Want jobs? Encourage immigration
51–60 of 123 posts
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#52If you read TechCrunch (Wadhwa's pieces especially) or the ABC article referenced, this piece contains absolutely nothing new, just a rehash of the same things. Sparse, suspect data, plenty of correlation/causation fallacies, and topped off with a populist appeal to "create jobs"
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
'our' jobs? Suppose you are in california and Caltech hires a new Yorker as a postdoc instead of you - is that any better/worse than them hiring a Canadian/Brit or German? Suppose they hired an American who had done their graduate work at oxford - is that better than hiring a Brit who had done their phd at Caltech?
Not to put words in greenName's mouth, but I believe the assumption is that a New Yorker and a Californian both would expect appropriate compensation for their work. Regardless of whether a citizen of the United States studied here or abroad, he would still expect a salary commiserate with his qualifications. Someone who is effectively an indentured servant on an H1-B visa will take whatever is offered to him because…
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The US really needs to emulate other countries here. Which other countries are these? As the holder of an employer-tied 3-year temporary Danish work permit, with no possibility to even apply for the Danish equivalent of a green card until I've resided in the country with solid employment for at least 4 years (and passed a language exam, something the U.S. doesn't require), I don't think it can be this one... Though…
most european countries have such a xenophobic system, but the uk, canada, iraland, new zealand, and australia have really open systems in place
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#55The entire of human history has thus far been fueled by population growth. When there were 10 million of us, this wasn't a problem. When there were 100 million of us, this wasn't a problem. When there were 1 billion of us, it was mostly not a problem. Now as we zero in on 10 billion... it's becoming a problem.
The way our society and our economy works should in so many ways tell you this is true. Look at the urban decay that occurred in many American cities in the 20th century.
Urban decay post-WW2 was fuelled by the interstate system, the cheapening cost of owning a car and that it was cheaper to build new communities than it was to maintain existing infrastructure.
Some cities experienced negative population growth with devastating consequences (eg Detroit, Baltimore). Certainly in Detroit's case, there are large swathes of the city that really need to be returned to wilderness. But who's going to pay for the demolition, relocation and clean up?
The Western world is essentially dying with net migration being pretty much the only reason any Western country is growing at all. The social experiments of the early 20th century (ie state-funded retirement) are, at present rates, ultimately unsustainable when we get down to 3 or even 2 employed people pre retired person (initially it was in excess of 50 to 1 at least for Social Security).
An aging population is a natural consequence of slowing population growth, just like urban decay is. So far we've largely shown ourselves at being ill-equipped at dealing with either, except for politicking around migration, which basically just kicks that can further down the street.
It is my opinion that there need to be an awful lot less of us and there will be one day, one way or the other. As much as people point to space as a solution to these problems we have an economy built in basically digging not-that-deep holes for our metals. While there are metal-rich asteroids out there, the cost of moving, processing and using those materials is so many orders of magnitude more expensive (both realistically and conceivably) that I have to wonder if it will ever be comparable (although it might one day be viable just because every other way has become so expensive, which will be an earth-shattering adjustment for us all).
So migration is, I believe, a short term fix. But it doesn't address what I believe to be a key driver in unemployment: we're slowly automating our way out of the most unskilled jobs (and increasingly skilled jobs too). That too will be a challenge.
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#56Why doesn't the US move to a points-based system like the UK and Canada? This seems like a simple and sensible solution to a complex problem that ensures that the people who immigrate are in some sense "useful" to the country. I also don't understand why the green card backlog isn't being handled efficiently. Surely, if somebody is paying, say more than 20k in income taxes every year for, say 5 years in a row, there…
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#57I agree that US needs an entrepreneur visas. But I disagree with author's suggestion that all US-educated graduates must be given green cards. A lot of them came to US to study because they could afford it (often via wealthy parents). I don't think it's fair to give green cards only because they graduated from a US university thanks to their rich parents. Foreign students have one year after graduation to find an emp…
From personal experience, everything is wrong with this H-1B visa (slavery to employer) and even with proposed Startup/ Entrepreneur Visa which again promotes slavery to "someone."
If US is serious, they should allow 5 year unrestricted visa to all foreign graduates from US universities (no government benefits during this period). With this visa, these graduates can either work for anyone or start business. The exit from this visa to green card should be based on specific number of people employed or revenue earned or income earned.
Keep it simple.
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#58Mexico by far has been the biggest contributor of immigrants to the US in recent decades, yet it doesn't even rank within the top 20 nations with the most immigrant entrepreneurs. Mexicans are responsible for a total of 1% of the these immigrant founded companies in California. They number about 10 million in California, far more than any other immigrant group, yet they hardly rank as a source of entrepreneurs.
If growing the number of entrepreneurs is your only goal, asking the tired and poor to come here is a recipe for failure. Mexicans, despite their origins in poverty, have not achieved much in the way of tech entrepreneurship, relative to Indians, Taiwanese, Chinese, etc. Some countries are better than others in producing entrepreneurs.
Re: Want jobs? Encourage immigration
#59There's an economic fallacy at place here. Jobs, in and of themselves, do not benefit us on the whole. You could give some number of people a "job" to walk around in circles all day long and pay them money for it, but the net effect would be that society sees no benefit from this. Productive jobs, however, are good things. There is a conflict, though: the more productive your job is, the fewer employees are necessary - actually resulting in fewer jobs.
Hopefully you have witnessed this first-hand over the last few decades. Travel agencies have been replaced by Priceline, Expedia, etc. Tax specialists have been replaced by TurboTax, TaxAct, etc. Even simple legal matters can be handled by LegalZoom and the like, reducing the need for lawyers. All manufactured media products (books, news, movies, music, games) are now transferred digitally, which eliminates the need for factory workers to produce physical products. Online banking eliminates the need for bank tellers. Countless other examples.
Essentially, technology kills jobs. We develop software and devices to handle what was traditionally done by people, and sell the services at a much cheaper rate because we don't have to pay for all the overhead that old services once required. This is a good thing, however.
Anyway, I'm all for immigration, and I'm all for tech companies. But the fact is they destroy jobs more than they create them, and are therefore partially responsible for the current unemployment rate. The logic behind this article is all backwards because of this.