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."
I hope (Score:5, Funny)
I hear it could be big.
priorities? (Score:2, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
no, there are no candidates stepping up to address human needs
in America, let alone globally.
Re: (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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Human Need doesn't mean shit to the Democratic Party candidates.
Re: (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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Not that such a thing would ever be meaningfully implemented anyway
The worst part is, even if there's no meaningful implementation of their plan, there exists the very real possibility that whatever they do will be implemented poorly. And I cringe whenever I hear about creating diversity just for diversity's sake.
Some of you may have caught this Wall Street Journal article [opinionjournal.com] talking about a study (PDF) [usccr.gov] which looked at the drop out rates of minority law school students. Long story short, affirmative action didn't do those students any favors, it actually hurt them by putting
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm.... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not supposed to help research. It's supposed to help women and minorities.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In the long term, it's probably beneficial to encourage groups that typically don't go into high tech to do so, just for the purpose of changing the culture around it. Probably, there are women (for example) alive today who, based on their intelligence/aptitudes would've made great engineers, but who became housewives or chose other fields because they didn't grow up around women engineers and weren't exposed to that kind of culture. Most people make most of their
Funny how "Tech Industry Issues" (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
This is what I thought too. I did some digging but come up with a single study that supports this assertion. Are you aware of any?
Re: (Score:2)
The second, if you're not familiar with it, was a secret on-site survey done at several workplaces by techies who are working with H-1b visa holders, and it showed a $12,000/year salary difference ($6000/year if you discount by the fact that the business has to spend a lot of money to get an H-1b to begin with, b
Re: (Score:2)
I've read arguments both ways on the issue and I would just love to see some solid work that might give some objective proof one way or the other.
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: (Score:2)
That's not the reason. The axioms in economics are few, and widely agreed to. The reason that objective proof is elusive is that human beings are not at all objective. Trying to predict the exact number of jobs created/lost due to a specific tax change is as futile as trying to predict the exact population of carib
Re: (Score:2)
Phone: Ring Ring.....
Abdul: Hello? Abdul Speaking.
Billy Bob: Hey Abdul, Billy Bob here... Which way to Mecca? HA HA HA HA!!!! Bye the way, how much are you making?
Abdul: Seventy-fi..---uhh, fifty five K. Why do you ask?
Billy Bob: Thanks a million swarthy bastard!
Re: (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 arti
Re: (Score:2)
Hiring someone who does as good or a better job than you for cheaper instead of you means your company can save money; hence, your company's customers can save money. The only person who isn't benefited is the person who only had a job because government regulation (via H-1b visas) restricted the market.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, yes, the skills/efficiency argument. See the other post on why this is a denial of classical microeconomics.
The only person who isn't benefited is the person who only had a job because government regulation (via H-1b visas) restricted the market.
Which is just about every American, since our standard of living has pretty much priced u
And yet again... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And yet again... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
...Ron Paul gets ignored by the media.
Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market, which "Business Week" really has no interest in.
Ron Paul on Technology [ontheissues.org]
Because it's ever so on-topic : )
Oh, and there's this thing about him on Wired: http://www.wired.com/politics/onlinerights/news/2007/09/ronpaul_supporters [wired.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Probably because Ron Paul's tech agenda is called the Free Market,
I'm sorry, despite all the wonderful positions Ron Paul has... his foreign policy is a mess.
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? Mark
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isolationism [wikipedia.org]
"Not to be confused with the non-interventionist philosophy and foreign policy of the libertarian world view, which espouses unrestricted free trade and freedom of travel for individuals to all countries."
As for the rest of your fear mongering prattle, he is for free trade - just not the corporate welfare protectionist trade like NAFTA represents.
And no, when your country is $9 trillion in the hole and $50 trillion
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul is all in favor of free trade, he's just against the bureaucratic "managed" trade of NAFTA and the WTO.
As for the UN, I'm indifferent as to whether we stay in or get out. I'm not sure what we get out of it other than foreigners using their diplomatic immunity to park illegally in Manhattan.
I think we should have gotten out of NATO long ago. American leadership of NATO made some sense when Europe was shattered by WW II and there were serious concerns that Stalin would extend his empire further
Re: (Score:2)
But if you stop your knee-jerk reaction for a moment and look through the haze, you'll see that he's not against national security, intelligence gathering, federal law enforcement, education or energy. He's against the BUREAUCRACY of these departments that have made them wasteful, inefficient and sometimes just plain unconstitutional.
Re: (Score:2)
His philosophy is too simple for the modern media: leave the internet alone.
Here's his talk at Google. He does talk a bit about some tech issues.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg&mode=related [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
His immigration policy looks entirely reasonable to me. [ontheissues.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bite: (Score:2)
Anti ILLEGAL immigration. (As in "They have to go back home and get in line behind those who DID follow the rules. No prizes for breaking the law.")
bad bad bad for tech.
Really? How does illegal immigration help tech?
Last time I looked illegal immigration was mainly good for breaking unions, increasing the number of unemployed, and providing cheap labor to businesses at pay scales and working conditions below those a citizen is ALLOWED to accept, subsidized by mainly-citizen a
Conspicuously absent (Score:4, Informative)
Net Neutrality aims to keep the Internet free from large companies who are using their networks to limit the amount of websites their customers can view, and the speed at which they can view them. Examples range from, being forced to use the search engines your Internet Service Providers (ISP), only being able to view streaming videos that your ISP deems acceptable, and charging a website an extra fee to maintain the usual connection speed. Senator Gravel guarantees a free and open Internet with no restricted access to any site, for any reason. He will do this by supporting legislation and regulation that keeps you in control of your Internet usage. Intelligent replies welcome, redirect flames to
Prejudicial Tech Inclinations? (Score:3, Funny)
Unless they want to replace all government machines with Ubuntu- then they already got my vote.
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Suck up to the RIAA/MPAA.
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.
Maybe it would be a good idea to join grassroots effort to support a minor candidate, then.
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!
Ummm (Score:2)
Why do you think so many people who've heard his views are pro Ron Paul?
Speaking of which, why are you even on slashdot if you hadn't even heard of him? Something's not quite right..
Hey ya'll, I think we gots an imposter here. Git 'em!
Re: (Score:2)
DUH (Score:2, Funny)
Mitt Romney's tech agenda (Score:4, Interesting)
So basically, just more "think of the children" pandering.
Re: (Score:2)
(Ah, but I do miss Hunter S. Thompson)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Watch out for Romney (Score:5, Interesting)
As usual Ron Paul isn't mentioned. IMHO he is right on that as long as the justice department does it's job in enforcing RICO statues and other laws barring ISP's from coercing their customers we should be fine. The reason our telecom system is a mess is the monopoly deals the congress entered into in the 1990s. Stop all federal funding of telecom projects and true competition should normalize the market. States are more than capable of funding basic telecom to rural areas.
Racism and Sexism is the way? (Score:2, Insightful)
Clinton has said she'll triple the number of NSF fellowships and increase the size of each award by a third. She also plans to provide incentives for women and minorities to enter math-, science-, and engineering-related fields by making diversity a requirement for federal education and research grants.
So basically, being racist and sexist is the way to move our technology forward? Extra money and grants only awarded to people of certain races and sexes by the goverment is nothing more than blatant racism and sexism. How can anybody support this? The money should go to those that need it or deserve it the most, not the person who happened to be born a certain race/sex. This is ludicrous.
Re: (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
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Bring on the ladies!
Re: (Score:2)
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.
If this were true, as much effort and money would go into getting more men into nursing and child care as goes into getting more women into computers and engineering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
That must explain why I had to join the Navy for 8 years to get the money for college.
That must also explain why my father did not graduate from high school.
And why his father died at 50, forcing Dad to take over the farm at 16, which is why he had to drop out of high school.
You are a dolt, or have a huge silver spoon in your mouth with attendant guilt, or are a blatant racist. I'm not sure which, and I'm not really interested in picking a category for yo
Metrication. (Score:2, Troll)
Does this translate into any of these candidates supporting the finalisation of the US going metric?
(Before this question s
Re: (Score:2)
Besides, I'm lazy. Leave me alone, the imperial system works for me!!
Re: (Score:3)
Products in the US often suffer from 'hidden metrication'. Altoids are sold in 50 gram tins, but then they are labelled as "1.76 ounces". Body wash is often in 700 or 900 mL sizes, but labelled as 23.7 or 30 ounces.
Buy Listerine lately? It's only available in 250 mL, 500 mL
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
i haven't yet found a single non-metric bolt on my American-made '93 Plymouth, which has a 2.5Litre inline-4.
you're going metric. just gradually so people don't notice and cause an unnecessary fuss.
Re: (Score:2)
DMCA (Score:2)
If none of the candidates can see the error of the many provisions of the DMCA that are detrimental to the citizenry, I can then easily assume they're just spouting whatever gibberish their political handlers taught them to pronounce correctly.
Dirigisme (Score:2)
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: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.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I actually know of precisely one: Dubai. They import essentially their entire workforce. And they're doing pretty well :).
Re: (Score:2)
In your two examples, in the US on an H1-B, or working illegally in Argentina, there is sometimes not a lot of difference. Both sets of workers are in a foreign country, working for a lower wage (in your example) than what domestic workers
Get a clue yourself (Score:3, Informative)
In otherwords, the OP was speaking about MOST H1-B's.
All of the presidential candidates are trying to take us back to the dot-com bust as fast as possible, with the exception of Edwards. If you'll recall, it was in the
Re: (Score:2)
I can't attest to the conditions of foreign (i.e. non-NAFTA) H1B's, since I obviously don't work in the States, but keep in mind that Canada is one of the most immigrant-heavy countries in the world. Wet let a huge number of people into this country every year based on their skillsets, and yet the industry in Canada is not suffering from rampant undercutting by immigrants.
If America is indeed having a problem of immigrants severely screwing the industry by undercutting wages, then I propose that there is
Re: (Score:2)
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: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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Here is a question for you. What motivation does an American have to become a "highly skilled individual" when the tech sector has become so notoriou
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I don't have an issue with someone coming to the US that was accustomed to earning under $1/day. But they should play by the same rules, and not the "do what we say or you'll be deported" semi-slavery we have now. If someone is willing to do the same work under the same condition
Re: (Score:2)
Ron Paul may have a sane foreign policy, but his economic policy leads to worsening the nightmare situation you described. Massive deregulation is exactly what makes the money pump from bottom to top.
Re:Ron Paul (Score:5, Informative)
Other technology votes by Paul: Source [ontheissues.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Does anyone else find this a little contradictory?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
if the government prevented business from regulating the Net, then it would unfairly jeopardize their freedom...
Voted NO on allowing telephone monopolies to offer Internet access.
Does anyone else find this a little contradictory?
Internet Freedom and Broadband Deployment Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would allow the four regional Bell telephone companies to enter the high-speed Internet access market via their long-distance connections whether or not they have allowed competitors into their local markets as required under the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The bill would allow the Bells to increase the fees they charge competitors for lines upgraded for broadband services from "wholesale rates" to "just and reasonable rates."
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The names of the bills don't say what they'r about (Score:2)
Re:The names of the bills don't say what they'r ab (Score:2)
What, you think we're going to tell the telcos to play nice, but not back it up with laws? That's what regulation is.
"Ok, guys, you have a big responsibility as network providers to not play favorites with your traffic. You can't throttle your competitors' connections and boost your own; that wouldn't be fair. However, since regulation is Bad (tm), we're not going to pass any laws forcing you do play nice, or even check up on you. We think you'll be good all on y
Re: (Score:2)
Being against net neutrality implies a position which is not the one that Ron Paul has displayed with his voting record, even though that record shows a vote against net neutrality which is consistent with his position of not imposing unnecessary regulations.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, that's totally different. Unfortunately in that perfectly unregulated free market wet dream of his, the consumer will have absolutely no rights whatsoever. But, you know, as long as that's just a byproduct and not the intent, it's all good, right?
I really don't get this Ron Paul fascination. OK, so he's an "honest politician" for whatever that's worth, but for the most part his platform
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Normally, I'd agree with you, but No Child Left Behind is federal law, and only the President and Congress can clean it up or, preferably, get rid of it. For all the talk of Small Government, NCLB is a huge intrusion into local control of schools and it's agenda is to sabotage public education by setting up schools to fail. I suppose if the goal is Small Government through destroying public education, then it's Mission Accompl
Public education and NCLB (Score:2)
But I was under the impression that the public schools had largely ALREADY failed (do in some extent to previous federal interventions), they were on a downward spiral, and the NCLB's agenda was to put them on a spot where, one-by-one, they either cleaned up their act or were destroyed and the kids moved elsewhere.
Of course it's not MY age