Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Article: The Race for Talent: Securing Long Term Prosperity

  1. #1

    Default Article: The Race for Talent: Securing Long Term Prosperity

    Article written by wiggin.

    I have previously written to dispel the notion that US dominance in geopolitics in waning for the simple fact that the world needs US logistics power to get things done. This is a compelling argument, but it fails to address the underlying claims of declinists; expensive projection power will wane without enduring economic dominance to pay for it. The Economist had a spectacular article last month discussing one reason for America’s continuing success: competition for immigrants.

    In a way, the state of California serves as a troubling microcosm of the United States. Saddled with overwhelming debt, growing entitlement programs, and an ineffective legislature, it appears as if the Golden State is headed to an inevitable decline. It once embodied the best of America – ingenuity, industry, entrepreneurship and diversity. Yet now it is facing unprecedented problems. It has been hit hard in the recession, and the state’s tattered finances have started to unravel. Restrictive laws in place prevent the legislature from raising revenues or cutting expenditures significantly without a referendum, which is unlikely to be approved. The deadlock on Capitol Hill and bulging federal deficits start to look awfully familiar.

    Nevertheless, California’s position is hardly new. It has had to reinvent itself several times, most recently during the collapse of the tech bubble a decade ago. What underlying process drove this reinvention, and how can it be consistently applied to the United States as a whole?

    While undoubtedly the answer is multifaceted, one can argue that an ability to attract the most intelligent and creative innovators in the world is a critical engine for California’s economic growth. Whether the aerospace industry in the 80s, Silicon Valley in the 90s, or perhaps green technologies today, they have led not in raw industrial output but in the marketplace of ideas and technologies. The Economist piece linked above explicates this in more detail on a national level: a significant portion of US research, innovation, and entrepreneurship is spearheaded by clever and hardworking immigrants who come to these shores. The combination of a comfortable lifestyle, a wild variety of different communities to choose from, and the company of other smart and creative people combines to provide an irresistible lure for immigrant entrepreneurs.

    This has more benefits than just the obvious ones of stimulating new technological advances. America’s population is younger and growing faster than most of her developed peers, almost exclusively due to continuing immigration. This will help forestall some of the problems in economies like Japan, which face a crushing burden of old populations that cannot be supported by their workers. While some other Western European countries have also benefited from immigration, their immigrant populations tend to be more homogeneous and poorly integrated into both the workforce and society.

    Even more so, the long-term growth prospects of the much-ballyhooed BRIC countries and the rest of the developing world are to a large extent predicated on continuing population growth and improvements in productivity. Neither is going to continue indefinitely; world population growth will level off in a few decades, and the gap in productivity between the developed and developing world will rapidly close. In such a world, where can economic growth and leverage come from? I would argue it will come from innovation, which will be driven by competition among countries to host the brightest and most creative thinkers in the world.

    The United States has a significant head start in the race for talent, but it cannot rest on its laurels. As the gap in living conditions narrows, America will be hard-pressed to maintain its drawing power. It will have to rely on less tangible differences – economic and political freedoms, tolerance of differences, culture, and government policy towards immigrants. There is no doubt that the US has a commanding position in the first three, but immigration policy continues to be shortsighted. Policies that actively recruit talent from overseas and view a continuing influx of young workers as an asset may help to encourage economic dominance for the coming century.

    You can view the page at http://www.theworldforgotten.com/con...erm-Prosperity
    Last edited by Loki; 01-27-2010 at 10:57 PM.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  2. #2
    A couple of comments on California.

    1) Its biggest problem is the proposition system. Allowing a simple majority to amend the constitution every year is lunacy. Proposition 13 is what killed California. A greater majority required to raise taxes than to amend the Constitution? Great idea! {morons.}

    2) California's tech dominance is indeed in part based on its glorious feel, part of which is climate. The other part was the world's best public education system. Now that this system is crumbling, California may indeed be less of a participant in future waves.

