Examining Presidential Candidates' Tech Agendas 274
Aaron Ricadela writes to mention that BusinessWeek is taking a look at the tech agendas for several presidential candidates. The amount of attention being paid to Silicon Valley especially is unprecedented with the computer industry citing contributions of $2.2 million up from just $1.2 million in the first six months of the 2004 and 2000 primary campaigns. "So even while the general election is likely to be dominated by the war in Iraq, the continued threat of terrorism, and economic issues, candidates have staked out early positions on topics dear to the tech industry, including increasing federal spending on research and development, allowing more highly educated foreign workers into the country, widening the availability of high-speed Internet service to create new markets for hardware and online services, and improving the state of U.S. math and science education."
priorities? (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway, but I can't imagine the second half of that *helping* research.
And yet again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:And yet again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:priorities? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a completely different story if you want to force someone else (via the government) to make sacrifices to fund the cause of your choice.
Every major candidate's agenda (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present.
Re:priorities? (Score:2, Insightful)
Human Need doesn't mean shit to the Democratic Party candidates.
Re:H1-B (Score:5, Insightful)
Get a clue, and cut it out with the rampant unsubstantiated FUD.
As a Canadian I know many former colleagues who are now working in the US on H1B's, and know even more who have returned to Canada (for one reason or another) after working in the US for years in the same capacity. I also know a great number of work visa immigrants in my home country that I work closely with every single day.
All are highly educated individuals who are very capable in their work, and amongst the elite in their home countries. None come from sweatshop environments, in both the literal and metaphorical senses. All were very well paid in their home countries and enjoyed a quality of life similar to what we enjoy here.
All of the Canadian H1B's that went to the States that I know were brought in because of their unique skillsets, not because their salary demands were low. When they were hired their salaries were on par with their American colleagues, and none ever felt that they were there as cheap labour, as opposed to highly skilled additions to the company.
America is built upon these people, and thanks to you and your xenophobic brethren, it is being threatened. The hostility towards Muslims, minorities, and generally anyone out to "steal your job" is making the US plummet on the list of desirable places to move to. The vast majority of my colleagues who went to the USA have since returned, as economic conditions at home improve, and social conditions in your country worsen. Your great nation was built upon the importation of top-notch talent from around the world - Bohr, Einstein, all were immigrants. The openness and inclusiveness of America was what made it a shining beacon for the top people in the world to gather, and your little lighthouse has fallen into ill repair thanks to attitudes like yours.
Expect more inclusive countries to overtake yours soon - countries that embraces importing talent from overseas to strengthen themselves, instead being morbidly afraid of it.
Re:H1-B (Score:3, Insightful)
Even though H1-Bs are supposed to be paid 'market rate', the net result is that bringing them into the country depresses market rates.
Good for business, bad for workers.
Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues" (Score:3, Insightful)
If supply increases then so does demand as the buyers have more bargaining power to select those with the lowest price. In other words if the quantity is more limited then techs can demand more in salary as they have the bargaining power. But artificially changing the supply has the same adverse effect with the wages as if you dont do x for y wage then this Indian will. Take it or leave it?
I wonder if we had h1b1 employers to help us bring some more foreign firms to hire to artificial increase the demand if these politicians would feel the same?
Its not the governments job to change teh supply and demand curve of markets.
Re:priorities? (Score:2, Insightful)
Mod parent up!!! Meta-mods: Mod that moderation unfair if you see it!
There is only one candidate -- from either party -- talking about ending The War, and that's Ron Paul. I care as much about he's a Republican as I care about Hillary being a Democrat. I don't vote on party lines, I vote on the issues.
Re:H1-B (Score:3, Insightful)
After all, if the US didn't believe in getting the best scientist from other countries, Germany would have had the atom bomb first and Nasa would have been set back years.
Re:Election? Here's how I vote. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:H1-B (Score:5, Insightful)
Like which countries? Any Western European one? Har, har, har. Japan? Guffaw... China? You've got to be kidding. I actually don't know of any country which really embraces importing talent from overseas. No, not even Canada.
I don't think too many Americans are upset over Canadian H1B or NAFTA visa workers. It's workers from third-world countries who are perceived to be the problem. Personally I'd rather they be working here than in their home country; if they're working here they have expenses more similar to mine, and therefore will not settle for nearly as low a salary as they would if they were working as outsourced talent in their home country.
Racism and Sexism is the way? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Funny how "Tech Industry Issues" (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, I think the cheap labor movement comes down to a single pair of completely irreconcilable beliefs about labor. The first is the supply/demand theory of wages, in which whenever you raise the supply of something the price MUST go down, thus increasing the amount of labor available will depress wages. The second belief is the skills/efficiency belief, in which cheap labor merely frees up money for more expensive labor to go elsewhere, and skills are always in demand regardless of supply. These two axioms are diametrically opposed- those who believe one are implicitly denying the other.
I'm not sure which is true myself, but for any given skill that has become a commodity, as technical engineering and computer programming has, I tend towards the supply/demand theory- that a skill can only demand a wage that fits the supply of that skill in the marketplace, thus increasing the size of the marketplace will increase the supply of that skill and drive real wages down. Skills this doesn't apply to are rare enough skills not to be commodities YET- but given 6.5 billion human beings and limitations on human ability, I personally think we could commoditize just about any skill you can name- including C-level executives.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not supposed to help research. It's supposed to help women and minorities.
