Chief_Engineer

A 17 year old account rarely used with a single follower.

Then one day a Tech Bro posted something insulting and vile about American Labor I couldn't hold back.

16 months to 30,000 followers from 1.

From Engineering to an account where we discuss, respectfully disagree, educate and learn about labor, policy, history, and the self - interested corruption of our elite.

Thank you for the support and willingness to fearlessly add your viewpoints for everyone to engage.

We will win this fight through incremental, unending, continuous effort and improvement.

We do it for ourselves | We do it for the prosperity of our youth | We do it until we win

THEY DONT WORK FOR YOU

Apparently, most all of the Republican Senators thought they did a good job over the last two years.

Because after losing their Senate majority and at least seven seats in the midterms, Republican senators decided to keep John Thune as their leader.

No opposing candidate.

Some senators wanted to delay the decision and reconsider the party's direction.

That effort lost 31–15. 31 Senators felt just peachy about the course they have been heading in.

And Thune was reelected without opposition.

Think about the contrast.

The voters delivered a significant electoral setback.

The senators held their own election and kept essentially the same leadership.

Now Thune says the priorities include affordability and rebuilding the Republican majority. I heard he completely against the wildly popular appointment of Tim Burchett... Maybe he has his eyes on supporting another run for Vivek Ramaswamy or John Cornyn instead?

Fair enough.

But here's the question:

If the last two years ended with voters taking away your majority, what exactly are you planning to do differently over the next two?

And why wasn't that discussion settled before the leadership election?

They Dont Work For You.

What is up with Africa?

It is bizarre that American taxpayers keep sending hundreds of millions in USAID money every year to countries with birth rates two to three times higher than our own.

Major recipients like the Democratic Republic of Congo have fertility rates over 5.5 children per woman. Nigeria sits around 4.3 to 4.5. Sudan and Ethiopia are well above 4.0.

The United States average fertility rate is roughly 1.6.

Which is something else when you consider that conservatives are still tipping the scales at 2.6.

Given our high housing costs and lack of jobs, AI and robots, that 1.6 average might be a good thing actually.

We are using American money to support rapid population growth in places that cannot sustain their current numbers. This creates endless dependency and more pressure for migration into the United States.

Meanwhile American families deal with strained schools hospitals housing shortages and suppressed wages.

Turning the African continent into a literal fountain of babies that cannot sustain itself was not compassionate.

They Dont Work For You.

Three simple questions:

How many state and federal jobs should go to foreign workers?

How many government contracts should we allow foreign labor to be employed in?

Why doesn't our House and Senate care about Americal labor and wages?

THEY DONT WORK FOR YOU

If anyone should be exporting labor, it should be America but they will never admit this because it would stop the globalist migration.

The American Skills Shortage. Or the American Wage Problem?

A hundred years ago, Americans were debating a question that sounds remarkably familiar today.

Were employers bringing in foreign workers because America lacked the people to do the jobs, or because employers wanted access to a larger, less expensive labor pool?

Labor competition was one factor behind the immigration restrictions of the 1920s, alongside nationalism, racial prejudice, and demands for tighter immigration controls.

Today, the argument has returned, particularly in engineering, technology, and the H-1B visa program.

We're repeatedly told that America needs to import highly skilled workers because American talent cannot meet demand.

But what happens when we actually measure technical skills?

The results are worth examining.

In 2019, a Stanford-led study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences compared computer science students in the United States, India, China, and Russia using standardized assessments.

American students scored substantially higher on average than their counterparts in the other three countries.

The advantage persisted even in comparisons involving elite universities.

Another assessment, conducted by India's own Aspiring Minds, found that just 4.7% of assessed Indian applicants could write functionally correct code, compared with 18.8% of American applicants.

That's approximately four times the success rate.

And the criticism wasn't coming exclusively from American commentators.

Indian newspapers reported the findings themselves.

The Indian Express covered assessments indicating that more than 80% of Indian engineering graduates failed to meet particular employability benchmarks.

Think about that.

American students demonstrated stronger technical performance in an international assessment, while an Indian assessment company was publicly questioning the job readiness of its own engineering graduates.

Yet American employers continue arguing that importing foreign technical labor is essential.

Now, there's an important distinction.

These studies evaluated students and job applicants, not a representative sample of H-1B employees. They cannot establish that every American engineer is more capable than every foreign engineer.

And India unquestionably produces excellent engineers, physicians, scientists, and researchers.

But they do challenge a popular assumption:

A foreign engineering degree is not automatically evidence of superior technical ability.

Now follow the money.

A 2026 NBER study estimated that H-1B workers earned approximately 16% less than comparable U.S.-born workers.

That raises a question employers should be willing to answer.

Are they recruiting internationally because the necessary skills genuinely cannot be found in America?

Or because a larger international labor pool gives them access to less expensive workers?

The distinction matters enormously.

America has some of the world's most internationally recognized universities.

American institutions helped pioneer modern computing, aerospace engineering, semiconductor technology, medical research, and artificial intelligence.

We have the educational infrastructure, technical knowledge, and industrial history to develop extraordinary talent.

And when American expertise is recruited internationally, that demonstrates that American skills themselves are a valuable export.

So why do we so frequently hear that America must import expertise instead of investing more aggressively in developing its own?

Why aren't we expanding technical apprenticeships?

Why aren't we addressing medical residency bottlenecks?

Why aren't we investing more heavily in American engineering education?

Why aren't employers training promising American workers instead of expecting every candidate to arrive with years of specialized experience?

And perhaps the most uncomfortable question:

When an employer says Americans aren't qualified, how often does that really mean Americans aren't available at the salary the employer wants to pay?

None of this establishes that immigration is inherently harmful or that foreign workers lack merit.

It establishes something more specific.

Technical qualifications can be measured.

Training quality can be evaluated.

Wages can be compared.

And claims about labor shortages should be tested against those facts instead of accepted as corporate talking points.

If companies genuinely need exceptional foreign specialists, they should be able to demonstrate the need.

But importing workers should not become a substitute for developing American talent or paying competitive wages.

America has already demonstrated what its people can accomplish.

The question is whether its employers and policymakers are willing to invest in what they can accomplish next.

Before declaring an American skills shortage, show us the skills assessment. Show us the wages. Show us the domestic recruiting effort.

Then we can have an informed discussion about what is actually missing.

They Dont Work For You.