jettu77
03-31 08:37 AM
Congratulations!
wallpaper Floral Border Clipart #41083
hebron
04-17 12:15 AM
Hi Roseball and others, Are you sure about this atatement - "Once your I-140 is approved with your current employer, with the copy of your 140 approval, your new employer can file for a 3 yr H1 extension."
My thought was that 3 year extension based on approved I140 can be applied only if you are with the same employer who filed your labor certification.
Could you please confirm.
One of my friends is in the same situation. His 8-th year H1 extension based on aproved labor is expiring in next two months. He has not received his I-140 yet. Now he has received an RFE for his 9-th year H1 and also his I-140. The RFE is big one and is for the employer. Since he has couple of months on his current H1-B What are his options/backup plans (if the RFE response doesn't work)
1. Would it be possible for a new employer to file his H1 for 9-th year based on approved labor? Since he doesn't have approved I-140, can he still extend his H1 with a new employer?
2. If the post by Roseball is true, my friend can respond to his I-140 RFE and apply for premium processing and hope that I-140 clears in the next two months and then based on this approval he can get 3 years H1 extension. Could anyone please confirm if this assumption is correct.
Thanks
Once your I-140 is approved with your current employer, with the copy of your 140 approval, your new employer can file for a 3 yr H1 extension. Though it is safe to do so after you get your 3 yr H1 extension based on approved 140 from the current employer and then change jobs, this is also another option which is seldom tried by applicants...But it does work as I have seen some of my friends do so. So the key for you is to get your pending 140 cleared asap......and then ask your new employer to file for your 3 yr H1 extension in premium processing and only resign from your current job after getting H1 approved....Ofcourse, this option only works if you can secure a copy of your I-140 approval from your current employer...Else, go with option 3....
My thought was that 3 year extension based on approved I140 can be applied only if you are with the same employer who filed your labor certification.
Could you please confirm.
One of my friends is in the same situation. His 8-th year H1 extension based on aproved labor is expiring in next two months. He has not received his I-140 yet. Now he has received an RFE for his 9-th year H1 and also his I-140. The RFE is big one and is for the employer. Since he has couple of months on his current H1-B What are his options/backup plans (if the RFE response doesn't work)
1. Would it be possible for a new employer to file his H1 for 9-th year based on approved labor? Since he doesn't have approved I-140, can he still extend his H1 with a new employer?
2. If the post by Roseball is true, my friend can respond to his I-140 RFE and apply for premium processing and hope that I-140 clears in the next two months and then based on this approval he can get 3 years H1 extension. Could anyone please confirm if this assumption is correct.
Thanks
Once your I-140 is approved with your current employer, with the copy of your 140 approval, your new employer can file for a 3 yr H1 extension. Though it is safe to do so after you get your 3 yr H1 extension based on approved 140 from the current employer and then change jobs, this is also another option which is seldom tried by applicants...But it does work as I have seen some of my friends do so. So the key for you is to get your pending 140 cleared asap......and then ask your new employer to file for your 3 yr H1 extension in premium processing and only resign from your current job after getting H1 approved....Ofcourse, this option only works if you can secure a copy of your I-140 approval from your current employer...Else, go with option 3....
vikramy
06-22 10:14 AM
From what i know If chest x-ray is clear you are good. I would suggest to find a different surgeon. good to have a second opinion
Guys,
I have got a RFE for my medical on 9th June 2009. We got our medical done in July 2007 and filed in July 2007.
The RFE is mentioning my medical records cannot be found. we are pretty sure we did file it.
My lawyer says the best way is to get a new medical done and send the new reports. I heard his advise and went to get a new medical exam. The civil surgeon asked me for PPD (TB Test) reports from previous years (1998) as in 2007 (when only the X Rays were done and they were clear), the size of the induration was NOT required but says now we need the size. I am trying to get the reports from the hospital where I got the testing done, but it has been more than 7 days and i am still waiting. The civil surgeon says that if we don't find the records we can do another TB test.
