General Discussion Undecided where to post - do it here. |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
![]() |
#3 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
|
Getting to work for Goldman Sachs When an exogenous supply shock (me!) causes the wages of a certain portion of the labour force go down the real wages of everybody else go up (the things I produce are produced more cheaply, allowing others to purchase more of them with the same nominal wage). The economic effects of this are the same as the effects of an exogenous demand shock for labour caused by technological innovation. In other words, if somebody invented a robot which could do my job with the operational cost per year equal to my salary, would you say this was a bad thing because it "depresses the wages of the native workforce"? If so, then you're nothing more than a Luddite. And at least the Luddites protested the displacement of workers who were not paid ridiculous sums of money. Importing skilled workers is beneficial in every way: 1) It increases the general welfare of the natives of the country (allows more to be produced with less) 2) It reduces income inequality amongst the natives of the country (transfers wealth from highly-skilled, highly-paid workers to lower-paid workers) 3) It benefits the imported worker For the country losing the skilled worker, the effects are generally negative. However, it's been hypothesized that when the country in question is very poor relative to the country gaining the skilled worker, the prospect of "winning the lottery" (getting to work in a high-income country) causes much more human capital investment than would otherwise be the case, increasing welfare there as well. Likely the biggest losers in skilled worker migration are countries which already have high human capital development (so the elasticity of supply is not strong). Russia and much of the Eastern Bloc are enormous losers when it comes to skilled labour migration. They had a highly-educated workforce, so foreign demand has little effect on educational levels. Meanwhile, they are rather poorer than are countries with similar cultures and languages (it's easier for Russians to learn English than it is for Chinese to learn English) so the incentives to migrate are high and the impediments low. |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#8 |
|
Nice guys that ALREADY MAKE FAR MORE THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON I'm opposed to immigration of groups that are hostile to the native country, those that show no wish to adapt to its customs and actively subvert the system. If you make an effort to become a true American you're OK in my book. |
![]() |
![]() |
#9 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#10 |
|
My main beef with immigration is actually not economic, so I'm just teasing you. Maybe I should start a smoked meat shop. ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#12 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#13 |
|
Hmm, I can't wait till I get my H1B Visa. 1) You have not and will never qualify for H1-Bs. People with history degrees and no specialty do not become classified as someone in a specialty occupation. In general, people imported on H1-Bs are people with hard to find specialties -- stuff that's hard to staff locally. At my consulting firm most of the guys had H1-Bs to work in the US or Canada (which I didn't need, since I'm a dual citizen), but they were software developers specializing in financial services. People who tutor people dumb enough to not recognize they have a stupid tutor do not qualify. 2) You are not in America, so you cannot welcome people to it. |
![]() |
![]() |
#14 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#17 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#18 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#19 |
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
#20 |
|
Welcome to America |
![]() |
Reply to Thread New Thread |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|