USCIS is challenging an unusually large number of H-1B applications - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-11-06/trump-s-h-1b-reform-is-to-make-life-hell-for-immigrants-and-companies <comment><USER4> Conservatives may generally view this as "good" regardless of the impact because (according to arguments I've heard) "the less globalization, the better."

In my mind, however, it boils down to two pretty simple points:

Given that (1) the US is lagging far behind every developed nation in education, and higher education in the US is prohibitively expensive compared to other developed nations, (2) the only way for the US to remain on the R&D playing field is to attract already educated/trained people from other nations with the lure of misc benefits of living in the US (culture, safety, stability, philly cheese steaks). Take away our ability to import talent and there goes the last leg of American dominance in technology.

No more American students that can compete with Chinese, Taiwanese, Japanese, or German ones, leading to less innovation in a generation. No more immigrant students making their money and starting their businesses here (or working for American R&D departments) because they can't get a visa - and possibly even worse, well-trained highly educated Americans leaving because of the obvious end-game (reduced GDP causing all sorts of ripple effects in local economies, safety, etc).

I just don't understand why we wouldn't want to make it as easy as possible to steal talent that another country invested in. We take a 23yo Chinese engineering graduate as he's going to begin peak productivity - the USA didn't have to invest in his k-12, scholarship his university, clean the water he drank for 24 years, etc. Instantaneous social profit. He joins Chevron and is turning a profit for them within the year, pumping out research and getting taxed on his 100k/year salary, spending his money in-country and oh well, maybe he sends a bit (already taxed) home.

Am I being reductive? Seems to be a very poor investment to make it harder for the highly educated to come into this country, without at the very least making a massive push for higher education across the board for our own citizens (which we are not seeing).

EDIT: To clarify my points: There are 2 ways for a country to be technologically advanced - train their own citizens, or steal other trained citizens. Have neither of those and obviously, you will fall behind.

<comment><USER5> The stated purpose of the H1-B program is to allow companies to fill vacancies with international applicants if they are unable to find US employees qualified for the roles. I've never heard any sane, rational person object to this use case.

The issue most people have is that the program seems to be rampantly abused. Companies are replacing US workers with H1-B's sourced from companies like Tata and Infosys at much lower salaries than US employees would normally command. In some cases, they're just bringing in foreign workers for the time it takes to train them, then having them work remotely and paying them even less still.

Disney even made their US employees train their replacements before laying them off: [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after- layoff...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/04/us/last-task-after-layoff-at- disney-train-foreign-replacements.html)

Southern California Edison was another company that did the same: [https://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/it- outsourcing...](https://www.computerworld.com/article/2879083/it- outsourcing/southern-california-edison-it-workers-beyond-furious- over-h-1b-replacements.html)

It's this type of abuse where US companies are simply looking to fire US citizens so they can pay slave wages to foreign contractors for the same work that people are up in arms about.

<comment><USER6> > The stated purpose of the H1-B program is to allow companies to fill > vacancies with international applicants if they are unable to find US > employees qualified for the roles.

This canard keeps getting repeated in HN threads. This is WRONG. 100% absolutely completely WRONG. The only stated purpose of the H-1B program is to allow foreigners with degrees (or equivalent experience) to perform skilled work in the US. Here are the DOL requirements: [https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm](https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm)

The only one that affects US workers is to "[p]rovide working conditions for H-1B, H-1B1, or E-3 workers that will not adversely affect the working conditions of workers similarly employed." (There are additional requirements on H-1B dependent companies, but those don't apply to most companies.)

Here's a fact sheet from the DOL specifically about this matter: [https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/FactSheet62/whdfs62O...](https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/FactSheet62/whdfs62O.pdf)

What you're talking about is requirements for an EB-2 or EB-3 green card.

<comment><USER7> > The employer, before petitioning for H-1B status for any alien worker > pursuant to an H-1B LCA, took good faith steps to recruit U.S. workers for > the job for which the alien worker is sought, at wages at least equal to > those offered to the H-1B worker. Also, the employer will offer the job to > any U.S. worker who applies and is equally or better qualified than the H-1B > worker. This attestation does not apply if the H-1B worker is a "priority > worker" (see Section 203(b) (1) (A), (B), or (C) of the INA). [0]

While it may not be the sole purposes as outlined in the link [0] you provided, it does mean that the rules state this very fact that precedence is to be given to US workers. So saying it's 100% wrong is... wrong as well.

[0] [https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm#who](https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/elg/h1b.htm#who)

<comment> mark-r I like the idea, nearly a throw-away line in the article, that the H-1B visas should be granted to the highest paying jobs rather than by lottery. That would certainly cut down on the abuses.

<comment><USER8> Bbbbbut, you're agreeing with Trump when you say that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The particular anecdote in this article almost seems anti-convincing to me... It suggests a job that _should_ get challenged:

> For Centro, a company in Chicago that makes technology for ad agencies [...] > applied for visas for three young employees who already had the legal right > to work for a limited time after graduating from college.

> To Clark's eyes, the position — which consisted of writing algorithms and > required knowledge of multiple programming languages as well as a solid > understanding of relational data storage systems — wasn't a borderline case.

I dunno, that sounds a hell of a lot like a fluffed-up description of an entry-level junior web-dev.

A server-side language + JavaScript + SQL queries. Not exactly the skill set that requires you to go head-hunting overseas.

<comment><USER10> Yup cant stand journalism today. Straight up mouthpiece for the rich.

Why did they not ask the company what the wage for that position is. How many people in Chicago did they interview. Did they interview anyone over 50 who has that exact experience? Did they approach anyone currently working in similar jobs and offer them raises and other benefits to entice them over?

Truth is the Company did none of those things so the good loyal journalist won't ask those questions.

<comment><USER11> You're talking as if there are only two parties here: owners (rich) and tech workers (not rich). But tech workers are well above the average US income. The unspoken group in your argument is the consumer, who on average is poorer than the tech workers. Lowering tech wages with H1B visas helps the consumers as well as the owners, because it makes the marginal tech product less likely to fail.

You might still think that the workers have the strongest claim. But as with most protectionism, there's more to consider.

<comment><USER12> You seem to be assuming that lowering tech wages will lead to more participation by labor overall, but I think that it will instead just lead to companies lining their coffers with the savings realized by replacing an equal number of positions with lower-paid H1-B workers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Two points:

1) Given that the numbers did indeed end up proving that wage arbitrageurs like Accenture were dominating the H1B lottery [[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcin...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/11/06/us/outsourcing- companies-dominate-h1b-visas.html?_r=0)], reform would seem to be necessary.

2) Trump has repeatedly called for a Canadian or Australian style skills-based immigration system to replace chain and quota-based immigration. One would think HN would generally support this?

<comment><USER14> I would also assume that few here would take issue with merit-based immigration policies. The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says, especially when he uses immigration policy as a dog whistle when preaching to his core vote.

<comment><USER15> > The problem is arguably whether you trust Trump to actually do what he says

Is Trump even the one doing it? I thought this was the job of congress?... this seems well out of the scope of an executive order.

Hopefully they do end up copying Canada/Australia directly because they've both performed really well and there is plenty of data there to support it. Instead of the usual series of minor bandaids on top of the old broken system, ala the US healthcare system.

<comment><USER14> Given final say on any bill rests with Trump himself (signature/veto when it reaches his desk etc), I'm not sure this distinction matters all that much.

At any rate, the president is entirely free to propose a bill, and assuming he can find a congress person to back it (I'm guessing he knows a guy who knows a guy...), can have introduced in Congress. Even if Trump's team doesn't draft a new bill, the lobbying power of the Whitehouse alone on legislation in congress is huge - the threat of a veto alone is a compelling stick.

I think its absurd to think Trump/the executive wouldn't influence the shape of any proposed legislation in this area, when its been such a public part of his campaign.

<comment><USER15> It still has to first pass the hundreds of eyes in congress, that's the primary challenge of any bill. Vetoing is relatively rare and I doubt he would veto an immigration bill coming from a republican-majority congress...

That said, I never said he had zero influence, but having influence on a congressional bill is a far cry from implying he wrote and proposed it himself.

<comment><USER14> If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on policy agenda, I'm not sure what else to say!

I think most people are capable of understanding that when we talk about "Trump" performing a legislative act, we almost never mean he literally picks up pen and paper and writes the bill himself, or even directly proposes it.

<comment><USER15> > If you honestly believe the Executive in the US has this little influence on > policy agenda,

Again, I never said that, or that he writes it directly himself. This is why I don't debate politics on the internet.

My point is the bill is primarily a congressional matter, and is not at the whims of just the president the way an executive order would be, as was suggested above.

<comment><USER14> > This is why I don't debate politics on the internet.

This thread and your post history strongly suggest otherwise!

<comment><USER15> I post occasionally about political topics but I rarely engage in debates (the key word here).

I find the other person usually just digs in their heels the more you reply...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Aegis applied for a half-dozen visas this spring, and only one of them made > it through the lottery. The year before, Aegis secured a visa for someone > filing a type of job he's filled with H-1B workers in the past. So Narayanan > set up a client project for the prospective new employee, a woman who was > living in Dehli, India, at the time.

Sounds like they are exactly the type of consulting firm the administration is attempting to crack down on.