My PCP says that once the TB test is positive, it is always going to be positive (which is true as i got it done twice - 1997 and 1998) and the 2nd time the induration was more than the first time. If i get it 3rd time, is it going to be more induration? Also, are there chances of reaction due to getting it done the 3rd time? I think my PCP mentioned something like this earlier.
The civil surgeon says that if the induration is more than 10 mm, i might have to go through treatment :( I was shocked to hear that and did some reading and found out from another member too that the treatment is recommended and NOT required.
If the TB test results from 1998, don't come in time for me to respond to the RFE, can i not send the copy of my original medical done? I am going to ask the lawyer about it too, but wanted to know some personal experience of the folks who have gone through it.
Guys,
I have got a RFE for my medical on 9th June 2009. We got our medical done in July 2007 and filed in July 2007.
The RFE is mentioning my medical records cannot be found. we are pretty sure we did file it.
My lawyer says the best way is to get a new medical done and send the new reports. I heard his advise and went to get a new medical exam. The civil surgeon asked me for PPD (TB Test) reports from previous years (1998) as in 2007 (when only the X Rays were done and they were clear), the size of the induration was NOT required but says now we need the size. I am trying to get the reports from the hospital where I got the testing done, but it has been more than 7 days and i am still waiting. The civil surgeon says that if we don't find the records we can do another TB test.
My PCP says that once the TB test is positive, it is always going to be positive (which is true as i got it done twice - 1997 and 1998) and the 2nd time the induration was more than the first time. If i get it 3rd time, is it going to be more induration? Also, are there chances of reaction due to getting it done the 3rd time? I think my PCP mentioned something like this earlier.
The civil surgeon says that if the induration is more than 10 mm, i might have to go through treatment :( I was shocked to hear that and did some reading and found out from another member too that the treatment is recommended and NOT required.
If the TB test results from 1998, don't come in time for me to respond to the RFE, can i not send the copy of my original medical done? I am going to ask the lawyer about it too, but wanted to know some personal experience of the folks who have gone through it.
2011 fall order clip art
dtekkedil
07-03 10:03 AM
I'll draw a flower and send it, how is that? After all the $$$ spent on the lawyer and this whole fiasco in general, I ain't spendin' a penny more on them:mad:
Maybe a stinky garden weed. It's the thought that counts:D.
LOL!
You wont be spending the money on them... in the end it will be for you! Think of it as an investment :)
Maybe a stinky garden weed. It's the thought that counts:D.
LOL!
You wont be spending the money on them... in the end it will be for you! Think of it as an investment :)
more...
cal97
03-12 02:17 PM
Congratulations! I am not sure if the online status is being updated. I got my I-140 approval on 3/5/2009 and still shows as pending online.
Anyways, enjoy your freedom.
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
Anyways, enjoy your freedom.
After a long 5 years I finally received 485 case approved letter for both my case and my spouse's case. However the online status still shows pending. Is this common?. How long would it take for the online case status to be updated.
EB2- PB Dec2003
485 Filed date: 08/02/07
Texas service center
lazycis
06-05 10:11 PM
Hello,
I live in Massachusetts, Where should I send my EAD application ( Initial EAD, not renewal). My I-485 is pending with Texas Service Center.
Should I mail the EAD application to the following address:
Texas Service Center
P.O Box 851041
Mesquite, TX
Thank you for letting me know.
USCIS Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
see page 10
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
I live in Massachusetts, Where should I send my EAD application ( Initial EAD, not renewal). My I-485 is pending with Texas Service Center.
Should I mail the EAD application to the following address:
Texas Service Center
P.O Box 851041
Mesquite, TX
Thank you for letting me know.
USCIS Texas Service Center
P.O. Box 851041
Mesquite, TX 75185-1041
see page 10
http://www.uscis.gov/files/form/I-765instr.pdf
more...
roseball
05-14 05:20 PM
Please review my ETA 9089, it must fit EB2.
