Because if we didn't we wouldn't have a tech industry?
The main problem with immigrant talent in computer field is that legislators don't understand the difference between IT and Tech product development jobs. IT jobs don't need immigrant talent, so companies like Accenture, Infosys etc. should not be given H-1B visas. But tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple, OpenAI etc. absolutely need immigrant talent, or they will lose to Chinese competitors.
> There are plenty of Americans who can do these jobs.
This thinking is wrong. For IT jobs, the work is pre-defined and you go find people who can do the job. For product development this is sometimes the case, but for truly innovative products, such as AI models, this is not the case. You have to hire the best in the world and give them the resources they need, as opposed to defining the project upfront and hiring people "who can do the job".
I wrote my first neural net in the late 90s. Based on nothing but an old geocities post some rando put up about training a model to only unlock a pet door for their cat.
I implemented the same and it worked.
Where you see true innovation I see run of the mill. OpenAI, Google, etc are propping up data center rental business they came to rely on to titillate biology with whatever spaghetti that sticks. That's it.
The interesting science isn't happening anywhere close to big tech.
The mathematics of LLMs exists in textbooks from 1950s. Your entire comment chain here is little more than reciting propaganda.
Why is it important that Google (or any of these large companies) only hire Americans for their jobs in the first place? They are global companies now, they make money from everywhere. Why is the insular "Americans only" idea worthy of consideration at all?
The law forces American corporations to hire Americans, various work visas are exceptions from the law given under certain conditions. It appears the companies are abusing these exceptions and violate these conditions. There is no such thing as a "global company" in the law, with the exception of foreign consulates all the entities that hire people in the US are American corporations.
How many “best in the world” people are we talking about, though? Based on what I’ve seen that’s a very small percentage (maybe 5%) while the rest were being hired by companies who valued having workers with limited negotiating power.
(I’m not opposed to immigration at all but it was transparent how for decades the industry resisted any change which would make it easier for a skilled H1-B worker to take a better job)
Sorry, this is 100% false. Companies like Google, Microsoft, Apple, Meta etc. do not hire H-1Bs in order to depress wages. That does happen, but not at these companies. It typically happens when hiring IT workers.
If it’s “100% false”, I’d think you could have addressed the point. Do you think that H1-Bs have had the same negotiating power as permanent residents and citizens? Do you think that companies-especially the huge contractors and enterprise vendors who hired so many of them—did not exploit them?
I’m not saying that there aren’t people who really lived up to the idea that the best in the world were coming here—I’ve known a few of them myself—but that there were a much greater number of people who were not in that class and it wasn’t exactly a secret that their managers knew they could be imposed on more than their equivalently-skilled colleagues.
You essentially have no data to back this up though, especially given the filed H1B/L-1 labor data for big tech is first year of employement with only base salary, which bears no ressemblance to what their wages will be even just 3 years in.
In the early 1990s a good software engineer was paid $40K starting salary, and good companies like Sun Microsystems paid $45K. If you adjust that for inflation it is around $100K. But good companies in silicon valley today pay $120K plus stock grants (so around $170K or so), and Meta and Google pay much more.
So software engineer salaries have gone up dramatically in the last 35 years H-1B visa has been around. In fact, the H-1B visa is the reason the salaries have gone up. Without it the industry would be stagnant, just like non-tech S&P 500 companies and most companies in Europe in the same time period.
Are you trying to argue that increased supply of labor is responsible for increasing wages?
As others have said, H1-B has been good for companies, and bad for American workers. The same companies who were found to be colluding to keep wages down.
Europe is stagnant because of regulation, not because of immigration.
> Are you trying to argue that increased supply of labor is responsible for increasing wages?
I am saying the reason silicon valley exists is because of the immigration of the smartest people from around the world. High Tech needs the best in the world, not the best in the US.
