Augh. URL in /opinion/ fails to consider that you're going to donate more money to the people winning because you get more influence per dollar that way, decides to blame "tech has decided the republicans are more in line with their interests".
Well, yes, in so far as "their interests" involve actually getting things done rather than blaming everybody else for not doing.
Can I have a new left wing please? This one appears to be broken :(
We aren't going to "get" a new left wing anytime soon. The neoliberal turn that most left-wing parties took was a direct result of the collapse of social democracy and citizen involvement in he 1970s, which resulted in the neoliberal market politics commonly attributed to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
If you want a new left wing, make it happen. Join a local board. Run for local office. Take part in your community. Be a part of something. But don't expect reading news or commenting on forums to change anything. After all, the shift from active citizen to passive consumer is what got us in this mess in the first place.
Adam Curtis has several phenominal documentaries regarding this shift over time. Particularly, "Century of the Self", "The Trap", and most recently, "HyperNormalization."
>The neoliberal turn that most left-wing parties took was a direct result of the collapse of social democracy and citizen involvement in he 1970s, which resulted in the neoliberal market politics commonly attributed to Bill Clinton and Tony Blair.
Oh come on. We all know that's not true. The citizens didn't turn neoliberal or particularly apathetic; the politicians did under the advice of economists who pushed neoliberalism as the solution to the oil crisis.
>If you want a new left wing, make it happen. Join a local board. Run for local office. Take part in your community. Be a part of something. But don't expect reading news or commenting on forums to change anything.
This I can agree with! Not just that, but provide names of organizations pushing a more "Old Left", social-democratic agenda. I belong to the first two of these as a dues-paying member and a volunteer, and we've been gaining hundreds of new members since the election. It's honestly like waking up from a bad dream: all of a sudden, the bread-and-butter issues (wages, housing, health-care, civil liberties) matter again, and the culture wars are getting sidelined.
* Democratic Socialists of America
* Our Revolution (started by Bernie Sanders)
* Socialist Alternative (more "party-line", worse at returning people's calls)
* The Berniecrats Network
* /r/Berniecrats and facebook/Berniecrats
* Jacobin magazine and its associated reading groups
For those looking for a more decent right-wing as well, I recommend Reason magazine, the Washington Monthly (especially this one, it's a hidden gem of a magazine), the Libertarian Party, the works of Henry George, and GK Chesterton's "distributivism".
Socialist Alternative seems like an overall self-defeating org (due to ideological purity) and powerless outside of the Seattle area and a few other metropolitan hubs (speaking as a former member). I find Our Revolution and former Bernie organizers to be the most practical and promising group for affecting change.
I'm a dual-listed DSA and Our Revolution member, and I can kinda agree with that. My personal politics are left enough for DSA, and it is a multi-tendency organization that's willing to include ideological social democrats. But if you don't have enough detailed political education to say, "I'm a social democrat or a socialist and I know why", but instead just think, "Inequality is too much, there are too many people homeless, hungry, or without health-care for such a rich country, and I wish the politicians would respond better", you should maybe stick with Our Revolution.
I also definitely have a bone to pick with the people claiming we're gonna totally obtain third-party electoral successes Real Soon Now. Yes, the Democratic Party has been rubbish to us. It has been the "graveyard of social movements". But we've also run a hell of a lot of social movements (like Occupy Wall Street, for instance) that had a whole ton of radical spirit, chic, and ideology, but had zero power analysis and zero affirmative program. Our Revolution and Bernie's rejuvenation of social democracy through taking over the Democratic Party, while it's lost its back-bench, from the bottom up, does actually promise a strategy for obtaining real power that's suited to our historical moment.
Just my thoughts. Don't mind me. I'm no longer sober.
> Can I have a new left wing please? This one appears to be broken :(
I've been saying this since basically after Obama was elected.
I was a HUGE supporter of his, even in the democratic primaries. I donated to him, I was running local groups that were canvassing and phone banking to get him elected. I was ecstatic when he got elected (though I viewed it as a foregone conclusion, I didn't think McCain had a chance).
When it came to the governing, I was not really impressed. Basically from day 1, everything seemed stuck. He got a few things done (ACA though that's of dubious benefit, and was done in such a way that it became a political punching bag and can't get any reforms), but mostly in the first two years. After the 2010 midterms, this shit was just complete gridlock. You can blame whomever you want for the gridlock but a good leader builds compromise and ends gridlock.
I think there are two good examples of this. First, after sandy hook Obama promised that he would pass gun control legislation. Now, I do not agree with lots of things that he would like to do with such legislation, but, I do agree that there are some changes required. He has basically failed to pass any legislation around gun control and his response to that isn't to propose new legislation that can pass congress. His reaction was to go on national television and cry (literally) about his failure to pass gun control legislation.
I'm sorry, I don't want a damn leader who CRYS about their political failures. I know dead children is a sad subject, but, this is ultimately a political failure.
The 2nd one is Guantanamo. When he was campaigning one of his promises was to close Guantanamo, bring prisoners home and try them for their crimes. After 8 years, that has not happened and its become so politically untenable that he's basically letting these people out, without trying them at all. It is a mind-boggling
Withdrawing from Iraq/Afghanistan was another campaign promise that I was personally invested in too, but that is a far more complex one and though he doesn't get a pass from me on that as I have personal losses there, I acknowledge that its more complex.
I do not agree with lots of things that (old) republicans did (though I am hopeful about the new republican party of today), but they get shit done. They wanted to block (stupid) gun control legislation, they did. They wanted to block returning Guantanamo prisoners to the USA, they did.
Sometimes doing something, even if its not perfect, is more important than doing nothing, especially when you don't have a crystal ball and don't know what exact result specific actions/legislation will have. Move fast, break shit.
What's your solution, then? What form of a left wing would have been any better than Obama in light of the obstruct-at-all-cost policy the Republicans held for the last 6 years?
>I do not agree with lots of things that (old) republicans did... but they get shit done. They wanted to block (stupid) gun control legislation, they did. They wanted to block returning Guantanamo prisoners to the USA, they did.
Blocking legislation (esp legislation brought forth by the opposition party) is, always has been, and always will be 100x easier than putting forth any legislation. Blocking legislation isn't getting anything done. We already see a failure to get things done by the Republicans in their handling of Obamacare-- they have no collective idea as to how to replace it, despite their vigor in denouncing and repealing the bill. They have had 6 years.
I can agree that blocking legislation is much, much easier than passing it.
On the other point, I lean Republican, and I'm more inclined to agree with 464192002d7fe1c. A lot of leftists love to blame the Republicans for being obstructionist during the Obama administration. But were you paying any attention to Obama's attitude? See [1]. He basically says "I won, deal with it, if you don't like it, then go win some elections". Well, they did, and they obstructed him in exactly the spirit that he invited. And in roughly the same spirit that the Democrats obstructed GWB during his term.
A good leader accepts the political situation and seeks to work within it. If your political opponents have control of Congress, you better learn how to compromise and work with them to get things done. This might actually involve not getting everything your way and sometimes doing something that the other side wants. Whining that you can't get the things that you want done is poor leadership.
I'll grant that there's a big divide between the two sides, and neither side is innocent in perpetuating it. But who can be the bigger person, lay off the name calling for a while, and make some compromises? Evidently not Obama. Maybe Trump will? I guess we'll see soon enough.
You're acting like the Republicans had no choice but to obstruct Obama. And when I say obstruct, I don't just mean denying legislation. I mean performing stunts like literally shutting down the government. Like irresponsibly fucking with the debt ceiling. Like attempting to repeal the ACA with no replacement plan, screwing over so many of their constituents. And let's not act like these were attempts to better America in light of differences of opinion on policy; the ACA was based on Republican health care initiatives for christ's sake.
Obama needed to be a better leader? Give me a goddamn break. Maybe he wasn't perfect, but in order for him to have done a better job unifying he would have had to bend over backwards to the GOP. There's a clear right and wrong in this situation.
Well no. They REDMAP'd it. That was impolite, so to speak: not technically illegal, but sufficiently unethical that in 2004 the Supreme Court basically said they'd ban it if only they had some consistent standard to apply.
This year they might have that consistent standard, and starting with North Carolina and Wisconsin, the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent.
In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.
> the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent.
> In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.
