US Senator Blasts Microsoft's H-1B Push As It Lays 18,000 Off Workers 529
dcblogs (1096431) writes On the floor of U.S. Senate Thursday, Sen. Jeff Sessions delivered a scalding and sarcastic attack on the use of highly skilled foreign workers by U.S. corporations that was heavily aimed at Microsoft, a chief supporter of the practice. Sessions' speech began as a rebuttal to a recent New York Times op-ed column by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, investor Warren Buffett and Sheldon Adelson ... But the senator's attack on "three of our greatest masters of the universe," and "super billionaires," was clearly primed by Microsoft's announcement, also on Thursday, that it was laying off 18,000 employees. "What did we see in the newspaper today?" said Sessions, "News from Microsoft. Was it that they are having to raise wages to try to get enough good, quality engineers to do the work? Are they expanding or are they hiring? No, that is not what the news was, unfortunately. Not at all."
Jeff Sessions (R) (Score:0, Interesting)
Re:Free market economy (Score:2, Interesting)
He can't. Jeff Sessions is a Republican in the Senate. Harry Reid is single handedly deciding on what gets to the Senate floor for a vote and what does not. Until Reid chooses to do somehting about it, nothing can be done in the Senate. Sessions is attempting to shame everyone who is preventing something from being done.
With Reid as Senate Majority leader there will be no free market. A free market might allow people to not be dependent on government hand outs and he can't allow that to happen.
Majority outside the US (Score:2, Interesting)
With 12000 being from the Nokia side of the business, and the majority of that outside the US, the Senator is just knee jerk reacting. The biggest hit is a factory in Finland (a few thousand at 1 location). The reason they are probably needing H1-B is to bring some of the staff from closed locations into the US. They aren't "taking jobs", their jobs are just moving local, to people who will pay taxes locally in America, rather than in another country.
consider the source (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Free market economy (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, we paid for all that with $17 trillion of debt, and a behavior/thought process that it was ok, starting with Reagan and continuing to this day.
Other countries are just waiting for it all to collapse and pick our bones.
Re:Silly argument (Score:5, Interesting)
The only skill Microsoft is seeking is a low daily wage.
Require H1-B visa recipients be paid more (Score:5, Interesting)
This is so easy to fix.
Establish what the standard rate is for whatever position and say "you can have all the H1-B visa applicants you want so long as you pay 20 percent more then what you're paying for domestic labor.
If its not a matter of pay and is a matter of limited labor supply, they'll import the labor and pay them more.
If it is about wanting cheap labor then they'll go with the domestic labor which will by law be cheaper.
End of discussion.
Re:Free market economy (Score:5, Interesting)
1. massive natural resource endowment (particularly land area, educated population, and cheap energy reserves)
2. being the only large industrialized nation not bombed into oblivion post-1945.
to name just a few. Now we are witnessing a regression to the mean as some of these key points (education, cheap domestic energy, and unique industrialization) are challenged by the same globalization principles that we put in place. The fact that our government bureaucracy at all levels is a bloated and inefficient mess only serves to retard any attempts to correct our deficiencies and maintain our position.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Free market economy (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.westegg.com/inflati... [westegg.com]
What cost $100 in 1980 would cost $278.44 in 2013.
So Reagan's increase was about the same as Obama's.
And a lot of Reagan's increase ALSO came from unrealistically high defense spending and tax cuts on the wealthy.
What cost $100 in 1988 would cost $193.96 in 2013.
Bush's deficit increase was also about the same as Obama's increase.
Clinton used funny accounting tricks and gutted social security to balance the books. Actually he increased the deficit about 2T when you remove the accounting tricks.
What cost $100 in 1992 would cost $163.61 in 2013.
So his increase was about 3T about half of Obama's.
What cost $100 in 1992 would cost $122.42 in 2000.
Bush Jr increased the deficit by 7T. Currently still a record.
And bush's tax cuts account for 30% of the deficit. Obama is responsible for not allowing them to lapse. Defense spending the size of the next 25 nations combined accounts for another 40% of the deficit and *modest* cuts would have reduced the deficit by 1T. And we'd have still been spending more than china, russia, and all of europe combined. All of the rest of government accounts for the other 30%. Notably, the ACA is only a miniscule part of the deficit. The vast majority of it is bills from prior administrations that are difficult to stop- and impossible to stop with the republican dominated congress passing bills which only increase costs.
But Obama could have allowed the tax cuts to lapse and he'd be at about $4T. A *REAL* failure of spine there. And that's been the biggest gap. Let's rate them by spine.
Bush Jr., Spine of Titanium.
Bush Sr., Spine of Steel (and it cost him the election)
Clinton, Spine of Iron
Reagan, Spine of Wood (really- he basically went "Guns AND Butter)
Obama, Spine of Silly Putty
Hate him or love him- Bush got what he wanted. But he had the largest deficit adjusted for inflation and his policies are responsible for 1T to 2T of Obama's deficits (before Obama had a chance to allow them to lapse).
Re:Free market economy (Score:2, Interesting)
I think you are slightly confused.
In congress, the rules are that you need to pay for new spending spending in the budget. This is done by either raising revenue, rnding or cutting other expenditures, or showing the need for the spendingis so dire it negates the rules. There is a process for the last by funding things off budget.
When something is off budget, the funding simply disapears when it is not needed any more. When it is on budget, this funding can be used to psy for new spending. On budget more or less institutionalizes the amount being spent so it can always be spent until some act removes it. Congress and the president know exactly how much is being spent on or off budget. When Obama moved the war spending to on budget, he institutionalized the spending so with Iraq being over, the funing that went to that war could be spent on other things instead of no longer spending it.
That is the difference between the two. It alway went to the debt. What obama did was officially recognize it as part of the budget and the result is that congress has a slushfund for new spending and increasing spending now when the wars wind down.
Re:Did he just notice that? (Score:2, Interesting)
Then why do employer not want to give up health insurance and let everyone get health insurance like they get car insurance? What about 401k's?
The thing is if employers want the duty to just pay you for services, then they should get out of everything that does not involve work.
But employers are the ones who object strongly making health insurance act like every other form of insurance. employers like the extra their employees pay them every year.