Buy a U.S. House, Get a 3-Year Visa

[Parsad]

Senator Chuck Schumer has sponsered a bill to allow investors to spend $500K to acquire a home in the U.S., live there for 180 days, and in exchange you get a 3-year renewable visa.  I think a number of us have mentioned something akin to this on the board.  It's a good idea, but they should probably set a limit of the number of such visas they would issue in any given year or going forward.  Cheers!

 

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45554173

[Parsad]

and so the seeds, driven by yet more gov intervention, of a new bubble begin. hopefully this goes nowhere.

 

Yes, if they don't set some sort of limit.  I would suggest they cancel the visa offer once inventory levels have dropped substantially and prices start on an uptrend.  Any longer, and as you mentioned, they are just going to create another bubble.  Cheers!

[turar]

Is my understanding correct that Canadians can already do this without any visa?

[Parsad]

and so the seeds, driven by yet more gov intervention, of a new bubble begin. hopefully this goes nowhere.

 

Yes, if they don't set some sort of limit.  I would suggest they cancel the visa offer once inventory levels have dropped substantially and prices start on an uptrend.  Any longer, and as you mentioned, they are just going to create another bubble.  Cheers!

 

or how about letting the market take care of it. you are asking the governement to micro manage the US economy. Not a great idea.

 

Well, you would in effect be letting the market take care of it.  Barriers to entry are the same as tariffs on goods.  What the government would be doing is actually allowing free market to determine who wants to live in the U.S. and who doesn't.  That net immigration would alleviate the economic malaise within the housing market. 

 

They would just need to make sure they cap that movement in the market, so that they don't overwhelm their own resources by allowing unlimited numbers of immigrants to come in.  Cheers! 

[Guest ValueCarl]

The HOUSING MARKET remains stymied as a result of missing jobs and wages that were never sufficient to meet affordability standards except for the FRAUD which preceded it in the lending markets by the very banks who stood behind the fraud, and have been hand selected in the after math by bailouts with taxpayer monies!

 

Chuck Schumer should be thrown out on his ass!  >:(   

[dcollon]

John Mauldin has mentioned this idea in the past.

 

I would also like to see the government offer visa's to new under-graduates, masters students, phd's, etc...

 

Actually I would go one step further.  I love the idea of people coming from all over the world to study at U.S. universities, but I would then force them to stay here and "use" their education here.  I don't want them to leave and go home.  Right now we aren't even willing to let them stay, which I think is crazy.

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

When did this ever cease, and who has funded such expatriation in the past?

 

<I love the idea of people coming from all over the world to study at U.S. universities, but I would then force them to stay here and "use" their education here.>

[shalab]

Looks like one can get a greencard for 500K if this WSJ article is anything to go by.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704124504576118500940803720.html

 

[dcollon]

ValueCarl,

 

Sorry I don't think I understand your question.  I'm simply saying that I know of a couple situations where graduates of universities couldn't get visas to stay in the U.S. indefinitely.  My point is that I would love to have them stay here after studying here.  I would want to make it as easy as possible and provide them visas instead of potentially forcing them to move back home.

 

Sorry if my comments didn't make sense.

 

[biaggio]

Decrease housing inventory which is inhibiting a large part of the economy

 

PLUS

 

Makes sense to me (Probably obvious to everyone here) that increasing affluent , talented ,able population would lead to jobs, economic benefit, especially if they can innovate and/or create new business + not so much if they come over and put me out of a job which is the fear. With time the benefit will trickle down to the rest of population (e.g. they need to buy food, clothing, cars, services of various types from the rest of us).

 

They can always innovate in a different country without the jobs and other economic benefit.

[CONeal]

While it maybe good for the housing market my concern is what would occur with unemployment.  Sending most of the jobs overseas would only make the unemployment picture worse.

[ERICOPOLY]

While it maybe good for the housing market my concern is what would occur with unemployment.  Sending most of the jobs overseas would only make the unemployment picture worse.

 

People who build houses for a living (and related industries) are unemployed.

 

They go back to work when the housing supply is gobbled up.

 

I think I've read that it's 3 jobs for every house built.  So if we build 1.5 million homes again, then it's 3 million more jobs (that's 1 million homes more than we currently build).  That alone cuts unemployment by nearly 25%.  Then those people spend more and yet more jobs get created.  Takes a lot of stress off of government revenues and jobless benefit expenditures as well.

 

1.5 million was about natural trendline demand -- 1.2 million from household formation, and 300k from destruction.

 

 

[Guest ValueCarl]

dcollen, I understood exactly what you were saying and I am not in disagreement assuming it is logically as well as mathematically derived on a needs basis. Stated differently, who are these people who command the statistical knowledge and understanding of the necessary occupations inside of America tied to the current economic system for Americans to produce in order to fill gaps where there are clear needs that are defined? And, who is it that has been failing the People of this nation that continue to ill equip them in meeting the needs of their economy as it has evolved on a global basis for the past thirty years minimally, handicapping these same People during the process? 

 

Where is this NEEDS ANALYSIS other than some SUPREME POLITICIAN yakking about supply/demand in order to keep fraudulent pricing--inflationary and harmful to all citizens except the owner class--on behalf of a fraudulent government who is more often than not, dictating their will against the will of The People of the U.S.A.? 

 

Prior party politicians slinging insults at the People, stating "Americans don't want to do those jobs," when referring to the more laborious tasks, sometimes less complex ones like picking strawberries or flipping hamburgers, without identifying what jobs Americans need to do, and what plan exists to provide them with the necessary knowledge via the proper education and training to get them there based upon skill sets, is a more productive way to build a country, if that is your goal! I don't think that is the goal of these PUPPETS who are called leaders according to their political clout in my nation!   

 

Regarding your point, I am aware of many bright, gifted people who came to this country like you are stating in previous cycles who have stayed, while adding great value to our current society. Part of the funding mechanisms for expatriation are borne on the backs of American tax payers; therefore, a cavalier approach versus one that is thoughtful based upon a deliberate process for a beneficial purpose is something to be desired. Now they want to bring the retired class from the rest of the globe who benefited from the loss of jobs on behalf of Americans, into their country to take their homes from them! Who has this kind of power to LEGISLATE such INSULTS in the faces of The American People! 

 

My point is that, you're not talking about something new with respect to immigration, visas, or the ability to stay once individuals arrive in America! That is why it has been described as The Melting Pot of the world since the majority of its origin.

 

I submit to you that the current system is inefficient, unsustainable and scarce for reasons that will or may only be corrected with a change in the current economic paradigm. It will require ridding ourselves of arrogant men like Chuck Schumer of New York!

 

I wrote something much stronger earlier to identify the culprits I believe should be brought to JUSTICE in this NATION, and I will not stop speaking out against them until I see JUSTICE served. That comment is currently vaporware, but it stands firmly as part of my belief systems which I am sure is correct!

 

Leaders in any great nation must take serious their responsibility to prepare their People properly in order to engage the enemy on all fronts of society's human needs, or those leaders must be prepared to lose their privilege swiftly, and rudely if necessary!  >:(   

 

 

 

 

[CONeal]

While it maybe good for the housing market my concern is what would occur with unemployment.  Sending most of the jobs overseas would only make the unemployment picture worse.

 

People who build houses for a living (and related industries) are unemployed.

 

They go back to work when the housing supply is gobbled up.

 

I think I've read that it's 3 jobs for every house built.  So if we build 1.5 million homes again, then it's 3 million more jobs (that's 1 million homes more than we currently build).  That alone cuts unemployment by nearly 25%.  Then those people spend more and yet more jobs get created.  Takes a lot of stress off of government revenues and jobless benefit expenditures as well.

 

1.5 million was about natural trendline demand -- 1.2 million from household formation, and 300k from destruction.

 

Maybe I am looking at this wrong... so bear with me, working on experiences over the last few years in the Technology field.

 

US companies are outsourcing almost all their technology needs to BRIC countries for several years now.  On average 1 programmer in the US can be traded off for 3 - 4 programmers in India.  This is part of the reason why profit margins are nice right now for US companies. 

 

Now lets say you have 100k programmers that says lets move to the US and buy a house.  All of them will require Visa's and will need jobs.  Companies that provide Visa workers do not pay on the same scale as regular W2 workers in my experience so a company is either going to hire the Visa worker at the lower rate (layoff the fulltime employee), continue to outsource all their technology needs, or stay the same.  I really dont see why a company would hurt their profit margins in order to help correct the housing mess.

 

Basically the way I am looking at it for, every 1 job gained, 1 job is lost as a company is just switching out the workers.  Really hasn't been a mass hiring spree in the last few years and by bringing in more people really it would just be adding to the problem. 

 

While I understand where your coming from on housing starts and hiring construction workers, it all starts with providing employment for people that can support purchasing a $500k home.  With the gut of available houses at this point, I really don't how this would make a meaningful enough impact to spurr new housing developments.  For every house that is purchased there would need to be a high income job associated with it and there really are not that many out there that I see.

 

If I am being perfectly honest, after thinking through this, I see this proposal as a way to help the banks get rid of some houses that are a little more difficult to move.  Nothing that would actually lead to new housing builds.

 

Justing thinking out loud as this proposal would probably change 20 times over the next year. :-)

 

 

[MrB]

 

Yes, if they don't set some sort of limit.  I would suggest they cancel the visa offer once inventory levels have dropped substantially and prices start on an uptrend.  Any longer, and as you mentioned, they are just going to create another bubble.  Cheers!

 

Why would you want to limit it in the first place?

[savant]

While it maybe good for the housing market my concern is what would occur with unemployment.  Sending most of the jobs overseas would only make the unemployment picture worse.

 

People who build houses for a living (and related industries) are unemployed.

 

They go back to work when the housing supply is gobbled up.

 

I think I've read that it's 3 jobs for every house built.  So if we build 1.5 million homes again, then it's 3 million more jobs (that's 1 million homes more than we currently build).  That alone cuts unemployment by nearly 25%.  Then those people spend more and yet more jobs get created.  Takes a lot of stress off of government revenues and jobless benefit expenditures as well.

 

1.5 million was about natural trendline demand -- 1.2 million from household formation, and 300k from destruction.

 

Maybe I am looking at this wrong... so bear with me, working on experiences over the last few years in the Technology field.

 

US companies are outsourcing almost all their technology needs to BRIC countries for several years now.  On average 1 programmer in the US can be traded off for 3 - 4 programmers in India.  This is part of the reason why profit margins are nice right now for US companies. 

 

Now lets say you have 100k programmers that says lets move to the US and buy a house.  All of them will require Visa's and will need jobs.  Companies that provide Visa workers do not pay on the same scale as regular W2 workers in my experience so a company is either going to hire the Visa worker at the lower rate (layoff the fulltime employee), continue to outsource all their technology needs, or stay the same.  I really dont see why a company would hurt their profit margins in order to help correct the housing mess.

 

Basically the way I am looking at it for, every 1 job gained, 1 job is lost as a company is just switching out the workers.  Really hasn't been a mass hiring spree in the last few years and by bringing in more people really it would just be adding to the problem. 

 

While I understand where your coming from on housing starts and hiring construction workers, it all starts with providing employment for people that can support purchasing a $500k home.  With the gut of available houses at this point, I really don't how this would make a meaningful enough impact to spurr new housing developments.  For every house that is purchased there would need to be a high income job associated with it and there really are not that many out there that I see.

 

If I am being perfectly honest, after thinking through this, I see this proposal as a way to help the banks get rid of some houses that are a little more difficult to move.  Nothing that would actually lead to new housing builds.

 

Justing thinking out loud as this proposal would probably change 20 times over the next year. :-)

 

Mid-level programmers in India make slightly less than $2,000 a month pre-tax. Besides the fact that they can't really afford $500K houses, I don't think they will have the credit history to be able to get a housing loan in the U.S. Essentially, you are targeting people who can put down a large chunk of money upfront without requiring much of a mortgage. People on this board might be surprised by the large number of people in India who have the capacity to actually do this (we are not all programmers) and might be even more surprised by the large number of people who actually WANT to do this (though that cachet is fast fading).

[shalab]

Last I checked the Indian government ( and Chinese too ) controlled how much money can be taken out in hard currency. Is this not the case anymore?

 

[savant]

Last I checked the Indian government ( and Chinese too ) controlled how much money can be taken out in hard currency. Is this not the case anymore?

 

$200K per year per family member. Higher amounts for NRO / NRI's. You can also start a Company abroad and send over paid-up capital.

[CONeal]

Savant,

 

I actually know a few programmers in India that would be able to pay the house off in full, thus the example.  With the housing bubble in China a person would just need to flip an apartment or two and they would be able to do the same thing.