| H1-B Visas: Helping to Destroy the Middle Class |
[Jul. 2nd, 2007|12:19 pm] |
Many people who are not tech workers are not aware of America's H1-B visa program. In short, this is a program to allow companies who are unable to find competent American employees to "import" them from overseas, giving these employees temporary citizenship (a visa) in return for the promise of employment.
Sounds fair, right? If there's no Americans qualified for the position, why shouldn't companies be able to seek workers in other nations?
No. The reality, as these clips show, is that H1-B is contributing to a massive "brain drain" in the American economy. Companies are claiming that there is an enormous talent shortage in the American high-tech labor pool, at the same time that they're using that as an excuse to demand the ability to "import" more workers from other nations.
The thing is, there is no labor shortage. The corporations simply don't want to pay the prevailing wages to American laborers, and see that they can use the H1-B "loophole" to save a few bucks. The problem is that this is creating a shortage of truly available employment in America for high-tech workers. This is "outsourcing."
Some see no problem in this; usually the ones who see no problems either don't fully understand the magnitude of the issue, or stand to directly benefit. Some falsely claim that complaining against H1-B visas is "racism" -- but this is a crock. I work alongside mostly foreign-born U.S. citizens with no problems. In theory, they earn roughly the same wages as me and have the same talents. Foreign-born U.S. citizens would suffer equally as a result of H1-B visa abuse. It's not about racism.
Some think that this is just a factor of "competing in the global market." Maybe, maybe not. Corporations are notoriously short-sighted. There is a saying that applies here -- "penny wise, pound foolish." Meaning that it is foolish to cost yourself more money in the long run just to save a small amount now; yet publicly traded companies are notorious for doing just that because they are beholden to the short-term demands of the stockholders to always dividends, rather than focusing on the long-term interests of the nation and economy that they flourish in. And maybe that's their right -- to focus on profits. But it's the right and duty of the government to focus on America's best interests, and the H1-B program is certainly not in the best interests of this nation. Sadly, our government is completely selling out on this.
This H1-B policy is indeed very pound foolish. The American technical education landscape is falling behind; not because Americans are stupid or lazy (in fact a study I read a year or two ago found that Americans work harder -- as measured by hours worked per week -- than citizens of almost any other nation). No, our educational system is failing because our young people are not stupid -- they see friends and peers graduating in high-tech with an expensive 4- or 6-year degree... and waiting tables. They understand that it's getting to the point where it's not profitable for the average, non-superstar worker to work in high-tech. So many don't even pursue scientific and technical careers -- instead they pursue the proven moneymakers of business or legal degrees. This all contributes to a massive high-tech "brain drain."
And lest you think that this problem is only high-tech's issue, consider that if the H1-B floodgates are opened -- and this is something that Bush (deeply in the pockets of big business) is sneaking into his "immigration reform" bill -- no industry will be safe from decimation by cheap, underpaid imported labor. Work in construction? There's no real reason, from the point of view of the company that pays you, why a talented construction worker from Islamabad couldn't be imported to replace you at half your wages. And yes, the travel and H1-B process costs money, but probably not 1/2 your salary over your career -- and that's what they'd stand to save. Work in creative arts? You are eminently outsourceable. No American job is safe.
No, your job is at risk too. In fact the entire so-called "American way of life" -- which depends upon a healthy, vibrant middle class -- is at risk here. We are at war with special interests that would decimate this middle class, in order to line their own pockets.
I'd ask that you keep things like this in mind when you vote. |
|
|
| DRM is dying |
[May. 17th, 2007|03:37 pm] |
...about... f'ing... time!
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fasterforward/2007/05/drms_demise_accelerates.html
Amazon and Apple are leading the way into a new, DRM-free reality.
If only this had happened before HDCP fucked everything up... (look it up)
DRM is evil. As one of the respondants on the page said, you can't simultaneously deliver content to someone and restrict their access to it. Once you give them the content, the jig is up (cryptographically speaking). The result of the content production conglomerates trying to solve this impossible pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps problem is the utter DRM cluterfuck we have today.
Hopefully before long, the root of all evil -- the DMCA -- will fall... dare we hope? |
|
|
| Oy... |
[May. 11th, 2007|05:07 pm] |
http://hellboundalleee.blogspot.com/2006/05/war-on-relativism.html
This is a perfect example of someone who thinks they are a lot cleverer than they are. It's basically a ten thousand word joust at the straw man of "moral relativism."
It takes but a moment of research to realize that a moral relativist (like myself) is someone who believes that "good" and "bad" are not inherent to the world, but rather products of human judgment. On some things we agree (rape is bad), but on other things we may disagree (perhaps we disagree on drug legalization -- who knows). The moral relativist's point is simply that there's no final arbiter of "goodness." The legal system pretends to be such an arbiter, but there is a long history of unjust laws (*cough* Jim Crow *cough*), proving that just because something is "legal" doesn't mean it's "right," and vice versa. Ultimately the legal system isn't about "right" and "wrong" as much as it's about crime and punishment (in other words, "don't do this or I'll hurt you -- by putting you in jail or taking your money or executing you.") This is a necessary function of government, but it ain't the same thing as morality.
But I guess a simplistic straw man is much more fun. In "Hellbound Alleee's" blog, moral relativists are amoral (heh), shrill pedants who attack any "judgment" as morally wrong (thus neatly hoisting ourselves by our own petard; since if all morality is relative, who are we to say that judging is "wrong?" Get it... good...) The problem, as with all straw man arguments, is that this (easily counterable) position isn't what we're actually saying.
A lot of pseudo-intellectuals rely heavily upon straw men. Sad, when arguing the actual points is so much more entertaining... |
|
|
| What autism epidemic? |
[May. 11th, 2007|04:18 pm] |
I've been told in the past by some friends/acquaintances that there is an autism "epidemic" underway. Apparently if you look at the numbers, the prevalence of autism has risen a thousandfold since the early 90's.
There's only one problem; it ain't true. As this article points out, the rise in recorded cases of autism is just that: a rise in recorded cases of autism. For various diagnostic purposes (notably special education), autism didn't exist as a diagnostic category before 1990. And guess what -- it's those same diagnostic criteria (cases reported in special ed studies) that are used to "prove" the autism "epidemic."
In the case of special education counts for children with autism, the administrative prevalence is simply the number of students with a primary classification of autism divided by the total number of students in that given region, whether it's a state, district or county.
This means, among other things, that data collected in this manner often underestimate "the true population prevalence because, for instance, schools do not go out into the community and actively seek out and evaluate all kids for autism," Shattuck said.
For instance, consider data collected in Wisconsin: In 1992, 18 children were counted in special education programs as being autistic. By 2002, that number had jumped to 2,739.
"The conclusion is that the prevalence of autism has grown by 15,117 percent. This is ridiculous," Shattuck said. "No credible clinician or scientist in the field would ever suggest there were actually only 18 children with autism in all of Wisconsin in 1992."
The key word phrase here is "no credible clinician or scientist."
What does all of this mean? The same thing I always say:
- What "everyone knows" is often wrong.
- Most people would simply make awful scientists.
- Most people wouldn't know the difference between a well designed study or a statistically-significant result, and a hole in the ground (correlate of the previous point).
|
|
|
| Corporate Tribalism |
[Apr. 24th, 2007|03:16 pm] |
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/04/28/BU127682.DTL
I agree; people are using corporate identity (Nike, Apple, Microsoft, Abercrombie) in place of forming their own identity. And that's scary.
Even "free" products like Linux are guilty of this kind of tribalism.
As Karen points out, it's a weird world we live in, where people are more concerned about your "brand" than with what works for them.
And she's a Mac user ;) |
|
|
| Hydration: Healthy or Hoax? |
[Mar. 28th, 2007|09:58 am] |
http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20020711213420data_trunc_sys.shtml
http://www.bendweekly.com/news/3871.html
These days, everyone knows the importance if drinking a lot of water. Friends, relatives, fitness "experts" -- everyone knows that you should drink at least eight eight-ounce glasses of water per day.
But, as is often the case, what "everyone knows" may well be wrong -- dead wrong. The recent news story about the woman who died due to drinking too much water -- producing a deadly effect known as water intoxication -- proves that you CAN over-consume water. On a less deadly note, we certainly don't need to be spending hundreds of dollars per year on trendy "designer water" -- good old tap water works fine. Most of the current hydration craze is based on marketing, not methodology. We're a consumer culture, and water has become trendy, as bizarre as that sounds.
In fact, many doctors believe that we get almost all the water we need from our food, and much of the rest from our coffee, tea, and soda (contrary to popular belief, caffeinated beverages DO provide hydration; they do NOT dehydrate you further). What do you think is the primary ingredient of that coffee you just drank? The cereal you ate? What do you think makes that turkey sandwich so moist?
So, while it's hardly exciting news, most doctors recommend listening to your body; when you're thirsty, drink. When you're not, don't. It's really that simple.
And throw away that bottle of "Propel" -- you might as well be burning money. |
|
|
| Criticism == subversion? |
[Jan. 31st, 2007|04:26 pm] |
Men in authority will always think that criticism of their policies is dangerous. They will always equate their policies with patriotism, and find criticism subversive.
-- Henry Steele Commager
The notion that a radical is one who hates his country is naïve and usually idiotic. He is, more likely, one who likes his country more than the rest of us, and is thus more disturbed than the rest of us when he sees it debauched. He is not a bad citizen turning to crime; he is a good citizen driven to despair.
-- H.L. Mencken |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
