c'mon now. is this really a proper topic for an HN discussion?
3,284 karma · joined October 12, 2015
https://9to5google.com/2019/08/15/comment-reddit-requests-go...
we can't really know the detailed impact of the immigration policy without also knowing how those occupation switchers fared. did they get jobs that paid the same, more or less? what were their new working conditions like? and, if their new careers are outside of STEM fields, would they have been better off majoring in something else in the first place?
it's possible that the economic efficiency gains of the corporations resulted in reduced efficiency in the individual lives of these job switchers. it's quite possible that these workers paid the price and corporations reaped the benefits.
anyway, economic, labor and immigration policy are determined by factors that go beyond corporate efficiency and profitability. and corporations advocate their own narrow interests, not just the interests of "the overall economy" or GDP maximization or some other umbrella. it seems reasonable that a sector's workers bear as little obligation to advocate for the "overall economy" as corporations bear.
workers who feel severely impacted by these changes are certainly free in a democracy to advocate for policies that benefit them. after all, that's precisely what corporations do. this is a political balancing act more than it is some sort of ethical argument.
what I hear from people who work or used to work in IT at Hollywood media companies is that Disney is not alone in that
true, but I think the point is that the lawyer fees are less than the extra costs and risks associated with hiring from the existing pool of local US workers (i.e. losses from employees who freely leave the company after a short period, transfer knowledge to competitors, shop around for higher salaries, and confidently exercise the fuller collection of employee rights which H1Bs may lack)
> If you really know someone in tech that is unemployed and making nothing, then either they are not qualified or they have some other limitation making them unemployable.
That's certainly one interpretation of the matter. Here's another: If the labor pool lacked exogenous labor inputs, it is possible (though far from guaranteed) that corporations would be willing to use their resources to hire more from the existing pool of US candidates and then train them and/or help them to overcome other limitations.
The article seems to say the answer is yes:
...scientists think that the initial exposure to bacteria at the moment of birth could be a “thermostat” moment for the immune system, defining its sensitivity and which strains of bacteria trigger a response.
I guess they could break the job down: use one team of 4 drones to lift multiple 1 square yard tarps.
Let's see, 12 square miles is roughly 37 million square yards. Multiplying by four they would only need about 150 million drones. Quite affordable for today's well-funded terrorist with an Amazon Prime account (as long as they choose 3-5 business day shipping instead of overnight).
Yeah, but they have to contact people by email because they don't have anyone's physical home address.
why are salaries higher? because the labor pools in high density urban areas have, in some sectors, a more highly developed set of skills and capabilities than the comparable labor pools in other areas have (e.g. Wall Street bankers and quants, NYC chefs and restaurant workers, SV programmers and capital managers, San Diego life sciences and biotech, etc). IOW, agglomeration economies.
in the US high quality of life cities are actually quite scarce and in time almost always overwhelmed by large numbers of people who want to experience that quality of life. then quality of life decreases significantly.
One solution might be to cut $60 billion or so out of the US intelligence budget and divert it to a crash R&D program to bring America up to speed in quantum communications and fifth-generation broadband, technologies in which China presently has the lead.
But, in Google's case, this open source behavior is noteworthy because Google likes to cultivate the public image of a "good actor" (and certainly a better actor than other corporations), and because Google generates a colossal revenue stream, dwarfing almost every other corporation's. And this is why their open source strategies are problematic. If we could fully remove the veil we would quite possibly see that Google is not good at all. We might just see another greedy, stingy corporation.
but you must not forget the additional administrative/accounting overhead, the risk from the wide variety of lawsuits one is vulnerable to as an employer, the risks of employee injury on the job, and costs associated with the possibility of laying off employees in the future. surely there are more costs than just wages.