Consider the seminal research paper that kicked off the AI revolution (titled "Attention is all you need"). It was written by 2 Indians, 1 German, 1 British Canadian, 1 Pole, 1 Ukrainian, and 2 US born people. These people came to America, worked together and changed the world as we know it. Why would we want to stop it? Has this immigration been bad for American workers? Far from it. These immigrants are the lifeblood of the tech industry, without them the center of tech would be Beijing.
That H1B labour allowed other firms to build tech, which kept those firms competitive, creating a deeper economy and experienced bench.
That depth then enabled more advanced tech firms to be born.
At least thats what I think they are saying.
The analogy would be that China took over low tech manufacturing, and then because of that were able to develop expertise to move up the value chain.
At the same time, supply demand curves are real. If you have more workers, it should result in competition that drives down wages. (ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL)
There was a distinction being made between Tech and IT, which I am not too sure about.
> If you have more workers, it should result in competition that drives down wages. (ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL)
Sort of a meaningless statement when all things are definitely not equal.
If there are 5 million people in a country, or 200 million, the theory of too many workers means the 5 million people country should be paying everyone vastly more.
But that is trivially untrue.
Economies grow and shrink and adapt around the number people.
> Sort of a meaningless statement when all things are definitely not equal.
Hey, don’t look to me for a defense of the weaknesses of economic models.
At the same time you can’t really discuss complex systems like economies where one part affects another, without holding some of the factors in stasis.
Centris paribus does extreme amounts of heavy lifting.
I'm not opposed to hiring the cream of the crop using H1Bs, but that would only be a few thousand people a year. The vast majority of H1Bs though are people taking jobs that Americans can definitely do.
Not sure how you came to draw this conclusion, as there's lots of data out there showing droves of Computer Science graduates here in the states unable to land jobs.
I think that data captures the fact that there are more people being handed degrees without an education than there are jobs. Especially when there are thousands of mid career people on the market right now.
Outside of the Default country what you call product development is a part of IT, along with QAs, SDETs, Devops and others. All of that is IT globally. And what USA calls IT is called system administration or something similar.
We had a tech industry prior to H1Bs before the 90s. What we didn't have was Silicon Valley corporatism that doesn't value American labor nor American education. It's why SV is so gun-ho on charter schools and devaluing American labor.
Let's not act like we need to import 80k "high tech" workers that amount to writing react components and spring endpoints.
Hardly anything hard that we couldn't force companies to train workers to do, but they don't want to ever help people they just want to suck up all the money in the room while decimating entire populations.zzzzzzz
Also, as an American I don't really benefit if US corporations are doing "better." How does that help the person that can't pay for healthcare or afford to go to school, but they sure can get their serving of Zuckerberg slop? I'm supposed to care about these companies success? Really? I hope they go down in flames.
The problem is that the rich and elite have captured and dictated American tech policy for far too long.
It is interesting to see the different views on immigration. Here in the UK, leading up to the brexit vote, everyone said blue collar workers were the problem, because they depressed wages for the poor and made the middle class richer because they could build cheaper houses, pick cheaper crops, etc.
In Singapore, the rage is mostly against higher earner immigrants, because they take all the good jobs, making the middle class in Singapore poorer.
I'm sensing a bit of a mix in your US centric argument.
All in all, a lot of people just hate immigration, always have, always will. It is a topic as old as time.
> How does that help the person that can't pay for healthcare or afford to go to school
How would you like to make t-shirts for rich Chinese, for $5 an hour? There is a reason Americans are not doing that. It is because we are smarter than the rest of the world. How do you think that happened? Were all the smart people born here? Nope. It is because smart people born around the world immigrated here. The prosperity they bring doesn't only help high tech workers, it feeds the economy, so everyone benefits.
I mean we aren't doing it because capitalists decided they would rather move the factories outside of the country because they don't care about workers.
Americans are absolutely willing to work in factors, but capitalists want chattel slave workers instead.
Your view of history is farcical, acting as if American workers had any real say in their countries industrial capacity rather than a few thousand people decided to inflict mass poverty to tens of millions of Americans.
