that the US has political prisoners was off-topic; my main point was that I have first-hand experience of how much of a positive difference active outside scrutiny can make to the treatment of those in custody. (Also, the jail authorities, who were under a court-order and threats of economic sanctions due to abuses in the late 80's, were much more responsive to such outside pressure than the US Marshals, who personally threatened to beat me up.)
What have your attentive eyes done for the Chinese thus far?
From amnesty [amnesty.org]: "the serious deterioration in human rights called into question the authorities' sincerity in signing key human rights conventions in the previous two years. It also represented a serious setback for the policy of dialogue on human rights pursued by some governments."
It seems to me that the level of public scrutiny in the US was higher in 97-98 than in 99, and that that's correlated with the setbacks amnesty noted. It also seems to me obvious that without the "hook" of the yearly congressional debate the US media will report on China's human rights moves even less. I do not advocate long term trade sanctions; however I think that short-term (with absolute time-limits no longer than 6 months), minor sanctions for serious human rights backsliding (as opposed to continuing situations) are a promising tool which has not been tried. PNTR makes that impossible.
If it were my choice I'd give them all green cards. However, it's not my choice. Nor is it these corporations' choice.
Poor, poor corporations: political realities force them into taking indentured servants.
C'mon, now. I might accept the argument that green cards are politically unrealistic, that H1B's are all we can ask for. But I don't think it's any slander on corporations to say that they're in it for the money. Unless citizens stand up for what's right, any corporation in existence would rather allow H1B visas (or, in some parallel universe where citizens' sense of what's right has degraded even further, outright slavery) than green cards. That's what corporations do; that's their job; and that's why it's our job to hold their feet to the fire.
Re:ISP Thoughts... (Score:2)
Re:How to Lobby Politicians (Score:2)
Don't worry about it. As long as it's for a good cause, and your page is not full of banner it's all welcome.
(Mostly) Good bills - show your support! (Score:2)
Now, while it's important to write your congressperson when a bad bill is approaching, I think we should also write showing our support of these bills. At worst you might get ignored, but given how much negative push we give the lawmakers, writing lettings that let them know that us, the consumers and users of the internet, are strongly in favor of said bills is very important.
Just call them what they are.. (Score:2)
The Businesses Own Everything Act of 2000
The Screw Your Privacy Act of 1999
I Know What You Bought Last Summer Act of 2000
Protection of Children From RealWorld Act of 2001
...
--
How about repealing the DMCA? (Score:1)
I think that media standards should be free. Standardized, but free. That way, we can view/listen to media on whatever we want (or however we can). I'd love to see the first Windows DVD player based on DeCSS (come on, someone take a risk, then print the source code of THAT on t-shirts and make a song of the source code!)
Personally, I think that Sony wants to turn the children of America into this. [comedycentral.com] IMHBNNHO (In my honest but not necessarily humble opinion), Sony is the epitome of why we should perhaps start another war against Japan. This time, we take back the sanity, money and livelihood that have been stolen from us by Sony Comsumer Electronics , Pokémon, and the many animé houses in Japan. To quote from that song by The Vapors, "Turning Japanese I think I'm turning Japanese I really think so!" The only Japanese company I really like is Kawasaki; I thank them for making those double-decker train cars which get us lemmings into Boston every morning!
My hero (Score:1)
Troy would be proud!
"American Competitiveness in the 21st Century Act" (Score:5)
The name of this one sent up my bullshit alarm right away.
From the article:
" One of the most pressing problems facing the Internet is the shortage of high-skilled workers. And since those workers can be found abroad, many high-tech companies are desperate to see Congress pass legislation that issues more special permits,or H-1B visas, so they can bring those workers to the United States. "
This a huuuuge load of BS. American companies want cheap labor to bring over indenured servants who spend 14 hours a day in their cubicle pounding it out for the man. Sacraficing their one and only youth in order not to be deported.
There is no IT labor shortage. There's a lack of cheap IT labor.
Bill to pass (Score:3)
Why they aren't that good (Score:2)
China has a nasty habit of starting up bulldozers and mowing down people who think freely. Why are we, a allegedly democratic part-of-the-free-world country supporting this?
