> Immigration and how the government can help tech with things like H-1B visas to keep and bring in more talent. Nadella pointed out that much of the company’s spending on research and development was in the U.S., even if 50 percent of the sales were elsewhere, so that immigration would benefit those here.
If the H1B program remains, they need to give foreign workers the ability to switch firms while in the US. Current policy forces them to remain with their current firm, which reduces their bargaining power and puts them at risk of being overworked and exploited. Further, it reduces competition between firms, lowering wages. (e.g. it is difficult for a H1B worker to get another job with a pay raise, so they are stuck with whatever salary they have.)
A study by U Notre Dame (which I cannot find on mobile) showed that H1B visas did not increase innovation measured by patent grants, but did 1) increase company profits, and 2) decrease all salaries at the firm, citizen and non-citizen.
This suggests the true incentive of H1B visas is to increase profits by lowering wages, not to find workers that firms are unable to find as citizens.
"Current policy forces them" is pretty strong. In 6 years on an H-1B, I switched jobs 4 times.
More recently, USCIS has given guidance on a "grace period" for H-1Bs who lose their employment- they now have up to sixty days to find another sponsoring employer.
Yes it could be easier to switch jobs, but "force" is not correct.
> USCIS has given guidance on a "grace period" for H-1Bs
Phew. Boy oh boy it was a constant strain on us for 8 full years. It is pretty disturbing to not know if you are committing a crime if you were laid off while on H1B and need to look for another job!
Couldn't agree more, if immigration policy for high skilled workers made them equals to their home-grown peers, it'd put upward pressure on salaries assuming there were reasonable limits on visas granted each year.
The whole point of bringing in H1B is to control labor costs and reduce the bargaining power of your domestic workforce. Changing jobs is unfortunately one of the fastest ways to move up the ladder. It defeats the purpose if this valuable bargaining chip is given to H1B visa holders.
The US needs to adopt a generally sane immigration system for skilled workers or investors much more like what, say, Canada has.
Skilled talent with some savings, job prospects, and decent French or English language skills have little problem getting into Canada to work, and it does great things for the economy overall.
However, many people in fact use Canada as a 'staging area' to make a move to the the US eventually.
My guess is immigration was the main reason those tech executives accepted the invitation. My bold bet is Trump removes or significantly hinders the H-1B system but enacts a new program giving green cards to any foreigner that earns a masters degree in the US, which is basically the nightmare scenario for any Trump supporter.
They should start by solving the Indian Consultancy H1B problem.
If you look at the H1B statistics, you'll see that all the top employers are indian consulting firms. They consume a huge percentage of the very limited H1B visa pool, only to take cheap H1B workers from abroad.
At the risk of being crucified here, Trump did say he plans to make H1Bs more expensive for companies; in hopes that the program starts being used for extraordinary talent (as meant to) rathan than cheap talent. If he keeps his promise, it's most likely to end that problem.
There would be no reason for them to call him if their positions were reversed. He's not an expert in anything, nor is he any kind of industry leader like the other people in the meeting.
Isn't being able to directly speak your mind the whole point of "fuck you money"? Page, Bezos, Musk etc can hold critical views of Trump and still be cordial in a direct meeting. Frankly I hope they do - respect is earned not given.
You could also equally say that Trump might have similar feelings meeting with these people.
the tech community's attacks on trump were and continue to be very personal (he's a lunatic, etc.). he doesn't owe them a damn thing, much less a policy meeting where he's open to their ideas.
Bezos said very negative things about Trump, and I think it is fair to say they were opponents during the election campaign.[1] Even Clinton is a Trump constituent now, but they were (and may still be) political opponents.
I would definitely agree that Trump and the Republican party leadership were antagonists or opponents (depending on how you look at it), though Trump had some support within the Republican party. It will be interesting to see whether he demotes or gets rid of the individuals who went against him, or finds some way to work with them.
Please go in to some detail on all of the ways in which the Republicans made efforts to cooperate with President Obama during his first term as president; I'm especially interested to hear how they achieved this cooperation while simultaneously setting record levels of obstruction [1].
I agree that it takes two to tango; it seems that after Obama's first two years in office, when he ignored the Republicans, the latter were very spiteful.
It is possible that the Republicans would have obstructed President Obama regardless, but I am unsure of what the counter-factual would look like.
