I've always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world.
Alan GreenspanRead
Significantly opening up immigration to skilled workers solves two problems. The companies could hire the educated workers they need. And those workers would compete with high-income people, driving more income equality.
Interpretation
Opening immigration for skilled workers benefits companies and promotes income equality.
This quote by Alan Greenspan highlights the dual advantages of significantly increasing immigration for skilled workers. Not only does it enable businesses to hire the educated labor they require to thrive, but it also creates a competitive environment where these skilled workers can negotiate for better wages, ultimately contributing to greater income equality across society.
In practice
During a conference on economic growth, one might use this quote to emphasize the importance of skilled immigration in fostering a robust economy.
I've always argued that this country has benefited immensely from the fact that we draw people from all over the world.
There's no other job in public life that is like chairman of the Fed.
Since 1948 I have spent every single day thinking how the economic and political worlds have changed.
Most high-income people in our country do not realize that their incomes are being subsidized by their protection from competition from highly skilled people who are prevented from immigrating to the United States. But we need such skills in order to staff our productive economy, so that the standard of living for Americans as a whole can grow.
I don't know where the stock market is going, but I will say this, that if it continues higher, this will do more to stimulate the economy than anything we've been talking about today or anything anybody else was talking about.
Every economy exists, no matter what the level of democracy, has elements of crony capitalism. It's - given human nature and given the democratic structures, which we all, I assume, adhere to, that is an inevitable consequence.
Yes, over the centuries economic progress has reduced some gross disparities - modern Americans are relatively unlikely to simply starve to death (though it can happen), so in that sense the gap between rich and poor has narrowed. But the question isn't whether society is, in some sense, more equal than it was in 1900. It's whether it is radically more unequal than it was in 1970. And of course it is.
In a world with weak aggregate demand, countries are engaging in a futile competition for a greater share of it. In the process, they are creating financial-sector and cross-border risks that will become increasingly apparent as countries exit their unconventional policies.
Fundamentally, there are only two ways of coordinating the economic activities of millions. One is central direction involving the use of coercion - the technique of the army and of the modern totalitarian state. The other is voluntary cooperation of individuals - the technique of the marketplace.
If developed countries' citizens want to feel slightly better about their economies' slow growth and high unemployment, they should contemplate how much worse matters could be without the institutions that they have.
The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income as defined by the GDP.
A universal basic income would be the best way to give everyone the opportunity to do more unpaid but incredibly important work, such as caring for children and the elderly.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.