  3. #3
    True, but Cali has faced other crises during the Prop 13 era, and emerged unscathed. Similar things could be said about ridiculous filibuster rules in the Senate. That's not to say that both legislatures shouldn't be reformed, but I don't think it's the core of the long-term decline. It's just a symptom.

    Having a good education system certainly helps to attract talent. That being said, much (most?) of California's innovators weren't trained there, or at most only partly trained there. Good education is a quality of life issue for migrants looking to take care of their kids, but the schooling by itself doesn't cause the innovation... it just attracts the innovators. Certainly ensuring good services is part of the package necessary to maintain the US' edge.

    As for climate, I doubt it's super important, though the article I linked suggested that the sheer diversity of available climes in the US makes most immigrants able to feel more 'at home' - Norwegians can move to Minnesota, while Lebanese might enjoy Florida more. Thus, it's not just how comfortable the climate is objectively, but the choices available dependent upon what one is used to.

  4. #4
    wiggin,
    Your argument that immigrants maintain the United States is predicated on the fact that the borrowing and lending system is fixed. Potential new immigrants to the United States are going to be unable to find jobs unless the government allows immigrants to be favored over current workers with its H1-B rules. But, that just hurts everyone else and leads to more unemployment simply as a mathematical result. Right now, the immigration of talent to the US is based on a government-sponsored economic lie.
    Last edited by agamemnus; 01-28-2010 at 10:49 PM.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Your argument that immigrants maintain the United States is predicated on the fact that the borrowing and lending system is fixed. Potential new immigrants to the United States are going to be unable to find jobs unless the government allows immigrants to be favored over current workers with its H1-B rules. But, that just hurts everyone else and leads to more unemployment simply as a mathematical result. Right now, the immigration of talent to the US is based on a government-sponsored economic lie.
    Uhm, why would they be unable to find jobs? First, if they are better/smarter/etc. workers than the average job searcher in the US, they'll have no trouble finding a job. Second, if the US encourages immigrations of entrepreneurs, presumably they would be net job creators by hiring domestic workers. As the article linked indicated, a disproportionate number of startups in the US are founded by immigrants. The same could be said of new technologies and patents. This causes economic growth and net job creation.

    Look, I wont' argue that opening the doors of the US to any and all comers is silly and likely counterproductive (not to mention a likely security concern in today's world). Yet that doesn't preclude the US from a principled restructuring of immigration and naturalization rules to stop discouraging potential talented immigrants. For that matter, there's a certain selection that happens before anyone tries to immigrate to the US - someone with the wherewithal and smarts to advance enough in their home country will have a much better chance of choosing to move and succeeding. We should not turn away immigrants just because they might provide some healthy competition.

    Ender

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Uhm, why would they be unable to find jobs? First, if they are better/smarter/etc. workers than the average job searcher in the US, they'll have no trouble finding a job.
    Er, because we have high unemployment. They would be unable to find jobs just like everyone else.

    Second, if the US encourages immigrations of entrepreneurs, presumably they would be net job creators by hiring domestic workers. As the article linked indicated, a disproportionate number of startups in the US are founded by immigrants. The same could be said of new technologies and patents. This causes economic growth and net job creation.
    I don't disagree.

    Look, I wont' argue that opening the doors of the US to any and all comers is silly and likely counterproductive (not to mention a likely security concern in today's world). Yet that doesn't preclude the US from a principled restructuring of immigration and naturalization rules to stop discouraging potential talented immigrants. For that matter, there's a certain selection that happens before anyone tries to immigrate to the US - someone with the wherewithal and smarts to advance enough in their home country will have a much better chance of choosing to move and succeeding. We should not turn away immigrants just because they might provide some healthy competition.

    Ender
    I am for free immigration of educated and/or oppressed people.

