Comments on: Immigration: Better Than a Bolivian Degree Financed with Microcredit

By: Kerry Howley

Kerry Howley — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 17:13:02 +0000

Oh no! I hate when people do that to me. Sorry, Claudio.

By: Claudio Montenegro

Claudio Montenegro — Mon, 04 Aug 2008 16:28:09 +0000

Dear Kerry,
My name is ClaudiO y no ClaudiA, which is the feminin in Spanish.
Thank you!
Claudio.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 17:09:48 +0000

Pritchett and Clemens are extremely careful to include the costs of adjustment to a new country into their calculations.

That’s exactly the kind of info I was looking for, Kerry. Thanks.

By: Kerry Howley

Kerry Howley — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:22:51 +0000

Jim,

Pritchett and Clemens are extremely careful to include the costs of adjustment to a new country into their calculations. It’s a long paper and the vast majority is an attempt to make sure that the above represents wage discrimination due to borders and not to the constraints you’re talking about. Had they not done so, the ratios would be far more extreme. Skim the paper, it’s fascinating!

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:17:31 +0000

The physical and mental costs associated with homesickness, I have to assume, would be at least cancelled out by the improved standard of living for the time the Nigerian worker stayed in the U.S.

Why do you “have to assume” this?

By: Periodically, I Post Graphs Made By Lant Pritchett « Matt Zeitlin: Impetuous Young Whippersnapper

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:17:13 +0000

[...] experience simply from the chance of being born in the wrong country are extreme. Kerry Howley comments on a new Lant Pritchett paper which finds that wage gaps between otherwise equivalent workers living [...]

By: PFJO

PFJO — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 08:24:42 +0000

This is sort of a silly analysis. Of course it is beneficial for someone in an impoverished nation to come and work in a wealthy one. That’s of secondary concern… what is important is whether or not it’s a good trade for both the immigrant AND the host nation/employer. If the answer is yes then it is a rational and truly capitalistic exchange that would and should willingly be made… however if the answer is no then it’s just charity on the part of the host nation/employer. There is more to immigration than just money after all.

By: Chad Edward

Chad Edward — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 05:11:47 +0000

The physical and mental costs associated with homesickness, I have to assume, would be at least cancelled out by the improved standard of living for the time the Nigerian worker stayed in the U.S.

The ROI may be significant (though I think relatively insignificant) for manual laborers; but, since the wage gaps are standardized, you can’t assume all the workers are of that type. Professionals could acquire assets and access investments that negate or more the ROI adjusted wage gap.

By: Jim Henley

Jim Henley — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 11:48:49 +0000

Don’t you really have to analyze this gap at the ROI level? It costs money for, say, a Nigerian worker to transport herself to the US and domicile there, even if there are zero immigration controls. During the time in transit she’s probably out of work in Nigeria itself. That’s completely leaving aside non-monetary costs like homesickness. (About which I do not joke: it seems obvious that there’d be a lot more migration in the world except for deep personal attachments to familiar places.)

So I don’t doubt at all that a Nigerian worker who comes to the US will probably be ahead economically. But I wonder what the earnout period is.