[markonthewall]

Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a byproduct of this political community's stability, of the infrastructure that was paid with taxpayer money, sometimes of the direct subsidies of the US states and their federal government and generally speaking by the direct or indirect economic activity that US citizens generates.

Simple as that. There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it. That's fine, it is the reason we also have law enforcement agencies.

In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on public funding to survive. I think people have an overwhelming amount of reasons to be pissed off.

[padiyar83]

> Because those companies are US companies, their very existence is a byproduct of this political community's stability.

Engineering talent (in US and other countries) is also a byproduct of that society's investment into educating its children. Arguably graduate education is also funded by tax payer money in these countries. So when US firms hire an engineer from India or China, they essentially are getting an engineer without funding his education.

> There is a social contract that exists and that holds together the civic tissue of this country. Of course, some companies are going to try cheating it.

Seeking merit (searching for a person who can do the job at a competitive price point) is not cheating. If UCSF does not offer good courses at great prices someone else will. That someone else could very well be a Indian or a Chinese university.

[prostoalex]

> In the case of UCSF, a public University that almost exclusively relies on public funding to survive.

Alternative view to that is that any entity seeking public funds should be frugal with those funds.

Would you accept a tax and tuition increase to double (or triple, or quadruple) everyone's pay at UCSF?