Disqus - Friends of nabeel

Re: Outsourcing: An Update

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 07:48:56 -0000

Anger over poor immigration policies is simmering, and will boil over soon.

It isn't the likes of Camilo (and me), who complain that the US draw of foreign brains is excellent and not to be limited. No, they complain about illegal immigration of low education, poor people.

Perhaps the best response would be to stop the illegals (say, by building a wall), raise the caps on legal immigration, and just remove the caps on immigrants with a given level of education, skills, or IQ.

I wish politicians were a bit more realist when it comes to such policies, including outsourcing.

More talent coming to the US is good.

Using better production facilities off shore is good.

As an aside, I recently got an MS in robotics. A friend of mine in the program was in India over a Holiday break, and wasn’t allowed back in for 7 months. Apparently, robotics is equivalent to nuclear engineering with respect to security, and his having lived some time in Kuwait (which, I’m told, is very common for Indians), raised some flags. The problem isn’t that he raised flags. The problem is that it took so long to resolve. Ridiculous!

Re: Outsourcing: An Update

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 22 Nov 2005 09:01:04 -0000

There is a difference between a bad company looking to restructure and fire some employees, and the industry and skill-set as a whole.

Re: Sad Day

Ivan Kirigin — Thu, 01 Dec 2005 11:57:04 -0000

Ridiculous, but none too surprising.

People think that the unskilled are forced to work there.

What percentage of those responding that Wal-mart is bad actually shop there? What percentage work there?

God, I would love to see those numbers.

Re: Distinguishing Prices From Market Values

Ivan Kirigin — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 05:48:03 -0000

This all reminds me of the difference between market value and perceived value of unskilled labor.

The desire for a "living wage" (usually around $15/hr) is another way of saying that the price paid is under the real value.

Just as there are negative consequences that are ignored with calls for a "windfall-profits" tax for oil companies, there are negative consequences for a minimum wage, many of which go ignored by those commenters usually disagreeing with the posts.

Re: No Laffing Matter

Ivan Kirigin — Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:31:16 -0000

"P.S. I think the justification for progressive taxation is not, as usually stated, the ability to pay, but rather that the greater the individual's economic power, the greater the ability to pass on the tax burden."

Wouldn't that mean that you shouldn't push the rich to avoid taxes as much?

Isn't that the whole point of the Laffer curve: making it worth it to avoid taxes with ridiculously high rates means you collect less taxes from those people.

A flat tax, low enough to not be avoided, and simple enough to expose loop-holes, is a good goal.

Add an earned income tax credit, perhaps with allocations explicitly for catastrophic health insurance and HAS for non-catastrophic health care costs, and you have a complete tax system that will fit on a single page, or even a single graph!

Re: Rather than Conscript, Why Not…..?

Ivan Kirigin — Thu, 08 Dec 2005 09:23:02 -0000

If you consider the high-value training received in the military, I wouldn't be surprised if many more people enlisted but avoided war.

The military is probably one of the more successful government training programs. I know for a fact that military experience is a great aide in jobs requiring complex management and logistics.

The value of having more people in society trained in self-defense, first aide, and crisis management would be high. It actually goes well with the modern asymmetric war, where a knowledgeable and enabled distributed society is the best defense against a liquid threat like Al Queda.

Re: Minutemen Vs. "Minutemen"

Ivan Kirigin — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 05:49:09 -0000

"free themselves from burdensome restrictions on their economic activities"

These folks find a pretty good argument in that illegal, low-skilled, uneducated labor will cost them far more in taxes than they will save in cheap labor. Certainly the immigrant benefits (that is why they come), but those paying higher taxes because of it (for higher crime rates, worse school performance, and higher dependence on government provided medicine) aren't exactly getting a square deal.

That, at least, is the only reasonable reason someone would be against today's massive illegal immigration, IMHO.

I think many people could rally behind a simple compromise:

-Control the border with a fence and many entry points.

-Allow more guest workers so those seeking work are legitimized.

Re: Minutemen Vs. "Minutemen"

Ivan Kirigin — Fri, 09 Dec 2005 08:21:17 -0000

Mark:

"Would it not make more sense to address the root cause - i.e the burden of government - rather than try to fix the problem by adding more government?"

I would totally agree in theory. In practice, in this political environment, you can make gains with smaller and more widely acceptable changes.

Believe me, when I start a country, it won't have government-administered education etc. But, today, in America, don't make perfect the enemy of the good.

yellowfintuna:

"the fact of the matter is that these people drive labor costs down (it is part of the reason why we enjoy low prices on our agriculture products) and their will always be market for them to cross the border. my advice: you cant fight the market, so stop trying"

First, there are externalities, as I've mentioned. It isn't just cheap labor; it’s subsidized. Second, you can fight the market. Look at Japan. Look at Israel. Those countries aren't exactly dirty or starving for lack of immigrant labor, are they? My point for this isn't that those countries have wise policies, but that they can enforce their laws. We simply don't.

And let me stress, generally immigration is great. But there are very reasonable arguments to show that it is currently out of control with high negative effects.

Re: A Note on Global Warming

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:30:13 -0000

" it is neither absurd nor irresponsible to argue that the best course of action is to ignore the problem."

How about this for proof positive:

The US has done more to curtail GHG emissions than the EU, while maintaining higher growth rates. Further, even backers of Kyoto admit that a fully successful implementation (where countries actually meet the deadlines), would cause a very small change in temperature: around 0.7 degrees over 100 years.

The solution to this problem is technological, not governmental. This can be seen in the Prius+ movement for 200+mpg cars:

http://www.calcars.org/priu...

Also, strong research is causing alternative energies to become more competitive. This blog is quite good:

http://thefraserdomain.type...

There are good reasons for government to stay out. One of the big ones is that the market is making progress faster!

If you really must have government intervention, something more passive like researching new batteries, solar, and fusion would be great.

Re: A Note on Global Warming

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:07:29 -0000

"What are governments for?"

The US constitution is a great document. It almost defines our government by what it can't do, which is almost everything.

The enumerated powers exist because government often goes beyond its mission and does some pretty nasty things.

National defense is important, but an aware and prepared citizenry is good.

Rule of law is important.

Re: The Toll of Economic Ignorance

Ivan Kirigin — Sat, 17 Dec 2005 05:57:16 -0000

I think most complaints about obsession with money have to do with the environment. Some are valid.

Other complaints have to do with "consumerism", which can be defined as anytime somebody other than me buys something.

Re: Who is We?

Ivan Kirigin — Mon, 19 Dec 2005 18:04:11 -0000

Funny choice of cities.

I grew up in Bakersfield and live in Boston.

All you have to do to stop worrying about trade deficits is look at times in history when we ran a deficit or surplus. The former is almost always during times of growth, and the latter during times of recession.

I think people worry about this because news of red-ink and doom-n-gloom sells.

Re: Market Utopians

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 27 Dec 2005 08:24:13 -0000

Perhaps it is in relation to the universal answer "free markets are better".

Plenty of people can seem like idealists if that is always the answer. It isn't utopia, because it's achievable :)

Re: Milton and (Charlie) Rose

Ivan Kirigin — Thu, 29 Dec 2005 08:35:42 -0000

"inflation-prone currency"

Compared to what? Over the last few years, the CPI has been low.

A bigger risk is a transition away from using the USD as the unofficial petro-dollar. The EU is trying to get Russia to sell oil for Euros. That could get very ugly.

Re: The Lake Wobegon Fallacy

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 03 Jan 2006 08:26:55 -0000

Reminds me of definitions of poverty as the lowest 15%.

Heh. How rich does a society have to before no one is in the bottom 15%?

You could define it as those households earning below 15% of the median, but that is a measure of equality, not wealth. The lower the median, the fewer people earn a small percentage of it. Perhaps a survey of a place like N. Korea would be helpful, where I’m sure there are so many destitute people that almost no one earns below 15% the median.

What I wish we'd see more often is actually a much simpler idea: visualize inflation-adjusted distribution of income over time. Y-axis: # households, X-axis: binned income (e.g. $20-25K/yr).

It would be a big bell-curve, moving swiftly to the right over the course of the 20th century.

Re: Power to the People

Ivan Kirigin — Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:21:47 -0000

"But I also think that the implied contracts between large corporations and their workers have changed over the past three decades."

Firms are as flexible in hiring as they are in firing. I would rather risk losing my job, knowing it is less of an issue to be hired elsewhere, than have a significantly lower risk of losing my job, but knowing there are fewer opportunities if I wanted to leave or were fired.

Flixibility is good. It is the multitude of potential employers that give real security, not the single firm that can break unspoken "life-time" contracts.

Re: If You Can't Beat 'Em, Intoxicate 'Em

Ivan Kirigin — Thu, 05 Jan 2006 08:45:23 -0000

I doubt the deaths were caused by the study. These people have been drinking obscenely for years.

Part of the point is that they drink less because of the program.

I disagree with all of it, and have yet to be surprised by the ridiculous government programs. That said, this is probably not the worst I've seen.

Re: The Sausage Factory

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 10 Jan 2006 09:41:09 -0000

I'm not sure incentives for indiginous peoples to have more children are bad.

Either way, I would prefer my mobsters have an interesting cultural background, rather than a bunch of NJ italians :)

Re: The Temptation to Subsidize

Ivan Kirigin — Thu, 12 Jan 2006 12:20:54 -0000

I am very much in favor of subsidies for _research_ into alternative energies, but not for individual products. Funding an idea that turns out to be worse than something else doesn't mean that other product loses. Peer review and selective commercialization are excellent filters.

Re: Munich

Ivan Kirigin — Fri, 13 Jan 2006 10:08:56 -0000

The conundrum Jason presents: you don't want to support (pay) the moviemakers, but you want an educated opinion.

Bittorrent is your friend :).

Also, Jason... if things aren't even, if there really is one side doing wrong, then an even-handed approach is wrong. I'm not saying Israel is correct in all it's actions in history, just correct in this specific case.

How do you think Spielberg would feel if someone remade Schindler's List without brutal Nazis? Such an "even-handed" approach would be totally inappropriate.

Re: Maryland Malfeasance II

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:17:04 -0000

Perhaps Maryland should just mandate that consumers purchase goods from select businesses deemed by the government to need more sales.

This is all pretty sad.

Re: Misleading Nationalism in Economic Discussions

Ivan Kirigin — Tue, 24 Jan 2006 04:55:22 -0000

How about if we measure average debt/income of Americans?

For taxes, take your income level, and the average percentage of taxes paid at that level. Then figure your share. Dividing total debt by number of taxpayers doesn't make sense in a progressive & loophole filled system.

Try to account for private debt, e.g. a home improvement loan a family takes.

Try to account for corporate debt according the share holders.

I would imagine this is all pretty difficult, but would actually be an excellent way to measure debt.

Does anyone have any numbers like this?

Re: Please Do Your Job

Ivan Kirigin — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 05:25:59 -0000

Reminds me of discussion here:

http://www.samizdata.net/bl...

Don't take surveys, because your leaders will become planners.

Re: Please Do Your Job

Ivan Kirigin — Fri, 27 Jan 2006 08:40:43 -0000

Poverty matters. Income inequality doesn't.

People that are starving or without basic health care are in trouble. I hope they get helped by charities in their community to turn their lives around. Some would like the government to act.

The fact is that discounting immigrants, there is a far smaller proportion of destitute people today than anytime in America's history. Immigrants start at the bottom, and very often do very well for themselves.

Note that I've only addressed what is important: the minimum needed to stay alive and healthy.

Anything beyond that in relative measures is based on jealousy or socialism.

Also, another good point about stats & planning.

http://www.globalisationins...

'I met Cowperthwaite in 1963 on my next visit to Hong Kong. I remember asking him about the paucity of statistics. He answered, "If I let them compute those statistics, they'll want to use them for planning." How wise!' - Milton Friedman

Re: Working for Sears Goods

Ivan Kirigin — Mon, 30 Jan 2006 19:54:15 -0000

Don,

Can you clarify what a "production worker" is? I hope it isn't a sub-category of labor. I understand manufacturing takes up a very small percentage of jobs today.

Cote:

The obvious government intrusion today into certain areas has already been noted. Let me add that movies cost more because 1975 was pre-StarWars, aka the movie which woke up Hollywood. More money has been spent, and far more money has been made on movies since then. What a horrible example anyway, considering the immensely larger amount of inexpensive entertainment out there.

For health care, you can look at life expectancy, or the percentage of people that can get their cancer treated, or the availability of advanced surgical procedures. There are a number of measures to show meaningful improvement. Also, read this:

http://www.tcsdaily.com/art...

For college tuition, perhaps you will be happy to note that far, far more people go to college today than 1975.

For housing, the rate of home ownership has never been higher.

Are you suggesting things aren't significantly better today? Is it a mixed bag?