The GOP has controlled the House for only six years running. Before that, the Democrats controlled it for four - before that, the GOP controlled it for six, and before that, the Democrats controlled it for 61 years, with the exception of one term (1947, under Truman). During the vast majority of that time, the Senate was also under Democratic control as well, although the Senate has leaned slightly more right than the House fairly consistently ever since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed.
I agree that a democratic system should not be controlled by a single party, but it's rather silly to say that the GOP has a "permanent Congressional majority" given how recent their majority is.
>What form of a left wing would have been any better than Obama in light of the obstruct-at-all-cost policy the Republicans held for the last 6 years?
Greater judicial opposition to the REDMAP gerrymandering program that, starting in 2010, helped to guarantee Republicans the consistent seats in Congress and state-houses that they needed to obstruct Democratic measures.
The Republicans do have plenty of voters, probably "too many" if you're a Democrat, but there was no historical necessity for them to have a chokehold on Congress until 2020.
The gun control issue is likely a huge part of why the democrats are losing so many elections. The sad part is, even if they were to win on the issue there isn't a viable legislative solution to the recent mass shootings (either laws already existed to prevent the crime or the proposed legislation wouldn't have mattered).
I would wager many on the left are rethinking their whole stance on guns and 2A with the Republicans in power now. Not saying we are getting ready for revolution, but at least folks might be more sympathetic to the view of people power balanced against government when the other side is in office.
As a further real life example of the self defeating gun politics of the left, I am confident far more innocent people will die as a result of Republican rule than any gun violence (consequence of dismantling Obamacare and environmental regulations, reduction of social safety nets).
>I would wager many on the left are rethinking their whole stance on guns and 2A with the Republicans in power now. Not saying we are getting ready for revolution
Why not say that? If we're talking about people leftist enough to be Leftist rather than "liberal", yes, there are calls for revolution. Well-justified calls for revolution, IMHO, given that Congress and our state-and-local governments now feature a permanent, unbreakable one-party regime by the Republicans in most states, with a very few "state-and-local swing states" and a couple of one-party Democratic states.
A two-party system that degrades into a one-party system should be overthrown. One party systems are not democratic. Democracy demands a multiparty system with responsive government and extensive civil liberties.
It saddens me that y'all seem to think that Obama and his people somehow stand for the left wing in the United States.
We have a small, but distinct left wing here. You can find it in magazines like Jacobin or Current Affairs. You can find it in many backers of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Or in Occupy.
But Obama? The left in the United States has spent eight years yelling bloody murder about his spying, his favors to the banksters, and his corporate giveaways. Obama's era has feature apthe combination of "not fighting hard for the good stuff he says he wants" and "fighting very hard for the bad stuff he wants". Don't lump him in with us.
> Augh. URL in /opinion/ fails to consider that you're going to donate more money to the people winning because you get more influence per dollar that way, decides to blame "tech has decided the republicans are more in line with their interests".
The article provided many more things in support of its point, such as
* Surveys with startup founders on their politics.
* In-depth analysis of both PAC donations - which your criticism might apply to - and individual donations - which it does not.
* In-depth analysis of the changes that typically happen to a company like Amazon or Google that begins as an innovator and ends up being one of the biggest corporations, and threatened by things like antitrust, which naturally lead it to favor Republican positions on those issues.
Personally, I don't think that's "good." I remember fondly Tim Cook's response to an activist investor about why they support environmentally sound policies:
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues. [1]
Personally, I think there's a higher system of value than corporate profits and share price. But that's a first principle argument. Conveniently, I happen to believe that purely shareholder-value-maximizing behavior rarely fails to build long term value, so I'm having my philosophical cake and eating it, too. But when push comes to shove, we do things for reasons beyond profit. It's pretty hollow otherwise.
Not to rain on your worldview or anything but I must point out that one of the requirements for being in upper management that's public facing is the ability to say just about anything with a straight face. ("Courage" anyone?) The fact that Tim Cook came up with a good (from a PR perspective) response doesn't say anything about the actual motivation.
You meant to say "...come to their senses and put my political beliefs before beliefs I don't like."
Everyone likes to pretend that their politics are just common sense, while other people's politics are "ugh, politics." People are forever saying "politics have no place in [business/the office/the dinner table/this forum]" whenever someone disagrees with them, while continuing to happily spout off on their own politics.
At this point in time people like to say politics don't belong at x. But they don't seem to realize that all our views and thoughts are wrapped around some political construct. It's just that often in the office/dinner table/this forum, we are so close in said political belief that it's not consciously noticed. But then some one disagrees with an argument and we see the politics bleed out.
PAC: A political action committee (PAC) is a type of organization that pools campaign contributions from members and donates those funds to campaign for or against candidates, ballot initiatives, or legislation
Tech companies have been annoyingly left for a very long time. I'd like to see more parity. It becomes annoying to have people make questionable political statements (especially HR) and not have the ability to speak up without being called names.
Oddly enough, it's on tech-oriented sites like this one that I hear the most chatter about universal basic income or post-work societies, and grappling with the very disruptions of the social fabric that tech development creates.
Perhaps this shift is partly a seismic realignment; traditional left-right divides don't fit as comfortably as they used to, as issues move faster than constituencies and demographics.
Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest.
> Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest.
In the case of people, this is a popular misconception. Democrats are funded by more billionaires than Republicans, are in control of a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and among people earning more than $200,000 the presidential vote was very evenly split.
Very true (and parent makes a really good point, also).
I do wonder: rather than a single axis, how many would be appropriate? If you did PCA on... well, some crazy mishmash of factors -- demographic, political, socioeconomic, geographic -- what would be the eigenvalues of today's US politics? (And what's the minimum sensible number of values to capture the range of experience?)
Man, I can just hear my cofounder exhaling in frustration, at such an ill-posed problem, and abuse of terminology... and no doubt there are real, quantitative answers to some of this (and PCA is probably naive compared to... latest whiz-bang etc)... But still.
I imagine at that point the cause and effect would become mightily, mightily mixed up. Maybe race is a cause of political affiliation (it certainly isn't an effect), but surely certain factors, like donations, would be an effect of political affiliation. As it already stands, it seems reasonable to me that the urban/suburban/rural split might be equally as much an effect as a cause.
As it stands, that sort of analysis might be interesting, but is of little value without separating cause and effect (and surely those will be different for everyone).
It's more that the "left" changed. Where it used to be somewhat protectionist, supporting local workers against asset-owners, during the late 80s and 90s the "left" shifted to try to be more internationalist, metropolitan, and aspirational. With the seeming rise of the professional classes, that looked like being the next big demographic, and of course government policy workers and journalists fall very squarely into that demographic (city-dwelling professional) so it had the attraction to those whose career is debating public policy of supporting their own niche.
Universal basic income is one of the few ideas that the Old-Left and New-Right can agree on, but it's the internationalist New-Left that gets stymied by it.
- it implies very strong immigration controls, as a no-questions-asked massive cheque is one heck of an attractor for immigration. (And you're not going to get every country in the world to introduce it simultaneously.)
- in the same vein as Charter Schools, it implies the state having less say over your individual choices than if the state were providing services directly (and the state instead of the consumer deciding what shape they should be).
The New Left, which to be brutal fell into the trap of caring mostly that everyone should be expected to agree with it (be pro-immigration, secularist, etc) or otherwise they must be horrible / deplorable people, gets painted out on both counts. Stronger immigration controls make international city-hopping harder, and weaker control over services (if the state is just handing out cash) makes it harder to press everyone to fall in line and hold the same opinions.
One of the up-sides of "the return of protectionism" might actually be that you need those conditions to allow a UBI to be introduced.
This is a good comment. The left saw much success after the New Deal because of its pro-labor stance...as society evolved, it came to encompass a whole bunch of rather polarizing issues rather than simply being "labor v/s corporation" and that seems to have reduced their appeal to the rural populace.
Except that by now, labor has been weakened and economic inequality has increased to the point that the Old Left is clamping its hand over the New Left's mouth and taking over the title of "left-wing" again.
The NY Times article says up front that tech companies donations in the Presidential race went overwhelmingly to Clinton. It's the House and Senate races where the rightward shift has occurred.
Well, we experienced a black swan event and maybe even the first shoe to drop. Some of us are just capitalists and capitalists are able to do this:
- Adapt. Even though it seems like we're all in a boat thats capsized and the stove is above your head along with the sing while the cups are floating in the water and in the dark, there's now new opportunity across the board.
- Make an observation on a "product" and then take that "product" off the table of a competitor and do it better. These are the rules. In 2020 the "product" could be this new incoming administration.