Can you provide a source for how President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office? Or are you suggesting that because Reid moved to invoke cloture a record number of times in 2007, this is an indication that the Democrats are ignoring the Republicans because more filibusters are being broken than ever before?
I would say that passing Obamacare without a single Republican vote in either the House or Senate counts as 'ignoring the Republicans'. I would also say that Reid's alteration of Senate rules (A.K.A. 'the nuclear option') was done to avoid compromising with the Republicans.
There are many other examples of this sort of behavior, and I am not saying that either side is 'better than the other', just that President Obama was not an innocent victim of mean partisans.
You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about.
Harry Reid altered Senate rules in 2011, which is well after Obama served two years in office.
Again, can you provide an example of how Obama ignored the Republicans during his first two years in office? You say that there are many examples of this sort of behavior, but you failed to provide any of them.
Edit: And let's be clear here, we've already shifted goalposts once; initially I asked you to provide examples of how the Republicans made efforts to cooperate with President Obama during his first two years in office, and you very neatly juked that by saying "well, he ignored them for his first two years and it made them mad". If you've made an assertion that you can't provide evidence for, please say that you are wrong; I don't want to have to chase your point through this argument.
>You stated that President Obama ignored the Republicans for his first two years in office, but the Affordable Care Act was passed in 2009, more than two years after he took office. I don't see how this supports your point, because it doesn't take place during the time period that you're talking about.
Obamacare was actually enacted in March of 2010, just over a year after Obama took office in January of 2009.[1][2]
The 'nuclear option' was used in October 2011, and I meant to use it as an example of the Democratic party continuing shutting the senate Republicans out of the process.[3]
You're correct about the ACA; I misremembered when President Obama took office, and I apologize for that.
I will contest the 'nuclear option', though; I can see how you can argue that it shuts the Senate Republicans out of the process, but I can see an equal argument that it was a reaction to an overuse of the filibuster to block legislative progress; Reid filed for cloture 137 times in 2007/8, and 139 times in 2009/10. Not every cloture motion necessarily means a filibuster, but similarly not every filibuster results in a cloture; since filibusters are challenging to count, cloture motions seem like a reasonable way to measure obstruction [1]. If Reid had to file a cloture motion approximately once a week during Obama's first year in office, I feel like that indicates a trend of "our way or the highway" from the Republicans; rather than pushing to change and modify legislature, the Republicans simply rejected things they didn't like and tried to take their toys home. If they're not meaningfully participating in the process (and I would say that filibustering at least once a week is not meaningfully participating; I do not believe that significant legislation or confirmation that is so deeply anathema to the Republican mindset that it cannot POSSIBLY be allowed to pass and be inflicted on the American public happens on a weekly basis), then it's hard for me to see how taking away this option that they've abused is shutting them out. They're still welcome to participate, but screaming so loud that nobody else can talk is not participation.
The problem with saying that one side 'needed' to shut out the other, is that it assumes the filibustering party was wrong. It is impossible to differentiate (in a viewpoint-neutral way) who was being 'difficult', or saying 'my way or the highway'.
Another example is how the Republicans keep passing budgets, and the President keeps veto-ing them; who is in the wrong here? What about when Obama proposes budgets that the Republicans refuse to pass? You cannot make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of who (if anyone) is wrong.
If I ask you for something, and you say 'no', it is impossible to determine who was being unreasonable without taking a view on the substance of the matter, even if you assume that some action is necessary.
But government requires compromise, and when you say "No" then you're refusing to compromise.
I understand that sometimes there are some things that a party might refuse to compromise on, and I believe that's a valid use of the filibuster to block progress.
Are you trying to tell me that every single filibuster from 2009 and 2010 was because the issue was so deeply offensive to the Republicans and everything they stand for as a party and an ideological mindset that compromise was impossible? It might not be possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of any particular issue, but I believe it is possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of the criticality of a particular issue. When your job is to compromise and you agree a priori that whatever is suggested, you will refuse to consider, I think that's a clear abuse of your ability to say "No", even without needing to make a value judgement on any particular "No" that was said.
This is probably not as true as you may think. There are many sources that point to GOP meetings where they planned no-compromise obstruction to anything the president tried to do starting from his initial inauguration.
I agree in that I doubt Obama has much desire to "work with" most Republicans either, but at least (as far as we know) he didn't conspire in secret meetings to completely block anything they tried to do, partisan or not.