H.3. Job title: SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
H.4. Education: minimum level required: MASTER'S
H.4-B. Major field of study: COMPUTER SCIENCE
H.5. Is training required in the job opportunity? NO
H.6. Is experience in the job offered required for the job? YES
H.6-A. If Yes, number of months experience required: 12
7. Is there an alternate field of study that is acceptable? NO
H.8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable? NO
H.11. Job duties:
Analyze, design, coordinate and supervise the development of software systems.....
Design and develop programming systems making specific determinations....
Responsible for development of new programs, analyzes...
Responsible for analysis of current programs including performance�.
Review and repair legacy code�.
H.12. Are the job opportunity's requirements normal for the occupation? YES
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: EMPTY
I am not quite sure about H.6, H.6-A. My understanding is that a senior s/w developer position requires experience, at least 1 year. On the other hand Masters�s degree + 12 months of experience may exceed SVP.
Thank you,
What you are doing is illegal as per DOL guidelines. The beneficiary CANNOT be involved in preparing the job and experience requirements for the job. They have to be done by the Company HR or your manager. All the PERM preparations are to be done by an attorney or if the company doesn't hire one, it has to be by the HR/Manager. Never by the beneficiary himself. You can just provide your educational and experience information to the company and the rest is handled by them.
H.3. Job title: SENIOR SOFTWARE ENGINEER
H.4. Education: minimum level required: MASTER'S
H.4-B. Major field of study: COMPUTER SCIENCE
H.5. Is training required in the job opportunity? NO
H.6. Is experience in the job offered required for the job? YES
H.6-A. If Yes, number of months experience required: 12
7. Is there an alternate field of study that is acceptable? NO
H.8. Is there an alternate combination of education and experience that is acceptable? NO
H.11. Job duties:
Analyze, design, coordinate and supervise the development of software systems.....
Design and develop programming systems making specific determinations....
Responsible for development of new programs, analyzes...
Responsible for analysis of current programs including performance�.
Review and repair legacy code�.
H.12. Are the job opportunity's requirements normal for the occupation? YES
H.14. Specific skills or other requirements: EMPTY
I am not quite sure about H.6, H.6-A. My understanding is that a senior s/w developer position requires experience, at least 1 year. On the other hand Masters�s degree + 12 months of experience may exceed SVP.
Thank you,
What you are doing is illegal as per DOL guidelines. The beneficiary CANNOT be involved in preparing the job and experience requirements for the job. They have to be done by the Company HR or your manager. All the PERM preparations are to be done by an attorney or if the company doesn't hire one, it has to be by the HR/Manager. Never by the beneficiary himself. You can just provide your educational and experience information to the company and the rest is handled by them.
2010 Flower Clipart
PDOCT05
08-15 02:45 PM
I-140 approved at NSC
PD is OCT EB3
Thanks much for your response...I hope my checks will get cashed in next few days..
PD is OCT EB3
Thanks much for your response...I hope my checks will get cashed in next few days..
more...
GCNirvana007
04-02 04:00 AM
Babu Moshay, control your temper. As it is we dont have many non-indians in our group. You are putting off stray non-indians who come here to seek advice. (This guy is from Romania).
Why you will get GC quickly if you have more non-indians? OR
You are trying to be nice to them coz you are insecure of yourself in your subconscious mind? OR
Is it that he yelled at a non-indian which broke your sensitive heart?.
Whats your point?
Would have been better if you stopped at temper. Doesnt matter if its indian or non-indian. Try to treat all people the same in your mind first irrespective of color and culture. Stop selling yourself short.
Why you will get GC quickly if you have more non-indians? OR
You are trying to be nice to them coz you are insecure of yourself in your subconscious mind? OR
Is it that he yelled at a non-indian which broke your sensitive heart?.