Brendan Eich's donation of $1000 in support of Prop 8 ended his career at Mozilla, making a tech employee donating to Trump an obvious potential career-ending move. It's not very surprising that they didn't. An interesting question is whether their family members donated to Trump what was actually the tech employee's money.
Part of me wonders if the whole deal with Brendan Eich is a problem with tech or a problem with California. Would the same thing have happened if Mozilla operated out of New York or Seattle (let alone Denver or Austin)? And if not, at what point do the particular nuances of SV (such as political intolerance) become a burden not worth tolerating within the tech community?
I can't speak to other states in the nation, but I don't think this is a problem that is isolated to tech specifically within CA. One of the things I learned from my time in an ultra-liberal high school in the Bay Area was to keep my mouth shut and my head down if I had a differing opinion.
To set the background, my high school invited prominent speakers from time to time to speak about various issues. Not a single conservative voice ever came to talk to us. When the case for the Iraq War was being debated in public, the school invited a panel of speakers to debate the topic in front of us. They didn't invite a single person in favor of the War. When they invited Daniel Ellsberg to speak, he went into a long profanity punctuated rant about GWB which ended with the entire auditorium (including all the teachers and administrators) standing on their feet to applaud him for minutes. This is just a small sampling.
It was around that time that I began to realize how bad the indoctrination was and started reading other points of view. When I began expressing those views to share what I had learned, I started getting a lot of funny looks or outright hostility. I remember as a member of student government, I was part of a meeting to discuss changing or adding anything to the student handbook. I mentioned that rather than a focus on racial diversity, that perhaps we should readjust the focus to include a diversity of views as well. The dismissive reaction from everyone including the chairman of the school cemented in my mind where everyone truly stood.
It is hard to express how frustrating it is to be surrounded by people who claim to be inclusive and open minded, yet are utterly unwilling to seriously entertain any point of view that comes in conflict with theirs. The totality of their certainty and the violence with which they express it is right on par with the kind of fanaticism you see in deeply Christian communities.
I was not living in the US during the Iraq War debates but wasn't that the situation that the mainstream media projected pro-war views? In that sense the debate panels were arguing with the state propaganda basically, weren't they?
My opinion on that time was that it was a mixed bag as far as the mainstream media was concerned. I definitely do not recall coverage being one sided at all.
As an immigrant to the US who's childhood path went from poor rural Texas, to poor urban Houston, to poor Oakland and then to SF, I share many of your sentiments. As an atheist in Texas, I often felt at odds with my peers and subsequently learned from an early age to not voice my opinions too loudly. While this isn't exactly the best way to grow up, I more or less accepted it as the price to pay for having very different world views.
Interestingly enough, while I actually shared many of the same political views as my SF peers, I grew increasingly uncomfortable with the open hostility that anyone challenging those views would face. In many ways, I found it harder to be an open minded left leaning atheist in SF than a left leaning atheist in Texas. The hypocrisy I saw on display was very disillusioning.
For all the talk about SF being progressive and tolerant, I found it among the most provincial and closed minded places I've ever lived.
Eich's career at Mozilla ended when he resigned as CEO and declined to remain as CTO. He resigned because he let a predictable PR problem get away from him and couldn't effectively lead. He had marginal support to begin with; three board members resigned when he was appointed for reasons that had nothing to do with his political activities.
Someone somewhere probably got fired for donating to Trump. Someone somewhere probably got fired for donating to Clinton. Eich donated to curtail civil rights and kept his job as CTO until he gave it up.
I understand your opposition to Eich's donation, but I think that what you said strengthens my point rather than weakens it; my only point was that most tech employees would see an Eich-like quiet, private donation to Trump as a "predictable PR problem that might get away from them and prevent them from effectively leading", and that as a result they would avoid creating such a "PR problem", and therefore we cannot learn much about support for Trump in tech circles by looking at donations.
As to someone somewhere... Show me someone, somewhere on HN attacked by thousands of commenters for supporting some liberal cause in the US the way Eich was attacked by thousands of commenters (who keep mentioning it every time say Brave is brought up) for supporting a conservative cause. (I'm not saying you SHOULD be able to find this example, whatever "should" means; I'm only saying that you CAN'T, and that "someone somewhere" doesn't cut both ways the way you implied. If it were that symmetrical, then it would have invalidated my point.)
My only point is that Eich doesn't demonstrate your point. It took four years for people to notice the donation, and when they did, nothing of consequence happened. Two years later, he got promoted. The donation only became an issue after he was named CEO.
Mozilla is a prominent company and puts unusual emphasis on its social mission. The CEO is the public face of a company and ultimately responsible for ensuring that workers are treated fairly. A donation for a specific issue says something a donation to a candidate doesn't. And Eich/Mozilla handled the situation badly. (You misquoted me, by the way.)
I see Eich mentioned as a martyr on HN more often than I see a word against him. I threw in "someone somewhere" because we actually agree that fear of retribution can keep people from donating to political campaigns. I just don't think Eich is a good example.
I stand corrected on the resignations. You know that's how the Wall Street Journal reported it, so accusing me of lying is out of line, but I appreciate you correcting the record.
"Curtail civil rights" is exactly right, though. Prop 8 didn't nullify existing marriages, but it did prevent new ones. Whatever philosophical reasons you had for supporting the measure, its language and effect were specific.
Lying is when you disparage someone by asserting as facts, without any speculative words such as "might have", your negative guesswork that you can't possibly know to be a true and complete account, due to non-disclosure. I'll talk about the Mozilla situation in 2014 later, if I ever do; I'm not out to make trouble right now for a project and org that I co-founded.
"Civil rights", if the phrase meant anything at stake in 2008, meant positive rights under state law that were protected by CA's domestic partnership section of its family law code, which an earlier generation of allies (including me) had supported. You could reframe now (post-Obergefell) in federal civil rights terms, but that tells a revisionist account of the history. Back in 2008, state-guaranteed rights were not the issue in front of the citizens of California, and federal bad law (DOMA) was beyond state power to affect.
Remember Obama was also at that time in favor (he said; maybe he was strategically lying but we don't know) of the conjugal definition of marriage.
Yes, I know people find Obama's position then defective and wrong, and some (few) even said so at the time. But I don't see anyone going around arguing that Obama thereby curtailed civil rights, since he supported civil unions or domestic partnerships. If he got off the hook for the "curtailing civil rights" charge by evolving many years later, then what does the phrase mean? It's not a historically or legally accurate description. It's just a rhetorical club to beat up enemies and spare friends.
I never claimed to have inside knowledge. People don't usually attach "might have" to news reports from reputable sources. If I remember correctly, the story was that the dissenters wanted someone with mobile experience, which wouldn't reflect negatively on you even if it had been true. Still, it must be frustrating to see misinformation keep circulating years after the fact. All I can do is apologize for an honest mistake.
"Curtailing civil rights" means simply this: marrying someone of the same sex was legal in California, and then it wasn't. A right previously recognized was taken away. It doesn't matter if you disagree with how that right was recognized. It doesn't matter that domestic partnerships provided most of the same benefits within California as marriage. Most isn't all. Even if those deficiencies had been repaired, "separate but equal" isn't equal.
Obama "got off the hook" because he opposed writing his claimed personal beliefs into law. Even in 2008, he spoke against Prop 8 and advocated repealing DOMA. You aren't my enemy, and he isn't my friend; he just had a better position on this issue.
You wrote "declined to remain as CTO." That assertion requires inside knowledge. Note Andreas Gal was made CTO within two months of my leaving. There was a reorg that I announced (which is public info), and a CTO plan which is now clear enough.
I realize it's easy to speculate unintentionally but I try to draw a bright line around things like speaking for someone else, saying they "declined" an offer where you weren't involved and didn't actually see any offering or declining.
In the link I sent about board resignations (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651), I wrote "Alistair Barr of the WSJ was working on a story about Mozilla being in trouble". Barr was getting the "need CEO with mobile experience" line from someone, possibly an ex-executive, even a (soon-to-be-ex) board member. A number of people thought it might be Gary Kovacs, but no one knew for sure.
For my part regarding getting the appointment, I can only say that "mobile experience" line did not come up. Doing Firefox OS (for all its problems) did get us a lot of mobile experience and good partner contacts. I'm engaging with some of those contacts at Brave, so I think the ding from whomever leaked to Barr was not material re: me, then or now.
