From: Richard Tax (email@example.com)
Date: Thu Jun 08 2000 - 14:11:53 PDT
I don't see how you can claim we are anti immigration when we are here to
focus on a High Tech and Engineering Manpower Supply/Demand issue.
It is very easy to get into a name calling environment, but it will only
create problems and not solve them. Perhaps you enjoy being a problem maker
instead of a problem solver. Your tactics are those of a true lowlife. Shame on
All of your arguments and accusations apply so well when asked of those you
Joachim Feise wrote:
> Of course, Mr. Matloff Cc'ed his original answer to everyone on his
> list of anti-immigration advocates.
> Who are the "thousands of high tech workers" who share the same anecdote?
> Again and again I see you and your collegues arguing with some numbers that
> nobody seems to know except you. Apparently, these numbers circulate in
> anti-immigration circles, and at some point become "facts".
> And then you throw in another anecdote about recruiting at UCD, which
> again does not show anything.
> Just a consideration: maybe recruiting at UCD is down because the people
> already have jobs.
> It is known that all US universities have problems getting graduate students
> because of the worker shortage. People are leaving undergraduate curricula
> even before graduation.
> And why is the fact that a CEO said that they screen people something
> newsworthy? This happens all the time, in all industries. People apply for
> jobs they don't have the qualifications for, and they are screened out
> during the process. This has happened for centuries. Maybe you need
> an education in business management.
> Mark Mendlovitz wrote:
> > When thousands of high tech workers are sharing the same "anecdote", the
> > anecdotal evidence of discrimination becomes hard evidence. Consider this:
> > In the midst of an alleged "shortage" of workers, why is recruiting of CS
> > students (for programming jobs) at UC-Davis down for the second year in a
> > row? And Cisco's CEO just admitted recently that they interview only a small
> > percentage of job candidates. Why? On the other hand, there is nothing to
> > suggest a worker shortage except the anecdotes from a relatively small
> > number of industry lobbyists seeking to prevent a rise in wages, all in the
> > commercial high tech sector. The burden of proof should be on EMPLOYERS, not
> > employees, since employers are free to send work outside the U.S., while
> > most American are not able to get work overseas. What proof do you have Joe?
> > ------Original Message------
> > From: "Eric D. Sherman" <EricSherman@Alum.MIT.edu>
> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org, Norm Matloff <email@example.com>
> > Sent: June 8, 2000 6:55:35 PM GMT
> > Subject: RE: National Sign-On Letter to House on H-1Bs, U.S. Immigration
> > I have over 25 years' perience in the IT field, both in the U.S. and abroad.
> > In my personal experience, every word Norman Matloff has ever written has
> > been deadly accurate.
> > Moreover, Norm's positions have the overwhelming support of over 80% of the
> > American population. Even legislators have admitted that the reasons they're
> > taking their anti-American positions on H1B/immigration are because industry
> > is PAYING them to do so.
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Joachim Feise [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 08, 2000 2:46 PM
> > To: Norm Matloff
> > Cc: Adam L. Beberg; FoRK; email@example.com; RRivers297@aol.com;
> > firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> > email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> > email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> > firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com;
> > EricSherman@alum.mit.edu; KFran95011@aol.com; firstname.lastname@example.org;
> > RobSanz@worldnet.att.net; email@example.com;
> > DamonScott@cs.ucdavis.edu
> > Subject: Re: National Sign-On Letter to House on H-1Bs, U.S. Immigration
> > Norm Matloff wrote:
> > >
> > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2000 at 08:13:07AM -0700, Joachim Feise wrote:
> > >
> > > > > On Thu, 8 Jun 2000 firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > http://heather.cs.ucdavis.edu/itaa.real.html
> > >
> > > > > I remember reading this a couple years ago just after it was
> > presented.
> > > > > Unfortunately ever word of what he says is true.
> > >
> > > > Well, it is not.
> > > > Of course, the anecdotal things he quotes from newspapers may be true,
> > > > but given the way newspaper editors work, these things are likely to be
> > > > blown out of proportions and sensationalized.
> > > > Age discrimination sure exists in some instances, but Norm Matloff makes
> > > > it sound as if this is the rule, without giving sound (and provable)
> > evidence.
> > > > This is a bad approach, one that lobbying organizations take.
> > > > Because of this, everything he says in that paper is suspect.
> > >
> > > Hey, Joe, why don't you actually try READING my paper. There's
> > > a lot more than just anecdotes, with lots of cited data, graphs,
> > > tables etc.
> > >
> > > Norm
> > You may remember that we had the same discussion before.
> > And repeating the assertion that I didn't read it doesn't make
> > the paper any better.
> > In fact, I have read parts of it, but couldn't stand reading the
> > whole thing because my blood started to boil reading unsubstantiated
> > claims.
> > It still is a biased lobbying paper, and therefore not really worth
> > serious consideration.
> > -Joe
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 08 2000 - 14:24:26 PDT