If Google's profit margin could be 80% instead of 67% because it had no US engineers and only engineers in developing countries - this is only good for Google's shareholders.
Whereas Google employs >100k US citizens paying on average >$200k - plus close to as many contractors (it doesn't pay particularly well).
It's hard to argue that enriching mainly a handful of High Net-worth shareholders is better for the US economy "as a whole". High Net-worth Individuals have a low propensity to spend on the "real" US economy.
We already tax capital gains at a low rate - and because of that companies do share-buybacks to reduce the tax burden on their shareholders.
There would be far less tax dollars and far less spending in the "real" economy.
This certainly seems like only a win for the high net-worth individual.
Sure - if you want to do that and then socialize the benefits - I guess that could be better. It wouldn't happen. And also, instead of your population being productive and gaining skills and getting smarter - they're doing what? Just living off welfare? Doing the same work for less pay?
Your belief that I'm making any such assumption is a mistake on your part.
I'm saying that it is good for Americans in general to allow Google to bring good people into our labor market, so that their spending goes into our economy. Which circulates money that goes where? Mostly to Americans! Instead we force Google to create those jobs where those people happen to be.
Now the USA actually allows a lot of immigration. In fact nationwide a bit over 10% of the population is foreign born. But when you look at productivity growth, it is no accident that California is both one of the top states for long-term productivity growth, AND has over 1/4 of its population born elsewhere.
My belief, based on well-established economic theory, is that allowing more immigration of smart people would increase California's productivity even more. Which, long-term, will result in more money for all of us.
If Google's profit margin could be 80% instead of 67% because it had no US engineers and only engineers in developing countries - this is only good for Google's shareholders.
Whereas Google employs >100k US citizens paying on average >$200k - plus close to as many contractors (it doesn't pay particularly well).
It's hard to argue that enriching mainly a handful of High Net-worth shareholders is better for the US economy "as a whole". High Net-worth Individuals have a low propensity to spend on the "real" US economy.
We already tax capital gains at a low rate - and because of that companies do share-buybacks to reduce the tax burden on their shareholders.
There would be far less tax dollars and far less spending in the "real" economy.
This certainly seems like only a win for the high net-worth individual.
Sure - if you want to do that and then socialize the benefits - I guess that could be better. It wouldn't happen. And also, instead of your population being productive and gaining skills and getting smarter - they're doing what? Just living off welfare? Doing the same work for less pay?
That seems like a loss, too.