mhathi
10-18 12:33 PM
My check that was sent in end of july got cashed on wednesday.. so hang in there. Core team members check the mail once a month or so for all checks.
Can i start a new thread for that :)
Yeah! another tracking thread for july - aug - sept - oct donators checks encashed or not :D
Can i start a new thread for that :)
Yeah! another tracking thread for july - aug - sept - oct donators checks encashed or not :D
TomPlate
02-03 05:04 PM
Can you please let me know anyone. I had this doubt because one of my friend is saying,
During PORT OF ENTRY AP can only be used with EAD. Expired EAD will be an issue here.
Even if you do not use EAD and in H1.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW:confused:
During PORT OF ENTRY AP can only be used with EAD. Expired EAD will be an issue here.
Even if you do not use EAD and in H1.
PLEASE LET ME KNOW:confused:
on_h1b_since_1998
02-08 03:11 PM
Thanks guys for the quick reply. Just one thing I would like to clarify. My old company was not acquired by the new one. It shut down and the client for which I was working then, transferred my H1B and employed me.
Xipe Totec
09-14 04:02 PM
I just _have_ to ask: what game was that?
more...
willgetgc2005
11-17 01:23 PM
And you are betting that EB will be in CIR. May or maynot be the case.
CIR may just have H1 B .
Seems bleak.SKILL is the best bet. Politically, they will want CIR to linger on so they can bicker......
if EB reform is discussed as a part of CIR in 2007, i am sure it will be 2008 by the time they start implementing it and 2009 by the time you will see any tangible benefits from it. CIR is not something that will be discussed and approved in a month. After CIR is approved (thats big if) it will take a few months for CIS to come up with the guidelines and prepare itself to handle the increased work load. Look for substantial delays.
IMO, Our best hope is if EB relief is picked up earlier and approved on its own before they talk about CIR.
CIR may just have H1 B .
Seems bleak.SKILL is the best bet. Politically, they will want CIR to linger on so they can bicker......
if EB reform is discussed as a part of CIR in 2007, i am sure it will be 2008 by the time they start implementing it and 2009 by the time you will see any tangible benefits from it. CIR is not something that will be discussed and approved in a month. After CIR is approved (thats big if) it will take a few months for CIS to come up with the guidelines and prepare itself to handle the increased work load. Look for substantial delays.
IMO, Our best hope is if EB relief is picked up earlier and approved on its own before they talk about CIR.
waitingmygc
08-27 10:55 PM
If employer or attorney are not helpful then there are high chances that they are hiding something, may have communicated to you I-140 approved in EB-2 whereas in real EB-3. One of my friend already have experinced same problem, EB-3 instead of EB-2. His company is in Jersey and the name starts with N.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
Another reason why employer is hiding (or don't want to share) suspecting that you can leave him.
Be careful and try some way (as suggested above) to know about your I-140. All the best.
more...
sri1309
05-11 07:58 PM
Good job, Dude..
vikramy
09-02 10:48 AM
When i called last time when my wife EAD got approved, they told me the address on the application. So they should know.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
Did you get Soft LUD after you filed change of address? If yes, then it's probably updated.
Folks,
I had filed my I-485 in Oct 2008 (EB2-I, PD of May 2006) and moved in March 2009. I changed my address online and have a confirmation number for it. However, I don't think I have received a confirmation in the mail from USCIS.
I am trying to find out how to confirm if USCIS has my current address correctly on file. I tried to call in today and was told there is no way for them to confirm that on phone. The lady I spoke with took the updated address again -- saying she will refile for change of address and gave me a service ID that I could apparently use to get an infopass appointment 45 days from now.
Is there anything else I should/could do? Appreciate any input.
Thanks.
more...
gc_eb2_waiter
02-13 02:00 PM
Help IV Help U
PrayForEveryone
07-11 11:10 AM
140 (EB3) was upgraded to Premium Processing on June 27th 2007 (just before the USCIS suspended premium processing on 140).
It got approved yesterday!
It got approved yesterday!
more...
jsb
08-03 10:09 PM
I applied in July, RD Jul 2nd. TSC
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
How do you find about yoru namecheck status? Does USCIS entertain such queries over the phone? Or it is through Infopass?
Havent seen any changes on my case status. my name check hasn't cleared yet. I called and spoke with an IO, she said name check wasnt cleared, wouldnt tell how long its been with FBI. I asked about the 180 day name check rule and she said it doesnt matter they still woudnt work on the case till NC was cleared.
How do you find about yoru namecheck status? Does USCIS entertain such queries over the phone? Or it is through Infopass?
ghost
02-07 11:19 AM
Please share about the discussion. Unfortunately I am unable to watch it due to proxy firewall.
Immigration Policy: Highly Skilled Workers and U.S. Competitiveness and Innovation - Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/0207_immigration.aspx)
Please contact Brookings Communications at the contact info provided for the event material.
Immigration Policy: Highly Skilled Workers and U.S. Competitiveness and Innovation - Brookings Institution (http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/0207_immigration.aspx)
Please contact Brookings Communications at the contact info provided for the event material.
more...
iamgsprabhu
04-20 10:20 PM
This is really now a high time we need to do something, Green card is delayed, we have been patiently waiting, now EAD renewal is also delayed, I applied for AP renewal it is more than 2 and half month and it is delayed.
Why are legal and regular tax payer like us troubled so much ? , they want money take it, but provide efficient service ?
I am really surprised that there is nothing we can do ?
Why are legal and regular tax payer like us troubled so much ? , they want money take it, but provide efficient service ?
I am really surprised that there is nothing we can do ?
Rajeev
10-12 09:50 AM
The maximum duration allowed on L1B is 5 years where as on L1A, it is 7 years. On H1B it is 6 years. Duration spent on L1 is counted with the duration spent on H1 and vice versa.
The maximum time allowed on H1B is 6 years, this includes the time you spent on L1. This is the reason why you have been given H1B that is only valid for 1 year.
On a side note, the maximum time allowed on L1 is 5 years - you had to go back to India since you have spent the maximum allowable time on that visa.
Now, there are two ways to extend your stay beyond the initial 5/6 yrs granted on H1 or L1 visas.
1. For both L1 and H1Bs: Go back to your country (India) for 1 yr after your initial term expires. After 1 yr stay in your home country, you will be eligible for "another cycle" of L1/H1. So, for L1 you will get another 5 yrs, and H1B another 6 yrs.
2. Another way to extend your H1B is to start your Green card process (file your labor, and then your 140). Once your labor is pending for > 1 yr, or your 140 is approved, you will be eligible for 1 yr or 3 yr H1B extensions. This does not apply to L1s.
Here is what I would suggest for your case:
Best case scenario: Wait until your 1 yr clock resets, apply for fresh L1A (multi national manager). Once you are in the USA, convince your company to file for your green card in EB1 - multi national manager. The EB1 is almost always current, you can get your GC pretty soon.
This is the best case scenario that I can envision for you.
Alternatively,you can come back immediately on H1, apply for your PERM and 140, and then get unlimited extensions based on your GC being pending.
You can also wait until your 1 yr clock resets and then enter on H1 in Feb 2008, where by you might be able to claim 5 more years on H1B extensions ( a total of fresh 6 yrs on your current H1B). eventually, you will have to file for your PERM and 140 and then get extensions beyond the 6 yrs. I think you will need to file a petition with USCIS indicating the H1B clock reset.
Merely applying for L1A will not invalidate your H1. however, entering on L1A will invalidate your H1b (you can only hold one visa at a time - L1 or H1B). BTW... I guess you can not enter on L1 until you reset your 1 yr clock.
If I were you,I would seriously consider entering on L1A and then filing for EB1 GC. This is the quickest possible route for your GC. Unless, ofcourse, you do not want to be with the company for another year or so because your relationship with the employer is strained.
The maximum time allowed on H1B is 6 years, this includes the time you spent on L1. This is the reason why you have been given H1B that is only valid for 1 year.
On a side note, the maximum time allowed on L1 is 5 years - you had to go back to India since you have spent the maximum allowable time on that visa.
Now, there are two ways to extend your stay beyond the initial 5/6 yrs granted on H1 or L1 visas.
1. For both L1 and H1Bs: Go back to your country (India) for 1 yr after your initial term expires. After 1 yr stay in your home country, you will be eligible for "another cycle" of L1/H1. So, for L1 you will get another 5 yrs, and H1B another 6 yrs.
2. Another way to extend your H1B is to start your Green card process (file your labor, and then your 140). Once your labor is pending for > 1 yr, or your 140 is approved, you will be eligible for 1 yr or 3 yr H1B extensions. This does not apply to L1s.
Here is what I would suggest for your case:
Best case scenario: Wait until your 1 yr clock resets, apply for fresh L1A (multi national manager). Once you are in the USA, convince your company to file for your green card in EB1 - multi national manager. The EB1 is almost always current, you can get your GC pretty soon.
This is the best case scenario that I can envision for you.
Alternatively,you can come back immediately on H1, apply for your PERM and 140, and then get unlimited extensions based on your GC being pending.
You can also wait until your 1 yr clock resets and then enter on H1 in Feb 2008, where by you might be able to claim 5 more years on H1B extensions ( a total of fresh 6 yrs on your current H1B). eventually, you will have to file for your PERM and 140 and then get extensions beyond the 6 yrs. I think you will need to file a petition with USCIS indicating the H1B clock reset.
Merely applying for L1A will not invalidate your H1. however, entering on L1A will invalidate your H1b (you can only hold one visa at a time - L1 or H1B). BTW... I guess you can not enter on L1 until you reset your 1 yr clock.
