Posted by Frank McGuckin on Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:28 | #

America should have a policy of labor self-sufficiency. The goal should be to develope Native Born-and White-engineering talent.

There is no need to import Asian scab workers.

Let labor scarcities work. Of course, this gets right to the heart of the issue. Letting labor scarcites work would result in Native Born White workers having significant leverage over the bossman, and if the terms of employment are not favorable , a Native Born White Worker can tell the bossman to fuck off and easily find employment at a company where the pay is high and the work environment does not resemble a prison block.

This is why Bill Gates is so terrified of immigration restrictions. He would no longer be able to be a demigod in this world with the power of life and death over Native Born White workers. Its not very complicated.I hope some one puts a bullet in Bill Gates’s Brain. He is a piece of shit

Posted by Greenspan Speaks on Thu, 15 Mar 2007 17:57 | #

http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2007/03/greenspan_let_m.php

I don’t know.  Maybe Mr. Greenspan is sincere.  Who knows?  But is the following also another possible interpretation of the idea that the “wage gap” can be reduced in America by importing “skilled immigrants” to work at lower wages and form ethnic networks, eliminating natives, along with the obvious fact that those being imported are going to be heavily in the technology field, and not, for example, lawyers or movie directors?  Just a hypothetical speculation, you understand:

“Hey!  Some white gentile technologists (IT, engineers, biomedical researchers, physicists, chemists) still have fairly well compensated positions.  Not too many, of course, as previous “skilled immigration” has gutted career opportunities for American technologists.  And yet, some are still hanging on by their fingertips, guddimit, and I can’t stand the sight of that.  Let’s import more Asians and displace the native technologist class completely.  What excuse can I think up - hey, I got it!  These technologists are earning too much money and are fueling the “wage gap!”  That’s the ticket!  I hope the lemmings out there don’t start asking about my urbanized co-ethnics at the top of the human energy pyramid - lawyers, media moguls, the Hollywood crowd, politicians, and, yes, well compensated top economists, CEOs, etc. - you know those guys who, along with minority athletes and entertainers, are the one really fueling the wage gap.  Hey ho!  That 50K/year technologist gotta go, the 50M/year CEO gotta stay!  The cattle really are stupid, aren’t they?”

Posted by JB on Tue, 05 Jun 2007 13:54 | #

get this:

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20050917-112656-6698r.htm

In-state tuition for illegals spurs civil action in N.Y.

New York has joined Texas as the second state since early August to become the target of discrimination complaints for laws allowing illegal aliens who live in those states to go to college cheaper than out-of-state students who are U.S. citizens.

In both cases, the Washington Legal Foundation (WLF) filed the formal complaints with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. <u>That agency is responsible for investigating complaints of violations of rights arising from federal immigration laws. </u>

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 21 Apr 2008 23:09 | #

More from the “Must Be Seen to be Believed/You Can’t Make This Stuff Up” Department:

Let’s say you accused a meat packer of deliberately replacing family-wage $18-$24/hour white workers with slave-wage $7-$11/hour Mexican ones in order to drive wages down (exactly what the U.S. meat-packing industry did, by the way), and let’s say he replied, “We’re not after cheap labor:  we offer the same wage to whites and Mexicans.  It’s just there aren’t enough whites who take the jobs.”  You’d be staring in the face one of the most incredible examples of bold-faced lying anyone could possibly imagine, right? 

Bold-faced lying so incredible, in fact, so egregious — so breathtakingly brazen — you’d certainly expect never see it in real life, only in your fevered imagination. 

Right?

Wrong.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/04/21/displacing-american-professionals-why-the-h-1b-quota-gets-used-up-on-one-day/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:53 | #

Prof. Norm Matloff’s latest e-newsletter mentions a new article he’s posted (the URL for this e-mailed newsletter can probably be found at Prof. Matloff’s own web-site archives; none is included with the e-mail):

To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter

CIS has just published a new article by me, titled “H-1Bs:  Still Not the Best and the Brightest.”  The title alludes to an earlier article I wrote for CIS, in which I had done some preliminary statistical work showing that most H-1Bs are ordinary people doing ordinary work, not the geniuses claimed by the industry lobbyists.  In the present article I present much more direct statistical analysis along these lines.

Here I use a market-based approach to show that:

1.  The vast majority of H-1Bs are not of outstanding talent.

2.  This is also true when the data are broken down by occupation.

3.  This is also true for almost all prominent tech firms that were analyzed.

4.  Contrary to the constant hyperbole in the press that “Johnnie can’t do math” in comparison with kids in Asia, the workers from Western European countries tend to be more talented than those of their Asian counterparts.

Please note the implications of my article apply as much (actually, more) to the employer-based green-card system as to H-1B itself.  This is a crucial point, as there are proposals in Congress (rumored scheduled for serious consideration by Congress in May) to expand both the H-1B and green card programs — both of which expansions would adversely impact job opportunities and wages for U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

You can read the article at http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back508.html

Norm

Here are a few excerpts:

In pressuring Congress to expand the H-1B work visa and employment-based green-card programs, industry lobbyists have recently adopted a new tack. Seeing that their past cries of a tech labor shortage are contradicted by stagnant or declining wages, their new buzzword is innovation.  Building on their perennial assertion that the foreign workers are “the best and the brightest,” they now say that continued U.S. leadership in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) hinges on our ability to import the world’s best engineers and scientists.  Yet, this [article] will present new data analysis showing that the vast majority of the foreign workers — including those at most major tech firms — are people of just ordinary talent, doing ordinary work.  They are not the innovators the industry lobbyists portray them to be.

I presented some initial analyses along these lines in an earlier [article],1 showing for instance that STEM foreign students at U.S. universities tend to be at the less-selective universities.  Here I present a much more direct analysis, making use of a simple but powerful idea:  If the foreign workers are indeed outstanding talents, they would be paid accordingly.  We can thus easily determine whether a foreign worker is among “the best and the brightest” by computing the ratio of his salary to the prevailing wage figure stated by the employer.  Let’s call this the Talent Measure (TM). Keep in mind that a TM value of 1.0 means that the worker is merely average, not of outstanding talent.

I computed median TM values for various subgroups of interest.  A summary of the results is:

—The median TM value over all foreign workers studied was just a hair over 1.0.

—The median TM value was also essentially 1.0 in each of the tech professions studied.

—Median TM was near 1.0 for almost all prominent tech firms that were analyzed.

—Contrary to the constant hyperbole in the press that “Johnnie can’t do math” in comparison with kids in Asia, TM values for workers from Western European countries tend to be much higher than those of their Asian counterparts.

Again noting that a TM value of 1.0 means just average, the data show dramatically that most foreign workers, the vast majority of whom are from Asia, are in fact not “the best and the brightest.”

This article also presents further data showing an equally important point:

—Most foreign workers work at or near entry level, described by the Department of Labor in terms akin to apprenticeship.  This counters the industry’s claim that they hire the workers as key innovators, and again we will see a stark difference between the Asians and Europeans.

[...]

Talent Measure Analysis

Again, I take as our Talent Measure (TM) the ratio of a worker’s salary to the prevailing wage claimed by the employer. The employer is legally required to pay at least the prevailing wage, and must state on the PERM application how that wage level was determined.3   Since the application will be rejected if the wage offered is below the prevailing wage, by definition all values of TM will be at least 1.0.  The latter value means “the average worker,” i.e. of average talent, so if most workers have TM values close to 1.0, then most are probably not “the best and the brightest.”

With that it mind, let’s look at TM values, both overall and also for some specific occupations:  [see “specific occupations chart in text]  The trend, both general and for STEM occupations, is clear:  Most TM values are only a little higher than 1.0, indicating that most of the foreign workers are not outstanding talents.

The sole exceptional occupation is mathematicians.  Though rather few workers are in this category, the TM value is worth some comment.  The anomaly is likely due to the recent interest in data mining, which has created a de facto two-tier wage structure among mathematicians, in which those who specialize in data mining are paid much more.  Since the prevailing wage figures do not distinguish between these tiers, the official prevailing wage value set for mathematicians will be well below the market wage for data miners.  Thus it is probable that even these foreign workers are not “the best and the brightest.”

Lobbyists for the big firms often claim that abuse of the H-1B program occurs mainly in Indian-owned “bodyshops” (firms that subcontract H-1Bs to larger companies), while by contrast the big firms are hiring “the best and the brightest.”  Yet neither this scapegoating of the Indians nor the claim of hiring the top talents is warranted.  Consider the TM values after disaggregation by firm:  [see chart of break-down by firm]  Though these figures are slightly above the overall figures we saw earlier, they still show that the firms are not paying salaries indicating top talents.

Even Microsoft, on the high end of the companies shown here, is not paying top dollar, as seen by restricting attention to Microsoft’s workers holding the O-1 visa.  As O-1 is specifically for, in the phrasing of the statute, “workers of extraordinary ability,” this gives us a measure of the salaries Microsoft pays to those foreign workers who in fact are “the best and the brightest.”  The median TM for Microsoft O-1 workers is 1.404.  That represents a salary premium of more than double what the firm is giving its foreign workers in general, so there does not appear to be much support for Microsoft’s claim that most of their H-1Bs are of extraordinary talent. [...]

East vs. West

The lobbyists love to claim that the industry resorts to hiring foreign workers because Americans are weak in math and science.  Various international comparisons of math/science test scores at the K-12 level are offered as “evidence.”  The claims are specious — after all, both major sources of foreign tech workers, India and China, refuse to participate in those tests, and India continues to be plagued with a high illiteracy rate.  Serious educational research, including an earlier Arizona State university report[4] and a recent major study by the Urban Institute[5] show clearly that mainstream American kids are doing fine in STEM.  [Scroob note:  notice the qualifier “mainstream” here:  clearly it’s code for white]

Nevertheless, the “Asian mystique” persists.  The image is that our tech industry owes its success to armies of mathematical geniuses arriving to U.S. graduate schools from Asia.  Once again, though, the data do not support this perception.  Here is a comparison of TM values for foreign workers from the major Asian countries and their counterparts in Europe and Canada:  [see chart of comparison by country]  The differences here are not large, but nevertheless, all of the Western nations have higher median TM values than all the Asian nations — quite the opposite of the portrayal by the industry lobbyists.

