> are you implying that if it was feasible it would be done already? You brought up the fact that there are 12 million workless, as a counter to Microsoft's de

> are you implying that if it was feasible it would be done already? You brought up the fact that there are 12 million workless, as a counter to Microsoft's desire to hire H1-B labor. If that's not to suggest they could fill those positions, what's the relevancy? > Microsoft could invest 40-50k a year into people who qualify for retraining either in house or at local universities and still come out ahead. Uhm, 40-50k a year is more expensive than full-time Harvard tuition. That does change the argument a little bit.