We would absolutely have a tech industry. The richest people on the planet, however, would make slightly less money. It is not an exaggeration to say this is what the entirety of American society is based on right now.
> But tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple, OpenAI etc. absolutely need immigrant talent, or they will lose to Chinese competitors.
Let them lose.
Google and the rest do not prop up humanity. They prop up a financial engineering Ponzi scheme.
You're just parroting media and social tropes you grew up with.
We could assert in our children social truth about other forms of economics; for example, healthcare as a tent pole rather than stock valuations; still requires technology and jobs and we don't remain the last modern economy on the planet without universal healthcare. We're losing to Russia and China in healthcare.
But thankfully we win when the metric phallic rockets to nowhere and Google search uptime?
You should consider your economic benchmarks and their provenance; a bunch of self selecting biological organisms that we socially describe as billionaires have convinced you via their fear mongering that if we don't give them all the power giant foot will step on us
Climate change policy was a valiant effort to de-influence authoritarian petrostates and prevent Russia from achieving its multi-century goal of expanding its access to actual warm water ports. The major conflicts between Russia and Japan were essentially over that. It's why Japan even attacked Korea, because Russia was trying to gain influence there and it was an essential launching off point if Russia was ever going to attack Japan.
If climate has already changed so much that Russia's ports are no longer going to freeze, then green energy initiatives may just put us at a disadvantage since we don't manufacture most of the products. Solar panels, wind turbines, we don't control a lot of that supply chain which isn't healthy.
There are other advantages to renewable energy, but at the moment the USD benefits from oil reliance and transitioning away from oil while maintaining USD influence is an important goal.
At the same time, oil infrastructure does tend to have a lot of weak points, where renewable energy can be easier to spread out. Eventually I think it will be relegated to military and byproducts more, but for now there is an abundant supply.
Blows me away that energy policy is so political, and that somehow self-styled libertarians who don’t say a peep about oil subsidies are deeply offended by renewable ones. It you consider yourself libertarian can you at least be forward-thinking enough to see that shifting to renewables is also a step towards decentralization?
> How is it decentralization
Producers of electricity being everywhere is more distributed than relatively centralized power generation stations. Regardless of who paid (part of) it
The technologies for renewable energy are inherently more decentralized than those for fossil fuels. My point was clearly this and nothing else: given that there are subsidies for both, a libertarian should be less upset about renewable subsidies since it is an enabling force for individual liberties when it comes to energy production. In practice, they are very outspoken about renewable subsidies and fairly quiet on oil subsidies.
I think you are talking about a different sort of decentralization than libertarians talk about, maybe?
Libertarians want decentralized political/coercive power. When the government is paying for power generation in smaller amounts at larger numbers of locations that's not decentralizing the governments political/coercive power.
And again, I can't imagine a libertarian who when questioned would be ok with oil subsidies. Point them my way and I'll give them a stern talking to.
There are two types here: (1) Pardons for crimes not yet committed. (2) Pardons for crimes committed, but not yet convicted. The first type will allow the pardoned to commit a crime in the future for free, which obviously should not be allowed. The second should be allowed if we have this pardon system at all.
The second type became a political necessity, for example to protect Liz Cheney from a vengeful administration.
The notion itself that someone needs to be protected by a 'vengeful administration', while judicial system should be not politically affiliated is telling how broken the whole separation of powers is. Everyone who is a ruling party puts candidates they know aligned with their views, resulting in 'just wait until my turn comes and I will do as much as damage as possible' cycle.
> puts candidates they know aligned with their views, resulting in 'just wait until my turn comes and I will do as much as damage as possible' cycle.
There is exactly one party in the US that does this, and it's because they have dedicated themselves to blocking the other party from accomplishing much of anything when they get power.
Hilariously (to me, anyway) — I genuinely don’t know which party you’re talking about. It could truly be either, depending entirely on which party you support.
