This part of your comment on Russians is xenophobic as it implies some negative personality traits that are common for some nation.
> The only difference is they'll work for a fraction of the money and be thankful for the exploitation.
This part is also xenophobic for the same reason - implies that all H1B holders are "thankful for exploitation".
While it might make you feel better to tell yourself it's just a stereotype, in my experience it is real.
Of course it is. Xenophobia goes beyond fear of foreigners and often manifests itself via attribution of negative traits to a culture, usually something nasty and bad like violating laws. I encourage you to check out some definitions [1] for more details.
> and it might actually represent his experience of Russians.
Saying "In my experience, most Russians/H1B holders are" is just a form of confirmation bias.
If I said, "In my experience of living in Bay Area, most Americans are <insert some bad trait here>", you would be quicker to call out my B.S. and would be right of course. It's just Russians and H1b holders is a smaller group that is easier to attack like that.
> Stereotypes exist for a reason; it should hardly be surprising that people from the same culture tend to act similarly, and not all cultural traits are perceived positively by others.
Come on, implying that Russians are getting speeding tickets and damaging apartments and H1b holders are glad being exploited are not "cultural traits" by any measure, please.
Anyways, it is really disappointing for me to get to such a low point in discourse on HN where we have to debate the basics of being civil in our comments.
I've been overseas more than half of my life in different countries and can tell you every country and culture has is it's nuances, good and bad, which exist and can be very different and very noticeable.
alexk's use of 'xenophobic' was standard. That word no longer means the same as the sum of its roots.
H1B is not a skilled visa if anyone thinks otherwise. There is no merit system in H1B. An example for merit based skilled visa is Canadian Express Entry system.
This is difficult to prove without more data. Anecdotally, my Indian friends who moved outperform those who don’t. The red tape in India is formidable.
I am not commenting on the quality of the input; I don’t know, in that respect. Just outputs. Those who moved earned more, raised (or failed) faster, exited earlier, et cetera. Granted, very few were H1-Bs.
In the last 15 years, China's economy has gone from extraordinarily backwards and impoverished, to massive, increasing in size by eight fold.
What that means is, there is a lot more money to pay the best Chinese engineers to keep them in China. There is a lot more capital to fund local businesses.
Check out the workplace stack overflow.
I am not surprised that engineers want to leave India
Before the major immigration reform that was passed in the 1960’s (by President Lyndon Johnson, who unfortunately gets no credit) all immigration to the US was based on the color of your skin. The immigration act of 1960’s changed that to include other non-white countries.
But this misses the larger point, the current argument always seems like the US is favoring the immigrant, whereas historically US needs those immigrants more than they need the US. For the simple reason that, US needs to have population growth (most western countries as well) without which there would be almost no long term economic growth. Either that or they start schemes to have the current population produce babies like the world has never seen before.
So it’s really for selfish reasons that the US needs immigrants not the other way.
Ahh yes, the lesser known inscription on lady liberty, so long "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"
A Visa designed to let smart people come in would not need a quota.
Do you understand how abysmal your people's mathematics skills in comparison to average Asian countries? SAT math is like 7-9th graders' homework, definitely not high school level in Asia.
If they're so great, where are the results of that? The reality is, the elite math outcomes of Asia are superior to that of the US, no question. The bottom 50% of Asia barely has any formal education at all. Their extremely low economic development matches their extremely low educational development. According to UNESCO, 35% of all the world's people that are illiterate are in India. That makes it practically impossible to do comprehensive, fair comparisons with developed nations.
GDP per capita:
Myanmar - $1,272; 2% of the US
Cambodia - $1,389; 2.3% of the US
Bangladesh - $1,523; 2.5% of the US
India - $1,900; 3.1% of the US
Vietnam - $2,306; 3.8% of the US
Laos - $2,567; 4.2% of the US
Philippines - $3,022; 5% of the US
Mongolia - $3,500; 5.8% of the US
Indonesia - $3,858; 6.4% of the US
Sri Lanka, $3,905; 6.5% of the US
Thailand - $6,366; 10.5% of the US
Malaysia - $9,659; 16% of the US
Look at China and India today. By not getting involved in any wars, they focused on their economies and got themselves out of it. India is only 70 years old as opposed to 250 of United States. They are behind because the British empire robbed them of their wealth.
Asia is poor because of global circumstances, not because their education is worse than America.
In the last two decades, we observe rapid rise in Asian countries and rapid decline in America. Part of the reason is American disinterest in competing by raising their kids well. Americans want to spend more on war than on research and education. Meanwhile, away from wars, Asian economies finally reflect the growth that their investment in education should be reflecting.
Asian GDP per capita is also a flawed measure of anything. Life is cheaper there, production is higher quality (not higher quantity). Your use GDP as your ranking score is flawed at best.
Subsequant American wars - you're referring to how the US saved South Korea from being destroyed by the Communist north and equally impoverished? And how the US attempted to prevent a similar outcome for South Vietnam, as the North sought conquest of the South?
Or maybe you're talking about how the US helped save China from the Empire of Japan, and then saved it again from being nuked by the USSR in 1969? And then developed it with trillions of dollars in capital, and helped to open up and liberalize their trade through political discourse.
> Look at China and India today. By not getting involved in any wars
Be sure to let Tibet know that China hasn't gotten involved in any wars, and Vietnam too. And let Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia all know how peaceful China is, as China annexes territory from them the size of Texas through military force. Taiwan of course has lived under decades of constant military threats from China, with China intent on annexing that nation entirely against its will. It'd be like if the US spent the last 60 years threatening to invade and annex Canada.
China's protracted development backwardness in the late 20th century was caused by Mao's Communist policies. As those were abandoned and the Communist party liberalized its economic policies toward market systems and property ownership, China began to rapidly develop perfectly in line with that.
> In the last two decades, we observe rapid rise in Asian countries and rapid decline in America
That of course is not in fact demonstrated by the extraordinarily low economic development of the majority of Asia. Japan for one hasn't seen its economy net expand in 25 years; the US economy has nearly tripled in size in that time.
The US has not declined in the last 20 years. The US is the richest it has ever been in its history. It has one rival globally, in China. It remains the sole military superpower. The USD remains by far the global reserve currency. Its median net wealth is higher than Sweden and Germany. Its median income is among the highest on earth, as is its median disposable income figure. Its average individual net wealth level is #2 or #3 on earth. Its economy has outpaced nearly all other developed economies, including in wage growth. It has separately outgrown Europe, Africa, Latin America, India and Japan over the last 20 years.
In just the last 10 years, the US has added $4.5 trillion to its GDP. Now compare that to growth in Asia outside of China. That growth is equal to two economies the size of India.
>Or maybe you're talking about how the US helped save China from the Empire of Japan, and then saved it again from being nuked by the USSR in 1969? And then developed it with trillions of dollars in capital, and helped to open up and liberalize their trade through political discourse.
Hang on! You really think US was the super hero rescuing the world selflessly? You really really really think US cared about the people there instead of their own self interest? I'd like you to revisit history books not viewed from American lens, please.
> Be sure to let Tibet know that China hasn't gotten involved in any wars, and Vietnam too. And let Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, Philippines, Brunei, Malaysia all know how peaceful China is, as China annexes territory from them the size of Texas through military force. Taiwan of course has lived under decades of constant military threats from China, with China intent on annexing that nation entirely against its will. It'd be like if the US spent the last 60 years threatening to invade and annex Canada.
> China's protracted development backwardness in the late 20th century was caused by Mao's Communist policies. As those were abandoned and the Communist party liberalized its economic policies toward market systems and property ownership, China began to rapidly develop perfectly in line with that.
Sure. And they did it themselves, and they rose up themselves. What has America to do with it? How is this related to American education system vs Asian education system?
> That of course is not in fact demonstrated by the extraordinarily low economic development of the majority of Asia. Japan for one hasn't seen its economy net expand in 25 years; the US economy has nearly tripled in size in that time.
I kid you not. You keep viewing everything with GDP as a measure and that's silly. By most measures, quality of life in Japan is better than 20 years ago. Their GDP could be lower but who cares as long as life is better? GDP is not everything.
> The US has not declined in the last 20 years. The US is the richest it has ever been in its history.
Ask the poor in America if they believe it. Also, make sure you include national debt obligations in America's networth calculations. GDP is not everything.
> It has one rival globally, in China.
And this used to be a backward ass country only 60 years ago, was destroyed by world wars and basically had no allies globally. The fact that it took them on 60 years to become another global superpower should indicate something. Any other country with a headstart could've become a super power. Why did China? Why do you discredit their drive and desire to educate an entire generation out of poverty?
> The USD remains by far the global reserve currency.
And every day, there are articles about some countries exploring Yuan as another. Why is it that Yuan is even in contention? Surely either China is doing real well or America is doing bad or a combination of both?
Fwiw, I don't think global reserve currency is a measure of anything but if you're going to go down this route, I have arguments against it too.
> Its median net wealth is higher than Sweden and Germany.
Do subtract national debt obligations. Also, median networth means nothing unless it is PPP. Life is cheaper in Asia like I mentioned in my previous post.
> Its median income is among the highest on earth, as is its median disposable income figure.
Life is cheaper in Asia. Absolute values of disposable income is a useless measure. PPP is the measure. Look it up.
> Its economy has outpaced nearly all other developed economies, including in wage growth
Awesome. And "wage growth" is much much much higher in Asia year over year. Just fyi.
> In just the last 10 years, the US has added $4.5 trillion to its GDP. Now compare that to growth in Asia outside of China. That growth is equal to two economies the size of India.
I don't know if you understand math. But fyi, percentage growth is a thing.
Country A has 2% growth out of 100 = 102 Country B has 7% growth of 10 = 10.7
In absolute value, Country A grew more. In percentages, Country B grew more.
Neither absolute GDP growth or percentage GDP growth is useful without looking at the other.
I see that your understanding of the world is a simplistic GDP score. I'd suggest the following:
1. Learn math
2. Learn history of nations from non-American perspectives
3. GDP is not everything. There is more to life
4. GDP is not everything. There is more to life
5. GDP is not everything. There is more to life
6. Even if you think GDP is everything (which it is not), learn to subtract future debt obligations and to understand which countries are growing faster by making use of percentages and not absolute values.
You're really kind of proving GP's point that American education leaves kids underprepared.
Scale of war matters.
Neither world war had singular causes, they were diverse and complex, involving dozens of nations over long periods of time. That's particularly true of their origins.
The Vietnam War wasn't started by either the US or European powers. It was a civil war, in which the Communist North was attempting to conquer the South, as North Korea attempted to conquer South Korea, and Communist China conquered the Republic of China. The Vietnam War also was not finished or continued by the US; after the Paris Peace Accords, and after the US left, the North predictably proceeded to continue its prior military conquest of the South.
Middle Eastern wars haven't stopped for the last two thousand years. Who are you planning to blame that on? Who would be the non-guilty parties? China currently gets an immense amount of its oil from Middle East theocracies.
That is why the UK added Caste based discrimination to the anti discrimination laws.
You might want to read up on the subject http://chrgj.org/clinics/international-human-rights-clinic/c...
And it may come as a shock but racists have non white skins two.