Skip to comments.
Bush urges US Congress to lift H-1B visa limit
PTI ^
| February 03, 2006
| Sridhar Krishnaswami
Posted on 02/04/2006 4:38:34 AM PST by Tyche
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 721-725 next last
Comment #601 Removed by Moderator
Comment #602 Removed by Moderator
To: nopardons
that's not true, they don't want them because of their age, and because a 25 year old H1B is available for alot less money. i've seen hiring managers nitpicking over skill sets of qualified americans, but rubber stamp H1B hires because of their salary requirments, without giving any consideration to whether they actually know anything. their logic is "at those prices, we can afford to give them on the job training".
To: 1rudeboy; A. Pole
It's pretty hard to imagine a new employee for any job who does require some form of training.If they were such highly-skilled "geniuses," they would be training Americans, not the other way around. And the training we're talking about isn't just training them in how the new job works. Everyone needs that. They're being sent to classes that American programmers with experience don't need to attend to be hired.
To: Tired of Taxes
I never said that H-1B's are all geniuses. I was merely pointing out a logical fallacy.
To: GregoryFul
That's now CoastToCoastAm. Too bad George has such trouble with English, eh?
Art Bell is back on the weekends ever since his wife passed away. Still, I know it is George's show but Art paved the way.
606
posted on
02/05/2006 12:56:30 PM PST
by
Nowhere Man
(Michael Savage for President in 2008!!! He is our only hope!)
To: A. Pole
It depends. If a one group of people controls most of nation wealth/resources/land etc because of inheritance it can lead to the exploitation. The examples are Latin American oligarchies and parts of Europe before WWI.
Hence you had the rise of populist ala Williams Jennings Bryant, Teddy Roosevelt and the Progressive movement. Youalo had writers like Upton Sinlair, David Graham Phillips, sometimes Stephen Crane (although he died in 1900), Jack London and so on. I love to read their literature.
607
posted on
02/05/2006 1:00:39 PM PST
by
Nowhere Man
(Michael Savage for President in 2008!!! He is our only hope!)
To: GregoryFul
My Mr. George taught math and computers, he was also into bowling.
608
posted on
02/05/2006 1:03:03 PM PST
by
Nowhere Man
(Michael Savage for President in 2008!!! He is our only hope!)
To: Nowhere Man
Perhaps the main direct (cultural/religious reasons are more indirect) reason for the difference between USA and Latin America is the long tradition of egalitarian distribution and redistribution of wealth. It started with the land grants (as opposed to giving land to the few powerful families), through New Deal and today social programs.
609
posted on
02/05/2006 1:24:39 PM PST
by
A. Pole
(In 2001 top 5% owned 60% of national wealth, while bottom 60% owned 4%)
To: Dat Mon; A. Pole; JasonC
[Dat Mon]So you got a programming job in the mid 80's, having no real working programming experience, and never even heard of C, which is pretty amazing considering that the first edition of the Kernighan and Ritchie C 'bible' book came out in 1978. That in itself is pretty amazing. Do you think thats the norm today for hiring practices? How many resumes posted on monster for programming jobs these days have no programming experience?
But what I think is even more amazing is the fact that you went from no knowledge of C (did you know any other programming language???) to what i guess would be crackerjack C programmer in what...three weeks.
You must be a genius.
No, this JasonC dude is merely a mediocre liar. His postings clearly show he has no idea of what the job market for programmers was like in the past and what it is like now. I got a good laugh from this fairy tale:
[JasonC]Our most recent hire in my office was an older woman coming back to work after five years off raising a child. She was a C programmer and is learning a new language, successfully.
610
posted on
02/05/2006 1:35:28 PM PST
by
Feldkurat_Katz
(What no women’s magazine ever offers to improve is women’s minds - Taki)
To: Dat Mon; A. Pole; JasonC
You know...maybe they are right, and Im wrong. OKAY...lets have UNLIMITED GUEST WORKER AND HIB visas....
BUT ONLY.....
For those who take a standardized IQ test...IN ENGLISH....
and score at 160 IQ or above.
Can somebody calculate how many people that would be, given the combined technically educated and ENGLISH SPEAKING population numbers in China and India. after all, you cant contribute effectively in an English speaking country if you don't even know the native tongue...can you?
Generously assume a mean of 110, and a sigma of 15 points for the distribution.
(Hint...160 is at the mean plus /minus 3.3 sigma level...hmmmm..)
Assuming you are interested in the right-hand tail, the number would be 0.0005 (one in 2000) of the eligible population. On can find this in any stat textbook or on the web at:
http://www.graphpad.com/quickcalcs/PValue1.cfm
(be sure to divide by 2 for obvious reason.)
Of course you could also use software from JasonC's "software company that makes programs for doing higher mathematics" - assuming a virtual company can write nonvirtual software.
611
posted on
02/05/2006 1:39:24 PM PST
by
Feldkurat_Katz
(What no women’s magazine ever offers to improve is women’s minds - Taki)
To: A. Pole
It can get there, especially if free trade and the merger with Latin America continues. I didn't get the memo. When does this merger happen again?
612
posted on
02/05/2006 2:00:59 PM PST
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
I didn't get the memo. When does this merger happen again? NAFTA, CAFTA, open borders, guest workers etc ...
613
posted on
02/05/2006 2:08:43 PM PST
by
A. Pole
(In 2001 top 5% owned 60% of national wealth, while bottom 60% owned 4%)
To: A. Pole
614
posted on
02/05/2006 2:16:35 PM PST
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
If a one group of people controls most of nation wealth/resources/land etc because of inheritance it can lead to the exploitation. First you said inherited wealth was exploitation, now you say it can lead to exploitation. Your definitions keep changing. Did you find this in the Bible? Or was it something from Marx?
615
posted on
02/05/2006 2:21:30 PM PST
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
First you said inherited wealth was exploitation, now you say it can lead to exploitation. I did not say "it was". I said "what about" and "it can lead to". Reread again.
There is a tendency demonstrated over the millenniums that the wealth and power tend to concentrate in the hands of the few unless the preventive measures are taken like inheritance tax, property tax, antitrust laws, division of powers, various redistribution schemes etc ...
If this concentration is allowed to be completed we end up in a stagnant oligarchy where the powerful exploit the masses of serfs.
616
posted on
02/05/2006 2:33:40 PM PST
by
A. Pole
(In 2001 top 5% owned 60% of national wealth, while bottom 60% owned 4%)
To: Feldkurat_Katz; JasonC
YOU SAID.... "Assuming you are interested in the right-hand tail, the number would be 0.0005 (one in 2000) of the eligible population."
CORRECT
You win a 1978 edition of Kernighan and Ritchie, hand autographed by Jason.
Now all we have to do is find out how many engineers there are in China and India who are fluent in English, want to come here, aren't already in grad school here, and multiply by 0.0005 to get the desired H1b total amount.
But all candidates still have to sit for the IQ test.
617
posted on
02/05/2006 2:34:27 PM PST
by
Dat Mon
(Mr President, pick up the phone and tell DIA to stop the persecution of Lt Col Shaffer)
To: A. Pole
There is a tendency demonstrated over the millenniums that the wealth and power tend to concentrate in the hands of the few unless the preventive measures are taken like inheritance tax, property tax, antitrust laws, division of powers, various redistribution schemes etc ... Yeah, because we wouldn't want money to concentrate in the hands of citizens when it can go to the government instead. How will that help America accumulate the savings and capital we need to compete again?
618
posted on
02/05/2006 2:36:33 PM PST
by
Toddsterpatriot
(Why are protectionists so bad at math?)
To: Toddsterpatriot
It's what they always do and it's pretty "funny". LOL
To: Czar
In-as-much as your culture and way of life is being threatened, did you ever consider Canada?
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 581-600, 601-620, 621-640 ... 721-725 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson