Backlash grows in US over foreign worker visas

[heymrdj]

And American firms can magically compete with foreign products/services at higher prices. You want firms to pay some people more, which inflates the prices of their goods, which in turn means fewer if anyone will buy those products. That will shrink or kill the company, and now you have lost all jobs.

In the long run, you hurt far more people than you help by paying someone an American wage.

Solution, American worker becomes more productive to command the higher wage, or you raise the standards of the person who is competing so they command higher wages.

That last line of thinking gets dangerous. I say people give 100% or they get fired, straightens up the population quickly. But that doesn't keep companies from abusing their workforce either. Running staff that keeps them 100% busy means that anyone getting sick, leaving, dieing leaves the company at 120% stress. There's no need really, in our modern society, that money should be the cause of so much depression, stress, and lack of family time. There are ways that people can work to live rather than live to work. An honest 8 hour day should be ok with companies, not 10-12 hour days unpaid.

I would vote to close off the borders. People do more with less. Not everyone needs Iphones, or other fancy devices. Bring American goods back into america, and everyone scale down their consumerism.

 

[realibrad]

That last line of thinking gets dangerous. I say people give 100% or they get fired, straightens up the population quickly. But that doesn't keep companies from abusing their workforce either. Running staff that keeps them 100% busy means that anyone getting sick, leaving, dieing leaves the company at 120% stress. There's no need really, in our modern society, that money should be the cause of so much depression, stress, and lack of family time. There are ways that people can work to live rather than live to work. An honest 8 hour day should be ok with companies, not 10-12 hour days unpaid.

I would vote to close off the borders. People do more with less. Not everyone needs Iphones, or other fancy devices. Bring American goods back into america, and everyone scale down their consumerism.

Its clear that you don't fully understand productivity. To be fair, most think like you, so Ill explain.

You can increase your productivity and actually work less. How? By gaining new skills or knowledge, you can find efficiency and produce more. It may not always be the case, but it does happen often. Productivity is does not mean working non stop, if in the long run you wear your self out and produce less. That is explicitly unproductive. So when I say the American worker needs to become more productive, I don't mean to say work more hours. In fact, Americans are known for working more hours than most developed countries.

 

[heymrdj]

Its clear that you don't fully understand productivity. To be fair, most think like you, so Ill explain.

You can increase your productivity and actually work less. How? By gaining new skills or knowledge, you can find efficiency and produce more. It may not always be the case, but it does happen often. Productivity is does not mean working non stop, if in the long run you wear your self out and produce less. That is explicitly unproductive. So when I say the American worker needs to become more productive, I don't mean to say work more hours. In fact, Americans are known for working more hours than most developed countries.

I understand that quite clearly. As a senior engineer productivity is my job. I find that most of our American workforce is well trained, just in needs of hands on training from those in senior positions above them, which it's our corporation's responsibility to do.

Now realistically ask some hiring managers what their goals are. I'll bet my house they are to maintain as near 100% productivity out of their workers as possible (or over 100% depending on how workers measure productivity). This kind of thing does us in as a generation. You're trying to make it a simple problem when in actuality it is staggering complex. Balancing competitiveness with humanity is probably the biggest decision a business has to make.

 

[realibrad]

I understand that quite clearly. As a senior engineer productivity is my job. I find that most of our American workforce is well trained, just in needs of hands on training from those in senior positions above them, which it's our corporation's responsibility to do.

Now realistically ask some hiring managers what their goals are. I'll bet my house they are to maintain as near 100% productivity out of their workers as possible (or over 100% depending on how workers measure productivity). This kind of thing does us in as a generation. You're trying to make it a simple problem when in actuality it is staggering complex. Balancing competitiveness with humanity is probably the biggest decision a business has to make.

You are looking at productivity as being a set value. Either max or less than. If foreign worker A produces 5 units/hr and the american produces 8 units/hr the American could work 50% fewer hours and still be more productive. I do not imply that is easy, but this is what is meant by increasing productivity. As it stands, American workers are already more productive compared to the avg foreign worker. Perhaps its more effective education that allows the US worker to produce more per unit time. Either way, on the world market, if US goods cost more than foreign goods simply because the american worker is more expensive, you will lose jobs and likely the company.

