| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Bush totally against scrapping H1-B visas | |
|
||
| Time: 11:33 EST/16:33 GMT | News Source: Yahoo News | Posted By: Adrian Latinak | ||
|
U.S. President George W. Bush is reportedly against a critical bill now in Congress that would cut down H1-B visas dramatically, affecting skilled IT and other workers from India. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 174 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:59:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 11131 (160.81.221.42) at 9/17/2003 1:12:47 PM |
|
Sounds like a good bill to me. We have enough IT people in the US to fill all the IT jobs in the US. The big corps are just trying to find cheaper labor by importing it.
Alister |
| #2 By 11131 (160.81.221.42) at 9/17/2003 2:41:58 PM |
|
"all the IT jobs will be send overseas to compensate"
They outsource the on the phone tech support, programming, etc.... Not all of the 'hands on' IT support jobs. Now they want to bring them over here to fill those positions also. Alister |
| #3 By 6859 (206.156.242.36) at 9/17/2003 3:28:52 PM |
| That's the rub, my homies. The Repubs love anything that lowers the cost of labor. Ship overseas, H1-B visa, outsourcing. Whatever... It's all good to them, but it screws the average Joe. |
| #4 By 1643 (65.40.197.179) at 9/17/2003 3:36:22 PM |
| #4 Well, I would have to say they are not worse either. |
| #5 By 1896 (68.209.99.21) at 9/17/2003 4:02:55 PM |
| Actually when you apply for an H1B visa you first receive an approval from the Dept of Labor stating all the details of your compensation, after that the company must publish an announcement on the newspaper looking for US Citizens who could be interested in the job; finally if no one accepted the foreigner can get the job. |
| #6 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/17/2003 5:46:13 PM |
|
"That's the only reason. "
Uh no. The reason is there are not enough qualified workers here in this country. Whether these non-native employees are more or less qualified is inconsequential, it is a result of dynamics in the work force. i.e. We don't have workers with the skills, we find workers that do, they are cheaper but make more here than home, this encourages more of their citizens to go into the field whether or not they are competent. The skill level goes down. But that doesn't minimize the new or extra source of some skilled labor just because their are some bad apples. "And Fritzly, I wish companies stuck to that practice, but what qualifies as "publising in a newspaper" can be quite laughable, I worked for one company that wanted cheap Oracle people so they only advertised the position in small neighborhood papers instead of the cities larger newspaper, it worked, no one applied..." And? So what? Skiled workers without or looking for employment should know how to find that job however obscure the posting. If they couldn't find out about it, they probably weren't skilled or probably didn't need a job. |
| #7 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 9/17/2003 5:56:04 PM |
|
Cthulhu, I'm not sure how you put this delimma on the back of just the Repubs. Seems to me the blame is on both sides of the aisle. Sodajerk is right on this one... it all gets down to...
Lots of demand for IT talent Cheaper costs with foreign workers (no matter if they physically sit in America or overseas) I'm a little unclear why American tech workers havent reacted the way laborers of the past did... by unionizing. Now, I'm not fan of unions... but it seems like that would be an obvious American reaction. |
| #8 By 9589 (68.17.52.2) at 9/17/2003 6:25:30 PM |
|
What's all the complaining about - especially from you programmers? After all, you Luddites - er . . . excuse me, Linuxites proffer that software ought to free as what . . . air! lol
But, heck, since software is not yet zero cost, you managed to wake up management to potential cost savings in this area. Before all this open sore crap, it was: "those geeks in IT - who knows what they do - but keep paying them bonuses - there saving us a bundle." Now, their still making American business the most efficient on the planet, but at bargain prices too! Reap what you sow, buggers. . . lol |
| #9 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/17/2003 6:33:41 PM |
|
"And? So what? Skiled workers without or looking for employment should know how to find that job however obscure the posting. If they couldn't find out about it, they probably weren't skilled or probably didn't need a job. "
That's about the lamest excuse I've heard. First of all, it's obvious that companies employing such a tactic are trying to keep just within the letter of the law and not obey the spirit of the law. Let's just be honest about that, shall we? Second, since when does a person's skill have any relationship with their job finding ability? I can be the greatest programmer on earth, but that doesn't mean that I'm good at searching through obscure listings in small town newspapers. Finally, needing a job and knowing how to find one also have no relation to each other. FYI, this is an oft used logical fallacy called denying the antecedant. |
| #10 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/17/2003 6:37:43 PM |
| jd, huh? I'm a programmer and have many times stated my position against Linux. It is just as much a danger to me as exporting my job (or importing someone else to do my job). Same result, slightly different cause. |
| #11 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/17/2003 8:35:30 PM |
|
pointless jab? You are defining the terms of your own example and I have no idea if you are making it up (all of a sudden this paper only has high school scores in it). I don't know what the secondary paper was... how big... how big the primary paper is... But legally, if I called that company and said, "Are you hiring any Oracle people currently?" They would be required to say "Yes."
Now my point is: if someone wants to complain that they have the skills and are actively seeking employment, but they aren't getting the jobs because of immigrants, they had better prove it. Usually they can't. Usually they are past their prime and haven't kept up with technology or they never had the skills in the first place or they have failed to actively pursue the job hunt. Doing any of these things, I think precludes anyone from whining about not getting the job, no matter what techniques a company may use to favor immigrant labor. By no means was I trying to defend the company in your example, I was trying to assail those who claim they are being disadvantage here in the states. Bob, I wasn't pursuing any of the logic you apply. See above. My point is attacking those people who try to claim they are actively seeking employment and are trying to find a job, but are losing to immigrants. If you are no good at finding a job but are skilled, you still have no reason to be surprised to find that you aren't getting employed... that people who do know how to get jobs are. I was making no equivalency at all--however, if you are skilled but horrible at finding a job, you're reason for not finding a job isn't immigrants--it's how horrible you are at finding a job. If you are horrible at finding a job, there are tons of resources available to everyone in this country to improve your hire-ability and to assist with job placement. Again, if you haven't used these resources, don't blame immigrants--blame yourself. |
| #12 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/17/2003 9:57:57 PM |
|
Any line of code, which a programmer was not paid to write, lessens the average value of a line of code. Every line of Linux, which a programmer was not paid to write, lessens the average value of a line of code. I wrote code for a living. With the average cost of a line of code falling, the average price I can charge to write a line of code falls as well.
More tools? I don't need any of the tools OSS offers. I really don't see what that has to do with anything. |
| #13 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 9/18/2003 12:23:51 AM |
|
BobSmith - I must concur with what you said about Linux. I also have to unfortunately agree with some of the sentiments that we aren't developing people for the tech market here in the states. We should be doing better.
And American companies should be fulfilling their duty to this country to try to employee Americans before seeking foreign contractors. That duty also means one of helping to define the types of education that they feel are necessary for the job market and aid in the pursuit of fulfilling those needs. stubear - The announcement was at noon today. All over the news! parker's not happy, but he's just an old sourpuss. BTW, it's sad when people confuse me with sodajerk. This post was edited by sodablue on Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 02:26. |
| #14 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/18/2003 12:35:34 AM |
| blue, amusing that you'd say that considering your stance on OSS as a business model. |
| #15 By 135 (208.186.90.91) at 9/18/2003 2:27:28 AM |
|
BobSmith - Oops, I meant what 'you' said. corrected it.
stubear - I'm sorry. http://www.americansforclark.com |
| #16 By 3653 (63.162.177.143) at 9/18/2003 11:44:49 AM |
| a military chief turn president? how many times has that failed? |
| #17 By 2960 (68.100.231.92) at 9/18/2003 12:49:11 PM |
|
Bush being against the scrapping of H1B's is precisely what I would expect from him.
This is the most pro-corporate, anti-citizen president we have had in a long time, and I would expect nothing less. TL |
| #18 By 2960 (68.100.231.92) at 9/18/2003 12:51:19 PM |
|
"Uh no. The reason is there are not enough qualified workers here in this country."
Bullshit. (Ban me if you wish, it had to be said). Tell that to all the unemployed IT workers right now. TL |
| #19 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 1:04:11 PM |
|
"Any line of code, which a programmer was not paid to write, lessens the average value of a line of code."
And? Isn't that the goal of any enterprise? Name one product, one profession that has propelled itself forward by making its product more expensive rather than cheaper? Every second code gets cheaper. Do you think MS has done nothing to make the cost of producing code cheaper? TO progresss, you must become more productive and produce a cheaper product... that way you make more money. By trying to preserve or inflate the high cost of your product or your labor you are just encouraging things like this: a flight to cheaper products and cheaper labor. This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 13:53. |
| #20 By 2459 (69.22.92.164) at 9/18/2003 3:19:01 PM |
|
Sodajerk, am I missing something? If I'm a professional coder and I charge for my services or for a product I produce, then OSS comes along and provides the same solution for free, how is that helping me? It's running me out of business.
