Warrottjr,

I am speaking to the mentality of fear in the post. Fear that because we have LEGAL professional foreign workers here in the US, that they are creating a disadvantage for professional American workers?

Since the title of this thread is "Recession in the USA," am simply pointing out that there are a million excuses for the poor getting poorer...and this type of thinking is just one more, IMVHO.

Holly

"In order to hire H-1B foreign workers, sponsoring employers must file a Labor Condition Application (LCA) with the US Department of Labor, and then submit additional paperwork and a $130 application fee to the INS.

"In the LCA, employers must attest that they are paying the H-1B worker the prevailing wage and cite the wage source. Additionally, the employer must keep a public file that matches the job responsibilities to the pay grade, and it's your right to inspect the file during normal business hours. Supplying bogus wage data, and falsifying or failing to provide the supporting documentation are common methods of fraud. Numerous academic and INS studies have shown that H-1B workers typically earn between 20 and 33% less even though they're supposed to receive the prevailing wage."

And that's where a lot of the good jobs in the U.S. are going, due to a lack of government enforcement of regulations that are supposed to keep the domestic job market on a level playing field.

You may.

Jim Jackson

Government regulations maintain a level playing field? What fantasy world are you in? Doesn't happen. Can't happen. Completely ridiculous concept.

American workers want to compete with foreign workers? It's simple. Work for what they do or provide a better product/quality of work than they do.

The person who most affects what you make? Is you. When you recognize that and accept it, instead of blaming others, then you can start on your way to making millions (if that is what you truly desire).

Do you advocate abolishing the Dept. of Labor and the INS, and opening the borders?

Department of Labor? Hell, yes. Nothing but a waste of money.

INS (or whatever it is called today) is not primarily about employment issues, so knock off the red herrings.

Now, would you like to know why government regulations can't do what you would like them to?

Because markets are in constant flux. Change is normal. The exact opposite of the norm for bureaucracy. Regulations are unable to keep up with the rate of change that is normal for market forces, and so instead of leveling the field, they consistently make the problem worse (by not allowing free market forces, which do compensate quickly for market changes, to work).

Do you think Anti-Trust regulations are necessary?

Anti-trust isn't a function of the Department of Labor. It's a function of the Department of Justice.

Oh, and if you bother to look at the list you posted regarding H-1B Visas and look at when the regulations regarding those Visas were written, you'll see exactly what I described in terms of response is exactly why those Corporations are on that list (nothing to do with abuse, everything to do with a system that doesn't make sense).

Should we return to the early days of the Industrial Revolution where there was no worker protection?

Are you unable to look out for yourself?

And to return to those days, we'd have to eliminate the internet, all modern communications, etc.

That's another red herring.

Are you an anarchist?

Deregulation
 

We began deregulating the mortgage market and it worked out real well. An argument against regulation is it hurts business Business will act responsibly because it is in their interest to do so. I don't think historically that point can be made. Regulations generally come about to correct improper conduct--not always but usually. Sometimes they come about to protect the politically connected. I am a lifelong fiscal conservative and I would maintain the greed and open flaunting of laws and regulations we've seen the last few years has cost a lot more than over regulation. Just my two pennies

I worked for an internet startup at the peak of the dot-com boom. I left a high-paying job to chase the wave. It was high-risk, high-reward. When the bubble burst, the company went under and I got laid off, fired, whatever you want to call it. This was after I had earned undergraduate and graduate diplomas which hang oh-so-prominently on my love-me wall. I was very disoriented for a while, but I never thought about being bitter. Fortunately, my wife and my family carried my sorry ass until I could get back on my feet again.

So having seen a little bit of the rewards, as well as the consequences when risk prevails (every time I think about that time, I hear James Earl Jones’ voice, “…some days, the bear eats you.”), I still believe in the free market economy. The company failed because it deserved to fail. The fundamentals were so out of whack, and the froth was churning so high. As brutal as it was, the market corrected. I never thought it would happen to me, but in the back of my mind, I knew it was possible. Having been through that, I would still go with a system that offers nearly limitless upside potential.

With regards to executive compensation, when the scheme is designed correctly and the executive performs, shareholders should be happy. Problems arise when guys bail out of poorly performing companies with golden parachutes. Then it looks less like incentive compensation. As noted though, at the end of the day, you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay you.

"As noted though, at the end of the day, you are worth whatever someone is willing to pay you."

At the end of the day that is all anything is worth.


Jim

Shar,

Missed this post the first time around, but you hit the nail on the head, IMHO.

warrottjr,

The above post may help to clear the clouds away for you, and enlighten the point I was attempting to make. :munchin

Someone once told me, "Though it may be an uphill journey, if you learn something valuable, it will be worth it."

(It is why I enjoy this site so much...all the things that can be learned.)

My .02,
Holly