American Competitiveness...- fuck-them-over act? There is no shortage of tech workers. There's a shortage of tech workers who'll work 60 hour workweeks for pisspoor wages. Geeks need to unionize
Oh, you mean the we're-paying-those-bastard-techs-too-much-so-lets
Internet Nondiscrimination Act
Oh, who cares if they don't legislate federal taxes on the 'net this year? The states are already doing it. I guess this *might* be an OK bill, watch for riders to be inserted at the last minute
Broadband something-something act
Steal from both Paul and Peter and deploy high speed internet, then the government "deregulates" and they jack up their prices. So we get a double-whammy - we pay increased taxes (and taxes never go DOWN) to deploy net access in an area not fit to support it and then the people who are in that area, due to having little/no competition have their prices jacked through the roof. Joy!
UCE Act /dev/null, and in a week or two, trash the domain and sell it on the "Network Solutions Auction Block" and go buy another. Yeah! Go congress.
Woo-hoo, let's just make it so people who send UCE have to have a valid e-mail addy. That'll, uhh, do nothing - domain names cost, what, $10 bucks now? Just use one up, direct the flames to
--
Re:link errata (Score:1)
Decent Bills (Score:1)
It just seems like a lot of laws are passed just so the congressmen can say that they are aware of the technology and doing something about it.
Thats enough big gov rant for a Sat. morning
Re:"American Competitiveness in the 21st Century A (Score:2)
--
Re:Why they aren't that good (Score:4)
PNTR China Act - China has a nasty habit of starting up bulldozers and mowing down people who think freely. Why are we, a allegedly democratic part-of-the-free-world country supporting this?
Trade with the Chinese offers a much better hope of improving the human rights situation there than does economic isolation. The Soviet Union fell in large part because of the citizens' exposure to Western films and music. As trashy as our entertainment may be, it showed them that they don't *have* to live under poverty and oppression.
Also consider that trade between nations strongly improves relations between the countries, and drastically reduces the chances of the two countries being involved in armed conflict against each other. Countries who depend upon each other are less likely to bomb each other. It may be cheesy to repeat this, but no two countries that have a McDonald's have ever been at war.
I'd rather have China as a trading partner than an enemy.
--
Anti-Spam bill (Score:3)
Let me take an important clip here:
2) The term ''telephone facsimile machine'' means equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images, or both, from paper into an electronic signal and to transmit that signal over a regular telephone line, or (B) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper.
As far as I can figure from reading the act, that's basicly the only section that would need to be changed. I think it would just need to expressly say computers and/or any electronic form of communication. Also kill off that 'regular telephone lines' and
If anyone read this act, what are your opinions in just shaping that to make spam illegal...Now.. Not in 5 years.
Hell, I'd like to sue the sender for 500$ per transmission. The only part I really don't care for, is you need to tell them to stop sending the stuff to you. Faxing, that could be pretty easy, but ususally sending a 'remove' to a spammer magicly gets you on a 100 more lists. I'm pretty sure some bright people (Note, I didn't say politicions. I think they lack that 'bright' edge..=]) could come up with a wording that would make email users happy, and spammers scared.
Then again, in this day in age where everyone sues a company making a product, not the person mis-using it. Maybe we should just sue the people who make mass-mailing programs? =]
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
>moves into the 21st century, the government and
>the people will have to change. Dictatorships
>don't foster productivity, nor does socialism.
Bullshit. Complete, utter bullshit. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany were among the most productive nations in the history of humanity, and look at their human rights record. Modern China is no different.
A simple way to see whether or not US politicians are listening to humans rights crusaders or to their stockbrokers is whether or not they would treat China exactly the same as they have treated other states with questionable human rights records (Read: ass-reaming their own citizens so their leaders stay in power.). Oh, sorry, I forgot. China has a billion potential consumers of foreign goods. How convenient to claim that selling them more crap is going to bring about democracy. Maybe we should try that out on a smaller nation, such as Cuba, before tackling big China, hmm? What'll it be, folks, human rights or dollars?
Internet Nondiscrimination Act? (Score:3)
How to Lobby Politicians (Score:1)
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
As for China, I have been looking for some time. Evidently, I'm looking harder than you, for I can see past the occasional crackdown [not saying this is the only issue, but it is the one most frequently raised] on various social groups in China and recognize a broader trend. If anything, I see these reports of oppression being as evidence that things really are changing socially [though not as fast as some would like]--they're growing pains--no matter how inhumane they are. What we are seeing is a growing conflict between liberal/western ideas and an increasingly embattled conservative/socialist wing. Years before China wouldn't have even seen the profileration of groups like Falun Gong. Never mind an active protest against the government. If they hadn't liberalized their own media to some degree and allowed western media increased access to China we certainly would have never heard of these protests.
