[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Bill Gates doesn't want Americans working for him

From: Christopher Browne
Subject: Re: Bill Gates doesn't want Americans working for him
Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 19:05:29 GMT

Oops! (Devil's Advocate) was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> Christopher Browne <> wrote in message 
> news:<Fn_be.8143$>...
>> Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when "Yibbels" <> would 
>> write:
>> > Despite the fact that Microsoft receives $1 billion per year in
>> > undeserved tax breaks, apparently big Republican donor Bill Gates
>> > doesn't feel there's any reason he should employ actual Americans
>> > workers.  As the following news story explains, Bill Gates wants to
>> > do away with all limits on H1B visas, which are the primary visa
>> > used in the high tech industry. This would leads to a jump in the
>> > unemployment rate, destroy careers, and would lead to a rush to
>> > import cheap workers which would certainly put national security at
>> > greater risk.
>> If they are brought to the United States, then US law applies to their
>> actions.
>> If, instead, Microsoft were to move development to centres in India,
>> China, and Russia, then this would presumably have even more dramatic
>> negative effects on the US economy, since not only would this have all
>> the effects of importing H1B workers that you suggest, it would add to
>> them the considerations that:
>>  - Workers in these foreign places don't spend money on US
>>    services; they don't pay rent in the US, they don't buy American
>>    cheese; they don't buy American Big Macs; they don't buy American
>>    cars.
>>    As a result, instead of merely destroying the careers of all "high
>>    tech" workers, this would lead to wholesale destruction of the
>>    careers of workers in all sectors including auto assembly, handing
>>    out cheese samples at Sam's Club, as well as those specializing in
>>    assembling Big Macs(tm).
>>  - Workers in these foreign places are working in foreign
>>    jurisdictions to which US law does not apply.  This would 
>>    presumably enhance the "national security risk."
>> Alternatively, since the use of Microsoft software has historically
>> led to security risks all by itself, things that detract from the
>> security of their software might be hoped to have the salutory effect
>> of maybe causing people to notice the problems rather than continuing
>> to ignore them...
>> When the cost of computer hardware and Internet access drops to the
>> point where people in the Third World can start to afford it, this
>> eliminates the implicit "protectionism" that resulted from the fact
>> that it used to be that only the "rich" in the West could afford to
>> have access to computers.
>> The clear "fix" would be to increase the capital cost of owning a
>> computer development environment.
> I'm curious. America is one of the most exploitative, selfish
> nations on the planet. It continually tries to undermine any sense
> of community and collaboration between nations. It uses its superior
> fire power and commercial power to stomp all over other people. In
> fact, America on the world stage behaves a lot like Microsoft does
> in the software industry. Logically, therefore, you cannot be in
> favour of OSS and be an America patriot as that would be
> hypocracy. Am I right?

I couldn't possibly be an American patriot because the necessary
prerequisite is to be American.

I have met enough Americans to know that there is no characterization
that can be applied either safely or fairly to a people that have such
vigorous claims of individualism.

(Such claims are not always honest, mind you; there seems to be a
remarkable degree of conformism amongst those that most loudly
celebrate "Independence" Day, but I digress...)

At any rate, I won't try to attribute any particular attitude to
Americans.  That's their responsibility.

I do, however, think that if they seriously wanted to save their
industries from the Third World, they would look for ways to return
the industries to requiring extremely capital intensive infrastructure
as that is an area in which they have "competitive advantage."

Cheap computers and cheap development tools permit it to become
economical for capital-poor nations to "get into the game."

I suppose that means that there might be some sort of "American
patriot" that would want to destroy those regions of Taiwan, Korea,
and China that produce inexpensive computer components.
If this was helpful, <> rate me
"My pid is Inigo Montoya.  You kill  -9 my parent process.  Prepare to
vi."  -- Unknown

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]