> There are two sides to this debate: entertainment or information. Unfortunately, reading books for entertainment is ridiculous. You do not live in a log cabin on the prairie. You have Netflix, you have video games, you have TikTok, you have Twitter (you really spend too much time on Twitter anon). No one reads books for entertainment anymore, because paper is an inferior entertainment platform.
I'm not reading this article any more. The author is either nuts or a troll, maybe both.
Also, I think he admits to spending too much time on Twitter? Any time on Twitter is too much time. Even Elon agrees that it has gone to shit[1].
> H1-B is stupid on its face. You're seriously telling me that this software engineering job absolutely cannot be filled by an American? That doesn't pass the laugh test.
The job description is a senior full stack product developer fluent in all programming languages and frameworks. Salary is $70,000/year. Somehow they can never find Americans to fill those jobs. They'll go on Linkedin complaining that Americans are too lazy and don't have the right hustle culture and talk about made up concepts like work life balance when the bosses demand 100 hour work weeks without overtime pay.
That seems low. Is it a corporate strategy to set a low salary and when nobody local fills it (because it's below the competitive rate) they get to hire H1-B?
No, because H1B has pay requirements. As someone who went through the process with Amazon I can confirm that they definitely do offer you a salary that is in line with the local market. There might be lower incentive for raises down the line, but that's a conspiracy theory at best
By law. H1b requires the wages to be greater than the prevailing wage for similar positions in the region. They are published by DoL: https://flag.dol.gov/wage-data/wage-search
For this kind of experience, you'd be looking for level 2 _minimum_ and likely level 3. For King County in WA it's right now $149240 and $180710 respectively. Level 4 wage is $212202, btw.
The H1B requirements are even higher, but also WA state law requires software developer salaries to be 3.5 x minimum wage x 52 weeks per year. Currently, that is $124k+, because minimum wage is $17.13 per hour.
Our competitors in another country will have no problem building those products.
Then they'll be sold in America to American consumers.
Then our industry deflates, because we can't compete on cost or labor scale / innovation.
If we put up tariffs, we get a short respite. But now our goods don't sell as well overseas in the face of competition. Our industries still shrink. Eventually they become domestically uncompetitive.
So then what? You preserved some wages for 20 years at the cost of killing the future.
I think all of these conversations are especially pertinent because AI will provide activation energy to accelerate this migration. Now is not the time to encourage offshoring.
Immigration isn't "shipping the job to India". It's bringing the labor here and contributing to our economy. This might have a suppressive force on wages, but it lifts the overall economy and creates more opportunity and demand.
Offshoring is permanent loss. It causes whatever jobs and industry are still here to atrophy and die. The overall economy weakens. Your outlook in retirement will be bleaker.
If you have to pick between the two, it's obvious which one to pick.
And that's the general problem. People don't care about the overall economy when wages are going down and cost of living is going up. Even myself, I couldn't care less about the overall health of the economy. I care about being able to subsist mine and my family's life style, put food on the table, someday own a home, not live paycheck to paycheck because all the jobs are paying below a living wage, etc.
I'm extremely fortunate to make the salary that I do, but I know plenty of others not so fortunate, in other fields that don't pay nearly as well as tech does, and probably never will. The answer can't be "go into tech" nor should it be "let's suppress wages so labor isn't so expensive for our domestic companies." And obviously offshoring isn't great either.
We can still import talent without suppressing wages, by not abusing the program and actually only importing for roles that truly, beyond all reasonable doubt, could not be filled by a domestic worker.
Usually the next step of this failed discourse is to explain that locals are so entitled that they don't want to do hard jobs for the minimum wage, due to decades of wage suppression done thanks to immigration.
In France, being a cook used to pay very well, now that most cooks in Paris are from India or Sri Lanka, often without a proper visa or at the minimum wage, no local wants to do this anymore (working conditions are awful).
The industry then whines loudly about "the lack of qualified (cheap) workers"
Turns out this is a difficult problem with no one good solution. Subjecting labor to a race to the bottom is probably the most efficient individual system from a capitalist standpoint, but it destroys itself just as much as your customers can no longer afford to buy most of the products made. The selfish strategy ruins the entire system if everybody does it.
Capitalism and Communism have opposite problems. Communism attempts to manage the markets from a top down approach, making it relatively easy to handle systemic problems but almost impossible to optimize for efficiency because there is far too much information that doesn't make it to the top. Capitalism by contrast pushes the decisions down to where the information is, allowing for excellent efficiency but leaving it blind to systemic problems.
So the best solution is some kind of meet in the middle approach that is complex and ugly and fosters continual arguments over where lines should be drawn.
Innovation is why american salaries in tech are so high. They funded trillion dollar companies.
If that becomes so much of a commodity that some other countries can do it for pennies on the dime, then yes. Salaries will deflate. But we sure aren't offshoring (nor using most H1bs) to see more innovation. Quite the opposite.
Tech isn't manufacturing where the biggest supply line wins by default. That's why I'm not holding my breath that the US isn't going to be outcompeted on talent anytime soon. Of anything, its own greed will consume it.
I ran Starcraft 2 through Lutrus and it was a piece of cake. No lag that I could discern. There was a little mini launcher and everything. The multiplayer also worked just fine, although the matchmaking system seemed to think I was an expert level player for some reason and kept matching me with dudes who were way better at the game than I was.
To me, this is the one thorn in Linux (and the Linux online community) that gives me pause.
For the people that it just works for, well it just works for.
For anyone else, apparently they are the problem? Not Linux?
Well sorry no. I did get StarCraft 2 working with Lutris... once. Then I couldn't get it to start again. Eventually I switched to running Battle.Net from Steam and for some reason that did work. But it wasn't a "just works" or "piece of cake." It was a puzzle.
Maybe the difference is that I am running Ubuntu? Personally I think it's a common mistake for new users to jump on some obscure distro because they read something online where someone says it's the best. Even if that's true there is value in being on a popular distro in that bugs tend to be discovered and fixed quicker and there's almost always someone who has had the same problem you did and often figured out the solution just a web search away.
I think Canonical and the Gnome foundation have made some really bone headed decisions over the years, but I stick with Ubuntu because the mass of users on it means I never get left high and dry. Or at least I'm not alone when I run into a problem.
Yeah, I was using Linux Mint at the time. Which is based on Ubuntu... So that's often where I'd look for help.
Though any kind of documentation is like Linux, scattered and inconsistent. And I'm "OK" with that, as in I think the way that Linux came to be and is maintained, and provides user choice is also the reason why it's not "user-friendly" in every scenario. You can choose your distribution, and a lot of other things. And then look in a wide variety of places for bug reports, user questions, etc. You'll get a variety of answers from "it just works for me" to "change your distribution that you chose" to "even though some guides say to use Lutris, it's easier to just put it in Steam's external program launcher and choose Proton version x.yz."
Even then, not everything will work because it wasn't written to work (for Linux). It was written to work for Windows, and then some smart people rolled up their sleeves and found ways to make a great many things work for Linux, and it's all amazing. And I find using Linux (mostly) quite pleasant. But when things don't work... there's going to be friction. It will take user effort to find a solution, or a solution might not be found.
And for me personally, being someone who really likes to poke and customize and do things my way, Linux is a blessing and a curse, because I can guarantee I'll hit "weird edge cases" like trying to use the online multiplayer part of a game instead of just single player, or try to use my laptop's brightness controls, but they don't work, or I'll want fractional scaling to work, but it won't. And maybe there's a fix out there, or maybe not. Fixes like "it works for me" or "change your distribution", though, are non-fixes. They just frustrate people. If changing my distribution fixes an issue, how many new issues does it create for me?
Depends if your career depends on some facts not being true. Scientists can seem like a threat to you specifically if for example you need Climate Change to not be real. The last thing you would want is someone bringing evidence and analysis to that reality.
Human nature probably prevents that from ever being a reality, at least at scale. In a tiny tight knit community where literally everybody knows everybody else maybe you could pull that off, but even then you have to get a bit lucky.
In a world where anonymity is a thing there will always be at least one inherent shithead who ruins it for everyone. Even if you do have a community where it's true, that can change anytime someone has a kid or someone moves in.
AI is not unique in this regard. We just saw the same thing with the crypto/blockchain nonsense.
Regulation lags so far behind that you can get away with bad behavior long enough that, by the time regulation catches up, you can buy your way out of consequences.
I'm not reading this article any more. The author is either nuts or a troll, maybe both.
Also, I think he admits to spending too much time on Twitter? Any time on Twitter is too much time. Even Elon agrees that it has gone to shit[1].
[1] https://nitter.space/elonmusk/status/2013482798884233622