I don’t think there’s much of a “ripple effect” from H-1Bs. We have 123,420,000 full-time workers and in 2012, we had 135,991 H-1Bs. That represents 0.1% of the work force or about 1 out of every 1,000 workers. It’s terrible for those people who lost out on those jobs but it still has a very small effect on the overall labor market.
If you want to talk about college tuition inflation, that’s obviously a big problem. I’m not sure if anything’s been inflated more. And we know that’s because the government subsidizes it to the extreme and the colleges keep raising tuition to soak up more of the easy money. They don’t have to compete on price because students and the government are willing to fund the tuition with massive loans, grants and debt.
As far as cars go, the price relative to median income actually has been falling since 1997 and is now down to what it was in 1979. This graph shows weeks of income needed to buy a new car. So, again, you seem to be coming up with stats off the top of your head without backing them up by research.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_DLIvw6mZGBU/SRDPkT-yq7I/AAAAAAAAAP0/OcJTOJF61lU/s1600/comerica.jpg
http://www.freeby50.com/2008/11/history-of-new-car-costs-and-average.html
The "ripple effect" usually extends beyond the job areas of the H-1B's: Of the "small %", then those people go out and (in every case I know of) displace someone else for a lower wage than the original H-1B displaced worker received, then the newly displaced worker displaces the next guy, until you get to the point where either somebody just gives up, or bottoms out at minimum wage and further displacements don't further affect wages. In a decent economy / job market this effect would be far less, and probably even negligible, but this economy is FAR from being a decent job market for most. It's not too dissimilar from how a modest size plant closure can be absorbed by an area in a good economy, but can devastate the same area in a bad economy.
I SEE this often - if the analysis doesn't catch it, maybe the analysis needs improvement.
I think we are mostly in agreement on the tuition issue. :-)
As for cars... HOW can that graph you reference possibly be right? It shows (essentially) 23 weeks of median household income needed to buy an average car. Now let's run a simple calculation: Assume, conservatively for the moment, that the graph has flattened out, the last few years, and is not down to 20-21 weeks needed to buy an average new car. We'll stick with "23".
Then we go look up household median income in = $53,657 for 2014 (Source = Census Bureau). Not being TOO far off that, in my family's case, and taking a quick look at the 2014 Federal Income tax table, I'll very roughly guess that after SS, various taxes, and other forced payments (ObummerCare), etc., our "median" family is left with: (a likely optimistic) $45,000 in 2014. Multiply by 23/54 = $19,166.00. But, Kelley Blue Book reports $34,367.00 for an average new car cost in Dec., 2014. (Source = KBB). Let's say KBB is off a bit (various factors can effect actual sale prices) and it's $32,000.00. Still kinda coming up short, there, aren't we?
Running the calculation a little differently indicates that the household income needed to actually buy a $32,000 car with 23 weeks of income is ~ $85,000 per year, or a bit North of $72k / yr., if one ignores income taxes and such.
BTW, I'm not even sure KBB includes sales tax on new cars, to get to $34k+, but I assumed it does.
"Does it make sense"? Well, my family is doing a little better than the median, we are debt free, have no silly expenses, no kids in college, and... no way can we responsibly afford an average new car. I pulled it off on essentially a minimum wage, back in 1984 -- ok, granted I was single and it was a CRX. :-)