China's problem is that they can't very well contain social unrest and compete globally. They will need to continue down their path, that of increased liberalization. Despite your assertions, it takes more than slavery to compete against the United States. Sure, they can perform some basic manufacturing and agricultural functions, but modern economics involves a lot more than that.
PS: I don't profit from China's globalization one cent, yet I believe firmly in sensible globalization. In fact, I bet you that within the next 10 to 15 years that China becomes a major economic player, on par with Japan in the 80s, with vastly improved social justice to boot.
Re:Interesting point... (Score:2)
He's extremely hardcore about following the Constitution to the letter, and refuses to endorse any federal legislation that isn't authorized by the Constitution, which says that all powers not explicitly granted to the federal government are reserved for the individual states and/or the people.
He was the lone No vote on a bill authorizing a gold medal for the Pope... and wrote a letter to the Pope explaining that he didn't vote against it because he didn't think the Pope deserved it, but because it was not an expenditure authorized by the Constitution. The Pope wrote him a nice letter back saying he understood his reasoning and appreciated his letter.
Paul sometimes ticks people off by going against the grain, but I for one am glad to have him in Congress. The rest of our legislators pay almost no attention to the Constitution anymore. It carries very little weight whatsoever these days, and I think it's a damn shame.
His web site is at http://www.house.gov/paul/.
Check out some of his sponsored legislation, speeches and weekly columns and you'll get a better idea of why he votes the way he does. You'll also find that he is a tireless defender of privacy and free speech, and often speaks out against the War on Drugs.
--
Re:Thanks, Hardlogic... (Score:2)
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
For one, we still import significantly more from the rest of Asia than we do from China. Secondly, virtually none of those industries are run under their traditional socialist enterprise system. Quite the contrary, they're the result of foreign investments and/or entreprenerial efforts that the government is trying to foster. Thirdly, Chinese labor is cheaper than it is in the United States. But before you go, "Ah Hah", that is only because the United States passed out of that stage long ago. We are still economically light years ahead of China. It is still in China's ultimate best interest to follow our lead. Thus, they will have to abandon their old ways if they wish to progress--the people will demand it.
Right "slaves", who would rather stay where they are then go back to where they were. Highly paid "slaves" nonetheless. Are you going to tell me that the H1B worker is too stupid to recognize his supposedly worse situation? It's just ridiculous. Claim it has a negative impact on you if you want. Claim it's less ideal that a Green Card. But don't claim your interest is them, it simply doesn't compute.
Hah, I don't have to put words in your mouth. You open it up every 5 minutes 24 hours a day, 7 days a week here on slashdot. I've heard your position on virtually everything on slashdot more than I care to admit.
Yes, bring Hitler into the argument, maybe that'll scare me away. If I persist, maybe you can even compare me with Hitler....Hitler's supporters were generally not his victims, and they certainly were not active supporters at the time of their victimization. Compare this with H1Bs: They can vote with their feet whenever they want, and even get reimbursed for their troubles.
The reason H1B visas are necessary in the first place is because the immigration system is so messed up in this country. We have far and away the most liberal policies overall of any developed nation in the world. Here we tend to admit only the most persecuted and backwards people; this hardly helps business. Business isn't lobbying against citizenship; it's lobbying for qualified employees. Unfortunately, the only way they can get them is with this less than optimal solution.
And your point is? Why don't you try addressing my arguments directly.
Hah, well it aint on most people's. Perhaps you should try moving to France or something, they seem to be much more inline with your politics.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
So, when you are having an argument with someone and the other person backs up his view with a URL, it is not acceptable unless subscription is not required.
Any other preferences? Should the Web Server be running Debian GNU/Linux or FreeBSD? Does it *have* to be Apache too?
thank you
Re:I'm no libertarian. (Score:2)
Likewise, this makes me worry if your head is in the right place. It sounds to me more like you violated some law, and the police called you on it. 5 days? That hardly makes you a political prisoner.
Dialogue? Hah. You should know that trade is the only card we have to play. You can scream at them all you want, but that doesn't change anything.
