Immigrants Add Jobs

Ah, the perennial debate about whether immigrants take away jobs: The Guardian

For the last time, the answer is "No." But no matter how many numbers are publicized or gathered, the human being is a visual animal. That means if some different-looking fella is mowing your neighbor's lawn, he's going to be noticed much more than anyone else, even if three more natives are hired at the local hardware store down the street.

The more interesting question is whether immigrants drive down wages in certain industries. I think generally speaking, they would, only because of the simple fact that more people entering any industry create more competition, which leads to lower prices. In ordinary times, people like more competition, because it led to lower prices. Now, it's a problem because people see increasing unemployment and need to find a scapegoat. Of course, they don't blame out-of-control government spending, ill-advised international adventures, or underfunded entitlement programs. Nah, it's much easier to blame that different-looking fella who talks funny.

I'm not sure this visual bias will ever change, but perhaps schools should be more effective in teaching students how the Irish, Germans, Italians, and Chinese were treated when they first arrived in America, and how they were all blamed each time an economic crisis arose.

IQ Test

From across the pond, courtesy of John Pozadzides(?), a fun blog and an IQ test (scroll towards the end of the page):

http://onemansblog.com/2007/11/08/the-massive-list-of-genius-people-with-the-highest-iq/

I didn't score exceptionally high, but at least I scored over 100, and with 10 minutes left to spare. Some of those color combos left me dizzy.

Speaking of IQ tests, here's an FT story on investors and Madoff.

Financial Times Summary (12/17/08)

I just finished reading today's Financial Times. Here are the major points:

1. Saudi Arabia feels that a fair price for oil is $75 a barrel--almost a 100%+ increase from the current NYMEX price of $39.85.

2. Yale's endowment fund lost 25% in the last four months. It's nice to know I'm beating the Ivy League.

Ron Paul on Regulation

Ron Paul publishes reports every month on the following website:

http://www.free-nefl.com/html/freedomreports.html

From his November 2008 bulletin:

Nothing should take the place of your own common sense and due diligence...Regulation can actually benefit big business and corporate greed, while simultaneously killing small businesses that are the backbone of our now faltering economy. This is why I get so upset every time someone claims regulation can resolve the crisis that we are in. Rather, it will only exacerbate it.

I've echoed these sentiments before:

The problem wasn’t and isn’t a lack of regulation, but a lack of ethics and honesty. Unfortunately, there is no law that can curb the human appetite for greed when everyone is seemingly making money. Even a casual student of economics has heard of “tulip mania,” which took place in the year 1637. Back then, the price of a tulip contract sold for more than 20 times the annual income of a skilled craftsman; in other words, people were happy to exchange 41,600 hours of hard labor for a flower that you can now get for a buck at Home Depot. Financial bubbles happen, and then they pop. Unless a law can remove humanity’s attraction to getting rich, another bubble will occur, and more people who bought late in the game will be wiped out.

http://willworkforjustice.blogspot.com/2008/09/ocm-other-countries-money.html

EPIC

EPIC stands for the Electronic Privacy Information Center, a nifty non-profit organization. EPIC files lawsuits against the government, forcing them to provide more information about their privacy policies and domestic surveillance practices. You can learn more by going to privacy.org

You can also donate to the organization here: www.epic.org/donate

How much is your privacy worth?

To Aspiring Lawyers

Many lawyers who cannot find permanent work do temp work. Most of these temporary jobs are projects involving document review. It's not exciting work, but some projects pay well, and the work is a necessary part of litigation. There are so many temp attorneys, there is even a website dedicated to them at temporaryattorney.blogspot.com.

With the number of lawyers increasing with every annual law school graduation and more work being outsourced to capable Indian attorneys, law is no longer a stable profession where most entrants earn a steady paycheck:

http://temporaryattorney.blogspot.com/2008/08/we-should-have-become-plumbers.html

The Temp Attorney post links to a WSJ article that shows that a degree isn't what it used to be. On the bright side, the chart above shows that at some point--many years later--a college degree finally pays off. Still, I can't help but think that the American education system is broken.

First, the paper-pushing jobs--bankers, lawyers, etc.--make more than engineers and doctors, people who provide vital services or who spearhead innovation. As a result, many intelligent young people go into law--which produces no innovation--rather than nursing, engineering, or science. On some level, that's a wise decision--it's easy for companies to hire engineers in other countries for much less. At the same time, it seems strange that America's job market incentivizes students to go into non-innovative professions rather than innovative ones.

Second, many high schools do not teach their students useful subjects, or they encourage too many students to go to college. Not all students need to go to college, and some students are better off spending four years in an internship program or an apprenticeship program. Also, many subjects taught in high schools will have no future application for students. For example, I still know how to take the derivative of x-squared (it's 2x), but I have no idea what that signifies, and I've never used it in my law practice. Yet, I was able to sit through calculus because I knew it made me a more competitive college applicant. Despite calculus's uselessness to me, I had an incentive linked to a long term goal--a college and graduate degree--which made the class and high school tolerable.

I empathize with students who have no interest in math, second languages, science, or any other required core classes. These students have good cause to be disenchanted with school--they know they will most likely never use physics or even algebra. Their disenchantment or disinterest in their classes may actually be a sign of high intelligence. After all, which is a smarter choice: refusing to spend time on a subject that has no utility, or dedicating hours to it?

In addition, if the under-performing students' family lacks the money to send them to college, the students intuitively realize the system isn't designed with them in mind. Common sense tells them--and should tell us--that their first order of business should be getting useful skills that will lead to a non-minimum wage job. To accomplish that end, high schools ought to join forces with local businesses to teach students the skills they need to get a job immediately upon graduation. When a law degree--which takes four years of high school, four years of college, and three years of law school, plus an exam--doesn't lead to stable employment or useful skills, families should realize their property taxes and other taxes are being spent unwisely. There must be a better way to educate students than a system that encourages eight to eleven years of school and the prospect of paying off student loans by the age of 40.

Love in the Time of Wit

This post has nothing to do with economics or the stock market. It's just a well-written article on love--more specifically, how to tell if a woman loves you:

The Morning News

I can't believe I'd never heard of TMN or Pasha Malla till now.

Hat tip to J-Sares for the link.