Increasing H1Bs certainly isn't Trump's stated position. While he hasn't mentioned it directly, he had Disney workers who were replaced by H1B workers speak at a rally:
Trump and Session's position (he's relevant since administrative reforms might well involve the DoJ, plus legal enforcement is all but totally lacking) is "Intel yes, Infosys no".
So it that's what actually happens (very hard to predict, especially if the Congress joins the game), their actions will harm body shops and their employees who directly replace American works like at Disney, and it's telling that that stunt was blatant and I'm told clear cut illegal, but not those who get a US degree or who are the world's "best and brightest".
In Sessons' 2015 law, he proposed to allocate the visas to the highest paying positions, which if actually enforced, and adjusted for cost of living, would go a long way towards fixing that problem (while still leaving a host of problems with this visa, although maybe some were addressed in the law as well).
The middle managers are given directions by the CEO. The CEO needs to meet profit targets, or she'll be fired by the board. The board is beholden to the shareholders. There's always someone to pass blame to.
When you go to work, you don't give up your moral agency.
The consequences for each higher level on that ladder are significantly less. Those with the least to lose, shareholders, have most of the power. Therefore those should be held to the greatest account. Those with the most power. The reason the system is structured this way is exactly that, those with most power make the rules. And pass the responsibility down the chain to the lowest peons. The recent disasters, well 6 years old disaster, like the Deep Horizon Well fire come to mind.
> Those with the least to lose, shareholders, have most of the power.
The shareholders have the most to lose, not the least.
Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan's $100 million stake in your company (for example) is worth a lot more than all of those jobs put together. That's why they have all the power.
Not sure how I should respond to this. On one hand yes that's true. But on the other hand to what extent do the Board of Directors of any of the companies that it invests in respond to the stock holder? The stock holders in that sense are divorced from the running of the company and can't be held to account, because they can't influence the company at all. Their stock managers might be to some extent be liable. Again it's about the amount of power that you have in what the company does that determines your culpability in my opinion.
There are lots of offices above the retail spaces on University Ave in Palo Alto, and have been plenty of small companies there for decades. I don't think people were upset about that. I suspect impetus for this ban is Palentir. More egregiously, they turned a huge retail/commercial space into their cafeteria. There are big windows in the front where you can see employees eating. Honestly, it's weird.
I think they broke an unwritten social contract: small companies on University Ave. are okay, but you need to move out once you grow up. You can't try take over and push everyone else out.
A while back, as spent 3 months sourcing my own candidates as an engineering manager and it was enlightening. I spent a while on each candidate, finding their github repo, personal webpages, and the roles they had held, then wrote a personalized note explaining who I was, what I was doing and why I thought their experience was useful. Out of hundreds of emails I sent, I got a handful of responses. I had a few takeaways:
- People with really good information on-line get tons of responses. Someone from LinkedIn confirmed that a small number of profiles get most hits.
- Most public information about engineers is total crap. Most LinkedIn profiles have no detail to determine if someone is a fit. I looked at the profiles of some of my coworkers who I thought were really good and there was nothing interesting in them. Most github repos have not substantive or interesting projects. Looking at github was a big waste of time.
- Being a recruiter is hard work. It's exhausting looking through profiles and dismaying to get rejected and ignored all the time, especially when you've spent time researching people.
- Often you need to contact people several times before they will respond, even if they are interested. I've found this even when I've been contacted by recruiters: I think "interesting, I'll get back to them" and forget about it.
Recruiting is a volume game. Carpet bombing is the only effective strategy in my experience, which is why recruiters do it. It's simply not worth doing that much research up front.
Also, bear in mind that the recruiting staff is usually divided into recruiters and sourcers. The latter are who are doing a lot of the contacting, and their job is mainly to find lots of profiles, not do deep research. Once they get a response, the recruiter takes over and does more of the relationship building and candidate vetting. Given low response rates, this is also a more effective strategy.
Yes, I do the same and it's a real slog. I feel I get replies from some people I normally wouldn't have - top folks. But most messages are ignored, even highly personal, friendly, relevant messages to people I'm connected to through a friend. I haven't given up on this strategy, but would definitely like to find ways to make it more effective. Even if they just clicked the LinkedIn "Not interested" auto response, that'd be an improvement.
we sourced all our candidates through https://lispjobs.wordpress.com . Given hard requirement of relocation to Australia Adelaide that was very efficient and pleasant experience.
We also tried recruiters and stackoverflow. One recruiter was very good at selling himself to upper management and was pushing unqualified engineers into our throats. Stackoverflow was less targeted than lispjobs blog, but much better than typical recruitment company.
lispjobs was so good that another our practice of flying candidates in to spend a week of hacking together after brief phone screen wasn't that expensive at all.
"The only problem is that electric cars won't do anything directly to mitigate global warming, because they will still be powered largely by fossil fuel."
But electrical generation is more efficient than an internal combustion engine in terms of carbon output. According to PG&E:
"Additionally, from well to wheel, electric vehicles emit approximately 66 percent less carbon dioxide (CO2) compared with internal combustion vehicles. CO2 is the principal gas associated with global warming."
My electric bill went up by about $80 the first month I got my electric car. Computing the cost is a bit tricky because I have tiered billing and I'm hitting the next higher tier since I got the car. My electric company (PG&E) does have an time-of-use billing plan tailored for EV, but, by my computations it didn't help a lot because we use A/C during the day:
I've had a Leaf for going on a year now and one thing I love about it is that I never need to worry about the inconvenience of stopping at a gas station. :)
But I'm with you that I don't really see the point of public charging stations. All the places I drive during the day are within my ~100 mile range (putting a charger at a grocery store, as they mention in the article, makes little sense given that). If I needed to drive somewhere that was not in my range, I sure as heck wouldn't gamble on one of the few charger stations being available.
http://www.computerworld.com/article/3039215/it-industry/lai...
His website suggests his policy will prioritize protecting American workers:
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration/?/position...
"Establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first."