Obama had no skin in the game in California, but he did say (to Rick Warren in public) that he supported the conjugal definition of marriage. He did not explain how he squared this with being against Prop 8, as far as I know (references welcome). It sure looks like strategic lying to me, and nothing against Obama -- I voted for him in the 2008 CA primary. Politians do this kind of inconsistent fence-sitting all the time.
I'm an H1-B visa holder living and working in USA for past 10+ years. I cannot express how much happier I'm to see the Tech industry being on the wrong side of the presidential election. The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.
Here is an example, where every year, tens of thousands of legal immigrant kids getting deported because legal immigrants followed all the laws. Instead if we had not, and our kids were in illegal status, then Obama administration's DACA would have saved our kids.
[Note: there are tons of other examples I can provide, where it is more beneficial to claim to be an illegal vs trying to be legal status]
P.S. the fwd.us, a tech industry backed non-profit organization would never speak about our issues; but would bend over backward to prevent illegals from deported (check their twitter handle "FWD_us" if you don't believe). Btw- I have nothing against illegal immigrants; but it hurts to be disadvantaged after following every impossible immigration rules for past 10+ years.
>The out going administration had sold us (and indirectly hurting American workers) with the "Indentured servitude rules" to benefit the Tech companies and immigration attorneys.
The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD.
The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it. Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to reform it properly.
>The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false.
That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.
I did a quick google search but could not find any reference. Media barely covers any of our issues (no NYT no WashingPost, no noone). But, I personally know more than few of family friends were benefited.
Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
They were allowed to move out of H1B visa to EAD status (non-visa legal status). The same legal status DACA recipients got from Obama administration. So, technically nothing was changed to the H1B rule.
Google surfaces literally thousands of references to every little bit of US immigration minutiae, thanks to every immigration lawyer having public websites and forums, so I think that your path to EAD was likely wishful thinking.
The incoming administration has targeted the H-1B program and thanks to their control of the legislative arm and their embrace of the "southern strategy" I would expect things to get significantly worse for H-1Bs, especially those with the wrong skin color.
Here is a concrete example of something the Obama administration - the executive arm - did actually do for H1Bs - clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs:
> Google surfaces literally thousands of references to every little bit of US immigration minutiae, thanks to every immigration lawyer having public websites and forums, so I think that your path to EAD was likely wishful thinking.
It was not. Please see my sibling comment.
Furthermore, Obama administration has explicitly declined to allow such provisions despite being well aware of this situation and after publicly promising relief.
In a memo[1] dated 11/20/2014 (right after the President's State of the Union address [2]), Jeh Johnson (Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Security) stated:
As you know, our employment-based immigration system is
afflicted with extremely long waits for immigrant visas, or
"green cards," due to relatively low green card numerical limits
established by Congress 24 years ago in 1990.
...
The resulting backlogs for green cards prevent U.S. employers
from attracting and retaining highly skilled workers critical to
their businesses. U.S. businesses have historically relied on
temporary visas- such as H-1B, L-1B, or 0-1 visas-to retain
individuals with needed skills as they work their way through
these backlogs. But as the backlogs for green cards grow longer,
it is increasingly the case that temporary visas fail to fill
the gap.
...
To correct this problem, I hereby direct USCIS to take several
steps to modernize and improve the immigrant visa process.
After 2 years of dragging its feet on the issue, USCIS recently published its rule. It goes into 95 pages of legalese, but the TL;DR is that USCIS has not done pretty much nothing to address issues pointed out in Johnson's memo. The only good thing to have come out of it is what you said:
> clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs
Notice how little the actual action was compared to the lofty initial rhetoric.
Thank you for sharing this. I don't assume you're a lawyer or anything, but does this mean that after leaving a job on an H1B visa, a worker has 60 days to potentially find another job?
It is rather disappointing that more action has not been taken to remedy this increasingly byzantine process. Its rather frustrating to jump through all the hoops and then be told to wait for 10+ years for the legal right to work after having contributed thousands of dollars in taxes, social security etc.
Nonimmigrants in certain high-skilled, nonimmigrant classifications may
be granted grace periods of up to 10 days before and after their validity
period, and a grace period upon cessation of employment on which the
foreign national’s classification was based, for up to 60 days or until the
end of their authorized validity period, whichever is shorter, during each
authorized validity period.
> Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
The priority dates became current abruptly for a month in July 2007 (see [1], [2] and [3] for Visa Bulletins for Jun/Jul/Aug 2007; "C" means current, "U" means unavailable). This was also the time period when "labor substitution" [4] was possible - i.e the employer could substitute a new prospective employee in the place of another who has an approved labor certification. Together, this enabled many people on H-1B to get an EAD [5]. EADs offer more or less the same flexibility as Green Cards for the purpose of employment.
This is probably what suryacom meant.
Labor substitution provision has since been revoked.
I was on H1B from 2004-2012 and still have a lot of friends still on H1B. Even now a lot of my friends from India that got to US in 2001 are still waiting for their priority date to become current. We have never heard or benefited from this. I am going to assume this is "fake news".
The President is not a dictator (fortunately). Almost any attempt at immigration reform in the last eight years has been shot down by the House, Senate or usually both. There is only so much he was able to do without them on-side.
The problem with this reasoning is that "Immigration reform" is tied directly to some way of providing relief to millions of undocumented ("illegal") immigrants in the US. It seems like the legal immigrants facing the brunt of the current arcane immigration policy (mostly legal immigrants from India/China) are neither politically active nor have the required numbers to influence the Legislature/White House to reform these policies.
It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
> I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.
> if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it
When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration.
"Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight."
The original poster did not care about "immigration reform" at large (which in the US is a euphemism for green card / citizenship path for undocumented immigrants), just his/her specific scenario.
Yes, the executive branch got stalled on immigration reform, but it was executive branch's choice to roll all of the issues (illegal immigration per se, illegal immigrants with children legally granted US citizenship status, illegal immigrants who overstayed their temporary worker visa, F1 students with no path to immigration status, H1 temporary workers who faced employment loss, immigrant investor green cards) into one giant overarching "immigration reform".
It certainly did not have to be approached that way, unless someone specifically was looking for a way to get blocked on such omnibus approach and then throw up their hands at "lack of cooperation".
Do you know of Republican plans to improve this aspect of immigration? My impression is that their intentions are every bit the opposite. Trump has spoken against H1-B visas, so it's hard for me to picture him working to make the situation better for this category of visa-holder.
I have no idea. If Republican's tries to make the system better with the interest of American workers as priority, then there is a chance, it could help legal immigrants like me too.
With the current administration, their priority was totally upside down.
There's always a chance, but, again, I think all the prevailing signals are that life will get much worse for immigrants, legal and illegal, over the next few years. Nationalism applies against all foreigners, not just those here illegally. Hopefully I'm wrong.
> I have no idea.
Also, respectfully, I think that you should have an idea how things are likely to effect you before you form a preference for one alternative over another.
But he does have an idea: that the Democrats don't care about this problem. Taking the chance to see if the other side does care seems like the reasonable thing to do.
If the other side hadn't explicitly stated their antipathy, corroborated by all external signals, I'd be right there with you. As for him having an idea, it seems like his own statement directly indicates that he's not very informed on this issue. I'll take his word for it.
He has spoken against H1-B visa abuse versus H1-B visas per se, which is an attempt to arbitrage on Department of Labor requirement on "prevailing wage" by establishing headquarters in the boonies of New Jersey / Georgia, filing H1 applications with local (extremely low) prevailing wages, and then sending the workers on the "business trips" that amount to full-time employment to California, NY and Washington.
The prevention mechanism is fairly obvious, and it's to rank the H1 applications by salary instead of the current lottery system. Genuine employers like Google or Facebook don't need to game the system, it's the outsourcing shops employ this tactic to boost the margins. They're welcome to join the game by boosting their salaries, though.
From the US government point of view a US salary paid in the US is a net win over a salary paid in Ireland or Switzerland, as it's still subject to federal income taxes, so net win on revenue.
I'm sorry for the hassle you've had to face in pursuit of a better life (assuming that's why you're on a visa here).
Unfortunately, immigration reform in the eyes of the ruling class isn't how the issue is presented in the press (shocker I know). One must question why an issue that seemingly has both party establishments blessing doesn't make it through congress and to the President's desk? The answer is the fringe of both parties thwart reform. Given they are a minority in the system, the only way they manage to keep the never-ending status-quo is due to the fact both establishments insist on passing all of these items on their laundry list at the same time.