    Er, you know what a subsidy means, right? If you subsidize one group, it's not free competition anymore: that group has an advantage. Foreign workers with an H1B visa have a sort of advantage because they are low-cost. However, the main reason why they are low-cost is because their entry into the US is predicated on getting a job offer here, and thus a company can hire these people for less than they would anyone else -- the foreign worker has no choice if he wants to stay. As far as I understand it, these companies also have to tell the government that they can't find anyone else who is actually a current resident to fill the job. With almost 20% unemployment, no company in the US should theoretically be hiring foreign workers based on these requirements.
    Last edited by agamemnus; 01-28-2010 at 09:33 PM.

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by agamemnus View Post
    Er, because we have high unemployment. They would be unable to find jobs just like everyone else.
    That's a short-term phenomenon, and even now our unemployment is only very high by US standards - 10% isn't so bad in large chunks of the world.

    Er, you know what a subsidy means, right? If you subsidize one group, it's not free competition anymore: that group has an advantage. Foreign workers with an H1B visa have a sort of advantage because they are low-cost. However, the main reason why they are low-cost is because their entry into the US is predicated on getting a job offer here, and thus a company can hire these people for less than they would anyone else -- the foreign worker has no choice if he wants to stay. As far as I understand it, these companies also have to tell the government that they can't find anyone else who is actually a current resident to fill the job. With almost 20% unemployment, no company in the US should theoretically be hiring foreign workers based on these requirements.
    This calls for a reforming of the stupid visa system, not for dumping immigration altogether. Furthermore, most of unemployment nowadays (which isn't anywhere close to 20%, even if you include the long term unemployed) is in unskilled sectors - manufacturing in particular was hit pretty hard, but high tech and government sectors are doing all right employment-wise. Thus, it's quite possible that an immigrant may have unique skills for a job that other job seekers cannot match.

    I also think you're looking at this too narrowly. Why should they come to the US specifically through an H1B visa? Many of the smartest immigrants come to the US to study - whether university, graduate, or professional school. Why not make it easier for them to stay after they complete their training? They're a perfect immigrant pool, and have the added plus of already being relatively well integrated into society.

    Honestly, I think immigration policy in the US needs a reboot - completely rethinking priorities, re-examining poor assumptions, etc. The current system is ridiculous, and does little to ensure that we can capitalize on our rather remarkable drawing power.

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    True, but Cali has faced other crises during the Prop 13 era, and emerged unscathed.
    I'm a believer in cumulative defects. It is, after all, what kills most people, if we're going to use a "system" metaphor.

    Similar things could be said about ridiculous filibuster rules in the Senate. That's not to say that both legislatures shouldn't be reformed, but I don't think it's the core of the long-term decline. It's just a symptom.
    Not so sure. I suspect that most of Cali's problems that go beyond what the rest of the country is experiencing can be traced back at least in part to Prop 13 and the proposition system in general. Whether or not you believe in minimal taxation, Prop 13 is a moronic way to do it. And the founding fathers knew damned well that direct democracy was idiotic. People are too easily manipulated, so you need to levels of consensus, and some temporal separation between events and legislation. Deliberation is the buzzword. the populace doesn't deliberate. They listen to Glenn beck, jerk their knee, and that is that. And then you definitely don't enact direct democracy as constitutional amendments. I remember my astonishment when I first heard of the system.

    And meh. I'm not convinced that the Filibuster is terrible. I suspect that the greatest problem of the US is its 2 party system. Bipolar isn't exactly a great model. I'd much rather have the moderation of lots of smaller parties forming coalitions with the big ones. And much more representative for the non-mainstream folks out there.

    As I get older, I continually think that the biggest danger is extremism of any sort. This is 90% of why I turned against the GOP in the last several years. The Dems have become a fairly moderate party, while the Republicans are owned by the wingnuts. In the 60s and 70s the opposite was true, and it was more important to tip things towards the Reps. It's why I could call my presidential vote in the last election more than 12 months ahead. Except in the case of the occasional loonies, balance is more important than personalities.

    Having a good education system certainly helps to attract talent. That being said, much (most?) of California's innovators weren't trained there, or at most only partly trained there. Good education is a quality of life issue for migrants looking to take care of their kids, but the schooling by itself doesn't cause the innovation... it just attracts the innovators. Certainly ensuring good services is part of the package necessary to maintain the US' edge.
    Agreed about services. But I think you can't over-estimate education system. And please note I'm not talking primary/secondary, though they need to be good. I'm talking college, and you need to have some that are not just good, but GREAT. Think about it. Why is it that most of the white collar density in the US surrounds the top universities? It's not just big cities. Per capita, they aren't in NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, LA, etc. The top tech areas are Boston and SF. And I read somewhere that the triangle of NC per capita was actually top (though I can't remember how they defined that--biotech? All tech? White collar in general? I think it was all tech.) What do these places have in common? SF and Boston have the best research universities in the US, hands down. The Triangle has a top one (Duke) a very good one (UNC) and a good ag school (NC State) all in close proximity, plus the state had the foresight to fund RTP a few decades back to tap into tech development from those schools. Plus, these areas have business schools that are as good as their science departments. Perfectly good isolated top schools don't get the same phenomenon. UW Madison and U Mich both have excellent biomed, for example. Or Hopkins. UWash Seattle. Wash U STL. UCLA. Columbia. Of course they get some companies, but they don't have the critical mass for true concentrations. How else do you explain a company like Glaxo in the Triangle?

    So, overall you've got the innovation and business founders (faculty), you've got the business people (top MBAs), and you've got the skilled workers (undergrads.) In the current economy, these communities are faring better than most, and it's primarily due to those tech sectors.

    The point being that Cali is now pissing theirs away. The damage has been accumulating for decades (it was evident when I was at Berkeley). They're now talking about privatizing, closing some campuses, etc. The problem is that faculty were leaving Berkeley for greener pastures 10 years ago when I was there. It takes generations to build a world class university, but only one to tear it down.

    As for climate, I doubt it's super important, though the article I linked suggested that the sheer diversity of available climes in the US makes most immigrants able to feel more 'at home' - Norwegians can move to Minnesota, while Lebanese might enjoy Florida more. Thus, it's not just how comfortable the climate is objectively, but the choices available dependent upon what one is used to.
    I wasn't really serious about climate. For a serious professional or immigrant with serious ambitions, climate is low on their list of priorities. It's just that the eternal shangri-la of Cali does appeal to a fair number of folks.

  9. #9
    ']['ear, how much do you pay in property tax and is it based on current valuation or on purchase price? If you knew Prop 13 you would know it has little to do with our financial crisis here.
    Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
    If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    That's a short-term phenomenon, and even now our unemployment is only very high by US standards - 10% isn't so bad in large chunks of the world.
    Yeah, but large chunks of the world... I wouldn't want to live there.

    This calls for a reforming of the stupid visa system, not for dumping immigration altogether. Furthermore, most of unemployment nowadays (which isn't anywhere close to 20%, even if you include the long term unemployed) is in unskilled sectors - manufacturing in particular was hit pretty hard, but high tech and government sectors are doing all right employment-wise. Thus, it's quite possible that an immigrant may have unique skills for a job that other job seekers cannot match.
    I disagree... you don't have any data to support that. Anecdotal data, just by watching TV and reading articles, supports a different view. And how can you possibly calculate employment in government sectors, anyway?


    I also think you're looking at this too narrowly. Why should they come to the US specifically through an H1B visa? Many of the smartest immigrants come to the US to study - whether university, graduate, or professional school. Why not make it easier for them to stay after they complete their training? They're a perfect immigrant pool, and have the added plus of already being relatively well integrated into society.

    Honestly, I think immigration policy in the US needs a reboot - completely rethinking priorities, re-examining poor assumptions, etc. The current system is ridiculous, and does little to ensure that we can capitalize on our rather remarkable drawing power.
    Well, sure, but I never said "make H1B visas the only way to fly"..

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •