Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re: looser immigration laws (Score 1) 303

by miroku000 (#46449725) Attached to: Google Chairman on WhatsApp: $19 Bn For 50 People? Good For Them!

But what is this job that used to pay $80k - $100k exactly and has now dropped to $40k? It's certainly not software development because wages there have not declined - on the contrary, they've been increasing. Why are you certain the H1-B hires are the reason the average salary has dropped? Another thing I've pointed out previously is that the number of H1-B hires isn't even large enough to have much of an impact on any particular field - they're still a vast minority relative to the numbers in most fields in general.

The wages of tech workers are less than pre-recession levels and are increasing at a rate lower than inflation. http://www.motherjones.com/pol...

So sure, maybe you do work at one of the companies that does bring in cheap overseas hires, but my point remains that all the big boys are not doing this. The big tech companies are all paying well above the average. I can't find the site I used last time I looked into this as it had more uptodate data, this one only goes to 2010, but if you find such a site with more recent data you'll see it's the exact same pattern.

The big boys are definitely hiring the most H1B visas. Whether or not that is driving down their wages is debatable. The top requester of H1B visas is Microsoft. http://www.geekwire.com/2012/4... . Intel, IBM and Oracle are also high on the list. (Yeah, I know, that list is a bit dated, but you get the point.) Actually, the largest recipients of H1B visas may be firms specializing in off-shoring jobs. They bring people over here to learn the jobs and then they can do the work from India or wherever after the visa expires. Apparently, these kind of companies got 40,000 out of the 85,000 visas that were issued in 2012. http://www.npr.org/blogs/allte...

Comment: Re:Labor rates have to be competitive to get work (Score 1) 303

by miroku000 (#46449399) Attached to: Google Chairman on WhatsApp: $19 Bn For 50 People? Good For Them!

Bullshit it's "well-established". What you are talking about is essentially a subsidy to labor by limiting the size of the labor pool. Limit supply and prices for the labor and every product that labor produces has to rise. Make labor cost more and you will pay more for the results of that labor. What you are forgetting is that we are in a GLOBAL economy. There are very few unskilled jobs that cannot be done elsewhere. Limit the supply of labor in the domestic market and much of that production will migrate elsewhere. If labor costs are too high relative to those available elsewhere then labor-intensive work will migrate to areas with lower labor costs like osmosis. Try to stop it and you will only drive prices higher and hurt the economy in the long run.

This is probably true for factory workers. It is not necessarily true when it comes to jobs like construction, maids in hotels, or picking vegetables in a field somewhere. These sorts of jobs generally must be performed locally. Coincidentally, these are the jobs that many illegal aliens are performing here.

Comment: Re:Read between the lines (Score 1) 303

by miroku000 (#46449323) Attached to: Google Chairman on WhatsApp: $19 Bn For 50 People? Good For Them!

Lastly, the nice thing about blaming education is that you can say that if we fix the education in this country, it will still take at least 10 years to bear fruit. Therefore we need interim measures, like increased H-1B quotas. Did you think it's a coincidence that pro-H-1B outfits like fwd.us are linked to silly things like "hour of code"?

How do you arrive at "10 years"? Do you assume that education must be fixed in elementary school? Perhaps education needs to be fixed in high school, college or in grad school. H-1B quotas are only going to fix things 4 years faster than making college free in all STEM fields.

Comment: Re:Free Will is an Illusion (Score 1) 108

by miroku000 (#46309437) Attached to: Making Sure Our Lab Equipment Isn't Tricking Us
>Of course the physicist doesn't have free will. No one has free will. If the universe is controlled by natural laws everything that has happened or ever will happen must be preordained. Every synapse that has ever fired in our brains is just an electrochemical event caused by a long chain of other events that can be traced back to the big bang. That is assuming that natural laws actually are complete and consistent. But why would this be true of natural law, when it is not even true in mathematics? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...

Comment: Re:So what's her argument? (Score 1) 247

by miroku000 (#46116891) Attached to: Red Team, Blue Team: the Only Woman On the Team

You can't spend thousands of years oppressing a group of people and then one day say "oh, we are all equal now by the way," expecting it to be true. There are lingering inequalities that can ONLY be rectified by temporarily overbalancing in the other direction. If you don't realize that then you are blinded by your own privilege.

