Replies

Just today on CNBC they stated that a radiologist in India makes $20k a year compared to the $300k one makes here. What is that radiologist that just lost his job going to do that's "more beneficial to our economy"?

Assuming that radiologist stays in India, he has zero effect on our economy. Assuming the higher wage entices him to move to the US, we just gained a skilled radiologist.

..."radiologist in India makes $20k a year compared to the $300k one makes here. What is that radiologist that just lost his job going to do that's "more beneficial to our economy"?

Assuming that radiologist stays in India, he has zero effect on our economy. Assuming the higher wage entices him to move to the US, we just gained a skilled radiologist.

Huh? Did I miss something here? Putting a $300k/yr radiologist out of work to replace him with a $20k/yr radiologist has "zero effect on our economy?" You're kidding right?

Just today on CNBC they stated that a radiologist in India makes $20k a year compared to the $300k one makes here. What is that radiologist that just lost his job going to do that's "more beneficial to our economy"?-lelio

Assuming that radiologist stays in India, he has zero effect on our economy.-presidio9

I think whether he's in India or the U.S., the effect on our economy is that we just saved $280k. Obviously, the radiologist (do they really make 300k/yr? That's ridiculous!) has lost a job. But assume he retrains, say he decides to build homes. Then our economy gets the radiologist job performed for 20k, with 280k left to pay the old radiologist to build us a new home. So our country gains a new home, at the expense of the overpaid radiologist, who hopefully has a lot of money in the bank after raking us over the coals with his old $300k/yr job.