Taking a closer look, let’s tabulate median TM for the major worker-sending nations in both hemispheres, against the major occupations:  [see chart of major occupation by country]  While still mild, the trend again indicates that the Western foreign workers are the more talented ones.

Finally, what about individual firms? Interestingly, the gap between East and West widens. Let’s check the firms with the largest numbers of foreign workers:  [see chart]  There are some interesting exceptions for China, but in general the trend follows the previous pattern.

[...]

Conclusions

The lobbyists know that crying educational doom-and-gloom sells.  Even though it was mainly “Johnnie,” rather than Arvind or Qing-Ling, who originally developed the computer industry, and even though all major East Asian governments have lamented their educational systems’ stifling of creativity, the lobbyists have convinced Congress that the industry needs foreign workers from Asia in order to innovate.

The facts show otherwise. Most foreign tech workers, particularly those from Asia, are in fact not “the best and the brightest.”  This is true both overall and in the key tech occupations, and most importantly, in the firms most stridently demanding that Congress admit more foreign workers.  Expansion of the guest worker programs — both H-1B visas and green cards — is unwarranted.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:56 | #

Here is the conclusion to Prof. Matloff’s 2006 article for CIS:

Conclusions
The central premise on which F-4 and similar proposals are based, that there is a shortage of programmers and engineers with graduate degrees, is obviously false. Salaries and jobs have been stable in recent years, showing clearly that there is no shortage of such workers. Indeed, many American programmers and engineers with graduate degrees cannot find work in their field. And while the number of jobs has been flat since 1999, we have more H-1Bs and L-1s today than in that year, so the number of jobs available to Americans has declined. Thus Congress should not be entertaining any kind of increase in the number of foreign tech workers in the United States, including at the graduate level.

The F-4 legislation’s own authors contradict the claims made by the industry lobbyists. First, they disprove their claim of a labor shortage, by giving foreign graduates a full year in which to find a job. Second, they refute their own claim that F-4 would bring in “the best and the brightest,” by reducing the percentage of green cards in the EB-1 category, which is specifically for outstanding talents.

F-4 would be a “free giveaway,” not only for the foreign workers but also for the employers, who would use it as an abundant source of cheap, young labor. It would have a major adverse impact on American workers, both new graduates and the ones at the more advanced career levels. Concerning the latter, F-4 would amount to government-sanctioned age discrimination.

Always aware that “pushing the education button” is a sure way to obfuscate the tech foreign labor issue, the industry and university lobbies have been manipulating public opinion in this regard for years. They have been actively aided in this regard by the governmental National Science Foundation (NSF), which has explicitly called for expansive immigration policies in order to suppress salaries in engineering and science.

Instead of making it easier for foreign tech graduates to be hired in U.S. industry, Congress should make it more difficult. It should enact genuine H-1B reform, addressing both Type I and Type II salary savings. While it should retain the EB-1 category for those of outstanding abilities, Congress should reduce, rather than expand, the total yearly number of employment-based green cards. Congress should also warn the NSF that further undermining of American engineers and scientists may jeopardize the NSF’s funding.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 14:59 | #

Among the footnotes in both Matloff articles can be found a wealth of additional articles by various authors.  To take one example, here’s an excerpt from one written a decade ago but still very timely and informative:

Long term labor shortages do not happen naturally in market economies.
That is not to say that they don’t exist.  They are created when employers or government agencies tamper with the natural functioning of the wage mechanism.

To get an idea of expert opinion on this topic, consider the 1990 testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum, later to become Vice-Chairman of the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform and considered by many, the foremost expert on the migration of the highly skilled:

”...the very phrase itself, ‘labor shortage’ provokes puzzlement or amazement among most informed analysts of U.S. labor markets.”

“[To attract] workers, the employer may have to increase his wage offer. ... So when you hear an employer saying he needs immigrants to fill a ‘labor shortage,’ remember what you are hearing:  a cry for a labor subsidy to allow the employer to avoid the normal functioning of the labor market.”  -1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum

The U.S. provides employers with access to the world’s most productive workforce of more than 100 million individuals; an excess of talent and manpower far beyond the needs of any employer or field.  In the absence of interference with the natural wage mechanism, salary offers rise to the level which gives an employer, access to the share of labor he or she needs.  Organizations which lack the ability or will to compete in this dynamic market are replaced by healthier or more generous employers.

In 1998 we are again hearing that America’s colleges and universities are neither attracting nor producing enough U.S. knowledge workers in the form of scientists, engineers, programmers and information workers to meet the needs of business and universities.  In the case of programmers and information workers, the claim is that this is far more serious than a spot shortage lasting the few months needed to raise wages and train new workers.  Instead, some industry advocates have termed this a long term crisis which threatens the health of the U.S. economy.

Economists tend to dismiss such analysis out of hand as the alarmism of individuals who have, for whatever reason, failed to grasp the most basic of economic principles.  While the claims of ruin may safely be discarded as political theatrics, the domestic shortage claims deserve more scrutiny and need not be as far fetched as some market experts might assume.  Most economists would agree that if previous “employer relief” efforts have been left in place, a domestic labor shortage could well result.

Dr. Teitelbaum put this mainstay of market analysis in its simplest terms:

”[Proposed] provisions to rectify a ‘labor shortage’ have the perverse effect of assuring continuation of such ‘shortages’ ”  -1990 Congressional Testimony of Dr. Michael S. Teitelbaum

Thus, if industry and universities are in fact facing a long term domestic labor shortage, the most likely explanation is that it is due to previous wage tampering in the skilled labor markets related to knowledge workers.

The natural wage rate in the U.S. economy is set by a simple right of first refusal (called labor certification). U.S. employers are free to hire any resident whether immigrant or citizen without regard to citizenship.  If no qualified resident is available, they may then sponsor (at some cost to themselves) a non-resident who wishes to gain a permanent visa.

As long as this mechanism is not abused, standards of living are not lowered by depressed wages in other countries, employers invest in domestic training, and enterprising institutions make tidy profits.

In such a market economy, employers signal a need for domestic talent through improving wages, benefits and terms of employment.  They signal a desire to avoid the high prices for domestic talent by turning to government in search of visas. Domestic workers respond positively to employers who choose the first route by leaving those who opt for the latter.

As workers are expected to bear the losses when demand sags, it is generally agreed that they are entitled to reap the benefits when markets tighten.  When employers use coded language like a need for “wage stability” they are indicating to potential employees that they favor a climate where workers assume the risks from market forces, but not the full returns.  It comes as a surprise to few that such employers may encounter more difficulty attracting domestic talent than employers who are unafraid to compete at the natural wage rate.

The purpose of this article is to argue that employers in government, universities, and industry, have recently lobbied [...] for the purpose of avoiding and depressing the natural market price for U.S. knowledge workers.  By creating a nearly identical panic to the one today, this group of employers motivated changes in immigration law and obtained government training funds to create an artificial demand for technical skills.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:05 | #

The analysis in Prof. Matloff’s new CIS article of course completely torpedoes the central thesis of GnXp.com to the effect the U.S. and the West in general need to import the outstanding IT talent from the Orient and the Indian Subcontinent because it brings such benefit we simply cannot afford not to.  That rationale for race-replacement is now down the drain.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 04 May 2008 04:41 | #

The following is a letter to Vdare.com, posted tonight:
______

Former President of American Engineering Association Says “Incestuous Relationship” Stacks Deck Against U.S. Workers

From: Bill Reed

Re: Edwin S. Rubenstein’s Column:  Fuzzy Data, Flawed Economics Underlie H-1B, Outsourcing Enthusiasm

A wonderful article by Mr. Rubenstein!  Right on the money!  I have argued for a long time that China and India produce more engineers as measured by raw numbers because their massive population requires more —  it’s as simple as that.  Rubenstein quantifies my theory.  The only thing I can add to Rubenstein’s column are two points that explain why so much misleading rhetoric about Americans who supposedly lack the adequate education to enter the IT profession.

One, there exists an incestuous relationship among corporate America, academia and the federal government.  Academia supports increased immigration at the student level, industry gets cheap labor from the foreign-born graduates and the government subsidizes both industry and academia through higher levels of immigration for industry and research grants to the universities while at the same time, encouraging more foreign students for the sake of diversity.  Some states give foreign students in-state tuition.  In addition, universities have unlimited numbers of H-1B visas available to them which do not fall under the current 65,000 cap.  Finally, Congress gets financial support for their campaigns from the IT industry in exchange for supporting increased immigration.

All of this interwoven chicanery comes at taxpayer expense.

Two, the method employers use to search their databases for job candidates is guaranteed to eliminate Americans.  In their job postings, certain buzzwords can tip the employer off that the applicant is American-born and educated.  Program language such as C++ or HTML, often taken from the latest courses at the U.S. colleges and universities, are examples.  If a prospective job candidate uses the wrong buzzwords in his resume, he’ll never get an interview.  Or in other cases, employers tailor their job search qualifications to foreign-born and trained applicants that would be unique to their résumés.

We all know that Americans are fully qualified to work in the IT industry. The problem isn’t lack of skill. It’s the deck that has been loaded against them.

Reed, who lives in Texas, is a former aerospace engineer currently working, he says, for less than a third of what he earned five years ago.  Among the projects Reed has worked are the Apollo space program, the F-16, the F-111, the F22, the F-23, the A-12, the B-2, and a number of commercial aircraft projects.

For 23 years, Reed served as president of the American Engineering Association.  In that capacity he has testified before Congress on at least four different occasions on various aspects of the non-immigrant worker visa as they affect American engineers and tech workers.  He also testified before the National Research Council in Austin, Texas, during their hearings on workforce needs in Information Technology.

Previous articles by Reed have been published in Manufacturing News and The Social Contract.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 04 May 2008 19:13 | #

GnXp.com’s “To the Vector Go the Spoils” strategy has it that “cognitive élitism” demands the Eurosphere’s ongoing importation of generous volumes of IT workers from the Far East and the Indian Subcontinent “since Chinese and Subcon skills in this area, superior to Euro skills, are needed in order for the Eurosphere IT industries to thrive and continue to advance and to dominate.” 