The president doesn't have to conspire with anyone else to block legislation; he has the veto.
I would argue that any president is entirely within his rights to exercise the veto (as President Obama has done repeatedly), but it is a tool of obstruction.
When Congress decides, before Obama takes office, that they will oppose whatever he suggests, his only meaningful option is to ignore them and do things that they disagree with.
Hang on, let's make sure we're talking about the same thing here. There's evidence that Republicans met before Obama took office and agreed to stonewall as many of his proposals as possible, so that they could point to his failure to enact change as an example of how he didn't get anything done. Are you equating that level of obstruction to newspapers publishing articles disagreeing with Trump's positions?
might have to do with the callous way he talks about encryption, censoring the internet, and the "cyber"
from the way he talks and from his background it's clear that he doesn't possess a technical understanding of the kinds of technology these people create and maintain.
i didn't post an opinion. this is a fact: trump's listening to people who were insufferably loud assholes to him even though he has absolutely no obligation to do so.
i thought you people were computer programmers for fuck sake. saying someone's "nice" for "doing something" isn't the same as saying they're "nice" generally. where'd you learn to logic?
"Trump is listening to people who were assholes to him, even though he has no obligation to do so.
Trump has no obligation to listen to people who are assholes to him.
The POTUS has no obligation to listen to people who vehemently disagree with him.
If you disagree with the POTUS, your voice doesn't need to be heard.
If you disagree with Obama, he doesn't have to listen to you."
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but all of these statements logically entail each other. I feel like I've shown your position to be absurd/contradictory.
The guy never exercises. That he has an enlarged heart should he no shock. He isnt Dick Cheny yet, but he does have the look of a cardiac event in progress.
Yeah, too bad that people were apparently confused about it. I think an HVDC grid will be key as renewables take up a larger share of electricity supply. It might not be windy or sunny here, but it probably is somewhere else.
yeah. i wonder about these big news sources in general.
the thing about billionaires is: they have a habit of getting what they want. is it paranoid to see investment/ownership running along these lines and lose faith in the integrity of the news?
> Also brought up ... the repatriation of tech company profits
...and‽ We want to know not just the agenda but what took place. Even if the administration was noncommittal/unresponsive, stating that would make me feel better. Or if you couldn't get anyone to go on record, maybe at least let us know that you asked and no one offered comment.
> Musk also ... brought up ... climate change, in other meetings at Trump Tower.
...and what did Trump say‽ Jeez, you did the drum roll and left me totally hanging. Seems like a controversial topic for sure and no mention of whether Trump dismissed this or debated it or just sat quietly.
> Alphabet CEO Larry Page, Tesla and SpaceX CEO Elon Musk, Apple CEO Tim Cook, Facebook COO Sheryl Sandberg, Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella, Cisco CEO Chuck Robbins, IBM CEO Ginni Rometty, Intel CEO Brian Krzanich and Oracle CEO Safra Catz.
3 women out of 9 people that's not too bad for tech (or CEOs)!
Trump campaigned on a stance of abolishing the H1B scam - he even had displaced workers giving speeches on stage about it - so I don't know how Nadella can turn around and say "we need to increase H1B issuance".
Nadella didn't campaign on it, and it benefits tech companies to have a ready supply of cheap workers who can be kicked out of the country if they quit.
So I imagine it was pretty easy for him to say that.
Oh well yeah, I understand that he would say it because it's in his interest. I just think it's odd that he doesn't seem to be aware of Trump's (ostensible) position.
> Surprisingly to the group, Trump apparently responded favorably, “Let’s fix that,” he said, without a specific promise, and then asked, “What can I do to make it better?”
It's almost as if he doesn't have ideals and is very easily influenced by others who can offer him money and/or power.
Or his "let's fix that" was just a way of keeping the conversation going and getting more information. It sounds like that's what this meeting was--a chance for the attendees to voice their perspective on what's important.
Trump should end H1B visa fraud by tech companies, not help increase it. One of the reasons tech companies are so widly profitable is they've suppressed wages using H1B fraud.
The whole idea behind H1Bs is that they're for hiring foreign talent that can't be found in the U.S. And yet everyone in the tech world knows it's just a way of hiring more people for less money.
The fact is that nearly all H1B workers at tech companies are not specialists in their field. They're just regular tech workers of various kinds. Everyone knows this.
Many people on H1Bs eventually become permanent residents, which is a significant part of why working in Silicon Valley is so expensive and why salaries have failed to rise as one would expect given the market.
It's true that it helps Silicon Valley as a center of innovation but that's not necessarily all good. More parts of the world should have their own centers and they would if not for H1B fraud.
72 comments
[ 3.4 ms ] story [ 148 ms ] threadIf the H1B program remains, they need to give foreign workers the ability to switch firms while in the US. Current policy forces them to remain with their current firm, which reduces their bargaining power and puts them at risk of being overworked and exploited. Further, it reduces competition between firms, lowering wages. (e.g. it is difficult for a H1B worker to get another job with a pay raise, so they are stuck with whatever salary they have.)
A study by U Notre Dame (which I cannot find on mobile) showed that H1B visas did not increase innovation measured by patent grants, but did 1) increase company profits, and 2) decrease all salaries at the firm, citizen and non-citizen.
This suggests the true incentive of H1B visas is to increase profits by lowering wages, not to find workers that firms are unable to find as citizens.
More recently, USCIS has given guidance on a "grace period" for H-1Bs who lose their employment- they now have up to sixty days to find another sponsoring employer.
Yes it could be easier to switch jobs, but "force" is not correct.
Phew. Boy oh boy it was a constant strain on us for 8 full years. It is pretty disturbing to not know if you are committing a crime if you were laid off while on H1B and need to look for another job!
Skilled talent with some savings, job prospects, and decent French or English language skills have little problem getting into Canada to work, and it does great things for the economy overall.
However, many people in fact use Canada as a 'staging area' to make a move to the the US eventually.
If you look at the H1B statistics, you'll see that all the top employers are indian consulting firms. They consume a huge percentage of the very limited H1B visa pool, only to take cheap H1B workers from abroad.
The tech companies are far behind.
http://h1bdata.info/topcompanies.php
"Our goal is NOT to find a qualified US worker."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCbFEgFajGU
Follow the money :)
You could also equally say that Trump might have similar feelings meeting with these people.
Wait, what? He's the president now. It's in his job description to work with them.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/10/17/pr...
[2] http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/25/obama-tells-repub...
[1] http://www.businessinsider.com/jeff-bezos-donald-trump-erodi...
They are literally representatives of his constituents.
[1] http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/c...
It is possible that the Republicans would have obstructed President Obama regardless, but I am unsure of what the counter-factual would look like.
There are many other examples of this sort of behavior, and I am not saying that either side is 'better than the other', just that President Obama was not an innocent victim of mean partisans.
Harry Reid altered Senate rules in 2011, which is well after Obama served two years in office.
Again, can you provide an example of how Obama ignored the Republicans during his first two years in office? You say that there are many examples of this sort of behavior, but you failed to provide any of them.
Edit: And let's be clear here, we've already shifted goalposts once; initially I asked you to provide examples of how the Republicans made efforts to cooperate with President Obama during his first two years in office, and you very neatly juked that by saying "well, he ignored them for his first two years and it made them mad". If you've made an assertion that you can't provide evidence for, please say that you are wrong; I don't want to have to chase your point through this argument.
Obamacare was actually enacted in March of 2010, just over a year after Obama took office in January of 2009.[1][2]
The 'nuclear option' was used in October 2011, and I meant to use it as an example of the Democratic party continuing shutting the senate Republicans out of the process.[3]
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patient_Protection_and_Afforda...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama#Presidency_.28sin...
[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option#Use_of_nuclear_...
I will contest the 'nuclear option', though; I can see how you can argue that it shuts the Senate Republicans out of the process, but I can see an equal argument that it was a reaction to an overuse of the filibuster to block legislative progress; Reid filed for cloture 137 times in 2007/8, and 139 times in 2009/10. Not every cloture motion necessarily means a filibuster, but similarly not every filibuster results in a cloture; since filibusters are challenging to count, cloture motions seem like a reasonable way to measure obstruction [1]. If Reid had to file a cloture motion approximately once a week during Obama's first year in office, I feel like that indicates a trend of "our way or the highway" from the Republicans; rather than pushing to change and modify legislature, the Republicans simply rejected things they didn't like and tried to take their toys home. If they're not meaningfully participating in the process (and I would say that filibustering at least once a week is not meaningfully participating; I do not believe that significant legislation or confirmation that is so deeply anathema to the Republican mindset that it cannot POSSIBLY be allowed to pass and be inflicted on the American public happens on a weekly basis), then it's hard for me to see how taking away this option that they've abused is shutting them out. They're still welcome to participate, but screaming so loud that nobody else can talk is not participation.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2014/05/1...
