All_Pro_Bills Posted 3 hours ago Posted 3 hours ago 3 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: It now costs $100k just to get an H1B visa for professionals. One obvious consequence is the inability to recruit docs to rural areas. The same area that overwhelmingly voted maga. To a lesser but still substantial degree it wlll hurt all hospitals Other vital industries like engineering or IT will be affected to a similar degree. I wonder what it cost trump to obtain citizenship for Melena and her parents. https://legalunitedstates.com/trump-h1b-executive-order-2025/ Hire Americans. Especially in tech work where the main reason for the H1B visa program is not a result of domestic worker and skill shortage. Unemployment among recent college graduates with a computer science degree trained in the most current skills and areas is among the highest of all degree types. The main reason to import tech workers is the hire cheaper labor. 1 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 19 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: Hire Americans. Especially in tech work where the main reason for the H1B visa program is not a result of domestic worker and skill shortage. Unemployment among recent college graduates with a computer science degree trained in the most current skills and areas is among the highest of all degree types. The main reason to import tech workers is the hire cheaper labor. There aren’t enough trained and highly educated Americans to fill the void. Not enough Americans to staff rural hospitals, for example, even with the H1B And even with the visas, rural hospitals need to pay much higher to anyone, including H1B recipients, to attract them to places like rural Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, West Virginia, Appalachia etc. I ve gotten several job offers in the last few weeks but I’m done. Recruiting a 65 yo shows the depth of the shortage. They can’t expect me or anyone in my demographic to practice very long. Poor roi, but they are doing it. I’m sure it’s similar in IT but my first hand experience is in healthcare. 1
milfandcookies Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 59 minutes ago, All_Pro_Bills said: There are all kinds of borders. National borders, State borders, counties, cities, and towns have borders. the lot your home sits on has borders and boundaries. They are all man-made. We can agree on that. But that doesn't by definition render them imaginary. They can be very real. Hypothetically, would it be acceptable for your neighbor to inform you that they as you do believe borders are imaginary and as a result they see no moral or ethical impediment to constructing an in-ground pool and cabana on your property? For their use but not for your use. How could you argue this is unacceptable given your commitment to the belief borders are man-made and imaginary. Or would you suddenly modify your view and accept that some borders, like property boundaries, are necessary for the ability of a society to function in a constructive and orderly manner? I don’t think your hypothetical example is relevant. They are talking about anchor babies, when a child is born here they simply get the same privileges I do, they aren’t taking anything away from me 1 1
LeviF Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 22 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: There aren’t enough trained and highly educated Americans to fill the void. "Alexa, what is the residency cap?"
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 11 minutes ago, LeviF said: "Alexa, what is the residency cap?" Some is greater than none. This will worsen an already serious problem. And in pursuit of what? A more racially pure society? 1
sherpa Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 36 minutes ago, milfandcookies said: I don’t think your hypothetical example is relevant. They are talking about anchor babies, when a child is born here they simply get the same privileges I do, they aren’t taking anything away from me I'm quite certain you don't understand the scope of this issue. The child is the anchor that leads to a number of other people living off tax payer provide benefits. If that isn't "taking anything away from you," neither you nor your family pays taxes. 1
LeviF Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 2 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Some is greater than none. This will worsen an already serious problem. And in pursuit of what? A more racially pure society? My point is that the solution to the physician shortage is not to import doctors trained at the University of Streetshittabad. The physician shortage is downstream of a bunch of problems, not the least of which is college/med school admissions and, yes, a cap on funding of residencies to train American doctors. 1 1
Pokebball Posted 2 hours ago Posted 2 hours ago 43 minutes ago, milfandcookies said: I don’t think your hypothetical example is relevant. They are talking about anchor babies, when a child is born here they simply get the same privileges I do, they aren’t taking anything away from me The govt pie is only so big. Of course there is a dynamic of when you increase the number of takers it changes a whole lot of things. It has to. It's simple math. 1
nedboy7 Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago In the election of 1920, Americans handed a landslide victory to the Republicans and their presidential candidate Warren G. Harding, giving them control of both Congress and the White House. After the moralizing of the Progressive Era and the horrors of World War I and the Spanish flu epidemic that followed it, Americans looked forward to an era of “normalcy.” Once in charge, Republicans rejected the Progressive Era notion that the government should regulate business and protect workers and consumers. Instead they turned the government over to businessmen, believing they alone truly knew what was best for the country. Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon—one of the richest men in America—cut taxes on the wealthy to spur investment in industry. He also gave rebates and tax abatements: between 1921 and 1929 he returned $3.5 billion to wealthy men. At the same time, Commerce Secretary Herbert Hoover, who had made a fortune as a mining engineer and consultant, expanded his department to fifteen thousand employees with a budget of more than 37 million dollars, working as a liaison between businessmen and the government and helping businesses to avoid antitrust lawsuits. He urged European countries to buy American. Their policies seemed to work brilliantly. Between 1925 and 1926, more than twenty-two thousand new manufacturing companies formed. Industrial production took off. Business profits rose, and if wages didn’t rise much, they didn’t fall, either. And oh, the changes the new economy brought! By 1929, more than two thirds of American homes had electricity, which brought first electric lights, then refrigerators, washing machines, vacuum cleaners, toasters, and radios. Consumers rushed to buy them, along with ready-made clothing, beauty products, and cars, all of which the new advertising industry, which grew out of the government propaganda campaigns of World War I, promised would bring them glamor, sophistication, romance, and power. In the Roaring Twenties, it seemed that government and business had finally figured out how to combine government promotion with the efficiency of an industrial economy to benefit everyone. Business was booming, standards of living were rising, and Americans were finding the time to read, learn, invent, and improve. In 1928, Republicans tapped Hoover for president. He promised that continuing the policies of the last eight years would bring the U.S. “in sight of the day when poverty will be banished from this nation.” He won with a whopping 58.2% of the vote. With Hoover in the White House, Americans wanted in on the inevitable growth of the economy. They invested in industries producing steel, coal, and consumer goods, and in utilities and transportation. Stock prices rose. And rose, and rose. By 1929 the rush to buy stocks had become a rush to speculate in the stock market. Prices that in spring 1928 had seemed too high to be real were laughably low by fall. Radio had been at 94½ in March 1928; by September 1929 it was 101 but had split so often that the holdings from 1928 were actually worth 505. And so it went, down the stock lists. Those with less money to burn could get into the market by buying on margin, putting down 10 or 20 percent of the cost of a stock and borrowing the rest from a broker with the promise that the loans would be paid off by the anticipated increase in the stock’s value. Those excited by the scene dismissed those who warned that stock prices were a bubble as ignorant, anti-American naysayers. “Be a bull on America!” boosters urged. “Never sell the United States short!” October 24, a Thursday, was the beginning of the end. Heavy trading in the morning slowed the ticker tape that recorded trades. Brokers fearful of being caught sold more and more heavily. When the tape finally caught up after 7:00 that night, it showed that an astonishing 12,894,650 shares had changed hands. By afternoon, bankers managed to shore up the market, which regained the ground it had lost in the morning. But those dreadful early hours had wiped out hundreds of thousands of small investors. The market seemed to recover on Friday and Saturday. But then, on Monday, October 28, prices slid far in heavy trading. And then, on October 29, 1929, it all came crashing down. When the opening gong in the great hall of the New York Stock Exchange sounded at ten o’clock, men began to unload their stocks. The ticker tape ran two and a half hours behind, but that night it showed that an extraordinary 16,410,030 shares had traded hands, and the market had lost $14 billion. Black Tuesday began a slide that seemingly would not end. Within two years, manufacturing output dropped to levels lower than those of 1913. The production of pig iron fell to what it had been in the 1890s. Foreign trade fell from $10 billion to $3 billion. The price of wheat fell from $1.05 a bushel to 39 cents; corn dropped from 81 cents a bushel to 33 cents or lower; cotton fell from 17 to 6 cents a pound. Prices dropped so low that selling crops meant taking a loss, so struggling farmers simply let them rot in the fields. By 1932, over a million people in New York City were unemployed. By 1933 the number of unemployed across the nation rose to 13 million people—one out of every four American workers. Unable to afford rent or pay mortgages, people lived in shelters made of packing boxes. Republican leaders blamed poor Americans for the Great Depression, saying they drained the economy because they refused to work hard enough. “Liquidate labor, liquidate stocks, liquidate the farmers, liquidate real estate,” Treasury Secretary Mellon told Hoover. “It will purge the rottenness out of the system. High costs of living and high living will come down. People will work harder, live a more moral life. Values will be adjusted, and enterprising people will pick up the wrecks from less competent people.” But the problem was not poor workers. The rising standards of living that had gotten so much attention in the new magazines of the 1920s mainly benefited white, middle-class, urban Americans. Farm prices crashed after WWI, leaving rural Americans falling behind, while workers’ wages did not rise along with production. The new economy of the 1920s benefited too few Americans to be sustainable. Hoover tried to reverse the economic slide by cutting taxes and reassuring Americans that “the fundamental business of the country…is on a sound and prosperous basis.” But he rejected public works programs to provide jobs, saying that such projects were a “soak the rich” scheme that would “enslave” taxpayers, and called instead for private charity. By 1932, Americans were ready to try a new approach. They turned to New York Governor Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who promised to use the federal government to provide jobs and a safety net to enable Americans to weather hard times. He promised the American people a “New Deal”: a government that would work for everyone, not just for the wealthy and well connected. Under Roosevelt, Democrats protected workers’ rights, provided government jobs, regulated business and banking, and began to chip away at racial segregation. New Deal agencies employed more than 8.5 million people, built more than 650,000 miles of highways, built or repaired more than 120,000 bridges, and put up more than 125,000 buildings. They regulated banking and the stock market and gave workers the right to bargain collectively. They established minimum wages and maximum hours for work. They provided a basic social safety net and regulated food and drug safety. And when World War II broke out, the new system enabled the United States to defend democracy successfully against fascists both at home—where by 1939 they had grown strong enough to turn out almost 20,000 people to a rally at Madison Square Garden—and abroad. 1
Joe Ferguson forever Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 13 minutes ago, LeviF said: My point is that the solution to the physician shortage is not to import doctors trained at the University of Streetshittabad. The physician shortage is downstream of a bunch of problems, not the least of which is college/med school admissions and, yes, a cap on funding of residencies to train American doctors. So, at the very least, don't worsen it. Maybe try to improve it?
Wolfgang Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 2 hours ago, milfandcookies said: when you grow up and have children you will understand. There is a moral line, yeah I wouldn’t commit murder or rob a bank for my kids. But man made borders? They are imaginary and not a concern in the good moral book I follow Grow up? What a stupid assumption being that I am 50... If you do not believe in man made borders, US borders as an example, then you are what I thought you were from the beginning... There is nothing imaginary about man made borders... International law says otherwise... Fortunately, someone with your mindset towards open borders has no influence on the future of American border security... Have a nice day though... 12 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: So, at the very least, don't worsen it. Maybe try to improve it? Remove 10s of millions of illegal aliens and the physician shortage solves itself... But ideologically, that is a nonstarter for you...
Pokebball Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 2 hours ago, milfandcookies said: when you grow up and have children you will understand. There is a moral line, yeah I wouldn’t commit murder or rob a bank for my kids. But man made borders? They are imaginary and not a concern in the good moral book I follow That would be the solution yeah but no one is really trying that Is your front door a man made border?
Wolfgang Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago 34 minutes ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: Some is greater than none. This will worsen an already serious problem. And in pursuit of what? A more racially pure society? Everything comes down to race with you... Your self-loathing is absurd... 1
Wolfgang Posted 1 hour ago Posted 1 hour ago One thing is certain among the brain dead lefties here... They could not care less about the future of America's children... They don't care about borders... They don't care about how massive the welfare system has become... They don't care about American workers... They don't want ANY industry to return... Any opposition to their mentality yields the accusation of "racism"... Selfish anti-American scumbags to the bitter end... To these idiots, I am a black "white supremacist"... They hate America while loving the US dollar... 1
The Frankish Reich Posted 45 minutes ago Posted 45 minutes ago 2 hours ago, LeviF said: "American" is an ethnicity. Same as "English," or "Japanese." This is the polar opposite of the original idea of American Exceptionalism. Call it what you want - I call it true love for my country - but I still try to honor that ideal, that we are a country based on an idea, a common goal, rather than just a common ancestry. 1
LDD Posted 44 minutes ago Posted 44 minutes ago 39 minutes ago, Wolfgang said: To these idiots, I am a black "white supremacist"... You are a real life Clayton Bigsby?!?!
All_Pro_Bills Posted 38 minutes ago Posted 38 minutes ago 1 hour ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: There aren’t enough trained and highly educated Americans to fill the void. Not enough Americans to staff rural hospitals, for example, even with the H1B And even with the visas, rural hospitals need to pay much higher to anyone, including H1B recipients, to attract them to places like rural Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, West Virginia, Appalachia etc. I ve gotten several job offers in the last few weeks but I’m done. Recruiting a 65 yo shows the depth of the shortage. They can’t expect me or anyone in my demographic to practice very long. Poor roi, but they are doing it. I’m sure it’s similar in IT but my first hand experience is in healthcare. I worked in IT for 25+ years and continue working with those teams in my current assignment as business owner for a data analytics function. So I know the facts on the ground. The initial outsourcing deals companies made were with firms like IBM where the workers were moved off their books by simply having those outsourcing firms hire their previous staff. Then the work systematically moved to India. First lower level functions like system maintenance activities, system testing, and the likes. Then system analysis and programming and development followed by project management and then system and application management. To the point where entire organizations top to bottom now reside offshore. Now our IT staff breaks out about 15% Americans, 25% H1-B visas and the remainder offshore in India and some staff in Ireland because of the low tax rate. The people there are good workers but there are some issues such times zones and support availability and cultural differences in thought process and problem solving. But my main issue is productivity. I've done a substantial amount of programming and analysis and requirements work in my life and I have a very good understanding of how long something should take to complete. Sometimes things I expect will take a couple hours get turned around in a week or two. Its very frustrating to the business but the higher ups don't care because they're focused on the bottom line cost numbers and not so much on accelerating innovation and productivity although they talk a good game about those types of things. I expect that's part of the appeal with technologies like AI which can turn things around much faster although I've heard stories that those current programming models are filled with bugs and bad coding techniques. 1
milfandcookies Posted 37 minutes ago Posted 37 minutes ago 1 hour ago, sherpa said: I'm quite certain you don't understand the scope of this issue. The child is the anchor that leads to a number of other people living off tax payer provide benefits. If that isn't "taking anything away from you," neither you nor your family pays taxes. the US government takes taxes from me, not anchor babies. The US government would take them from me even if there were zero anchor babies 1
The Frankish Reich Posted 37 minutes ago Posted 37 minutes ago 2 hours ago, Joe Ferguson forever said: There aren’t enough trained and highly educated Americans to fill the void. Not enough Americans to staff rural hospitals, for example, even with the H1B And even with the visas, rural hospitals need to pay much higher to anyone, including H1B recipients, to attract them to places like rural Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, West Virginia, Appalachia etc. I ve gotten several job offers in the last few weeks but I’m done. Recruiting a 65 yo shows the depth of the shortage. They can’t expect me or anyone in my demographic to practice very long. Poor roi, but they are doing it. I’m sure it’s similar in IT but my first hand experience is in healthcare. We are getting there, but we are getting there really slowly. @Joe Ferguson forever, we don't need you doing primary care in small town Alabama. We do need an NP or a PA and some other less overeducated health professionals there. The American model of training physicians - 4 years of college, 4 years of residency, etc, etc, is just way too expensive and lengthy for what we really need in these non-major cities. I'm in a big city with leading regional healthcare, but when something more than the old "it'll probably resolve by itself in a week or with antibiotics" hits me, I'm referred to a specialist anyway.
sherpa Posted 33 minutes ago Posted 33 minutes ago 2 minutes ago, milfandcookies said: the US government takes taxes from me, not anchor babies. The US government would take them from me even if there were zero anchor babies Maybe you don't understand this. The US gov takes revenue from taxes and pays for this in many programs. That money is coming from wage earners. Is that unclear?
Recommended Posts