Computer Sciences professor Norman Matloff (whose PhD was in math, by the way) announces, in his latest e-mailed newsletters, more nails in the coffin of GnXp.com’s strategy (URLs aren’t included with these e-mailings; these newsletters however are presumably archived at Prof. Matloff’s web-site). 

First, an op-ed debunking the GnXp.com claim, and the industry’s claim, that Subcon and Oriental IT recruits are “the best and the brightest” has just been published in Nature (this follows close on the heels of Prof. Matloff’s own CIS article which just recently debunked the same notion): 

To:  H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter

The British journal Nature is one of the two or three most prestigious scientific publications in the world.  Thus Hal Salzman and B. Lindsay Lowell have achieved quite a coup in having the findings of their study on American capabilities in math and science published in the journal, even if it is in the form of commentary.

Salzman and Lowell, you will recall, published a study for the Urban Institute a few months ago in which they debunked the myths that American kids are abysmal at math and science, that we are not producing enough people with degrees in those fields, that our average math/science scores are misleading because sadly we have not solved the problem of educating the underclass [Scroob note:  “the underclass” here is code for, essentially, Negroes and Mexicans] but the mainstream is fine [Scroob:  “the mainstream” means mainly Euro-Americans; also Jews and Orientals], and so on.  It is the most thorough, careful study related to the H-1B issue I’ve seen in years.  See my postings on the study at:

http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/UrbanInst.txt

http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/UrbanInst2.txt

The Nature column by Salzman and Lowell not only summarizes some of their previous findings, it makes some points that are, I believe, new. 

One of these new points is striking:  In absolute numbers, the U.S. has more top-scoring kids in math and science than any other country studied — by far.  The authors point out that it is mainly these kids who become the innovators later as adults, and we’ve got an excellent supply of them.  This is completely counter to what one constantly sees in the popular press.

Which leads to a point Salzman made in announcing his article to the Sloan Industry Centers e-mail discussion group: “We’d welcome reactions and particularly thoughts on why the S&E shortage claim is so strongly believed despite lack of evidence.”  The answer, of course, is that the groups that stand to benefit from a public perception of an S&E shortage — the tech industry (who want an expanded H-1B work visa program for its cheap labor), the immigration lawyers (who want an expanded H-1B for obvious reasons), the education lobby (“Give us more money so we can remedy the shortage”) and so on hire the slickest PR people money can buy.  They’ve been at it for years, to the point at which many people in Congress, the press and the public at large simply take it for granted that “Johnnie can’t do math.”

The Nature article is at:

  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/pdf/453028a.pdf

[Scroob note:  in the Nature article the authors get around having to mention race, by means of such euphemisms as “low-performing students in math and science,” meaning, largely, Negroes and Mexicans, and “high-performing students,” meaning, of course, whites plus orientals.  They also take obfuscation to ridiculous heights in pretending not to know why Finland’s and New Zealand’s students have better average scores than undifferentiated U.S. students.  So, in reading the article you have to be prepared for irritating, dishonest aracialist stuff like that.]

Norm

And Prof. Matloff responds to two critics of his own recent analysis for CIS debunking “To the Vector go the Spoils” — i.e., debunking the GnXp.com thesis that the Chinese and Subcon grad students in computer science are so far superior to ourselves that in order to remain competitive we have to import considerable volumes of them on an ongoing basis:

To:  H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter

Two journalists, one at the Wall Street Journal and the other at the Los Angeles Times, have reviewed my recent study that showed further evidence that the vast majority of H-1Bs are not “the best and the brightest,” contrary to what the industry lobbyists claim.  (See http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/NotBestBrightest.txt )  Sadly, neither review was very careful.

For instance, WSJ’s Ben Worthen says ( http://blogs.wsj.com/biztech/2008/04/30/are-h-1b-tech-workers-highly-skilled-or-just-lower-paid/?mod=WSJBlog ),

“Stuart Anderson, executive director for the National Foundation for American Policy, which is in favor of boosting the H-1B cap, counters that there’s a much more prosaic explanation for why the median worker on an H-1B visa isn’t paid more:  Most visa recipients are just starting their careers, he tells us.  In 2005, 41% of H-1B holders were younger than 30, and an additional 32% were under 35, according to the Department of Homeland Security.  A better measure of their skill is education, he says, pointing out that 57 percent of new H-1Bs received a master’s degree or above in 2006.”

Worthen should have known Anderson’s “explanation” is patently wrong, because the legal definition of prevailing wage FACTORS IN experience and education.  The prevailing wage levels for those young H-1Bs are set accordingly, and education is similarly accounted for.  My article discussed the various experience levels defined by the Dept. of Labor in detail.

(At least Anderson did choose to comment.  CompeteAmerica, the leading lobbying group that is pushing Congress to increase the H-1B cap, declined to comment when asked by the Lou Dobbs Show.)

My article also showed that even though the industry lobbyists try to portray the hiring of H-1Bs from Asia as stemming from supposed high levels of math talent in that region, the DOL data show that on the contrary it is the H-1Bs from Europe who are getting the higher pay, not the Chinese and Indians.  I had written that even though the lobbyists say employers hire H-1Bs because “Johnnie can’t do math,”

“The lobbyists know that crying educational doom-and-gloom sells.  Even though it was mainly ``Johnnie,’’ rather than Arvind or Qing-Ling, who originally developed the computer industry, and even though all major East Asian governments have lamented their educational systems’ stifling of creativity, the lobbyists have convinced Congress that the industry needs foreign workers from Asia in order to innovate.”

The LAT’s Tim Cavanaugh tries to “explain” this on linguistic grounds ( http://opinion.latimes.com/opinionla/2008/04/putting-the-b-i.html ):

“immigrant tech workers from Canada and Germany command higher salaries than those from India.  That seems easily explicable:  a Canadian worker would presumably be a native English speaker and thus a little more comfortable at negotiating a good price, while a German brings language skills that, given Germany’s continued industrial and technological strength, would be worth paying a premium for.”

I was surprised that Cavanaugh could be so far off base here.  Doesn’t he know that the educated class in India speaks English?  Most have been doing so since they were in kindergarten or earlier. [...]  As to the value of speaking German, surely Cavanaugh must know that knowledge of the Chinese language is far more valuable today.  According to his linguistic theory, [therefore,] the Chinese H-1Bs should be making top dollar — which they generally aren’t. [...]

Worthen’s writeup was mostly fair, but this passage was an exception:

“A chart accompanying Matloff’s study shows that tech companies, many of which are lobbying Congress to grant more H-1Bs, tend to pay more than prevailing wage, with Microsoft and Oracle leading the way.”

That’s just plain wrong.  My chart shows that most of the firms were paying between 5 and 10% above prevailing wage, which even Worthen admitted in his phone interview of me is hardly in the the “world’s best and the brightest” range.  Microsoft did indeed have a higher premium, 19%, but that still obviously is not genius level.  On the contrary, my article showed that Microsoft O-1 visa hires — this visa type is for those “of extraordinary ability,” thus best and the brightest by definition — were getting 40% higher than average.

It’s also too bad that Cavanaugh and Worthen overlooked my point (which I stressed with Worthen when he called me) that this newest data merely supplements previous work on this topic, which I wrote about in earlier articles.  I’ve cited the work of former Assistant Secretary of Labor David North, for instance, which showed that the foreign students studying in U.S. universities are mainly in the lesser-ranking institutions, again contrary to their claimed “best and brightest” status.  I’ve also analyzed the list of winners of the annual Best PhD Dissertation Awards given by the Association for Computing Machinery, in which the numbers of foreign students is proportionally lower than their numbers in the CS PhD population.

I’ve been interviewed by the press many times over the years, with the reporters being quite evenhanded in the vast majority of cases [...], so I was taken aback by these two blogs.  There seems to be an underlying assumption on the part of both of these journalists that “Matloff’s report can’t be right, so let’s figure out where the flaw is.”  One must wonder what causes such attitudes.

[...]

Norm

It’s looking as if GnXp.com’s (imaginary) justification for touting “cognitive élitism” as something which mandates excessive incompatible immigration into this country “for its own good” is withering away.

But something additional seems to be going on here:  I wonder if it isn’t what James Bowery brought up in another thread, to the effect that to one of the vectors isn’t going enough of the spoils, so that particular vector is starting to seek redress of grievance for the first time?  Certainly seems plausible ...

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 May 2008 16:10 | #

Prof. Matloff’s sticking up for U.S. IT professionals isn’t absolute, in the sense that he supports the immigration of Oriental and Subcon IT talent in cases where, he deems, such talent is of outstanding quality.  This support is a fly in the ointment, in the view of JWH: 

So far, so good. But…

“To be sure, the author is a strong supporter of facilitating the immigration of the world’s best and brightest. He has acted on that belief, by championing the hiring of extraordinarily talented researchers, mostly from India and China, into his department faculty.”

Thus, “the author” – despite writing a useful essay – is garbage. Is he going to pay out of his own pocket to compensate white Americans for the loss of genetic interests caused by the influx of these “talented” Asiatics?

And Joe Guzzardi has a little list of types of visas he thinks the U.S. could do without — and the visa meant for bringing outstanding foreign talent here, the “O-1” visa, is on it: 

O-1 visa, the so-called “extraordinary ability” visa designed for artists, scientists, and performers.  Another unfunny joke —  which Rob Sanchez wrote about when he introduced readers to “Dorsimar,” whose “extraordinary ability” was to remove her clothes for money. 

You say you’re a legitimate talent?  God bless you, then.  We’ll catch your act over there —  wherever that is —  or buy your DVDs.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 10 May 2008 19:12 | #

Another visa type on Joe Guzzardi’s little list is the one for mail-order brides, a visa which serves crafty cold-blooded Russian or Filipina women looking for U.S. men who despite being the creepiest, most pathetic losers and sad-sacks imaginable may have bank accounts, real estate and other property the mail-order brides can chisel them out of in collusion with the Albanian or Bulgarian mafia-type boyfriends they always have “on the side”:

K-1, the fiancée visa.