Waiting for the day when both the Democrats and Republicans are so very obviously shitty to even the most uninformed voter that we get some new thought in office instead of two sides of the same coin that are both beholden to capital and to foreign interests
As long as our voting system is "first past the post", it will be nigh impossible for a third party to make any significant headway. IMO Citizens United and first past the post are the two main issues holding the US back from any kind of significant overhaul or change.
Nearly everyone believes their side is the moral one. Only one side currently refuses to admit the other side might not actually be evil, just foolish.
No. While I don’t like Trump and never did, several of the prosecutions against him were political. By political, I mean they would not have happened if he had not become a politician, in fact, they didn’t until he became one and an unpopular one at that.
> they would not have happened if he had not become a politician
That is a little vague. Some of his crimes only happened because he became a politician, so of course the prosecution would be seen as political in that sense. What I would like to know is which crimes did he commit that were only prosecuted because he was a politician, which would otherwise have been ignored?
One seems to be New York v. Trump, which was a civil lawsuit instead of criminal. The main charge in the case was overstatement of real estate values to secure loans, yet the banks lending the money (mainly Deutsche Bank, if I remember correctly) were sophisticated lenders who were capable of assessing those estimates and the risk of lending. The banks not only did not lose money from the transactions but in fact happily made money, and they had no complaint about the deals they'd made with Trump. These were all private deals between sophisticated parties who knew what they were doing, and everyone made money. So, no bank suffered harm leading to the charge and no bank lodged any complaint against Trump—the prosecutor went looking for something with which to charge him, and this was the best she could find.
> main charge in the case was overstatement of real estate values to secure loans
> The banks not only did not lose money from the transactions but in fact happily made money, and they had no complaint about the deals
The first part is either a crime, or it is not, regardless of the second? Suppose I falsely say I am worth millions, and then actually win the lottery. It being true later doesn't change whether it was lie originally.
That's exactly why my first point was that it was a civil lawsuit brought by the Attorney General, not a criminal case: the underlying overstatement of real estate values was not charged as the crime of fraud, which would have required more proof including proof of intent and actual harm—of which the former would have been hard to prove, and the latter did not exist. The District Attorney (who handles criminal matters like fraud) decided there was no criminal case, but the Attorney General took it as a civil matter despite there being no criminal case and nobody unhappy about the deals. It was purely a political prosecution.
Crimes that are not known about are frequently not punished.
Rubbing it in everyone's face is not a great idea.
But, and this is the much more important point you are missing, is the difference between prosecuted for a crime you comitted regardless of how people learnes about it, and using completely unfounded accusations in order to use the prosecution itself as a punishment.
Trump has been prosecuted, several times, for actual crimes he committed. Hilary clinton as an example, had to deal with the obviously fake prosecution attempts of benghazi and email servers.
This is a gigantic and meaningful difference.
Have other people done some of these trump crimes and not gotten prosecuted? Sure, but that's not exactly a good thing.
Directing the doj to manufacture crimes in order to prosecute is much much worse.
A prosecution can be political even if a crime or tort was committed. Our government prosecutes only a small percent of committed crimes.
If Donald Trump had not run for President, or even had just been a normal President, or maybe even if he’d have done everything he did except for cause January 6, he absolutely would never have been prosecuted for this. The justice system was weaponized against him, even if he was actually guilty, which he surely was.
You may be right that they were political in that sense.
But also, they probably should have happened were he not a politician. He's been committing fraud and other white collar crimes for quite a while. Unfortunately, we go far too easy on white collar crime in this country. And he's a master of plausible deniability, where he effectively asks other people to commit crimes on his behalf, but in a plausibly deniable way with no written trail.
> I mean they would not have happened if he had not become a politician
His wife in the 1990s accused him of rape and intended to sue him as part of the divorce proceedings. She changed her words when she obtained a generous divorce settlement, moving from outright rape to "not in the criminal sense, I just felt violated".
That was over 20 years before Trump gained political relevance.
Which of the prosecutions were political hit jobs? Enumerate which of the federal and state crimes that Trump was convicted were actually politcal hit jobs.
Your definition of political ("not happening if he wasn't a politician") is not what that definition is.
(2) Do you mean not yet charged or not yet convicted ?
Because I can get you would want to shield some people from persecutions (just or unjust) from your successor, but I see no reason why you would be able to pardon someone charged but waiting for trial. This makes a mockery of justice, the public can't discover the facts but more importantly: why pardon someone that is still considered innocent ?
> a political necessity, for example to protect Liz Cheney
IANACL but surely there are other ways to protect people from politically motivated prosecutions? E.g. jail anybody attempting to direct the DOJ for personal or political reasons?
The DOJ is part of the executive - so it is fiction that it was ever apolitical. RFK was JFKs brother, do you think they weren't coordinating DOJ's investigations into political opponents? (e.g. Jimmy Hoffa)
Congress created the DOJ, It is their job to police it. They can defund or even eliminate it. That's the check on it.
You don't need to rein in their authority. Congress should have authority to delegate when needed.
What is needed is that voters need to hold congress accountable. People get royally pissed that "Government sucks and doesn't do what it needs to do" and then vote for people who openly say they will make the government suck.
The people who voted for Trump to do exactly what he is doing right now spent the past 50 years voting for Congress people who could legally and democratically do exactly what they wanted and just chose not to do it.
Clinton's admin cut the budget with a bipartisan congress back in the 90s. Suddenly supposedly that can't happen? Maybe that has something to do with the party that has expressly and openly declared bipartisanship to be verboten.
Instead, the voting public seems to be utterly ignorant of how our governments, big and small, work. This is insane, as I know each and every one of these people read the same chapter of a 6th grade Social Studies textbook and other people learned this through childrens songs. There's just no excuse.
Yeah, but it seems those other protections would/could possibly be a coin toss (eg a successful defense in a trial) and quite costly even if they never get to that stage, and you need a bit more certainty than that. Otherwise help can only come from those willing to become martyrs
(3) Morally highly questionable pardons of convicted criminals who committed high crimes. Preferably questioned by a well-functioning ethics commission for things like, well, conflicts of interest, corruption, and the like.
You are asking if it was necessary to protect Liz Cheney? Have you not seen the lengths to which Trump is going to punish Comey? Trump even fired Bondi because she was ineffective in targeting his opponents.
In 2021, convicted fraudster Adriana Camberos was freed from prison when President Trump commuted her sentence. Rather than taking advantage of that second chance, Ms. Camberos returned to crime. She was convicted again in 2024 in an unrelated fraud. In 2026, Mr. Trump pardoned her again.
To an obstinate person maybe, but to the person being commuted with a conviction on their record vs a person that has a clear record it is more than a difference with no distinction
You can use React in an MVC framework, with React used to implement the 'V' in MVC. You can use class components, and the code becomes extremely simple. Business logic is moved to 'M' layer (models) and the 'C' layer (controllers) coordinates everything. No hooks or other messy stuff needed.
In fact, React was originally designed to be used this way (as the V in MVC)!
You can do this pretty simply with hooks and reducers, where the reducer/dispatch are the model/controller.
Class components have their own pitfalls when you start messing around with componentDidUpdate, which was part of the motivation behind functional components IIRC.
I will say that I used to really not like hooks and that’s because I think the migration documentation and messaging was handled pretty poorly.
That being said, if you’ve worked with state management like Redux, I would argue that hooks are pretty similar to how you hook up that kind of data store.
The main problem with immigrant talent in computer field is that legislators don't understand the difference between IT and Tech product development jobs. IT jobs don't need immigrant talent, so companies like Accenture, Infosys etc. should not be given H-1B visas. But tech companies like Google, Meta, Apple, OpenAI etc. absolutely need immigrant talent, or they will lose to Chinese competitors.
reply