How do you know that is the only way? Is that true of every lingering inequality? Some lingering inequalities do not even need to be fixed. For example, for a long time, people who didn't own land weren't able to vote. Then, we gave them the right to vote. But, it is still kind of unfair because they are making less money on average than people who own land. Likewise, if women have equal opportunity, but choose careers with good fringe benefits and lower pay, why is that a problem?

Comment: Re:evolution (Score 1) 247

by miroku000 (#46116729) Attached to: Red Team, Blue Team: the Only Woman On the Team
I think men and women are both trying to maximize their happiness, but because of the structure of society, different strategies are optimal. I assume that people are motivated by having the best possible mate and having the largest amount of money to spend. For men, in order to find the best mate, making money is a good strategy. For women, a higher salary has a negligible effect on attracting the best mate. Also, for women, getting a better mate is a more effective strategy for having lots of money to spend than having a high paying career. As a result, if you want to have an optimal happiness, it is not rational for women to waste their time optimizing their career when they could be spending more time finding an ideal mate. Now, I do not think this whole thing is the best for society. It would be better if women did not consider money when they picked their mates. It would be better if men could pick lower paying but more fulfilling careers without sacrificing their ability to get the best mate possible. But, I am not sure how society could get from where we are now to such a place.

Comment: Re:Blah Blah Blah (Score 2) 247

by miroku000 (#46116673) Attached to: Red Team, Blue Team: the Only Woman On the Team

When we judge people only by the strength of their contributions, and give them equal opportunity to pursue the fields of their choice, then we have met our social obligation.

But until our expectations of others are truly equal, any answer to this question will simply reflect our own prejudices.

In societies where there is the most gender equality where feminism is crammed down everyone's throats their whole life and where women have the most opportunity to pick whatever career they want, where the government provides universal free daycare, even a smaller percent of women choose STEM fields. Sweden spent like the last 50 years working really hard to educate their youth that men and women are exactly equal (except for a few physical differences.) And yet, men and women have increasingly gone into more segregated career fields. It seems like gender expectations are not responsible for less women picking STEM fields. http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

Comment: Re:Well, duh (Score 1) 129

by miroku000 (#45624297) Attached to: Trans-Pacific Partnership Includes Unwanted Elements of SOPA

the plan is to instead have the State Legislators (who tend not to be nearly as corrupt as those who run for federal office) propose it via an Article V Convention.

Why is it that they are less corrupt? Is it because they are more ethical or because they are not as effective for influencing policies that favor the people who want to spend money on bribes? If this was close to passing, wouldn't that shift things? I imagine that as an Evil Overlord of a large company's bribery division, I would then shift my focus to state officials in order to stop this from getting passed. A cynical person might point to places where they wanted to shift to using OpenOffice.org instead of Microsoft Office. It seems like large companies have tactical units that can be deployed to influence government on more local levels when it is in their best interests.

Comment: Re:"Woefully manual"??? (Score 1) 162

by miroku000 (#45601831) Attached to: Andy Rubin Is Heading a Secret Robotics Project At Google

That's an interesting idea you have there. Since the planet's maximum capability of humans is about 500 million, and we're at 7 billion and growing, what would be your solution? I like your "just get over it" solution. How can we make this work?

Do you have a source for that claim? Because it seems to contradict the point that we have survived for several thousand years with quite a larger population than 500 million

Comment: Re:Going to change everything (Score 3) 162

by miroku000 (#45601787) Attached to: Andy Rubin Is Heading a Secret Robotics Project At Google

The sky did fall. The protestors of the 1800's were correct. The people displaced by technology in the 1800s fell into poverty and early death, and England, for instance, was home to immense poverty and despair.

Do you have any sources for that claim? From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_unemployment "The Luddite events of 1811 were the beginning of humankind's analysis of whether it is possible for technological unemployment to be other than temporary and confined to particular industries and firms. Contrary to the Luddites' fears, technological advancement did not ruin Britain's economy or systemically lower standards of living throughout the following decades of the 19th century. In fact, during the 19th and 20th centuries, the opposite happened, as technology helped Britain to become much less impoverished than before. For this reason, some economists think that the general Luddite premise is fundamentally flawed, and thus they apply the term Luddite fallacy to it."

Imitation is the sincerest form of plagarism.

Working...