The number of people who choose working FSBO has increased greatly. The main reason for this is that selling your home online can really save you a substantial sum of money. At first blush 6% may not sound like much. But imagine that if the average price of a house is about $300,000 this means that the seller will have to pay nearly $18,000 to a broker. In reality you can save this money by marketing your property directly to the consumer using online services.
Today there are plenty of internet resources and sites that offer their services for FSBO buyers and sellers. But which site to choose for listing your property.
I have visited several of such sites and can say that Fizber.com is an outstanding choice for those who work FSBO. It offers an enormous variety of different services, has a large database of homes listed, and provides its users with an easy search and account creating.
And have you ever heard of Drive Score? This is one of the services available at Fizber.com. With Drive Score, buyers can see how close establishments are by car. Drive Score shows a map of what establishments are in a property’s neighborhood and calculates a Drive Score based on the number of places within a convenient driving distance. Homes are often located in an area where restaurants, libraries, grocery stores, hospitals and other businesses are easier to get to by car than on foot. That’s why it is really very important for home buyers to be aware of nearby infrastructure to make their choice.
At Fizber.com you can also visit the Press Room and get acquainted with the latest news and achievements in the sphere of real estate.
To sum up, Fizber.com may be undoubtedly included into the list of FSBO best sites that offer a wide range of all possible services to their clients.
Globalization
Just imagine an American ship drifting in Pacific ocean, carrying Chinese goods to Russia, having German passengers and Argentinean personnel, using the Japanese service to navigate. At first glance at this astonishing cooperation you might be deeply impressed, and so was I, having heard a lot about international economy and a persistent tendency to open all markets and liberalize national economies. A wonderful marketing campaign is undertaken to convince everyone that global market is a cornerstone of successful economic development and sustainable growth. The main ‘promoter’ of this idea are TV channels. Just count how many times per day you hear about prospects that European Union will definitely have in case of enlargement of its borders, and about endless mergers and buyouts that European Countries rush to commit with foreign investments, and all that talks about the importance of direct and indirect foreign investments, that are essential to national business!!! All these efforts are aimed at earning more and more, making major market players richer. Unfortunately one important truth is not considered here, that ‘grows for grows is the ideology of cancer cell’:) I do assure you that these biased news are detrimental to your clear understanding of the problems that this ‘United International’ economy might face. Please, do not forget about dozens of negative aspects to which this ‘collaboration’ will lead: the internationalization of business creates a dangerous situation on financial markets: on international stock exchanges prices on stocks and bonds are fluctuating widely due to certain circumstances, and that has a negative impact on prices of derivatives: futures, options, swaps and forward contracts, that are traded on markets all over the world. The results are disappointing: one failure in one country can be transformed in global crises.
But lets draw our attention to some other issues, that have social importance in world economy, thus turn to the point of level of life and safety, bearing in mind cultural diversity of particular nations.
Look here: even if I’m a citizen of Belarus, that doesn’t mean that in few years I will have so many differences if compared with European or American youth, and my country will not be exposed to opportunities and threats that world economy has. And what about standards? I don’t want to speak the language, that is native to more than 6 billion people in our planet, as I don’t see any advantages in common ‘global’ lifestyle, tastes, fashion, etc. Anyway this is also a foreseeable consequence of further development of world integration.
Why have I written this? May be I’ve done it to psychologically prepare myself to the fact that the process of globalization is inevitable and unstoppable, but nevertheless should be a subject to constructive critique…
THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION
Until very recently, little was known about the impact that immigrants have on the native labor market or about other effects of immigration on the U.S. economy. This situation has changed rapidly in the past few years. Researchers have now produced data sets and econometric methods that enable them to do sophisticated analyses.
The essence of the empirical evidence is that because of changes in U.S. immigration policy and because of changing economic conditions both here and abroad, the United States is currently attracting relatively unskilled immigrants. For the most part, these immigrants have little chance of attaining economic parity with natives during their lifetimes. In short, the United States is losing the international competition for skilled workers to other host countries such as Canada and Australia. America’s poor performance in the immigration market, therefore, suggests a need for re-evaluation of our immigration policy. Among the specific findings that lead to this conclusion are the following:
1. Immigrants in the United States have a small impact on the earnings or employment opportunities of natives. A 10-percent increase in the number of immigrants decreases the average wage of natives by at most 0.2 percent and has little effect on the labor force participation rates and employment opportunities of practically all native groups.
2. Immigrants do, however, have a significant effect on the earnings and employment opportunities of foreign-born persons already residing in the United States. A 10-percent increase in the number of immigrants decreases the wage of foreign-born persons by at least 2 percent.
3. There are 3 to 4 million illegal aliens in the United States. Like their legal counterparts, illegal aliens are typically men and women who live with their immediate families and work in nonagricultural jobs. Illegal aliens have lower earnings than their legal counterparts. This wage differential results nor from employer exploitation of undocumented workers, but from the fact that illegal aliens are less skilled, on average, than legal immigrants.
4. The skills of immigrants entering the United States have declined during the past few decades. Recently arrived immigrants have relatively less schooling, lower earnings, lower labor force participation rates, and higher poverty rates than those arriving in earlier waves had at similar stages of their assimilation into the country.
5. There are great differences in labor market characteristics among national-origin groups. Generally, immigration groups originating in Western Europe are more successful than immigrants from Asia and Latin America. This finding partly reflects the fact that immigrants originating in countries with egalitarian income distributions tend to be more skilled than immigrants originating in countries with substantial income inequality.
6. Contrary to popular belief, the number of relatives sponsored by an immigrant currently residing in the United States is relatively small. Thus there is little reason to suspect that the size of the immigrant flow will eventually explode because of the family-reunification provisions in current immigration policy.
In sum, the nature of America’s offer in the immigration market has changed substantially in the past two or three decades. Although the immigration of unskilled workers to the United States may help to satisfy the demand for menial work performed for relatively low wages, and may lead to lower prices for the goods the immigrants produce and to higher incomes for American consumers, this type of immigration also imposes substantial costs on the American economy. The fundamental question facing policymakers is whether these costs exceed the benefits of unskilled immigration.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
ATTRACTING SKILLED AND ANSKILLED IMMIGRANTS
June 30th, 2006The immigration market approach can tell us much about the skill composition of the immigrant pool. The self-selected sample of immigrants may be dominated by relatively unskilled persons or it may be composed of persons who are highly skilled. The type of skill-sorting that occurs as people move to whichever country makes them the best offer is far from obvious. Nevertheless, it is one of the most important questions that must be addressed by policy makers; after all, the economic benefits of immigration clearly depend on it. The immigration of unskilled workers may allow U.S. manufacturers and fanners to fill menial jobs that require few skills with relatively low wage labor. By contrast, the immigration of skilled workers helps provide staff for universities, hospitals, and scientific laboratories. In addition, the immigration of the unskilled will have a different impact on native labor market conditions, on tax revenues, and on the costs of social programs than the immigration of the skilled.
While more careful study is required, it is useful to examine how income inequality in the country of origin affects the type of immigrant attracted by the United States. Consider two alternative source countries, one with a relatively egalitarian income distribution, such as Sweden, and one with a substantial amount of income inequality. Mexico.
Should highly skilled Swedes migrate to the United States? Because of its egalitarian income distribution, highly skilled Swedes do not earn much more than those less skilled. Therefore, highly skilled Swedes find that their earnings opportunities would increase substantially if they migrated to the United States. By the same token, unskilled Swedes find that their economy protects them from the poor labor market outcomes that would likely befall them if they were to migrate to the United States. The self-selection of the immigrant pool originating in Sweden, while small, tends to encourage the migration of skilled persons.
Should a highly skilled Mexican migrate to the United States? Mexico has substantially more income inequality than the United States. Skilled Mexicans find that the Mexican income structure greatly rewards those skills, while unskilled Mexicans have little protection from poor labor market outcomes. As long as they can afford to migrate, unskilled Mexicans have the most incentive to come to the United States, and skilled Mexicans the least; so Mexicans migrating to the United States are likely to be unskilled.
In the end, persons are matched with countries that reward specific skills they have to offer: this is the central implication of the immigration-market approach. As long as individuals migrate to take advantage of different economic opportunities among countries, there is no reason to presume that the United States will always attract the “best and the brightest” or to presume that the United States will be continually flooded with the least-skilled persons of the source countries.
The skill composition of the immigrants in the foreign born population in the United States thus depends on how our offer of economic opportunity compares to the offers made by other host countries and by the migrants’ home country. Immigrants originating in some source countries are likely to be substantially more skilled than immigrants originating in other countries. Changes in U.S. immigration policy as well as changes in economic conditions in the United States and in competing host and source countries will alter the composition of the immigrant flow. The competitiveness of the United States‘ offer in the immigration market, therefore, will largely determine the economic impact of immigration on the United States.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
WHY CHOOSE TO MIGRATE?
June 29th, 2006Economists typically assume that individuals choose to behave in ways that maximize their well-being. In this context, immigrants strive to choose the country that offers them the best economic opportunities. There exists a close analogy between the immigration market and the job market. Like persons looking for work, potential migrants enter the market; receive offers from competing host countries and their home country, compare the offers, and make a migration decision.
The immigration market approach reveals the link between the components of the U.S. offer (including economic characteristics and the visa-allocation system dictated by the U.S. immigration policy) and the size of the immigrant flow entering the country. As economic conditions in the United States change (relative to those in other countries), different types of persons find it economically beneficial to migrate. Similarly, whenever Congress changes important aspects of immigration policy, immigration costs are altered for many potential migrants, and a different immigrant flow enters the United States. To assess the benefits and the costs of alternative immigration policies, therefore, it is necessary to determine how key components of America’s offer in the immigration market affect the incentives of potential migrants.
If we assume that individuals move in response to better economic opportunities, it is evident that differences in average income levels among countries are a prime determinant of the size and direction of immigrant flows. Immigrants tend to gravitate from low-income countries to high-income countries. Further, the greater the income differential between the countries, the larger the size of the population flow. For instance, the wage differential between Mexico and the United States is the largest income gap between any two contiguous countries in the world. It is not surprising, therefore, that large migration flows originate in Mexico and move toward the United States, instead of the other way around.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
THE NATURE OF THE IMMIGRATION MARKET
June 28th, 2006There are three sets of players in the immigration market: the people contemplating whether to leave their home countries, the governments of immigrants’ home countries, and the governments of the potential host countries. All these players enter the immigration market with different objectives, and it is the interaction among them that leads to a particular sorting among the various countries.
Individuals make the immigration decision by comparing the values of the various alternatives. By considering the financial and legal constraints regulating international migration, they choose the country likely to make them best off. These constraints include individual financial resources. After all, international migration is costly. The costs include direct expenditures, such as out-of-pocket expenses associated with transportation of immigrants and their families to their new homes, and they include indirect costs, such as the income losses associated with spells of unemployment that occur as immigrants look for work in the new country. Because only persons, who have accumulated sufficient wealth and savings, can afford to migrate. the potential migrants’ financial resources obviously influence the immigration decision.
Potential host countries also are important players in the immigration market, for they can encourage, discourage, or prevent the entry of certain groups of persons. In particular, potential host countries are characterized by specific sets of economic opportunities described by existing income distribution, whereby certain types of skills are highly rewarded and others are not; whereby jobs are easily available in some industries but scarce in others; whereby some occupations are in high demand, but high levels of unemployment persist others; whereby persons who experience relatively poor labor market outcomes are subsidized by the welfare state, while persons who experience favorable outcomes are heavily taxed. These differences in income and employment opportunities by skill, industry, and occupation imply that the attractiveness of the economic “offer” made by a host country will vary among migrants.
Host countries also regulate the size and composition of the immigration flow by imposing restrictions on entry according to the potential migrant’s skills, wealth, occupation, political background, moral rectitude, national origin or family relationships with current residents. For example, current U.S. immigration policy makes immigration costs almost prohibitive for persons who do not already have relatives residing here. Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, have a point system in which potential immigrants are screened and graded on the basis of their educational attainment, age, occupation, and other characteristics. Thus, through their immigration policies and their offers of economic opportunities, host countries compete for the human and physical capital of the potential migrants.
The home countries of potential immigrants are the last major players in the immigration market. Their economies also provide a certain set of income and employment opportunities to their residents, and their immigration policies regulate the size and skill composition of the out-going flow. In some countries, like the United States, citizens are free to leave the country whenever they wish, for any duration, and for whatever reason. In other countries, immigration statutes impose large costs and penalties on potential immigrants and make it very difficult for residents to migrate elsewhere. Moreover, such restrictions often control not only the size but also the composition of the immigration flow. For example, the Soviet Union long prevented the exit of any person who worked in sensitive government jobs, and Cuba prohibited the exit of persons in the age group subject to military service.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
WHAT DO MARKETS DO?
June 27th, 2006Markets are institutions that regulate transactions among individuals. In some markets, goods such as bicycles or cars are exchanged between buyer and seller. A free-enterprise economy uses prices to allocate the scarce goods among the many persons wishing to own them. Only those persons, willing and able to pay the going price, get the goods. Other markets, such as the labor market, guide the allocation of labor among different firms. In these markets transactions involve the exchange of monetary compensation from buyer to seller of the good being purchased.
All markets share two features. They provide the rules of the game in which exchanges are made, and they determine, through the interaction of players in the marketplace, a certain allocation of the scarce resources among competing users. In other words, only a subset of persons will own the limited number of bicycles: and firms and employees will be “married” in a particular sorting of workers to jobs.
There also exists an immigration market, one that allocates persons wishing to leave their current countries of residence among the few countries willing to admit them. Potential migrants, like workers looking for a job, are looking for the best country they can live in. Host countries, like firms looking for specific types of workers, set immigration policies so that they can attract specific types of migrants. Just as the labor market guides the allocation of workers to firms, the immigration market guides the allocation of persons to countries.
The existence of an immigration market implies that countries compete for the physical and human capital of immigrants, that the particular sorting of persons and countries depends on how the offers to potential immigrants differ among the competing countries, and that there will be winners and losers in this competition. Changes in immigration policies alter the flow of immigrants to particular countries.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
AN ECONOMIC PERSPECTIVE ON IMMIGRATION
June 27th, 2006How might an economic perspective on immigration help us understand the issues at stake? The answer follows from a crucial hypothesis. It is that immigrants choose to come to the United States. The immigrant flow is composed of the pool of persons who are attracted by the earnings, employment, and welfare opportunities provided by the American economy, which are willing to incur costs associated with immigration, and who are able to gain entry into the country. Persons migrating are “self-selected.” They are not “average” in the country from which they come.
In a sense, the United States competes with other countries, such as the home countries of migrants and other potential host countries, for the immigrants’ human and physical capital. International trade involves not only the movement of goods and services among countries but also the movement of people.
Just as nations compete in a worldwide market in which goods and services are exchanged, they also compete in an immigration market. By presenting a specific set of economic opportunities and by pursuing an immigration policy that prevents the entry of some persons but encourages the entry of others, the United States makes a particular type of “offer” in the immigration market. The attractiveness of the offer, relative to the offers of other countries, determines the size and composition of the immigrant flow entering the United States. This perspective on the study of immigration yields a number of new insights that can play a central role in the ongoing debate about immigration policy.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
THE DEBATE OVER RESTRICTIONS
June 27th, 2006Despite the fact that almost all Americans are immigrants or descendants of immigrants, American history is characterized by a never-ending debate over when to pull the ladder in. The debate over how many and which kinds of immigrants to admit has been and remains heated and is often tainted with racial (if not racist) overtones.
Two arguments are typically used to justify immigration restrictions. The first is that immigrants have an adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of native-born Americans. The People’s Party platform of 1882, representing the populist movement of that era, stated. “Wу condemn . . . the present system, which opens up our ports to the pauper and criminal classes of the world, and crowds out our wage earners.” It may seem that little has changed in the last hundred years, since the same accusations are hurled today at illegal aliens, at boat people originating in Southeast Asia and Cuba, and at other unskilled immigrants.
Second, it is argued that immigrants find it hard to adapt or assimilate in the United States because of their very different cultural, political, or economic backgrounds. This view, in turn, raises fears that a large number of unassimilated immigrants will splinter the country’s national identity.
It may well be that these are valid hypotheses. Proponents of these views, however, often base their arguments more on perceptions or ad hoc theorizing than on solid empirical evidence. Surprising as it may seem, until very recently, virtually no systematic empirical research had been carried out to clarify the issues at the core of the debate over immigration policy.
The modem view of the immigrant experience differs from the earlier, racially tainted portrait by containing both and unfavorable impressions of the Immigrant. Among the axioms of the current conventional wisdom are the following:
• Immigrants have a significant adverse impact on the earnings and employment opportunities of the native-born. By crowding out natives from the labor market, immigrants take jobs away from natives.
• Legal immigrants are, on average, highly skilled and hardworking people and tend to be relatively successful in the labor market.
• There may be as many as 10 million illegal aliens in the U.S. They tend to be single men working in agricultural jobs, and they have an adverse impact on the labor market opportunities of less skilled natives.
• Current U.S. immigration policy is a ticking population time bomb. By allowing current immigrants to sponsor the entry of their relatives, who in turn can sponsor the entry of additional relatives, practically everyone in the world could qualify for entry into the United States.
These impressions about the immigrant experience are widespread. They are also false.
according to the article « Immigration and the economy » by By George J. Borjas (the journal «THE SENIOR ECONOMIST» )
IMMIGRATION AND THE ECONOMY
June 27th, 2006The United States has been populated by peoples from many different national origins, races, religions, cultures, and languages. Over 50 million people chose to immigrate to the United States between 1820 and 1987. These immigrants believed that the United States offered better opportunities for them and their children than did their countries of origin. In an important sense, the American experience is the story of how these very different peoples, united by their search for a better life, built a country.
To build a country means to build an economy that is why I think it’s very important to analyze the impact of immigration on American economy, the biggest in the world. So, I would like to create a new category, where I will tell you about immigration and the economy.