Tom Friedman's Wednesday column expressed the view that Ph.D graduates and other highly educated immigrants on student visas should automatically get green cards.
It seems easy to agree with this view, but the naturalization of high-skill immigrants has an economic impact with winners and losers, just like immigration consisting of low-skill workers.
Why is it easier to agree with Friedman? The people who compete with immigrants who have Ph.D's are natives with Ph.D's. As a member of the latter group, I can tell you that there are many foreign-born professors with whom I am "competing."
But I'm in favor of immigration, and I think granting citizenship to more Ph.D recipients would be a good thing. Is that because I have certain political views or come from a particular background, or is it because I think my well-being is more insulated from competition in the labor market?
It seems to me that a key stumbling block impeding immigration reform must be the exposure to the downside of labor market risk --- losing your job --- that is disproportionately felt by domestic unskilled workers.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
More details about immigration bill emerge
I wish I knew a canonical source for this. Maybe that's no accident; the Senate's job is probably easier without full disclosure of the draft bill's contents!
Something that really struck me about reporting today was the plan to provide 400,000 guest worker visas per year. That may not sound like a lot, but it's about what new illegal immigration is each year. That is, 400,000 more folks come without papers each year.
I think senators are right to be concerned that such a program, with required returns of 1 year in-between stays of 2 years, might really create a two-class society. But it seems to me that we already have something like that, by default.
To me, the most nebulous portion of all this is the terms of the "amnesty" (don't say that word too loudly) for the 12 million undocumented folks here already. David Brooks writes of "stiff fines" these people would face. Many undocumented immigrants already pay taxes, so it's hard to know what these fines might be. It's still unclear to me whether illegals currently in the country would have to return home or what.
Something that really struck me about reporting today was the plan to provide 400,000 guest worker visas per year. That may not sound like a lot, but it's about what new illegal immigration is each year. That is, 400,000 more folks come without papers each year.
I think senators are right to be concerned that such a program, with required returns of 1 year in-between stays of 2 years, might really create a two-class society. But it seems to me that we already have something like that, by default.
To me, the most nebulous portion of all this is the terms of the "amnesty" (don't say that word too loudly) for the 12 million undocumented folks here already. David Brooks writes of "stiff fines" these people would face. Many undocumented immigrants already pay taxes, so it's hard to know what these fines might be. It's still unclear to me whether illegals currently in the country would have to return home or what.
Monday, May 21, 2007
Immigration bill details
I'm sure the specifics of the immigration legislation working its way through Congress will be in a state of constant flux, but the latest version is relatively well described by the Washington Post here.
The most remarkable provision is the requirement that the 12 million estimated undocumented immigrants up and return to their home countries in order to pursue citizenship legally. Talk about a jarring change, both to those individuals and their families, many of whom may be in the U.S. legally already; but also to the domestic economy.
There are about 9.3 million native-born workers and about 6 million foreign-born workers without a high-school degree, according to statistics compiled in a CIS report by Steven Camarota. If illegals comprise 50% of that figure, or about 3 million workers, then requiring them to return home would reduce the domestic unskilled labor force by 20 percent.
The good news would be that unskilled native workers and legal immigrants would see higher wages, perhaps as much as 6 percent higher if the elasticity is 0.3. But domestic consumers should be prepared to pay higher prices and possibly face shortages.
The most remarkable provision is the requirement that the 12 million estimated undocumented immigrants up and return to their home countries in order to pursue citizenship legally. Talk about a jarring change, both to those individuals and their families, many of whom may be in the U.S. legally already; but also to the domestic economy.
There are about 9.3 million native-born workers and about 6 million foreign-born workers without a high-school degree, according to statistics compiled in a CIS report by Steven Camarota. If illegals comprise 50% of that figure, or about 3 million workers, then requiring them to return home would reduce the domestic unskilled labor force by 20 percent.
The good news would be that unskilled native workers and legal immigrants would see higher wages, perhaps as much as 6 percent higher if the elasticity is 0.3. But domestic consumers should be prepared to pay higher prices and possibly face shortages.
Monday, April 16, 2007
How much longer will you really live, redux?
Re: "Training to Be Old," NYT Business 4/10/2007
The number of remaining years of life is a critical parameter for insuring a happy and secure retirement, and yet it seems to be a difficult number to know, with much popular confusion. The workers approaching retirement in "Training to Be Old," NYT Business, 4/10/2007, at least seem to be erring on the side of caution in expecting a much longer retirement than their parents and grandparents had, which is wise.
But they seem to be receiving advice regarding their remaining years that is of varying quality. One statistic in the article, that there is a 40 percent change that at least one member of a married couple at age 65 will survive to 90, is quite accurate, based on Social Security cohort life tables. The first statistic cited, that retirees will live 11-13 more years than their parents or grandparents, is just wrong and probably based on the wrong statistics. Done correctly, the comparisons show that a male approaching retirement, say age 57, is likely to live to age 81, or 8 more years than his father probably did and 11 more years than his grandfather. Women are likely to live to about 84, only 5 more years than their mothers and 8 more years than their grandmothers. Why the discrepancy? Women's still large lead in life expectancy has been diminishing for some time now.
Rules of thumb are extremely important for planning. But it would be nice to use correct ones.
The number of remaining years of life is a critical parameter for insuring a happy and secure retirement, and yet it seems to be a difficult number to know, with much popular confusion. The workers approaching retirement in "Training to Be Old," NYT Business, 4/10/2007, at least seem to be erring on the side of caution in expecting a much longer retirement than their parents and grandparents had, which is wise.
But they seem to be receiving advice regarding their remaining years that is of varying quality. One statistic in the article, that there is a 40 percent change that at least one member of a married couple at age 65 will survive to 90, is quite accurate, based on Social Security cohort life tables. The first statistic cited, that retirees will live 11-13 more years than their parents or grandparents, is just wrong and probably based on the wrong statistics. Done correctly, the comparisons show that a male approaching retirement, say age 57, is likely to live to age 81, or 8 more years than his father probably did and 11 more years than his grandfather. Women are likely to live to about 84, only 5 more years than their mothers and 8 more years than their grandmothers. Why the discrepancy? Women's still large lead in life expectancy has been diminishing for some time now.
Rules of thumb are extremely important for planning. But it would be nice to use correct ones.
Monday, April 9, 2007
How much longer will you really live?
An article in the New York Times on Sunday, April 8, quoted a male "soon to be 59 years old, and life expectancy is 76" for him.
In fact, remaining life expectancy for a male of his age today is more like 22 years according to Social Security cohort life tables, or around 30% higher than the 17 years implied in the man's statement. Another way of stating this is that the man's expected life span as of today is 81 years rather than 76.
There are really two things going on here:
Although it is difficult to find unless you know what you are looking for, these statistics are compiled, forecast, and reported by the Social Security Administration and are available in Actuarial Study No. 120 by Bell and Miller.
You could instead examine remaining life expectancy in the SSA's period life tables, which gives you an underestimate of your average remaining years of life because mortality rates will continue to fall. Based on that period life table, a 59 year old man
has about 21 years remaining.
So what is the point of all this?
If you underestimate your remaining life span, you risk saving too little. Check published life tables when planning for retirement.
In fact, remaining life expectancy for a male of his age today is more like 22 years according to Social Security cohort life tables, or around 30% higher than the 17 years implied in the man's statement. Another way of stating this is that the man's expected life span as of today is 81 years rather than 76.
There are really two things going on here:
- One is that remaining life expectancy plus your age is always higher than the "life expectancy" you may read about in the paper, which is always life expectancy at birth.
So even though a male infant born today might face an average life expectancy of about 80 years, a male in that cohort who survives to 59 should expect about another 25 years, for a total expected life span as of reaching age 59 of 84.
- The other point is that an individual's length of life is based on what we call cohort life tables, which are actual observed mortality for those who have already died plus forecasts of future mortality for those who are not.
In practice, cohort life expectancies will not deviate from period life expectancies much at advanced ages, where the trends in mortality over time are more muted.
Although it is difficult to find unless you know what you are looking for, these statistics are compiled, forecast, and reported by the Social Security Administration and are available in Actuarial Study No. 120 by Bell and Miller.
You could instead examine remaining life expectancy in the SSA's period life tables, which gives you an underestimate of your average remaining years of life because mortality rates will continue to fall. Based on that period life table, a 59 year old man
has about 21 years remaining.
So what is the point of all this?
- Re: "No Longer an Outsider Looking In," NYT Real Estate 4/9/2007
If he is as healthy as he sounds in the article, Bob Trenta is likely to enjoy about 22 years or more in his new fourth floor walk-up on the Upper West Side, or about 30 percent longer than he reportedly expected. Remaining life expectancy is a critical parameter for an enjoyable and financially secure retirement, but it is unclear how many have accurate information. To be sure, one cannot save too little by underestimating it, and speaking for younger generations, I can vouch for the benefit of inheritances. But unless he is a smoker or has a preexisting health condition, Mr. Trenta should definitely keep taking the subway rather than taxicabs.
If you underestimate your remaining life span, you risk saving too little. Check published life tables when planning for retirement.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)