srikondoji
07-20 03:11 PM
Virald,
What makes you start another stupid thread?
There are gazillion threads that discussed this issue at length. Already people have discussed this and are planning their plan B and for your kind information, Greg didnot say that all July 2 applications will be rejected.
Don't try to scare people and then try to back it up by saying "I am trying to figure that out too"
I don't know, I am trying to figure that out too.
What makes you start another stupid thread?
There are gazillion threads that discussed this issue at length. Already people have discussed this and are planning their plan B and for your kind information, Greg didnot say that all July 2 applications will be rejected.
Don't try to scare people and then try to back it up by saying "I am trying to figure that out too"
I don't know, I am trying to figure that out too.
wallpaper Inside the Change Icon dialog
transpass
04-10 12:07 PM
Here are the details for last year and years before:
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
(Thanks to user "sangiano" on : link: FY2009 Visa Data, Spillover to EB2 - Will it be Similar FY2010 (http://www..com/usa-discussion-forums/i485-eb/498198953/fy2009-visa-data-spillover-to-eb2-will-it-be-similar-fy2010))
Employment Visas 2009
Total Employment Visas for FY2009 = 141,020
Theoretical values without spillover
EB1 28.6% = 40,332
EB2 28.6% = 40,332
EB3 28.6% = 40,332
EB4 7.1% = 10,012
EB5 7.1% = 10,012
Actual values with spillover
EB1 40,978 = 29.1% received c.650 spillup visa used
EB2 46,034 = 32.6% received c.5,700 spillover visas used
EB3 39,791 = 28.2% received c.550 less visas than quota
EB4 9,999 = 7.1% Zero spillup visas to give
EB5 4,218 = 3.0% c. 5,800 spillup visas to give
What is noteworthy is the fact that spillup/spillover visas were only available from EB5.
In addition, EB1 actually consumed spillup visas and did not contribute any spillover visas as a result.
This implies that the total spillover visas available to the 7% limited countries was only c.7,500. Since 5,800 came from EB5, less 650 used by EB1, this gives a subtotal of 5,150. In turn, this implies that there were only 7,500 - 5,150 = 2,350 as spillover from EB2-ROW. In the worst case the difference is entirely from EB5.
I think it gives food for thought and shows the difficulty of trying to second guess visa consumption in Categories that are always current. I accept it might be easier to get a handle on non-NIW EB2 because of the PERM data available for ROW.
I'm not sure why FY2010 would be much different, at least for EB1 spillover.
Additional notes from subsequent posts:
There was significant spillover in FY2007 because (based on 154,497 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 26,806 out of a possible 44,186 available visas.
EB4 only used 4,794 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
EB5 only used 793 out of a possible 10,969 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 33,731 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2007 that mostly went vertically to EB3.
There was significant spillover in FY2008 because (based on 162,949 total EB visas) :
EB1 only used 36,590 out of a possible 46,603 available visas.
EB4 only used 7,648 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
EB5 only used 1,443 out of a possible 11,569 available visas.
That gives a potential spillover of 24,060 visas to categories below EB1. In FY2008 that all went to EB2.
The amount *was* smaller in FY2009 because (based on 141,020 total EB visas)
EB1 used 40,978 which was more than the available visas of 40,332 (i.e. it used some of the spillup from EB4/EB5).
EB4 used 9,999 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e it pretty much maxed out)
EB5 only used 4,218 out of a possible 10,012 available visas. (i.e. much higher than previous years)
That gives a potential spillover to EB2 of 5,161 visas, which is substantially lower than previous years.
This is all his analysis based entirely on historic data (no predictions here; just what has already happened). All credit of analysis goes to him. I never crunched a single number; I am just an "integrater" of the info. Please also note that now we have found out that the word "spillover" should actually be "fall across and down"
Hope this was the info you were asking for.
Thanks Kondur. That was a very good presentation of the numbers. I very much appreciate it.
Now,
1. Why did EB1 last year needed spillover visas, although it was current all the time? If a category is current, isn't that it has less demand than allocated numbers?
2. As per May bulletin, EB4 might need a cut off. So we cannot expect any spillover from EB4. So that is clear. Now the spillover chances are from EB5, EB2 ROW and EB1(?). I am including EB1 because, given the current economy over the past year, should there be a better possibility of more spillover from EB2 ROW and EB1 compared to last year?
3. Also why are the total EB numbers different in different fiscal years (e.g., 141020 in FY2009, 162949 in FY 2008 and 154497 in FY2007)? In FYs 2007 and 2008 did the extra visas come from Family based while it did not for FY 2009? If so, why is it so?
