By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Should US companies be able to fire/layoff US citizens to hire a cheaper employee through H-1B visa ?

 

Should US tech companies be able to fire/layoff US citizens to hire cheaper employees?

Yes 10 31.25%
 
No 19 59.38%
 
Maybe 3 9.38%
 
Total:32

How degrading to be forced to train someone to replace you



Around the Network
MrWayne said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

At 4% unemployment, chances are that people with some specific educations are missing. Just look at Germany, where the unemployment rate dropped to about that, too, but where the industry is complaining for years now that there ain't enough people who learned manufacturing crafts like mechanics and electronics, which are thus in very high demand. Probably also one of the reasons why Merkel opened the flood-doors for the refugees in 2013.

However, they shouldn't be able to fire people first on a whim, but that's on US job security regulations.

I highly doubt that the lack of skilled worker in certain jobs played any role in the decisions she made back than, I also doubt that she wanted so many refugees to come.

"We don't have enough talent in the X-country" This sentence already tells you everything you have to know. Most of the time it is used when your own citizens don't wanna work in certain business because of bad working conditions and low wages.

Thing is, entrepreneurs and economists were already warning about that practically since the reunification, as more and more Germans decided that studying would get them a better job opportunity instead of manual jobs.

In this article from 3 years ago you can see where that is leading: even if all potential trainees wold find an employer, there would still be 15% open spots, and it's just getting worse every year. Or here, about 2013, where they describe how companies are trying to woo the trainees to their company with things like "business trips" to rock concerts around the world, company cars and good old hiring premiums - simply because there ain't enough for everybody. Several cities were especially short on trainable talents, especially in the eastern part of Germany, like Potsdam. permanently open spots that could not be covered with trainees reach at least as far back as 2008.

In other words, Merkel's open door immigration helped the country filling the holes in the manufacturing companies with fresh hirelings and trainees. Without them, I'm very sure the German economy wouldn't have been able to grow at it's current rate, as Germany would have been critically short on workers.



this is one of those situations where a nationalist attitude is deemed appropriate. we should not be handing out work visas to immigrants when there are US citizens looking to fill the same job.



MrWayne said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

At 4% unemployment, chances are that people with some specific educations are missing. Just look at Germany, where the unemployment rate dropped to about that, too, but where the industry is complaining for years now that there ain't enough people who learned manufacturing crafts like mechanics and electronics, which are thus in very high demand. Probably also one of the reasons why Merkel opened the flood-doors for the refugees in 2013.

However, they shouldn't be able to fire people first on a whim, but that's on US job security regulations.

I highly doubt that the lack of skilled worker in certain jobs played any role in the decisions she made back than, I also doubt that she wanted so many refugees to come.

 

"We don't have enough talent in the X-country" This sentence already tells you everything you have to know. Most of the time it is used when your own citizens don't wanna work in certain business because of bad working conditions and low wages.

Historically that is so true. However, we have another problem. We are about 2 generations into the whole "everyone must go to college" attitude of our educational system. What are we lacking? Tons of skilled workers in trades, like mechanics. 

As an encouragement, a good company will not likely fire you if your productivity is high and your engagement is meaninful and accurate.



In a strongly capitalist society the answer must always be yes.. profit before everything, but most of us are empathetic humans, so the answer must be a maybe depending how we wish to minimise suffering for all those involved 



Around the Network
NightlyPoe said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Thing is, entrepreneurs and economists were already warning about that practically since the reunification, as more and more Germans decided that studying would get them a better job opportunity instead of manual jobs.

In this article from 3 years ago you can see where that is leading: even if all potential trainees wold find an employer, there would still be 15% open spots, and it's just getting worse every year. Or here, about 2013, where they describe how companies are trying to woo the trainees to their company with things like "business trips" to rock concerts around the world, company cars and good old hiring premiums - simply because there ain't enough for everybody. Several cities were especially short on trainable talents, especially in the eastern part of Germany, like Potsdam. permanently open spots that could not be covered with trainees reach at least as far back as 2008.

In other words, Merkel's open door immigration helped the country filling the holes in the manufacturing companies with fresh hirelings and trainees. Without them, I'm very sure the German economy wouldn't have been able to grow at it's current rate, as Germany would have been critically short on workers.

 

Not sure where market forces driving up wages is a bad thing.  Doubly not sure why you'd want to import an underclass in order to depress wages.

Unless you're the person paying the wage.  In which case it's a crisis.

Driving wages up isn't the problem. And guess what: they continue to go up fast even with immigrants filling up spots.

The problem is that there aren't nearly enough candidates to fill the spots, which results in net productivity losses for the companies, especially smaller ones who can't afford such fancy ways to woo the staff they desperately need.

Victorlink87 said: 
MrWayne said: 

I highly doubt that the lack of skilled worker in certain jobs played any role in the decisions she made back than, I also doubt that she wanted so many refugees to come.