The conservative establishment wants cheap labor (increased visa cap w/restrictive rules) and the liberal establishment wants votes via a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, w/the belief these voters will break overwhelmingly for democratic candidate if they were to participate in the political process.
The downward pressure on the wages of U.S. citizens which the increased visas (w/restrictions) would cause is antithetical to a liberal populist. A visa w/o restrictions would mostly remedy this grievance (with an appropriate cap), but you have a better chance of seeing a human land on Pluto in this century than that passing Congress.
On the other side, republicans who identify with the tea party or freedom caucus (or both) care more about their ideology than corporate profits, and their entrenchment in the political system would be threatened if a sudden influx of undocumented immigrants began participating in the U.S. elections. It's also worth pointing out that some of the backlash towards a pathway to citizenship stems from raw xenophobia; but I'd argue the former reason as the "primary" one.
The upper echelons of SV are no different than any other American industry, being that they will be apolitical with the contributions, and have press releases/tweets which they think will get the most positive receptions, which may or may not be congruent with the aforementioned lobbying. The giant tech cos would love for it to be easy for you to come work for them, on the condition they can pay you below market or at market rates (which they've manipulated substantially) w/limited or no mobility between employers.
English wasn't my first language and I'm having a bit of trouble understanding your analogy, would you mind explaining it in a bit more detail?
Irrespective of were one falls on the illegal/undocumented immigration debate, and what the possible solutions could be, what does your post have to do with immigrants who spend considerable time, money and energy navigating the US immigration system that may feel it a tiny bit unfair when others don't have to abide by the same set of immigration rules?
I would add that for many immigrants to the US, especially those who are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, the US immigration system isn't just a minor bureaucratic announce, it can be a significant source of financial and familial stress.
The story goes that when you throw crabs in to a pot of boiling water, the crabs on the bottom of the pot will drag down the crabs above them.
The cook doesn't even need to put a lid on the pot to keep the crabs from escaping, since as soon as any crab tries to escape, the crabs below it will drag it down with them.
Similarly, in the immigration debate (and in many other situations in life) those who are worse off often resent others who are doing better, and instead of helping to improve everyone's life, or at least focus on improving their own, will try to worsen the lot of those who are doing better.
I appreciate the explanation, although I'm still not entirely sure I agree with the analogy.
I saw both the financial and personal toll that navigating the immigration system took on my parents, it was a constant source of stress in the family. I'm sympathetic to all immigrants, legal or otherwise, and believe that immigration reform should include amnesty for those in the US illegally, along with a path to citizenship.
With that being said, I would find it problematic to apply a different set of rules and expectations for different kinds of immigrants. As I said, I do support a path to full legalization and citizenship, even though I would personally still find it somewhat unfair. I don't think that this feeling of unfairness is resentment though, and I certainly wouldn't wish for any immigrant's life to be made harder or worse off than my own.
This is an unproductive analogy, because it may be trotted out any time people complain about any unfairness they've suffered. "They're not really complaining about being boiled to death; they're really just jealous of the superior crabs who have been talented and hardworking enough to crawl out of the pot. Jealousy is bad so don't listen to these bad crabs bitching about being boiled."
I knew you were the poster from the other thread ranting about this system being rigged by immigration attorneys who are apparently making a "killing."
You are misguided on this matter and the criticism of immigration lawyers is misplaced
That is the sense I got from the Legal Immigrant Advocacy groups who directly worked with DC Immigration Officials.
There should be good companies and attorneys (for e.g., Murthy, etc.) probably they are out numbered?
P.S: I did provide the twitter handle of fwd.us for anyone not convinced to verify
Please watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj1bHpPvSuE. In it you see Rahul Reddy, an immigration attorney, discussing with a group of "body shop" owners how immigration reform can be bad for business and what can be done to lobby against it.
Immigration attorneys have much to gain by trapping more people in GC backlogs.
To tech employees of corporations whose upper management and/or shareholders have donated to Republican interests: how do you feel about that? If you vote Democratic and contribute to Democratic campaigns, how do you feel knowing that your work directly produced profits which could be used to significantly outspend you and your like-minded colleagues?
I rejected the Valley years ago because I saw the direction it was going in. I would like to hear from the people who are still there.
> how do you feel knowing that your work directly produced profits which could be used to significantly outspend you and your like-minded colleagues
Like I live in a democracy? If you are scared shitless of the opposition there's a problem with the checks and balances (or your understanding of them). Democracy requires tolerance of disagreement.
In my opinion, Silicon Valley is pragmatic and always has been. The contributions seem less likely to be party-based and more likely to be based on the specific types of legislation they'd see advanced. Sometimes that will fall left, and sometimes right.
Further, if the party likely to win is the right, they'll find candidates within that party to support. Had it been going the other way, then candidates in the left would have gotten that support.
Alternatively, the author is accidentally correct. As business grow, they tend to get more benefit from right fiscal policy than left.
Agreed, it was expected that Republicans would control congress after the elections. I wouldn't be surprised to see every industry had given more money to Republican candidates.
I'm so very tired of the left/right analogy. Please describe your politics as well as you do your sandwich toppings. They're likely similar in quantity. To put Trump and many other republicans on the same "right" is more absurd than ever. I made a video about it.
The influence of tech companies isn't measured in how much they donate to each party (as the article suggests) so much as it is how they use their powerful technology to influence public opinion and collude with politicians in private.
104 comments
[ 3.0 ms ] story [ 191 ms ] threadWell, yes, in so far as "their interests" involve actually getting things done rather than blaming everybody else for not doing.
Can I have a new left wing please? This one appears to be broken :(
If you want a new left wing, make it happen. Join a local board. Run for local office. Take part in your community. Be a part of something. But don't expect reading news or commenting on forums to change anything. After all, the shift from active citizen to passive consumer is what got us in this mess in the first place.
Adam Curtis has several phenominal documentaries regarding this shift over time. Particularly, "Century of the Self", "The Trap", and most recently, "HyperNormalization."
Oh come on. We all know that's not true. The citizens didn't turn neoliberal or particularly apathetic; the politicians did under the advice of economists who pushed neoliberalism as the solution to the oil crisis.
>If you want a new left wing, make it happen. Join a local board. Run for local office. Take part in your community. Be a part of something. But don't expect reading news or commenting on forums to change anything.
This I can agree with! Not just that, but provide names of organizations pushing a more "Old Left", social-democratic agenda. I belong to the first two of these as a dues-paying member and a volunteer, and we've been gaining hundreds of new members since the election. It's honestly like waking up from a bad dream: all of a sudden, the bread-and-butter issues (wages, housing, health-care, civil liberties) matter again, and the culture wars are getting sidelined.
* Democratic Socialists of America
* Our Revolution (started by Bernie Sanders)
* Socialist Alternative (more "party-line", worse at returning people's calls)
* The Berniecrats Network
* /r/Berniecrats and facebook/Berniecrats
* Jacobin magazine and its associated reading groups
For those looking for a more decent right-wing as well, I recommend Reason magazine, the Washington Monthly (especially this one, it's a hidden gem of a magazine), the Libertarian Party, the works of Henry George, and GK Chesterton's "distributivism".
I also definitely have a bone to pick with the people claiming we're gonna totally obtain third-party electoral successes Real Soon Now. Yes, the Democratic Party has been rubbish to us. It has been the "graveyard of social movements". But we've also run a hell of a lot of social movements (like Occupy Wall Street, for instance) that had a whole ton of radical spirit, chic, and ideology, but had zero power analysis and zero affirmative program. Our Revolution and Bernie's rejuvenation of social democracy through taking over the Democratic Party, while it's lost its back-bench, from the bottom up, does actually promise a strategy for obtaining real power that's suited to our historical moment.
Just my thoughts. Don't mind me. I'm no longer sober.
I've been saying this since basically after Obama was elected.
I was a HUGE supporter of his, even in the democratic primaries. I donated to him, I was running local groups that were canvassing and phone banking to get him elected. I was ecstatic when he got elected (though I viewed it as a foregone conclusion, I didn't think McCain had a chance).
When it came to the governing, I was not really impressed. Basically from day 1, everything seemed stuck. He got a few things done (ACA though that's of dubious benefit, and was done in such a way that it became a political punching bag and can't get any reforms), but mostly in the first two years. After the 2010 midterms, this shit was just complete gridlock. You can blame whomever you want for the gridlock but a good leader builds compromise and ends gridlock.