Whats your point?
Would have been better if you stopped at temper. Doesnt matter if its indian or non-indian. Try to treat all people the same in your mind first irrespective of color and culture. Stop selling yourself short.
hair Floral Border
mhathi
03-23 10:57 AM
I had put in undecided at this time or something like that
more...
vparam
05-26 02:16 AM
The first round was victorious. Hopefully the second and third round does not take out the hard victory QGA & Staffers of various Senators & the Senators have got us.
Thanks to all QGA & Staffers of various Senators & the Senators .
I was wondering if a webfax thanking QGA & Staffers of various Senators & the Senators could be set up. like in the lines of how AILA does where based on zip code an appropriate thank you or disappointment fax is sent.
Thanks to all QGA & Staffers of various Senators & the Senators .
I was wondering if a webfax thanking QGA & Staffers of various Senators & the Senators could be set up. like in the lines of how AILA does where based on zip code an appropriate thank you or disappointment fax is sent.
hot Selected Clipart:
purgan
08-06 09:26 AM
Well a lot of people I know have coverted from EB3 to EB2 while retaining their old PDs, so i'mnot sure about EB2 dates staying in 2004.
more...
house Spring Flowers Vector
gc28262
06-14 02:57 PM
Refer this:
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
Case Study: Upgrade from EB3 to EB2 (http://www.imminfo.com/News/Newsletter/2010-06/case_study_upgrade_from_eb3_to_eb2.html)
tattoo floral border clipart. flower
starscream
06-23 09:40 PM
Cornyn Calls on Obama to Present Immigration Reform Plan - Roll Call (http://www.rollcall.com/news/36174-1.html)
Cornyn Calls on Obama to Present Immigration Reform Plan
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Tuesday called on President Barack Obama to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan this year, saying a directive from the White House is the only way to push the complex issue forward.
“What we need is not another photo op at the White House. What we need now is a plan from the president,” said Cornyn, ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.
“The president doesn’t write legislation, but he does have the bully pulpit,” Cornyn said, adding that right now “it’s unclear how they can get it finished.”
Cornyn is one of several lawmakers who will meet with administration officials Thursday to discuss immigration policy. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged Monday that time may run out this year before the administration and Congress — already spread thin with health care and climate change legislation — can take up yet another time-consuming and sweeping proposal.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed those concerns: “We’ve got a full plate already.”
“There’s been little discussion from our side on immigration reform. I’ve honestly not given it a lot of thought,” McConnell said.
But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reiterated his call for doing a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.
“We have to finish health care and climate change, but being third on the list is pretty good,” Reid said, predicting that he could muster up the votes for a bill later this year.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the immigration subpanel, will deliver an address on immigration at Georgetown University on Wednesday and is expected to outline “the principles that will guide legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate later this year,” according to a release.
Schumer will also attend the White House meeting Thursday.
Cornyn Calls on Obama to Present Immigration Reform Plan
Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) on Tuesday called on President Barack Obama to come up with a comprehensive immigration plan this year, saying a directive from the White House is the only way to push the complex issue forward.
“What we need is not another photo op at the White House. What we need now is a plan from the president,” said Cornyn, ranking member on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Refugees and Border Security.
“The president doesn’t write legislation, but he does have the bully pulpit,” Cornyn said, adding that right now “it’s unclear how they can get it finished.”
Cornyn is one of several lawmakers who will meet with administration officials Thursday to discuss immigration policy. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs acknowledged Monday that time may run out this year before the administration and Congress — already spread thin with health care and climate change legislation — can take up yet another time-consuming and sweeping proposal.
Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) echoed those concerns: “We’ve got a full plate already.”
“There’s been little discussion from our side on immigration reform. I’ve honestly not given it a lot of thought,” McConnell said.
But Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) reiterated his call for doing a comprehensive immigration reform bill this year.
“We have to finish health care and climate change, but being third on the list is pretty good,” Reid said, predicting that he could muster up the votes for a bill later this year.
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), who chairs the immigration subpanel, will deliver an address on immigration at Georgetown University on Wednesday and is expected to outline “the principles that will guide legislation he intends to introduce in the Senate later this year,” according to a release.
Schumer will also attend the White House meeting Thursday.
more...
pictures house floral border clipart.
eilsoe
10-03 01:48 PM
I have a feeling this could get evil...
dresses clip art flowers border. clip
alkg
08-13 08:41 PM
see the paragraph in bold letters.................
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
Greenspan Sees Bottom
In Housing, Criticizes Bailout
August 14, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Alan Greenspan usually surrounds his opinions with caveats and convoluted clauses. But ask his view of the government's response to problems confronting mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and he offers one word: "Bad."
In a conversation this week, the former Federal Reserve chairman also said he expects that U.S. house prices, a key factor in the outlook for the economy and financial markets, will begin to stabilize in the first half of next year.
"Home prices in the U.S. are likely to start to stabilize or touch bottom sometime in the first half of 2009," he said in an interview. Tracing a jagged curve with his finger on a tabletop to underscore the difficulty in pinpointing the precise trough, he cautioned that even at a bottom, "prices could continue to drift lower through 2009 and beyond."
A long-time student of housing markets, Mr. Greenspan now works out of a well-windowed, oval-shaped office that is evidence of his fascination with the housing market. His desk, couch, coffee table and conference table are strewn with print-outs of spreadsheets and multicolored charts of housing starts, foreclosures and population trends siphoned from government and trade association sources.
An end to the decline in house prices, he explained, matters not only to American homeowners but is "a necessary condition for an end to the current global financial crisis" he said.
"Stable home prices will clarify the level of equity in homes, the ultimate collateral support for much of the financial world's mortgage-backed securities. We won't really know the market value of the asset side of the banking system's balance sheet -- and hence banks' capital -- until then."
At 82 years old, Mr. Greenspan remains sharp and his fascination with the workings of the economy undiminished. But his star no longer shines as brightly as it did when he retired from the Fed in January 2006.
Mr. Greenspan has been criticized for contributing to today's woes by keeping interest rates too low too long and by regulating too lightly. He has been aggressively defending his record -- in interviews, in op-ed pieces and in a new chapter in his recent book, included in the paperback version to be published next month. Mr. Greenspan attributes the rise in house prices to a historically unusual period in which world markets pushed interest rates down and even sophisticated investors misjudged the risks they were taking.
His views remain widely watched, however. Mr. Greenspan's housing forecast rests on two pillars of data. One is the supply of vacant, single-family homes for sale, both newly completed homes and existing homes owned by investors and lenders. He sees that "excess supply" -- roughly 800,000 units above normal -- diminishing soon. The other is a comparison of the current price of houses -- he prefers the quarterly S&P Case Shiller National Home Price Index because it includes both urban and rural areas -- with the government's estimate of what it costs to rent a single-family house. As other economists do, Mr. Greenspan essentially seeks to gauge when it is rational to own a house and when it is rational to sell the house, invest the money elsewhere and rent an identical house next door.
"It's the imbalance of supply and demand which causes prices to go down, but it's ultimately the valuation process of the use of the commodity...which tells you where the bottom is," Mr. Greenspan said, recalling his days trading copper a half century ago. "For example, the grain markets can have a huge excess of corn or wheat, but the price never goes to zero. It'll stabilize at some level of prices where people are willing to hold the excess inventory. We have little history, but the same thing is surely true in housing as well. We will get to the point where there will be willing holders of vacant single-family dwellings, and that will no longer act to depress the price level."