Re:And yet again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Withdraw from NAFTA, the WTO, the UN, NATO, and to top it off, stop foreign aid.
There's no doubt doing those things will affect his free market policies.
It's really not a credible position to take, unless you want to disrupt foreign economies, which will in turn disrupt the U.S. economy.
What do you think will happen to the "free market" when Russia & China move into the power vaccuum left by a U.S. retreat? Markets will close, resources will get diverted, the dollar will drop, etc etc etc.
Isolationism is not possible in the global economy.
You want an example? Try North Korea.
And even the DPRK isn't 100% isolated.
Re:And yet again... (Score:3, Insightful)
His immigration policy looks entirely reasonable to me. [ontheissues.org]
Re:H1-B (Score:4, Insightful)
Oddly enough, I tend to think you have it backwards. Because our workers' political and economic lighthouse has gotten into such ill repair (real wage loss, especially when computed with non-core inflation; loss of social safety net; loss of political power for common people; etc.), a backlash against someone should hardly be unexpected. It is a shame that we always find the alien at fault rather than the corporate and political leaders who actually allowed this to happen, but when you see your own potential for economic advancement being washed away, you're not going to feel too happy about sharing what little you have with others.
Re:Mitt Romney's tech agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:H1-B (Score:4, Insightful)
Have you considered that they were depressing wages because the additional supply of labor drove down what they were being paid?
Your great nation was built upon the importation of top-notch talent from around the world - Bohr, Einstein, all were immigrants.
Not to mention Tesla.
H1Bs aren't about bringing the best and brightest. They're about increasing the supply of educated labor to drive down prices.
Einstein, Bohr, Tesla, et all were not brought here on "Worker" visas.
LK
Re:And yet again... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Every major candidate's agenda (Score:3, Insightful)
2. Suck up to the large tech firms.
3. Make meaningless promises to support "the greater interests of the public with regards to technological issues".
4. "Think of the children!" to restrict our freedoms further.
3. Rake in the campaign contributions for next term while screwing America in the present.
Then you can get two people to join you, and they can get two people each, and so on, and get candidates that appeal to the people, rather than to the oligopolies that own the media.
No... not maybe. Definitely! Find a candidate that makes sense to you, and do something to spread the word, vote, get others to vote!
Get up, stand up, stand up for your rights!
Re:Racism and Sexism is the way? (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps you are unfamiliar with the concept of equity that has driven America's policies of affirmative action for so long? We have long considered diversity and fairness to be worthy goals alongside productivity. One hopes that diversity allows for different perspectives, new ideas, and draws on talent that would otherwise be untapped. If that's not the case, then we hope that a little lost productivity buys us less built-in racism and sexism.
To summarize an argument that was only adequately argued to me a few years after college, the goal is not "color blindness", where everyone is treated the same way and everything is merit based. The goal is "equal opportunity", where a person's race, gender, and economic background is not a burden for them to bear. Even if racism and sexism was removed from the world, things would still not be "fair", because the legacy of less education, less money, and less connections means that certain groups are not as capable of receiving the education and experience needed to compete equally. A genius born in poverty has much less chance being recognized because they are much less likely to receive the same level of education and are more likely to be burdened by other social ills. In theory, this genius should have the opportunity to be as successful as their characteristics allow, but in reality their social circumstances are as important, if not more so, than their personal merits.
One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups.
Life isn't fair. We accept some inequalities in hopes of making the world a better place. Whether there's hope of that working, or whether it's an acceptable cost, of course, is something to yell and argue about.
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Racism and Sexism is the way? (Score:5, Insightful)
One can look at efforts to give advantages to minorities as unfair and reverse-racism/sexism. I certainly did for a long time. The truth is, though, that even when ignoring the existence of prejudice in people, white males are born into an advantageous position, and that advantageous position will likely grow without intervention, just as those with the most money are in a better position to make more money. That's not "fair" either, and will only lead to more prejudice. Just as progressive taxes are meant to redistribute wealth to the lower and middle classes in hopes that they'll be able to rise, we attempt to make it a little easier for minorities to get into fields dominated by white males in hopes that someday the advantage gap will disappear between groups.
When you say "This grant is only for people who were born without a penis (or perhaps people who chopped theirs off) or are not from a pure Caucasian descent," you are saying that those people are inherently inferior to all white males and they cannot make it on their own regardless of their personal circumstances. I have friends who are minorities and women who earned coveted positions through hard work but everyone assumes that they got them just because of their skin color or gender. That, in fact, breeds resentment and hatred between white males and others as well as instills an inferiority complex in everyone that we're supposedly helping with those policies. Hillary might as well hang a sign outside her restaurant that says "No White Males" and we can go back to the days of segregation. Two wrongs don't make a right.
Re:priorities? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is nothing stopping you from canceling your ISP service right now and sending all that money to the Red Cross or Unicef.
I'll be frank with you... I don't give a damn about most of the human race and would rather not see our nation's over burdened budget used to feed other people who may or may not deserve it. Hell... They probably aren't bad people, but we can't solve the world's problems by throwing money at it.
To be fair, we can't solve the worlds problems by throwing soldiers at it either and I'm sure Iraqis would rather have my tax dollars not used to bomb them either. Bring the troops home and solve our looming financial crisis. Then we can talk about solving other people's problems.
Otherwise in 50 years we'll be asking for donations too.
Re:Racism and Sexism is the way? (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring on the ladies!