4. Based on Pending 485 data of March 2010, I barely see few hundred EB4s. And hardly considerable number of EB1s. What's going on? If we go by this data, we should be getting good chunk of spillover numbers...
http://www.uscis.gov/USCIS/Green%20Card/Green%20Card%20Through%20a%20Job/Employment%20Based%20I-485%20Pending%20Inventory-Total%203-8-2010.pdf
Thanks,
singhsa3
03-04 12:16 PM
Those were different times. Try taking mortgage now on your EAD.
Here are my particulars:
Family income: Almost 4-5 times per capital GDP
Job type: Stable
Credit score : Excellent
Highest education: MBA
Willing to put downpayment: Yes, required 20%
Mortgage application: Rejected as EAD is valid for only one year.
Now you tell me what should I do...
I was 37 years old when I arrived on H1b in 1999, I had owned properties back home and I had a fair amount of equity.
In 1999 my wife and I could see the Southern California real estate market was growing. Our initial idea had been to rent for 6 months, and get to know the area, then decided where we wanted to buy. My employer applied for H1b in November 1998 and it was approved in May 1999. We came over in January 1999 to look for property to rent but also with a view to maybe purchase.
Within 2 weeks of my H1b approval my wife and I came over and because of the property price increases since we began looking at the market we felt renting was going to be dead money and we need to buy for economical reasons.
So in June 1999 we purchased a 1,950 sqft house for $280,000.
In September 2003 we sold that house for $535,000.
Using the increased equity my wife who is H4 chose another house (as she couldn’t work it was important to me that she be happy in the house). The next house we purchased was 4,550sqft, and in December 2003 it cost $835,000.
I know the market for real estate is shrinking, but according to Zillow.com this morning the property is valued around $1,230,000 albeit was worth considerably more a year ago.
I’m not looking to brag, I am sharing my experience.
1 my wife and kids were on H4 they needed a home to be happy in.
2 it made economic sense to buy
3 we got the right funding
4 had we waited for GC we could never have afforded the home we currently live in.
The timing of immigration approvals had no bearing on whether I decided to purchase property.
good luck to all
Here are my particulars:
Family income: Almost 4-5 times per capital GDP
Job type: Stable
Credit score : Excellent
Highest education: MBA
Willing to put downpayment: Yes, required 20%
Mortgage application: Rejected as EAD is valid for only one year.
Now you tell me what should I do...
I was 37 years old when I arrived on H1b in 1999, I had owned properties back home and I had a fair amount of equity.
In 1999 my wife and I could see the Southern California real estate market was growing. Our initial idea had been to rent for 6 months, and get to know the area, then decided where we wanted to buy. My employer applied for H1b in November 1998 and it was approved in May 1999. We came over in January 1999 to look for property to rent but also with a view to maybe purchase.
Within 2 weeks of my H1b approval my wife and I came over and because of the property price increases since we began looking at the market we felt renting was going to be dead money and we need to buy for economical reasons.
So in June 1999 we purchased a 1,950 sqft house for $280,000.
In September 2003 we sold that house for $535,000.
Using the increased equity my wife who is H4 chose another house (as she couldn’t work it was important to me that she be happy in the house). The next house we purchased was 4,550sqft, and in December 2003 it cost $835,000.
I know the market for real estate is shrinking, but according to Zillow.com this morning the property is valued around $1,230,000 albeit was worth considerably more a year ago.
I’m not looking to brag, I am sharing my experience.
1 my wife and kids were on H4 they needed a home to be happy in.
2 it made economic sense to buy
3 we got the right funding
4 had we waited for GC we could never have afforded the home we currently live in.
The timing of immigration approvals had no bearing on whether I decided to purchase property.
good luck to all
2011 google+chrome+icon+changed
sweet_jungle
10-26 10:11 PM
bump, action item, please notarize and mail. Please keep this thread active!
please send the link and doc.
please send the link and doc.
more...
indyanguy
02-20 03:47 PM
looks like there no hope for EB3 India to move further :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
Ya, no hope for EB3-India :(
.jpg "Youtubewindows change a higher"){kind=logo}
DSLStart
04-08 10:45 AM
Very well said. Tomorrow they can even start harrasing US citizens arriving in NY, CA etc blaming that because of you democrat voters, republicans are losing seats in congress ;)
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
Protecting US job is none of IO's business.
more...
piperwarrior
07-16 09:42 PM
I am just re-posting something that I had posted elsewhere. I really think that we have to be professional and mature in our response. Does anyone know how one can go about writing an op-ed in the New York Times?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think IV should write a letter to the New York Times refuting the claims of NumbersUSA. This should be in response to the article that the New York Times published regarding NumbersUSA's influence on the immigration bill.
Clearly, this is a task for IV (advocacy, lobbying, public opinion, etc.). The response needs to be succint, cogent and factual, without getting into any rhetoric about the value immigrants provide. Facts will discredit NumbersUSA...
2010 google chrome logo change,
GCWish
03-09 07:31 PM
It is the right time to do some concrete action to bring out the facts that
1. Approving the EBs would not add to any significant shift in employment demographics, given that all these people are in the US already
2. The benefit that this would bring on the demand side esp.housing market
Let�s start a letter campaign to the attention of the Obama administration and the USCIS secretary Janet Napolitano
1. Approving the EBs would not add to any significant shift in employment demographics, given that all these people are in the US already
2. The benefit that this would bring on the demand side esp.housing market
Let�s start a letter campaign to the attention of the Obama administration and the USCIS secretary Janet Napolitano
more...
apahilaj
04-23 06:43 PM
All,
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Does that mean that we won't get any inside news from Mr. Oppenheimer (if I spelled his name correctly) any more..?:) Just kidding.
Enjoy your freedom. Congratulations!
Opened my email this morning to see the card production ordered email (time stamp in my inbox reads 2:15 am PST 4/23/08); the approval date was 4/23/08.
Been in meetings all day so not even a chance to call anyone about it.
Yay!
Good luck to all my fellow sufferers!
Googler
Does that mean that we won't get any inside news from Mr. Oppenheimer (if I spelled his name correctly) any more..?:) Just kidding.
Enjoy your freedom. Congratulations!
hair Enabling the Hidden Gold Icon
dhesha
07-18 10:18 PM
called uscis to ask when july 2 filers are likely to get receipt notice.She said because of the load of apps expected it might take about 4 to 6 wks.I hope july 2 filers don t have to pay huge penalty for filing on the very ifirst eligible day:( (something to worry about till this journey ends i guess):(
this 4 to 6 weeks is from 2nd July or 17 July?
this 4 to 6 weeks is from 2nd July or 17 July?
more...
belmontboy
05-23 02:19 PM
That is what these computer workers do. Go to forums, steal code, copy that at the appropriate place, change variable names and screw up all the copyright issues.
what is your job?
what is your job?
hot Google Chrome gets bumped to
thamizhan
07-24 11:24 AM
Do you know to which center he applied and which center sent his packet back ?
more...
house google chrome icon change,
ak77
09-10 02:06 PM
I found another link. Not sure if its the right one ?
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
Yes this one is working for me...but iam also not sure its the right one or not.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN_wm.aspx
Yes this one is working for me...but iam also not sure its the right one or not.
tattoo Youtubewindows change a higher
mallu
06-20 02:54 PM
PD Nov.2002 India EB2( original labor ).
I-485 RD Jul 2006 . AD : June 2008.
Waiting for actual card...:D
I-485 RD Jul 2006 . AD : June 2008.
Waiting for actual card...:D
more...
pictures Google+chrome+icon+changed
neelu
12-13 01:01 PM
All , this subject has been raised very often and every time new members join in they start a thread and start questioning it.
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
- IV has indepth explored and studied this option and have found that this change is not possible administratively.
- we have not just met a lawyer. we have met few lawyers. we also have communicated with USCIS in the past.
- In the past some administrative changes have been done by USCIS, but this change cannot be done by them. All, we already had this idea long long ago and we also thought that why dont we do it if it so simple and then we dont have to go through all the legislative hurdles. But NO it cannot be done by USCIS.
- Faxing USCIS will not work. USCIS does not take policy decisions. We need to approach policy makers to get it done and that is what we are doing. By coming up with ideas, endlessly discussing despite explaination by IV and not working with IV action items we will all go in divergent directions and lose focus on the main action items we want each every member should focus. If you really feel for some idea and want to help, instead of asking IV to give explanation to every question on the forum, contact any of the active IV core members on the forum and bounce ideas. We need people with ideas and also same people willing to work on them too.
- If it was possible to get it done administratively, then in the current Skil bill push we would have/ and lawmakers would also have just asked USCIS to implement it.
Hope this explains this topic. Thanks
Our dear Pappu,
I understand how difficult it must be to respond to so many questions directed towards core members, and can understand how frustrating it can be to answer repetitive questions.
So thanks for clarifying this again for many of us who thought an easy route was available (but half knew that it was there, it would have been taken).
But can I please add that if this question has been asked repetitively, I think it warrants to be added to the "The Employment-Based Green Card: Process and Problems" section on the home page, so people can find the answer easily that searching our huge forum database. I understand that each of you are very busy and feel bad that I am adding additional work.
Thank you.
Neelu
dresses new google chrome logo mac
ek_bechara
10-15 02:37 PM
I wrote this once before and I will say it one last time. Pulling stunts such as the flower campaign is XYZ. May be not to the extent we feel it should, but USCIS does realize that there are issues with how it is handling cases. It is doing the best it can with the limited resources it is being provided. Please dont embarrass USCIS anymore. Would you keep calling a blind person, blind? Please stop this childish behavior. If anything lets start thinking about CIR and how we can influence changes to favor legal immigrants. We have the time now so start lobbying for changes.
Kindly note that you are dealing with a established government entity. Stop adopting hindi movie ideas when interacting with USCIS. If it were so easy why not arrange "naach-gana" for USCIS everyday. We can invite Malaika Sherawat for half the price we are paying to lobby. Skimpy clothes, raunchy songs, and alcohol may mesmerize the visa officer into stamping 100 K greencards everyday.
I bet there were a good number of closed door meetings, lobbying, and lets throw a bone to keep them quiet for sometime- discussions that translated into the July fiasco.
I believe we are educated and sane people, so lets start doing the right thing.
Enough said.
Kindly note that you are dealing with a established government entity. Stop adopting hindi movie ideas when interacting with USCIS. If it were so easy why not arrange "naach-gana" for USCIS everyday. We can invite Malaika Sherawat for half the price we are paying to lobby. Skimpy clothes, raunchy songs, and alcohol may mesmerize the visa officer into stamping 100 K greencards everyday.
I bet there were a good number of closed door meetings, lobbying, and lets throw a bone to keep them quiet for sometime- discussions that translated into the July fiasco.
I believe we are educated and sane people, so lets start doing the right thing.
Enough said.
more...
makeup change your Google Chrome
logiclife
03-09 12:09 AM
Many thanks Abha for your contributions.
Would you also like to join the membership drive of immigration voice. We are organizing a chain recruitment drive (since a couple of days) to help get more members and have 10,000 members.
Please email me at jay@immigrationvoice.org so that I can send you brochure/doc for volunteering. Its really not a big commitment, except 45 minutes per day for a few days.
Here is more: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=305
--Jay.
Would you also like to join the membership drive of immigration voice. We are organizing a chain recruitment drive (since a couple of days) to help get more members and have 10,000 members.
Please email me at jay@immigrationvoice.org so that I can send you brochure/doc for volunteering. Its really not a big commitment, except 45 minutes per day for a few days.
Here is more: http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=305
--Jay.
girlfriend google chrome logo change,
rockstart
03-12 11:56 AM
How do you guys find out what job code your H1B/labor was filed under?
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
Check your Perm Labor Section F column 2
My H1b saus 030, but I think the job is a 6 digit number.
Where can I locate that?
Thanks
Check your Perm Labor Section F column 2
hairstyles google chrome icon change,
malaGCPahije
12-10 03:57 PM
Do some population control in India and China, that would automatically fix the issue of retrogression. We are simply too many and we have clogged the system real bad. every 6th person on the face of this earth is Indian.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese. The obvious conclusion given the 2 facts (6'th person as Indian and 4'th as Chinese) is that every 4'th person on this earth is a chinese, every 6'th person an Indian and every 12'th person is an Indian Chinese :-).
I know, bad joke...The only thing we can do is support IV, and I mean financially more so than anything else.
Nikith77
03-12 09:10 AM
Kumar1, Well said....
nojoke
01-22 11:57 AM
Nothing is right or wrong, as meaning of quality of life is a very subjective thing.
In Japan, people work hard, send money/products to the US, and be happy for better quality of life by looking at increasing balances in their bank books each morning, and don't care what homes/cars they have.
In the US, people get happy for better quality of life by looking at their new BMW's, and nicely furnished homes (bought by money borrowed from Japanese investors), and don't care what they owe.
Both are unhappy too, for not having enough what they want more, Japanese want to have bigger balances in their bank books, and American want bigger BMW's and homes.
"Peace of Mind - Do you have" referenced in posts above is just a price for the quaility of life they "enjoy". No enjoyment comes without a price.
My issue is not with the quality of life. Don't we need to consider the risks associated with the quality of life? I see that there is a sense of entitlement that you should live your american dream or whatever at whatever cost.
In Japan, people work hard, send money/products to the US, and be happy for better quality of life by looking at increasing balances in their bank books each morning, and don't care what homes/cars they have.
In the US, people get happy for better quality of life by looking at their new BMW's, and nicely furnished homes (bought by money borrowed from Japanese investors), and don't care what they owe.
Both are unhappy too, for not having enough what they want more, Japanese want to have bigger balances in their bank books, and American want bigger BMW's and homes.
"Peace of Mind - Do you have" referenced in posts above is just a price for the quaility of life they "enjoy". No enjoyment comes without a price.
My issue is not with the quality of life. Don't we need to consider the risks associated with the quality of life? I see that there is a sense of entitlement that you should live your american dream or whatever at whatever cost.
No comments:
Post a Comment