8 ms·

Isn't it uneconomic for a country to educate young people and then deport them as soon as they (are old enough to) start working and paying taxes?

by ls15 4y ago

em500 4y ago
It is. But in the giant sea of other uneconomic things the US does, this is only a tiny drop.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  I feel like it is the biggest drop. A young, productive population is one of a country’s biggest advantage. The US has natural resources, a relatively stable political system and high trust society (at least for day to day interactions), but the biggest weakness going forward is a smaller proportion of young workers. Why would any country not want the fruits of 40+ years of labor from the examples of the people in the article?
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > relatively stable political system Compared to say Afghanistan maybe, but compared to other developed countries, not really. Political gridlock for most of the time, and a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth with the ones currently in power spending most of their time to undo what the previous ones did during their time in power. > high trust society (at least for day to day interactions) That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe. > but the biggest weakness going forward is a smaller proportion of young workers. Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach. Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      > Political gridlock for most of the time, and a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth with the ones currently in power spending most of their time to undo what the previous ones did during their time in power. This sounds like the definition of stable. But what I actually meant by stable is where you can reasonably expect legal decisions and regulations to be predictable and hence plan around-able. Contrasted to a place where you have to pay unknown bribes to shifting allegiances, etc. >That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe. I would bet 90% of Americans do not go to sleep worrying about safety, or choosing to carry guns all the time because of it. But the high trust I was talking about was for things like being able to trust the plumber you called knows his stuff, or that you will get paid on your regular payday, or the food and medicine you buy will be as advertised. > Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach. Prices are a function of supply and demand. The US is not lacking in supply of land, but maybe it is lacking in supply of land near desirable regions experiencing economic growth. Old people are not going to be able to develop the land into homes, nor are they going to spur economic growth. Young people raising children does that. > Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better. Adding young people, especially qualified young people who produce things people want, especially outside the country’s borders, is exactly what would make things better. It would increase demand for products and services, without increasing debt.
    - acuozzo 4y ago
      > a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth Is this not stability?
      - addaon 4y ago
        The DC value of an oscillating system can be thought of as stable, but whether the dynamic behavior is stable or unstable comes down to the damping factor. Reasonable people can differ, but there certainly seems to be a tendency to underdamping recently.
- MuffinFlavored 4y ago
  What are some larger "uneconomic" things in the US?
throw_m239339 4y ago
All of these people can get cheaper college education in their country of birth than in USA. So that's a plus. They can come back with a H1B visa to pay taxes in the US. I bet a lot of them could even qualify for residency in Canada, an even better opportunity for them with more reasonable immigration policies.
- ls15 4y ago
  Education does not start at the age of 21 though
- cuteboy19 4y ago
  Why would they waste 4+2 years of F1 status?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bluedino 4y ago
It's just as bad to have all of these young people in the USA and have them not learning tech, medicine, engineering. We have to rely on immigrants to take these jobs because Americans aren't going to school for this stuff. Forty-two percent of California's workers in science, technology, engineering and math occupations were born in a foreign nation Digging deeper, we see that 20.7% of foreign born with bachelor's degrees are in STEM occupations compared with 11.4% for similarly educated USA born As of 2017, over 40 percent of the U.S. doctoral-level workforce was foreign-born. In computer sciences, mathematics, and engineering, nearly 60 percent of PhD holders in the U.S. workforce are foreign-born What happens when these people start to go home? Why don't American kids want to prepare themselves for these high-paying jobs?
- FormerBandmate 4y ago
  American schools simply aren’t that good in many cases, because educators are more focused on political concerns that don’t matter
- cr1895 4y ago
  >What happens when these people start to go home? The US can very well be home for someone born elsewhere. It would be wrong to assume that those people are somehow just temporarily staying. I’d imagine the group of foreign-born people who are in the US on time-limited or otherwise precarious visas is a lot smaller.
  - vrc 4y ago
    H1Bs would like to have a word with you… Even look at the number of people who are screwed in this job climate because of OPT limits.
- jeffwiederkehr 4y ago
  I think the numbers above actually make sense if you look at the pressures that influence decisions on what to study and whether to get a PhD for national vs international students. If you're international getting a bachelors you need to find a company willing to sponsor when you graduate so it makes a lot more sense to pursue a STEM degree that is in high demand to employers. For graduate students their is compounding pressure because getting a PhD allows the student to stay in the USA while they obtain the degree and STEM degrees qualify for the STEM OPT extension so instead of only having 1 year of work authorization post graduation you have 3 years. If the goal is to stay in the USA permanently it really doesn't make any sense to pursue a non STEM grad degree. I don't have any commentary on whether the way the system is set up makes sense but I don't think it's just a case of American kids don't want to study these subjects rather theirs intense immigration pressure on international students to funnel them into STEM subjects.
MomoXenosaga 4y ago
No not necessarily. It works as a deterrent to people who think they can sneak in and have babies. You have to consider the long term damage of the refugee crisis. We try to do this in the Netherlands. But it doesn't work because nobody wants to send back Western assimilated people back to the barbarian lands.
- Joker_vD 4y ago
  > back to the barbarian lands. Are you implying there are actually "shithole countries"?
belltaco 4y ago
It is, but also have to weigh it against the fact that typically the workers send remittances back home, which is a big help with foreign exchange balances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances_from_the_United_St...
aeortiz 4y ago
I am one of these. I think the idea is to have them go back and succeed in their home country so they won't immigrate to the US.

Isn't it uneconomic for a country to educate young people and then deport them as soon as they (are old enough to) start working and paying taxes?

by ls15 4y ago

Isn't it uneconomic for a country to educate young people and then deport them as soon as they (are old enough to) start working and paying taxes?

em500 4y ago

It is. But in the giant sea of other uneconomic things the US does, this is only a tiny drop.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
I feel like it is the biggest drop. A young, productive population is one of a country’s biggest advantage. The US has natural resources, a relatively stable political system and high trust society (at least for day to day interactions), but the biggest weakness going forward is a smaller proportion of young workers. Why would any country not want the fruits of 40+ years of labor from the examples of the people in the article?
- sofixa 4y ago
  > relatively stable political system Compared to say Afghanistan maybe, but compared to other developed countries, not really. Political gridlock for most of the time, and a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth with the ones currently in power spending most of their time to undo what the previous ones did during their time in power. > high trust society (at least for day to day interactions) That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe. > but the biggest weakness going forward is a smaller proportion of young workers. Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach. Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    > Political gridlock for most of the time, and a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth with the ones currently in power spending most of their time to undo what the previous ones did during their time in power. This sounds like the definition of stable. But what I actually meant by stable is where you can reasonably expect legal decisions and regulations to be predictable and hence plan around-able. Contrasted to a place where you have to pay unknown bribes to shifting allegiances, etc. >That's not the impression i get from the people screaming they need to carry weapons to feel safe. I would bet 90% of Americans do not go to sleep worrying about safety, or choosing to carry guns all the time because of it. But the high trust I was talking about was for things like being able to trust the plumber you called knows his stuff, or that you will get paid on your regular payday, or the food and medicine you buy will be as advertised. > Today's young workers in the US (but that's not in any way a US specific phenomenon) feel that many things that were normal for the previous generation (e.g. home ownership) are simply out of reach. Prices are a function of supply and demand. The US is not lacking in supply of land, but maybe it is lacking in supply of land near desirable regions experiencing economic growth. Old people are not going to be able to develop the land into homes, nor are they going to spur economic growth. Young people raising children does that. > Adding more young people without fixing the underlying issues causing the already existing ones to struggle hard is not going to make anything better. Adding young people, especially qualified young people who produce things people want, especially outside the country’s borders, is exactly what would make things better. It would increase demand for products and services, without increasing debt.
  - acuozzo 4y ago
    > a two party system that practically guarantees a constant back and forth Is this not stability?
    - addaon 4y ago
      The DC value of an oscillating system can be thought of as stable, but whether the dynamic behavior is stable or unstable comes down to the damping factor. Reasonable people can differ, but there certainly seems to be a tendency to underdamping recently.
MuffinFlavored 4y ago
What are some larger "uneconomic" things in the US?

throw_m239339 4y ago

All of these people can get cheaper college education in their country of birth than in USA. So that's a plus. They can come back with a H1B visa to pay taxes in the US. I bet a lot of them could even qualify for residency in Canada, an even better opportunity for them with more reasonable immigration policies.

ls15 4y ago
Education does not start at the age of 21 though
cuteboy19 4y ago
Why would they waste 4+2 years of F1 status?

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bluedino 4y ago

It's just as bad to have all of these young people in the USA and have them not learning tech, medicine, engineering. We have to rely on immigrants to take these jobs because Americans aren't going to school for this stuff. Forty-two percent of California's workers in science, technology, engineering and math occupations were born in a foreign nation Digging deeper, we see that 20.7% of foreign born with bachelor's degrees are in STEM occupations compared with 11.4% for similarly educated USA born As of 2017, over 40 percent of the U.S. doctoral-level workforce was foreign-born. In computer sciences, mathematics, and engineering, nearly 60 percent of PhD holders in the U.S. workforce are foreign-born What happens when these people start to go home? Why don't American kids want to prepare themselves for these high-paying jobs?

FormerBandmate 4y ago
American schools simply aren’t that good in many cases, because educators are more focused on political concerns that don’t matter
cr1895 4y ago
>What happens when these people start to go home? The US can very well be home for someone born elsewhere. It would be wrong to assume that those people are somehow just temporarily staying. I’d imagine the group of foreign-born people who are in the US on time-limited or otherwise precarious visas is a lot smaller.
- vrc 4y ago
  H1Bs would like to have a word with you… Even look at the number of people who are screwed in this job climate because of OPT limits.
jeffwiederkehr 4y ago
I think the numbers above actually make sense if you look at the pressures that influence decisions on what to study and whether to get a PhD for national vs international students. If you're international getting a bachelors you need to find a company willing to sponsor when you graduate so it makes a lot more sense to pursue a STEM degree that is in high demand to employers. For graduate students their is compounding pressure because getting a PhD allows the student to stay in the USA while they obtain the degree and STEM degrees qualify for the STEM OPT extension so instead of only having 1 year of work authorization post graduation you have 3 years. If the goal is to stay in the USA permanently it really doesn't make any sense to pursue a non STEM grad degree. I don't have any commentary on whether the way the system is set up makes sense but I don't think it's just a case of American kids don't want to study these subjects rather theirs intense immigration pressure on international students to funnel them into STEM subjects.

MomoXenosaga 4y ago

No not necessarily. It works as a deterrent to people who think they can sneak in and have babies. You have to consider the long term damage of the refugee crisis. We try to do this in the Netherlands. But it doesn't work because nobody wants to send back Western assimilated people back to the barbarian lands.

Joker_vD 4y ago
> back to the barbarian lands. Are you implying there are actually "shithole countries"?

belltaco 4y ago

It is, but also have to weigh it against the fact that typically the workers send remittances back home, which is a big help with foreign exchange balances. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances_from_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remittances_from_the_United_St...

aeortiz 4y ago

I am one of these. I think the idea is to have them go back and succeed in their home country so they won't immigrate to the US.