The collapse in home prices, of course, is a major threat to the stability of Fannie and Freddie. At the Fed, Mr. Greenspan warned for years that the two mortgage giants' business model threatened the nation's financial stability. He acknowledges that a government backstop for the shareholder-owned, government-sponsored enterprises, or GSEs, was unavoidable. Not only are they crucial to the ailing mortgage market now, but the Fed-financed takeover of investment bank Bear Stearns Cos. also made government backing of Fannie and Freddie debt "inevitable," he said. "There's no credible argument for bailing out Bear Stearns and not the GSEs."
His quarrel is with the approach the Bush administration sold to Congress. "They should have wiped out the shareholders, nationalized the institutions with legislation that they are to be reconstituted -- with necessary taxpayer support to make them financially viable -- as five or 10 individual privately held units," which the government would eventually auction off to private investors, he said.
Instead, Congress granted Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson temporary authority to use an unlimited amount of taxpayer money to lend to or invest in the companies. In response to the Greenspan critique, Mr. Paulson's spokeswoman, Michele Davis, said, "This legislation accomplished two important goals -- providing confidence in the immediate term as these institutions play a critical role in weathering the housing correction, and putting in place a new regulator with all the authorities necessary to address systemic risk posed by the GSEs."
But a similar critique has been raised by several other prominent observers. "If they are too big to fail, make them smaller," former Nixon Treasury Secretary George Shultz said. Some say the Paulson approach, even if the government never spends a nickel, entrenches current management and offers shareholders the upside if the government's reassurance allows the companies to weather the current storm. The Treasury hasn't said what conditions it would impose if it offers Fannie and Freddie taxpayer money.
Fear that financial markets would react poorly if the U.S. government nationalized the companies and assumed their approximately $5 trillion debt is unfounded, Mr. Greenspan said. "The law that stipulates that GSEs are not backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. government is disbelieved. The market believes the government guarantee is there. Foreigners believe the guarantee is there. The only fiscal change is for someone to change the bookkeeping."
In the past, to be sure, Mr. Greenspan's crystal ball has been cloudy. He didn't foresee the sharp national decline in home prices. Recently released transcripts of Fed meetings do record him warning in November 2002: "It's hard to escape the conclusion that at some point our extraordinary housing boom...cannot continue indefinitely into the future."
Publicly, he was more reassuring. "While local economies may experience significant speculative price imbalances, a national severe price distortion seems most unlikely in the United States, given its size and diversity," he said in October 2004. Eight months later, he said if home prices did decline, that "likely would not have substantial macroeconomic implications." And in a speech in October 2006, nine months after leaving the Fed, he told an audience that, though housing prices were likely to be lower than the year before, "I think the worst of this may well be over." Housing prices, by his preferred gauge, have fallen nearly 19% since then. He says he was referring not to prices but to the downward drag on economic growth from weakening housing construction.
Mr. Greenspan urges the government to avoid tax or other policies that increase the construction of new homes because that would delay the much-desired day when home prices find a bottom.
He did offer one suggestion: "The most effective initiative, though politically difficult, would be a major expansion in quotas for skilled immigrants," he said. The only sustainable way to increase demand for vacant houses is to spur the formation of new households. Admitting more skilled immigrants, who tend to earn enough to buy homes, would accomplish that while paying other dividends to the U.S. economy.
He estimates the number of new households in the U.S. currently is increasing at an annual rate of about 800,000, of whom about one third are immigrants. "Perhaps 150,000 of those are loosely classified as skilled," he said. "A double or tripling of this number would markedly accelerate the absorption of unsold housing inventory for sale -- and hence help stabilize prices."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121865515167837815.html?mod=hpp_us_whats_news
more...
makeup Cheerful spring flower border
gc2
09-23 06:45 AM
bump...
girlfriend free clip art flowers borders.
BharatPremi
04-16 04:42 PM
kaisersose, scorpioduo
Thanks.
