re: Foreigners Don't Take IT Jobs, They Create Them
"Critics of this line of reasoning will point to the abuses: mainly, the H-1B and other visa holders brought in to do mid-level engineering and other work that could be done by U.S. nationals. But the answer is for government visa issuers to crack down on the abusers, not to end the visa program and shut down immigration of high-skill workers."
So Rob Preston agrees that the US Govt. should crack down (apply pressure) on H-1B abuse and that logically this is a proper role best left to "... government bureaucrats". I agree with this view since it is a federal function to regulate all immigration policy.
In the next paragraph:
"What about those U.S. companies moving IT and other jobs offshore by the boatload while accepting U.S. government bailout funds? In this regard, if the Occupy Wall Street climate prompts U.S. businesses and consumers to skew their buying toward companies dedicated to keeping jobs in this country, that's their prerogative. But let individual buyers decide whether to apply that pressure. Don't cede that decision to government bureaucrats."
Now Rob Preston is against "... government bureaucrats" applying any pressure on companies saved by US TAXPAYER BAILOUTS, but still "moving IT and other jobs offshore by the boatload ...". There are so many logical disconnects here that I am forced to clarify.
If any US company accepted US taxpayer money to get bailed out (saved), then it is the federal government's right to intervene:
1) On the part of those very same taxpayers as their duly elected and legal representatives.
2) To prevent the use of federal monies in furtherance of decimating the federal tax base, which reduces federal income. Firing American workers en masse means fewer taxpayers and more unemployment compensation!
3) To maximize the local and national economic force that such govt. spending is intended to stimulate. Sending jobs overseas does not qualify!
4) On corporate strategy as a condition for accepting a federal bailout. Just ask GM and Chrysler about this!
5) Just as any other major creditor or stockholder does in the private marketplace. When Uncle Sam bails out any company, he gets a seat on the Board of Directors, if not at the head!
6) Because it stinks to high heaven when free marketers and capitalists have no problem with maximizing private profit, but then socialize the losses of their badly managed risk when bailed out by the very same federal govt. they so love to excoriate!
I will not depend on individual buyers to skew their buying towards those companies dedicated to keeping jobs in the US because:
1) Buyers decide on PRICE, not where it was made or serviced. Rob Preston knows this, and that a feel good "Made in the USA" sentiment has little chance of prevailing.
2) Buyers know little about any particular US company's hiring practices or composition. But if companies had to report "Truth in Hiring" on every product or service label, much like food/agricultural goods have to list their ingredients in an FDA mandated way:
Company XYZ Labor Composition:
US citizens - 40%
US based H-1B - 30%
Offshore - 30%
Then buyers would be able to make a more informed choice and not leave it up to corporate public relations efforts.
3) Companies have an outsize influence through congressional lobbying. They will lie, distort and cheat their way out of truthfully reporting what their real hiring practices are because their competition, both in the US and globally, are doing it too. They will obfuscate to great lengths because cheap offshore labor translates to big profits and not having to pay all of those pesky Social Security and unemployment taxes. So I don't have much hope for movements like Occupy Wall Street because "money talks and BS walks".
Rob, you have to really think hard about your free market sentiment as pertains the massive and wholesale offshoring of IT labor because it serves as a template for so many other industries that have and will go extinct like the Dodo bird. All the talk about improving education doesn't mean a damn thing if one must accumulate over $100K in student debt to get the degree that might get the job that probably will go to cheaper offshore labor that doesn't have as much debt or cost of living. And all the time, our short sighted, stupid US companies are destroying their customer base when they fire them from their jobs to cut costs. Is this really competition or is it more like a wholesale slaughter of the middle class?
I understand about competition, but there are so many unintended consequences of corporate short term profit making strategy that it reminds me of the debate among the assembled experts at the round table in the movie "Jurassic Park". When the park's creator and lawyer were all excited about the financial possibilities of their living dinosaurs, they were queried:
How can we know how the dinos will react to this new and different world?
You got so excited about actually creating dinos that you never asked if you should!