Sorry, the jig is up on this one.  I’ve been exposing K-1 fraud since 2002.  In the intervening years, Internet scamming has grown to previously unimaginable levels.  The only people who benefit from the K-1 visa:  the “fiancée” who gets on the path to U.S. citizenship, her extended family, Internet matchmakers, immigration lawyers who push the papers through and (maybe) the loving husband —  unless she dumps him first.  [Scroob note:  or murders him and gets all his property, she and her Bulgarian gangster b/f.  It happens and I’m not saying the guy doesn’t richly deserve it for being such a creep and all, but still ....]  You say you can’t find your dream girl?  Try harder.  According to the U.S. Census, 50 million single women are out there.  Or go to Shaker Heights to find Marlena.  She’s cute and eager to hook up with you.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 18 May 2008 18:56 | #

Hasn’t Computer Sciences Prof. Norm Matloff embarrassed the GnXp.com cognitive élitists enough already, with his recent CIS paper?  (Anyone know if they’re responded to it, by the way?  I wouldn’t know, as I haven’t visited their anti-Euro e-rag in five years.)  As if he hadn’t already utterly destroyed them, Matloff is really rubbing it in now.  Sheeeesh, this guy takes no prisoners:

To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter

Interesting blog posting by Computerworld’s Patrick Thibodeau:  he begins by referring to my recent article showing that most H-1Bs are not “the best and the brightest” as claimed by the industry lobbyists, and asks why one would even investigate such a question.  Thibodeau says:

“H-1B visa holders aren’t ‘the best and brightest.’  It’s inside-the-beltway rhetoric that evaporates in two seconds of debate.”

Yes, inside-the-beltway rhetoric indeed.  Thibodeau’s remark fits well with the recent statement by Senator Grassley that I liked so much:

“Nobody should be fooled [by the industry lobbyists].”

I’ve often wondered how many people on the Hill actually are fooled on the H-1B issue.  I’m pretty sure that Rep. Lofgren, the House’s biggest supporter of the H-1B program, has a good understanding of the fact that most if not all of claims made by the industry lobbyists are false.  She’s been given lots of information by the Programmers Guild, including in a meeting in which she heard from them personally, and I know she’s heard from many people personally.  She even admitted once to the press that her neighbor, an engineer, couldn’t get a job.  But there is no way she would vote for, let alone propose, genuine reform of the program.

I’m told that the YouTube video, in which the prominent Pittsburgh immigration law firm showed its clients how to legally circumvent the green card law requiring employers to give hiring priority to Americans, really did have an impact on [Capitol] Hill. 

(Too bad they only saw half of the bad stuff.  Another video in the series also explained some of the loopholes in the prevailing wage law for both H-1B and green cards.  And too bad most of them haven’t seen the earlier statements by the law firm in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, assuring the public that employers hire H-1Bs only as a last resort after making an exhaustive search for American workers, that H-1Bs are paid well, etc. — in egregious contrast to what they were telling their clients in the video.  (See here.)

So, many of them do know that there are real problems with H-1B.  But they don’t WANT to know.  I’ve mentioned before that my own congressperson, Elaine Tauscher, refuses to meet with me.  And when another constituent suggested holding a town meeting on the H-1B issue Tauscher’s aide went through the motions of discussing it, but of course in the end Tauscher simply wouldn’t do it.  And she wouldn’t do it because she COULDN’T do it; both major parties are just too beholden financially to the industry for campaign contributions.  If any of you out there think that Sen. Obama or Sen. McGain will do the right thing about H-1B, think again; they’ve already said they support the program, that the U.S. “needs” H-1Bs.  (Recall the public comments by Sen. Bennett and Rep. Davis, quite explicit, to the effect that they know the public doesn’t want H-1B but the industry does, and as Davis — then chair of the Republican Congressional Campaign Finance Committee — put it, “The industry is the ones who give us the money.”)

Back to Thibodeau:  For whatever reason, he apparently decided to take a look at my 1998 House testimony, in which I predicted that if the good jobs, e.g. software development instead of software marketing, were to go largely to foreign workers, American students would vote with their feet and major in something other than computer science.  As we all know, that’s exactly what is now occurring.  And, AGAIN Sen. Grassley’s line applies — “nobody should be fooled.”  Don’t be fooled by computer science departments that tell you, “Enrollment is slightly up this year” — when they are hiding from you the fact that they lowered the bar for admission, that they relaxed the major requirements in order to attract more students, etc.

Kids are savvy.  They saw their older siblings decide to major in C[omputer] S[cience] as freshmen in 1998, in response to constant articles in the press saying employers are desperate to hire — only to find there were no jobs when they graduated in 2002.  The ACM, etc., are making such statements again.  Yet the kids know that earlier history, and moreover they see that salaries in the field are flat (which of course again is a consequence of the move to foreign labor, both as H-1Bs and offshore workers).  So why major in CS, even if the new liberalized major requirements allow one to take touchy-feely courses in human computer interaction instead of operating systems and parallel processing hardware?

Maybe H-1B is not the gravest problem the nation faces today, but it certainly is symptomatic of the general trouble — government of, by and for Big Business; disinformation routinely dispensed by politicians; members of Congress feeling that money politics forces them to take actions that they know are wrong and are harmful to working Americans.  A few years ago, when a representative or senator whose name I can’t recall now announced that she was quitting Congress to become a broadcast journalist [Scroob note:  Could he be referring to Susan Molinari?], TV comic Bill Maher joked that she was leaving politics in order to “make a difference.”  Turns out that it’s not a joke.  I don’t know how much impact this person subsequently had as a journalist, but it couldn’t have been less than she had in Congress.

Norm

(These e-mailed newsletters are sent without the inclusion of URLs but I’m sure they’re archived at Prof. Matloff’s own web-site and can be referenced there.  His web-site is linked at his Wikipedia bio page.)

Notice GnXp.com’s whole schtick, that we have to import unlimited amounts of IT workers from China and the Subcontinent because our own American talent is too inferior to keep us on top of the field, is blown completely out of the water now.  Do they dare continue to mouthe that nonsense over there?

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:16 | #

When the U.S.‘s traditional white heartland populations continually produce a stream of such men as Jack Kilby, Claude Shannon, Seymour Cray, and all the others stretching back to the day the Pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock and Captain John Smith founded Jamestown (Plymouth Rock and Jamestown?  Hell, stretching back in Europe to the end of the last Ice Age), what need have we of imported Oriental or Indian Subcontinental “cognitive élites”? 

Answer:  zero.  Zero need.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 09 Aug 2008 02:46 | #

Professor Matloff throws Tamar Jacobi in an ice-cold shower just as she’s on the verge of giving herself another immigration-induced orgasm.  Hey, can’t a girl have any fun around here???  Not nice, Professor!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:28 | #

From a Takimag thread, quoted at Western Biopolitics:

Over time, China will very likely destroy itself from within.  The Gobi desert keeps marching towards Beijing.  There is a growing imbalance in the male/female sex ratio.  Engineering experts have warned the Chinese that the Great Gorges Dam will silt up.

But there is always the safety valve of America.  Republican and Democratic parties and the very evil corporations are allowing China to colonize and take over the technological and scientific establishment and infrastructure of America.

When America becomes completely dependent upon China and India for its scientific and technological workforce. Native Born White Americans will be a conquered people.

Chinese nationals living within the borders of America are actively participating in the destruction of thousands of years of collective engineering experience that resides within the brains of Native Born White Americans.

The Chinese probably can not believe how easy it is to colonize America.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 10 Aug 2008 17:32 | #

From same source as above:

Native-born White American parents tell their children not to major in engineering because they are fearful that their children will be replaced by a legal immigrant scab worker from China.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 19 Sep 2008 14:37 | #

Check out how IT companies like Hewlett Packard do their hiring nowadays through law firms specializing in exploiting legal loopholes to the hilt for the purpose of refusing employment to qualified Americans:

Here is another piece of business as usual:  One of the job ads states:

“MINIMUM JOB REQUIREMENTS:  Master’s or foreign degree equivalent in Computer Science, Computer Engineering, Electrical Engineering, or related field plus two (2) years of experience in job offered, or as a systems engineer, software design engineer, system analyst, or related occupation.  Employer will accept an unrelated M.S. degree plus an additional one (1) year of related work experience.  SPECIAL SKILLS REQUIREMENTS:  C/C++; Visual Studio; Embedded Programming; NT platform; Unix platform; Web Programming (Java and JavaScript); RDBMS database; Clearcase; VSS.”

This is a great case study in what’s wrong with EB green card law and regs.  First, note that phrase “two (2) years of experience in job offered.” Obviously, they’re referring to the foreign national currently occupying the job!  This language is commonly seen in tech job ads, a dead giveaway to the knowing that the job is already taken and [this tech job ad] is being used to technically comply with the law but actually flout its intent.  And just as obviously, they are not about to replace this foreign worker if a qualified American applicant is found. [...]  Note too the piling on of skills requirements in the job ad above. The foreign worker currently performing that job is likely the only one in the world having that particular combination of skills, thus ensuring that no American applicant will “qualify” for the job.

And just in case any qualified American IT hopeful does send a résumé despite all the hints to “just go away, we don’t want you, the job is already taken by an Asian!” that are deliberately embedded in the ad, all job applications from Americans will be routed through an employee of the law firm that’s doing the hiring (Fragomen, Del Ray, Bernsen, & Loewy, LLP) named Cindy Jen.  After checking out Attorney Jen’s company bio to see what languages she’s fluent in and where she was born, all I can say is I sincerely wish all American job applicants sending in their résumés:  GOOD LUCK!  They’ll need it!!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 22 Oct 2008 23:03 | #

Thanks to the U.S. government’s corrupt H-1B culture, native-born U.S. Nobel-grade science talent is driving shuttle buses for car dealerships instead of wearing white lab coats and doing research:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/10/22/dr-norm-matloff-best-and-brightest-scientist-found-driving-a-shuttle-bus/

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sun, 15 Feb 2009 19:41 | #

I have some bad news, some good news, and ... uhhhh ..... some more bad news. 

