US Politics Mega-thread - Page 6219

On November 14 2016 02:26 Slaughter wrote:


I get that impression as well, but it doesn't seem to stop companies from hiring them here or moving offices outside the US and using mostly non americans who aren't quite as knowledgeable in whatever specific field they are working on but they are used to do a lot of the base stuff and oversaw by someone who is an expert in that field.

On November 14 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:

Anecdotal: my experience over the course of many years has led me to conclude that a very large part of why there is a "supply shortage" if such a thing exists (that is very disputable), is because of a serial failure of the US to develop high-quality homegrown labor, requiring a constant stream of immigrants to keep things working well. The difference between the US and many others in its reliance on immigrants to produce high-quality work is striking. Most developed nations are far better at developing homegrown labor than the US. Though that's not to say that H1-B labor is the main source of that "high quality labor."

Again, it's anecdotal but I'm curious to what extent people do and do not corroborate that experience.

On November 14 2016 02:32 Mohdoo wrote:


These sites, at least in my field, only survive because of constant support from their American counterparts.

On November 14 2016 02:43 Jormundr wrote:
Yeah it's because we've been paying them less and less while the basic cost of living has increased. We marginalize our own workers in favor of rewarding shareholders.

On November 14 2016 02:34 LegalLord wrote:

Anecdotal: my experience over the course of many years has led me to conclude that a very large part of why there is a "supply shortage" if such a thing exists (that is very disputable), is because of a serial failure of the US to develop high-quality homegrown labor, requiring a constant stream of immigrants to keep things working well. The difference between the US and many others in its reliance on immigrants to produce high-quality work is striking. Most developed nations are far better at developing homegrown labor than the US. Though that's not to say that H1-B labor is the main source of that "high quality labor."

Again, it's anecdotal but I'm curious to what extent people do and do not corroborate that experience.

On November 14 2016 02:49 killa_robot wrote:
Rather than going through the effort of training new people, they've upped their requirements of new employees to unreasonable levels (like 2+ years of experience for entry level positions), thus ensuring no new talent at all. This in turn gives them an excuse to say "Hey, no one we need is here".

On November 14 2016 02:55 LegalLord wrote:
Frankly, the cynic in me says that the US is such a great place for immigrants because the culture of the country dumbs down the competition to make it easier for immigrants to do well. That isn't exactly true but I'm sure there is some truth to it.

On November 14 2016 02:08 Mohdoo wrote:

Plenty of engineering fields would hope for more than 100k/year, some for starting positions. Though that's rare. I would be more comfortable with companies being required to show that they are paying an average salary to the person. They need to be paying what they show they would also be paying an American citizen.

On November 14 2016 02:58 TheYango wrote:

It might not be exactly true, but I have quite a few Chinese immigrant friends who do feel this way--that they would be lost in a sea of equally-competent competitors had they stayed in China, with no way to stand out. And instead, coming to the US they can stand out because their American competitors are lazier/less motivated/more poorly trained.

The case for the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Executive summary:

Trade policy, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) in particular, is vitally connected to the national interests of prosperity, security, and governance. With novel rules on the digital economy, high tariff elimination targets, and disciplines to address behind-the-border protectionism, the TPP creates opportunities for American sectors that enjoy competitive strength—services, advanced manufacturing, agriculture—to expand their reach in overseas markets. Projected annual income gains from this trade deal range between $57 billion and $131 billion by 2032, compared to a baseline scenario. In sharp contrast to the experience of import competition with China, the TPP will not impose large adjustment costs in terms of employment and wages, generating instead a net (albeit small) positive effect on job creation and wage rates. However, the individual costs for displaced employees are very high, and the contours of a new pro-adjustment safety net that enables workers to navigate difficult economic transitions (brought about by technological change or trade) are highlighted below.

On the geopolitical front, the TPP enhances American influence in Asia and the world by reassuring allies and rivals that the United States is a multi-dimensional power fully anchored to the region and capable of supplying novel institutions for regional cooperation. And it represents a smart strategy vis-a-vis China’s regional and global leadership bid since it is both proactive (building a new economic architecture) and inclusive (leaving the door open for a potential Chinese accession in the future). The TPP aims to close the governance gap in the trading regime caused by the inability of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to update the multilateral rules on trade and investment for the past 20 years. The TPP’s assets to advance the dissemination of new rules are not only its reach (comprising 40 percent of world GDP), but also its diversity: bringing together nations at very different levels of development.

The prospects for congressional ratification of the TPP are clouded by the rise of an anti-trade movement in the U.S. political landscape. The conventional case for trade (focusing on the gains to be had, while downplaying the costs of transitional unemployment) does not resonate in a context of marked increases in income inequality or with still-fresh memories of significant job losses in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. We need to address the fears around liberalization, not only by driving home the point that technological change is the largest force behind the loss of U.S. manufacturing jobs, but also by developing a pro-adjustment safety net for all workers. Its core objectives should be to close the growing skill deficit in the workforce and to ensure labor mobility across geographical boundaries, across occupations, and across the skill spectrum. Concrete initiatives to pursue include employment incentives (such an expansion of the Earned Income Tax Credit for lower income workers and a universal wage insurance program), plus doubling down on skill acquisition and upgrading through dedicated funding in community colleges for training programs and development of company apprenticeships, to name a few examples.

The choice ahead for us is not whether to turn inward, rather it is whether we can overcome decades of underinvesting in our most precious asset: human capital.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Sunday the Obama administration would do everything it could to implement a global agreement to combat climate change before President-elect Donald Trump takes office.

Kerry made the comments during a visit to New Zealand just before setting off to Marrakesh, Morocco to take part in climate talks between 200 nations.

Donald Trump, who calls global warming a hoax and has promised to quit the Paris Agreement, was considering ways to bypass a theoretical four-year procedure for leaving the accord, according to a source on Trump's transition team.

Kerry declined to speculate on what Trump might do about the Paris Agreement and noted that there was sometimes a difference between campaigning and governing.

But the top American diplomat was clear he thought further action to prevent climate change should be a priority.

"The evidence is mounting in ways that people in public life should not dare to avoid accepting as a mandate for action," Kerry told journalists at a press conference in Wellington with New Zealand Prime Minister John Key

"Until January 20 when this administration is over, we intend to do everything possible to meet our responsibility to future generations to be able to address this threat to life itself on the planet."

Kerry's visit to Wellington followed a two-day trip to Antarctica where he flew in a helicopter over the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which would add to rising sea levels if it melts, and spoke to scientists researching how fast climate change is likely to occur.

The U.S. accounts for just under 20 percent of global greenhouse gas emissions so is considered a key player in the Paris Agreement, which has been ratified by 109 countries so far.

The accord seeks to limit rising temperatures that have been linked to increasing economic damage from desertification, extinctions of animals and plants, heat waves, floods and rising sea levels.

On November 14 2016 02:57 zlefin wrote:
It's also part of a general trend across all industries and jobs wherein people who haven't been employed recently or aren't fresh out of college often don't get picked.
So they only offer jobs to people who already have them.

On November 14 2016 02:47 TheYango wrote:

I'm not sure how that's relevant at all to LegalLord's point.

I'd argue that a lot of America's inability to develop a strong domestic skilled workforce lies in the education system, which fails to develop strong professional skills prior to graduate-level professional education.