What's more, I assert that the "changes" amnesty reports are more indicitive of liberalization, both in regards to media access and the approach towards the average citizen. A large number of social movements have spread across China (i.e., Falun Gung) due to increased freedom of movement and things like the internet. The media plays a role in the fact that these organizations and students feel they've got some chance at publicity, which they would have never had before. In addition, the increased media access naturally makes any and all crackdowns vastly more visible.
This is not to say that the government's action is good by any means [or even excusable], but rather that it is probable that it is merely symptomatic of change for the better. For instance, how much do you think foreigners would have heard of human rights abuses in the United States while slavery was still common place? How much after it was illegalized and with the growth of the civil rights movement? How many violent protests and interactions did was have then? In general, many more. Yet you'd be hard pressed to say things were worse.
In addition, though many people may find this hard to accept, I assert that many Chinese in fact have far greater concerns than their ability to speak out against the government, or what have you. I could see being lifted out of poverty and enjoying more day to day freedoms as being first and foremost on the average Chinese's citizens mind. To this end, increased international trade presents real opportunity for them.
Yeah, poor poor corporations that seem to employ most of this country. And poor corporations in need of help with the potential to improve the situation for both the H1B worker and the US economy on the aggregate.
That's exactly my position. We can't get green cards, but some H1Bs are still far better than none at all.
Though I could argue this, did you ever consider the possibility that the companies benefit by simply having the most talented workers possible at more than fair wages?
Ok this is really an academic argument, but one point i'd like to make is, that, "you" (those who argue against H1Bs) aren't generally the same one lobbying for green cards for them. In fact, on the flip side of your token, I'd say it's generally misguided protectionism--greed on the part of the concerned domestic IT worker. Just because there is concern, doesn't mean it's any more right than the corporations.
You can speak out against it, but remember that there are a lot more voters out there than just yourself. Voters that want to see more than just "FUD", if you will.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
My response to your insightful comment is in the the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard.'
--
Dead end (Score:2)
Suffice it to say that I disagree with almost everything you said and find the illogical extremes of your faith in progress laughable, and can back it up with an argument on purely logical, nonideological grounds.
Except when you say that corporations often act in the public interest (employing people, lobbying for H1B visas). Yes, corporations do a huge amount of good, and versus the current situation more H1B's is good. Yet their interests (more H1B's) are not identical to the public interest (more green cards). Even when the two lie in the same direction, it's important not to forget that, as your earlier statement that "H1B's are all that corporations can acheive" clearly did.
Re:Dead end (Score:2)
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
Economics was hardly revolutionized 30 years ago. In any event, the best part of economics, that of studying cause and effect (or correlation if you will), has been around since day 1. Though you might be able to always argue to some extent that deregulation's apparent benefit is just random chance in every instant, you could also argue that for hundreds of other well established principles. Hell, there is even a lady in San Francisco that claims HIV doesn't cause AIDS.
Well your experience runs contrary to the bulk of the evidence. You could easily be in one of those markets were they were previously operating above cost. I can tell you for sure that both the UK and the state of PA, for instance, have saved billions (individually) in power savings. There is quite a difference between the two statements.
Well besides the fact that even bringing it up indicates a little ignorance, I'd still assert it's just plain stupid to bring up. It'd be like my claiming the Chinese are happy people because I saw a picture some Chinese market the other day and people were smiling. Sure, you can always argue there is a correlation between an instant of someone smiling and the rest of the population being happy, but that doesn't make it a particularly relevent fact.
In any event, partial deregulation != deregulation, so check out your state's laws.
Well financially speaking, I can tell you that most of the deregulated utilities have taken a beating. Before deregulation, when most had a monopoly, most investors could count on a very safe 10% return, no longer....
What is the "that" that you refer to? The consequences? Or the politics? In any event, the French have been flirting with such politics for at least a century now. As for the "consequences", I'd argue that the UK actually took as great of an economic hit, and they're light years ahead of France economically now. Similarly, West Germany was devasted by WWII [probably the worst], and they've totally outperformed the French. Or even the Japanese....When you hear of the extent of French regulation it really is no wonder why they've fallen behind. Simiarly, as some of those barriers have come down, dramatic benefits have been had in those same areas.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
User #7608: Umm, last I looked it up, they crossed into the 21st century almost 20 hours before we did.
As much as I'd like to see you two flame each other to death, I feel compelled to let you know that the 21st century begins January 1, 2001.
