Then don't bring it up.

We are all human and are all born such. So we should all be President of the United States? Or is there some level of competency associated with any job that is not being respected in this current position holder?
He has one claim to his job and that is his "jobs program" that nobody has bothered to ask him what any details about at all, in other words how did he do it. And very most likely any positive gain in that way was due to the previous administrations work as changes like that take years to show.
And it is obvious to me that the only reason he is President being as incompetent as he is? Is because he is White. If he were not? There was no way he would be allowed to run this country.
That's how I feel.

Yes, potential for less fun. So I will refrain from to much political back and forth myself......

I only said he was human! I didn't say he was right!

Please Hermit let this drop and let's get back to talking about Shadowrun!

Well they don't count for diversity, which is what Im involved with at some level. We dont have any pro or con immigrant policies. My situation is orthogonal to the whole which is why the 57% immigrants feels wrong. It would mean you would have to have some really large STEM companies with over 70% immigrants to make up for the software giants.

Heed your own advice, maybe? Seriously.


I'd guess that number puts native US citizens (locally summed up as white, i.e. of jewish, anglo or eastern european ancestry) against everyone else (native US nonwhites and immigrants, even those folded into the white demograhics locally).

Its orthogonal, we have over 50,000 employees internationally. We have hiring practices on gender, race and sexual orientation not country of origin. Which is why I said the 60% white male US citizens... Thats why the 57% immigrants seems high. Even with 20% white male immigrants your not going to have the other 20% all be immigrants. Some will but we happen to have women and non-whites as US citizens to! But again this may be unique to tech maybe biomed has 80% immigrants. i dont know.

[edit] clarification by orthogonal im saying diverity stats are statistically independent of immigration stats. So the numbers I see for diversity may not have any relation to immigration. The number just seems high from where Im sitting. Id believe 30% maybe you can convince me of 40% but almost 60%? The US only issues 65k HB1s per year. So of the 30,000 ish people at my company who work in the US your saying 20,000 hb1? that only leaves 45k for everyone else?

Someone posted a survey eairler putting the avarage amount of immigrants in the US workforce around 25% which I believe is a high estimate.
Given the Tech industry, which employes most of the immigrants from Asia, as much as 60% to 70% is loosing those employees as they are choosing to either leave the US when they finish their educations or going to another host nation for their education. As much as 70% are choosing not to join the US workforce or are leaving after 5 years.

Within the Tech industries IT had the higest percentage of immigrant workers, around the national average of 20%-25%. Nowhere else in the tech fields were there ever immigrant employees near the national reported average. The petroluem industry for example never had more than half the national average percentage of immigrant workers at the hight of the hiring boom which put them at a high of 15% over the last 40 years.

And given the security sensetive tasks within the tech industry, there is no reason not to expect those numbers to drop further, faster.
Outside the tech industry? Expect the same as the Tech industry.

And given the recent news concerning hacks, stealing of secrets,.... expect a faster drop. Unless people are comming here to do construction or technical careers that require manual labor something....Then the percentage of immigrant workers will bottom out eventually and even begin to climb.

Only if there was a freakish incident where you brought in 20,000 new hires all at once on H-1Bs.

A few points to remember:

That 65k is not in total forever and ever, but rather new visas issued per year.

Once a person has that visa, it is good for 3 years, but can be extended to 6 years. The following years don't count toward future quotas, they are rollovers so your new hire in 2018 with their shiny new H-1B does not count toward the 65K count on new H-1Bs being offered in 2019.

If they want to stay longer, they have to apply using the I-140 immigrant petition prior to their 5th year to try for their green card. This can take several years, so their visas have to be extended on an annual basis, but again this does not count toward the coming year's 65k quota as is just being extended on a yearly basis until a decision is made. If for some reason they go past their 5th year mark and try to apply for the green card then, it typically gets refused due to insufficient time remaining on the visa, they have to finish out the 6th year, go outside the country for a year and apply for a whole new H-1B which would of course be luck of the draw with the new quota applicable. So mark and check your calendars!

Plus the 65K cap is not entirely accurate. There is an additional 20k 'pool' of visas set aside for those with Masters and higher degrees that were taught in US universities so that potential graduates can apply and enter into the workforce.
There are also special agreements with various countries, for example there is another 'pool' of 5,400 H-1Bs offered to Singapore nationals and Chiliean nationals have a pool 1400 all of which is not part of the original 65K 'cap'.
Altogether just over 180K new H-1B visas were issued in 2017, which actually was down a bit from previous years.

https://immigrationhistory.org/wp-content/u...rend-tables.pdf

It also doesn't account for the massive increase in remote workers and outsourced contract labor.

One must account for how many of those are Temporary or Contract workers which overwhelmingly are US workers, high above the average.

nifty!

So based on your numbers we could achieve the 60% at my company by taking 10% of 65k pool per year. We still dont have anywhere near 60% of our workforce on HB1s but the pool seems less problematic especially when you take into account masters+ and that chart. Strictly for tech you have the big 5, then maybe 20 of us T2? which is going to eat up most of those.

So...Does this mean that Wireless tech is more hackable, or less hackable in the US?
*Takes out Trash and recyclables*

All politics aside....
It might be the worst of scenarios to have anything less than common worldwide development for medical tech.
They are not weapons after all.

It is the age-old question of proprietary software vs open source software.

Proprietary is supposed to be harder to hack, but then when a bug is found only certain people can go in after it to correct it.

Open source is easier to crack, but is available to more rapid support and indeed being open means weak spots are pointed out and corrected early on before they can be exploited for nefarious reasons.

Same would be for medtechs. Companies will want people to buy only their stuff are gonna want to have propriety software for their toys, while the medical field will want it more opened up to be common code/access, so whether you drop that Mercedes Artificial Heart or the K-Mart Kolon in, they all run on the same warez.

Medical technology (drugs, procedures, machinery) have a much higher up-front cost than software, though, both because the research that goes into their development is far more expensive and complex, and because they require literally a decade of testing, refinement, several stages of clinical testing (tissues, animals, people in that order) and then approval by dedicated agencies to prevent an Oxycotin from happening (deregulation agitators tried to break that down on the American side of the Atlantic, look where that got you). MedTech allows pretty much no margin of post-release correction. If your drug/procedure/machinery is somehow seriously bugged, that's it for you. All your research and testing will be lost, the product pulled, and you have just burned several millions on a dead product.

Software development alone (in case the software is the product, and not a piece, like with Boeing's 737max fuckup) can afford minimum viable product strategies. An OS that is instable as hell, a game that has nonworkable physics, a mapping software that claims berlin is in Egypt - that can be fixed, and nobody is seriously harmed. You can just patch it to functionality after rwecuperating your investment and generating some initial cash flow from up-front buyers. If the product isn't conceptually non-functional, even the buggiest of releases can be saved.

With MedTech, there is no such wiggle room. You can't introduce OxyPlus, now 30% less addictive, or Vioxx Mk 2 (now with a 30% reduction in strokes). Combined with the up-front cost, it'd be a hard sell for drug companies to then have their meds immediately go open source, so they sit on millions of investment cost and some generics producer in Hyderabad or Donguan undercuts their prices.

You can try and nationalize drug development, but that'd arguably bring less than optimal results, simply because large organizations usually lose effectiveness due to institutional friction (this goes for large corporations too, even moreso, by the way; see Boeing for an example).

Generally, an open source medical technology market is the kind of bullshit idea Silicon Valley fanboys have. Proper medical technology development has overheads far above and beyond the means of garage entrepreneurs.

You almost have no choice of open source or not these days. As an end user you can choose open source software for opensourceness then pick a platform run run it on. Most likely not open source. Cmmercial end users the same.
Now, for entire companies who develop software, the choice is either or for their dev infrastructure since many have both closed and open source interests, downstream. Then their products, services be it upstream development, or productivity are also a mix of open source and non open source.
The effect is a locked system that anyone potentially contribute to the common base is there. You just have to be competent.