Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:
Where were you when Pointgod made this post:
I mean, I agree with his argument, but I don't care to get into the weed with you on this stuff because it will inevitably devolve into you citing Info Wars or something.
Good. Because you never contribute anything meaningful to a conversation anyhow.
nate33 wrote:gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:
Where were you when Pointgod made this post:
I mean, I agree with his argument, but I don't care to get into the weed with you on this stuff because it will inevitably devolve into you citing Info Wars or something.
Good. Because you never contribute anything meaningful to a conversation anyhow.
nate33 wrote:Avowed liberal Paul Krugman on the economics of immigration:First, the benefits of immigration to the population already here are small. The reason is that immigrant workers are, at least roughly speaking, paid their “marginal product”: an immigrant worker is paid roughly the value of the additional goods and services he or she enables the U.S. economy to produce. That means that there isn’t anything left over to increase the income of the people already here.
You might ask why, in that case, there are any gains from immigration. The answer is that when a country receives a lot of immigrants, the wage paid to immigrants reflects the marginal product of the last immigrant, which is less than that of earlier immigrants. So there is some gain. But as Mr. Hanson explains in his paper, reasonable calculations suggest that we’re talking about very small numbers, perhaps as little as 0.1 percent of GDP.
There is, by the way, a possible out from this argument in the case of high-skill immigrants. You could argue that, say, South Asian engineers who move to Silicon Valley add to the dynamism of the region, generating benefits much larger than their wages. (Economists know that I’m talking about “positive externalities.”) But that’s not an argument you can easily make about Mexican migrants who haven’t completed high school.
My second negative point is that immigration reduces the wages of domestic workers who compete with immigrants. That’s just supply and demand: we’re talking about large increases in the number of low-skill workers relative to other inputs into production, so it’s inevitable that this means a fall in wages. Mr. Borjas and Mr. Katz have to go through a lot of number-crunching to turn that general proposition into specific estimates of the wage impact, but the general point seems impossible to deny.
Finally, the fiscal burden of low-wage immigrants is also pretty clear. Mr. Hanson uses some estimates from the National Research Council to get a specific number, around 0.25 percent of G.D.P. Again, I think that you’d be hard pressed to find any set of assumptions under which Mexican immigrants are a net fiscal plus, but equally hard pressed to make the burden more than a fraction of a percent of G.D.P.
So there's a very small GDP gain which is outweighed by a bigger fiscal burden, all while reducing wages. Yes. Low wage immigration seems wonderful!
gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:So there's a very small GDP gain which is outweighed by a bigger fiscal burden, all while reducing wages. Yes. Low wage immigration seems wonderful!
Do you think the argument for immigration is limited strictly to economic benefit or something?
? dckingsfan wrote:Hmmm - deplorables + baby boomers = 75% of the country... not sure what you could do to insult a larger portion of the population?
cammac wrote:New immigration yes I agree the USA is behind the times in a coherent policy. More skilled entrepreneurial, educated and skill related immigrants are needed. This can be a mixture of males, females, couples or families.
cammac wrote:But also must included refugees from war torn areas of the world. Those can be carefully vetted and bring in families who can carve out a future in America. Canada brings in 300,000 people a year but the Trump administration wants to bring in 1/2 Canada's total with a country 9 times larger.
stilldropin20 wrote:gtn130 wrote:nate33 wrote:So there's a very small GDP gain which is outweighed by a bigger fiscal burden, all while reducing wages. Yes. Low wage immigration seems wonderful!
Do you think the argument for immigration is limited strictly to economic benefit or something?
for starters, i am a fan of immigration. and really for one reason and one reason only. and that reason is in the even of WW3 after all the bombs are dropped, assuming anything is left. it will become another ground game and war of attrition. So you need a large amount of human beings age 17-35.
other than that? I'm not seeing many other advantages unless the flow of immigration is a zero sum game.
Thanks for your vivid apoplectic dreams and yes Trump has pushed the doomsday clock closer than the Eisenhower era. Most nations still believe that diplomacy can solve problems while not to any parties total liking something that is viable. Trump would rather get into a schoolyard yelling match with North Korea while the Secretary of State guts the institution.
Pulling out of the Paris accords while imperfect and non binding and trying to con the stupid with oxymoron's like "Clean Coal" where Texas one of the reddest states in the union will have more renewable's generating electricity than coal. I'm sure Trump would like a time machine to take America back to the 50's rather than face the harsh realities of the 20th century.
But please lay it out for us. what are the big benefits of massive uncontrolled (even illegal) immigration? bullet points. lets see 'em. this should be interesting.
nate33 wrote:cammac wrote:New immigration yes I agree the USA is behind the times in a coherent policy. More skilled entrepreneurial, educated and skill related immigrants are needed. This can be a mixture of males, females, couples or families.
It sounds like you agree with Trump's proposed changes to immigration.cammac wrote:But also must included refugees from war torn areas of the world. Those can be carefully vetted and bring in families who can carve out a future in America. Canada brings in 300,000 people a year but the Trump administration wants to bring in 1/2 Canada's total with a country 9 times larger.
It's harder to find 2.7 million skilled immigrants per year than it is to find 300,000.