 

"We don't have enough talent in the X-country" This sentence already tells you everything you have to know. Most of the time it is used when your own citizens don't wanna work in certain business because of bad working conditions and low wages.

Historically that is so true. However, we have another problem. We are about 2 generations into the whole "everyone must go to college" attitude of our educational system. What are we lacking? Tons of skilled workers in trades, like mechanics

As an encouragement, a good company will not likely fire you if your productivity is high and your engagement is meaninful and accurate.

Hence the immigrants, who are much less likely to have a college education and instead very likely skills in crafts and trades.

Last edited by Bofferbrauer2 - on 18 February 2019

Bofferbrauer2 said:
MrWayne said:

I highly doubt that the lack of skilled worker in certain jobs played any role in the decisions she made back than, I also doubt that she wanted so many refugees to come.

"We don't have enough talent in the X-country" This sentence already tells you everything you have to know. Most of the time it is used when your own citizens don't wanna work in certain business because of bad working conditions and low wages.

Thing is, entrepreneurs and economists were already warning about that practically since the reunification, as more and more Germans decided that studying would get them a better job opportunity instead of manual jobs.

In this article from 3 years ago you can see where that is leading: even if all potential trainees wold find an employer, there would still be 15% open spots, and it's just getting worse every year. Or here, about 2013, where they describe how companies are trying to woo the trainees to their company with things like "business trips" to rock concerts around the world, company cars and good old hiring premiums - simply because there ain't enough for everybody. Several cities were especially short on trainable talents, especially in the eastern part of Germany, like Potsdam. permanently open spots that could not be covered with trainees reach at least as far back as 2008.

In other words, Merkel's open door immigration helped the country filling the holes in the manufacturing companies with fresh hirelings and trainees. Without them, I'm very sure the German economy wouldn't have been able to grow at it's current rate, as Germany would have been critically short on workers.

I heavily disagree with you last sentence. In 2018 roughly every fourth refugee worked in a "sozialversicherungspflichtigen"(social insurance requiring?) job which means the refugees a probably a net loss for the german state, I would go even further and say the the overall contribution of the refugees to the german economy is very little because the money the german state spends on refugees could be used a lot more efficiently if invested differently.

But all those things I stated above aren't that dramatic because we speak about refugees, they're here because they aren't safe in their own country and not because they contribute so much to the german economy.

Asylum is a terrible tool to combat the lack of skilled workforce and it was never intended to be one,  it's heavily beneficial for criminal structures and refugees have a huge initial cost before they can contribute to the economy.

What we should do instead is a) make a immigration law ,similar to those in Canada and the US, for skilled workers from non EU countries who can immediately partake in the german job market. b) We have to be more welcoming to those immigrants, I recently read about a Study who asked immigrants in different countries about their work and life and those in germany said the the working conditions are very good but they don't feel particualary welcomed in germany.
c) germany has on of the lowest fertility rate world wide, we have to make germany more family friendly. Financial security is very important if you plan to become a baby so we need harder restrictions for time employment and a better security net if you fall out of employment,  The possibility to work only 90% or 80% if you have little kids, etc



MrWayne said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

Thing is, entrepreneurs and economists were already warning about that practically since the reunification, as more and more Germans decided that studying would get them a better job opportunity instead of manual jobs.

In this article from 3 years ago you can see where that is leading: even if all potential trainees wold find an employer, there would still be 15% open spots, and it's just getting worse every year. Or here, about 2013, where they describe how companies are trying to woo the trainees to their company with things like "business trips" to rock concerts around the world, company cars and good old hiring premiums - simply because there ain't enough for everybody. Several cities were especially short on trainable talents, especially in the eastern part of Germany, like Potsdam. permanently open spots that could not be covered with trainees reach at least as far back as 2008.

In other words, Merkel's open door immigration helped the country filling the holes in the manufacturing companies with fresh hirelings and trainees. Without them, I'm very sure the German economy wouldn't have been able to grow at it's current rate, as Germany would have been critically short on workers.

I heavily disagree with you last sentence. In 2018 roughly every fourth refugee worked in a "sozialversicherungspflichtigen"(social insurance requiring?) job which means the refugees a probably a net loss for the german state, I would go even further and say the the overall contribution of the refugees to the german economy is very little because the money the german state spends on refugees could be used a lot more efficiently if invested differently.

But all those things I stated above aren't that dramatic because we speak about refugees, they're here because they aren't safe in their own country and not because they contribute so much to the german economy.

Asylum is a terrible tool to combat the lack of skilled workforce and it was never intended to be one,  it's heavily beneficial for criminal structures and refugees have a huge initial cost before they can contribute to the economy.

What we should do instead is a) make a immigration law ,similar to those in Canada and the US, for skilled workers from non EU countries who can immediately partake in the german job market. b) We have to be more welcoming to those immigrants, I recently read about a Study who asked immigrants in different countries about their work and life and those in germany said the the working conditions are very good but they don't feel particualary welcomed in germany.
c) germany has on of the lowest fertility rate world wide, we have to make germany more family friendly. Financial security is very important if you plan to become a baby so we need harder restrictions for time employment and a better security net if you fall out of employment,  The possibility to work only 90% or 80% if you have little kids, etc

@bolded: You got a link for that?

Also, I said immigrants, not refugees. Though of course tons of these came with the immigrants during the heights of the Syrian, Irak and Lybian wars.

a) Germany already has this

b) I think that's true more or less for every country, especially on first contact with foreigners. Best advice would be imo to get those people of different culture to interact with each other to destroy the fears and prejudices on both sides.

c) Which is also one of the reasons why there are shortages in manufacturing jobs. In fact, the politicians are trying for decades to get German families to have more kids, why do you think they are pushing the KITAs so hard for instance? It's because they can't go out and say "fuck more, you're dying out! And without children we can't guarantee the pensions anymore."; that would be political suicide. So they're trying to incentivise the families to have more children, with Kitas (so they don't have to take care of them all the time), Familiengeld, and so on. Problem is that it's not really working. Germans (and much of eastern Europe) seem to become more and more DINKs



Bofferbrauer2 said:
MrWayne said:

I heavily disagree with you last sentence. In 2018 roughly every fourth refugee worked in a "sozialversicherungspflichtigen"(social insurance requiring?) job which means the refugees a probably a net loss for the german state, I would go even further and say the the overall contribution of the refugees to the german economy is very little because the money the german state spends on refugees could be used a lot more efficiently if invested differently.

But all those things I stated above aren't that dramatic because we speak about refugees, they're here because they aren't safe in their own country and not because they contribute so much to the german economy.

Asylum is a terrible tool to combat the lack of skilled workforce and it was never intended to be one,  it's heavily beneficial for criminal structures and refugees have a huge initial cost before they can contribute to the economy.

What we should do instead is a) make a immigration law ,similar to those in Canada and the US, for skilled workers from non EU countries who can immediately partake in the german job market. b) We have to be more welcoming to those immigrants, I recently read about a Study who asked immigrants in different countries about their work and life and those in germany said the the working conditions are very good but they don't feel particualary welcomed in germany.
c) germany has on of the lowest fertility rate world wide, we have to make germany more family friendly. Financial security is very important if you plan to become a baby so we need harder restrictions for time employment and a better security net if you fall out of employment,  The possibility to work only 90% or 80% if you have little kids, etc

@bolded: You got a link for that?

Also, I said immigrants, not refugees. Though of course tons of these came with the immigrants during the heights of the Syrian, Irak and Lybian wars.

a) Germany already has this

b) I think that's true more or less for every country, especially on first contact with foreigners. Best advice would be imo to get those people of different culture to interact with each other to destroy the fears and prejudices on both sides.

c) Which is also one of the reasons why there are shortages in manufacturing jobs. In fact, the politicians are trying for decades to get German families to have more kids, why do you think they are pushing the KITAs so hard for instance? It's because they can't go out and say "fuck more, you're dying out! And without children we can't guarantee the pensions anymore."; that would be political suicide. So they're trying to incentivise the families to have more children, with Kitas (so they don't have to take care of them all the time), Familiengeld, and so on. Problem is that it's not really working. Germans (and much of eastern Europe) seem to become more and more DINKs

https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/fluechtling-arbeitsmarkt-103.html

I thought you were talking about those people who came in 2015/2016 during the refugee crisis since you mentioned Merkel and her decision. Obviously not all of them got the refugee status in germany but all of them were asylum seekers.

a) So far there were only a immigration system for non EU academics but very recently a new immigration law was passed, i haven't looked into it but maybe our government already solved that problem.

b)But Germany does significantly worse than other countries

https://www.deutschlandfunk.de/studie-auslaendische-fachkraefte-finden-deutsche-oft.680.de.html?dram:article_id=427415

c) I know that they already tried many different things but as you said, they dont work all that well but it's also not a lost case, look at France, they have a  fertility rate of 2.0.



Once American's realize that they serve money over all, I think they will willfully accept being outsourced.
If my investors want to make more money and American's are costing too much money I will replace them.
They don't mind. In fact, they endorse and would gleefully accept anything harmful to them if it makes someone richer.
I also taught them that knowing things is evil. They can't imagine a world where people were motivated by something besides money alone.

In all seriousness, If people don't give up on putting money before themselves, they are doomed already. Money as a medium of trade is sufficient, but its existence doesn't circumvent the existence of real people. It is an intangible concept (most of the time) that has zero worth outside of our perception.