Startup Act 2.0: are you turning up your nose at $150K/year jobs?
Last night [5 June 2012], Reps. Michael G. Grimm (R-NY) and Loretta Sanchez (D-CA), introduced the Startup Act 2.0 (H.R. 5893) in the House of Representatives, with Reps. Robert Dold (R-IL), Jared Polis (D-CO), Kevin Yoder (R-KS), Russ Carnahan (D-MO), and Devin Nunes (R-CA). The Startup Act 2.0 is a bill to create and keep jobs in America; increase America’s access to talent in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) by reforming high-skilled visa policies; and create opportunities for startup businesses with tax incentives and access to resources for innovation.
“Startup 2.0 is about creating American jobs. Too often we educate the world’s best and brightest in STEM fields, only to send them back to countries like India and China to open businesses and compete against us. This bill will keep top talent here in the U.S. to build businesses that hire Americans, and drive U.S. innovation and competitiveness. I thank Senator Moran for his leadership on this legislation in the Senate and thank my colleagues in the House for working together across the aisle for the greater good of the American people and the U.S. economy,” said Rep. Grimm.
Without directly commenting on the merits of HR 5893, IPBiz draws attention to an audio discussion of the bill that took place on June 5, 2012 at about 2:10pm on CBS AM 880. The interesting commentary occurs around the four minute mark, and specifically around the 4:15 point.
**And two footnotes
--> jokes arising from the linkedin breach
The country's current high unemployment was a common reference point of the jokes.
"In this job market, I'm just happy the Russians who hacked LinkedIn have my resume," one guy tweeted.
"Okay, maybe it's just me, but if my LinkedIn was hacked... who cares? More people will see my resume?" someone else said.
-->As to "unavailability" of qualified American workers, Congressman Grimm is invited to review the Dickakian matter, wherein the Department of Labor actually investigated the qualifications of the "unqualified" people
Refer to In the Matter of Exxon Chemical Company (on behalf of Dickakian), 87-INA-615 AND see On Gold-Plating Patents, which article noted:
Through a post on the internet [www.oalj.dol.gov/public/ina/decsn/1987_00615.ina.pdf], I became aware on March 2, 2001 of a Department of Labor/Board of Alien Labor Certification case in 1987 peripherally involving me. The case for denying employer’s application for alien labor certification is far stronger than indicated, because of omission of numerous facts. [see “You can’t know it when you can’t see it,” p. 22, IPT (April 2001)]
In that particular case, a large U.S. corporation had terminated 50% of its scientists in its basic research laboratory, but denied several of them the opportunity to compete with a foreign worker for a single position in one of its applied laboratories.
See previous IPBiz post titled
Who gets fired first, older or younger people? and links therein