> USCIS challenged the application in August, which irked Narayanan because he > had provided everything the agency had asked for. Narayanan was doubly > annoyed because, without someone else to handle the new contract, it fell to > him directly. For the last month, Narayanan has been spending four or five > hours each morning doing the work himself, forgoing his own primary > responsibility, which is to bring in new clients. "We might not make the > profit we were expecting because of these issues," he said. "We are afraid > of on-boarding new H-1B employees, because of the unknown world."

My heart weeps for him. If he could do the work himself, is it really so specialized he required H1B for it? Or was it more he just didn't want to pay the local rates?

That said, having hired through the H1B program I sure hope it remains viable. Reforms based on salary instead of lottery seem like a good compromise, reducing outsourcing and low salaries endemic with H1B mills. I'd much prefer a floating high salary floor (say top 25%) and uncapping H1B entirely.

<comment><USER17> I always wondered why not make the H1B salary minimum the same as someone exemplary in that field ( H1B salary 1.5x the average for the position ). If someone is truly extraordinary then a company wouldn't mind paying a little extra but it would influence the average price up and not down for the field.

<comment><USER18> It already is. H1B visa holders are required to be paid more than the prevailing wage for citizens working the same SOC job classification in the same region.

<comment><USER19> I wish that was the case, but it is not. You can verify this yourself as H1B salary data are publicly available [http://h1bdata.info](http://h1bdata.info).

Take a look for example at Wayfair in Boston. Majority of their H1B Developers make around $50k-$70k. This is significantly less than the prevailing wages around Boston, so it is quite clear that they are using H1Bs as cheap labor source.

<comment><USER18> Why don't you just link the query results?

[http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Wayfair+Llc&job=Software+En...](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=Wayfair+Llc&job=Software+Engineer&city=&year=2017)

Any while we're at it, why don't we pull the prevailing wage data?

[http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=71654...](http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=71654&code=15-1132&year=18&source=1)

Level 1 Software Engineers are paid on average $67k in that area, so by paying them $68k, Wayfair is still paying more than the average wage for U.S. citizens working the same position.

Wayfair is not driving down wages.

<comment><USER19> interesting. That is close to the salary I was starting with more than 10yrs ago...Either the wages have stagnated around Boston or that number seems low. Glassdoor reports ~$80k which is closer to what my current employer has been hiring at, thats why the Wayfair numbers seems low to me. [https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boston-entry-level- softwa...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salaries/boston-entry-level-software- engineer-salary-SRCH_IL.0,6_IM109_KO7,36.htm)

<comment><USER18> My guess is your experience is anecdotal and open to bias. Same with glassdoor, since it's self-submitted. The BLS's Occupational Employment Statistic's prevailing wage data is fairly exhaustive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _Centro had applied for visas for three young employees_

> _He'd received a letter from USCIS saying it would reject his application > unless Centro proved the position required someone with specialized skills_

> _The position — which consisted of writing algorithms and required knowledge > of multiple programming languages as well as a solid understanding of > relational data storage systems — wasn't a borderline case._

I'm going to disagree here. It sounds to me like a textbook example of a company hiring a young, inexperienced worker because they're cheaper than experienced ones.

To those getting old in the valley, it seems this type of action is _good news_.

<comment><USER21> Why shouldn't they do that?

If I have a bunch of people to keep them on track then hiring the cheapest workers who can do the job sounds like good business.

<comment><USER12> Because we would like our country to prefer our own citizens for such jobs, when possible.

<comment><USER6> "Because we would like our race to prefer its own members for such jobs, when possible."

<comment><USER12> How is that at all equivalent to what I said?

<comment><USER6> Changing your in-group from being based on race to being based on citizenship doesn't change the basic immorality of your position.

<comment><USER12> There is no immorality around my position. We exist as a country to promote the welfare of our own people. I should expect any country to place its own citizens' interests above those of foreign nations.

Moreover, countries are generally defined by their geographic locations. The actions of the people within them directly affect those around them. Local economies are affected by influxes of labor and depression of wages.

A person's race is simply an attribute they possess; attempting to compare this to a nationality makes little sense in this case. Someone's race does not intrinsically affect the economy around them, whereas the wage they are paid will.

<comment><USER6> "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for [our] children."

There, fixed that for you.

> A person's race is simply an attribute they possess; attempting to compare > this to a nationality makes little sense in this case.

Sounds great! Allow anyone who wants to be American to be American.

<comment><USER12> What are you on about? Are you able to have a discussion about this, or are you simply looking to discount any counter-arguments with feeble attempts at dog whistling?

<comment><USER6> Fine, here's my position: Immigration restrictions are a version of "separate but equal" segregation that is somehow acceptable to talk about. Anyone who wants to do a job, can do it, and is willing to move to where the job is should be able to do it, regardless of where they were born or what papers they have.

That they can't because a bunch of people have collectively decided to pull the ladder up behind them is unjust, unfair and immoral.

<comment><USER12> What about the people who want to do the job, can do it, are willing to move to the job location, are American citizens, and are denied because they are being replaced by cheaper H1-B workers?

These H1-B workers are not entitled to jobs in America. It is something we offer to benefit both them and our country as a whole. It becomes detrimental when these visas are extended at the expense of the American citizen who is being displaced.

<comment><USER6> It's great for the foreign worker!

Privileging citizens of your own country is no different from privileging members of your own race.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So now they're just doing what was supposed to have been happening the entire time? I'm having difficulty sympathizing with these companies and lawyers when all they have to do is apparently file more paperwork.

<comment><USER23> It's not like that. Most top companies do detailed paperwork. This causes other side effects and stress.

For example, you could be working at Google / Facebook earning top $$$$ every year and you paperwork could be spotless. But the stress of having to go through an uncertain renewal process every 3 years prevents you from investing in big things like buying a house or having kids. You are always worried about being able to return back to your stuff when you leave for a trip overseas.

Even though most top companies immediately apply for Green CArds, the "country of birth" based green limits ensure that you have to remain in H1-B status for 15 - 20 years (if you happen to be born in India).

TL;DR: It's not the increased vetting that we fear, its the uncertainty and complicated appeal procedures that can affect genuine H1-B cases.

<comment><USER24> This was me. Working at big tech firm, $190+ salary, 6 years. Green card applied and approved in 2014.

But Indians have to wait at least 5years for a green card(EB-2). And this was before the current admin.

I'm now in Canada. Permanent Resident (took 8 months), $180k+ salary, big tech company. Going to buy a house in the summer.

<comment><USER23> Actually it's currently looking more like 15 years. People with priority dates in 2009 are just getting in. So if you account for the number (plus consider the fact the people in EB-3 become eligible for EB-2 after a few years), it looking more like 15.

The silly thing is, there is bipartisan bill in congress and Senate to fix it (HR 392). But it is stuck is legislative limbo.

<comment><USER25> Yes, this was also a major reason for leaving.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I deeply understand the need for H-1B's for bringing in highly talented individuals. However, I can't stand how the argument seems to completely ignore the Americans who are displaced because of abuse of the H-1B system.

It seems a bit deceitful to paint this story solely through the lens of "immigrants" while lots of Americans are being directly replaced by H-1B workers.

I do not expect to go to another country and displace local workers. I do not expect to be granted a work visa in a place that I do not belong. If I go to another country to work, I expect to be providing a skill or talent that is not present in the local economy. Further more, I expect that I'd be teaching that skill to others. Or at the very least, be in the position to lead the growth and development of a team until a local worker can do my role.

Why should we expect any different from the H-1B's that the US grants?

<comment><USER27> Which is the class of poor Americans being displaced by H1B workers earning in excess of 100k at companies like Microsoft,Amazon,Google,etc which are constantly hiring anyways?

<comment><USER28> White males. Laugh, disregard it - but it's true. If you're a poor white male, you don't really get a lot of assistance. I don't get special grants for being white, I don't get a padded SAT score, I don't get preferential treatment - <USER2> fact, it's the opposite. Not all white males are born with a silver spoon, and they're certainly not all given an 'equal opportunity' when a "diverse" person of lesser intellect can get financial and logistic support and lauded for being born a different race.

Frankly, over time the average white American family is going to find it more and more difficult to afford higher education, as if by design, to push them out of the middle class. Meanwhile, poor non-whites will be granted scholarships based on non-whiteness.

<comment><USER29> > Frankly, over time the average white American family is going to find it > more and more difficult to afford higher education, as if by design, to push > them out of the middle class. Meanwhile, poor non-whites will be granted > scholarships based on non-whiteness.

No they wont. White females are still eligible for many of the same (gender based) diversity advantages. The majority of college students in the US are female.

Besides that, most of the wealth in this country is controlled by white families. Which makes your assertion truly pointless: unless there is some major cataclysm, white families will continue to pass on their advantages to their offspring for generations to come.

<comment><USER30> I feel like you're getting something backwards there.

Most of the wealth is controlled by white families. This does not imply that all white families control wealth. Those white families that do control the wealth aren't exactly sharing it around with all their 8th cousins. They sure do share it with their direct descendants, and pass on advantages that way, but if any non-rich white person is advantaged, it is likely only because the rich white people are observably racist when delegating their authority and managing their assets. Imagine for a moment someone so racist that their toilets may only be cleaned by a white person, and realize that people like that do exist. So yes, I guess that white loo-scrubber is advantaged, by not having to compete quite as much, in a very minor way.