If your firm offers the same quality and the only other difference is total cost, why would anyone choose your firm? Zorba had a far better argument because of 3rd party costs. If you want to pay Americans a moral wage, and that wage causes everyone in the company to lose their job, how is it moral?

 

[Ns1]

n/m

 

[heymrdj]

You are looking at productivity as being a set value. Either max or less than. If foreign worker A produces 5 units/hr and the american produces 8 units/hr the American could work 50% fewer hours and still be more productive. I do not imply that is easy, but this is what is meant by increasing productivity. As it stands, American workers are already more productive compared to the avg foreign worker. Perhaps its more effective education that allows the US worker to produce more per unit time. Either way, on the world market, if US goods cost more than foreign goods simply because the american worker is more expensive, you will lose jobs and likely the company.

If your firm offers the same quality and the only other difference is total cost, why would anyone choose your firm? Zorba had a far better argument because of 3rd party costs. If you want to pay Americans a moral wage, and that wage causes everyone in the company to lose their job, how is it moral?

It's simple, you don't offer the same quality. A company can differentiate itself on quality by targeting a different strand of the market.

Also, by saying productivity can be more than 100%, I was inferring the unit/hr measurement of productivity. Again companies can measure it in different ways. However, unit/hr still has an encapsulation cost, managing extra units requires more processing power from the human doing the work. Look at it this way, If I have a machine that goes from 10 hand painted widgets per hour to 100 widgets per hour, I still have to do basic counting and inspection. So even though productivity went way up with little effort, my work requirements still went up to meet that new goal. My argument is that we, as an entire population, can't forget that life is about living, not just working. It's easy to say "we're just going to add 5% stress to your life to add this great big bunch of productivity". But then they always want another 5%.

 

[realibrad]

It's simple, you don't offer the same quality. A company can differentiate itself on quality by targeting a different strand of the market.

Also, by saying productivity can be more than 100%, I was inferring the unit/hr measurement of productivity. Again companies can measure it in different ways. However, unit/hr still has an encapsulation cost, managing extra units requires more processing power from the human doing the work. Look at it this way, If I have a machine that goes from 10 hand painted widgets per hour to 100 widgets per hour, I still have to do basic counting and inspection. So even though productivity went way up with little effort, my work requirements still went up to meet that new goal. My argument is that we, as an entire population, can't forget that life is about living, not just working. It's easy to say "we're just going to add 5% stress to your life to add this great big bunch of productivity". But then they always want another 5%.

You are making the assumption that increase in production means an increase in cost and stress. Without getting into every possible example of how that may not be the case, Ill just say automation.

The fact of the matter is that the standard of living accepted by foreign workers in foreign countries is far lower than foreign workers in the US. The American worker is commanding prices above market value relative to what is produced. I have already listed examples how you could make the price of an American worker, with out any reduction in standard of living.

The world will choose foreign goods over US goods when the US goods are above market value. So its either adapt now, or pay for it later. You want a plan that will leave far more Americans poor in the future.

 

[Zorba]

The point is that there are few if any incidents directly related to "not speaking up", as even the incidents you cite have multiple causes well beyond this. None can be traced back to an H1B not doing so. Your overarching point about how H1Bs being dangerous for not speaking up simply holds little water.

Never mind, this is the dumbest prolonged debate I think I have ever been.

 

[Zorba]

The above is exemplary of the simple thinking on this subject prevalent here. Maybe, just maybe, those H1B candidates are *gasp* better than the US nationals that are applying. Maybe, just maybe, there are cases in which companies are hiring for a skillset that is scarce or unavailable among the US population. I know these might sound farfetched to you, but those would all be reasons why companies are paying H1Bs at or higher than the prevailing rate among US nationals.

nm

 

[heymrdj]

You are making the assumption that increase in production means an increase in cost and stress. Without getting into every possible example of how that may not be the case, Ill just say automation.

The fact of the matter is that the standard of living accepted by foreign workers in foreign countries is far lower than foreign workers in the US. The American worker is commanding prices above market value relative to what is produced. I have already listed examples how you could make the price of an American worker, with out any reduction in standard of living.

The world will choose foreign goods over US goods when the US goods are above market value. So its either adapt now, or pay for it later. You want a plan that will leave far more Americans poor in the future.

And I say leave the rest of the world out of it, or at least choose our friends better. We have no need to compete against African and Chinese goods. Businesses are more than free to leave America. At the same time, should they move operations, they will be allowed to do 0 business in America or with other American based companies. Want your foreign designed product in America to sell to Americans? Great! Just come over here and build a plant and use our endless expanse of unemployed to build your product. This right here WILL lower the standard for Americans, but it performs that in a more controlled manner where our competition is the wages we choose to set to attain certain products at certain pricepoint. Otherwise, give it another 30 years. We'll have no middle class (the ones that employ the most people), just poor and rich. Then America will be left behind for greener pastures by our overloard companies, just leaving us to be a shithole for cheap labor like Africa and China.

If you argue with an idiot you'll be beaten until you become an idiot, there's no winning in that scenario. Same goes for business. If 3rd world is our competition, we'll become 3rd world. No one gets picked up in that scenario.

 

[realibrad]

And I say leave the rest of the world out of it, or at least choose our friends better. We have no need to compete against African and Chinese goods. Businesses are more than free to leave America. At the same time, should they move operations, they will be allowed to do 0 business in America or with other American based companies. Want your foreign designed product in America to sell to Americans? Great! Just come over here and build a plant and use our endless expanse of unemployed to build your product. This right here WILL lower the standard for Americans, but it performs that in a more controlled manner where our competition is the wages we choose to set to attain certain products at certain pricepoint. Otherwise, give it another 30 years. We'll have no middle class (the ones that employ the most people), just poor and rich. Then America will be left behind for greener pastures by our overloard companies, just leaving us to be a shithole for cheap labor like Africa and China.

If you argue with an idiot you'll be beaten until you become an idiot, there's no winning in that scenario. Same goes for business. If 3rd world is our competition, we'll become 3rd world. No one gets picked up in that scenario.

Jesus. Ok, just so I understand. If a company wants to sell products to Americans, they must have all means of production of those goods in America. They cannot buy any goods/services from any foreign competitor ever or they are kicked out of the US market. The business driven out of the US will put us on equal footing of 3rd world countries, and Americans now having a low standard of living are better off.

Holy crap.

Does anyone actually support this idea other than this poster?

 

[heymrdj]

Jesus. Ok, just so I understand. If a company wants to sell products to Americans, they must have all means of production of those goods in America. They cannot buy any goods/services from any foreign competitor ever or they are kicked out of the US market. The business driven out of the US will put us on equal footing of 3rd world countries, and Americans now having a low standard of living are better off.

Holy crap.

Does anyone actually support this idea other than this poster?

We are on an unsustainable crash course of consumerism. We CANNOT sustain our current ways of life before another crash much worse than 2008.

So let me get this straight, your idea is to keep unemploying Americans, force them to buy 70,000$ of education to stay competitive (we don't get access to the cheap degree mills over here) then lower their wages to be competitive with the 3rd world countries so that they can live their first 20 years of life trying to get out of debt. But wait! We're already there! We have engineer salaries at 35K now for entry level positions. How do you think college students feel about that? "Yeah your payoff is about 15 years, and during that time you'll live pretty much paycheck to paycheck, won't be able to make a down payment for a house, and minimal savings". That's the new American dream right there.

You're measuring 3rd world status by how many iphones and crap we can still buy (thanks to depressed wages). My pill tells America to do with less, and be able to by a fricken house, a car, enjoy family, you know the cornerstones of life. Eventually, when demand rises, we'll get those toys back made by American hands (but they won't be as worthless and throwaway as before, they'll be an investment).

America is well past due to take it's medicine. We can get it done, or we can continue to drag it out and screw the next generation even worse than the previous did. Baby Boomers got fricken greedy and absolutely raped Gen X. Gen X tried to enjoy some of the post war world too, and get what their parents had, which ended up borrowing on the backs of Gen Y. Gen Y at this point is hosed, we're already beyond saving the economy with drastic destructive measures. The question is does Gen Y become the sacrifice for future generations, or do they push it on to the next generation so that the medicine is even more bitter.

The global economy is in drastic need of a reset button. America, Europe, and China are all screwed. Why don't we all just hit our reset buttons and free ourselves from the massive amount of stress and debt we have accumulated to each other?

 

[Ns1]

The global economy is in drastic need of a reset button. America, Europe, and China are all screwed. Why don't we all just hit our reset buttons and free ourselves from the massive amount of stress and debt we have accumulated to each other?

There is no such thing as a reset button.

 

[heymrdj]

There is no such thing as a reset button.

No but there is the nuclear reset. America defaults, China defaults because they aren't propped anymore, business losses in China drags Europe down. Shuffle the order anyway you want, but at this point we're all linked by chains to the 10 ton weight that was thrown off the bow of the ship. You can go down fast or slow, but one thing is certain, we're all going down whether we like it or not.

 

[realibrad]

We are on an unsustainable crash course of consumerism. We CANNOT sustain our current ways of life before another crash much worse than 2008.

So let me get this straight, your idea is to keep unemploying Americans, force them to buy 70,000$ of education to stay competitive (we don't get access to the cheap degree mills over here) then lower their wages to be competitive with the 3rd world countries so that they can live their first 20 years of life trying to get out of debt. But wait! We're already there! We have engineer salaries at 35K now for entry level positions. How do you think college students feel about that? "Yeah your payoff is about 15 years, and during that time you'll live pretty much paycheck to paycheck, won't be able to make a down payment for a house, and minimal savings". That's the new American dream right there.

You're measuring 3rd world status by how many iphones and crap we can still buy (thanks to depressed wages). My pill tells America to do with less, and be able to by a fricken house, a car, enjoy family, you know the cornerstones of life. Eventually, when demand rises, we'll get those toys back made by American hands (but they won't be as worthless and throwaway as before, they'll be an investment).

America is well past due to take it's medicine. We can get it done, or we can continue to drag it out and screw the next generation even worse than the previous did. Baby Boomers got fricken greedy and absolutely raped Gen X. Gen X tried to enjoy some of the post war world too, and get what their parents had, which ended up borrowing on the backs of Gen Y. Gen Y at this point is hosed, we're already beyond saving the economy with drastic destructive measures. The question is does Gen Y become the sacrifice for future generations, or do they push it on to the next generation so that the medicine is even more bitter.

The global economy is in drastic need of a reset button. America, Europe, and China are all screwed. Why don't we all just hit our reset buttons and free ourselves from the massive amount of stress and debt we have accumulated to each other?

So 2 things are now pretty clear. First, you have not been keeping up with what I had said earlier. I know that I'm a nobody, so ill explain what I explained earlier. College is too expensive. Much of the cost of college has nothing to do with the education you want in your field. We could easily cut half the cost of college by removing classes that are not necessary. Even more savings could be found I'm sure. Cutting college in half would mean far fewer loans and thus lower college loans. The reduction in loan payments could in turn reduce the cost of the worker and making the worker more competitive.

the 2nd is you have no idea what point you want to make. You said

You're just unwilling to pay an American wage for that skill set

and now say

My pill tells America to do with less

God, poor people in poor countries are dragging down wages with their lower standard of living. And those goddam Americans are asking for too much with their way of life.

 

[Ns1]

No but there is the nuclear reset. America defaults, China defaults because they aren't propped anymore, business losses in China drags Europe down. Shuffle the order anyway you want, but at this point we're all linked by chains to the 10 ton weight that was thrown off the bow of the ship. You can go down fast or slow, but one thing is certain, we're all going down whether we like it or not.

D:

The reduction in loan payments could in turn reduce the cost of the worker and making the worker more competitive.

Wat

 

[Engineer]

We are on an unsustainable crash course of consumerism. We CANNOT sustain our current ways of life before another crash much worse than 2008.