And let's be realistic about Canada's immigration history. First of all, it's not 300,000 a year. For most of the past 20 years, it's been about 225,000 a year. And about half of those 125,000 of those immigrants are from Britian, the U.S and Western Europe. That's not exactly a culture shock. It barely even counts as immigration. So you are bringing in about 100,000 immigrants from a radically different culture, and about a half of them are East Asian or Indian, who are typically well-educated and are considered "model immigrants" in America too. You are only bringing in about 60,000 a year from Latin America, the Middle East and Africa. Those are the regions where it's very difficult to find high skilled immigrants to fill needs in the economy.
The U.S. is bringing in about 750,000 a year from Latin America, Africa and the Middle East. So spare me the moral posturing.
gtn130 wrote:dckingsfan wrote:Hmmm - deplorables + baby boomers = 75% of the country... not sure what you could do to insult a larger portion of the population?
Yeah good thing I'm not running for office.
Meanwhile, denigrating every minority group is a smart and forward-thinking campaign strategy. Hope those Dems get their act together along with the corrupt DNC!
dckingsfan wrote:BTW, it wouldn't be hard to bring in 1.5M skilled workers a year. If we brought in 1.5M skilled and 1M unskilled we would be fine. It would address growth, it would address sustainability in our government services and would reduce our deficit spending (and not squeeze other spending).
Trump's proposed cuts to legal immigration take us in the wrong direction, IMO.
dckingsfan wrote:BTW, it wouldn't be hard to bring in 1.5M skilled workers a year. If we brought in 1.5M skilled and 1M unskilled we would be fine. It would address growth, it would address sustainability in our government services and would reduce our deficit spending (and not squeeze other spending).
Trump's proposed cuts to legal immigration take us in the wrong direction, IMO.
cammac wrote:stilldropin20 wrote:gtn130 wrote:
Do you think the argument for immigration is limited strictly to economic benefit or something?
for starters, i am a fan of immigration. and really for one reason and one reason only. and that reason is in the even of WW3 after all the bombs are dropped, assuming anything is left. it will become another ground game and war of attrition. So you need a large amount of human beings age 17-35.
other than that? I'm not seeing many other advantages unless the flow of immigration is a zero sum game.
Thanks for your vivid apoplectic dreams and yes Trump has pushed the doomsday clock closer than the Eisenhower era. Most nations still believe that diplomacy can solve problems while not to any parties total liking something that is viable. Trump would rather get into a schoolyard yelling match with North Korea while the Secretary of State guts the institution.
Pulling out of the Paris accords while imperfect and non binding and trying to con the stupid with oxymoron's like "Clean Coal" where Texas one of the reddest states in the union will have more renewable's generating electricity than coal. I'm sure Trump would like a time machine to take America back to the 50's rather than face the harsh realities of the 20th century.
But please lay it out for us. what are the big benefits of massive uncontrolled (even illegal) immigration? bullet points. lets see 'em. this should be interesting.
closg00 wrote:
A big focus of the Russia investigation, is a Trump ordered lie that Don Jr put out about his Russia meeting. Why were they lying SD20?
stilldropin20 wrote:cammac wrote:stilldropin20 wrote:
for starters, i am a fan of immigration. and really for one reason and one reason only. and that reason is in the even of WW3 after all the bombs are dropped, assuming anything is left. it will become another ground game and war of attrition. So you need a large amount of human beings age 17-35.
other than that? I'm not seeing many other advantages unless the flow of immigration is a zero sum game.
Thanks for your vivid apoplectic dreams and yes Trump has pushed the doomsday clock closer than the Eisenhower era. Most nations still believe that diplomacy can solve problems while not to any parties total liking something that is viable. Trump would rather get into a schoolyard yelling match with North Korea while the Secretary of State guts the institution.
Pulling out of the Paris accords while imperfect and non binding and trying to con the stupid with oxymoron's like "Clean Coal" where Texas one of the reddest states in the union will have more renewable's generating electricity than coal. I'm sure Trump would like a time machine to take America back to the 50's rather than face the harsh realities of the 20th century.
But please lay it out for us. what are the big benefits of massive uncontrolled (even illegal) immigration? bullet points. lets see 'em. this should be interesting.
your quoting game needs work.
other than that you didn't answer the question at all:
What exactly are the big benefits of massive unskilled immigration?? especially given how all the libs keeps telling me about automation. What's are the big benefits??? Anyone??? can anyone tell me why this is so good???
“No matter how many times, [sic] the President, EPA, and press rant about ‘dirty carbon pollution,’ there is no pollution about carbon itself! As a dictionary will tell you, carbon is the chemical basis of all life. Our flesh, blood, and bones are built of carbon. Carbon dioxide (CO2) is the gas of life on this planet, an essential nutrient for plant growth on which human life depends. How craftily our government has masked these fundamental realities and the environmental benefits of fossil fuels!”
“As the evidence for unprecedented warming temperatures, extreme weather events, declining Arctic ice, and rising sea levels wanes, the entrenched warmists’ grasp for familiar tags such as “pollution” or “environmental protection” to sanitize their grand schemes to decarbonize human societies.”