If I were you,I would seriously consider entering on L1A and then filing for EB1 GC. This is the quickest possible route for your GC. Unless, ofcourse, you do not want to be with the company for another year or so because your relationship with the employer is strained.
more...
lkapildev
07-17 04:43 PM
Dear Mod,
Stop people like Kumar1 to access your website. They need to know how to Respect people. He is a shame for entire Indian community. Does not know how to respect people.
He deserves to be kicked out from this forum.
Ms. Murthy may same age of his Mother. These folks do not know how to respect.
She is realistic on her message on her website and Murthy/Rajiv S Khann never engaged in any hype.
So sad to see these messages.
Have Kumar's IP and Account information ready. Ms. Murthy might be reading this thread and might need. Most of the sites tacks IPs and users system information
Regards
Stop people like Kumar1 to access your website. They need to know how to Respect people. He is a shame for entire Indian community. Does not know how to respect people.
He deserves to be kicked out from this forum.
Ms. Murthy may same age of his Mother. These folks do not know how to respect.
She is realistic on her message on her website and Murthy/Rajiv S Khann never engaged in any hype.
So sad to see these messages.
Have Kumar's IP and Account information ready. Ms. Murthy might be reading this thread and might need. Most of the sites tacks IPs and users system information
Regards
chanduv23
03-09 02:40 PM
In similar context I have a few questions...
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
As most EB3 numbers go to IT software and as there are so many issues, until DOS and USCIS fix these issues they wont move these forward
The EB2 date is stuck at Jan 08,2003 for months now.I know about retrogression and all that. But can someone explain why the date is not moving? Is it because they ran out of numbers for EB2 for FY 06? (Like they do in H1 cases)
Also does anyone know why the EB2 visa numbers were dropped from 537 in FY05 to 145 in FY06? and why suddenly in 2006 they granted so many visas(6083 in FY06 vs 0 in FY05) to Schedule A workers (Nurses,Physical Therapist,Aliens with excep ability) ? was Schedule A category backlogged for all these years? I am just trying to get some things cleared about how the visa numbers are allocated.
As most EB3 numbers go to IT software and as there are so many issues, until DOS and USCIS fix these issues they wont move these forward
more...
bsbawa10
09-15 05:13 PM
Love the idea. I will follow.
immi2006
05-24 10:17 AM
Does not matter how many points, can u be one of the 6300 ?
The points are not defined well, so do not speculate, it is not abt getting into Wharton / or yale, it takes years to implement a working system, look at Perm, they started in 2001, it took 4 years to implement.
The points are not defined well, so do not speculate, it is not abt getting into Wharton / or yale, it takes years to implement a working system, look at Perm, they started in 2001, it took 4 years to implement.
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
qasleuth
07-17 11:51 AM
Do you have a shred of evidence that the programs you quote do not bring in a cook or a dancer or a painter or a programmer ?
I got all these from your first post. What do you call them ?
"unskilled/low skill immigrants cause higher unemployment", "unskilled/low skilled immigration == jobs not created, remain uneployed", "DV / Family based immigration brings in unskilled/low skilled immigrants"
Look around and you will see anti-immigrants spewing this 'evidence' everywhere, from blogs, to news articles, to the senate, to bars. The same arguments are made against 'skilled' immigration which you and I belong to. What numbers do they quote ? Anecdotal nonsense everywhere.
Making yourself sound more skilled but making the same flawed arguments will get us nowhere. Bashing another group is plain BS.
Skilled = anyone having skills to remain employed (or provide healthy contribution to the economy) at that point of time
So this can be a cook, dancer, painter or a programmer - if the society or economy needs one. Tomorrow, if my programmer skills are no longer required for this economy and country then I can be categorized unskilled labor too.
I am sorry if I look biased. I have no such intentions as I made clear in my first post itself. All my intentions of discussion are based on the definition given above for the word "skilled".
I got all these from your first post. What do you call them ?
"unskilled/low skill immigrants cause higher unemployment", "unskilled/low skilled immigration == jobs not created, remain uneployed", "DV / Family based immigration brings in unskilled/low skilled immigrants"
Look around and you will see anti-immigrants spewing this 'evidence' everywhere, from blogs, to news articles, to the senate, to bars. The same arguments are made against 'skilled' immigration which you and I belong to. What numbers do they quote ? Anecdotal nonsense everywhere.
Making yourself sound more skilled but making the same flawed arguments will get us nowhere. Bashing another group is plain BS.
Skilled = anyone having skills to remain employed (or provide healthy contribution to the economy) at that point of time
So this can be a cook, dancer, painter or a programmer - if the society or economy needs one. Tomorrow, if my programmer skills are no longer required for this economy and country then I can be categorized unskilled labor too.
I am sorry if I look biased. I have no such intentions as I made clear in my first post itself. All my intentions of discussion are based on the definition given above for the word "skilled".
peer123
04-04 01:05 PM
bumping again... my apologies...
No comments:
Post a Comment