patrick.net

thunderlips11 says

Its amazing isn't it, you'd think parents send their kids to India for education in I.T.

yeah it's ridiculous. although there is i think a correlation between the demise of public education here and the intent to seek cheap labor.

big business gave up on their native talent pool a long time ago presumably because it would one day be too expensive and margins would diminish. i have a different feeling about it in that they just grew a tremendous pair of balls and decided that people are dog shit and it would be so much more convenient and cheaper to mis-treat them on all fronts.

how to keep growing while the consumer base enjoys a giant corporate golden shower? DEBT INSTRUMENTS! YAY!

thunderlips11 says

Vietnamese or Nigerians on h1bs with degrees from shady ass fly by night "schools" land all the IT jobs 10 years from now instead of their us educated upper middle class kids

In all fairness, the US educated kids rarely want to do STEM and their h1-B parents, on average, strongly support this. They would much rather have their kids pursue medicine.

On another note, Vietnam has made major strides in the last 16 years...from 2200 students in 1999-2000 to over 16K last year

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/growth-from-asia-drives-surge-in-u-s-foreign-students/

FortWayne says

Somehow we have better educated STEM people than other nations

More than half of the graduate-level STEM students at US institutions come from other countries. So, if the US is graduating only the half that is US born, would that be enough to support the needs of employers?

zzyzzx says

We are already producing an overabundance of them.

If that is true, then graduate STEM programs in the US should reduce the number of slots by about 50% since that is the number of STEM degrees going to foreign born people (mostly India and China). Doubt that they will do that, especially given the fact that they are paying 2-3x more in tuition than in-state residents. Some of the blame should go to the bloated bureaucracies of these universities necessitating the import of students

While I don't currently believe that there is a shortage of STEM candidates, I'm not sure if that would be the case if the number of grads was slashed 50% across the board

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/06/18/growth-from-asia-drives-surge-in-u-s-foreign-students/

MMR says

graduate-level STEM

to write code, solve engineering problems, and grow the business? yeah right. the needs of employers would be served just fine by the bachelor's crowd.

Dan8267 says

Another reason why I'll take that narcissistic idiot Trump over crooked Hillary any day.

That’s understandable, especially if you are willing to trade support for: the Civil Rights Act, marriage equality, equality under law for both genders, first trimester abortions, requiring our government to take care of wounded soldiers, rights of transgender persons, the rights of those who paid into Social Security to withdrawal the savings they are entitled to, efforts to end the War On Drugs and the imprisonment of drug users. Yes, that’s your own list, as you surely recognize. And further: the role of money in corrupting politics; the perpetuation of gerrymandering and vote suppression; the use of torture and rendition; progressive taxation; any progress toward single-payer healthcare; the separation of church and state; rational gun control. The list of negatives attached to the Scarlet Whore of Wall Street is long. In your opinion, is it as long as the above?

neplusultra57 says

Civil Rights Act

Bernie Sanders has a long history of civil rights support. Hilary Clinton has done nothing but undermine civil rights. She's pro-torture and anti-habeas-corpus. She voted for the evil USA Patriot Act. Compared to her, Trump is MLK.

neplusultra57 says

marriage equality

It's the law of the land, so it doesn't matter anymore. But Hillary was strongly against marriage equality until the tide of popular opinion changed.

neplusultra57 says

equality under law for both genders

There's nothing either candidate is going to do about that.

neplusultra57 says

first trimester abortions

You can't get rid of first trimester abortions without overturning Roe v. Wade, something that conservatives have failed to do for over 40 years. And I doubt that's even going to be on Trump's agenda. He's pro-choice.

neplusultra57 says

requiring our government to take care of wounded soldiers

Again, Hilary has done shit to help that.

Same for the rest of the things you say especially, the war on drugs. Clinton has always been supportive of that.

neplusultra57 says

The list of negatives attached to the Scarlet Whore of Wall Street is long. In your opinion, is it as long as the above?

Trump never voted to torture people. That's a deal breaker. I could never vote for Hillary given that she's done that multiple times and has never changed her stance.

Trump is a lose cannon, but I'll take chaos over structured evil any day. If you don't want me to make that choice, convince the super delegates to vote for Bernie.

Dan8267 says

Hillary was strongly against marriage equality until the tide of popular opinion changed.

What's even worse is how she blatantly lies about her history on this, as if her First Lady, Senate campaign, and 2008 Pres Nomination Campaign videos aren't on youtube.

Yep, I choose Chaotic Good over Lawful Evil any day.

landtof says

the needs of employers would be served just fine by the bachelor's crowd.

There are 55,367 Bachelors Degrees handed out in Comp Sci annually and even about 10% of those guys would need an H1-B to continue in this country after graduating. Even if you added up all the grads from the last 16 years and assumed that all were still working in their field, that would still only be 460K slots filled.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_322.10.asp?current=yes

There are 1.5 million slots in 2014 for Programmers, application Developers, systems developers and web developers combined.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm

The reason why there isn't a shortage of STEM workers is because there are so many being imported. The group that is on the short end of the stick are US citizen developers who are over the age of 40. Ageism is horrible in the IT industry; Should have had a game plan to transition towards management.

I have a number of dumb idiot first cousins, once removed who are college age who are studying engineering and/or comp sci; none of those dummies has any clue about business whatsoever. They are nothing but future rank and file guys despite some going to schools as good as Cornell and Cooper Union. None of those guys have any interest in pursuing an MBA down the road at a top 25 school. By definition, each and every aspiring engineer in that cohort is a dumb idiot, with no clue about the future. Each of those idiots should have sucked it up and gotten into med school.

The first cousins once removed who went into medicine will almost certainly be better off and it won't even be close.

Furthermore, degree inflation isn't something that is specific to just the computer science related jobs. Most people who work at starbucks at least have some college under their belts. 25 years ago, they might have had high schoolers working there.

MMR says

Comp Sci

that's only one such degree. what about the other more general versions of "IT" and also the trade schools like ITT Tech? what about as you said the workers who were laid off during the last few busts and then never rehired due to the en vogue import agenda? we so have plenty of native workers here.

MMR says

None of those guys have any interest in pursuing an MBA down the road at a top 25 school.

they are actually quite astute as an MBA is the biggest waste of time and money outside of harvard or whatever equivalent. my take is that you may be too concerned with labels. some people honestly just want to do their jobs and not have to lie all day and treat others like shit, explain layoffs to guys with families, etc.

labels don't get you automatic tickets to the upper crust - politics are HUGE, and pure talent always rises.

Dan8267 says

I could never vote for Hillary........Trump is a lose cannon, but I'll take chaos over structured evil any day.

Dan8267, your six assessments of Clinton are accurate. She is obviously neither a ground breaking liberal nor a champion of existing liberal institutions. But your assessment of Trump as a threat to liberal progress is inadequate. He is on record exhorting advancing the intensity of torture. He hasn’t voted for it because he never had the chance. And on every other point you make, none of those can be considered “settled law” as long as the GOP exists. A vote for Trump is effectively a vote for three Scalias and decades of conservative Supreme Court bias. Think about that. It doesn’t matter if Trump is secretly pro-choice or if he will allow transgender Americans to be customers in his casinos and use his restrooms. It doesn’t matter if Trump supports wounded veterans if his Supreme Court allows gerrymandering and voter suppression such that a GOP House is able to choose its voters and continue to perpetuate Congressional dysfunction. It doesn’t matter what Trump thinks of Social Security and single payer healthcare or Planned Parenthood if the GOP retains the House and Senate. It doesn’t matter if currently neither candidate is “going to do” anything about gender equality under the law if both the Court and Congress are irretrievably conservative. It doesn't matter if Trump doesn't APPEAR to be as structured an evil as Clinton if his Court perpetuates Citizen's United, the SINGLE MOST PREDICATE FORCE OF THE ELITES. In the end, Trump is a threat to EVERY existing liberal institution while Clinton simply isn’t their champion. The difference is impossible to mitigate. Clinton is just a Republican with a uterus but there is every reason to think her nominees will turn the Court into a body that will countervail her evilness. Trump's Court, by contrast, will take us back to the 1950s because he is a pointless arbitrageur bordering on sociopathy who is perfectly willing to sacrifice modernity simply in order to be elected. If as a liberal you cannot in good conscience vote for Clinton the least you can do is write in Sanders.

neplusultra57 says

perfectly willing to sacrifice modernity simply in order to be elected.

This is the most telling bit of your rant. "Modernity" then to you must be 1) mass Muslim immigration and turning a blind eye to their campaign of hate against all others, 2)free trade where all production occurs outside the country and only consumption happens within, from some magic source of money, while oligarchs grow fat on the profits and rents, 3) social justice warriors attacking everyone who doesn't keep pace with the changing tide of activism, 4)thuggish "protests" that destroy property and injure citizens engaged in peaceful expression, 5)open borders policies that are eroding American cities and states ability to function, and 6)massive corruption in government as a way of life.
That's modern.
That's what we have.
That's why Trump.
Because most Americans don't agree that "modern" society is worth keeping.

thunderlips11 says

Yep, I choose Chaotic Good over Lawful Evil any day.

I'll choose chaotic evil over lawful evil any day. Lawful evil is far more dangerous because it has its shit together. Chaotic evil self-destructs and defeats itself at every turn.

neplusultra57 says

But your assessment of Trump as a threat to liberal progress is inadequate

Of course he's a threat, but Hillary is a greater threat and one with no upside. Trump has a few upsides:
1. He's wreck the Republican party. Even the Republican establishment wants him to lose. They much rather just obstruct the Hillary administration and blame everything on the Democrats.
2. Hillary losing will break the Democratic establishment by demonstrating the need to reform. Right now the establishment thinks it can count on every vote it gets just because people hate Republicans. This will force them to acknowledge that assumption is wrong.
3. In the long run, the reforms the Democratic defeat will ensure will do far more good than harm. The next 40 years is far more important than the next 4.
4. A Hillary defeat and a disastrous Trump administration will provide a far better seventh party system.

And I'm not the only person who's saying a seventh party system is starting.

The Seventh Party System: Trump Could Be the Catalyst

At one time or another, we’ve all endured the jaw-grinding, hair-pulling frustration of listening to some know-nothing right-winger accuse Democrats of being “the real racists” because they were the party of slavery and Jim Crow. They’re right about that fact, of course, though wildly wrong about the conclusion they draw from it.

Americans, children living in an eternal present that we are, have to exercise great force of will to recall that the way things are isn’t the way things have always been. Our political system has been dominated by the Democratic and Republican parties for so long—160 years—that one might easily, and mistakenly, assume they’ve represented the same two opposing forces of liberalism and conservatism for as long as they’ve existed. But as the nation has evolved, the parties have evolved with it, undergoing radical changes in the coalitions of voters and regions that have supported them and the issues that have divided them.

We live under what political scientists call the Sixth Party System of the United States, a system that has lasted longer than any of the U.S. party systems that came before it—yet another reason why we have a hard time comprehending that it has not always been thus. We’re due, possibly overdue, for the phase shift that brings us into the Seventh Party System. And the quasi-fascist candidacy of Donald Trump may be bringing us to the tipping point . . . which I’m not certain is a good thing.

The United States is due for a partisan realignment. Arguably overdue. And one of our major political parties has now rejected the principle of universal human rights. Straight-up rejected it.

A Seventh Party System – Why 2016 Could Mark the Next Electoral Shift

We should seriously consider whether 2016 could be the realignment election that the US is overdue for.

Sharingmyintelligencewiththedumbasses says

or maybe, it would be better to let in lots of smart creative immigrants.

If this was the case I would be for it. In reality what happens is that many low cost workers who are not smart are coming in to depress wages even though total corporate spending is going up. For example, a company like Cognizant will put dozens of low cost people on the project that could be done by two normal high cost consultants.

Dan8267 says

1. He's wreck the Republican party. Even the Republican establishment wants him to lose. They much rather just obstruct the Hillary administration and blame everything on the Democrats.

2. Hillary losing will break the Democratic establishment by demonstrating the need to reform. Right now the establishment thinks it can count on every vote it gets just because people hate Republicans. This will force them to acknowledge that assumption is wrong.

3. In the long run, the reforms the Democratic defeat will ensure will do far more good than harm. The next 40 years is far more important than the next 4.

4. A Hillary defeat and a disastrous Trump administration will provide a far better seventh party system.

You seem logical and systematic so I’ll try to be the same in order to your points:
1. He’s wrecking the GOP as we speak, whether elected or not; it’s all he’s good for. You needn’t make a single sacrifice to achieve this.
2. Sanders’ success to date demonstrates the need for reforming the Democratic Party and also the real possibility that it can be done by citizen money and not corporate money. Reform will come sooner if the corruption of corporate money in politics is reversed. Trump’s Court will prolong that corruption; Clinton’s Court will hasten its demise. If you can make a cogent argument that a Clinton loss will prove more instructive to voters than a very narrow Clinton victory please do so, but bear in mind it comes at a dramatic cost. That cost is allowing the most predicative power the establishment has to remain in place. Remember, your position advocates the establishment’s power source.
3. The reforms brought about by a Democratic defeat will be blocked for a majority of the 40 years you invoke simply by the formative power over the Court that the next 4 years holds. If you are thinking long term you need to adjust your focus. The Executive and Congress cannot vacate a SCOTUS ruling.
4. Why do you not even begin to consider the alternative of a Trump defeat and a disastrous Clinton administration? It could just as easily lead to reform of both Parties without the disastrous abyss of theocracy and conservatism swallowing the Court.
5. Finally, you and thunderlips11 are appalled by lawful evil. You should be. The quintessential example of that is Court sanctioned, codified evil and injustice. You and other erstwhile liberals pass over this time and again for more interesting and nuanced diversions into the failure of Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism.
If truly you want reform, long lasting reform, you must use the next Presidential term to secure the Court. Only then can Party reform proceed on secure footing. That’s your fundamental error when combating lawful evil. Secondly, if you want medium-term Democratic Party reform you need to elect the Clinton Court in order to break the power of the establishment money in politics otherwise your only other option is violent revolt. That’s your strategic error. Lastly, if you want near-term reform you needn’t elect Trump to destroy the GOP. He’s well on the way to doing it without you. That’s your tactical error.

Thank you for mentioning A Seventh Party System. We'll get there sooner and in better shape if Sanders supporters make practical accommodations to the reality of our fucked up range of choices right now.

landtof says

during the last few busts and then never rehired due to the en vogue import agenda? we so have plenty of native workers here

I provided proof, where is yours? You mean to say there are 1.1 million native workers who can't get a job in the IT sector doing web development, programming, systems analyst, etc (not including database and networking jobs).

landtof says

None of those guys have any interest in pursuing an MBA down the road at a top 25 school.

they are actually quite astute as an MBA is the biggest waste of time and money

sure, you don't need an MBA to move into management, but ageism in IT isn't even remotely subtle and doesn't seem like anyone is apologetic for it either. Either way, those without a game plan to transition to management after age 40 might find themselves shit out of luck

landtof says

people honestly just want to do their jobs and not have to lie all day and treat others like shit, explain layoffs to guys with families, etc.

As stated above, if you're above 40, and working as a coder/back-end type of guy, that option may not be available to you(especially in a startup setting). What does it tell you when most of the imported help strongly discourages their own children from doing this as a career and pushes them into medicine instead?

Strategist says

We are way behind in turning out STEM graduates when compared to China or India

If they are so smart than why aren't they rich? Bullshit pretend third world country degrees which you can buy for a $50 bribe. That's not a tech degree.

On another note, if we import degrees, government will have no incentive to make education affordable for kids in America, they will have no reason to even make it worth anything. But if we don't import, government will be forced to suck it up and spend money on education instead of spending it on other various bullshit.

Dan8267 says

2. Hillary losing will break the Democratic establishment by demonstrating the need to reform. Right now the establishment thinks it can count on every vote it gets just because people hate Republicans. This will force them to acknowledge that assumption is wrong.

3. In the long run, the reforms the Democratic defeat will ensure will do far more good than harm. The next 40 years is far more important than the next 4.

Yup. The neoliberal Clintonistas are determined not to learn lessons from Trump or Bernie. Taibbi nailed this in his column. Or as the Upton Sinclair once said, ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

Those that DO understand are like "Please let this system continue, because I paid my dues for 20 years and I'm just about to cash out, please last a few more years."

I bet you the reason the Bernie-Hillary meeting failed as because she refused to make any progressive commitments that would displease her donor base, and therefore he refused to bow out.

FortWayne says

Strategist says

We are way behind in turning out STEM graduates when compared to China or India

If they are so smart than why aren't they rich? Bullshit pretend third world country degrees which you can buy for a $50 bribe. That's not a tech degree.

They started developing much later. If we let the current trend continue, they will be way ahead of us in a couple of generations. Being in denial does not help us.
All we need to do is steal their best brains, and it becomes ours.

Strategist says

They started developing much later. If we let the current trend continue, they will be way ahead of us in a couple of generations. Being in denial does not help us.

All we need to do is steal their best brains, and it becomes ours.

I doubt they'll ever be anywhere near us. Their system is whats holding them back, they've been around long enough yet they aren't getting ahead anywhere. The only time they get anything going ahead is when they trade with America. We stop trading with them, they go back to stone age. The only reason China has those factories everywhere, is because we pay them to produce for us.

FortWayne says

Strategist says

They started developing much later. If we let the current trend continue, they will be way ahead of us in a couple of generations. Being in denial does not help us.


All we need to do is steal their best brains, and it becomes ours.

I doubt they'll ever be anywhere near us. Their system is whats holding them back, they've been around long enough yet they aren't getting ahead anywhere. The only time they get anything going ahead is when they trade with America. We stop trading with them, they go back to stone age. The only reason China has those factories everywhere, is because we pay them to produce for us.

You have a point. If we stop trading with them, they go back to the stone age. You don't realize that trade benefits both parties. Why shoot ourselves in the foot?

FortWayne says

If they are so smart than why aren't they rich?

Despite being 'communist' opportunity isn't equal across the board. The US is a much fairer and egalitarian country, relatively speaking.

You mean to say the top 0.1% of China who are buying houses in California for cash and sending their kids to UC Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA, UC Irvine and UC San Diego aren't rich? Also, many of the chinese politburo members are also engineers, unlike the lawyer politicians in this country.

the population of people who look like, act like and think like you are decreasing, and the population of people who look like, act like and think like them are increasing and driving up the cost of living in California and making themselves many times richer in the process and indirectly, pushing people like you out of California permanently.

FortWayne says

On another note, if we import degrees, government will have no incentive to make education affordable for kids in America

Unfortunately, that's already happening. California is ground zero for this development, although this is true across the board. Nowhere else in America are their public schools that are 50% or more Asian like UC Irvine.

thunderlips11 says

There are 1.5 million slots in 2014 for Programmers, application Developers, systems developers and web developers combined.

http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm

Maybe you should have followed your dumb cousins to medical school. It's not 1.5 million computer slots(?) in 2014. It's all computer and math jobs for 2014 to 2024. In just computer the chart says there will be 488k new jobs 2014 to 2024 and 1.0 (not 1.5) million total job openings due to growth and replacements.

thunderlips11 says

There are 55,367 Bachelors Degrees handed out in Comp Sci annually

Yes, but there will be people with other degrees that end up working in computer jobs. Engineering, math, communications,accounting, etc., etc. degrees will have people end up in computer jobs. There will be people with trade school training, and associates degrees working in computer jobs. There will be people with minor's in comp sci that end up in computer jobs. There will even be people who slide into computer jobs from an unrelated career, although not many any more. When I started programming that's pretty much how everyone did it. There were few colleges offering computer science degrees. If you showed an interest the company sent you to an intense programming course and you picked it up from there.

If there were such a severe shortage then why haven't salaries gone up dramatically? I retired from full time coding in 2001 and people I know that are still programming today aren't making a whole lot more than I was 15 years ago. Why hasn't large amounts of coding gone offshore? If companies want to use cheap foreign labor then let them go to a foreign country to get it.

bob2356 says

Why hasn't large amounts of coding gone offshore? If companies want to use cheap foreign labor then let them go to a foreign country to get it.

It has. One major change since 2001 is that there is a lot more offshoring. For consulting IT projects in bay area, almost every company in bay area wants to have front men here with resources in India.

tr6 says

bob2356 says

Why hasn't large amounts of coding gone offshore? If companies want to use cheap foreign labor then let them go to a foreign country to get it.

It has. One major change since 2001 is that there is a lot more offshoring. For consulting IT projects in bay area, almost every company in bay area wants to have front men here with resources in India.

Bob is being very naive. In a free market economy business owners and entrepreneurs will always find a way out to benefit themselves. We need to import their best, and give green cards to any foreign student who gets a Masters degree in STEM from an American University.

thunderlips11 says

she refused to make any progressive commitments that would displease her donor base

They must be really pissed at her now that after meeting with Sanders the Dems' official platform "calls for........overturning Citizens United."

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/democrats-take-step-left-new-platform-n602791

Trump won't lift even a rhetorical finger in this direction. Anti-establishment in spades he is.

neplusultra57 says

1. He’s wrecking the GOP as we speak, whether elected or not; it’s all he’s good for. You needn’t make a single sacrifice to achieve this.

The more damage the better. The more damage Trump does as president, the quicker the transition to a seventh party system will be, and more importantly, the better that new system will be. In contrast a Hillary presidency is a godsend to the Southern Strategy.

neplusultra57 says

Sanders’ success to date demonstrates the need for reforming the Democratic Party and also the real possibility that it can be done by citizen money and not corporate money. Reform will come sooner if the corruption of corporate money in politics is reversed. Trump’s Court will prolong that corruption; Clinton’s Court will hasten its demise.

You have that reversed. Trump's victory over all well-established and well-funded Republican candidates sends a wake-up call to corporate money. A Hillary victory over Sanders or over Trump later would confirm that the current bribery system still works. Without all the money and the support of big media, Hillary would not have gotten half the pledged delegates she did and Bernie would already be the nominee.

neplusultra57 says

he reforms brought about by a Democratic defeat will be blocked for a majority of the 40 years you invoke simply by the formative power over the Court that the next 4 years holds

You are assuming that a SCOTUS position will come up within the next four years -- the current vacate will be decided before the next president takes office -- and you are assuming that Hillary will appoint a better candidate than unpredictable, only fools believe what he says, Trump. All of history suggests that Hillary would appoint a terrible despot to the Supreme Court. Everything she was done in her very long career has been terrible for both human and civil rights.

If you are going to play the percentage, it makes sense to roll a random die than one that comes up all ones.

neplusultra57 says

Why do you not even begin to consider the alternative of a Trump defeat and a disastrous Clinton administration?

That's already been tried. It's called the Obama administration. Hillary will be a continuation of the Bush/Obama line.

neplusultra57 says

more interesting and nuanced diversions into the failure of Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism

To say that there are nuanced failures of Hilary Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism is like saying the Nazis had subtle failures to uphold Jewish orthodoxy principles. It's outlandish.

Hilary Clinton is as close to being a liberal, or even wanting to be one, as Hitler was to being an orthodox Jew. Just because someone is a Democrat does not make that person a liberal. Richard M. Nixon was more of a liberal than Hillary Clinton.

neplusultra57 says

Thank you for mentioning A Seventh Party System. We'll get there sooner and in better shape if Sanders supporters make practical accommodations to the reality of our fucked up range of choices right now.

Sometimes you have to tear down a system before you can build a new one. The path to reform is not always straight and linear. Sometimes you have to go around an obstacle and that means going south before you can go further north. There is no reason to believe that things will get better under a Hillary Clinton administration and plenty of reasons to believe that such an administration will strengthen the power of those in the Status Quo.

And for those thinking that the first woman president would be a great achievement -- that's not so if the first woman president is someone we have to be ashamed of. It would set women back to put a terrible woman in office. Elizabeth Warren is the woman the Democratic Party should have been supporting for president. Hillary prevented Warren from even considering running for president despite the many pleading to Warren that she one.

On the other hand, Bernie would be both the first Jewish and the first non-Christian president, and he would be a good role model.

thunderlips11 says

Or as the Upton Sinclair once said, ""It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

Climate change is the quintessential example of this principle.

bob2356 says

Maybe you should have followed your dumb cousins to medical school

You're all screwed up, let me unscrew you

1. Thunderlips didn't make that comment, I did
2. There are 1.5 million people working in the field in 2014, with an expansion to 1.7 million in 2024. During that 10 year time span, there will be predicted openings of 484K. As of today, there are 1.5 million slots being occupied, however.
3. The US produces 55, 367 computer science grads, 10% of whom would need an H1-B after graduation to work. Even if you add in these ITT tech and vocational school types and people from mathematics and other engineering disciplines, that doesn't come close to 1.5 million slots that are currently occupied.

4. The SMART cousins are the ones who went to med school, as did I; the SLACKERS in every measurable metric outside of math and science courses went into engineering/comp sci.

bob2356 says

There will be people with minor's in comp sci that end up in computer jobs. There will even be people who slide into computer jobs from an unrelated career, although not many any more

yes, my brother was a chemical engineering grad from rutgers who did comp sci as a minor and worked as a consultant/java developer for 6 years afterwards.

My wife has an MSEE, but worked in software, but that's because it was a path to a green card, which ultimately didn't matter after she got married.

Sure lot of people follow that path, but without importing, I can't agree that there wouldn't be a shortage.

bob2356 says

If there were such a severe shortage then why haven't salaries gone up dramatically

Again, I NEVER said there was a SHORTAGE, I said that if there weren't people being imported that there would be a shortage. To reiterate, there is NO WAY in hell all the engineering, math and comp sci majors, coupled with the vo-tech ITT crowd, could fill the 1.5 million job slots occupied in 2014. Since you never provide any links of value for assertions that you make, this is your opportunity to actually do that for once.

Said another way, the REASON why there IS NOT a SHORTAGE is because of the H1-B program. The lack of a shortage due to the H1-B program is also WHY wages in that sector haven't gone up appreciably since 2001. If the H1-B program were completely eliminated and outsourcing couldn't occur, then IT salaries for software professionals would go up dramatically because there would be a shortage.

bob2356 says

If you showed an interest the company sent you to an intense programming course and you picked it up from there.

Pretty sure those days are on their last legs. Why do they have to invest when they can get guys with masters degrees from US institutions to pick up the slack?; granted those guys often still need to work on their coding skills, presumably their logical capacity from years of training helps them to pick up programming quickly enough to produce in the workplace.

Not saying it's right or good, but the world has changed a bit since you were a young person.

bob2356 says

Why hasn't large amounts of coding gone offshore? If companies want to use cheap foreign labor then let them go to a foreign country to get it.

As tr6 already mentioned, this is quite commonplace.

MMR says

bob2356 says

If there were such a severe shortage then why haven't salaries gone up dramatically

Again, I NEVER said there was a SHORTAGE, I said that if there weren't people being imported that there would be a shortage.

Stop making sense, you will confuse Bob.

Strategist says

Stop making sense, you will confuse Bob.

Bob, in general, moderate Republicans like Strategist and Logan are all for uncontrolled globalization and depression of wages as long as it does not affect their field. How about giving green cards to experienced real estate agents or whatever field Strategist works in.

We are also not importing doctors because AMA opposes it. We have the lowest number of doctors per 1000 people out of any developed nation.

tr6 says

We have the lowest number of doctors per 1000 people out of any developed nation.

25% of doctors in US are from foreign medical schools. This is because the US has kept medical school enrollment numbers artificially low for decades. That is not under the control of AMA, but rather the AAMC.

All AMA really has control of is the ICD-10 codes for reimbursement. The majority of Doctors in the US aren't even AMA members.

They are starting to increase med school enrollment, along with increasing number of schools, but it's only halfway effective, in that, it increases the number of graduates who are US schools, but doesn't increase the total number of doctors.

Also, the US doctor numbers aren't low in cities; the problem, as always is one of distribution. Having 40% of total residency positions in New York isn't beneficial to the areas that are underserved.

Increasingly, the role of doctors is being extended by NPs and PAs; Anesthesia services at the VA moving forward, will be done only by CRNAs. We're getting to the point that NP and PAs will be doing primary care because very few med grads want to go into primary care.

tr6 says

uncontrolled globalization and depression of wages as long as it does not affect their field

I agree that there is not much wage growth in the IT sector for the last 15+ years; that's why the STEM shortage myth is bogus.

But does globalization explain the unforgiving ageism in that sector? Even the H1-b people who've benefitted from globalism, for the most part are discouraging their kids from entering the field. Most of the type A personalities pursue medicine and the type B with no passion for business go for engineering/comp sci. The type A's who go for engineering, have ended up as entrepreneurs of the highest level (not Bill Gates) but 9 approaching 10 figure net worths

Dan8267 says

The more damage the better. The more damage Trump does as president, the quicker the transition to a seventh party system will be, and more importantly, the better that new system will be. In contrast a Hillary presidency is a godsend to the Southern Strategy.

Prove how President Trump will cause more GOP damage than candidate Trump. If you can make that case then you’re making an equal case for President Clinton to help your plan to damage the Democrats. You’re just guessing and risking the composition of the Court to do it. Bad risk assessment. But clearly you just want to punish Clinton more than the GOP. As to Southern Strategy, explain how President Clinton is a godsend to the Tea Party within a GOP that Trump has destroyed.

Dan8267 says

You have that reversed. Trump's victory over all well-established and well-funded Republican candidates sends a wake-up call to corporate money. A Hillary victory over Sanders or over Trump later would confirm that the current bribery system still works. Without all the money and the support of big media, Hillary would not have gotten half the pledged delegates she did and Bernie would already be the nominee.

No it is not reversed. Candidate Trump’s victory in the Primary merely leaves corporate money utterly in place and merely tells it to seek a different style of conservative Primary candidate: one that pays a better return. A Clinton Primary victory does confirm that she used the corrupt system effectively, but thanks to Sanders she has already assumed in her platform the overturning of Citizens United. You still have it reversed that a Trump victory in any race would even remotely alter this corrupt corporate condition. But you are willing to ignore this condition and don’t even attempt to hide your willingness to ignore it.

Dan8267 says

You are assuming that a SCOTUS position will come up within the next four years -- the current vacate will be decided before the next president takes office -- and you are assuming that Hillary will appoint a better candidate than unpredictable, only fools believe what he says, Trump. All of history suggests that Hillary would appoint a terrible despot to the Supreme Court. Everything she was done in her very long career has been terrible for both human and civil rights.

1. Scalia 2. Clarence Thomas (is speaking of retirement after the election). 3. Bader-Ginsberg (is 83 and has pancreatic cancer). “A terrible despot” from Clinton? Don’t be absurd. “All of history” suggests she appoints a left-of-center judge. You’re being bombastic. Besides, it doesn’t matter what sins she herself has committed, you have to focus on the tendencies of the judges she would nominate. That’s how reason approaches this topic.

Dan8267 says

If you are going to play the percentage, it makes sense to roll a random die than one that comes up all ones.

For those who can count the die is not all ones (see above).

Dan8267 says

That's already been tried. It's called the Obama administration. Hillary will be a continuation of the Bush/Obama line.

Then by your very own projection it will include more liberal judges on the Court, the destruction of the GOP by Trump during the election, and the downfall of the current system at the end of Clinton’s sole term. Mission Accomplished! Why do you refuse to see how illogical your opposition to that path is?

Dan8267 says

To say that there are nuanced failures of Hilary Clinton to uphold the purity of liberalism is like saying the Nazis had subtle failures to uphold Jewish orthodoxy principles. It's outlandish.

Sigh. If this wearies you, or if you tire of struggling with your argument, just say so because we both have better things to do with our time on this planet. Must I apologize for presuming you understood simple English adjectives? "It's outlandish" that you failed to recognize that in my statement “nuanced” modified “diversions”, whereas in your statement you used it to modify “failures”. Yours was one of the most pointless and useless diversions ever witnessed.

Dan8267 says

Hilary Clinton is as close to being a liberal, or even wanting to be one, as Hitler was to being an orthodox Jew. Just because someone is a Democrat does not make that person a liberal. Richard M. Nixon was more of a liberal than Hillary Clinton.

Given the above, this is just a throwaway. Please stop.

Dan8267 says

There is no reason to believe that things will get better under a Hillary Clinton administration and plenty of reasons to believe that such an administration will strengthen the power of those in the Status Quo.

No reason other than the single reason I keep stating, you know, the one you keep ignoring, you know, the single most predicative condition of power retention by the Status Quo, you know, the one codified as unlawful evil by a conservative Court, that one, the one that is constantly passed over in more interesting and nuanced diversions into the failures of liberal purity in the candidate we're discussing, or at least one of us is discussing. Don't pause to consider the Court's potential impact on climate change legislation or on other environment protections. Perhaps pollution is not high on your list? Does damage need to come first? Bollocks.

Dan8267 says

And for those thinking that the first woman president would be a great achievement -- that's not so if the first woman president is someone we have to be ashamed of. It would set women back to put a terrible woman in office. Elizabeth Warren is the woman the Democratic Party should have been supporting for president. Hillary prevented Warren from even considering running for president despite the many pleading to Warren that she one.

On the other hand, Bernie would be both the first Jewish and the first non-Christian president, and he would be a good role model.

I tend to agree except for that obvious fact that no one made any decisions for Warren other than Warren herself. And I don't expect political executives to be my role models. That's why the "shame" of a President Trump is equal to the "shame" of a President Clinton and neither is the basis for rational judgement. Given that, it's obvious your willingness to trash a pivotal opportunity to lay the foundation for multiple decades of liberal reform in the Court is based solely on your own personal shame and not on a rational assessment of the situation. You should change your position. It's not rational.

MMR says

You're all screwed up, let me unscrew you

1. Thunderlips didn't make that comment, I did

2. There are 1.5 million people working in the field in 2014, with an expansion to 1.7 million in 2024. During that 10 year time span, there will be predicted openings of 484K. As of today, there are 1.5 million slots being occupied, however.

3. The US produces 55, 367 computer science grads, 10% of whom would need an H1-B after graduation to work. Even if you add in these ITT tech and vocational school types and people from mathematics and other engineering disciplines, that doesn't come close to 1.5 million slots that are currently occupied.

Where are you getting 1.5 million slots currently occupied? Read your own posted link http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_102.htm There are 3.9 million currently employed in computer jobs with 1.1 million job openings through growth and retirements over the next 10 years. If there is a shortage of computer science grads it's because of H1B's that keep wages down. Let the salaries go up to their natural levels without H1B's undercutting them and many more students will major in computer science. Simple as that.

If companies want to use foreign programmers then let them relocate to foreign countries. They could cut corporate taxes a lot also. Yet it doesn't happen. IT companies shouldn't get to have all the advantages corporations have from being in the US then buy off congress to allow using much lower paid foreign workers. If H1B is such a great program for companies then let the H1B's change companies for better opportunities rather than being indentured servants. That would give all IT companies opportunities to fill positions they say they can't get US workers for, not just the companies with buddies in congress. Capitalism at work, what could be better?

MMR says

tr6 says

We have the lowest number of doctors per 1000 people out of any developed nation.

25% of doctors in US are from foreign medical schools. This is because the US has kept medical school enrollment numbers artificially low for decades. That is not under the control of AMA, but rather the AAMC.

All AMA really has control of is the ICD-10 codes for reimbursement. The majority of Doctors in the US aren't even AMA members.

They are starting to increase med school enrollment, along with increasing number of schools, but it's only halfway effective, in that, it increases the number of graduates who are US schools, but doesn't increase the total number of doctors.

Also, the US doctor numbers aren't low in cities; the problem, as always is one of distribution. Having 40% of total residency positions in New York isn't beneficial to the areas that are underserved.

and why is there no increase in the total number of doctors? because congress capped the number of residency positions in 1997 and refuses to fund more ever since.

If you moved every residency position in NY to north dakota it wouldn't make one bit of difference. Doctors can work anywhere they want. Most don't want to live and work in the area's that are under served.

neplusultra57 says

Prove how President Trump will cause more GOP damage than candidate Trump.

And what would constitute proof that would satisfy you?
neplusultra57 says

If you can make that case then you’re making an equal case for President Clinton to help your plan to damage the Democrats.

Um, no. You don't get to assert causality.

neplusultra57 says

You’re just guessing and risking the composition of the Court to do it. Bad risk assessment.

In your opinion. Hillary Clinton has a very long history on being terrible on human and civil rights including supporting torture. As bad as Trump is, he's nowhere near that level of evil.

neplusultra57 says

But clearly you just want to punish Clinton more than the GOP.

I couldn't give a rat's ass about "punishing" Hillary Clinton whatever that means. I do care about the direction the Democratic Party will take in the rest of this century, and supporting the establishment at this critical juncture is not the way to force reform. If you cannot even discern my intent, which is clear, then how can you claim clairvoyance in regards to the effects of a Trump or Hillary administration?

neplusultra57 says

You still have it reversed that a Trump victory in any race would even remotely alter this corrupt corporate condition.

I make no such claim, but Hillary is clearly in the hands of her donors whereas Trump is not. More importantly, Hillary losing, preferably to Sanders but to Trump if necessary, is the best attack on big money this election can make.

neplusultra57 says

“A terrible despot” from Clinton? Don’t be absurd.

She voted for the USA Patriot Act, the single most vile act in U.S. history. She also voted for the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the second most vile act in U.S. history. And yes, I'm including the Fugitive Slave Act in this analysis.

www.youtube.com/embed/zNvtKKM902w

neplusultra57 says

For those who can count the die is not all ones (see above).

Obviously you have not been paying attention to the past 16 years if you think that.

neplusultra57 says

Why do you refuse to see how illogical your opposition to that path is?

You are not simply making a compelling case to believe that the long road of history will be better with a Hillary administration than with a Trump one. That's on you.

I have stated my case, which you have not addressed. If you are incapable or unwilling to understand that a path to success is not necessarily a straight one, that's your failing, not mine.

neplusultra57 says

It's outlandish" that you failed to recognize that in my statement

Honey, if what you wrote wasn't clear, that's also on you. I'm not going to get in a grammar argument with you. All I 'm going to say is that calling your opponent incapable of understanding nuance is a cop-out trope used when people cannot make any real counter-arguments.

neplusultra57 says

Dan8267 says

Hilary Clinton is as close to being a liberal, or even wanting to be one, as Hitler was to being an orthodox Jew. Just because someone is a Democrat does not make that person a liberal. Richard M. Nixon was more of a liberal than Hillary Clinton.

Given the above, this is just a throwaway. Please stop.

I don't remember Nixon being pro-torture.

neplusultra57 says

You should change your position.

I could never vote for someone who voted for the USA Patriot Act or the NDAA. Asking me to do that is like asking a Holocaust survivor to vote for Pat Buchanan. It's a moral impossibility.

If you don't want to see Trump elected, I suggest you focus your efforts into convincing the super delegates to nominate Sanders. Bernie brings in tens of millions of independent and centralist and young voters who will not vote for Hillary Clinton. That's your choice: Sanders or Trump. Don't blame us if Hillary loses to Sanders in the general election. Every single poll ever conducted shows Sanders slaughtering Trump in the general election. If the Hillary supporters want her so fucking bad that they are willing to risk a Trump presidency, then it's all their fault if that happens.

#BernieOrBust