I particularly like this quote: "For example, if skilled individuals could earn $10 an hour in a country like India or China, and $40 an hour in the United States, by moving they would gain $60,000 a year (before taxes and assuming 2000 hours of work per year)." And also assuming that the cost of living for said young person is equivalent in both Silicon Valley and, say, India.
this argument isn't that bad. he makes a bad assumption that living expenses are the same in both countries, but this can easily be remedied.
say skilled individuals make $1 an hour in India or China, after expenses. say those skilled individuals make $10 an hour in the United States, after expenses. In one year, they'd gain about $18,000. If you set the fee lower, that's not too bad for a skilled worker.
problem is, the bigger issue with immigration is unskilled labor. these people wouldn't be able to pay back loans for entrance fees, and its there that most of the issues with enforcement arise.
maybe this would work, but it seems like its solving only a small part of the problem
Good quote. There is something suspicious about the whole idea, it sounds too much like an economist trying to solve every problem with the same hammer.
But Gary Becker is not a loon. He has a Nobel prize in economics. Before dismissing his ideas it's worth having a very close look at them.
This guy is a loon.