Good day.
Re:Right on! (Score:1)
"Shortage of high-tech workers" (Score:2)
Why? It's not that she's not qualified. It's that she's 41, black, female, and has some experience. A former coworker of mine is also in her forties, and she also had trouble finding work.. and when she did, it was at an extrememly low salary.
A shortage of high-tech workers??!! Hardly!!! There is a shortage of inexperienced college graduates who they can hire for $20,000 a year and burn out.. to be replaced by another disposable employee.
Get out there and beat the bushes (Score:3)
The bill regarding H1-B visas is likely to be the trickiest to pass, and not only because of the silly additional rider that the Dems seem to want to tack onto it. There is obviously a sore lack of IT professionals in many places in the US (notably in the Washington DC area, of all places) and they need to be filled. We can debate about the merits of training new professionals and focusing high school students on these careers, but that doesn't fix the problem now. this bill won't fix it either, but it does give companies another tool with which to do so.
One of the more interesting asides about these bills regard the moratorium in internet taxes. the story states that states are "losing" money on taxes. This strikes me as funy because that money doesn't belong to the state, and never did. they aren't actually losing anything. I'm a great advocate on lowering our taxes and I think this bill is only good for the internet in general, and consumers and businesses. It's the kind of free and unrestricted trade that's really necessary, not only between the US and other countries, but between states.
The broadband bills may well become interesting, especially if the Tauzin bill becomes the one that will likely pass. As is happening more and more, markets are opening in for varieties of internet service providers, though only a few companies actually control the hardware that gets to consumers (telephone lines, cable lines, etc.). This could get interesting if the owners of these lines (right now, the phone companies) decide to take a stand on having first shot at the market ebcause they own the lines. Other companies are likely to cry foul, much like as happened with long-distance telephone service. This could shape who is available to provide broadband service, and how much it will cost in most areas. The Moynahan bill is unnessecary, IMO, because business really don't ned government incentives to get into the broadband business. there are quite a few chomping at the bit to do so already, and the government really does need to stay out of it as much as possible, again IMO.
My biggest problem is with the bill estending permament MFN status to China. We've had many problems with them, on human rights issues, trade and business issues, and, most lately, their walking away with nuclear secrets issues. It seems strange to me that we'd be willing to throw them this large a bone even though they've basically thumbed their noses at us through each issue we've had with them. I more favor a tough stand against them. The US is capable of backing up its talk, when it wants to, and now should be one of those times.
The upshot of all of this is that it's imperative, whether you support or oppose these measures, that you make your opinions well known to your representatives. Call them, write letters, and make your voice heard. it's the only way to ensure that you matter to them.
Knee jerk libertarian? (Score:2)
I'm going to assume, perhaps unfairly, that you're a standard ESR type of techno-libertarian; that's certainly consistent with your post. If so, you value your right to bear arms. Because you want to shoot jack-booted federal agents? No, because you want them to know you could if they did something bad enough. Same principle with PNTR with China. They have a demonstrated contempt for human rights. A yearly ritual which focuses attention on their record is a concrete protection for their dissidents.
The invisible hand may or may not be good for human rights; as someone who's been a political prisoner right here in the US, I'd rather rely on attentive eyes.
In short, protectionism has been proven to be economically damaging for all.
H1B visas are protectionist. If I quit my job, I don't get thrown out of the country; why should that be the situation for my co-worker? Increase green cards for skilled workers, don't shackle them with H1B visas.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
Really, Hitler was a dictator, and was /very/ productive by economic standards.
We're talking about 400k H1B visas in a much much larger industry. These "lower paid" employees, can only do so much to lower salaries
Define "so much", bringing in lower paid employees is something most companies are quite open about doing.
Legally employeers can't pay H1B employees less
Difficult to prove at best, they /can/ train them without nearly as much risk of the employee leaving, they can also demand much more out of these employees. End result is still about money.
There is a shortage of QUALIFIED high tech works
Hunh? Where the hell do you get that? Do you write adds looking for 8 years of java and 3 years of W2K experience for a HR dept somewhere?
Despite popular slashdot opinion, some products require a few very hardworking employees, you can't merely hire 3 employees for every 1
No, but you can train your own people. Novel concept I understand. Sometimes they even get treated right after being trained and stick around
So don't act as if your concern is for them.
