hwstar

We should keep the system in place that we have at the US federal level, but add initiative, referendum, and recall. This allows the citizens to "correct" the legislators, and allows more controversial laws to be passed which legislatures typically avoid.

The only problem I see with this is keeping the moneyed special interests at bay.

The "Opulent Minorities" rights should be balanced with mob rule. Unfortunately in the US today, the Opulent Minority decides the laws for the rest of us, unless there is nearly unanimous dissent.

If I weren't in San Diego and in SV or SF instead, I'd move to another city like Los Angeles, or where I am now. Most other US states allow noncompetes. I won't sign a noncompete so unless they'll let me work without one, I won't be working outside of California.

Additionally, California labor laws are more employee friendly when compared to other states.

I know this limits my choices as businesses are leaving California due to the employee-friendly labor laws and the high cost of housing, but I'm semi-retired anyway so it doesn't matter to me. I can be choosy when it comes to taking a job.

Ideal Scenario--

People win:

The constitution and the tax laws are changed to promote redistribution.

Capitalists Win:

Things continue as they are.

Most likely Scenario--

Regional and Civil Wars are fought over the extreme income inequality.

People Win: Laws and the constitution are subjected to root and branch reform. Capitalists are thrown in jail or executed.

Capitalists win: A world wide totalitarian government set up by the capitalists.

Most dystopian scenario--

People Win: The common folk won't care about the 8th amendment to the US constitution when dealing with the Capitalists.

Capitalists Win: capitalists will use weapons of mass destruction or mass extermination against the commoners.

Exactly.

It's not really an argument to keep them out. We should let them in when real demand is there. Right now, its a race to the bottom in this country due to job market manipulation by business.

Also I'm all for letting Indian entrepreneurs into the country because they will create jobs.

Is should be slightly more expensive to bring in immigrants because one of the governments missions voters expect is to ensure that there is a job market where there are good well-paying jobs, not a market where it is flooded with immigrants that have driven down wages. Having American citizens and green card holders idled or having to work in a lower paying job is not a true free market because only the employers are benefiting.

Once the domestic pool of potential employers has dried up, then employers will bring in the slightly more expensive foreign labor.

Google in a hypothetical case would then offer a lower salary to cover the visa cost, and/or deem it too much trouble to bring the H-1B on board. This leaves the H-1B worker operating in a suboptimal market. The issue of visa fees does not confront the H-1B employee, only the employer which sponsored them in the first place. Besides it should cost slighly more to bring in an H-1B than current parket rates. Maybe then more natives would be hired.

Maybe you should have paid them as much as what they would make at Google then. Having to compete on salary,benefits, and working environment is the true meaning of an open and free market, not a rigged market as the current H-1B system is.

H-1B coupled with employment at will is why companies prefer to import workers to the US instead of opening offices in the low wage countries.

The elected federal government officials need campaign contributions to stay in office, and most campaign financing comes from the businesses. Until we curtail this, you will not see any meaningful reform to the H-1B visa.

I agree, and these people should be offered a green card as soon as they start with the employer.

Sorry, my ad blocker will remain on. If that prevents me from using Meduim, then I'll go elsewhere.

Now you know the real reason why the republican party is doing all it can to repeal the Affordable Care Act. Controlling access to benefits keeps people in jobs they really don't like. Benefits need to be decoupled from work.

Which may explain why the unemployment rate is so low in Texas. Anybody who already lives there is employed if they want to be, and are employable. Texas has trouble attracting talent from outside of the state for the reason you mentioned, and the backward labor laws in the state.

It could be legislated at the federal level, but that would be even harder as the legislators there are bought and paid for by the business lobby.

A lot of the requirements for noncompetes at companies originate at the insistance of the investors.

This is simply not true. It has nothing to do with at-will employment. It is state law. Some states require consideration separate from salary, some say continued employment is sufficient consideration. 49 out of 50 states recognize the doctrine of at-will employment. Only Montana uses just-cause instead (just like the rest of the developed world coincidentally).

You also don't have Employment at-will and binding arbitration in Canada. The environment for workers in Canada is fairer than in the US.

The establishment won't give up power without a fight. There may be a second "Business Plot": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot

Isn't employment-at-will wonderful? /sarcasm

It would be way more difficult to fire someone in any other developed country.

Isn't employment at will wonderful? /sarcasm

24K is the sweet spot for a family of 2.

24K is a magic number. You qualify for an enhanced silver ACA policy with very low premiums, deductibles and copays.

I do own a home and rental property, and pay property taxes annually.

I did my first year at a 24K annual income with a slight assist from after-tax savings after being employed for 30+ years. Being 55 in San Diego, and getting an electronics engineering position ain't happening right now.

Some websites are asking you to sign up before you can view anything for sale.

No thanks. Some of us won't bother unless we can window shop online anonymously.

You'll end up wearing orange and state issued jewellery.

Instead of fines and prison, let's bring back a modern form of the pillory for the CEO's of these companies. Build a cage in the town square and put these executives on display for a few hours with a sign out front stating the crime(s) they committed.

That coupled with American tax reporting requirements and FATCA, are designed to discourage Americans from living abroad and learning that the rest of the world's advanced democracies treat their citizens better.

No. Look what happened when Bush was president, and the democrats stalled the election of supreme court justices. The republicans control 53 senate seats, and can refuse to confirm any justice till they know the outcome of the presidential election. If Trump wins, they'll stall until he takes office. If Sanders or Clinton wins, then they will grudgingly confirm who Obama chooses with some limits.

Things are going to get very interesting with the pending court decisions coming at the end of June.

In some states that may be true. If anything labor law has been becoming more employee friendly in California.

I must really be an outlier then. I was with the same company for 25+ years before being laid off. Because the job market for electronics engineers is so bad where I live, I've chosen to semi-retire and look around to see what I might do bring in income which doesn't involve a W2 job.