[Charlug] WTF??

[Peter Senft]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Leam,

Leam Hall wrote:
> Peter, there's a mild difference between giving money to companies who
> are firing Americans to hire cheaper labor, and an Austrian who used
> Germany's historic wounds against the people.

Maybe it's a little bit far fetched but I see it that way. At the moment
the future is not written and therefor we don't know how this will
evolve. I hope it will not come to the worst...

> The issue is, who supports the bailout money? Certainly not foriegn
> countries that benefit from having workers here. if an American loses a
> job and pays taxes on unemployment and those taxes go to a person who
> replaced the worker, can you see how frustrating that would be?

Hmm... okay ....

The bailout money is supported by the people that pay taxes. So it is
more or less everybody and every company and/or institution here in the US.

Foreign countries of course don't pay for the US bailout. Why should
they? But please explain the benefit for the countries having the
workers here. Or let me write down some thoughts...

First of all the countries don't delegate the workers to be here on an
H-1B. I am just writing this because your statement reads to me like the
other countries are sending the people here.

Second, the home countries don't benefit from the stay at all.
- - They don't pay taxes to their country
- - They don't pay into their social system and might not be able to use
these systems afterwards.
- - A skilled professional leaves the country so the brain pool shrinks
Sorry, but I don't see a benefit for that country.

On the other hand I see a benefit for the US:
- - They pay taxes here -> bailout!
- - They pay into a rotten social security and medicare system that they
can never use
- - They bring their skills to the US
I don't want to sum up the downsides of being an H-1B.

Third, these workers don't replace US workers. At least not at the
moment. The currently working H-1B's made their application a long time
before the economic crisis. They are here to do exactly the job that the
company defined them to do. If that replaced a US worker then that did
happen *before* the crisis. And it is interesting that the companies
don't lay off these people first. According to the laws (that are most
likely bend by the companies) these people need to earn at least the
same than a comparable US worker. Why do you think these companies keep
more expensive workers...

And just to make my point clear. I sympathize with the people who are
losing their jobs. And I understand the frustration and fear of these
people. But is it correct to abuse foreign workers as scapegoats? The
issue is more the companies that made big profit now use the current
economy situation to lay off people. Who they lay off does not matter.
But a clamor like the one of the senator is dangerous! It creates fear
and hate against people that are not the cause of the issue. It is
distracting from the real issues like health care, social security and
at the moment the most important thing: creating jobs!


cu hps

- --
                           | Peter Senft
/"\                        | E-Mail : peter.senft at hpss.de
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign  | FIDO   : 2:2476/847.34
 X  against HTML mail      | ICQ    : 62090394
/ \                        | Powered by Debian Linux
                           | #185651 http://counter.li.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJkL2n8C47DFW4ANMRAnpiAKDPYZMi17Hp+bqF7dkZy2EEZAAiJwCgyvHT
s556tQ9sPSdsIoY8Ca10lbc=
=v4Sq
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----