[wplug] this is just wrong

[redtoade]

> The article states that 600,000 IT jobs were lost in
> the US in 2001 and
> 2002.  If my understanding is correct, the
> employment visas were designed
> to fill a labor shortage.  So, given that we are not
> in a labor shortage,
> why should we continue to issue the same number of
> visas as recent years?

Well that's not quite what the president's quote was
discussing:

President Bush was asked a question about jobs going
overseas as a result of technological innovation. His
response was:  "I fully understand what you're saying.
In other words, as technology races through the
economy, a lot of times worker skills don't keep up
with technological change."

The question was concerning the export of jobs.  This
has nothing to do with immigration, nor the issuing of
visas.  It's really a stretch for the IEEE to use this
 interview to seed a lobbying campaign.  My
interpretation is that the IEEE is attempting to get
members all frothy with the fear of job loss to legal
immigrants with employment visas.  Which I think is a
cheap tactic.
 
> One point...Is immigration the same thing as getting
> a visa?  Isn't the
> point of a visa to work temporarily in one place and
> go back to your
> origins and immigration is a permanent move?  Sure,
> there are people w/
> visas who want to immigrate, but I would think that
> the majority will
> eventually go back to wherever in a few years.

That I don't know.  My experience is that the phrase
"legal immigrant on a work visa" is a common one.  I
just finished a job in Iowa, where my project manager
was a legal alien from New Zealand.  She was on a work
visa, and by law MUST return to her country in 5 years
(I'm not sure what the full term of the visa is.)  In
any case, the article specifically mentioned H-1B
visa, and with a little web browsing we could figure
out what that is.

> Anyways, do you really not think that the visa issue
> is a problem?  If so,
> why not?  I agree with you that the exportation of
> jobs is definitely an
> issue, however.

It's not that I don't think it's a problem.  It's that
knowing what the IEEE is, I am more inclined to
believe that they are spinning the quote.  Follow the
dollars.

> I do not see how "...a lot of times worker skills
> don't keep up with
> technological change." is the same as saying "there
> are simply few jobs in
> that career field right now".  To me, one says
> "there are jobs, but you
> don't have the necessar skill set to acquire it" and
> the other says "right
> now there are no jobs".  Did I mis-interpret what
> you said?

I can't determine from the reporter's question and the
president's answer what exactly anyone meant.  It
seems that the reporter was discussing the loss of
jobs due to what I was talking about earlier (800 tech
support lines, international VPNs, etc... where cheap
labor can be more easily utilized thanks to
technology)... and the president was giving the
standard party "blow off" answer so as not to offend
anyone, OR he completely mis-understood the question. 
And the IEEE was using the whole thing as an excuse to
enrage people into supporting their agenda.  But that
was just my take on it.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com