Thanks.
hairstyles Red Heart Clip Art Stencil
Be_Pragmatic
07-23 05:16 PM
I'm in a similar predicament as well. I'm on EAD and 485 is pending, can I claim unemployment benefits?
hpandey
01-02 02:16 PM
Hi Everybody,
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
As Lacrosse said most probably 3-4 years but you never know .. you can get lucky like this year when USCIS made everything current for July . If a month like that comes along then you would be able to file for AOS .
A miracle can happen but if it doesn't your wait time could be anything from 3 - 5 years or
I know that nobody has an answer for my question, but still i would like to get the views/inputs from the seniors here , who have experience with USCIS.
When do you think a person with PD of Nov 2007 ,EB3 from India, would be able to file for 485??
As Lacrosse said most probably 3-4 years but you never know .. you can get lucky like this year when USCIS made everything current for July . If a month like that comes along then you would be able to file for AOS .
A miracle can happen but if it doesn't your wait time could be anything from 3 - 5 years or
copsmart
02-20 06:47 PM
I think your wage is high, because you are in EB2 category.
In other words, the job for which your labor was applied required a higher education or experience. Your employer has to come up with such strong requirements to put you in the EB2 category. But what it does is, it will bump up your prevailing wage.
I had a similar situation where my boss gave a big list of requirements, which smacked my prevailing wage to a higher number. My attorney tried to talk into my employer, that GC is for a future job and they don�t have to worry about it now. But my employer said, they can�t promise to pay that salary, even if it is going to be after several years. Although, in my case the difference between the GC wage and my current salary wasn�t very high.
So, my attorney and my boss went back and forth several times before they came up with a job requirement that works for me and my employer.
In your case, at least your employer agreed to pay the salary or they have no concerns. So, you don�t have to worry about it now, because GC is for a future job.
BTW, do not jeopardize your job by asking for such a huge raise in this tough economic times. If you are still so worried, try to find a job that pays your GC salary and use AC21 to change your job.
I would say, just hang in there, because the job market is really tight.
All,
My PERM labor was filed in Dec 2006. I didn't know much about all the technicalities in that process. I found today, from the flcdatacenter website, my labor petition number and was shocked to see the wage mentioned in there is "50.34", "Hr". I assume thats the pay I would get if I get the GC. My current pay is 60K/year. I have approved I-140 and have also applied my I-485 in the July 2007 fiasco.
I am now heart broken since I am not sure if I would ever get the GC cause the wage mentioned in LC and what I am getting right now has huge difference.
What can I do at this point of time? Any suggestion would be helpful to me.
Thank you.
In other words, the job for which your labor was applied required a higher education or experience. Your employer has to come up with such strong requirements to put you in the EB2 category. But what it does is, it will bump up your prevailing wage.
I had a similar situation where my boss gave a big list of requirements, which smacked my prevailing wage to a higher number. My attorney tried to talk into my employer, that GC is for a future job and they don�t have to worry about it now. But my employer said, they can�t promise to pay that salary, even if it is going to be after several years. Although, in my case the difference between the GC wage and my current salary wasn�t very high.
So, my attorney and my boss went back and forth several times before they came up with a job requirement that works for me and my employer.
In your case, at least your employer agreed to pay the salary or they have no concerns. So, you don�t have to worry about it now, because GC is for a future job.
BTW, do not jeopardize your job by asking for such a huge raise in this tough economic times. If you are still so worried, try to find a job that pays your GC salary and use AC21 to change your job.
I would say, just hang in there, because the job market is really tight.
All,
My PERM labor was filed in Dec 2006. I didn't know much about all the technicalities in that process. I found today, from the flcdatacenter website, my labor petition number and was shocked to see the wage mentioned in there is "50.34", "Hr". I assume thats the pay I would get if I get the GC. My current pay is 60K/year. I have approved I-140 and have also applied my I-485 in the July 2007 fiasco.
I am now heart broken since I am not sure if I would ever get the GC cause the wage mentioned in LC and what I am getting right now has huge difference.
What can I do at this point of time? Any suggestion would be helpful to me.
Thank you.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий