When I'm paid to be.
When I'm paid to be.
LibreOffice is just a Russian tool to help their spies in the USA. Presidential order to ban its use.
misleading people through skewed ads and search results
Eh? Does amazon have a search engine now?
They own the very best search engine, from an advertiser's perspective. One that people use to find stuff to buy.
But they live in the US under worse living conditions because they know it isn't permanent.
Some, I suppose. The H1-Bs I know very much want to stay.
Meanwhile on this side of the pond I have to support a family.
You're basically saying that you'd like steeper immigration barriers to artificially boost your market value and artificially depress the market value of those who weren't lucky enough to be born here. You're far from alone in that view, but I think it's immoral. I spent some formative years living in another country, with great, smart people who worked their asses off for a standard of living that we wouldn't consider fit for a dog. They deserve a chance to earn something better, and if that means I have to compete harder, or even if it means I have to lower my standard of living, I'm good with that.
To be fair, it's easy for me to say that since I'm pretty comfortable. But I felt the same when I was a poor kid with a young wife and a new baby and I'd just been laid off, so I don't think it's just my relative safety speaking.
You do realize you don't accumulate wealth by giving it away for no gain, right?
You can be an ignorant SJW all you want but it just makes you look stupid.
People (and companies) accumulate wealth by NOT giving it away, as best as possible. Thats kind of what most for-profit cooperation are required to do based on their charter (not all, but certainly most)
since i will not willingly pay for ads
What do you think the "picks for you" on the Amazon home page are? Targeted ads. Always have been, and even before Prime existed.
So, as I forgot to say, I agree with your solution to the issue as long as prices fall to global averages as well as salaries.
It will equalize globally. Places with low salaries and low cost of living will see both rise. Places with high salaries and high cost of living will see both fall. Standards of living will also equalize, which probably means those who currently have the highest standards will see theirs decline, though not nearly as much as the low standards of living will rise.
This has already happened quite a bit in India, and in China. Labor costs have risen substantially, and cost of living has increased, too. For that matter, the cost of many types of goods has fallen dramatically in the US. Basically anything that can be manufactured overseas and imported is significantly cheaper than it would be otherwise. Clothing, for example, costs less than half what it did, on an inflation-adjusted basis, than it did 30 years ago. Toys, electronics, also dramatically cheaper. In fact, strangely enough, most of those things are actually cheaper to buy in the US than they are to buy in the places they're made!
Note that this equalization won't happen instantly, or painlessly, and there will be winners and losers in the short term. But it's the right thing.
The main problem I have is that the H-1B is not fair because it is enough to replace me as a worker but it is not enough for me to have lower cost of living
That's a potential argument against outsourcing, but not against H-1B. The H-1B worker lives in the US and pays the same prices you do.
It does *sound* a bit sociopathic, doesn't it? But sociopathy is a pathological disregard for the rights of others. While deception is often used to violate someone's rights, but it can *also* be used to protect someone's rights.
For example if I knew an employee was embezzling money, I don't have to tell him I know. I can deceive him into thinking I'm not on to him until I gather enough proof or discover who his accomplices are. This is deceptive, but not a violation of his rights.
So you're saying house builders are free to get carpenters through H-1B?
There's no reason why not. They'd just have to figure out how to satisfy the rather vague requirements of high skill. They'd have to be pretty highly skilled just to justify the effort, though, since it costs several thousand dollars to get a potential employee through the H1-B process.
How can a person ever chose a profession if the most lucrative ones will just have a back door opened to relieve the price pressure?
Just accept that you're competing on a global market. If someone in India, or Romania, or Brazil, or wherever can do my job for less money, I see no reason why they shouldn't do it. I have some enormous inbuilt advantages in my understanding of the culture and language, my access to high quality education, etc., and if I can't leverage all of those to outcompete them, I deserve to lose. Yes, this means Americans can't just coast on their luck at being born here. Boo hoo.
My opinion is that we shouldn't have an H1-B program, instead we should allow anyone who wants to work in the US to do so. If that creates a larger influx than we can manage then we can be selective but we should still take every highly-skilled and highly-educated worker we possibly can. Brain drain the whole world, because that will keep the innovation and progress here, and keep our economy the most powerful in the world. Immigration has always been the engine that drives economic growth in the US. That was true when my ancestors arrived in the early 19th century, it was true when we used all the Nazi rocket scientists to win the space race, and it's true today.
If you have signed something in writing to that affect. If no such contract exists, and it is found that the employee is spending significant uncompensated after-hours time working for the employer, then the courts should tell everyone involved to get lost.
Maybe they should, but I don't think they would.If an employee thinks he's working too many hours, without a contract that says otherwise, the exempt employee's recourse (in almost every state of the USA) to renegotiate with the employer (higher salary, or perhaps getting permission to work on personal projects at work) or to find new employment - he doesn't get to run his personal business in his employer's office because he thinks he worked too late last night.
If the employee doesn't get paid for the OT then the time he worked at 11pm was not compensated. Therefore personal time spend during work hours should be fair because they are just reclaiming the personal time they lost.
"should be" is not the same as "would be" -- unless he's worked it out in advance with his employer, his employer can claim that anything the employee is working on is owned by the company.
Apple also noted it had been trying to reach a licensing agreement with Qualcomm for more than five years, but said Qualcomm had refused to negotiate "fair terms".
That is a really interesting view Apple — some people would not view some of what you do as 'fair terms', for instance stopping 3rd party repairs. So: why one rule for you and another for others ?
Anyone who works on unauthorized personal projects should certainly expect to be subject to firing. But as a supervisor I would make the decision to fire based on what is best for my employer. That depends on a lot of things.
I don't believe in automatic zero tolerance responses. The question for me is whether the company better off booting this guy or disciplining him. Note this intrinsically unfair. Alice is a whiz who gets all of her work done on time and to top quality standards. Bob is a mediocre performer who is easily replaced. So Alice gets a strong talking to and Bob gets the heave-ho, which is unfair to Bob because Alice did exactly the same thing.
But there's a kind of meta-fairness to it. Stray off the straight and narrow and you subject yourself to arbitrary, self-interested reactions.
Now as to Alice, I would (a) remind her that anything she creates on company time belongs to the company (even if we're doing open source -- we get to choose whether the thing is distributed) and (b) that any revenue she derives from it rightly belongs to the company. But again there's no general rule other than maximize the interests of the company. I'll probably insist she shut down the project immediately and turn everything over to the company, but not necessarily. I might choose to turn a blind eye. Or maybe even turn a blind eye until Alice delivers on her big project, then fire her and sue her for the side project revenues if I thought we didn't need her any longer. If loyalty is a two-way street, so is betrayal.
Sure, you may rationalize working on a side project as somehow justified by the fact your employer doesn't pay you what you're really worth, but the grown-up response to that is to find a better job; if you can't, by definition in a market economy you are getting paid at least what you're worth. If you decide to proceed by duplicity, you can't expect kindness or understanding unless you can compel it.
Why is only one industry a candidate for this legal replacement? H-!B should be open to all professions or not at all.
It is. Relevant to this discussion, one of my son's college professors is here on an H1-B visa. She's concerned that Trump's changes to the program may cost her her job. Oh, and she's not a CS/IT prof; she teaches Japanese Literature.
For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken