Harper Immigration Policies destroy talents...

Canada is gripping with election fever but none of the parties seem to address or even acknowledge the misplaced immigration policies of Mr. Harper. This, while Canada's Global Competitive Index (GCI) ranking, a measure by World Economic Forum (WEF) on the ability of a country to bring prosperity to its population, has slipped to 15^th in 2015. GCI takes over 110 variables into account for the estimation. However, by comparing with US, I think the flawed immigration policies and the system skewed against immigrants could be one of the reasons along with spending cuts to R&D.

It seems there is a lot of groups lobbying to restrict immigration. To an extent, it is true that some tend to import cheap labor but skilled-immigrant population actually helps Canadian economy more than it hurts. For example, African doctors who migrated to Canada saved over 400 million dollars while costing their home countries billions. Assuming an average citizen of Canada makes a million dollars during his productive period, the savings mean 400 more jobs or possibilities to invest in opportunities that could produce even more jobs and consequently more income to the Govt. However, in an attempt to fix this problem the immigration policies enacted, actually seem to aggravate this problem and in some cases, pushing of skilled immigrants out of the country or derogate them to lower jobs. Thanks to improvement of conditions in Asia and the flawed immigration policies, Canada is now seeing reverse immigration.

Prof. McNiven, in an interview to CBC in 2012 said that PhDs from developing countries were lured to Canada with high hopes only to find that their qualifications were not enough making them to drive taxis and work in restaurants. He also mentioned that it is due to the Canadian Government's intention to keep the higher paying "good jobs" among Canada-born young people.  He was also correct in saying that Canada needs immigrants with minimal skill and a lot of drive. From my experience, if I'm to recruit some one to my team or company, more than the skill they have I would look for their ability to acquire the skill. Hence, I agree with McNiven on accepting immigrants with minimal skill and lot of drive. However, the same conditions ("good jobs" for Canadians) still exist and the flaws in the system still helps the industries bring cheap labor instead of attracting and retaining talents - resulting in brain drain.

As case in point is the situation of postdocs and scientists, visiting Canada to work in Federal  and other laboratories across Canada. These immigrants add to skilled workforce involved in the development of technologies and science which ultimately benefit Canada. However, when these postdocs want to find an academic position in an University after their tenure as a postdoc or move to industries, they hit a "glass wall". Since companies are not much inclined to spend time and money (a requirement by CIC), a residency becomes a requirement for a job offer. However, according to the current system, one needs a "valid" job offer to get invited to apply for residency. The end result is either under-utilization or drain of talents. If I'm not wrong, I guess the labs and government perceive these postdocs as expendable cogs. In other words, they are doing the same thing that they want others not to do - exploit immigrants and import cheap labor. What they fail to realize is that these young minds, while they do bring new ideas on their arrival also leave with more ideas on their departure. In addition to attributing to the attrition of talents, the scenario could very well play against Canadian interests in geo-politics.

On the other hand, according to the current point system, the people who would enter Canada are IT and similar professionals, under paid by their company back at home. When these companies bring these professionals, usually they are brought on deputation and instead of a full payment, they would receive allowances. However, after a year these professionals would be eligible for Experience Class immigration and since they already have a "valid" job offer with LMO (Labor Market opinion), they would be successful in immigrating to Canada. I leave it to the readers to determine which one is good for the country in short and long term.

The start-up visa program, is also a bit tricky and may not be effective in retaining talents. First, most of the postdocs prefer a scientific career. After all, they chose to do PhD when they could have very well proceeded to become an MBA, right? Also, it might be difficult for the postdocs in the Federal labs to bring together a team to form a start-up. At the most, some one in some universities could apply for the Start-Up visa program. From what I understand, there had not been many success stories. A person with right business mind, also may not be interested to create a startup/company here because of the cost of labor and raw materials, as well as the size of markets. For example, India and China are bigger markets than Canada.

The federal and provincial labs that host visiting fellows and scientists also provide next to nothing opportunities to build their skill-sets or acquire new skills, to help them move to industry or to improve their employability. This actually aggravates the postdoc crisis. I had attended a few interviews from data science start-ups. Though I have a good understanding on time series data and have been dealing with extremely discontinuous data, and, as any postdoc, acquire the programming skills along the way to complete my tasks, these start-ups invariably rejected opportunities as I was lacking skills in Hadoop or Scala. I was hoping to have an opportunity to acquire those skill sets. However, if I have to acquire them myself I need over 24hrs (I already sleep only for 4 hrs) and more money to set-up my own infrastructure to acquire the experience that these companies, apparently seek. Further, the regulations in effect, prohibits postdocs from attending International conferences (even when they have results to present. The same is the case for Federal Scientists as well.), which are vital to their career development. In short, the policies of the Canadian Government effectively destroys young scientific minds.

I guess these are what some call as invisible racism and Harpers Govt. is not just helping brain drain but effectively destroying them. I think it would do more good to Canada if the underlying problems that hinders the realization of the full potential of immigrant talents are addressed instead of directing racial slurs. However, both the opposition and the public seem to be oblivious to the issue... I guess, immigrant postdocs should be warned against coming to Canada... Would you agree?!

Note to Readers: I have been off for a couple of weeks, as I have been attending interviews. I greatly appreciate your patience and your continued support.  

Tsipras' Proposal: Who is he kidding?

I was impressed by Tsipras' political maneuver in the bail out negotiations, that I was surprised and shocked by his U-turn. Reading through his proposal, I'm more than disappointed to find nothing new. In other words, the proposal is almost the same as was demanded by the Troika. To make things worse, the parliament jumped in with him, today.

Greece's proposal for EU bail-out aims at attaining a fiscal surplus of 3.5% of GDP by 2018. An ambitious target, nonetheless achievable. However, I strongly doubt if the proposal put forth could ever achieve it. It fails to recognize the driver behind the fundamental problem that led Greece to this debacle in the first place. I'm confident that the creditors are wise, but wants Greece to swallow its one poison, so that they can make bucks of the market.

To start with the proposed VAT reform, Greece aims at taxing restaurants and catering services at 23%. This would mean that franchise outlets like McDonald's and KFC could lose it attraction, pushing the unemployment rate higher, which would only reduce government income. Further, operating business would tend to highly under-report their income, leading to loss of revenue. The proposal, elsewhere, mentions of strengthening the enforcement agencies by criminalizing tax evasion. Won't that increase the overhead cost for tax collection?

The VAT reforms put forth by Greece also aims at reducing tax for theaters whose tax would now stand at 6%. I wonder, why is this preferential treatment to the theaters. First of all, in a tough economy, not many would have enough disposable income to enjoy the comforts of theaters. Second, it would encourage youngsters to look forward to theaters as sustainable sources of employment, which is not the case as one could observe from all over the world.

Another thing in the VAT reforms that I couldn't quite understand is, why the basic food should cost more than the pharmaceuticals? Basic food, along with energy and water, is to be taxed at 13% while pharmaceuticals are to be taxed at 6%. So, is Tsipras encouraging Greece to an unhealthy lifestyle? Or is he favouring the pharmas? This is akin to asking Greece to fall sick as it is cheaper to have medicines than to have food. Would sick population contribute to economy?

Further, the proposal put forth aims at tightening the definition of farmers to bring more people in the tax ambit. However, I think this proposal is made to target either small farmers or large farmers. Who is going to be targeted, we have to wait until Tsipras "defines" who is a farmer? Further reforms to Fiscal structural measures, aims at increasing corporate tax to 28% from 26%. I'm not sure, if Tsipras and his finance minister are in their own perceived state of Greece superiority. While, most of the population is unemployed, the hike in corporate tax would only increase in flight of capital and jobs. Further, those corporations who remain to operate in Greece would not be able to compete globally, again leading to loss of jobs and government revenue. I would like to draw attention to the Laffer Curve on taxation. This study is highly controversial and in some cases disproved. However, I think in the case of Greece, it may hold good as it may encourage foreign investments and corporations to operate from Greece.

The put-forth proposal proposes to provide disincentives for early retirement. However, I think it is infringing upon one's personal rights. Smart youngsters, would most likely take undeclared works and stash the money in some foreign accounts to cash during retirement. Of course, the proposal aims at identifying undeclared works. But how is Tsipras going to make that work? The law enforcement agencies as well as those who undertake those jobs are going to benefit from such works. The former through bribes and the later through additional untaxed income. I think Tsipras and his finance ministers are in the era of "barter system". Now the youth can take jobs from anywhere and earn from anywhere, store their revenue as bitcoins and cash them when they require. How is Tsipras going to address this issue? Ban Internet? Or create an agency to investigate and enforce compliance? Where is he going to pay the overhead cost of setting up the infrastructure from? From more debt?

The proposal also aims to hire more managers to make the system efficient. Even the Tories in Canada do the same. At least they have a hidden agenda, their meaning for efficiency is shutting down services and cutting federal jobs. So, does Tsipras have the same in his mind? If so, unlike Canada, Greece unemployment will rise leading to social and economic backlash. Is he prepared to deal with that? More importantly, does he have enough money (required to pay severance, unemployment benefits, etc.) to deal with that?

The proposal aims at adjusting zonal property taxes, preventing fuel smuggling, etc., but fails to provide any incentives to encourage declaration of true income, increase employment, attractive industries, attract foreign investments and lacks a sustainable path to compete in global market. At the most the proposed measures would aggravate Greece's debt and unemployment crisis. Grexit may have been a better alternative.

It seems Tsipras out maneuvered not only the EU but also successfully fooled the Greece electorate. 

Are Parents stupid?

At least thats what Tess and Lia along with Ms. Wynne think so, when Ms. Wynne accepted the mandate of 13-year olds from an online campaign.

• Only 33% of population in India is affected by Herpex Simplex but 89% of Ontarians are!

• Chalmydia infection among women from conservative region in India is only 0.1%

...these kids were indeed influenced...

Tessa and Lia’s school project garnered 40,000 signatures that eventually led to an audience with the premier of Ontario and inclusion of “consent” in the new sex-ed curriculum¹. While the effort is worthy of appreciation, using their ignorance to push a personally motivated agenda is not.

“parents should not use their children as political pawns” 

 “All the opposition is coming from uninformed perspective” 

“We knew we wanted to do the project on something surrounding feminism because that’s something we’re both really passionate about and we wanted to do something that really affects us as young people and as women”  

establishing a consent culture is the best way to stop rape culture 

“…People don't like to admit that sex is about pleasure and desire, not just reproductive stuff, and that teenagers are having sex as young as middle school,”

These are some of the responses of the kids during the interview. Their responses were replete with innocence and ignorance while scarce on critical thinking and immaturity. 

Coming from a family with good exposure of the to the internals of politics, I wouldn’t be surprised if these kids were indeed influenced by some proxies of Ms. Wynne. Unfortunately, it seems the girls have played right into the hands of politicians who couldn’t care less for their future. My suspicions are further strengthened by their claims that the opposition is ill-informed, which only could mean someone (teachers and parents, most likely) “well-informed” them. Further, they also seem to be seriously mis-informed of the socio-economic factors that drives the culture of rapes in that they believe this culture could be abolished by consent culture. The girls while further disparaging parents exposed the typical teenage prurience and immaturity in saying the sex is about pleasure and desire. While it is no doubt pleasurable, unintended teenage pregnancy, STIs, etc., are not. And sex due to love is more pleasurable than the raw gratification of animalistic instincts.

Though Ms. Wynne is a woman, a mother, has a master’s in education, and has served as a school council chair and minister of education⁶, she is apparently no specialist in Children’s psychology. The entire debate would have been healthier if the effects of the curriculum on the mental faculties of children are extensively/exhaustively studied by both Govt. and independent psychologist, which never happened.

Like Ms. Wynne I’m not a psychologist. Hence, I cannot comment on how this curriculum would affect the children in long term. However, I do have a PhD (in another field), and do research different information to identify patterns and anomalies. With that ability when I compare a conservative region in India, where sex education is mostly limited to knowing the names of reproductive system in biology (for high school students), with the West the following are conspicuous:

• HSV prevalence in India is only 33% while it is over 99% in the West (89% in Ontario)².
• Chlamydia infection is rare with increase in the conservativeness of the society. In a rural community only 0.1% of the women were found positive for Chlamydia infection. However, that’s not the case in the West³.
• While teenage pregnancy is intended (due to early marriage*) in India, it is mostly unintended in the West affecting the development of the children as well as the parents ^4-5.

I have intentionally stayed away from whether the contents are age-appropriate or not as it is subjective and usually changes with the region and demography. I believe parents are usually the better judge of what is better for their children. I would have admired the premier, had she shown the same determination in educating the parents instead of using children as her political game.

The only fault of the parents here is their failure to educate their children to try and understand the ulterior motives behind suggestions.

*I would like to reserve the discussions on early/child marriage for another post due to their irrelevance in this context.

References

¹http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/05/19/ontario-sex-ed-consent_n_7277456.html?utm_hp_ref=canada-parents

²https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_herpes_simplex

³http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0034794

⁴http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Teenage_birth_rate_per_1000_women_15%E2%80%9319,_2000-09.svg

⁵http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_pregnancy

⁶http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/sex-ed-in-ontario-kathleen-wynne-fires-back-at-pc-critic-1.2970133

Austerity begets austerity?

Currently most of the western countries are embarking upon some form of austerity measures (reduction of debt-to-GDP ratio), to various extents. In some cases, these measures are forced by its neighbours and allies (Ex: Greece).  There are many info available on austerity measures. However, I tried to put my hypothesis in simple terms. My hypothesis is that austerity only leads to further austerity measures, until the country goes broke or some innovative steps are taken to break this vicious cycle, depicted in the figure below:

While being one amongst the many suffering because of these measures, what confounds me is that why none is asking the right questions:

• Explain how these measures would help us in the short and long term? (in layman terms but quantitatively not equivocally!)
• Countries have been deploying austerity measures since 2008.  Prove that it has worked!
• If some are being benefitted by these measures, who are they and why? Why not others? When would other be benefitted?
• Irrespective of many economic theories and empirical studies that would support anti-austerity, why are you deploying those measures? Why are the banks forcing such measures? How they reason it will benefit our economy?
• It is a simple business/economic knowledge that spends cuts are good only if they become investment. This principle is well known to almost all CEOs and CFOs. If so, show how the spending cuts have generated more income, in an attempt to reduce to the debt-to-GDP ratio.
• Who is responsible for the mess, in the first place?

I'm no economist but a "student" interested in the socio-economic-strategic affairs. I have tried to put, in simple terms, how austerity would only breeds further austerity until either the cycle or the country is broken. I would very much like to hear the counter arguments to this hypothesis! (Please leave your thoughts in the comments below...)

References:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity#cite_note-Blyth-18

Blyth, Mark (2013). Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 019982830X.

http://blogs.ft.com/martin-wolf-exchange/2012/04/27/the-impact-of-fiscal-austerity-in-the-eurozone/

http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/01/confusion-about-the-deficit/?_r=0

http://www.idsa.in/idsacomments/TheLightningfromGreeceStrikesGermany_kpfabian_300115.html