I think there are two good examples of this. First, after sandy hook Obama promised that he would pass gun control legislation. Now, I do not agree with lots of things that he would like to do with such legislation, but, I do agree that there are some changes required. He has basically failed to pass any legislation around gun control and his response to that isn't to propose new legislation that can pass congress. His reaction was to go on national television and cry (literally) about his failure to pass gun control legislation.
I'm sorry, I don't want a damn leader who CRYS about their political failures. I know dead children is a sad subject, but, this is ultimately a political failure.
The 2nd one is Guantanamo. When he was campaigning one of his promises was to close Guantanamo, bring prisoners home and try them for their crimes. After 8 years, that has not happened and its become so politically untenable that he's basically letting these people out, without trying them at all. It is a mind-boggling
Withdrawing from Iraq/Afghanistan was another campaign promise that I was personally invested in too, but that is a far more complex one and though he doesn't get a pass from me on that as I have personal losses there, I acknowledge that its more complex.
I do not agree with lots of things that (old) republicans did (though I am hopeful about the new republican party of today), but they get shit done. They wanted to block (stupid) gun control legislation, they did. They wanted to block returning Guantanamo prisoners to the USA, they did.
Sometimes doing something, even if its not perfect, is more important than doing nothing, especially when you don't have a crystal ball and don't know what exact result specific actions/legislation will have. Move fast, break shit.
>I do not agree with lots of things that (old) republicans did... but they get shit done. They wanted to block (stupid) gun control legislation, they did. They wanted to block returning Guantanamo prisoners to the USA, they did.
Blocking legislation (esp legislation brought forth by the opposition party) is, always has been, and always will be 100x easier than putting forth any legislation. Blocking legislation isn't getting anything done. We already see a failure to get things done by the Republicans in their handling of Obamacare-- they have no collective idea as to how to replace it, despite their vigor in denouncing and repealing the bill. They have had 6 years.
On the other point, I lean Republican, and I'm more inclined to agree with 464192002d7fe1c. A lot of leftists love to blame the Republicans for being obstructionist during the Obama administration. But were you paying any attention to Obama's attitude? See [1]. He basically says "I won, deal with it, if you don't like it, then go win some elections". Well, they did, and they obstructed him in exactly the spirit that he invited. And in roughly the same spirit that the Democrats obstructed GWB during his term.
A good leader accepts the political situation and seeks to work within it. If your political opponents have control of Congress, you better learn how to compromise and work with them to get things done. This might actually involve not getting everything your way and sometimes doing something that the other side wants. Whining that you can't get the things that you want done is poor leadership.
I'll grant that there's a big divide between the two sides, and neither side is innocent in perpetuating it. But who can be the bigger person, lay off the name calling for a while, and make some compromises? Evidently not Obama. Maybe Trump will? I guess we'll see soon enough.
[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2013/10/17/pr...
Obama needed to be a better leader? Give me a goddamn break. Maybe he wasn't perfect, but in order for him to have done a better job unifying he would have had to bend over backwards to the GOP. There's a clear right and wrong in this situation.
Well no. They REDMAP'd it. That was impolite, so to speak: not technically illegal, but sufficiently unethical that in 2004 the Supreme Court basically said they'd ban it if only they had some consistent standard to apply.
This year they might have that consistent standard, and starting with North Carolina and Wisconsin, the permanent Republican Congressional majority might stop being so permanent.
In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.
> In fact, every single politician who utters the phrase "permanent majority", with or without a party name in the middle, should be jailed. A democracy never has a permanent majority, or else it ceases to be a democracy.
The GOP has controlled the House for only six years running. Before that, the Democrats controlled it for four - before that, the GOP controlled it for six, and before that, the Democrats controlled it for 61 years, with the exception of one term (1947, under Truman). During the vast majority of that time, the Senate was also under Democratic control as well, although the Senate has leaned slightly more right than the House fairly consistently ever since the Seventeenth Amendment was passed.
I agree that a democratic system should not be controlled by a single party, but it's rather silly to say that the GOP has a "permanent Congressional majority" given how recent their majority is.
Greater judicial opposition to the REDMAP gerrymandering program that, starting in 2010, helped to guarantee Republicans the consistent seats in Congress and state-houses that they needed to obstruct Democratic measures.
The Republicans do have plenty of voters, probably "too many" if you're a Democrat, but there was no historical necessity for them to have a chokehold on Congress until 2020.
I would wager many on the left are rethinking their whole stance on guns and 2A with the Republicans in power now. Not saying we are getting ready for revolution, but at least folks might be more sympathetic to the view of people power balanced against government when the other side is in office.
As a further real life example of the self defeating gun politics of the left, I am confident far more innocent people will die as a result of Republican rule than any gun violence (consequence of dismantling Obamacare and environmental regulations, reduction of social safety nets).
Why not say that? If we're talking about people leftist enough to be Leftist rather than "liberal", yes, there are calls for revolution. Well-justified calls for revolution, IMHO, given that Congress and our state-and-local governments now feature a permanent, unbreakable one-party regime by the Republicans in most states, with a very few "state-and-local swing states" and a couple of one-party Democratic states.
A two-party system that degrades into a one-party system should be overthrown. One party systems are not democratic. Democracy demands a multiparty system with responsive government and extensive civil liberties.
We have a small, but distinct left wing here. You can find it in magazines like Jacobin or Current Affairs. You can find it in many backers of Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren. Or in Occupy.
But Obama? The left in the United States has spent eight years yelling bloody murder about his spying, his favors to the banksters, and his corporate giveaways. Obama's era has feature apthe combination of "not fighting hard for the good stuff he says he wants" and "fighting very hard for the bad stuff he wants". Don't lump him in with us.
The article provided many more things in support of its point, such as
* Surveys with startup founders on their politics.
* In-depth analysis of both PAC donations - which your criticism might apply to - and individual donations - which it does not.
* In-depth analysis of the changes that typically happen to a company like Amazon or Google that begins as an innovator and ends up being one of the biggest corporations, and threatened by things like antitrust, which naturally lead it to favor Republican positions on those issues.
"When we work on making our devices accessible by the blind, I don’t consider the bloody ROI,” Cook said, adding that the same sentiment applied to environmental and health and safety issues. [1]
Personally, I think there's a higher system of value than corporate profits and share price. But that's a first principle argument. Conveniently, I happen to believe that purely shareholder-value-maximizing behavior rarely fails to build long term value, so I'm having my philosophical cake and eating it, too. But when push comes to shove, we do things for reasons beyond profit. It's pretty hollow otherwise.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/mar/03/tim-cook...
You got to be delusional to think Apple is helping the environment.
Stop that.
Please stop that, too. It's not an argument.
Everyone likes to pretend that their politics are just common sense, while other people's politics are "ugh, politics." People are forever saying "politics have no place in [business/the office/the dinner table/this forum]" whenever someone disagrees with them, while continuing to happily spout off on their own politics.
Tech companies have been annoyingly left for a very long time. I'd like to see more parity. It becomes annoying to have people make questionable political statements (especially HR) and not have the ability to speak up without being called names.
Perhaps this shift is partly a seismic realignment; traditional left-right divides don't fit as comfortably as they used to, as issues move faster than constituencies and demographics.
Or maybe just corporations, like people, get more conservative when they're richer. Possibly out of cynical self-interest.
In the case of people, this is a popular misconception. Democrats are funded by more billionaires than Republicans, are in control of a majority of the wealthiest congressional districts, and among people earning more than $200,000 the presidential vote was very evenly split.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2014/jun/23/...
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/07/opinion/how-did-the-democ...
http://ijr.com/2014/02/116056-wall-street-bankers-top-donors...
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/11/08/us/elections/e...
I do wonder: rather than a single axis, how many would be appropriate? If you did PCA on... well, some crazy mishmash of factors -- demographic, political, socioeconomic, geographic -- what would be the eigenvalues of today's US politics? (And what's the minimum sensible number of values to capture the range of experience?)
Man, I can just hear my cofounder exhaling in frustration, at such an ill-posed problem, and abuse of terminology... and no doubt there are real, quantitative answers to some of this (and PCA is probably naive compared to... latest whiz-bang etc)... But still.
As it stands, that sort of analysis might be interesting, but is of little value without separating cause and effect (and surely those will be different for everyone).
Universal basic income is one of the few ideas that the Old-Left and New-Right can agree on, but it's the internationalist New-Left that gets stymied by it.
