4 ms·

Everytime, I read hacker news comments, I feel like the folks in Silicon Valley are dense to the fact that there is an entirely different IT Industry out there

Everytime, I read hacker news comments, I feel like the folks in Silicon Valley are dense to the fact that there is an entirely different IT Industry out there providing services to Fortune 500's that are not Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Amazon and other technology companies. etc. Cringley is talking about the technology companies who provide technology services to the other companies, not customer facing companies. >All the colored faces in Google and Facebook aren't there because they are accepting less money than American graduates No they are definitely not, but they ARE at Verizon, Disney and ExxonMobil.

mc32 11y ago
They are also at the companies founded by local arms of foreign companies. I've observed Chinese companies paying Chinese speaking workers and Indian founded companies paying Indian nationals less than they paid Americans (of varying ethnicities). On my limited observation, this practice is not uncommon. And, as we know, small and medium sized biz employ more people than do large firms. This wage variance is little mentioned but quite prevalent. Same as the hole in the wall taco joint run by foreign nationals, they tend to exploit their own the most taking advantage of national affinity or whatever.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
- supercanuck 11y ago
  He does make a distinction, but this is a case of people hearing what they want to hear. He says HP and IBM half a dozen times, and uses the Airline industry as an analogy, so then why would the reader draw the conclusion that he means Google and Facebook? Does that comparison even make sense? I doubt Googlers refer themselves as "IT Professionals." I'd even go so far as to think they may consider the title a bit insulting and at the very least wince a bit, at being referred to as such.
TheMagicHorsey 11y ago
I've never heard a good argument for why we should allow cheap foreign t-shirts into the country but not cheap foreign workers. Is it even a good idea to allow in cheap lumber, oil, rubber, tea ... if we can't allow in cheap labor? What arguments apply to the former, but not to the latter? In terms of inputs to generate national wealth, there is not much technical distinction between cheap raw materials and cheap labor--although possibly there is an effect on human beings. Cato Institute's studies would suggest that immigration--especially H1B immigration has not had an appreciable effect on American wages. But lets say that Cato is wrong .... even so ... the problem that must be solved is making sure that the gains from cheap inputs for growth are spread across everyone, and not concentrated only amongst a few. We should discuss things basic income. Not cutting off cheap inputs. Making more for less is not inherently bad. Ultimately tariffs and labor controls are all along a sliding scale towards closed borders. The ones that make the most noise are insulated the most from external competition. But the insulation is not good for the rest of consumers in America ... only for the noise makers. And even for them, I don't think its good ... as auto unions in Detroit will tell you ... eventually reality catches up no matter how much Washington does to insulate you from the world. I don't think a country is better off with closed borders. Various countries have tried that in history (Tokugawa Japan, China before the Opium wars, etc.) I think if everyone is trading and competing, and you isolate yourself behind tall walls, the world leaves you behind. On a small scale that happened to our auto industry. Too much insulation from hot competition is bad in the long run. You might wake up from your Rip Van Winkle nap and find that decades later your technology and society are woefully outdated.

mc32 11y ago

They are also at the companies founded by local arms of foreign companies. I've observed Chinese companies paying Chinese speaking workers and Indian founded companies paying Indian nationals less than they paid Americans (of varying ethnicities). On my limited observation, this practice is not uncommon. And, as we know, small and medium sized biz employ more people than do large firms. This wage variance is little mentioned but quite prevalent. Same as the hole in the wall taco joint run by foreign nationals, they tend to exploit their own the most taking advantage of national affinity or whatever.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

supercanuck 11y ago
He does make a distinction, but this is a case of people hearing what they want to hear. He says HP and IBM half a dozen times, and uses the Airline industry as an analogy, so then why would the reader draw the conclusion that he means Google and Facebook? Does that comparison even make sense? I doubt Googlers refer themselves as "IT Professionals." I'd even go so far as to think they may consider the title a bit insulting and at the very least wince a bit, at being referred to as such.

TheMagicHorsey 11y ago

I've never heard a good argument for why we should allow cheap foreign t-shirts into the country but not cheap foreign workers. Is it even a good idea to allow in cheap lumber, oil, rubber, tea ... if we can't allow in cheap labor? What arguments apply to the former, but not to the latter? In terms of inputs to generate national wealth, there is not much technical distinction between cheap raw materials and cheap labor--although possibly there is an effect on human beings. Cato Institute's studies would suggest that immigration--especially H1B immigration has not had an appreciable effect on American wages. But lets say that Cato is wrong .... even so ... the problem that must be solved is making sure that the gains from cheap inputs for growth are spread across everyone, and not concentrated only amongst a few. We should discuss things basic income. Not cutting off cheap inputs. Making more for less is not inherently bad. Ultimately tariffs and labor controls are all along a sliding scale towards closed borders. The ones that make the most noise are insulated the most from external competition. But the insulation is not good for the rest of consumers in America ... only for the noise makers. And even for them, I don't think its good ... as auto unions in Detroit will tell you ... eventually reality catches up no matter how much Washington does to insulate you from the world. I don't think a country is better off with closed borders. Various countries have tried that in history (Tokugawa Japan, China before the Opium wars, etc.) I think if everyone is trading and competing, and you isolate yourself behind tall walls, the world leaves you behind. On a small scale that happened to our auto industry. Too much insulation from hot competition is bad in the long run. You might wake up from your Rip Van Winkle nap and find that decades later your technology and society are woefully outdated.