The bad news:  a new research paper out of Harvard Business School, currently making the rounds of very favorably impressed (and statistics-illiterate) U.S. academics and movers & shakers on immigration, claims that Chinese H-1Bs are “highly innovative” and therefore, goes the claim, the importation of a large influx of them would be of enormous benefit to the U.S. in this time of economic disaster by “shocking” its economy into performing better.

The good news:  unfortunately for the two researchers, someone got Computer Sciences Professor Norman Matloff involved in the article’s peer-review process.  His peer review essentially trashed the paper.  Totally invalidated it.  As in:  blew it completely out of the water.

The ... uhhhh .... bad news:  no one’s listening to Prof. Matloff.

The story:  first, when you have a statistically fraudulent academic article to peddle on H-1B as it relates to Chinese PhDs, Prof. Matloff is the one man you don’t want — as in THE ONE MAN YOU DO NOT WANT — peer-reviewing it, since in addition to being a Computer Sciences expert and a top national expert on H-1B, he’s fluent in Chinese both the Mandarin and Cantonese dialects, has developed Chinese language software, has published extensively on Chinese-language computing, has a Chinese wife, and knows China and Chinese culture and traditions, as well as Chinese computer science students and PhD candidates, backwards and forwards, rightside up, upside down, and sixteen ways from Sunday.  Prof. Matloff was also a professor of statistics before becoming a computer sciences professor, was originally a mathematics PhD, he still teaches a course in applications of probability and statistics to computing, and he does research and consulting work in mathematical statistics and probability.

Prof. Matloff’s pre-publication peer-review of the Harvard article found serious statistical and methodological flaws and he strongly recommended they be corrected, as they had the potential to yield results not just spurious but diametrically opposed to the truth.  These flaws included:  1) a “common-related-variables” flaw, 2) a “multicollinearity” flaw, 3) a gross misinterpretation of confidence intervals for a set of regression coefficients, 4) a statistical flaw known as “failure to address the counterfactual,” and 5) the article claimed that findings by Prof. George Borjas were not in agreement with other publications, but the other publications the article cited didn’t address the Borjas issue at all.

Prof. Matloff’s recommendations are being totally ignored, and this article’s statistically defective collection of “findings” is making the rounds of the immigration and H-1B movers-and-shakers who are chomping at the bit to forge ahead and begin importing tons and tons more of Chinese H-1Bs. 
______

( http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/02/11/doctor-norm-matloff-on-kerr-and-lincoln-working-paper-on-h1-bs-and-innovation/ )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 01:48 | #

A wisdom-packed statement from a retired American engineer (with a WASP name):

As an engineering student in the early 60’s I was one of 3000+ students, 99% of whom were white males.  However, this is no longer the case, and there can be little doubt that this bastion of white male competency has become a particular target of the “diversity” establishment — part of the hostile elite that dominates the US today.  White males are being marginalized in an area where they were able to earn above-average incomes.  Their eclipse in the scientific and technical realms is an important part of the general displacement of whites among American elites.

The mantra of the diversity industry is that there are untold (and unverified) benefits for creating a diverse workplace.  This ideology has penetrated to engineering schools at universities throughout America.  In the 90’s, I attended a college reunion luncheon at which the Dean gave a slide presentation justifying their program for increasing “diversity” in the student body.  Their advocacy of diversity bordered on fanaticism. 

On a subsequent tour of the college, I observed a large computer lab room filled with mostly Asian students.  I asked the Dean where the American students were, and he replied “They’re probably watching football this Saturday.”  Welcome to the non-white technocratic elite.

There can be little doubt that the result of these policies will be to lower the earning power and status of an important segment of white males.  An important consequence of this marginalization of white males will result in making them less desirable in the eyes of white females, since it is well known that women are attracted to men of power and wealth. 

The following governmental policies are helping to achieve the objectives of the hostile elite:

—The massive influx of Asian engineers and students facilitated through the H1B program.  Presently the H1B quota is 85,000 per year including employment for 20,000 foreign students with advanced degrees.  The result has been shown to be a decrease in engineering salaries.

—Outsourcing of manufacturing and outsourcing of jobs.  Manufacturing is heavily dependent on engineers and other technical people.  By outsourcing manufacturing, you eliminate the need for the many white technical people needed for support. Outsourcing of jobs is obviously detrimental.

—Programs emphasizing “diversity” in the student population reduce the number of white males eligible to acquire a decreasing number of job openings.  Affirmative action in hiring further exacerbates the plight of the aspiring white male graduate.

Since IQ distributions preclude blacks and Latinos from providing the required numbers to displace white males, the strategy has been to simply import engineers from Asia. 

Microsoft’s Bill Gates is a major culprit in this effort to undermine white males.  Gates testified before Congress about the need for unlimited H1B visas with specious claims about engineer or programmer “shortages” and the need to import engineers in order to promote innovation and competitiveness. 

But there are no shortages and there is no reason whatever to think that the engineers from Asia will have the skills to be truly innovative.  [Scroob note:  see, in my comment just above, how a new research paper claims Chinese H-1Bs should be imported into the U.S. in huge numbers because their “superior innovativeness” has the power to “shock” the U.S. economy into performing better in this time of economic crisis.]  In fact, America and the West became great by tapping the skills of white engineers and scientists.  Richard Lynn has shown that even though Asians have IQ’s at least comparable to whites, they are less creative and innovative.  Bill Gates’ claim that non-white engineers are needed to make America competitive and innovative is simply not based on any scientific data. 

The bottom line is that a path to status and earning power for some of the most intelligent white males has been almost eliminated.  Companies like Microsoft may benefit because importing engineers lowers the salary scale for all engineers.  But it will not lead to innovation.

Indeed, one downside for the society as a whole is that creative, intelligent whites may well decide to enter other fields where they can make more money, such as finance.  Or they may end up watching football games and accepting lower-paid, non-technical positions. 

The truly sad thing is that people like Bill Gates have enough money to change the world in a positive way.  Someone with Gates’s money would be able to fund pro-white media and political movements that would prevent the dispossession of whites and prevent the bloodshed and social tensions that will inevitably result from importing huge numbers of people of different races and cultures. 

But the sad reality is that all of Gates’s efforts are directed at undermining his own people.  Not only is he spearheading the displacement of white engineers and scientists, a glance at the website of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation shows its preoccupation with charity toward non-whites — particularly Africans.  Not surprisingly, Gates was a highly visible supporter of Obama in the recent election.  The same can be said of Warren Buffett, another superrich supporter of Obama who is closely allied with Gates in giving billions to charity to Africans and other non-whites.

Gates would seem to be the paragon of the individualist white person.  These are white men who have no concern for their people but with a deep commitment to moral virtue and principle — part of the Puritan legacy of American culture.  This Puritan legacy was a critical ingredient in the demise of the white Protestant elite in favor of the hostile Jewish-dominated elite we see today.

On the other hand, wealthy Jews have a strong record of donating to Jewish causes.  While people like Gates and Buffett support the forces that are undermining their own people, wealthy Jews fund causes — including multiculturalism and high levels of non-white immigration — that are advocated by Jewish ethnic activist organizations across the entire Jewish political spectrum.  Whereas Gates and Buffett support programs aimed at helping non-whites, a great deal of Jewish philanthropy is directed at programs that strengthen Jewish ethnic identification and support the Jewish ethnostate of Israel.

People like Gates and Buffet bask in the praise of conventional opinion that is so hostile to the legitimate interests of white people.  In the end they will usher in an era of ethnic hostility that is likely to be much more brutal than anything in America’s past.

There are far too many whites like this.  But if only one or two such super-wealthy people realized that their long term interests are bound up with preventing the dispossession of their own people, the revolution would begin.

( http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Williams-Gates.html )

Posted by Armor on Thu, 12 Mar 2009 03:00 | #

There is no need for Asian engineers, and there was no need of Bill Gates to create a personal computer industry. The USA would be a better place had he never been born.

Gates would seem to be the paragon of the individualist white person.  These are white men who have no concern for their people but with a deep commitment to moral virtue and principle — part of the Puritan legacy of American culture.

a dictionary definition :

individualism = a moral, political, or social outlook that stresses independence, self-reliance and individual liberty.

Bill Gates does not believe in success through self-reliance: he believes in replacing Americans with Asians. He does not believe in universal interchangeability either, but only in the replacement of the Whites with non-Whites. Also, he believes in securing quasi monopolies through cosy arrangements with the US administration. How can you call him an individualist? I think he did everything he could to kill the competition. He should be called a self-righteous traitor, an anti-white crusader, a brainwashed geek, a race-replacer, but not an individualist. He doesn’t believe that each person should care only for himself and his own family. He cares for the good of humanity, except the white part of humanity, as he is white himself. A good word to describe him: lunatic.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 27 Mar 2009 01:28 | #

Ian Jobling:

A recent piece by John Derbyshire, very much worth reading in its own right [see the Derb link and all other links in original article linked below], contained a link to a brutal depreciation of the Asian intellect by one Satoshi Kanazawa, professor at the London School of Economics.  Prof. Kanazawa has plainly had it up to here with Asians and puts the smackdown on white multiculturalists who gain virtue points by talking up Asian superiority.  The article begins with a section pleasingly entitled “Asians Can’t Think” that documents their pronounced inferiority to white people in creativity.  (I’ve also written about Asians’ creativity deficit.)  Intelligent Asians are great at making “making the robot dog Aibo look and behave even more like a real dog,” but they’re very bad at formulating the radically new concepts that make for major scientific innovations.

