Comment Re:It's the same old lies from these H1B advocates (Score 1) 612
Not true? http://www.commondreams.org/vi...
Not true? http://www.commondreams.org/vi...
I'd suggest you learn about the legal issues before calling BS.
Trust me, I understand that. I'm married to a double MBA, and am a manager at a large corporation myself.
Morality at the business level typically depends on several things.
Is the company publicly owned?...If so, their morality is only dictated by laws and regulations, other than that, they have an obligation to their shareholders to make as much ROI as possible. Obviously, market forces (news, and consumers) can drive them toward doing more morally acceptable things, but they're typically only doing so because it's driving profits...they don't want bad PR.
Privately owned businesses can be driven in any direction their owners please, within legal bounds. My dad owned a small business...morality at that level is more of a personal style issue. Can I run my business, make a reasonable profit, and still not be an asshole to my employees...."reasonable" being in the eye of the beholder/owner.
And without corporations there are no jobs. You're still failing to see that it's not just about customers. You can have plenty of customers and demand, and still have no jobs.
Yes, it is legal, because severance is not an entitlement. Companies have no legal obligation to provide severance pay.
Note: IANAL, but found references to this.
That doesn't meant that the replacements can't do it better.
Clearly, if the H1Bs needed training, then they weren't qualified in the first place.
So, it's not the businesses that are to blame. It's the laws that permits them.
I don't disagree with your statement, just the lack of morality of those pushing for more H1Bs. For the record, I'm generally fiscally conservative, but this shit must be stopped.
If you're going to bring history into the discussion, at least don't claim corporations were invented here. There's a long history of them prior to the United States.
No, customers create the potential, or demand, for jobs to be created. Now, someone can create a company, and jobs, w/o potential and fail...there's no market. And, of course, they can fail for many other reasons. So, there's an equation to be had here for a job to be worth a shit, and yes the customers are part of it, but your statement fails to include the corporation which does in fact create the job.
You have zero understanding of the word libertarian.
Does this mean that my new inflatable doll is going to show up at the office, or church, if I happen to be there at the time of delivery?
And yes, I know the answer, but it would be fun to see someone having to explain their way out of that.
It would be if he could access a cell tower, which he couldn't down there.
While I'm in basic agreement with you, I draw the line at an age where the woman takes her teeth out and puts them in a glass. Though, that could be interesting as well.
For those who've read the link, note that Bill complained that they'd only made the equivalent of $2/hr. Just for reference purposes, minimum wage back then was $2.00 an hour in 1974, $2.10 in 1975, and $2.30 in 1976. Should they have made more?...debatable. This was essentially a start up operation (many never become profitable), and initial product development costs are often written off. In that brave new world, before EULAs, nobody bought untried stuff like this.
A snake doesn't turn into a bunny just because time has past.
Don't panic.