Another example is how the Republicans keep passing budgets, and the President keeps veto-ing them; who is in the wrong here? What about when Obama proposes budgets that the Republicans refuse to pass? You cannot make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of who (if anyone) is wrong.
If I ask you for something, and you say 'no', it is impossible to determine who was being unreasonable without taking a view on the substance of the matter, even if you assume that some action is necessary.
I understand that sometimes there are some things that a party might refuse to compromise on, and I believe that's a valid use of the filibuster to block progress.
Are you trying to tell me that every single filibuster from 2009 and 2010 was because the issue was so deeply offensive to the Republicans and everything they stand for as a party and an ideological mindset that compromise was impossible? It might not be possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of any particular issue, but I believe it is possible to make a viewpoint-neutral assessment of the criticality of a particular issue. When your job is to compromise and you agree a priori that whatever is suggested, you will refuse to consider, I think that's a clear abuse of your ability to say "No", even without needing to make a value judgement on any particular "No" that was said.
I agree in that I doubt Obama has much desire to "work with" most Republicans either, but at least (as far as we know) he didn't conspire in secret meetings to completely block anything they tried to do, partisan or not.
http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-det...
I would argue that any president is entirely within his rights to exercise the veto (as President Obama has done repeatedly), but it is a tool of obstruction.
[1] http://swampland.time.com/2012/08/23/the-party-of-no-new-det... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/politics/17mcconnell.ht...
from the way he talks and from his background it's clear that he doesn't possess a technical understanding of the kinds of technology these people create and maintain.
This is a fact. "Trump's a nice guy" is an opinion.
Trump has no obligation to listen to people who are assholes to him.
The POTUS has no obligation to listen to people who vehemently disagree with him.
If you disagree with the POTUS, your voice doesn't need to be heard.
If you disagree with Obama, he doesn't have to listen to you."
Now, correct me if I am wrong, but all of these statements logically entail each other. I feel like I've shown your position to be absurd/contradictory.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
the thing about billionaires is: they have a habit of getting what they want. is it paranoid to see investment/ownership running along these lines and lose faith in the integrity of the news?
Rupert Murdoch --> Wall Street Journal, NYPost
Jeff Bezos --> WaPo
Carlos Slim --> NY Times
Michael Bloomberg --> Bloomberg News
1. The media creates an "issue"
2. The "issue" riles people up
3. Calls are made to congress critters
4. Facebook posts are posted
5. Twitter hash tags are create
6. Billionaire suddenly has a plan to correct\fix\control issue
...and‽ We want to know not just the agenda but what took place. Even if the administration was noncommittal/unresponsive, stating that would make me feel better. Or if you couldn't get anyone to go on record, maybe at least let us know that you asked and no one offered comment.
> Musk also ... brought up ... climate change, in other meetings at Trump Tower.
...and what did Trump say‽ Jeez, you did the drum roll and left me totally hanging. Seems like a controversial topic for sure and no mention of whether Trump dismissed this or debated it or just sat quietly.
3 women out of 9 people that's not too bad for tech (or CEOs)!
So I imagine it was pretty easy for him to say that.
> Surprisingly to the group, Trump apparently responded favorably, “Let’s fix that,” he said, without a specific promise, and then asked, “What can I do to make it better?”
It's almost as if he doesn't have ideals and is very easily influenced by others who can offer him money and/or power.
The whole idea behind H1Bs is that they're for hiring foreign talent that can't be found in the U.S. And yet everyone in the tech world knows it's just a way of hiring more people for less money.
The fact is that nearly all H1B workers at tech companies are not specialists in their field. They're just regular tech workers of various kinds. Everyone knows this.
Many people on H1Bs eventually become permanent residents, which is a significant part of why working in Silicon Valley is so expensive and why salaries have failed to rise as one would expect given the market.
It's true that it helps Silicon Valley as a center of innovation but that's not necessarily all good. More parts of the world should have their own centers and they would if not for H1B fraud.