1/ It is worth understanding why the US has persistent skill shortages, even during periods of high unemployment: the US economy is structurally distorted so badly due to years of bad policy that most talent goes to "token distribution jobs" which distribute claims on imports.
2/ For a talented young person in the US, jobs in finance, law, marketing and real estate brokerage pay much bigger wages (tokens!) than being semiconductor engineers/technicians.
Anyway all the chips can be imported from foreigners willing to take treasuries and dollar claims.
3/ Corporate America, due to the Gospel of Finance, has not invested in training and skill development for a couple of generations at least now; as skilled people retire, there is no pipeline of talent.
The "solution" is to import talent, then import again a generation later.
4/ Finally I want to point out that much of the software jobs boom the US saw in the last decade has been due to jobs in online advertising along with a VC-funded Saas boom & recently crypto.
A lot of these have been high paying token distribution jobs that promote more imports.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1/ India's thinking is dominated by English, which means it is shaped by what goes on in the US and UK. I will explore some consequences here.
First let's come to economics. Both the US and UK are highly financialized, "post-industrial" or "post- manufacturing" economies.
2/ US/UK run massive trade deficits in manufactured goods & export services (intellectual property or financial services) to partly balance the goods deficit, but the resulting net trade deficit is still huge and has kept growing.
How do they pay for this ever-growing deficit?
3/ They issue *bonds denominated in their own currencies* to pay for imports. This is very crucial and has allowed them to continue to issue debt far beyond what countries like India can do.
This "privilege" came at the huge price tag of decimating their manufacturing sectors.
1/ I spent over 4 years in my PhD deep inside mathematical models of wireless systems. It slowly dawned on me that the professors were addicted to the models themselves and never entertained any doubts about whether the models had much to do with reality.
2/ Over time, the entire purpose of the models evolved so as to allow us to publish cute theorems & win grants, awards & coveted tenure! I saw this trend everywhere I looked in academia with very few professors immune to the pull of models increasingly detached from reality.
3/ It was therefore not a surprise for me that this trend had taken deep root in economics. In wireless systems, industry practioners typically ignore the toy model pushers. Alas, in economics it is these toy model pushers who have come to dominate economic decision making.
1/ Rajan echoes the conventional-economist thinking that focuses on efficiency gains from trade and totally ignores resilience and the benefits of a diversified jobs mix in a region. As an example, a bright kid in Tenkasi wanting to build planes today has to migrate out of India.
2/ Rajan would argue "Let's make labor mobile across countries so the Tenkasi kid can migrate to where planes are built" and that ignores unmodeled costs of uprooting people, such as elderly people left behind.
Their models also have no place for culture, community and so on.
3/ Economists would basically assume away those unmodeled costs as trivial or non-existent. That is the ultimate triumph of logical positivism.
My contention is that when all those unmodeled costs are taken into account, those efficiency gains evaporate, particularly long term.
A/ It is extremely important that thinking people grasp the basics of our modern global monetary system. What you do not know can hurt you. Here is a very basic outline.
1. Nations export to the US and receive dollars.
2. Nations export to nations that export to US.
B/ 3. After step 2, dollars start circulating globally and don't need to come back to the US to claim goods/services or assets.
4. Global banks start creating more dollar assets and liabilities, based on the "real dollars" that arose in trade with the US. Very important step.
C/ 5. After many years of step 4, total "global dollar" bank balance sheets, outside the jurisdiction of the Fed, vastly exceed the sum of US trade deficits i.e, "real dollars".
6. The Fed does not regulate those "global dollar" balances but its actions have strong influence.
1/ In this thread, I will contrast two forces: clustering or agglomeration effects that result in a large cities getting larger. Then there are economies of scale that favour large factories vs small factories. These forces are different and can even be opposed to each other.
2/ An economic cluster is a group of firms in a particular industry specializing in various areas, that work together to create finished goods. The classic example is Tirupur textile industry where firms specialize in spinning, knitting, dyeing, garmenting and so on.
3/ There are clear advantages to this cluster of firms being located near each other because the output of one firm becomes the input of another.
In contrast, economies of scale deal with a single very large spinning mill, dyeing factory etc.
1/ Thank you for starting this debate Sanyal-ji. Let me present some evidence to show per capita infrastructure costs go up with population as we get to larger cities.
Tokyo is the largest metro region in the world (population of 36+ million) and I will start with that.
2/ Tokyo is the world's most expensive place to build in terms of cost per square meter. We can convert that to cost per person as well and that is my first piece of evidence that per capita costs rise with population as cities get large.
3/ Second piece of evidence is to look at median rent as a percentage of median income. As cities get large. rents not only go up they also consume a higher *proportion* of the incomed earned in the city which implies more of GDP is consumed by infrastructure.