Thanks to TechCrunch for doing a tech interview with Candidate Romney. The interview provides us with an insite to what candidate Romney thinks about internet taxes, protecting our intellectual properties from less than fair  trade agreeme…

link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRA.....dt.01.html

And, we’ll challenge corporate America’s repeated assertions it can’t find enough qualified Americans to fill key technology jobs. It turns out it just ain’t so. Imagine that. We’ll have that story, and a great deal more as we continue, live tonight with our “Independents Day” tour, live from, you guessed it, there’s the Space Needle, Seattle, Washington. We’ll be right back.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

DOBBS: New study show American colleges are producing more than enough graduates in Science and Math in this country to fill the needs of U.S. business, but corporate America continues to claim there simply aren’t enough Americans trained in those fields and they must hire foreign workers, workers that of course end up being paid quite a bit less than American workers.

Bill Tucker has our report.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

BILL TUCKER, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): There is no shortage of students studying for careers in Math and Science. There is a shortage of jobs. That’s the simply bottom line finding of a new study from the Urban Institute.

The study shows that between 1985 and 2000 435,000 U.S. citizens and permanent residents a year graduated with Bachelors, Masters, and Doctoral degrees in Science and Engineering. That’s three times the number of jobs in Science and Engineering added per year, 150,000 during that time.

Separately Michael Teitelbaum at the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation told Congress last week that neither he nor a separate study by the RAND Corporation can find any evidence of worker shortages. These studies are not anomalies.

VIVEK WADHWA, HARVARD UNIVERSITY: Bottom line is that all of our research at Duke and now at Harvard shows the same thing. That there is no shortage of engineers; there’s no shortage of scientists. Companies aren’t going abroad because of skills. They’re going abroad because it’s cheaper.

TUCKER: As a result, Wadhwa says that more than half of the engineering graduate students at Duke don’t pursue engineering as a career and there is another indicator that the market is anything but short of scientists and engineers.

PAUL ALMEIDA, DEPT. FOR PROF. EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO: We should be trying to figure out how to incentivize (ph) students to advance in these Math and Science areas. It’s clearly that there is no shortage. If there is a shortage, the supply and demand wages would be going up in these areas.

TUCKER: Wages in the science and engineering fields over the last five years when adjusted for inflation have been basically flat.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

TUCKER: Now Lou, that’s the Urban Institute, the Alfred P. Sloan (ph) Foundation, Duke, Harvard, the RAND Corporation. Studies done independently of each other, different researches, different funding, all reaching the same basic conclusion that there is no worker shortage. Lou, the problem is not a lack of workers. The problem these studies all conclude is a lack of companies hiring them. And as we’ve reported many, many times on this program those companies either off-shore the work or as you mentioned at the top, demand more H-1B visas and then pay those workers less — Lou.

DOBBS: We’ve been reporting on this issue, the exporting of American jobs, the outsourcing of American jobs, middle class jobs, for four years. And point of fact, the idea that all of these highly regarded, highly respected institutions have found the same thing that we have reported her for four years. Congress just last week, the subcommittee on technology and innovation, suggesting that 30 to 40 percent of American jobs now are at risk of being outsourced, in addition to the H-1B problem.

TUCKER: Right.

DOBBS: Let’s put this in some context. Let’s just deal with that H-1B program, which all of these companies want to bring those foreign workers in under. What’s the number of Indian companies that are using H-1B visas, seeking H-1B visas for the purpose of outsourcing those jobs right here in the United States?

TUCKER: Well five of the top six users of the H-1B visa program, Lou, as you well know, are Indian companies.

DOBBS: Yes I did, but I wanted because I’m in Seattle, Washington, tonight Bill Tucker, and I thank you very much — I want to repeat that just for the purpose, the benefit, the illumination, the education, the enlightenment of one of the — this city’s most famous citizens, Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates. Bill Gates is among those calling for more H-1B visas. In fact, Bill Gates wants an unlimited number of H-1B visas. And we really think it’s important that he be brought up-to-date on this issue. Gates testified before a Senate committee in March — by the way, he was the only witness and there was only one fellow chariot — that was Senator Ted Kennedy — and Gates said the United States should allow, as he put it, an infinite number of foreign workers. We can’t get above infinite no matter what we do.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BILL GATES, MICROSOFT CHAIRMAN: We have to welcome the great minds in this world, not shut them out of our country. Unfortunately, our immigration policies are driving away the world’s best and brightest precisely when we need them the most.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