There are plenty of white families out there who know that _no-one_ is on their side, who believe that the illusion of equality is being pursued by cutting them down rather than raising everyone else up. And they believe that immigration is diluting their family's voice, rather than augmenting it. And many of them are "checking out". They turn to a bullet or a syringe, or blindly follow any person that tells the lies they most want to hear.

The rich and powerful are free at any time to erase the echo of privilege enjoyed by middle class white people simply by not hiring them preferentially over darker people. Which is what is happening. And while that is happening, the reactive measures to prior institutionalized racism remain in place. The problem is not with affirmative action or feminism or egalitarian movements, but that the old money is far too powerful politically, and that the rich kids are not as disgustingly racist as their parents. So there will likely be a generation at some point where middle class white families have zero advantages, non-white families will have some preferences stemming from ongoing racial equality movements from the 1960s to the present, and the data that show they are no longer needed have not yet been collected and published.

And that generation is going to have _a lot_ of neo-Nazis and white supremacists in it, because people will still be telling them about white privilege when they remember growing up in a manufactured home, eating cold Spaghetti-Os and Spam, watching other people get things that they were never offered. I don't quite know if it is already here, or if it is still coming and will be even worse than what we have already seen. But I do know that part of the problem is attributing the source of privilege to any color other than green.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31>
       Even though Silicon Valley sees the H-1B program as one of
       its top political priorities, this campaign of reform by
       red tape has avoided the frantic political fights
       surrounding other aspects of immigration, like the proposed
       travel ban or the cancellation of DACA, a program for those
       who came to the country as undocumented children.

This is conflating two different things - DACA and travel ban are issues related to immigration; H-1B is about temporary guest workers. The (skilled) immigration issue which concerns most of SV is green card backlogs. That has not gotten any attention from SV leadership.

<comment><USER14> Given the H1-B is a "Dual Intent" visa, it is absolutely still about immigration, the H1-B doesn't just allow for temporary workers. It provides a well worn path to a green card and permanent residency in the US too, and in my experience virtually everyone I've known to use the H1-B has done so.

The H1-B cap is surely a far more pressing concern for most technology firms than the GC backlog. The H1-B cap and delays are making it significantly harder to hire foreign workers. I don't think the big tech firms care nearly as much about GC backlogs - if anything they probably like this, as it arguably aids in staff retention if your workforce is less able to easily switch job.

<comment><USER32> I think the parent poster's point is that the H1B process is far from the bottleneck there, for shops intending to bring along their foreign workers rather than churn through cheap employees, which matches my experience.

<comment><USER14> I'd disagree - the H1B process can absolutely be argued to be the main bottleneck for hiring skilled foreign tech workers right now, especially as the cap has been exceeded by such an enormous number for several years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is not only happening to H1-B Visas. I am on L1 Visa and got an RFE as well. Lawyers said that they have seen a large increase in such requests.

I am in charge of production systems which, if they go down for any significant amount of time, can represent hundreds of millions of dollars in lost revenue. This is a very niche system(networking-related), not your usual run of the mill web app. My salary is in the 6 digit range (and I have got multiple raises since then). I have got awards from my company for work I have and am doing.

Still got an RFE. Now, I'll have to dig into payslips from my home country, get letters from former managers overseas, justify one more time all the skills (which I already did multiple times), provide org charts(from the current and previous position), and so on. I believe I have a pretty strong case, but it's a very stressful process. All this to be allowed to continue doing the stuff that was previously approved. And, unless I apply for a green card, I can stay for 5 years max. So why make it even harder? There's already an expiration date.

And I can't drive while this is going on (DMV wants the approved extension). Fun times.

The US is a great country; I feel that some "natives" have no idea how great it is, despite all its quirks. And, for engineers, the allure of Silicon Valley is too great – everything of notice is happening here. I have chosen to come here, and I knew that I need to jump through some hoops and prove my worth, to both the country and the company. But at some point, you start questioning if it is worth it.

Can an American do my job? Absolutely – if you can find one with the right skillset that's willing to join. This position was open for MONTHS before the company even considered hiring from outside the country. They tried increasing the offers too, no takers, at least not qualified ones. The problem is that at some point all the companies can do is to poach from one another.

Can you improve things with education? Yes. Do you want to avoid immigration altogether? Why would you, when you can hire the best brains from anywhere in the planet?

The problem is that there are companies heavily abusing the system. But they are a handful, and they should get the hammer. That's from a rational perspective though, not a politically motivated one.

<comment><USER11> I'm rooting for you (and more usefully, donating time and money to political candidates who can help you). My research group currently has a scientist who took a year to recruit stuck in immigration. I wouldn't be surprised if he gives up. It makes me furious what the alliance of nativism and greed is doing to this country.

<comment><USER33> Thank you.

Ultimately though, my predicament does not matter. What matters is, if they are doing an immigration reform, that it is done for the right reasons, in a humane way, and with measures supported by actual data. Bonus points for a sane process.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As an aspiring immigrant, I feel this is great. Instead of a situation where immigration to US sort of works, sort of doesnt, is a hassle, but not really a bad one, a lot of companies were still keeping major offices in US.

Now that Americans have made up their mind that they dont want immigrants, companies will spend more money on opening engineering centers in immigration friendly countries (Canada\west Europe\Australia(maybe),etc) which from a personal perspective are great countries for me to immigrate to. And this time I might would be able to catch the first wave of immigrants (who get to convert to citizens) if there is a genuine boom in jobs in such countries (unlike US where its near impossible for an EB2 immigrant to get citizenship if moving today)

<comment><USER34> That's already happening in Canada. All the major US IT companies started establishing large offices here. All the announcements happened after Trump got elected.

<comment><USER21> If the wages weren't complete shit I'd move back tomorrow.

<comment><USER34> If the wages weren't complete shit they wouldn't set up offices in Canada(well and the tax breaks help too).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I may be an exception and my experience may be anecdotal, but as someone on an H1-B I think I'm seeing this as a good change. My immigrant peers working at consultancies are seeing more RFEs, and those I know to be working as direct employees are not (as often compared to consultant employees). But there's been a net increase in site visits and verifications along with RFEs to even legit applicants.

For those who dont know the process here's how and when one can get an RFE:

1) Missed a key point in the application or Immigration attorney goofed up (this happens way often)

2) Position doesn't look like it needs a high skilled engineer with skills mentioned in application

3) Grossly underpaying the H1b employee

Getting an RFE by itself is not the nightmare scenario. Its a problem if the employer is doing things using shady loopholes.

What needs to be seen is by what %age RFEs have increased at companies like Apple, Facebook, Intel, Google etc. The bigger companies use boutique immigration law firms and its rare but not impossible for them to mess up on the immigration application process.

I'm not sure what has Trump's administration done to reform the H1b system, its still as crappy as it has been. If anything certain employers were abusing the loopholes. Now its going to get tougher to abuse the loopholes.

</comment><comment><USER36> Instead of a lottery, we should have an H1-B auction. There are a limited number of H1-B slots, and the companies that offer the highest salaries get them.

In addition, whistle-blower protection with automatic Green cards for anyone who reports employer abuse, with prison sentences for the entire company C-suite if a company abuses this process.

<comment><USER20> We've discussed the auction before here. My sentiment is that it would cause all of the H1Bs to be concentrated in the Bay Area at a handful of companies.

<comment><USER37> In which case H1-B would be used only for high-end R&D talent not obtainable in the US and would have little or no wage-depressing effect. What a terrible problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It's great that these RFE's are happening, and Trump should have closed things up even earlier. There are plenty of people with skills out there who may not know every feature of Vue.js 2.5.3, or who are 30 years old and thus "not a culture fit". Companies will start having to look for these people instead. Enough is enough. There's not even an argument, it's whether the programmer gets to make a salary in an industry where you're chucked overboard at 40, or whether billionaire heirs get that money added to their pile of riches. It's no contest. As far as Indians, they can work in India, or Europe, or apply for a green card.

<comment><USER21> > or apply for a green card.

Which they do when they arrive here on the H-1B. It takes decades and they now have to go through even more stress about it because of this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I just wish now that the US government would kill the H1-B and all other immigrant visa and send us all home. I have spent 13 years here, I earn well over 200K, have a kid. But every 3 years, I have to renew my visa and pray and tell that there is no bullshit like RFE when visa is sent for renewal. And then the DMV drama begins as your DL expires, but your application is still not approved. When I came here, I had hope that the US government would make improvements to the immigrant system in good faith, considering all I heard from abroad was that this country is a "nation of immigrants". But it seems like the fancy thing to do these days is to blame every ill on immigrants.

</comment><comment><USER40> Couldn't this be positive if it stops all the body shop h1b companies that just want cheap, basic programmers? This will then allow for visas for true skills where there are gaps.

I've worked with hundreds of h1b visa, 90% of them were just java programmers with a low bill rate. But there were also a few with really rare skills. I'd like to see more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the number of h1b visa is capped.

</comment><comment><USER41> "It would reject his application unless Centro proved the position required someone with specialized skills. Clark was surprised. She'd been helping people apply for visas for four years, and this was the first time she'd ever seen such a letter."

Four years, and this is the first time she's seen the government even try to see if the law should be enforced. Really says it all.

<comment><USER42> Centro shouldn't need to import people, what they do can be easily found in Chicago, but they would rather not pay good wage it seems.

<comment><USER43> This is really the central issue.

The H-1B program hasn't ever been a way to get solid talent from other countries to come to the United States because equivalent talent can't be found here. It's ALWAYS been a way to expand the pool of cheap technology labor so that companies dependent on expensive skills can grow faster.

Economics is economics. Companies have an incentive to fight wage inflation when they experience it due to a reliance on high-skill individuals.

I remember going to the offices of a well-known bank and finding nearly the entire development staff comprised of foreign workers on H-1B. Most of them were from India.

That can't be an accident and it's certainly not an indicator that talent is in short supply. What's in short supply is CHEAP TALENT. H-1B workers are cheap and don't have any ability to complain about their working conditions because they can't move to another company as easily as a permanent resident can. That alone is worth the legal hassle a company assumes when bringing in these workers.

SO, word to the wise....make sure you stay one step ahead of the skill levels of the Indian outsourcing companies or your days are numbered.

In the meantime, support candidates that are willing to rein in this amazing abuse of our immigration policy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If only borders were as porous for workers as they are for capital.

</comment><comment><USER45> Young french software engineer here. I was an intern with a J1 for a year in a company in san diego. I'm working remotely since last february.

My H1B got picked in the lotery but I received an RFE early august. I had to write a ton of technical doc about my job and the system I work on. The documents were submitted mid-october. I received my approval last week.

I guess if your application is legit you don't have much to fear about getting an RFE.

</comment><comment><USER46> Cracking down on Indian outsourcers is one thing, but if this is true

> The skeptical eye the government is taking to applications has extended to > all types of employers, according to immigration lawyers. Many are > rethinking their own use of H-1B as a result.

This is absolutely disastrous. I personally know families on H1B from well- known American companies are afraid to leave the country because of this.

</comment><comment><USER47> You know what, as an H1B receiver, I am fine with more scrutiny towards H1B. Over the past few years, I have seen competent international coworkers not able to get H1B visa because:

1\. it's a lottery system, regardless of background and academic accomplishment.

2\. it's been abused by outsourcing companies. Practices such as multiple- filing for one person are so shady that it baffles me how loose the inspection towards H1B application is.

I totally agree that American citizens should be prioritized when it comes to hiring and my country would do the same for its citizens. I also know that immigration service is a booming business for many American law firms and they have their own agenda to go against any further regulations towards H1B. However, in a long run, if done properly, a more merit-based/restricted H1B visa could actually be beneficial to outstanding individuals who follow the rules.

As someone that love American culture but also have pride in his academic/career accomplishment, I stay in the US because I like this place, not that I have to, and I am more than happy to go back to my homeland or somewhere welcoming if I am not welcomed here anymore. H1B has never been the last straw of my life and it's true for many folks I know. I am all for making H1B more accessible for accomplished individuals and more restrictive towards those who cheat the game, but do it properly so that America doesn't give an image of Xenophobia to the world.

</comment><comment><USER48> ex H1B here. I left US because of this broken system. There are many bad apples than good ones utilizing the H1B system. Indian bodyshops, one room consultancies all over New Jersey. Even companies like Sprint,Walmart,TR,Garmin,BOFA,Chase,Visa,AMEX, they all game the system and exploit H1B employees because of their situation. There are a lot of fake payroll running firms too which keeps the fake H1B employee's status valid. There are firms which apply for "future greencards" while the beneficiary is not even physically present in the US.

Even many non CS graduates faking their resumes as CS ones and applying for "specialized" positions in IT. I had enough of this and left US and immigrated to Canada for good because I am pretty sure that my future will be affected by these bad apples gaming the system. I do not like Trump personally, but he is right about the H1B immigration system.

If H1B system is a lottery, then why is it called a "skilled visa" ? H1B should be merit based so as to weed out the bad apples and body shops gaming the system.

Probably I should write a book on "How to game the H1B system and get away with it". The book will be an eye opener for this broken skilled visa system and its loopholes.

</comment><comment><USER42> This program was abused badly by US and Indian companies and put a number of engineers in subservient position. I will not shed a tear for those companies.

For people, we should have one clear policy and apply it, if they can't come, so be it, but tell them clearly what they can get and what they cannot. And allow some transparency of the income and rates so that it can't be abused as much.

<comment><USER31>
      For people, we should have one clear policy and apply it,
      if they can't come, so be it, but tell them clearly what
      they can get and what they cannot.

+1.

<comment><USER42> And let them travel and know the path to Green Card if they decide to stay. Otherwise then they get milked by lawyers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Serious question here: Why not get rid of the closed number and charge a 100% immigration tax to the employer?

Cheap labor would be priced out unless American really cant substitute the imported labor. Employers would encourage employees to get a green card (as opposed to doing everything in their power to keep them chained to the H1B)

What are the negatives (except for the obvious problems of taxes, of course)

<comment><USER39> This will basically kill all immigration. Employers have to go through a LOT to hire an immigrant, and I almost feel sorry to ask an employer to file an H1 transfer. They have to hire an army of lawyers and pay steep fees to file all the paperwork and go through a process when it comes to green card. If you ask them to pay a lot, they will just hire somewhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Yet Trump's own Mar-a-Lago is abusing H-2B to obtain 70 foreign workers:

From the article: "It's unclear whether the Trump Organization had made an extra effort to try to fill the jobs.

In July, the club placed an ad on Page C8 of the Palm Beach Post: "3 mos recent & verifiable exp in fine dining/country club," the ad said. "No tips," Fahrenthold reported.

The ad, which ran twice, gave no email address, mailing address or phone number and instructed applicants to "Apply by fax.""

Hypocrites.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/05/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/11/05/trump- who-urged-people-to-hire-american-secures-70-foreign-workers-for-mar-a-lago/)

<comment><USER51> The Palm Beach Post posted on their blog about three ads for Mar-a-Lago. The three ads were published on July 27th and all have an address at the end with a job number to reference. The server ad at the bottom seems to be the one they are referring to.

[http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/08/07/want-a- sea...](http://realtime.blog.palmbeachpost.com/2017/08/07/want-a-seasonal-job- at-trumps-mar-a-lago-club-fire-up-the-fax-but-the-number-doesnt-seem-to-work- realdonaldtrump/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> It seems like the pretense of these changes is to affect the "infosys" style of visas. Does anyone have any insight on how this will affect getting visas for higher end jobs?

</comment><comment><USER53> Young, European, High-skilled worker here, who've been working on core Kubernetes products for three years. Got several job offers for key infra positions in various companies @ 200-250k+. Trump administration came in, decided to RFE+NOIR my H-1B with a bullshit reason, had to go back to my country, which is not my really home anymore whatsoever (wife/friends here). So yeah, that just happened. It's not only about abuses and 'Indians'.

</comment><comment><USER54> I don't like pieces like this who mostly make people who are in a true need of an H-1B more anxious.

For instance, statements like this one below are suppose to make the reader think something is deeply wrong:

> She said in past years she's counted on 90 percent of her petitions being > approved by Oct. 1 in years past. This year, only 20 percent of the > applications have been processed.

But, this year Premium processing was disabled for most of the year so that would explain this, wouldn't it? For those unaware, Premium processing is where the petitioner can pay an extra $1225 on top of all the existing fees, to have its case processed in at most 14 days. Without premium processing it can take months & months instead. Also, without the fees for premium processing, I wouldn't be surprised if USCIS have less employees able to work the cases. It was disabled specifically because the Regular processing cases backlog was getting too big. So if last year 90% of her cases used Premium Processing, the quote isn't shocking at all.

The same lawyer maintains her personal blog, where she isn't as dramatic, and gives more useful facts: [http://immigrationgirl.com/](http://immigrationgirl.com/)

Premium processing is now back[1], it'd be interesting to see if the statement still holds true.

[1] [http://immigrationgirl.com/premium-processing-is-back-for- al...](http://immigrationgirl.com/premium-processing-is-back-for- all-h-1b-petition-types/)

</comment><comment><USER55> The solution is simple: rank the H1B applicants by descending order of wages, and take the top 65K. Period. Done. End of story. No more abuse.

<comment><USER21> What about professions that just pay lower? If 100k is well above market for a profession it's still not particularly high for a software dev.

<comment><USER55> But H1Bs are not meant to get _cheap_ labor; they're meant for _impossible to find_ labor.

<comment><USER21> No, they aren't. They are meant for skilled labour. The bar is a degree.

<comment><USER55> No, they're meant for jobs that cannot be filled by an American; not just any "skilled labor".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> I don't understand why companies are still trying to bring people in the US to work for them. What's the point for the employer? How about investing overseas and training people here to handle remote offices? That's where we failed in the past... because it was too hard to manage and would require spending extra money to fix the mess. So we all decided to bring everyone in-house which is obviously a much bigger issue. I think we should invest more time in building infrastructures in other countries in order to create top of the line working places outside of the US. This would probably end up costing less and would help hiring way more people.

Again, create new positions in the US like a "Remote Office Manager" and build kick ass campuses in India, China, Europe, etc.

The whole immigration thing would be totally obsolete... I mean, we will be able to travel to Mars soon... why can't we even manage remote employees in 2017?

</comment><comment><USER57> I'm having a hard time finding sympathy for an industry that has systematically abused this system, with the direct intent of artificially lowering wages.

I also find it hilarious that the same people who are always going on about the "evil rich" and the wage gap are the most likely to be against culling one of the biggest loopholes out there.

</comment><comment><USER58> One of the strangest things with visas is that the agency that authorizes a person to work (DHS/USCIS) is different and has different objectives from the agency that issues the actual visas (DoS). With a valid USCIS work authorization a person already in the US can continue working legally, but the moment they step out of the country they need to apply for a visa with a US consulate (DHS). Applying for a visa with the DHS can take less than a week or more than 6 weeks (despite having all the correct documents). With the people I've spoken to, this causes a great deal of anxiety when travelling internationally.

TL;DR: A work authorization document issued by one agency allows a person to maintain legal presence in the US. This is different from a visa -- a visa allows one to enter the country and is issued by another agency. The visa doesn't clearly specify what one can and cannot do while in the country.

</comment><comment><USER59> The self-fulfilling prophecy of "there's no Americans to do these jobs" is coming to an end. In a nation of 330 million people it's been an incredulous argument and it's ruined at least 2 generations from entering STEM. People talk about women in STEM, we have a bigger issue, no one is in STEM. Conservatives like to say you get more of what you subsidize, and they've been subsidizing the rest of the world for a very long time. I hope this is a shift in the tide and not a temporary blip.

</comment><comment><USER60> Here is my take on H1B, which after checking some facts, is the last thing to worry for an average US tech worker, who don't like H1B.

 _) 65k Visas + 20k (for US educated MS degree holders) = 85k total every year. Lets say each one gets a 130k salary (Senator Chuck Grassley 's recommendation) = ~$12 billion

_) $12 billion Income. Lets say all these H1Bs send 25% back to their home countries = $3 billion gone out of USA, $9 billion spent in USA

 _) India 's Software exports to USA in 2016 - (61+24.4+22.4 = $107.8 billion) source : [https://www.statista.com/statistics/320753/indian-it- softwar...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/320753/indian-it-software-and- services-exports/)

_) Majority of these exports are to US. If we assume, the cost of getting software work done in India/China is probably 1/3rd of its cost in US, means, India, which exported ~$100+ billion worth of software, would have equalled $300 billion if the work was done in USA (thus creating jobs in USA).

*) India, through its software exports sucked $300 billion out of USA and hence took away jobs in USA.

Bottom line is, the rise of India's, China's software industries will suck the money out of USA. So, these numbers mean : H1B don't take jobs, Software engineers in India, China and rest of the world are taking them at an order of magnitude faster !

<comment><USER61> this math is flawed in so many ways, I dont know where to start...

<comment><USER60> Please correct me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Another field report:

Our town has a state university and a modest tech employment market. Every H-1B holder I've met a) went to the local university, b) works at a hospital or law office, c) writes CRUD apps in Java or C#.

They're good dudes, but hard to imagine that any of them are the kind of alpha-double-plus-good talent that couldn't be locally sourced.

</comment><comment><USER63> I wrote about this a while back and think it's still valid:

[https://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and- job...](https://journal.dedasys.com/2014/12/29/people-places-and-jobs/)

</comment><comment><USER64> i'd probably be voted down (even deservedly so). But i cannot resist : what unique sort of modelling work could an american not fullfil that the first lady was given H1B?

</comment><comment><USER65> Will this increase the number of remote positions (work from anywhere) for software developers?

</comment><comment><USER66> I am really interested in seeing whether the tech companies eventually bend the knee.

</comment><comment><USER67> you know its bad when all your neighbors speak hindi, or when at work when you've been there for years, and you don't know any of your co-workers because none of them speak english (at fortune 500 companies in the US)

</comment><comment><USER6> Ah yes, gotta love H-1B threads. The latent nativism among the Hacker News crowd is laid bare.

Here's a radical proposal: give anyone with a clean criminal record and a job offer a green card. No limits, no $100k minimum wage, no protectionism. If you, with all the advantages that natives get (networks, language, NETWORKS), can be beat by an immigrant with zero social connections, you probably are worth less than you think you are. Time to compete, pal.

Anything less is opportunity hoarding based on the patch of dirt you were born on.

<comment><USER68> I just don't like to see people made into indentured servants. Here's my radical proposal: let H1B's change jobs once a year, as long as they're employed somewhere in the industry they're here for and their visa hasn't expired, they can stay. "Sponsoring" companies should not be allowed to keep slaves.

I don't think your radical proposal makes much sense. What's the benefit to a country to basically throw its borders wide open?

<comment><USER6> > What's the benefit to a country to basically throw its borders wide open?

More people means a bigger economy. Immigrants -- at least the ones that choose to immigrate -- are by definition risk-takers. Risk-taking is core to entrepreneurship. I hope I don't have to defend the value of entrepreneurship on this site.

We've known for thousands of years that free trade is a net positive for everyone involved. Why would free immigration be any different?

The US had open borders for centuries. It became the most powerful country in the world because of open borders.

Here's an economist far more literate than me making the case: [http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal- number...](http://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2014/06/the-optimal-number-of- immigrants.html)

(We should also welcome all the refugees we can get, of course.)

<comment><USER68> Nah. You're just making emotional arguments because not all risk-taking immigrants are entrepreneurs. We're not running a charity, why would you talk as if we are?

> (We should also welcome all the refugees we can get, of course.)

What trolling nonsense. We must control who comes and who gets turned away, it's the only fair and equitable option for the citizens and resident aliens who already live here. Because priorities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'll be excited about solutions when the quality and price of education changes for Americans. There is no 'affirmative action' for the average white male to ensure access to affordable higher education.

<comment><USER21> So go to community college for 2 years and then transfer to a state school.

I went to a pretty meh public university. Didn't hold me back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> I feel like a lot of the arguments around immigration - including H1-Bs - <USER3> down to two pretty straightforward opposing views of immigration:

1) "We" have built something great and unique, and we want others to be able to partake of and contribute to it, but the greatness and uniqueness of it is special and we want to preserve that. This is the more conservative view.

2) "We" have an environment where great things can happen, and so we want to bring people into it and add their greatness to it to make it even greater. There is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving, and in fact change - constant, disruptive change - is naturally good. This is the more liberal view.

It bothers me that (1) is often conflated with racism, admittedly (the bothering part) because it's something I happen to agree with despite being mostly liberal on other issues. I DO think we here in America have a culture worth preserving, and while I want to open it up as much as possible to the world, I won't support doing so to the detriment and/or dissolution of what we have. I don't think constant disruption is naturally good; I didn't when I was younger and I don't think it is now.

But anything even approaching a whiff of something like "preservation" is immediately labeled racist dog-whistling (which seems insane to me). Any kind of "hey, maybe non-Americans are trying to exploit this and that's not good" is racism. Saying that perhaps as much diversity as possible even if just for diversity's sake in all things is maybe not the best thing - again, racism.

We need to recognize that there are real, non-racist and completely rational and informed reasons why people are uncomfortable with things like H1-B abuse, and that we don't all agree on what immigration _should_ be or accomplish.

<comment><USER70> I don't understand this view of the world. I'd like to ask some questions to better understand. Not debate, understand. I spent a lot of time picking apart the various parts.

I largely see immigration issues as capitalist vs. socialist spectrum. The capitalist wants little control over the flow of resources for a more efficient distribution of resources. The socialist wants to control the flow allocation of resources for a fair distribution of resources.

So when you state the conservative position, I see that you want to control the flow of labor. What threats do you see from the flow of labor posing to the greatness and uniqueness of the US? Currently I see it as the opposite of imposing socialist tendencies impairing US companies from being able to compete with other countries that don't have the similar controls. Maybe we disagree on what makes the US culture unique.

With the liberal point of view stated, I can understand the parts about disruption and change as the capitalist point of view except for the claim about "there is nothing special about what we have, nothing that warrants preserving". I don't see how immigration jeopardizes 'specialness' nor how it harms the preservation of things. We already have a wide dirth of cultural diversity dating back over many centuries, my guess is there is something in particular you value.

I could look at things like Cinco de Mayo or St Patrick's day as examples of immigration both preserving special things as well as harming these through dilution and cultural appropriation.

Maybe what your trying to say in many words is liberals are pro-change and conservatives are anti-change? Which is kind of the dictionary definition of the words, but I digress...

I have more thoughts on how quick people are to throw 'racist' around, but that'll have to wait for another time. All I can say is that we're probably trying to preserve different things we consider great about our country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Time for companies to hire Americans and train Americans rather than attempting to suppress wages.

<comment><USER20> Specifically, stop simultaneously saying there's a tech worker shortage while discriminating against workers over the age of 40.

<comment><USER21> How many high priceed senior staff are needed?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> [http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=aegis+company&job=&city=&ye...](http://h1bdata.info/index.php?em=aegis+company&job=&city=&year=All+Years)

The Aegis Company listed in the article is paying devs 55k a year in the seattle area.

I'm wondering if this is targeted at the places that seem to pay well under market rate.

<comment><USER18> According to OFLC, the entry-level prevailing wage for developers in the Bellevue area (where these developers work) is $39k. Paying $55k for a level 1 or 2 isn't unreasonable because it's more than the average pay of citizens in the area working the same job.

[http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=53000...](http://www.flcdatacenter.com/OesQuickResults.aspx?area=5300004&code=15-1199&year=18&source=1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> > immigration should be merit-based

and cut in half. and a visa which requires in demand skills needs to be curbed.

</comment><comment><USER72> If your business can't survive without indentured labor - that's on you. Simple as that.

The H1B situation could be fixed overnight by declaring the minimum wage to be... one million dollars. Then we'll see it genuinely only used for rare talent.

<comment><USER21> > only used for rare talent.

Not the purpose of the visa.</comment></comment>


Bloomberg Says Interpretation of Constitution Will 'Have to Change' After Boston - <AUTHOR> http://politicker.com/2013/04/bloomberg-says-post-boston-interpretation-of-the-constitution-will-have-to-change/

<comment><USER2> Breaking News:

"HN User 'mindcrime' Says Mayor Bloomberg Is A F%@#ng Idiot"

Seriously, what is the deal with this guy? The terrorists kill FAR, FAR fewer people in this country every year than lightning strikes, slips & falls in the bathroom, accidental drownings in one's own swimming pool, automobile accidents, cancer, heart disease, etc., etc., etc.

But because of a few anomalous events, as tragic as they may be, we're supposed to compromise the most basic, fundamental principles that define us as a nation? I don't think so.

Anyway, our government is far more of a threat to our freedom than any terrorist organization will be.

<comment><USER3> When a gun is used to kill people he wants to ban guns. Strangely, he's not proposing a ban on pressure cookers.

Government will use fear to slowly strip us of our rights. Why? Because it works really well.

He has already made the leap to assume we "Interpret" the US Constitution. It's a pretty clear document that needs little interpretation. We're supposed to amend it, not change are mind on what they really meant.

<comment><USER4> When the number of deaths by pressure cookers exceeds the number of death by guns, maybe then.

<comment><USER5> The number of guns versus number of (reported) gun related crimes is pretty low. Pretty low for pressure cookers too I would imagine. Not sure what the OSHA guidelines are.

<comment><USER4> There's roughly 270 million guns in the USA and every day about 270 shootings. A ratio of one in a million.

I'm not sure how many pressure cookers there are in the US, probably in the tens of millions at most. I can't find any data on how many injuries are caused by them, but there'd have to be 10-20 incidents per day for it to measure up to guns in terms of injuries per object.

The most common injury from a pressure cooker is a burn. There are about 100 burns requiring medical attention in the US daily (<http://www.ameriburn.org/resources_factsheet.php>) and it's unlikely that 25% of these are caused by pressure cookers given the wide number of causes of burns.

<comment><USER2> Sounds to me like pressure cookers are quite the danger. I say we implement rigorous background checks before allowing their purchase, keep a database of all purchased pressure cookers, require mandatory training and a seven day waiting period before purchase, and require mandatory lid locks. Also, any pressure cooker with a pistol grip or bayonet lug is clearly an assault cooker and must be banned.

<comment><USER4> Kinder Surprise was presumably banned because of the assault variants flooding the market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

The terrorists want my life; its the government that wants my freedom. I'll keep my freedom, thank you, and take my chances with my life. My chance of being injured by terrorism is infinitesimal compared to the very real chance of losing civil rights and privacy I value.

As Patrick Henry said: "Give me Liberty, or Give me Death!"

<comment><USER7> Quibble: the terrorists don't want your life, they want your attention, and more specifically, your _panicky attention_. Political reactions like Bloomberg's help keep the terrorism availability cascade rolling.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_cascade>

They are just about exactly the wrong way to respond.

There are a few important facts about terrorism that should put our fear in context:

* Terrorists tend to be spectacularly inept.

* Terrorist organizations tend to collapse over time, through various combinations of frustration, attrition and overreach.

* The methods of terrorism tend to be highly ineffective at killing people.

On the same day that the Boston bombings killed three people, approximately 40 Americans country-wide were murdered for various non-terrorist reasons. Also on the same day, approximately 140 Americans died via guns (this includes suicides, which make up two-thirds of the total, and accidental deaths).

We can keep going: for example, approximately 85 Americans are killed every day in automobile accidents. My point is that the fear that we feel about terrorism is utterly disproportionate to the risk that we will experience it - especially compared to the kinds of things we rarely think about but really should worry about.

By no means do I mean to dismiss or demean or make light of the trauma, injury and death experienced by the people who experienced the Boston Marathon terror attack. However, it would only compound the tragedy if we allow such an event to transform our civilization from one that esteems liberty, autonomy and privacy into one that sacrifices those things for needless expedience.

<comment><USER6> >>Quibble: the terrorists don't want your life, they want your attention, and more specifically, your panicky attention.

Silly quibble- same difference, there are few things better for getting "panicky attention" than randomly taking lives or maiming people.

I agree with your other points.

<comment><USER8> Not really. If a maximizing murder has a choice between a quiet but effective means of killing people and a loud but ineffective one, they will go for the former. A terrorist will go for the latter. Guess which category bombs fall into.

<comment><USER6> >>maximizing murder has a choice between a quiet but effective means of killing people and a loud but ineffective one

Not really, it has nothing to do with being effective or loud, they go for the option that spreads the most terror... For example poison city water supply or send letter bomb. The flasher option here spreads less terror. The goal of a terrorist is to force political change though terror.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Boston bombers _had already caught the attention_ of several tentacles of our unconstitutional surveillance state. We have _already_ changed our interpretation of the constitution in the pursuit of an unattainable sliver of additional security and, as predicted by just about every qualified observer, it _is not working_.

What on Earth does he propose to do that we haven't already done, anyway? Strip search stations on every street corner?

<comment><USER10> Well, until the people of New York stand up against him and vote him out they deserve what they get. They seem to really enjoy a nanny state that even restricts what they can drink. You can't by a 32 oz. Coke but you can buy a jug of vodka.

<comment><USER11> The soda ban was invalidated, but the city is trying to appeal that ruling: [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge- invalidates...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/nyregion/judge-invalidates- bloombergs-soda-ban.html)

Also, Bloomberg is still in office because he was able to change the term limits, which New Yorkers were against.

It's hard to beat a politician with a personal net worth of $27 billion.

<comment><USER12> There doesn't seem to be much evidence to support the view that personal wealth can be used to 'buy' an election, or even substantially improve one's results: [http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does- campaig...](http://www.freakonomics.com/2012/01/17/how-much-does-campaign- spending-influence-the-election-a-freakonomics-quorum/)

personal note: I do not support the abolition of term limits or the imposition of soda taxes; but I do not think he is in power simply because he is wealthy.

<comment><USER11> I don't know, nothing in that article seems to confirm or deny the hypothesis. Most of the blurbs summarize to "money doesn't directly win you an election, but you sure as hell better have a lot of it".

He certainly isn't in power simply because he's wealthy, but having a bottomless war chest and a large media empire makes it much easier.

<comment><USER10> You need money and time to run in an election. When you are rich you have one and the ability to get the other.

That still doesn't explain that if the people of New York are so against his policies why he can make them happen. I'll assume that New York is just like any other city and the mayor can't just do something because they want to. Don't they have city councilmen? Aren't they beholden to the masses? Can't they be elected out if the people don't like what is being passed? As for term limits, if he can get re-elected what does that matter? The people are still voting him in!

In any case it's still the fault of the people of New York.

<comment><USER11> Sure, there is a city council, and of course they can lose elections. Unfortunately people aren't that involved with local politics, in a city where the democratic nominee is likely to win. In the 2009 general election for mayor voter turnout was 18.4% here in NYC. Bloomberg only won that third term by 4.4 points.

Overall you're right, New Yorkers don't hate Bloomberg, he's done quite a bit that lots of people like. I certainly don't hate him, but I do have many problems with him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms."

How these people's heads don't explode is just beyond me. He _has_ to be aware of what he's saying. Right?

<comment><USER14> > He has to be aware of what he's saying. Right?

Probably.

<comment><USER15> It's a strong rhetorical strategy. Pre-emptively accuse your opponents of being enemies of liberty. Then all they can say is... "well no you're the real enemy of liberty!"

Which is much weaker than the original argument, facts be damned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11," Bloomberg said.

The world is generally safer now than at almost any previous time, particularly for those of us that remember the Cold War and the early-mid 1980s, when even these measures weren't required to avoid mutually-assured destruction (MAD) by two super-powers and their proxies. The only people wanting to limit freedom are politicians in the pocket of those wanting to expand the myriad of security services of the state. This feeds into the projected paranoia of those citizens who fail to understand the true cost, chance, or opportunity of reducing terrorist activities. Of course there has to be an attempt to reduce terrorist activities, but its the internal processes and procedures in place currently between the myriad network of security services which need to be reformed drastically, not the further expansion of those security services or the reduction in freedoms.

Terrorism is an issue of public security, while before 1991 the Soviet Union (for the Western world at least) was an issue of national security. Issues of public security need to be treated as such, not over-inflated and treated incorrectly. This helps support the terrorists, not defeat them, as has been shown in almost every internal urban civil conflict in the past hundred years.

</comment><comment><USER17> "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." \--Benjamin Franklin

<comment><USER18> "Essential", of course, being left up to interpretation again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The world we live in today is a tiny fraction as dangerous as the world the authors of the Constitution lived in. I'm not so naive as to believe that it is a perfect document or that any particular political group we have today has the "right" understanding of it, but please. Of all the possible reasons to attack it, this is by far the weakest.

</comment><comment><USER20> To me, the far more interesting thing is how he lets the mask slip regarding the Constitution itself, namely that they are not bound to go through the amendment process, nor even the judicial facade of interpreting how to apply the Constitution to some new circumstance. Instead, he shines a light on what has long been true, that the Constitution means whatever some small but critical mass of powerful people say it means, and the common people will accept it as true.

Lysander Spooner had it right 150 years ago:

"[T]he Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. ... But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain --- that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist."

<http://lysanderspooner.org/node/64>

<comment><USER18> I'd say this is at least in part a side effect of a) vague wording ("general welfare") and b) unanticipated situations ("interstate commerce" between CA and NY in milliseconds).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is the person who subscribes to the nudge politics of micromanaging people's soft drink sizes.[1] Which comes from the same type of political theorists (Cass Sunstein chief among them) who believe it is a reasonable proposition to have a US version of China's paid political propagandists.[2][3] Only to be used for good though, obviously. So one can easily imagine when people get their hands on all this data, only to protect you from the terrorists at first, the argument will be swiftly made that it should be used for nudge purposes as well, seeing as we have the data now..

[1][http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health- Happi...](http://www.amazon.com/Nudge-Improving-Decisions-Health- Happiness/dp/014311526X)

[2][http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#.22Conspiracy_The...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#.22Conspiracy_Theories.22_and_government_infiltration)

[3]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/50_Cent_Party>

<comment><USER22> I know "ad hominem!" is oft-abused on the internet, but this is a bona fide example for a change. Two examples, in fact.

"Don't listen to what this guy's saying, he believes in nudge politics. Don't listen to nudge politics, the people who came up with it like China-style propaganda."

From the other comments here, there's plenty of legitimate points against his arguments. There's no need to resort to cheap shots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Crazy. The lesson here has been that you _can't_ protect against attacks like this. No matter how much surveillance and firepower you have, if someone really wants to commit violence, they're going to do it (especially if they don't care what happens to them afterwards). Adding more cameras might make it easier to find the attacker after the fact, but it's not going to prevent the attack in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER24> Terrorists are a threat to peace and security, but they can never be a threat to our freedom. Only the citizens and or the government can pose such a threat.

<comment><USER25> As much as I approve of your sentiment, the way you phrased it forces me to respond: "tell that to a kidnapping victim." Anyone can, in principle, pose a threat to your freedom.

<comment><USER26> It's pretty clear from the context that he's referring to our collective freedom as a nation, the freedom(s) granted to us by the very document mr Bloomberg wishes to reinterpret.

<comment><USER25> I'm pretty sure you're trying to make a distinction that doesn't exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I hope not. People actually questioned me in my local dinner just a few hours ago because I had a backpack on. I basically told them that the terrorists won if that was their attitude. Has anyone else experienced similar, or is this just an ass-backwards deep-south thang?

<comment><USER28> "I'll show you what's in my backpack, but you're going to have to pay for the dinner you interrupted with your panicky request."

<comment><USER27> I thought about saying "you have a 30 second head start" but maybe it was too soon and now with the Patriot Act and all...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I had to check twice that I wasn't reading the Onion.

</comment><comment><USER30> This might seem very controversial and "sexist", but I don't believe there's any "political conspiracy" involved at all - it's just political reality. This can almost all be attributed to a combination of 1: gender gap in voting, and 2: media misreporting of the facts - particularly mothers with children who are not made constantly aware of the statistics involved with these events.

<http://grounds-strategy.com/files/gender-and-voting.pdf>

> after 9/11, women became much more concerned with national security issues. > Today, a significant majority of women, 43 percent, versus 11 percent of > men, believe that a member of their family could be affected by a terrorist > attack.

Note that 43% + 11% is more than half the population; only 3000 people died in 9/11. That's 0.001% actually affected. Public perception of terrorism more accurately reflects the outcome of a full-scale nuclear war.

Mothers are extremely protective of their children (and this is not a bad thing) but when terrorism is reported in the news without also giving the context of the actual size of the event relative to the size of the population, it leads some people into a false sense of what risk their children really have. What the media outlets do, instead, is play into fears and make every attempt to keep these events as looking as scary as possible, because that's how they get ratings. Perhaps mothers with children are more apt to pay attention to this.

What is also interesting, and people here should try to consider this every once in a while, is that the comments on this site are almost exclusively young males. Most without children. So you won't hear things here from the mother-with-child perspective, which is a massive voting block.

<comment><USER31> 43% of women = 21.5% of total population, 11% of men = 5.5% of total population, so you're talking about approx 27% of the total population are concerned.

Bad statistical reasoning is 150% of the problem here. ;)

<comment><USER30> Hah, whoops, that's slightly embarrassing. I think my point still stands though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Having personally attended numerous Bloomberg press conferences in NYC (through his affiliation with the local startup community), let me paint perhaps a more objective picture from which this article arose:

This press conference likely had absolutely nothing to do with the Boston bombing. In fact, yesterday he was busy announcing a new ice skating facility in the Bronx. But using history as a guide, once the Q&A started, the media hounded him for quotes surrounding the Boston situation b/c stories about ice skating rinks are "boring".

And then once the media got a couple quotes that fit their mold, they wove some story around it to meet their biased agenda. Simply strip out Bloomberg's quotes from the article here and see for yourselves: they're not all that incriminating. But read them in the context of the author's story, and whoa, watch out! We're about to lose all of our freedoms.

Look - I get it. Some of the thing Bloomberg have done overstep the boundaries of what some consider reasonable. And having open discussion on this is totally warranted. But reading the comments here you would think those who view NYC from the outside think we live in some totalitarian state. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact. The city remains largely liberal from a social standpoint (and Bloomberg seems to be no exception). And in terms of diversity - whether it be religion, ethnic background, interests, etc. - you're simply not going to find a better melting pot.

So everybody please stop panicking for us - we're doing just fine. This is just some underpaid journo looking for a scoop and it seems she got more than a few clicks today courtesy of the alarmist HN crowd, so kudos to her. Now back to work.

<comment><USER33> "reading the comments here you would think those who view NYC from the outside think we live in some totalitarian state. Nothing could be further from the truth, in fact"

I spent the first 18 years of my life in NYC. I still go back to visit family several times each year.

I can tell you that the only place in America where people are less free than they are in NYC is at the airports. Here are some things to think about:

1\. The NYPD is basically an army. Sure, you have officers who are only armed with a handgun, but every time I have visited NYC in the past few years I have encountered _at least one_ paramilitary team. We are talking about soldiers whose uniforms say "POLICE" standing guard in the village, or Times Square, or in front of a bank in some uninteresting neighborhood.

2\. I carry a small pocket knife. When I went to NYC with it, I was stopped by the police, threatened with 2 weeks in jail, and then politely told to hide the knife so that a less "friendly" officer would not arrest me.

3\. I was given a $50 fine for walking between subway cars while a train was sitting in a station.

4\. I watched as dozens of cops closed in around a handful of protesters.

5\. I have had the police tell me that either they will inspect my bag or I will not be allowed to ride the subway.

6\. Cameras are confiscated or damaged at the Ground Zero memorial.

7\. Even hunting rifles are hard to get permission to own in NYC.

8\. Stop and frisk -- need I say more?

9\. [http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20100505//bikes- confiscated-...](http://www.dnainfo.com/new-york/20100505//bikes-confiscated- by-nypd-for-obamas-visit-still-being-sought-by-owners)

10\. [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/republican- national...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/01/republican-national- convention-2004-arrest-nypd-nyc-lacked-probable-cause-judge_n_1930433.html)

Unfortunately, that is the city I have to move back to next year for a job. I am not particularly looking forward to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> From stop and frisk of minority groups, to pervasive police surveillance of Muslims, to police harassment of the Occupy Wall Street protests, it is already clear that Michael Bloomberg has had disagreements with the Constitution.

<comment><USER35> You don't mention the endemic camera network in NYC. Or the asine soda ban....

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Bloomberg bought himself a 3rd term in New York City. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City#Ter...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Government_of_New_York_City#Term_limits_and_campaign_finance) Maybe he can afford to modify the Constitution.

</comment><comment><USER37> "Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms ..."

So sayeth Mayor Bloomberg, in the midst of a speech that explicitly proposes taking away another of our freedoms.

</comment><comment><USER38> Interpretation of the American constitution should have changed a long time before. The US way of choosing a president for example still presupposes people travelling up and down the east cost with horses...

</comment><comment><USER39> Since the shelter in place request was a request and wasn't enforced by any law, why do we have to re-interpret the Constitution?

A better question might be, why is this nonsense on the front page of HN?

</comment><comment><USER40> Statements such as Bloomberg's always remind me of this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75oun5gvDAU#t=6m19s>

</comment><comment><USER41> Only cowards will sacrifice freedom for security.

</comment><comment><USER42> As most of the constitution seems pretty outdated nowadays, why does no one ever bring up the idea of writing a new one?

<comment><USER43> > As most of the constitution seems pretty outdated nowadays

I would suggest that that sentiment is far from universal.

It may seem outdated to you, but not to everyone else.

> why does no one ever bring up the idea of writing a new one?

The same reason people are generally better off making incremental changes to basically-functional mission-critical computing systems than tossing them out and starting from scratch.

<comment><USER42> I guess the analogy you chose makes it sound like a bad idea, but I'd use a different one. If you have a 300 year old house with rotting boards and a foundation that is cracked, would you replace individual boards or tear down the whole thing and start anew?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but articles like this really make me double check that I'm not living in the Truman Show.

"Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?"

      "A Republic, if you can keep it."

</comment><comment><USER45> This is the only source of this "press event"? I don't buy it.

</comment><comment><USER46> This man is a case study in Statist ideology.

</comment><comment><USER47> It's over folks, they won.</comment>


Ask HN: Review my lead-mining webapp, LeadNuke - <AUTHOR> http://www.leadnuke.com/

<comment><USER2> I'd recommend making the design a little more "welcoming". It's very bare and plain - makes the site look cheap which reflects on the service. I'd also recommend simplifying the information and features on the home page - try to really get across what your app does, what it will help us do, and why we should use it, as quickly and easily as possible.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much, I definitely agree with trying to simplify the information and features on the home page.

I actually had a much different design at first, but it seemed too busy and not clean enough. For the redesign, I went for a much clearer and minimalistic approach. I suppose it's a matter of taste really, can't please everyone :-)

<comment><USER3> Make sure to be careful with fonts. Currently there are many different colors and fonts. I would try to reduce that. The monospaced typewriter font looks very bad to me, it has that nervous jitter. Makes it look a bit unprofessional to me. Warmer colors would help. I wish I was a designer and able to help, but I can only give this criticism. Take it if it has a use, ignore if you think it does not!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> First thought: your logo looks like an envelope stuffed with excrement.

Also, my eye is drawn the the sad faces on your landing page. Without reading, it looks like a feature list for your product, not a comparison. It took my awhile to figure out that I had to click to see the good.

<comment><USER5> Until I read this comment, I didn't notice it was clickable at all. I was just really confused about the message.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it looks pretty good over all. You might want to put a video demo on the front page or something. There's a lot going on in your front page; I like something that succinctly tells me what the product is and why I should be using it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I actually had a demo video, but the quality wasn't that great and it was with the old design. I was going to go through and remake the video if there was any interest at all. If there isn't, then I wasn't going to waste my time.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G75KhTQWyDA>

In the meantime, here is the demo video I had... do you think I should put it back on the homepage? Would it serve to help sell the app or drive people away because of the quality?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The home page doesn't really tell me what it does. It's all marketing style corporate speak that I don't really understand.

You should really change your tagline to be more of a description of your service than a marketing phrase. "Since cold leads don't fit in the microwave" tells me nothing about your service.

"LeadNuke is the missing link in your existing sales pipeline; it helps you kick-start the sales process."

That doesn't really tell me anything either.

"LeadNuke is a streamlined process that helps you find, track, and follow- through with news articles, blog posts, and RSS feeds from your industry, turning them into meaningful sales leads. LeadNuke helps you generate qualified leads and initiate a dialog with prospects who actually need your product or service."

This also doesn't really tell me much.

I looked down your home page further and I'm guessing this is some sort of email marketing service. You should definitely use the word email in your descriptions so people know that's what it is.

<comment><AUTHOR> All that marketing style corporate speak is because it's a product aimed at the marketing people. I agree about the tagline, that was me having a bit of fun.

<comment><USER8> Even so, consider simplifying it thusly: _LeadNuke helps you generate qualified sales leads from online news articles and feeds_

If this is what it really does, it would have explained it to me immediately.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I read that is Pb-mining. I thought it was a new World of Warcraft-like game.

Incidentally, cold lead fits in the microwave.

</comment><comment><USER10> Here are my $.02. Great idea. Warms leads are very valuable and if you can help you have a winner. Your voice came out very well.

I am wondering why the videos are hidden on the pricing page? I'm a big believer in showing the video up front so I can take 2 mins to decide if this is for me. I'd also recommend a shorter video that highlights how you take an rss feed and turn it into a lead in order to demonstrate value.

Once I've determine this product could be of value to me, then I might want to get details about how it works.

</comment><comment><USER11> I also thought the name was referring to the element. One thing I think should be changed is the section that compares "Traditional Email Marketing" vs. "The Lead Nuke Way". I don't think most people are going to realize that you click to view the information for "The LeadNuke Way". And with how the headings are setup it looks like you are saying your service has Low Conversions, Wasted Effort, and Risk of Spamming.

</comment><comment><USER12> Tell me exactly what your product does in the tagline. Make this sentence shorter and sweeter and put it center stage.

 _LeadNuke is a streamlined process that helps you find, track, and follow- through with news articles, blog posts, and RSS feeds from your industry, turning them into meaningful sales leads._

</comment><comment><USER13> Sounds interesting, and I was about to sign up for a free account to give it a whirl until I saw that the basic (and even some paid) accounts have no security.

I know that some well-known companies get away with this, but to me it says that you believe security for my personal information is something to be bartered for. As soon as I have to start wondering under exactly which circumstances your company is going to try to protect my data, you've lost my trust.

Of course this is only my personal opinion, but for what it's worth I won't do business with anyone who treats my security as an option.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's an interesting point of view. I didn't really put much thought into security, because nothing in this app contains secure information really (besides perhaps the password to login).

It wasn't so much a matter of your security being an option, but rather a matter of the intended customer type. For instance, the only information that could realistically be considered to need security in this app is the specific leads you generate/contact. However, the only companies I've ever worked for or with that consider their leads to be top-secret are large corporations. Hence, the reason the subscription level that includes enhanced security is the "Corporate" account.

But I can see your side as well.

<comment><USER13> _the only information that could realistically be considered to need security in this app is the specific leads you generate/contact_

How about payment information? Should I expect an unencrypted form submission when I hand over my credit card details? My password gets submitted as plain text and emailed back, will my credit card number be handled the same? From ten seconds on the landing page, and looking at the insecure signup form, I can't tell - and that's probably not what you want your potential customers to be worried about.

I'm not trying to be negative, and from the looks of it I don't think you can actually provide a credit card anywhere on your site yet so you still have time to sort it out, but _please_ give some serious thought to basic security before you start asking people to send you their credit cards.

<comment><AUTHOR> HECK NO! Anyone who allows payment information to be transmitted unencrypted should be prosecuted and fined at the very least.

That's not really part of the functionality of the service, though, so I was assuming that wasn't the security you were referring to... the actual payment method has nothing to do with the level of subscription.

I don't have anywhere for you to enter credit card info at the moment, because I haven't actually hooked up the merchant account yet. I see no need to spend $50/mo on something (merchant account for LeadNuke) unless it's pulling in more than $50/mo (that's the lean mantra at its finest). However, after this post, it looks like I'll have to get that part operational.

I know you're not trying to be negative, it's certainly a big deal. Web dev (including security) is what I do for a living, so no worries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm very interested in seeing what everyone's take is on my new webapp, as I don't think I could ask for any better feedback than from the people here. It's far from complete in terms of functionality, but it does essentially what I needed it to do. I'm currently using it for both of my companies, and have a few friends in the area using it for their companies as well.

I figured I'd throw it out there to get a feel for how useful people think something like this may be. If it is, in fact, useful to some, then I can start putting more time/effort into developing it further.

</comment><comment><USER14> Cool concept! I like the idea and just signed up. Will definitely give it a spin and give some deeper insight.

The design is sparse (almost in a good way). If I were you, I'd think of some ways to tighten up the feel. Rip off some other webapps' design features (header/footer style). I know this is sort of a "feeling it out" run so carry on. :-)

</comment><comment><USER15> It seems that your 2nd to last how it works image ('Turn leads into sales') implies that you're pulling The Federal Reserve out of a CNN article as an example of how the app works to generate one type of personalized email. Maybe you want a more realistic example? I know it's not a big thing, but it just struck me as a really odd example.

<comment><AUTHOR> I totally agree, and that is one of the first details I'll fix if the app proves viable for anyone other than myself and friends ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The phrase "(less) risk of spamming" doesn't sit right with me. If I don't have an ongoing relationship with the recipient, nor do I know for a fact they have solicited such messages, I am _definitely_ spamming, not merely risking it. Then again, your target market might not believe they're doing anything wrong.

</comment><comment><USER17> I read through most of the first page and I'm still not quite clear what this app does. Where does it get the leads from? Do you have to generate the leads yourself? If so, is this basically a CRM tool? (in that case, why call it something else?)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's more of a plugin for CRM's than a CRM itself... it fits in between the general market and your existing CRM. I.e. it helps you filter out warm leads from the general market, so you can initiate contact with them and then funnel them into your CRM.

It helps you keep track of random leads you come across, and it also imports leads from any RSS feed that you feed it. This includes Google Alerts, job posting boards, etc. The idea is that eventually, it will have the ability to crawl the web on it's own so as not to need a Google Alerts feed.

It also keeps track of how many useful leads come in through each feed, so that you can decide which feeds to keep and which ones waste your time.</comment></comment>