- it implies very strong immigration controls, as a no-questions-asked massive cheque is one heck of an attractor for immigration. (And you're not going to get every country in the world to introduce it simultaneously.)
- in the same vein as Charter Schools, it implies the state having less say over your individual choices than if the state were providing services directly (and the state instead of the consumer deciding what shape they should be).
The New Left, which to be brutal fell into the trap of caring mostly that everyone should be expected to agree with it (be pro-immigration, secularist, etc) or otherwise they must be horrible / deplorable people, gets painted out on both counts. Stronger immigration controls make international city-hopping harder, and weaker control over services (if the state is just handing out cash) makes it harder to press everyone to fall in line and hold the same opinions.
One of the up-sides of "the return of protectionism" might actually be that you need those conditions to allow a UBI to be introduced.
http://www.businessinsider.com/silicon-valley-donors-favor-h...
Here is what Paul Graham and Sam Altman had donated to: https://blog.dcpos.ch/silicon-valley-political-contributions
- Adapt. Even though it seems like we're all in a boat thats capsized and the stove is above your head along with the sing while the cups are floating in the water and in the dark, there's now new opportunity across the board.
- Make an observation on a "product" and then take that "product" off the table of a competitor and do it better. These are the rules. In 2020 the "product" could be this new incoming administration.
To set the background, my high school invited prominent speakers from time to time to speak about various issues. Not a single conservative voice ever came to talk to us. When the case for the Iraq War was being debated in public, the school invited a panel of speakers to debate the topic in front of us. They didn't invite a single person in favor of the War. When they invited Daniel Ellsberg to speak, he went into a long profanity punctuated rant about GWB which ended with the entire auditorium (including all the teachers and administrators) standing on their feet to applaud him for minutes. This is just a small sampling.
It was around that time that I began to realize how bad the indoctrination was and started reading other points of view. When I began expressing those views to share what I had learned, I started getting a lot of funny looks or outright hostility. I remember as a member of student government, I was part of a meeting to discuss changing or adding anything to the student handbook. I mentioned that rather than a focus on racial diversity, that perhaps we should readjust the focus to include a diversity of views as well. The dismissive reaction from everyone including the chairman of the school cemented in my mind where everyone truly stood.
It is hard to express how frustrating it is to be surrounded by people who claim to be inclusive and open minded, yet are utterly unwilling to seriously entertain any point of view that comes in conflict with theirs. The totality of their certainty and the violence with which they express it is right on par with the kind of fanaticism you see in deeply Christian communities.
Interestingly enough, while I actually shared many of the same political views as my SF peers, I grew increasingly uncomfortable with the open hostility that anyone challenging those views would face. In many ways, I found it harder to be an open minded left leaning atheist in SF than a left leaning atheist in Texas. The hypocrisy I saw on display was very disillusioning.
For all the talk about SF being progressive and tolerant, I found it among the most provincial and closed minded places I've ever lived.
Someone somewhere probably got fired for donating to Trump. Someone somewhere probably got fired for donating to Clinton. Eich donated to curtail civil rights and kept his job as CTO until he gave it up.
As to someone somewhere... Show me someone, somewhere on HN attacked by thousands of commenters for supporting some liberal cause in the US the way Eich was attacked by thousands of commenters (who keep mentioning it every time say Brave is brought up) for supporting a conservative cause. (I'm not saying you SHOULD be able to find this example, whatever "should" means; I'm only saying that you CAN'T, and that "someone somewhere" doesn't cut both ways the way you implied. If it were that symmetrical, then it would have invalidated my point.)
Mozilla is a prominent company and puts unusual emphasis on its social mission. The CEO is the public face of a company and ultimately responsible for ensuring that workers are treated fairly. A donation for a specific issue says something a donation to a candidate doesn't. And Eich/Mozilla handled the situation badly. (You misquoted me, by the way.)
I see Eich mentioned as a martyr on HN more often than I see a word against him. I threw in "someone somewhere" because we actually agree that fear of retribution can keep people from donating to political campaigns. I just don't think Eich is a good example.
On board resignations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651
On "curtail civil rights" canard: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721891 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721928
"Curtail civil rights" is exactly right, though. Prop 8 didn't nullify existing marriages, but it did prevent new ones. Whatever philosophical reasons you had for supporting the measure, its language and effect were specific.
"Civil rights", if the phrase meant anything at stake in 2008, meant positive rights under state law that were protected by CA's domestic partnership section of its family law code, which an earlier generation of allies (including me) had supported. You could reframe now (post-Obergefell) in federal civil rights terms, but that tells a revisionist account of the history. Back in 2008, state-guaranteed rights were not the issue in front of the citizens of California, and federal bad law (DOMA) was beyond state power to affect.
Remember Obama was also at that time in favor (he said; maybe he was strategically lying but we don't know) of the conjugal definition of marriage.
Yes, I know people find Obama's position then defective and wrong, and some (few) even said so at the time. But I don't see anyone going around arguing that Obama thereby curtailed civil rights, since he supported civil unions or domestic partnerships. If he got off the hook for the "curtailing civil rights" charge by evolving many years later, then what does the phrase mean? It's not a historically or legally accurate description. It's just a rhetorical club to beat up enemies and spare friends.
"Curtailing civil rights" means simply this: marrying someone of the same sex was legal in California, and then it wasn't. A right previously recognized was taken away. It doesn't matter if you disagree with how that right was recognized. It doesn't matter that domestic partnerships provided most of the same benefits within California as marriage. Most isn't all. Even if those deficiencies had been repaired, "separate but equal" isn't equal.
Obama "got off the hook" because he opposed writing his claimed personal beliefs into law. Even in 2008, he spoke against Prop 8 and advocated repealing DOMA. You aren't my enemy, and he isn't my friend; he just had a better position on this issue.
I realize it's easy to speculate unintentionally but I try to draw a bright line around things like speaking for someone else, saying they "declined" an offer where you weren't involved and didn't actually see any offering or declining.
In the link I sent about board resignations (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10654651), I wrote "Alistair Barr of the WSJ was working on a story about Mozilla being in trouble". Barr was getting the "need CEO with mobile experience" line from someone, possibly an ex-executive, even a (soon-to-be-ex) board member. A number of people thought it might be Gary Kovacs, but no one knew for sure.
For my part regarding getting the appointment, I can only say that "mobile experience" line did not come up. Doing Firefox OS (for all its problems) did get us a lot of mobile experience and good partner contacts. I'm engaging with some of those contacts at Brave, so I think the ding from whomever leaked to Barr was not material re: me, then or now.
On where law comes from, why CA voters can override the CA supreme court, see "status quo" on at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12721928.
Obama had no skin in the game in California, but he did say (to Rick Warren in public) that he supported the conjugal definition of marriage. He did not explain how he squared this with being against Prop 8, as far as I know (references welcome). It sure looks like strategic lying to me, and nothing against Obama -- I voted for him in the 2008 CA primary. Politians do this kind of inconsistent fence-sitting all the time.
Thanks for writing back.
Here is an example, where every year, tens of thousands of legal immigrant kids getting deported because legal immigrants followed all the laws. Instead if we had not, and our kids were in illegal status, then Obama administration's DACA would have saved our kids.
Just read the 1st two paragraph of this article: https://www.cato.org/blog/congress-should-help-young-legal-i...
[Note: there are tons of other examples I can provide, where it is more beneficial to claim to be an illegal vs trying to be legal status]
P.S. the fwd.us, a tech industry backed non-profit organization would never speak about our issues; but would bend over backward to prevent illegals from deported (check their twitter handle "FWD_us" if you don't believe). Btw- I have nothing against illegal immigrants; but it hurts to be disadvantaged after following every impossible immigration rules for past 10+ years.
The part that says "the outgoing administration" is demonstrably false. The facts are that the immigration policy of the US has not changed much under Obama (with a few notable exceptions like Cuba but that is not really related to the tech industry). Please stop spreading FUD.
The immigration policy is nonsensical, but Obama has little to do with it. Perhaps the only legitimate criticism you can make is that he was not able to reform it properly.
That is not correct. The G. W. Bush administration, just before leaving the office, gave all the legal immigrants "Job Mobility" (i.e., their H1B visa was not anymore tied to the employer). It is minor and easy step President could take under his executive power.
Reference for this? I see that Bush proposed something like this in 2004, but I can't find any reference for it ever having been implemented.
