Visas for Degrees Again

The other day, Henry Farrell took issue with the Yglesias/Friedman suggestion that we should automatically extend green cards to people who graduate from American institutions of higher education on student visas. Henry's objection is that while this "may be a total no-brainer for US economic wellbeing. It isn’t a no-brainer for the home country of the workers in question" because it promotes "brain drain."

If this is the best objection that can be raised, I don't think I'm going to abandon the scheme. That said, one can meet the objection short of refusing the visas; instead, granting them could be made conditional on the payment of some kind of fee (or exit tax) that would be rebated to the home country. The economic benefits of allowing the highest-skilled people in the world to work where their skills are the most in demand would be very large -- much bigger than the benefits involved in letting low-skill people work in the first world as hotel maids and day-laborers -- so it would be both possible and worthwhile to find ways to distribute those gains relatively equitably.

Comments

um, do you mean:

"this free-market idea does have some significant local costs, but it is such a win-win at the system-level that we can surely capture the excess profit and use it to cushion the losers?"

because if that's the line, then, well, some of us are getting sick of it.

What inevitably happens with these sorts of comparative advantage situations is that the winners make sure the legislation is passed to enable them to win, and the losers never manage to get the legislation passed that would cushion their losses.

And the brave proponents of humanized free-trade-with-cushions, bravely arguing from Econ 101, never seem to care that the cushions were pulled out from under the losers.

I'm not arguing one way or another on this question of higher-ed visas. I'd be delighted to have more smart people stay in my favorite country, sc. the US.

But if your response to the concerns about impact on other countries is to say "don't worry, we'll recapture the winners' gains and channel them to the losers"--well, show me when that has ever happened.

Posted by thag | May 26, 2007 11:28 AM

As a compromise I might suggest granting green cards to graduates of US graduate programs. The numbers would obviously be smaller, and the bar would be set a bit higher. Perhaps individual graduate programs or institutions would be required to be certified by the government for quality, and minimum GPAs would likewise be necesary. So, if you're from India and you gain admittance to a US government-certified graduate program in, say, computer science, and you earn at least a 3.0, there's a green card waiting for you on the other end.

Posted by Jasper | May 26, 2007 11:31 AM

Matt,

You are proposing a bad solution to a non-problem. Rapidly developing countries like India and China already benefit from their highly skilled nationals who immigrate to America: many of these immigrants use the money, knowledge, contacts, etc. they acquire here and invest it back in their home countries as well as here. Many also travel back to their home countries after spending a decade or more getting established here to start businesses, or work in the home-country divisions of U.S. companies.

So India and China are already benefiting from their highly skilled students who come here and stay to become permanent U.S. residents or citizens. They don't need cash handouts from us.

As for students from countries that aren't doing a great job of developing, what good would sending cash to those countries' governments do? Government corruption is probably a main factor holding them back. Also, most talented citizens of those countries who can leave will leave -- if not to come here, then somewhere else.

Posted by Fred | May 26, 2007 11:42 AM

You are proposing a bad solution to a non-problem.

It's not a question of solving a problem (or non-problem). It's a question of optimization: would or wouldn't we be better off as a nation retaining more foreign graduates than current immigration law permits.

Posted by Jasper | May 26, 2007 11:53 AM

Foreign countries, which send their students to the U.S. would lose a substantial part of their incentive to do so, if the U.S. then turned around and poached the graduates.

The idea that the U.S. is where the newly minted university degrees can be best applied is, of course, nonsense. It may be that the U.S. is the place, where the graduate will realize the best private return. But, the rest of the world needs professionals and engineers and the kind of organizations and enterprises that they can build, and more desperately than the U.S.

No fee will compensate some other country for being deprived of talent and ambition. And, who is to pay that fee?

Posted by Bruce Wilder | May 26, 2007 12:08 PM

Since it's clear we're not all in this together, that if the economy is enhanced it will only really help the rich, why is it in most American's best interests to do this? Any increase in profits will be absorbed by the elite, not used to increase wages. Any improvement in medical technology will only aid those who can afford to pay for it, which most Americans will be unable to do.

Given that all the benefits of this plan only help people like Matt Yglesias and Thomas Friedman, and give that we don't give most of our own people an opportunity to pursue these degrees, why is it in the best interest of the Average American?

Posted by soullite | May 26, 2007 12:23 PM

But, the rest of the world needs professionals and engineers and the kind of organizations and enterprises that they can build, and more desperately than the U.S.

Bruce: But what about the rights of the individual with the degree? It seems to me all that tut-tutting about how unfortunate developing country X is when it loses a person with training has to be counterbalanced by a concern for the basic human freedom to live where you want to.

It's true, developing countries may not provide the same opportunities for educated persons as rich countries. But forcing them to compete with rich countries (and reform and improve economic and social conditions) lest they lose said educated persons is the only way to permanently remedy the situation, as the examples of India and China demonstrate. Our refusal to give a green card to a highly educated Nigerian takes the heat off Nigeria to get its act together, and that in turn hurts all Nigerians, educated and not.

Posted by Jasper | May 26, 2007 12:24 PM

You see, people like Jasper only care about themselves. He looks at "optimization" and knows that any extra benefit is only going to go to people like himself, but he doesn't care. He wants to trick the rest of you into going along by pretending that a rising tide will lift off boats. That's great if you can afford a boat, but if you can't you're going to drown. People like Jasper just don't care. Don't be a dumb-ass an fall for the BS.

Posted by soullite | May 26, 2007 12:32 PM

"would or wouldn't we be better off as a nation retaining more foreign graduates than current immigration law permits."

Of course we would be better off, provided we institute some quality control limits, as you suggested in your earlier post. My point was that "brain drain" a non-problem for the immigrants' home countries. Countries like India and China already get plenty of economic benefit from Indian- and Chinese-Americans who invest time and money in both countries. Highly-skilled naturalized American citizens from poorer countries often also invest significant amounts of time in money in their home countries.

Posted by Fred | May 26, 2007 12:36 PM

Another benefit of these visas would be to spur more demand for attending American colleges and universities. This supports the jobs of lots of college and university faculty and staff, as well as the numerous ancillary businesses fed by college towns.

Posted by Fred | May 26, 2007 12:40 PM

I think the U.S. has a strong interest in having foreign countries with ruling and professional classes who are well-disposed to U.S. culture and values. People who get college educations in the U.S. tend to fit that bill pretty well. I don't know if requiring foreign students to go back home after they graduate is the best way of achieving this goal, but I think its a worth noting that its in the U.S. self-interest, not just some vague humanitarian spread-the-wealth kind of interest.

Posted by Joseph Hovsep | May 26, 2007 12:41 PM

It isn’t a no-brainer for the home country of the workers in question" because it promotes "brain drain."

brain drain isn't an issue for big asian countries, it disproportionately affects small african hell-holes. so, you could simply refuse visas to these people. but, since humanitarianism is a big concern of everyone re: immigration one might consider that worrying about "brain drain" really screws over professionals who have to live through the corrupt kleptocracies in question.

Posted by razib | May 26, 2007 12:47 PM

I'd like to speak as a Canadian who went to work in American Universities for 6 years and is now back in Canada. My education was in Canada (PhD).

I brought skills from my education into the States and I brought other skills bck with me. I don't feel at all that I was part of a brain drain. Rather I feel I was part of a mingling that brought many people together and made them all better.

A green card may be over the top. But something like an H1, which can be used as a step to a green card later, is a good idea.

Posted by Chris | May 26, 2007 12:51 PM

A half-assed proposal from Yglesias and Friedman. Here's what we should do: import educated folks from all over the world, while exporting our un-educated compatriots back into the third world. And whatever shit-shoveling jobs are left in the US - they can be done by Mexicans with guest visas. This is how we make this country great.

Posted by abb1 | May 26, 2007 1:10 PM

Allowing more killed immigrants in isn't a bad idea, but to do so creates more people with more disposable income and thus increases the demand for unskilled immigrants. If one thinks the numbers of unskilled immigrants, either legal or illegal, are a problem, this plan seems to ignore the reason we have so many-we have jobs for them.

Posted by shecky | May 26, 2007 1:32 PM

I don't buy the "brain drain" argument either. By and large, a fair number of people will return to their native country after being educated in the US - so long as their native country isn't a total fucking mess. Those who go home with US degrees counteract the brain drain effect by importing skills and credentials not ordinarily found in their homeland.

As for people whose home countries are a total fucking mess...well, those are the people to whom we should be extending our hand. After all, we're not talking about goods and services here. We're talking about human beings, access to education, and access to a better life.

Posted by owenz | May 26, 2007 1:45 PM

When the Heritage foundation starts releasing studies declaring social mobility a myth, than you know that the Jasper's and Fred's of the world are full of shit. Why should I care about supporting a university staff my kids will never get to study under? Why should we continue to work harder so that we can make less than our parents did? I can tell you why Fred and Jasper think we should, it's so that they can line their own pockets with ever greater amounts of money. Money earned off of our backs, and picked from our pockets.

Posted by soullite | May 26, 2007 2:15 PM

Owenz, and you prefer to give these things to other people before you extend them fully to your own? You won't be competing with them for jobs like some 20 year old who never had enough money to go to college will. You're standard of living will be improved as the standard of living of your poorer countrymen plummet. Are you really so selfish you'd take from the hungry to give to the starving, rather than tightening your own belt? Why? So you can feel like a good person without ever making a sacrifice yourself?

Posted by soullite | May 26, 2007 2:18 PM

M.Y. hasn't addressed the problem of the existing glut of PhD relative to American industry's demands for them. As it stands, going from a BS to a PhD in engineering is a money-losing proposition. Increasing the number of eligible PhDs for jobs will only drive wages lower still.

Posted by Matt B | May 26, 2007 2:19 PM

If you allow them to import educated workers, you remove all incentive to further education in this country. If you were all more honest about economics, you'd admit that this is what is usually called a "moral hazard". Well, that's what they would call it if it were poor people making this choice...

Posted by soullite | May 26, 2007 2:20 PM

Well, that's what they would call it if it were poor people making this choice...

When they make this choice the proper economic term is "negative externality".

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 26, 2007 2:34 PM

Nah, doesn't quite work. These are public sphere decisions and outcomes (despite the obvious interference from organized capital). Scratch that.

Posted by Ed Marshall | May 26, 2007 2:39 PM

"Allowing more killed immigrants in isn't a bad idea, but to do so creates more people with more disposable income and thus increases the demand for unskilled immigrants. If one thinks the numbers of unskilled immigrants, either legal or illegal, are a problem, this plan seems to ignore the reason we have so many-we have jobs for them."

Increasing the demand for low-skill jobs will increase the wages for those jobs (all other things being equal, of course). So what you're describing is a *good* thing for low-skill workers. They get more people who want to buy their goods and services.

Or is that crazy right-wing talk these days?

Posted by too many steves | May 26, 2007 3:27 PM

If you allow them to import educated workers, you remove all incentive to further education in this country.

Soullite: any chance you might, um, hit a few econ blogs or even a newspaper before posting again? It's pretty universally acknowledged that the financial returns to education are increasing. Some of the evidence even suggests this phenomenon is largely repsonsible for growing economic inequality. People have more incentive than ever before to become highly educated, and those without skills will increasingly be paid the going global rate for unskilled labor. Which is to say not very highly.

Posted by Jasper | May 26, 2007 3:38 PM

Also, bringing in more high-income people doesn't just create low-wage service jobs. Rich people need lawyers and CPAs and personal trainers and college-application coaches for their kids. It's middle-income folks who are just hiring sub-minimum-wage gardeners and babysitters.

Soullite, do the capitalists in your head have hook noses and top hats?

Posted by too many steves | May 26, 2007 3:41 PM

Jasper, any chance you might admit economics isn't exactly physics? It's not a hard science. It's theories aren't properly tested and can not be validated under scientific method. It's a poor substitute for sociology. You people have made the same promises for 20 years, and they have never been delivered on. If market forces are natural laws, explain the mechanisms behind them. Not formula's that apply only when all other factors are held constant. I mean like photons apply toward electromagnetism. There aren't any. Hell, you can't even agree with each other on what stimuli create what effects.

The study of economics has always been about the wealthy and the powerful justifying their exploitations of the weak as been for the over-all benefit of everyone. They're nothing but astrologers, never agreeing on what sign means what until those who pay their salaries tell them to. Then, miraculously, tax cuts for the wealthy are always good, and transfer payments are always hazards. they aren't even honest about inflation, never including the price of food or services so that you can create artificially depressed numbers. You worship a false science as a god, and demand we all sacrifice ourselves on it's altar. Don't act so surprised when you face hostility for it. Don't expect to proove economic theories by referencing other economists, try getting something right in the field some day.

Posted by soullite | May 26, 2007 4:03 PM

As someone noted in Kevin Drum's website, economists don't acknowledge that the forces that govern economics are human, not natural. Humans have to choose to raise wages because of record profits. They have to choose to lower prices when they don't sell enough of something. These aren't automatic because humans are not rationale beings. They are creatures of instinct and of emotion, not of logic and reason. Anyone who fails to understand that, and any science derived from that failure, is doomed to be wrong about everything. You simply can't understand human psychology if you expect people to always do what's best for themselves.

Posted by soullite | May 26, 2007 4:06 PM

Yes, in those rare cases when troubling rich people with normal immigration procedures or taxes is not economically suicidal, it's certainly grossly immoral.

Posted by abb1 | May 26, 2007 4:40 PM

"Increasing the demand for low-skill jobs will increase the wages for those jobs (all other things being equal, of course). So what you're describing is a *good* thing for low-skill workers. They get more people who want to buy their goods and services."

You're right. But unemployment is below 5% now, even with 10-12 million illegal immigrants in the country. Increasing the demand for low-skill jobs increases wages for those jobs *and* demand for more workers. If wages go up too high, the jobs disappear. Thus the incentive to add more people, legally or not.

Posted by shecky | May 26, 2007 5:07 PM

For anybody who's interested, the World Bank did a study on migration and the brain drain:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/NEWS/0,,contentMDK:20694521~pagePK:64257043~piPK:437376~theSitePK:4607,00.html

Posted by Peter H | May 27, 2007 12:21 PM

since humanitarianism is a big concern of everyone re: immigration one might consider that worrying about "brain drain" really screws over professionals who have to live through the corrupt kleptocracies in question.

This is a good point. On the other hand, brain drain does mean losing those professionals who are going to be the most articulate voices calling for economic & political reform in those kleptocracries.

Posted by Peter H | May 27, 2007 12:30 PM

Re Jasper's comment: "It's pretty universally acknowledged that the financial returns to education are increasing."
------------
Hmmm. So why is it that when I look at Forbes lists of the richest people in the USA, I see a lot of billionaries who are college dropouts??

People like Bill Gates(Microsoft), Paul Allen (Microsoft) , Michael Dell(Dell Computer) , Larry Ellison(Oracle) , Steven Jobs (Apple), Tom Waite (Gateway),etc. Three of the top ten richest people are heirs of Sam Walton --who went to school at the University of Missouri.

The ages 18-24 are the times when young people have the greatest freedom to start their own company and to make their own fortune. They have enormous energy and don't have the burden of supporting a family.

If I was a superrich man and wanted to destroy creative , intelligent young people who are potential competitors and a threat, I could not think of a better system than to convince those young people to waste 4 years of their lives working themselves into the ground studying obsolete and useless knowledge -- and to run up a $200,000 debt doing so. I would also make sure that that university education mentally indoctrinates them into making enormous effort just for cheap approval from an authority figure
(a "grade") and I would make sure that that education does not include any mention of entrepreneurship or "value added"

That way, they would be forced to enter my corporate rat race for pathetic wages and to work themselves into the ground for 15 more years earning profits for me while I dangle an illusionary "career " before them.

Then, when they reached age 40, I could throw them out on the street in favor of some cheaper fools from China and India.

Posted by Don Williams | May 27, 2007 5:44 PM

I've got a question for soullite. If economics are just astrology, then how are you SO SURE, SO ANGRILY SURE, that immigrants are bad for American workers? How would you know?
Your gut feeling, right?

The answer of course, is that you and Don Williams don't know, and don't care about the American worker, you just don't like immigrants in your gut, but you're willing to use any dishonest argument you can to make your case.

Posted by WelcometotheFuture | May 27, 2007 10:48 PM

Why does Tom Friedman assume all students with Chinese names are foreigners? MY next time you bump into Tom at a cocktail party, you should tactfully mention that some Asian college students are actually Americans. Suggest he visit Irvine and maybe swing by UCLA.

Posted by Tom Friedman: racist, liar or dumb? | May 28, 2007 5:54 AM