throw123123123

Money is a private creation, government just made it illegal to run private money.

Until gov takes away your money and then what

It's in the interest of citizens to get their goods at the cheapest price. Thats why you have imports, which is no less than importing the produce of labor.

With people, you have the added benefit that if people working within your country they spend and consume in your country.

Countries all over the world fight each other for talent, and the US immigration system is doing to itself what other countries spend money to prevent.

No you don't. It would be a tariff to do so.

Companies still do that by hiring abroad and importing goods from abroad. You will surprised to know most of the things you consume in the US are imported.

US immigration is in the biggest crisis in decades - between rhetoric & admin burden from Trump, covid, and ossified bureaucracy, it is the worst time in history for a tech worker to migrate to the US.

Each time a developer works for the US from abroad, the US economy loses up to 50% o salaries in taxes for gov funding, and up to 80% of the reminder in spending within the economy.

An argentine developer making 150k from the US pays 0 taxes and spends 80%+ in argentina. If he moves to the US he pays 60k in taxes and spends 80%+ in the US.

US is shooting itself in the foot so hard. The solution is the easiest - remove H1b caps.

What doesn't make sense is putting limits whatsoever.

There has to be no federal student debt forward. If there is an admission that they dont work, stop doing them!

It must be understood that making them dischargeable would make student loans unfeasible - the lending rate to adjust for the risk would be so high that unless it were subsidized it would be impossible to pay.

It would give the people a way out today - a few years of bad credit sure, but worth it if you are really underwater with them.

Would be better to make the debt dischargeable - it's a form of debt forgiveness that has skin in the game for college graduates, particularly those that didnt do well at all.

SF prices are high so Buenos Aires property prices go up? I doubt it.

An illegal immigrant cant have a bank account, credit check or buy a home. Is that what you perceive as competition in the housing market?

Housing definitely is sticker than stocks - but that is a sleigh of hand. Buyers unwilling to lower prices are taking themselves off the market, not sustaining the market price.

Volume would go down, and whatever is sold will be done at a much lower market price.

Argentina had a RE bubble in 2017, and property prices dropped 40% since. It has happened, it is happening, and it will happen again.

US immigration is cratering, it's a national crisis nobody cares about.

The supply constraint is old but its not why housing is high - housing prices are high even in places where there is a lot of construction. Monetary policy explains it a lot better, and it predicts that at some point the trend will reverse.

Have you checked your portfolio lately?

A 70% drop in demand would crater the marginal price of homes by over 70%.

Diversity is a dog whistle to be honest. Either you are on the diverse team or your aren't.

It's important to understand the core tribalism around picking up this word and standing by it.

Why would someone pay (or take) the same between a 4-day week vs a 5-day worker ceteris paribus?

Since 9/11.

Only for US residents - 5% of the global pop.

Banks are so regulated that you can't open an account in the US unless you visit a bank branch physically.

Bay Area

As an immigrant that can't ever vote, has restrictions on buying property, and belonged to a 40% immigration population in SF, i beg to differ.

If this offer is rejected twitter stock will go -30/-50% so if your north start is prices this is as good as it gets.

In a Malthusian model there would be a larger share of poor and starving as food becomes more abundant, because remember necessarily population outgrows food production.

The Malthusian model predicts forever growing extreme poverty as a share of population.

It is not true, as both societies with no food have kids and societes with plenty of food don't have kids.

They have only a tenuous correlation at best.

Economists do not cite Malthus either.

You can't possibly believe the model that population grows until food is depleted at the margin, it's obviously wrong.

This is so good to see! I actually was an evangelist to support comics & manga at scribd.com a decade ago with this idea.

Checking it out!

Malthus's arithmetic vs geometric model of population is grossly wrong, while also condemns a large swath of humanity to extreme poverty. What a clown.

Paraphrasing Henry George: "Malthus model that food grows arithmetically and population grows geometrically is as arbitrary as saying a dog grows arithmetically and his tail grows geometrically"

> Oh, that kind of "economics". Never mind then.

What is that "kind of economics"?