Moderators: LyricalRico, nate33, montestewart
stilldropin20 wrote:
that doesn't mean that there are NOT good human beings from these countries. I'm quite certain there is as is Donald trump. But there is a reason that almost no American is willing to move to haiti right now. Or syria. or Michoacan mexico. Or Juarez.
Pointgod wrote:Blames Obama for a deal made by Bush. He's literally too stupid to do anything other than tweet
closg00 wrote:Why is James Woods your go-to guy for tweets, has Scott Baio stopped tweeting?
He wasn't deterred when he discovered the appeal was dropped because of the defendant's death. “Learn this," he said in a tweet that has since been deleted. "Libel me, I’ll sue you. If you die, I’ll follow you to the bowels of Hell. Get it?”
Wizardspride wrote:
nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:Trump is a disaster, & he's a danger to American democracy. The idea that he's benefited the economy is idiotic.
Something to read: https://www.cnet.com/news/cook-zuckerberg-join-100-ceos-in-calling-for-daca-extension/
I clicked on the article in the hopes that I would learn something new.
I was disappointed.
The very liberal Center for American Progress predicts that the removal of 750,000 DACA recipients would cost the country $433B over 10 years. Let's be generous and assume this estimate is correct and not merely pie-in-the-sky propaganda to serve their cause.
750,000 people producing $433B over 10 years amounts to a GDP per capita per year of $57,600.
Cato's probably more realistic estimate is just $280B over 10 years, which is more like $37,000 per capita.
Economists estimate that American GDP (produced by other 325 million Americans) over the next 10 years will be $236 trillion. That's a GDP per capita per year of $73,000.
So even in these, likely optimistic, scenarios by CAP and CATO, DACA is bringing down the national average.
nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:Trump is a disaster, & he's a danger to American democracy. The idea that he's benefited the economy is idiotic.
Something to read: https://www.cnet.com/news/cook-zuckerberg-join-100-ceos-in-calling-for-daca-extension/
I clicked on the article in the hopes that I would learn something new.
I was disappointed.
The very liberal Center for American Progress predicts that the removal of 750,000 DACA recipients would cost the country $433B over 10 years. Let's be generous and assume this estimate is correct and not merely pie-in-the-sky propaganda to serve their cause.
750,000 people producing $433B over 10 years amounts to a GDP per capita per year of $57,600.
Cato's probably more realistic estimate is just $280B over 10 years, which is more like $37,000 per capita.
Economists estimate that American GDP (produced by other 325 million Americans) over the next 10 years will be $236 trillion. That's a GDP per capita per year of $73,000.
So even in these, likely optimistic, scenarios by CAP and CATO, DACA is bringing down the national average.
Russia-linked hackers targeting US Senate
Russian hackers from the group known as "Fancy Bear" are targeting the U.S. Senate with a new espionage campaign, according to cybersecurity firm Trend Micro.
The Tokyo-based cybersecurity group tells The Hill that it has discovered a chain of suspicious-looking websites set up to look like the U.S. Senate’s internal email system, and learned that the sites were being operated as part of an email-harvesting operation.
payitforward wrote:nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:Trump is a disaster, & he's a danger to American democracy. The idea that he's benefited the economy is idiotic.
Something to read: https://www.cnet.com/news/cook-zuckerberg-join-100-ceos-in-calling-for-daca-extension/
I clicked on the article in the hopes that I would learn something new.
I was disappointed.
The very liberal Center for American Progress predicts that the removal of 750,000 DACA recipients would cost the country $433B over 10 years. Let's be generous and assume this estimate is correct and not merely pie-in-the-sky propaganda to serve their cause.
750,000 people producing $433B over 10 years amounts to a GDP per capita per year of $57,600.
Cato's probably more realistic estimate is just $280B over 10 years, which is more like $37,000 per capita.
Economists estimate that American GDP (produced by other 325 million Americans) over the next 10 years will be $236 trillion. That's a GDP per capita per year of $73,000.
So even in these, likely optimistic, scenarios by CAP and CATO, DACA is bringing down the national average.
I've stayed out of this thread, largely b/c I find it so depressing to read what you write here, nate. You are a thoughtful human being on a broad range of subjects, & you seem to have an understanding cast of mind in many situations (insofar as one can tell from the kinds of interactions we have online), yet you provide what is obviously an intellectually skewed commentary like the above....
It's irrelevant that DACA folks are, overall, below national average contributors to GDP. For starters, why don't you remove the contributions to GDP by the top 5% of those 325m Americans, & then re-run your comparison & report the results?
Well... I suppose there's really no reason to bother, actually, because the raw "national average" is, in any case, a figure of no consequence in this kind of discussion. Nor would the economy be made to prosper by removing people who earn a below-average income. Non-scalable actions are unlikely to produce positive results.
Think about it, nate. After you remove some below-average segment, the new average is higher. Hence, a whole new set of people are now below average. If that's a basis for action to improve the economy, then lets remove some of them too, right? &, again, we have a new & higher average, meaning that once again we have a set of people to target for removal. Rinse & repeat -- it never ends.
The idea that this could somehow lead to economic progress is obviously ridiculous. What it would lead to is the destruction of the economy.
Note: This analysis assumes that the geographic and skills distribution of the DACAmented workforce looks approximately the same as the full unauthorized workforce.
nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:nate33 wrote:I clicked on the article in the hopes that I would learn something new.
I was disappointed.
The very liberal Center for American Progress predicts that the removal of 750,000 DACA recipients would cost the country $433B over 10 years. Let's be generous and assume this estimate is correct and not merely pie-in-the-sky propaganda to serve their cause.
750,000 people producing $433B over 10 years amounts to a GDP per capita per year of $57,600.
Cato's probably more realistic estimate is just $280B over 10 years, which is more like $37,000 per capita.
Economists estimate that American GDP (produced by other 325 million Americans) over the next 10 years will be $236 trillion. That's a GDP per capita per year of $73,000.
So even in these, likely optimistic, scenarios by CAP and CATO, DACA is bringing down the national average.
I've stayed out of this thread, largely b/c I find it so depressing to read what you write here, nate. You are a thoughtful human being on a broad range of subjects, & you seem to have an understanding cast of mind in many situations (insofar as one can tell from the kinds of interactions we have online), yet you provide what is obviously an intellectually skewed commentary like the above....
It's irrelevant that DACA folks are, overall, below national average contributors to GDP. For starters, why don't you remove the contributions to GDP by the top 5% of those 325m Americans, & then re-run your comparison & report the results?
Well... I suppose there's really no reason to bother, actually, because the raw "national average" is, in any case, a figure of no consequence in this kind of discussion. Nor would the economy be made to prosper by removing people who earn a below-average income. Non-scalable actions are unlikely to produce positive results.
Think about it, nate. After you remove some below-average segment, the new average is higher. Hence, a whole new set of people are now below average. If that's a basis for action to improve the economy, then lets remove some of them too, right? &, again, we have a new & higher average, meaning that once again we have a set of people to target for removal. Rinse & repeat -- it never ends.
The idea that this could somehow lead to economic progress is obviously ridiculous. What it would lead to is the destruction of the economy.
I just looked at the CAP analysis. The money quote is:Note: This analysis assumes that the geographic and skills distribution of the DACAmented workforce looks approximately the same as the full unauthorized workforce.
That's one heck of an assumption! As it turns out, it's a ridiculous assumption. Only 4% of DACA recipients have graduated college in contrast to 18% of American citizens of the same age cohort (15-32) who have a college degree. DACA recipients have one quarter the college graduation rate of the regular population. College graduates make almost double the money of high school graduates.
And I disagree with your premise that you essentially cannot remove the lowest income groups without everyone else sliding downward to fill the gap. There is much more unemployment in low skill sectors than in high skill sectors.
Zonkerbl wrote:The number they are using is $60k per capita per year.
Ok, so I have some questions for you:
1) DACA beneficiaries are relatively young. What is the GDP per capita contribution of Americans of a comparable age group to DACA recipients?
2) GDP per capita is correlated with standardized test scores. I hypothesize that families who take the expensive and dangerous journey to America are relatively more resourceful than the average incumbent American and this should be reflected in their lifetime GDP contribution and their test scores. What is the average SAT score of a DACA beneficiary compared to an incumbent US citizen?
3) 87% of DACA recipients participate in the labor force. The aggregate labor force participation rate in the US is about 63%. What is the labor force participation rate for an incumbent US citizen of the same age?
Zonkerbl wrote:nate33 wrote:payitforward wrote:I've stayed out of this thread, largely b/c I find it so depressing to read what you write here, nate. You are a thoughtful human being on a broad range of subjects, & you seem to have an understanding cast of mind in many situations (insofar as one can tell from the kinds of interactions we have online), yet you provide what is obviously an intellectually skewed commentary like the above....
It's irrelevant that DACA folks are, overall, below national average contributors to GDP. For starters, why don't you remove the contributions to GDP by the top 5% of those 325m Americans, & then re-run your comparison & report the results?
Well... I suppose there's really no reason to bother, actually, because the raw "national average" is, in any case, a figure of no consequence in this kind of discussion. Nor would the economy be made to prosper by removing people who earn a below-average income. Non-scalable actions are unlikely to produce positive results.
Think about it, nate. After you remove some below-average segment, the new average is higher. Hence, a whole new set of people are now below average. If that's a basis for action to improve the economy, then lets remove some of them too, right? &, again, we have a new & higher average, meaning that once again we have a set of people to target for removal. Rinse & repeat -- it never ends.
The idea that this could somehow lead to economic progress is obviously ridiculous. What it would lead to is the destruction of the economy.
I just looked at the CAP analysis. The money quote is:Note: This analysis assumes that the geographic and skills distribution of the DACAmented workforce looks approximately the same as the full unauthorized workforce.
That's one heck of an assumption! As it turns out, it's a ridiculous assumption. Only 4% of DACA recipients have graduated college in contrast to 18% of American citizens of the same age cohort (15-32) who have a college degree. DACA recipients have one quarter the college graduation rate of the regular population. College graduates make almost double the money of high school graduates.
And I disagree with your premise that you essentially cannot remove the lowest income groups without everyone else sliding downward to fill the gap. There is much more unemployment in low skill sectors than in high skill sectors.
Well, obviously incumbent Americans have huge advantages in terms of wealth accumulation over newly arrived immigrants, so it's not surprising that DACA beneficiaries have less college degrees. That's why I think SAT scores would be a better indicator of their potential *eventual* contribution to the economy.
But shame on you for using college education as an indicator of economic contribution! The average Trump voter has less college education than the average Democrat voter, and yet average incomes of Trump voters are significantly higher. Obviously college education isn't everything.
closg00 wrote:Russia-linked hackers targeting US Senate
Russian hackers from the group known as "Fancy Bear" are targeting the U.S. Senate with a new espionage campaign, according to cybersecurity firm Trend Micro.
The Tokyo-based cybersecurity group tells The Hill that it has discovered a chain of suspicious-looking websites set up to look like the U.S. Senate’s internal email system, and learned that the sites were being operated as part of an email-harvesting operation.
http://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/368671-russia-linked-hackers-targeting-us-senate
The fact the Trumps Admn has done NOTHING to combat this in an aggressive way is very revealing. Putin wan't to help the Repubs maintain power and traitorous Republicans are more than happy to look the other way again.