DOBBS: Bill Gates, you just heard the RAND Corporation, the Urban Institute, Harvard University, come on and look at the facts. Most of those H-1B visas are being used by Indian companies seeking to outsource jobs at a very, very reduced wage. In fact, most of the H-1B computer professionals in this country are brought in at the lowest skill levels; about half of the H-1B visa computer professionals recently admitted to the United States, in fact during the (INAUDIBLE) entry level salaries, so much for the advanced, best minds. These are entry level jobs, not the highly skilled jobs seeking those H-1B visas.

So Mr. Gates, I certainly hope that you and I can have a discussion on that. I’m sure that you would be delighted to do that, but I’m going to ask for something less than an infinite number of H- 1B visas and when we compromise, as a matter of fact, I want to return to two years ago levels.

Here’s hoping you’ll reach out and interview Ron Paul and others.

Michael, thanks for bringing a few political interviews to TechCrunch. I see it as a brilliant move! It’ll be interesting to see the upcoming interviews with the other candidates, as well.

Thanks!

1. There is no shortage of tech workers. You don’t have flat to decreasing salaries with a shortage.

2. The program does not bring “the best and the brightest.” All you need is a bachelor’s degree. There is actually a special visa for foreigners with extraordinary talent or skills. We have always been able to bring in “the best and the brightest.”

3. We don’t have gaps in our employment pool. Tell me what you need and I will find an American for you fast.

4. Our students can compete with foreigners. We have an underclass that drags down average test scores in math and science. He insults American students by implying that they don’t measure up to foreigners.

The H1-B visa program is all about cheap labor and age discrimination. One immigration law firm let the cat out of the bag when they put a video of their workshop on the web. One talk was a set of instruction on how to avoid hiring Americans.

Romney is either compromised by industrial interests or ignorant of the subjects he takes a position on.

1. Shortage at what price? My undergraduate economics professor made a big deal about it not making economic sense to claim a shortage without a price. For example claiming that is a shortage of good five cent cigars makes sense. A claim that there is a shortage of cigars is foolish. There is no doubt there is a shortage of college graduate programmers at $20,000 a year is there a shortage at what the average American programmer makes? So the question is at what price?

2. Is Nobel economist Milton Friedman wrong when he says the H-1B is a subsidy? He said “There is no doubt, that the [H-1B] program is a benefit to their employers, enabling them to get workers at a lower wage, and to that extent, it is a subsidy.”

3. Is socialist Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) wrong? He says “What many of us have come to understand is that these H1-B visas are not being used to supplement the American workforce where we have shortages but, rather, H-1B visas are being used to replace American workers with lower cost foreign workers,”

4. Is Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Federal Reserve, wrong? He testified to Congress: “Simply producing more engineers and scientists may not be the answer because the labor market for those workers will simply reflect lower wages or, perhaps, greater unemployment for those workers.”

5. Is Vivek Wadhwa of Duke University, a supported of more foreign workers (he is one) wrong? He says “…the problem isn’t the supply, it’s the demand…we have enough engineers and scientists. The problem is that the salaries aren’t there.”

Also, keep in mind, that the supply costs include the following: materials, labor, manufacturing processes, etc
BTW for this example, lower supply costs may be anything (not just labor costs) like a reduction in taxes for one seller but not another.

There have always been problems with the free markets when it is influenced by government subsidies to corporations. To explain simply what’s going on, consider this thought experiment:

There are two sellers, #1 & #2, and many buyers in the same market. The two sellers would like to buy their supply to make their product at a low price. The supply includes all inputs to make the product such as materials, labor, manufacturing processes, etc. Ultimately, these two sellers would like to sell their products at a high price and make a profit. Well one day, seller #1 decided that they would like to make more profit but they can’t figure out how to take more market share from seller #2 to increase profits. During a meeting with management, seller #1 decides to lobby the government for a reduction in labor costs to help them be more competitive against seller #2 because their labor rate is too high. The government agrees with seller #1 and decides to increase guest worker programs that essential reduce labor costs. Like magic, the labor rates fall as predicted because of the increase labor supply, and this makes seller #1 happy. Seller #1 can now buy their supply at a lower cost. This in turn, allows their profits to increase because they are still selling high. If seller #2 doesn’t take advantage the resulting new labor rates, then their profit will be lower because they are still buying the supply at a higher price than seller #1. Therefore, seller #2 will see a decrease in profits. If seller #2 continues to be unprofitable, then they will go out of business after some period of time. However, seller #2 wants to stay in business, so they take advantage of the lower labor rates as well. So who wins and who loses? Since the labor rate obviously goes down, then the workers for seller #1 and #2 will take a financial loss.

That’s what happens when the government intervenes. The government basically allowed the sellers to profit at the expense of someone else-the workers. This may not be the intention, but it is certainly the result. Now, let’s consider what happens without government intervention:
There are two sellers, #1 & #2, and many buyers in the same market. The two sellers would like to buy their supply to make their product at a low price. The supply includes all inputs to make the product such as materials, labor, manufacturing processes, etc. Ultimately, these two sellers would like to sell their products at a high price and make a profit. Well one day, seller #1 decided that they would like to make more profit but they can’t figure out how to take more market share from seller #2 to increase profits. During a meeting with management, seller #1 decides to lobby the government for more guest worker programs to help them be more competitive against seller #2 because their labor rate is too high. The government disagrees with seller #1 and decides to not to increase quota on the guest worker programs. Seller #1 is not happy and goes back to management with a different strategy. This time seller #1 decides to improve their manufacturing process to be more efficient and increase productivity. Seller #1 can now buy their supply at a lower cost because they were innovative. In turn, this allows their profits to increase because they are still able to sell high or even slightly lower than before they were innovative. If seller #2 doesn’t become more innovative, then his profits will be lower because he is still buying the supply at a higher price than seller #1. Therefore, seller #2 will see a decrease in profits. If seller #2 continues to be unprofitable, then they will go out of business after some period of time. Well seller #2 wants to stay in business, so they become more innovative. So who wins and who loses? Everyone wins because these two sellers are doing more with less. The results are lower supply costs and increased profits that benefit their shareholders and workers. Moreover, the buyers of their products benefit because the price of their products will ultimately decrease with increased competition.

We’re essentially making a choice between capitalism and socialism today in America. Should the government make rules that benefit one at the expense of another which is common practice in a socialist economy? Now let’s assume that the government agrees with corporations and grants them this subsidy that essentially lowers the living standard of workers and reduces innovation. How long do you think that there will be political stability in America with this kind of policy? America was founding on rebelling against tyranny such as socialism and our freedom is secure because we have fought for it. It is time to rebel again. Have the politicians not learned anything from history or the countries that have socialist economies? We need to get the word out about socialism and the dangers that threaten the American way of life.

Mitt Romney, a leading Republican presidential candidate, was a founder of Bain Capital, a private equity firm. So you’d think he’d understand the basics of the VC tax legislation being fiercely debated in Washington. But in an interview with TechCrunch, he shows he doesn’t understand it.

When asked what he thought of the VC tax proposal he says:

“…with regard to carried interest associated with venture capital, real estate, private equity, I do not believe in raising taxes. And it is a capital gain because those individuals do make an investment, it’s a small investment, but they make an investment of their own capital and I would treat capital gains as capital gains instead of trying to re-categorize them as normal income.”

The emphasis is ours. He is flat out wrong. The VC tax legislation governs only the “carried interest,” or the profits made by VCs and other investors from investing other peoples’ money, i.e, the money they get from the big institutions that provide the money to their firms. As we explained in our earlier story about the VC tax issue, the profits VCs make from investing their own capital remains at the low capital gains rate of 15 percent. For Romney to mix this up shows that he’s either purposefully trying to obfuscate this fact — like much of the rest of the industry is trying to do — or that he just doesn’t understand the issue, which would be troubling indeed. Too bad TechCrunch didn’t call him on it.

In July he visited Mountain View for an @Google talk and he was very well received. Many commented that there had not been as much excitement and discussion around the campus for any speaker as for Dr. Paul. Here’s the interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCM_wQy4YVg