Where did you get that? Yes, people should be concerned about importing cheap labor into an industry. Ask anyone in the trucking business about what has happened now that the use of labor from Mexico is now widespread. You'll get an earfull at the least. Many truckers have had to leave their profession because they can't make enough to pay their mortgage.
If we can't get the right kind of employee in the US, high-tech is going to have to move overseas.
That or companies might start to train and hire their own people. Companies have often learned at painful expense that IT can't be farmed out like manufactoring labor can.
Even if salaries were the sole reason for this law [which it is not], it could still be highly beneficial to US citizens on the aggregate. If companies only had to pay half as much to develop a product, the barriers to entry would be lowered.
Do you honestly think that you could get your next version of Autocad any cheaper if development costs go down? This is the same kind of empty arguement that says Draconian return policies ensure cheaper prices. This would never be passed onto anyone other than the stockholders. Reagonomics doesn't work for the overwhelming majority of the populace.
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
That is your "evidence"? It doesn't even hint that H1B workers can't just leave. What's more, it is a 3rd person account of what doesn't sound to be much more than a couple of anecdotal accounts. You can find a link to say anything you want online, that doesn't mean it is accurate or respectable.
No, it does not disagree with the fact that genuine deregulation has been shown to be a good thing. A couple problems with your drawing conclusions from this article:
a) The source is not exactly an unbiased ones, much of the content in there is conjecture and opinion, not hard statistics and facts.
b) Texas is only one state.
c) The telephone industry is still only partially deregulated. One key area where it is still regulated, is that the federal and state governments effectively force the telecos to provide service to very rural areas at well below their actual incremental costs. Instead, they forced to pass the costs onto consumers who can and will pay. i.e., metropolitan users, businesses, etc.
d) The telecos have long been one of the most protected industries in the country. No matter what your opinion of deregulation, it is not reasonable to expect instant results. Sometimes the ride will be a little bumpy, that is life.
e) One of the key factors these companies look to if they're going to expand their networks and facilities is some basic assurances that the government won't turn around on them in another year or two and pull the carpet out from under them. Unfortunately, the government is rarely ever willing to provide such assurances, and some have even flirted with the idea re-regulation.
f) You're comparing the APPARENT costs before "deregulation" to the nearer-to-actual costs of today. Sure, the actual costs might be tougher on some people, but I frankly don't have much of a problem with that. It is the cost on the aggregate and over the long run that I am primarily concerned about. If someone wants to live in Bumblefuck Alaska, they're more than entitled to, but that doesn't mean that the rest of society should have to bear the cost of their fiber optic internet connection installation.
Or put more accurately, politicians long ago decided that communities should not have to bear the actual costs of their services (i.e., electricity, telephone, and water). Put another way, just because the true costs are coming to light now does not mean that competition is the cause of it.
No, you're not. You're going to sit around slashdot and poh poh everything that you deam "establishment", "corporatist", or what have you. In any event, I'm not telling you to "leave". I frankly don't care what you do. I do, however, think your viewpoint is shared by the French. I dare you to look at what it's cost them.
So try these tips: (Score:2)
- Make sure that it still looks good when you delete all <table> and related tags. A left-navigated (like PinEight.com [8m.com]) or right-navigated (like BSI's Everything2 [everything2.com]) two-column layout works nicely.
- Make sure that it still looks good when you remove the
/images directory (or whatever your site uses for its graphics).
- Make sure it doesn't require ECMAScript (the language formerly known as Java®Script) or Java® applets.
- Most recent text browsers handle client-side imagemaps properly (given good alt= text) but there is a patch [umanitoba.ca] to make server-side image maps work on any browser.
- Test your work on as many browsers as you can find, even telnet to port 80
:-)
Now go make your sites accessible.And most importantly:
<O
( \
XGNOME vs. KDE: the game! [8m.com]
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:1)
Living in San Diego, where the price jump is something like 200-300% for electricity, I can say this does suck big time. Companies (Small ones) are really getting hit hard.
_However_ deregulation (IMHO) has not cause the jump. If you haven't heard we also have a big shortage. On a hot day theres the threat of a rolling blackout, where power is cut to neighborhoods because there is none left.
Why is their a shortage? Regulation forced prices low, no incentive to build, no energy. No we are paying the consequences of having had a non-free market. They will be a (very unfortunate) readjustment period, but after that the region will be strong.
Deregulation is not the root problem of CA's power problems, and there is no reason to believe it would hurt in this case either.
Re:Let them all die (Score:2)
Well, because of immigration politics, the other choice isn't letting them in permanently, but not letting them in at all. At least somebody who gets in with an H-1B can get permanent status later. Since no developed country is producing sufficient competent IT workers anyway, it makes more sense to get them here.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Re:Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
Let people make their own decisions.
Steven E. Ehrbar
Interesting point... (Score:2)
Let them all die (Score:3)
Every year, Congress has to decide if China gets "most-favored nation" treatment for trade purposes. Unfortunately, most years China is doing something obnoxious, oppressive, or both, and there's a big fight in Congress over renewal. This bill means the US gives up on nagging China about its lousy human-rights record.
This is the "200,000 more H-1 visas with the indentured servitude feature" that the less-responsible part of the high-tech industry wants. Terrible idea. Allowing those people in as permanent residents would be better; then they could change jobs. On an H-1 visa, you can't quit and stay in the U.S. Drives wages down.
A giveaway for telcos that don't want to deal with competition in local toll calls. The DSL thing is in there just to make it look like there's some public benefit.
A weak anti-spam act. Preempts state laws. No "ADV:" tag required. The DMA approves. Enough said.
Ok, I'll bite. (Score:2)
Please, what an unfounded pile of crap.
a) We're talking about 400k H1B visas in a much much larger industry. These "lower paid" employees, can only do so much to lower salaries.
b) Legally employeers can't pay H1B employees less.
c) Empirically they're earning more, not less.
d) High-tech workers are hardly starving. Their salaries have grown more rapidly than virtually any other industry, despite the presence of this program.
e) There is a shortage of QUALIFIED high tech works. The vast majority of the H1B workers are very much qualified, we're really talking about the upper rung of jobs. And yes, they're willing to work hard, is that so evil? Despite popular slashdot opinion, some products require a few very hardworking employees, you can't merely hire 3 employees for every 1.
f) They're making much more money than most people in their respective countries. They're even making more money than most Americans. So don't act as if your concern is for them.
g) Competition is becoming global whether you like it or not. If we can't get the right kind of employee in the US, high-tech is going to have to move overseas.
h) Proportionately speaking the costs of hiring qualified people is a small part of the costs of the large companies that you like to villify. The companies that it most effects are the startups, that desperately need qualified people. Yes, the salaries are something of a concern, but more from a cash flow perspective. i.e., they can't afford to spend 20 million dollars before they even have a product on the market.....
i) Even if salaries were the sole reason for this law [which it is not], it could still be highly beneficial to US citizens on the aggregate. If companies only had to pay half as much to develop a product, the barriers to entry would be lowered. More companies would be founded. More companies mean more jobs of all sorts. More companies mean more competition too, which means consumers might enjoy better products.
In short, protectionism has been proven to be economically damaging for all. We as a country has steered away from this more than most others, and we've also enjoyed some of the fruits. It'd be a shame if we started cloning the French [who incidentally, have only enjoyed cooresponding improvements as they have turned away]
Why is it wrong for tax differentials to NOT sway a consumer's purchasing decision? Companies should compete on what they can bring to the table, not on what the government doles out to them. Though this is not the intent of the bill, it is obvious what your direction is...
Yeah, and the evidence of all the damage of regulation is where? On the aggregate, deregulation has been a very good thing. With the exception of California, most authorities that have deregulated have enjoyed significant savings. I haven't viewed this particular bill, but it seems to me as if a offhand response to an offhand response is only fitting.
Re:Get out there and beat the bushes (Score:2)
It's a matter of semantics: due to the tax moratorium the amount of revenue that states draw from sales taxes is falling (in many cases precipitously) but the states' residents aren't buying less. In that sense, the states _are_ losing money.
Don't get me wrong, I rage at the unconscionably high tax burden paid here (cue a European poster to sneer at typical American whining about taxes) but in my experience, the closer the taxing authority is to the voters the less likely it is to spend your money -- and it IS your money -- recklessly. Sure, some of the money collected by the state is wasted or spent in a manner that you'd not prefer, but a lot of it is spent maintaining bridges, roads, schools, environmental protection, social services and a host of things the Feds also kick in for -- and it's spent in your backyard.
Stop Congress from Hiking Your ISP Bill (Score:2)