Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Amazon.com, Inc. (AMZN) -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oeconomicus who wrote (159343)	9/20/2003 9:02:45 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 164687

What does restricting visas have to do with "offshoring"? Visa recipients are taking jobs IN the US, not overseas. Because the L1 visa is used to shuttle staff back and forth between here and the homebase country. Whenever a foreign team can't get a project off the ground, they are free to come here on an L1 (which was supposed to be used for executive technology transfer for multinationals), stay a month or two and obtain the necessary info/training etc. and return home. The L1 has no quantity restrictions, it is a free-for-all, the only limitation is that the stay in the US cannot exceed 6 mos. With the use of an L1, there is almost no reason to hire people here, with the exception of that rare job where somebody needs to be in a local office 40 hours. One of my companies engages in this practice, it is perfectly legal. My other company has not engaged in L1 "cross training" (this is what they call it), because the team has not had any deliverables yet. When we lost the manufacturing jobs in the 80s, we had 2 things that kept some companies here, 1.an issue with proximity to the customer, 2.and the IP theft problem. With the L1 visa, the first issue is now moot. We've made it so these companies can hire 100% offshore and turn the US into one large transient workforce of foreign nationals getting paid in offshore banks with local wages. But more importantly, if tax cuts don't stimulate growth and drive higher government revenues (as most Dems argue), then how would a payroll tax cut impact the deficit? I am proposing cutting the payroll tax to increase incentives for US hiring, which imo is the real reason for the deficit increase. The payroll tax alone is half an offshore salary. There is no reason to make the workers carry this burden, and it is just another reason not to hire a US worker.