( http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/blog/blog/can_asians_think/ )

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Mon, 30 Mar 2009 04:07 | #

H1B doubtless ends up importing plenty of Chinese and Subcon hackers sent by their respective governments for industrial and diplomatic spying — look at this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GhostNet

Posted by Armor on Tue, 31 Mar 2009 13:51 | #

An interesting video at AmRen. Commenters say it has been making the rounds on Youtube for quite some time : How to Shaft American Workers (May 2007)

AmRen Editor’s Note: This video clip is from a lecture by Lawrence Lebowitz, Vice President for Marketing, of the law firm of Cohen & Grigsby. He is trying to recruit business for his firm, which specializes in getting Permanent Labor Certification (PERM) for foreign workers. He explains how to stay within the limits of the law but avoid hiring Americans.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 20 Jun 2009 19:21 | #

Over at Mangan’s there’s an entry on the “Orientals aren’t as good as whites at making the fundamental breatkthroughs in science” idea also referred to in the above comments (an idea which of course blows the claim that “we badly need to import tens of thousands of Oriental H1-Bs to stay competitive” out of the water):
______

Friday, June 19, 2009

Kanazawa: Asians can’t do science

It’s often said — even by occasional commenters at this blog [Mangan’s blog] — that the U.S. needs high IQ immigrants to stay competitive, we whites evidently not being either smart or creative enough to be competitive on our own.  In that regard I found, via Steve Hsu, an exchange between the evolutionary psychologists Geoffrey Miller and Satoshi Kanazawa.  Kanazawa seems to enjoy being provocative, and this (pdf) [embedded link in original text] is what he said about Asians and their ability to do science:

Abstract:  For cultural, social, and institutional reasons Asians cannot make original contributions to basic science.  I therefore doubt Miller’s prediction for the Asian future of evolutionary psychology.  I believe that its future will continue to be in the United States and Europe. [...]

1.  Asians can’t think

And they certainly cannot think outside the box.  Miller is correct to point out that East Asians have slightly higher mean IQs than Europeans (Lynn and Vanhanen, 2002).  However, East Asians have not been able to make creative use of their intelligence.  While they are very good at absorbing existing knowledge via rote memory (hence their high standardized test scores in math and science) or adapt or modify existing technology (hence their engineering achievements), they have not been able to make original contributions to basic science. [...]

This problem has long been known to East Asian specialists as the “creativity problem” (Eberts and Eberts, 1995, pp. 123-127; Taylor, 1983, pp. 92-123; van Wolferen, 1989, pp. 89-90).  Some argue that the ideographic Asian languages curb abstract thinking and creativity among Asians (Hannas, 2003). [...]

2.  Asians can’t write

Nor can they speak English.  While Miller correctly points out that East Asians have slightly higher overall IQs, he neglects to mention the particular pattern of Asian intelligence.  East Asians have much higher visualization IQ than verbal IQ (Lynn, 2006, pp. 121-148).  For East Asians in Asia, in studies which assess both types of IQ, the mean visualization IQ is 108.6 while the mean verbal IQ is 101.4.  Their high visualization IQs explain East Asians’ relative success in mathematics and mathematics-based sciences such as physics and chemistry.  Of the 27 Nobel prizes awarded to Asians in Table 1, 10 have been in physics, 5 in chemistry, and 3 in physiology or medicine; there have only been 5 Nobel literature prizes awarded to Asians, and 1 in economics (Amartya K. Sen).

Whoa!  Kanazawa validates a few stereotypes too:

4.  The conformist culture of Asia

Part of the reason why Asians cannot think for themselves and make original and creative contributions to science is because they are too conformist.  One of the factors that Miller identifies as a possible obstacle to the Asian future of evolutionary psychology (“academic conservatism”) is actually fatal.  Scientific revolutions happen by challenging the established paradigms.  No conformists have ever brought about a scientific revolution.

Once again, at LSE [the London School of Economics], we have an enormous problem of plagiarism among our Asian students.  Despite the fact that each student, Asian or otherwise, must sign a declaration that their work is original and they have not plagiarized, many Asian students simply copy the work of established scholars.  To them it is a venerable act of honoring their masters to “borrow” from them, by copying their words verbatim.  No matter how much we tell them that it is wrong, Asian students simply cannot understand why it is wrong to honor their intellectual masters by faithfully reproducing their work.  Needless to say, this is no recipe for scientific progress.

I merely pass this along.

[end of Mangan’s log entry]  ( http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/06/kanazawa-asians-cant-do-science.html )
______

Scroob note:  So we have to import Negroes to stay vibrant, Orientals to stay competitive, and Moslems to stay peaceful, and we have to miscegenate to be better looking.  OK, got it.  But … why do I have this strange feeling someone’s trying to pull the wool over our eyes for his own self-interest, and none of this is true?  Nah, couldn’t be so simple and so obvious, not to mention so criminally insane and filthy — must be me.  OK, let’s get on with it:  let’s import more Negroes to be more vibrant, more Orientals to be more competitive, and more Moslems to be more peaceful, and let’s get going on more white-Negro miscegenation to become better looking.  At least one thing we won’t have to import more of is ostriches and more sand for them to stick their heads into:  we’re doing a fantastic job of that ourselves ...... we’ve got that covered!

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 15:13 | #

This morning Mangan refers to a “table [that] lends some credence to Kanazawa’s dictum that Asians can’t do science”: 

http://mangans.blogspot.com/2009/07/top-ten-countries-in-science.html .

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:19 | #

From what I can tell, the ultimate rebuttal of KMac for those like Jobling is this paper:

http://www.people.hbs.edu/dlieberman/lieberman.jewsRaceEmpire.pdf

I’ve read the first bit and skimmed over the middle and last parts.  I think the take-home message from this critique is that there is not a lot of empirical data measuring Jewish ethnocentrism (of course the ultimate proof is that the Jews are here today).  It could well be the case.  I saw on another thread at the Inductivist (http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/06/jews-and-low-white-fertility-as-follow.html) that the Undiscovered Jew (who’s a regular at Jobling’s site) supposes that there should be a lot of data on this because there is so much data on IQ.  Very stupid assumption.  Why should researchers, turn of the century, have been interested in ethnocentrism?  He thinks IQ research is as taboo as Jewish ethnocentrism.  Naive bullshit from UJ.  Lieberman makes it clear that he thinks WNs are scum.  That Jobling so unquestioningly laps this up says a lot about his motivation.

Posted by Dasein on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 16:32 | #

Apologies, my previous comment was meant for this post:

http://majorityrights.com/index.php/weblog/comments/the_english_defence_league_march_in_birmingham_4th_july_2009/

Posted by Frank on Sat, 04 Jul 2009 17:10 | #

Engineers don’t make nearly what they’re worth. People who are fully capable of engineering careers choose more lucrative career paths because of this.

Just another way to undermine white American power and existence…

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 08 Oct 2009 22:12 | #

A few of Professor Matloff’s thoughts on immigration, the Nobel Prize, and H-1B:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/10/08/misguided-san-jose-mercury-news-column-on-immigration-and-the-nobel-prize/#more-17241

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 21 Oct 2009 23:05 | #

Up today over at Vdare.com from the pen of Rob Sanchez (who is an expert on job-destruction through the machinery of the H-1B scam):

Rep. Gabrielle Giffords introduced legislation to Congress that would double the H-1B cap, and in some circumstances triple it.  The way it would work is that the yearly cap of 65,000 would be raised to 130,000 but if 130,000 H-1Bs were actually used, the cap would go up to 180,000 the following year.  The Giffords bill will guarantee that during the next economic recovery Americans will not get the jobs. […]

Giffords and her PR secretary have been saying similar things since 2008 […]:

”Giffords sees the importance of H-1Bs because Southern Arizona has been growing as a hub for tech companies, Karamargin added.  ‘There’s a need to stay competitive and keep the momentum growing,’ he added.  ‘That means making sure the talent is available to drive the local and national tech economy.’ “

Folks, I’m here in Arizona and I have been to Southern Arizona many times.  I live in the Phoenix area which is considered central Arizona.  The only hubs you are going to see are from the wheels of the jeeps and trucks the coyotes use to smuggle illegal aliens and drugs across the border.  The city of Tucson has been shedding what few high tech jobs it had, and there is nothing between there and Mexico besides a few cowboy bars and junk food restaurants.  If you head out towards Tombstone or Naco you might be able to find a few technician jobs installing the virtual border fence, but don’t expect to find engineering jobs since most of the equipment will probably come from China. 

Arizona doesn’t need more tech workers — we have enough of them drawing unemployment.  The jobless techies in California would fill the needs of Arizona about 1000 times over so Karamargin’s claim that Arizona needs to import techies from foreign countries is downright wacky.

Giffords’ connections with Indian special interests make me believe that the timing of this bill has something to do with the India Trade Policy Forum meeting that will take place in India on October 26 where India will be requesting an H-1B increase.  We know India will be asking for more H-1Bs and this bill will give them what they want.  It wouldn’t surprise me at all if Giffords goes to that meeting in New Delhi, but so far her website doesn’t list it on her agenda.  She signed a letter which makes me very suspicious:  ”Building a Strategic Partnership: U.S.-India Relations in the Wake of Mumbai.”

Giffords seems to curry favors (sorry about the pun) from Indians.  For example, the “Taste of India” restaurant gave her campaign about $1,600 in contributions.  On a more serious note, she voted YES for the India Nuclear Agreement.

The sleaziness doesn’t stop with curry however.  Make no mistake about it — Giffords is a Bill Gates girl.  She attended his sham hearing on March 2008 before the House Science and Technology Committee and she asked softball questions about his desire to have unlimited H-1Bs.  Giffords isn’t just a Gates groupie though — Gates makes sure that she gets paid handsomely.  AmeriPAC gave her $10,000 and AmeriPAC gets funding from Microsoft.

[ http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/10/21/rep-giffords-bill-to-triple-cap-on-h-1b-visas/ ]

(Click on the link to see a photo of the <strike>w</strike>itch (fill in the blank) _itch)

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:39 | #

Arizona doesn’t need more tech workers — we have enough of them drawing unemployment.

The same is happening in the UK. What i find most interesting about it is (counter-intuitively) it shows their plan is falling apart. The IQ problem means they can’t hold things together at a first world level without a minimum percentage of white people and so they desperately need to try and shore things up with asians before the whole of America goes the same way as California.

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 06:11 | #

IQ is a necessary but insufficient condition.  Witness, for instance the “intelligence” agency of the Jews failing to assassinate the leaders of the US Jewish organizations before they opened the borders of the country that defended Jews against the Nazis and is the strongest ally Israel has.

Lots of geniuses in possession of lots of information no one else has and a basically free reign to do whatever they want by virtue of their kin in Hollywood make “the Jew” the present day Christ—and they seemingly can’t rub two neurons together to make a thought to save themselves.

Posted by Wandrin on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:11 | #

James

Yes, when i said IQ problem i meant they need America as a superpower to protect Israel and they wanted to eradicate White Americans but now they’ve started to realise it’s not possible to maintain America if you replace too many White people with black and hispanic, hence the desperate surge of asians to part compensate.

But otherwise yes, their IQ problem is either they have brains but no wisdom or their judgement is clouded by hate and paranoia. I think it’s the latter.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 22 Oct 2009 14:28 | #

A propos of the latest drive (apparently funded by Bill Gates and the Indian Tech Industry) to treble the current H-1B caps referred to above in the excerpt from Rob Sanchez (on the table is an increase up to around 180,000 Indian and Chinese techies a year), below I reproduce the full text of Professor Norman Matloff’s latest e-newsletter (Prof. Matloff’s web-site can be found at his Wikipedia bio):
______________________________________________________________________

To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter

The enclosed op-ed by MIT president Susan Hockfield [herewith below] is basically a recycling of arguments used by the industry lobbyists in support of expansive policies for the H-1B work visa and employer-sponsored green cards.  As such I would ordinarily not comment, but there is an new example Hockfield brings up that I will relate to an important issue I’ve discussed in the past.

I just recently commented on a similar op-ed that highlighted the immigrant background of some of this year’s American Nobel laureates; see http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/NobelImms.txt  There I detail themes I’ve stressed over the years:

1.  I strongly support facilitating the immigration of “the best and the brightest.”

2.  However, the vast majority of H-1Bs are not in the “best and brightest” league.

3.  The presence of the foreign workers is causing an internal brain drain in the U.S., by making careers in science and engineering financially unattractive.

4.  Our National Science Foundation, whose job it is to fund university research, explicitly called for bring in a lot of foreign scientists and engineers in order to hold down PhD salaries.  Why would they do this? Simple — the NSF, being in the research business, wants to get the most bang for its buck, and thus benefits from low PhD salaries (and low PhD student stipends, again kept low by the swelling of the labor market). Most importantly, the NSF forecast, correctly, that the resulting stagnant salaries would discourage Americans from pursuing PhDs.

I should note that several subscribers of this e-newsletter are MIT graduates, now in mid-career age but have had trouble finding tech employment in the last 10 years.  My guess is that President Hockfield is unaware of this situation, and of the fact that a core reason that employers want to hire H-1Bs is that they are younger, thus cheaper, so that the H-1B program gives employers a means of avoiding hiring older Americans.

The new example Hockfield uses is Technology Review’s list of “Top Innovators Under 35 for 2009” (http://www.technologyreview.com/TR35). She writes,

Of the 35 young innovators recognized this year by Technology Review magazine for their exceptional new ideas, only six went to high school in the United States.

Needless to say, one should be cautious in taking a magazine list so seriously, but let’s accept it and discuss some of its implications.

First of all, there is my internal brain drain point above.  The H-1B program caused it — and remember, the NSF knowingly promoted this -—  and thus one should not conclude that H-1B has increased net innovation in the U.S.  It has brought in some innovators, but also pushed some innovators out of tech.

Second, the surnames of those 35, there are only five Indians and three Chinese.  That’s in contrast to the fact that among H-1Bs, and indeed among foreign engineering grad students, the vast majority are Indians and Chinese.  This underrepresentation in the awards of the Indians and Chinese illustrates my point that the H-1B and employer-sponsored green card programs are NOT generally bringing in the best and the brightest.

Note carefully that I am not saying that there are no innovative Indians or Chinese.  I have my own list of brilliant immigrants from those countries.  Instead, I’m simply saying that the nationality data show that these foreign-worker programs are generally not about hiring the best and the brightest.

This disconnect between TR’s innovator data and the H-1B demographics meshes with what David Hart of George Mason University found recently (http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/DavidHart.txt), as well as one aspect of a study by McGill University’s Jennifer Hunt (http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/Archive/JenniferHunt.txt) and my CIS article (http://www.cis.org/articles/2008/back508.html).

Again, I very strongly support bringing in the best and the brightest, whether they be Chinese or Indian or Russian or Nigerian.  But a key point is that current immigration policy already has a separate mechansim for doing this that works well, a specialized version of employer-sponsored green cards called EB-1, “Foreign Nationals of Extraordinary Ability.”  Processing is very quick, in contrast to the five years or more wait for ordinary green cards.  Yes, you really have to be good to get EB-1, but then isn’t that the point?

Speaking of policy, Hockfield is incorrect in claiming,

Our immigration laws specifically require that students return to their home countries after earning their degrees and then apply for a visa if they want to return and work in the U.S.

This is false, as MIT’s International Students Office could have explained to Hockfield in detail.

Finally, the big news on the MIT campus is that President Obama will visit this Friday, to give an address on energy.  I wonder if he will talk about “innovation” and maybe allude to foreign workers.  Another thing he might do is increase the stipend in the NSF traineeships, which would help a bit to stem the internal STEM brain drain.

It’s always hard for the person at the top, be it Hockfield or Obama, to know what’s going on in real life, sad to say.
__________________________________________________________

[the following is the newspaper article Prof. Matloff discusses above]

The Wall Street Journal

OCTOBER 19, 2009, 7:01 P.M. ET

Immigrant Scientists Create Jobs and Win Nobels

It’s crazy to drive away talented young scholars.

By SUSAN HOCKFIELD

Of the nine people who shared this year’s Nobel Prizes in chemistry, physics and medicine, eight are American citizens, a testament to this country’s support for pioneering research. But those numbers disguise a more important story. Four of the American winners were born outside of the United States and only came here as graduate or post-doctoral students or as scientists. They came because our system of higher education and advanced research has been a magnet for creative talent.

Unfortunately, we cannot count on that magnetism to last. Culturally, we remain a very open society. But that openness stands in sharp contrast to arcane U.S. immigration policies that discourage young scholars from settling in the U.S.

Those policies come at a high price. Graduate and postgraduate student immigrants are essential to creating new, well-paid jobs in our economy. Of the 35 young innovators recognized this year by Technology Review magazine for their exceptional new ideas, only six went to high school in the United States. From MIT alone, foreign graduates have founded an estimated 2,340 active U.S. companies that employ over 100,000 people.

Amazingly, if as incoming students they had told U.S. immigration authorities that they hoped to stay on as entrepreneurs after graduation, they would have been turned back at the border. Our immigration laws specifically require that students return to their home countries after earning their degrees and then apply for a visa if they want to return and work in the U.S. It would be hard to invent a policy more counterproductive to our national interest.

If the U.S. was the only country in the world that offered scholars scientific freedom, a cumbersome immigration process might not be that harmful. But the world today is teeming with well-funded opportunities to do first-class science. To be competitive, the U.S. needs to send the unmistakable message that we want scholars to stay.

To do that we need the kind of broad new immigration policy that would allow foreign students who earn advanced degrees in science, technology, engineering and math to easily become legal permanent residents. President Barack Obama and many others are already calling for such a policy.

We also need to aggressively develop more homegrown talent. A recent report from the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) shows that we have lost our lead in education. In the 1960s, the U.S. had the highest high-school completion rate in the developed world; by 2005, we ranked 21st. In college completion, as recently as 1995 we ranked second. In 2005, we ranked 15th.

The OECD’s report explains that we slipped in the rankings “not because U.S. college graduation rates declined, but because they rose so much faster” elsewhere. The U.S. now trails more than 16 nations in Europe and Asia in the proportion of 24-year-olds with bachelor’s degrees in the natural sciences and engineering.

What we need is not just college graduates. We also need Ph.D.s in the sciences. Unfortunately, in the fields that spawn world-changing research and innovation, American graduate output has stagnated. From 1989 to 2003, despite a growing population, the number of American science and engineering Ph.D.s remained constant: an average of 26,600 a year. Over the same period and in the same fields, Ph.D.s awarded in China shot up to 12,000 from just 1,000.

In education, the world is accelerating while we are standing still [Scroob note:  we are standing still due to our government and big business élites deliberately swamping the employment field over here with slave-wage Indian and Chinese graduates, pricing U.S. grads out of the market, and word filters down so U.S. students shun those college and grad-school majors — of course she doesn’t tell you this detail but Prof. Matloff goes into it above] which is why Mr. Obama is pressing to revive our Sputnik-era commitment to science and math education.

Today, discovery and innovation increasingly spring from a creative network of the finest talent everywhere across the globe. From new advances in medicine to scientific breakthroughs that spawn new industries and sustainable jobs, the work of science and engineering is being done by individuals who can live almost anywhere.

To be part of that global creative network we must inspire more young Americans to pursue scientific careers, and we must rapidly reform U.S. immigration policies that drive away talented young scholars who would otherwise decide to live, work and innovate here. We should be proud of our Nobel Prize winners. But we should also craft policies that make it more likely that future Nobel laureates will do their work inside the U.S.

***
Ms. Hockfield is president of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:59 | #

From Prof. Norm Matloff’s latest newsletter (these are e-mailed, whence no URL address; any archive would be at his web-site):
_________________________________________________________________

To: H-1B/L-1/offshoring e-newsletter

Though I’ve been a computer science professor for a long time, and occasionally refer to my early career as a statistics professor, a little-known fact about me is that my PhD was in pure mathematics.  Ah, those were days.  I enjoy statistics and CS very much, but I do miss those days of pure intellectual pursuit without any application, in what I regard as a very elegant discipline.

One of the mini-triumphs one can sometimes achieve in pure math is the “soft analysis proof.”  Instead of long, intricate arguments with lots of inequalities, epsilons and deltas, with luck one might stumble onto a couple of insights and come up with a three-line proof that is very clean.

In this posting I want to apply this concept to the question of whether H-1Bs are underpaid.  Lest you be misled by my somewhat lighthearted language above, let me say clearly that I’m dead serious here.  Though I believe the statistical evidence, taken in its totality, shows clearly that H-1Bs are indeed paid on average less than comparable Americans (my Type I salary savings, with Type II, the age-related one, also being very important), people tend to be overwhelmed by the statistics.  Even some professional analysts, astute people whom I highly respect such as Lindsay Lowell, seem not quite sure what to make of the data.  In addition, statistics can be subtle, and many good number crunchers who’ve analyzed the H-1B issue show limited understanding of which numbers ought to be crunched and what the numbers mean, resulting in a lot of misleading analyses.

Thus, some crisp, clean soft-analysis proofs should be useful.  Here they are:

Proof 1: 

Step A:  H-1Bs, especially those being sponsored for green cards, tend to be rather immobile, not able to freely move around in the labor market.

Step B:  If one can’t move around in the labor market, one generally cannot get the best salary deal for oneself.

Step C:  Therefore, H-1Bs will typically be making less money than they ought to make, given their qualifications.

QED

Proof 2:

Step A:  Employers claim they hire H-1Bs because they have special hard-to-find skill sets, or are more talented than the American applicants.

Step B:  In the open market, employers would have to pay a premium for workers with hard-to-find skill sets, or of superior talent.

Step C:  According to the DOL PERM data, most tech employers pay their H-1Bs (actually green card sponsorees, most of them H-1Bs) only the official prevailing wage or just a tad higher.

Step D:  The official prevailing wage does not take into account special skill sets or high talent levels.

Step E:  Therefore, H-1Bs are typically paid less than their qualifications would command in the free market.

QED

I’ve mentioned Proof 1 before.  Indeed, I bring it up whenever an H-1B tells me, as for instance a former student of mine once did, that they are not underpaid.  When I respond by asking whether they could make more money if they were to have full mobility in the labor market, they say “Of course,” to which I reply, “Well, then, you’re underpaid after all.”  Please note, though, that this does not imply that I support proposals for fast-track green cards, which I’ve explained are just as injurious to U.S. citizens and permanent residents as H-1B.

I brought up Proof 2 when I was interviewed by a team of researchers from the GAO a few weeks ago.  They agreed that all of Steps A-D were valid, but it wasn’t clear whether they accepted Step E, the conclusion.  We’ll find out when their report comes out (which won’t be soon).

Posted by dodheim on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:19 | #

“America should have a policy of labor self-sufficiency. The goal should be to develope Native Born-and White-engineering talent.

There is no need to import Asian scab workers.”

Frankie boy, jealous because you don’t know how to pass an argument by reference or that Mr. Singh won’t invite you to his potluck?  Do you even understand how markets work?  When was the last time you lived in an autarkic country where labor was neither imported or exported?  When was the last time the US exported labor on this level? 

Protectionism does not benefit multinational corporations.  Many of these workers come from English medium schools where their teachers are industry higher management IT lords.  It’s a bundled package.  Following the Heckscher-Ohlin theory, we are more capital intensive than labor intensive so the terms of trade will favor importing programmers, not motherboards.  Labor in IT fell around 10.4% between 2002 and 2004 (Theodore, Srivatsva 2006).  That means nothing to you though.  You’re focused on a quantitative measure of skill.  Clearly you don’t understand how developing white native born engineering talent is an asinine proposal if you taken into account that we are coming out of a recession and that production factors are relative. 

Who cares though, Asians are going back to their countries where labor markets are improving there, following many of the H-1B denials amid economic downturns. 

Mr. Scooby, what exactly is your point?  That capitalism is bad or something?  Stop copy and pasting, sloth.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:43 | #

“Clearly you don’t understand how developing white native born engineering talent is an asinine proposal”  (—Tothirn)

GW, do we have to tolerate this piece of sewage here?  Can’t his “comments” be zapped along with those of his sidekick in the other thread?  I mean, as A Finn says, there’s a limit, there really and truly is.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:48 | #

Misek, the sidekick is Misek.  Zap both of these assholes please.

Posted by Captainchaos on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:49 | #

When was the last time you lived in an autarkic country where labor was neither imported or exported?  When was the last time the US exported labor on this level?

Mr. Dogshit, when was the last time you erected a false dichotomy of either autarky or unrelenting race-replacement?

Protectionism does not benefit multinational corporations.

No shit, fuckhead.  But it does benefit the citizens of a given country, assuming there is anything left to protect.  And if not, it can be rebuilt.

Following the Heckscher-Ohlin theory, we are more capital intensive than labor intensive so the terms of trade will favor importing programmers, not motherboards.

This is not an iron law of nature, but one dictated by the market as stands.  It is not eternal, nor desirable - for our people that is, in the long run.

Clearly you don’t understand how developing white native born engineering talent is an asinine proposal if you taken into account that we are coming out of a recession and that production factors are relative.

Clearly you don’t understand, nor do you care, that the life of our people is more important than what is dictated by maximizing the value of dividends at a given time.  This too shall pass, but the destruction of our people will be forevermore.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 00:55 | #

It’s the destruction he wants.  The rest of his desiderata are just argumentational tools.

Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 01:25 | #

Athough the political spotlight is on the H1-B channel as is, it seems, the attention of watchdogs like Prof. Matloff, we shouldn’t neglect the corresponding channel for intracompany transfers, the L1 visa. Ostensibly this visa is intended for the use of US and international companies who wish to bring in, on a temporary basis, foreign technical specialists and management personnel who are already working for that company in an overseas location.

There is increasing evidence that the intracompany channel is being abused by Indian job-shoppers like Tata and Wipro to circumvent the restrictions imposed on the politically more sensitive H1B channel. According to the DHS 2008 Yearbook of immigration statistics the number of L1 visas issued increased from 234,462 in 1999 to 382,709 in 2008, more than the increase in H1-Bs over the same period.

Posted by dodheim on Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:01 | #

Wow.  How selfish of you.

“Mr. Dogshit, when was the last time you erected a false dichotomy of either autarky or unrelenting race-replacement?”

“Clearly you don’t understand, nor do you care, that the life of our people is more important than what is dictated by maximizing the value of dividends at a given time. This too shall pass, but the destruction of our people will be forevermore.”

“No shit, fuckhead.  But it does benefit the citizens of a given country, assuming there is anything left to protect.  And if not, it can be rebuilt.”

Homo homini lupus.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:35 | #

Representative Giffords has apparently been forced to back away from her plan (see my comment above, Oct. 21) to completely strip any and all IT jobs from American graduates for the foreseeable future and hand them over instead to India and China.  Her plan had called for accomplishing this by assuring that all such jobs for the foreseeable future go solely to H-1Bs.  This would leave American graduates priced out of the slave-wage/slave-labor Third World IT labor market run by sleazy Subcon body shops and shady Chinese compradors (with Bill Gates massively buying the end-product).   

What forced Rep. Giffords to back away from this plan was, apparently, a huge negative “buzz” about it, coming from the blogosphere. In fact, the blogosphere “buzz” was apparently so scary for Rep. Giffords that she’s now scrambling to deny she ever had such a (Bill-Gates-endorsed) plan in the first place.   

Rob Sanchez exlains what he thinks may be going on:

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2009/10/29/rep-giffords-denies-h-1b-increase-is-in-the-works/ .

(Isn’t it great that this blog, MR.com, was part of the negative blogosphere “buzz” that apparently scared the hell out of Giffords and her handlers?  This stuff can be defeated!)

Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 24 Jun 2010 19:37 | #

My impression of Sam Allen is he’s a useful idiot figurehead for the so-called “Council on Competitiveness”.  I mean why did they have to get the head of John Deere—right in the heartland of the US?  Obviously, to attack the heart.

If there’s one thing the last decade should have taught the Fortune 1000 executives, its that importing huge numbers of H-1bs does not cause an economic boom even given a decade to work their “economic miracle”.  We can ignore that the economy, instead, tanked in a historically catastrophic way.  These guys seem incredibly “stupid” but they’re “stupid” in the same way this cricket is incredibly “stupid”.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 25 Jun 2010 00:34 | #

A propos of the John Deere thing just above:  by pure coincidence I happened to see the following just now over at Richard Spencer’s, from Dennis Mangan:  Charles Murray is saying that thanks to inborn racial characteristics Orientals make better engineers than whites:

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/infantilism-in-american-discourse/ .

Could that be what this John Deere CEO is referring to?  Well, I’m sorry, I don’t buy it:  just look at history.  That tells you all you need to know about what race excels at engineering.

The fathers, uncles, grandfathers, and great grandfathers of today’s young white college grads whom this CEO wants to turn down when they apply for jobs at John Deere built that company.  Made it what it is.  Not Chinamen.  White men.  Damn right.

Don’t ever forget it.

In fact, why does a company like Microsoft put out so many appallingly error-prone products?  Because of the non-white engineers it hires in preference to white men.  Think about it.

Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 25 Jun 2010 06:11 | #

FS writes: In fact, why does a company like Microsoft put out so many appallingly error-prone products?  Because of the non-white engineers it hires in preference to white men.  Think about it.

The ultimate cause of Microsoft’s poor quality is actually the network effect of its operating system: 

The more widely it is used, the more pressure is brought to bear on other computers to run it.

If tax revenue were based on in place liquidation value rather than economic activity, that silly little POS operating system, MS-DOS, would have been taxed into the ground along with its broker, Bill Gates, almost immediately upon IBM releasing it with their PC back in the early 80s.  However, as of that magical year of 1913, when the income tax, Federal Reserve and the Anti-Defamation League were all founded, the 20th century’s destiny was fixed on the creation of parasitic wealth. 

The fact that foreign parasites clamor to get in on the act should be no surprise, nor should it be any surprise that the economic rent streams they capture are heavily shielded (with the very existence of biological bodies of the posterity of the Founders resulting in demographic collapse of same) from the consequences of their inability to maintain what they are so adept at sniffing out and taking over.

I get really tired of repeating myself about this liquid value of property rights as tax base stuff.  However, it really is key to Jewish power that anything _but_ that be the tax base.  It is far more valuable to them that a guy like Bill Gates be the richest man in the US than it is that there be anything resembling high quality information technology.

Posted by Candidates speak-out on H1b travesty on Wed, 01 Jul 2020 18:36 | #

#MalkinLive: America First Senate candidates speak out on the H1B travesty