It's like assembly-line workers worried about being replaced with robots or actors being replaced with computer-generated counterparts. If it's significantly cheaper to replace the commercial product/laborer with an alternative and achieve the same results, then the commercial product/laborer either becomes obsolete or a niche item. In either case, the laborer suffers loses in revenue and is faced with finding an alternative profession because the years spent training for the current profession is now just wasted time/money, and the laborer would likely have to spend more time and money to undergo training for another profession. If you don't resist, you're helping to kill your career. Why would I need to pay a programmer (or as many programmers) if the solution I need can be cobbled together with various OSS components and/or developed by those willing to work for free? There's still a long way to go before this scenario becomes a common occurrance, but why help it along? |
| #21 By 1845 (12.209.152.69) at 9/18/2003 4:39:09 PM |
|
Jerk, first of all, there isn't another business that I can think of, where the laborers work for free. I well understand the economics of the situation. I'd be a fool if I didn't try to stop them.
Name one product? BMW, Audi, Porshe, to name a few. When was the last time you saw them lowering their prices. Sure, the increase due to inflation, but seriously, the focus on increasing value to the customer, not on decreasing cost. There is a difference. Decreasing cost isn't the only way to sell more of your product. Look at Windows or Office. The prices have barely changed in 10 years or more, but their are more and more valuable to the consumer. If you don't like a Microsoft example, check Macromedia or Adobe. The difference between OSS and Microsoft's dev tools is obvious. Microsoft empowers me to increase my earning power (and theirs in tandem with it). OSS replaces my revenue stream with free products. Nobody wants to be marginalized. IBM didn't like it when Microsoft commoditized hardware. I don't like it when IBM tries to do it to software. The bottom line is OSS is harmful to commercial software developers. |
| #22 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 4:47:13 PM |
|
enforcer, you certainly are missing something. In your example, you are the one trying to hold on to the old model and expensive costs--of course you lose out to the company/individual who moves to the new model and provides the cheaper product.
In your assembly plant scenario, you have the same result--the company that lowers their costs and eliminates unskilled labor, increases their revenue and expands their enterprises... which leads to greater profits and more hires in other areas. "Why would I need to pay a programmer (or as many programmers) if the solution I need can be cobbled together with various OSS components and/or developed by those willing to work for free?" You wouldn't. That's the point. Why would you? "There's still a long way to go before this scenario becomes a common occurrance, but why help it along?" Because it improves profitability by saving costs. Would you suggest that manufacturing shouldn't use robots and other automation? That you not use computer systems because hadnwriting, typewriters, and calligraphy and hand-done calculations and etc... are more costly to your clients? That you shouldn't use email because your killing the antequated and costly but nostalgicly endearing postal system? That you not seek out efficiencies and cost savings in your business for the sake of being expensive? No one would. So why would anyone claim to have a legitimate argument in saying we should resist making our products and services cheaper to us and our clients because we currently can charge more for the same work/product? |
| #23 By 3339 (66.219.95.6) at 9/18/2003 5:06:37 PM |
|
"there isn't another business that I can think of, where the laborers work for free." And I don't know of any companies supportive of OS not paying their employees. IBM, HP, Apple, Novell, Red Hat, SCO, and many more... Do you have a point? Just because the model shifts what is the product--the product becomes service--doesn't mean that no one is employed anymore.
"Name one product?" I can name hundreds, why do you name three cars? That's one product. Microwaves, TVs, DVDs, VCRs, digital cameras, LCDs, COMPUTERS --hello, did you forget what we talk about all the time? "Sure, the increase due to inflation" So you know your examples are bad... That in fact for the value delivered and the current value of the dollar you do get a better value at a lower price than you did in the past. "Decreasing cost isn't the only way to sell more of your product." I wasn't even focusing on lowering the cost to the consumer... Lowering the cost for the business is just as effective--it allows the company to retain greater profit, expand into other areas, or further expand that offering... "Decreasing cost isn't the only way to sell more of your product." No sh1t, but I never said as much. I would never suggest such--however, I would ABSOLUTELY say that lowering the cost of the product (again, primarily for the producer whether or not it is passed on to the consumer) is beneficial to business growth. "The prices have barely changed in 10 years or more, but their are more and more valuable to the consumer." And much, much, much, much, more valuable to Microsoft --remember, I was speaking from the perspective of the business--because the cost producing the product is much less than it was originally. "Microsoft empowers me to increase my earning power (and theirs in tandem with it). OSS replaces my revenue stream with free products." I never said lowering costs was beneficial to the person/company that refuses to lower their costs, that refuses to evolve or adapt. If you say, I'm not going to take advantage of these cost savings--of course, you don't take advantage of those cost savings. That's not the model's fault, or mine, that's your choice. "Nobody wants to be marginalized." And? Are you suggesting that automation in manufacturing is bad and should be resisted? That the devaluation of secretarial and word processing skills is bad and should be resisted? That the automation of dock and port facilities shouldn't be mechanized and we should retain longshoreman getting crushed by containers instead? That the phone system shouldn't be automated and we should talk to a human operator when we need to make a call? Every change which produces substantial cost savings will alienate and marginalize some group. That doesn't negate its productive impact nor does it mean that some other group isn't going to benefit. "The bottom line is OSS is harmful to commercial software developers." Only if they refuse to adapt or change. Only if you choose to say: I refuse to use tools which are less costly to me and my consumers. Only if you continue to define yourself as a commercial software developer and view that defination as something in oppostition to OSS. Spinning machines were harmful to woman who spun thread. Cars were harmful to horses and horseriders. Robots were harmful to factory workers. Email is harmful to the postal system. Are you against thread-making machines, cars, robots, and email? This post was edited by sodajerk on Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 17:11. |
| #24 By 2459 (69.22.92.164) at 9/18/2003 5:41:44 PM |
|
Nope, can't say I missed it. I have to agree with Bob on this.
"Only if you choose to say: I refuse to use tools which are less costly to me and my consumers." How about changing that to, "I refuse to use tools that aren't as good as the ones available commercially (or available from commercial vendors at no cost) and because of their lacking quality, they make things harder for me which, in turn, significantly raises the costs in time and money for me and my customers." "Only if you continue to define yourself as a commercial software developer and view that defination as something in oppostition to OSS." Opposition to OSS is good in some respects (security, protection of implementation details, etc., but the primary point of opposition is towards the GPL and GPL-like (viral, as descibed by even some OSS advocates) licenses. Heck, Novell's CEO, IIRC, basically said you can use GPL software, but you first need a good legal team to find all the loopholes to allow coexistence with your proprietary components without slipping into losing your own code to the GPL. I personally wouldn't want to work like that. Besides all this, look at the primary drivers of innovation in the Linux community. It's not the community itself. It's commercial companies contributing code and features. It's Intel, Compaq, IBM, SGI, Reh Hat, and others that have given Linux its major technologies. They even had to get fonts donated. Before that, most just stole MS'. All code doesn't have a service that you can sell with it, and many times the service offered would be more expensive for the provider than commercially licensing code use rights. Then there's the money put towards R&D that provides acutely focused research into new and existing areas. Right now, other than from established commercial entities, Linux has no focused R&D. The majority what's offered are clones of commercial products. Again, the real developments and additions come mainly from commercial entities. When you try to give away the products and base everything off of a service that few will utilize, you get bankruptcy, much like what has and is happening to several Linux distributors. And even the Linux distributors don't try to make a business just out of a service model. Last I checked, Red Hat was trying to sell as many copies of their distributions as they could at prices comparable to and higher than Microsofts (and with a lot less support than MS to help drive the service revenue). Probably the only service you could offer that would guarantee an adaquate user/revenue base would be offering the software on a subscription basis, but that's hardly different from offering it on a store shelf. |
| #25 By 2459 (69.22.92.164) at 9/18/2003 5:58:39 PM |
|
So why would anyone claim to have a legitimate argument in saying we should resist making our products and services cheaper to us and our clients because we currently can charge more for the same work/product?
You're not charging more for the same work/product. As Bob pointed out, you're charging the same price for a better product. The product dose a lot more than it did years ago, yet it's still offered for the same price as when it debuted. That's a lot of added value that is essentially free. Heck, Steve Jobs even tried to used this idea directly as a selling point for Mac OS X Jaguar. Not verbatum, but he basically said, hey, we put in over 130 new features, so it's worth the $125 we're charging for it. The flaw with his example was that many features added to 10.2 were already available in previous pre-X MacOS. But all the same, OS X as a whole, offered more features/functionality than previous MacOSes, yet the price, AFAIK, remained the same, thus you got more for your money then than you did 10 years ago. Thus the product in that respect was (and is) cheaper, and not the same product because it offers more to the user. This post was edited by n4cer on Thursday, September 18, 2003 at 17:59. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 174 Last | Next |
The time now is
1:59:33 AM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