So let me get this straight, your idea is to keep unemploying Americans, force them to buy 70,000$ of education to stay competitive (we don't get access to the cheap degree mills over here) then lower their wages to be competitive with the 3rd world countries so that they can live their first 20 years of life trying to get out of debt.

You're wasting your time.

 

[realibrad]

D:



Wat

I am saying that part of what makes college more expensive is the fact that you have to take so many elective classes. About half of a college degree are elective classes that you pay full price for, that have nothing to do with the skills you want in your field. To simplify, if you were to remove the requirement of those classes, a degree would be far cheaper. The cheaper degree would thus mean less loans taken out to get that degree. Because you are now paying less for the college loans you took out, you could ask for less money from the employer making your labor cheaper.

So if person A has to pay $400 a month in loan payments for his degree, he must get that money added to his paycheck.

If person B only pays $200 a month, he an ask for a lower wage by 200$ a month, and still have the same lifestyle. In effect, his pay is lower but his productivity is the same. Win Win for employer and employee. A loss for the college I suppose.

 

[Ns1]

So if person A has to pay $400 a month in loan payments for his degree, he must get that money added to his paycheck.

that is not true AT ALL. that means he has $400 less in disposable income.

 

[realibrad]

that is not true AT ALL. that means he has $400 less in disposable income.

If he has to pay $400 a month in loan payments, that means that his net income is $400 less.

So if A people make $2000 a month...
Person A has $400 a month in student loans = $1600 net pay

If person B makes $1800 a month
Person B has $200 a month in student loans = $1600 net pay

Same net pay.

Edit*

I see where the confusing is. I mean to say that the worker must ask for $400 more be added to their paycheck to compensate.

 

[Zebo]

H1Bs, off-shoring, in-shoring, all these things - is about reducing the % share of profit of your labors and increasing capitals %. Race to bottom world wide which will have dramatic effects globally on society.

1. You will be born into station in life like it used to be for time eternal - no more HPs and Apples coming out of a garage because a) you wont go to elite colleges b) wont get small loans the elite will c) underwriters and courts will take your whole invention.
2. Environmental destruction. Because if people don't agree companies just move to next place happy for scraps they get.
3. Reduced political power. With less disposable income you can't afford to support labor candidates.

USA Europe and Japan presented a threat to the old world order in the late 20th century as we moved towards egalitarianism and capital means to correct that. Genius really how they are doing it by inserting knuckle draggers racial strife to keep your eyes off whats really going on.

Talk of reset is almost impossible to late Multinationals already own governments around the world. People didn't think. Prolly have to repeat pain and struggles of the 1930s all over again.

 

[Ns1]

I mean to say that the worker must ask for $400 more be added to their paycheck to compensate.

no, the worker needs to spend $400 less by doing less cocaine or moving back home with the parents or driving a crappy car or <insert some other strategy to conserve cash here)

IF the worker asks for another $400/check, he doesn't get a job.

 

[realibrad]

no, the worker needs to spend $400 less by doing less cocaine or moving back home with the parents or driving a crappy car or <insert some other strategy to conserve cash here)

IF the worker asks for another $400/check, he doesn't get a job.

lol we are in agreement.

I was saying that if college cost less, the worker can ask for less money, but in net still get the same wage. It would help the US worker compete on the global market.

Crazy heymrdj was stuck on workers working more hours to be more productive, or working harder to be more productive. My argument was that if the cost of the worker was lower through savings of reduced student loans, the worker would be more productive relative to the cost of the labor.

 

[Ns1]

lol we are in agreement.

I was saying that if college cost less, the worker can ask for less money, but in net still get the same wage. It would help the US worker compete on the global market.

Crazy heymrdj was stuck on workers working more hours to be more productive, or working harder to be more productive. My argument was that if the cost of the worker was lower through savings of reduced student loans, the worker would be more productive relative to the cost of the labor.

:thumbsup:

No doubt the crushing student loan debt will impact this generation for sure.

 

[squarecut1]

:thumbsup:

No doubt the crushing student loan debt will impact this generation for sure.

It already is. It is a effed up situation