Well, thank goodness that's gone.
Well, thank goodness that's gone.
That's when they are the most dangerous.
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.
Nope. I'm not trading mine in for a compact model.
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.
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.
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.
Many if not most employment contracts/agreements have verbiage that states that anything you come up with on company time, belongs to the company.
Many if not most employment contracts/agreements for software engineers and the like have verbiage that states that anything you come up with on company or personal time, belongs to the company.
Read your contract carefully before starting a side business.
doesn't belong to the government
No. But in a way, the Internet belongs to the government. They designed it and built it, based on leased lines from the telcos. They wrote the rule book (sadly, only enforced by gentlemen's agreements between service providers). Domain names and IP addresses were initially handed out by the government (first, by the DoD, then under the US Dept of Commerce).
Sadly, because the government didn't consider the ramifications of the handover to private business without more than these 'gentlement's agreements', they left the system's rules difficult to enforce in court or by regulators. Perhaps it's time to change that. You don't like our rules, you can give back your IP addresses, unplug your routers and go build your own network. You could call it Compuserve.
Going with your premise, why should Google and Facebook be permitted to track my usage of other sites?
They can't. Not shouldn't, can't.
What can happen is that when you visit some site that site may tell your browser to load a resource from Facebook or Google, and when your browser does so, they find out about the visit. Your browser even sends them a nice referer header. Alternatively, the site you visit may send a message to Facebook or Google telling them about your visit. Neither of those things require any eavesdropping on traffic not intended for Facebook or Google.
Betteridge's law notwithstanding, the next question will be what to replace it with. And the attempts to answer that will devolve into a clusterfsck of trendy languages du jour. And by the time some poor bank has funded the effort to port to something, that something's advocates will have moved on and the replacements will claim that the choice was all wrong and divert the effort to their new favorite.
"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard