Adam Ozimek points to something interesting today. It turns out that when CBO estimates the budgetary impact of increasing the number of work permits for highly-educated immigrants, it only calculates the cost—which comes to about $4 billion over ten years. But what about the benefits?
Following the population-change approach of incorporating all of the direct budgetary effects of changing the number of people in the United States, the analysts at PWBM estimate that a proposal similar to Section 80303 in H.R. 4521 would raise federal spending by $4 billion and increase federal revenues by $133 billion from 2025 to 2034, for a net decrease in the federal budget deficit of $129 billion.
Over the following decade, the difference between estimates under the conventional approach and the population-change approach is even larger, from a $74 billion increase in the budget deficit under the conventional approach to a $634 billion decrease under the population-change approach.
CBO generally doesn't include dynamic effects in their scoring, but they're allowed to do it for "major" immigration proposals. This isn't big enough to be considered major, which is why someone else had to do it. But it's still true.
How is it any more dynamic that they'd pay taxes any more than it's dynamic that they'd need services?
Crissa, you have lost a number of parts of the equation of value.
What is the value of the services THEY provide? What is the cost of services, what is the VALUE of their work, and how much do US companies (small and large) think they are saving by under paying them (and keeping their taxes low). And are US companies actually reporting properly?
Anthony Bourdain said of the restaurant industry (extended paraphrase from a number of his pithy observations) . All the food we eat depends on immigrants raising our food, processing our food, working to package it, working in grocery back rooms, cooking it if you go to a restaurant, and then cleaning it out late at night.
The big corporations LOVE cheap immigrant labor AND illegal immigrants that are afraid of complaining.
Why is it surprising that skilled immigration is economically beneficial? Folks with high job skills (Doctors, engineers, etc) have clear paths to employment.
It would be interesting to see a similar analysis for the family reunification, often low job skill, universe.
One solution to the immigration problem is supposed to be to improve conditions in the countries that the immigrants come from. How does stealing their highly trained people fit in with that? If those people reduce the deficit in this country, what effect will their absence have in their home countries? Most countries subsidize the training of people like doctors.
+1
How does stealing their highly trained people fit in with that?
When a person voluntarily moves from one country to another, the recipient nation isn't "stealing" anything. Also, a person's human right to improve his or her lot (and that of the their kids) infinitely outweighs the non-existent "right" of a first country to keep them from leaving because of concerns about economic development.
And: a pretty good way to reduce pressure on shitty governments to, uh, improve the quality of governance, is to refuse to allow their citizens to settle elsewhere.
One more thing: maybe fears of a coming Trump dictatorship are overblown. Maybe! We'll see. But if that's what's in the cards, I fervently hope other countries allow Americans who feel they must leave to settle elsewhere.
What abut the countries these skilled workers are coming from? Will they suffer as a result?
Oh please. Most exporters of talent would like a word. The diaspora of any ethnic/national group takes care of the motherland.
Read Joel Kotkin's book "Tribes"
Ever run the numbers of the macro effects of the employment of undocumented immigrants?
Penn Wharton, 2016: "Immigrants in general — whether documented or undocumented — are net positive contributors to the federal budget."
Center for American Progress, 2016: "Mass deportation would cost the federal government nearly $900 billion in lost revenue over 10 years."
NBER paper, Chassamboulli and Peri, 2015: "[O]ur model shows that increasing deportation rates and tightening border control weakens the low-skilled labor markets, increasing unemployment of native low skilled."
There are tradeoffs, naturally. But in general, if you're arguing about the macro effects on the debt, it matters only slightly if immigrant labor comes from documented or undocumented immigrants.
As a "skilled immigrant" I can testify I have paid far more in taxes than I ever cost the government (and that include UI for the periods I was between jobs).
Also, created a number of jobs for other Americans. Value-adding immigrant, baby!