| > What is your interpretation of this? Who would turn down the chance of cheap labor even without a shortage? The labor is not cheap. I have already explained this. > Demand is high. Why is the population count relevant? People are choosing other career paths, which means there isn't enough incentive to choose IT. It isn't. I bring it up because the parent brought it up. I think we are in agreement here. > You could, and why not? Are you implying India is incapable of producing gold-medal winning athletes? Most certainly not. > Not overnight, might it might in the long run. Why wouldn't it? I have already explained this. Please don't ask the same question for me to give the same answer. The only reason I am replying is because you seem to be genuinely interested in an open-minded discussion about this issue. > You mean the bodyshop abuse? Won't a minimum wage requirement fix it? No, I don't mean the bodyshop abuse. The problem: not enough Americans to fill vacancies in tech sector. That is the problem that this solution won't fix. |
Is this:
>> 60k is NOT CHEAP LABOR in most parts of the country!
You "explanation"? Because you didn't really respond to:
>> But if it is not cheap and is a decent salary, there should be no problem filling it with American laborers.
>> If there are such cases, I posit $130k is a low end start for their salaries.
Or to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13553710
> I have already explained this.
You haven't replied to all responses to those explanations (e.g. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13552944 ), and I haven't accepted some of your arguments yet. Can you point out which posts of your own you are referring to?
> The only reason I am replying is..
If you are going to take this arrogant tone, then take your own posts less authoritatively. It's not "open-minded" to lace your responses with such haughty barbs.