Bush Administration made the "priority date current" for a short window; this allowed legal immigrants waiting in the line for Permanent Residency to file and obtain 485-EAD.
https://www.murthy.com/2012/10/26/using-the-ead-as-an-option...
So, I tried to keep it simple by mentioning "job mobility".
The incoming administration has targeted the H-1B program and thanks to their control of the legislative arm and their embrace of the "southern strategy" I would expect things to get significantly worse for H-1Bs, especially those with the wrong skin color.
Here is a concrete example of something the Obama administration - the executive arm - did actually do for H1Bs - clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs:
https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
It was not. Please see my sibling comment.
Furthermore, Obama administration has explicitly declined to allow such provisions despite being well aware of this situation and after publicly promising relief.
In a memo[1] dated 11/20/2014 (right after the President's State of the Union address [2]), Jeh Johnson (Secretary of Dept. of Homeland Security) stated:
After 2 years of dragging its feet on the issue, USCIS recently published its rule. It goes into 95 pages of legalese, but the TL;DR is that USCIS has not done pretty much nothing to address issues pointed out in Johnson's memo. The only good thing to have come out of it is what you said:> clarifying that there is a 60 day grace prior for switching jobs
Notice how little the actual action was compared to the lofty initial rhetoric.
[1]: Executive Action: Support High-skilled Business and Workers - https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/14_1120...
[2]: https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2014/01/28/presi...
[3]: USCIS Publishes Final Rule For Certain Employment-Based Immigrant and Nonimmigrant Visa Programs - https://www.uscis.gov/news/news-releases/uscis-publishes-fin...
It is rather disappointing that more action has not been taken to remedy this increasingly byzantine process. Its rather frustrating to jump through all the hoops and then be told to wait for 10+ years for the legal right to work after having contributed thousands of dollars in taxes, social security etc.
Yes. The content of the actual rule can be found at: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-11-18/pdf/2016-27540.p.... It says:
PS: IANAL etc.The priority dates became current abruptly for a month in July 2007 (see [1], [2] and [3] for Visa Bulletins for Jun/Jul/Aug 2007; "C" means current, "U" means unavailable). This was also the time period when "labor substitution" [4] was possible - i.e the employer could substitute a new prospective employee in the place of another who has an approved labor certification. Together, this enabled many people on H-1B to get an EAD [5]. EADs offer more or less the same flexibility as Green Cards for the purpose of employment.
This is probably what suryacom meant.
Labor substitution provision has since been revoked.
[1] Visa bulletin for June 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[2] Visa bulletin for July 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[3] Visa bulletin for August 2007: https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/law-and-policy/bul...
[4] http://www.kenreyeslaw.com/blog/2014/october/labor-certifica...
[5] https://www.uscis.gov/green-card/green-card-processes-and-pr...
It is this conflation that hurts the legal immigrants the most. I believe if a bill was introduced to reform the legal immigration process to permit more highly skilled workers to immigrate more easily, neither of the houses (nor the public) would have a problem with it.
I disagree. I think that a lot of politicians would refuse to sign any legislation with the words "permit" and "immigrant" in them. The public at large as misinformed enough that they're probably right to do so, too, if they want to be re-elected.
When the Democrat leadership argues for "comprehensive immigration reform" they are shooting down separating skilled from low-skilled immigration.
"Senate lawmakers who are most involved with immigration legislation--the so-called Gang of Eight--would prefer to see a comprehensive deal. That's also the position President Obama has taken. The trick lies in corralling enough Republicans to support a total-package process, as opposed to striking a set of smaller agreements. Carving out skilled immigration might lead to an easy bipartisan win, but it would give ammunition to piecemealers and risk fracturing the Gang of Eight."
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/03/democrat...
Yes, the executive branch got stalled on immigration reform, but it was executive branch's choice to roll all of the issues (illegal immigration per se, illegal immigrants with children legally granted US citizenship status, illegal immigrants who overstayed their temporary worker visa, F1 students with no path to immigration status, H1 temporary workers who faced employment loss, immigrant investor green cards) into one giant overarching "immigration reform".
It certainly did not have to be approached that way, unless someone specifically was looking for a way to get blocked on such omnibus approach and then throw up their hands at "lack of cooperation".
This is true for many, many things under Obama. For those of us who elected him as a "change agent" we are largely disappointed.
With the current administration, their priority was totally upside down.
> I have no idea.
Also, respectfully, I think that you should have an idea how things are likely to effect you before you form a preference for one alternative over another.
The prevention mechanism is fairly obvious, and it's to rank the H1 applications by salary instead of the current lottery system. Genuine employers like Google or Facebook don't need to game the system, it's the outsourcing shops employ this tactic to boost the margins. They're welcome to join the game by boosting their salaries, though.
From the US government point of view a US salary paid in the US is a net win over a salary paid in Ireland or Switzerland, as it's still subject to federal income taxes, so net win on revenue.
Unfortunately, immigration reform in the eyes of the ruling class isn't how the issue is presented in the press (shocker I know). One must question why an issue that seemingly has both party establishments blessing doesn't make it through congress and to the President's desk? The answer is the fringe of both parties thwart reform. Given they are a minority in the system, the only way they manage to keep the never-ending status-quo is due to the fact both establishments insist on passing all of these items on their laundry list at the same time.
The conservative establishment wants cheap labor (increased visa cap w/restrictive rules) and the liberal establishment wants votes via a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, w/the belief these voters will break overwhelmingly for democratic candidate if they were to participate in the political process.
The downward pressure on the wages of U.S. citizens which the increased visas (w/restrictions) would cause is antithetical to a liberal populist. A visa w/o restrictions would mostly remedy this grievance (with an appropriate cap), but you have a better chance of seeing a human land on Pluto in this century than that passing Congress.
On the other side, republicans who identify with the tea party or freedom caucus (or both) care more about their ideology than corporate profits, and their entrenchment in the political system would be threatened if a sudden influx of undocumented immigrants began participating in the U.S. elections. It's also worth pointing out that some of the backlash towards a pathway to citizenship stems from raw xenophobia; but I'd argue the former reason as the "primary" one.
The upper echelons of SV are no different than any other American industry, being that they will be apolitical with the contributions, and have press releases/tweets which they think will get the most positive receptions, which may or may not be congruent with the aforementioned lobbying. The giant tech cos would love for it to be easy for you to come work for them, on the condition they can pay you below market or at market rates (which they've manipulated substantially) w/limited or no mobility between employers.
Irrespective of were one falls on the illegal/undocumented immigration debate, and what the possible solutions could be, what does your post have to do with immigrants who spend considerable time, money and energy navigating the US immigration system that may feel it a tiny bit unfair when others don't have to abide by the same set of immigration rules?
I would add that for many immigrants to the US, especially those who are on the lower rungs of the economic ladder, the US immigration system isn't just a minor bureaucratic announce, it can be a significant source of financial and familial stress.
The cook doesn't even need to put a lid on the pot to keep the crabs from escaping, since as soon as any crab tries to escape, the crabs below it will drag it down with them.
Similarly, in the immigration debate (and in many other situations in life) those who are worse off often resent others who are doing better, and instead of helping to improve everyone's life, or at least focus on improving their own, will try to worsen the lot of those who are doing better.
I saw both the financial and personal toll that navigating the immigration system took on my parents, it was a constant source of stress in the family. I'm sympathetic to all immigrants, legal or otherwise, and believe that immigration reform should include amnesty for those in the US illegally, along with a path to citizenship.
With that being said, I would find it problematic to apply a different set of rules and expectations for different kinds of immigrants. As I said, I do support a path to full legalization and citizenship, even though I would personally still find it somewhat unfair. I don't think that this feeling of unfairness is resentment though, and I certainly wouldn't wish for any immigrant's life to be made harder or worse off than my own.
You are misguided on this matter and the criticism of immigration lawyers is misplaced
P.S: I did provide the twitter handle of fwd.us for anyone not convinced to verify
Immigration attorneys have much to gain by trapping more people in GC backlogs.
I rejected the Valley years ago because I saw the direction it was going in. I would like to hear from the people who are still there.
Like I live in a democracy? If you are scared shitless of the opposition there's a problem with the checks and balances (or your understanding of them). Democracy requires tolerance of disagreement.
Further, if the party likely to win is the right, they'll find candidates within that party to support. Had it been going the other way, then candidates in the left would have gotten that support.
Alternatively, the author is accidentally correct. As business grow, they tend to get more benefit from right fiscal policy than left.