Topic: U.S. Will Need to Create 'Unprecedented' 35 Million New Jobs if Immigration Bill (Read 4384 times)

And to think they figured human nature being what it was, they could get away with rape no problem.  Some days just don't turn out right.

Yeah, like what the nature of a human intestine is. 

or, uh, u might find out about that there hooman nature thing, yeah...

Don't mess with a Gurkha!

Now why is it that I suspect that would be largely the case in cultures and nations with strict gun control and no concealed carry?

With an occasional exception, of course.

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/super-gurkha-with-a-kukri-fight-40-armed-robbers-kills-3-wounds-8-wins/

It's okay, I forgive you

sorry mike christ i couldn't resist!  

Further, the "hispanic" group is like an "add-on," and can be claimed by members of pretty much every other group. F'r instance, when I'm not screwing with the census and claiming my 1/8 Pacific Islander heritage, I have to specify "White, non-hispanic."

It's a dog eat dog world out there

Yes, for idiot responders.

Mexicans are a defined nationality, and they are not a "race". 

In the USA, "hispanic" is an ethnic group, defined by a group of surnames.

Specifically addressing the "human nature" argument: see here.  It's a long series, but a good watch.  Because people can be "fixed" to act in a specific way, we can use the "human nature" argument anywhere; because John killed a guy, it's in his nature, and thus a part of human nature.  If John saves a guy, instead, would that go against human nature?  No, John did that too; it must also be apart of human nature.  Now, to argue that it's human nature to be a businessman and to stab your competitors in the back to ensure your business remains on top is merely sociopathic behavior, unfitting for all of the human race; the reason why you only hear of it, and why only those on top used such methods to get there, is because they've all been the same kin; they're not like you or I (I assume), e.g., people who express empathy, and thus can ruin thousands of people's lives without any remorse whatsoever.  We only see one side of this game; where Joe has the leading industry because he ran Frank and Bill out of business, so Joe's got all that business to himself and doesn't know what to do with it, but what if the three worked together?  As the public is generally unaware that such tactics are even happening, there's nothing they are going to do about it; otherwise, WalMart would've been out of business last decade.  The people behind WalMart are machines, not like us; if anything, their so-called nature goes directly against our nature, and this applies to the sociopaths on the very tip-top, including the Rothschilds and the rest.

So the question becomes; if you could make a decision to, for example, deliberately starve an entire nation, if it resulted in your own profits, would you do it?  If the answer is yes, I can see how such behavior might be mistaken as human nature, as this would be the cold, logical reasoning to improve your own well-being at the cost of others; if the answer is no, however, then we can also see why these examples do not accurately portray the rest of us, who would care if we're damaging another person's well-being with our business practices.  As life leads closer to maximize civil liberties, the sociopaths will become very obvious; there's a few of them on this very forum, if you can spot them.  These are the guys who strive for control, who'll kill when asked by God or a God-like figure, and at the very end of this road, the guys who become the God-like figure, who live their entire lives trying to ascend to this stage, without a single emotion for those they've ruined to get there; if this is what we're calling normal human behavior, it's very disconcerting, to say the least, and I don't believe this is an accurate representation of the natural human being, merely the one we've conditioned for thousands of years.

So how do we answer these questions assuming we're dealing with the human being fashioned much the same way they've been conditioned from the biblical era?  We cannot; it never plays out right, as "human nature" leads us to believe we'll kill when we A.) Cannot be caught, and B.) When it is highly beneficial to oneself.  We must assume we're dealing with a truly free society, where the average Joe is, by today's standards, moderately intelligent, and, at least, knows when he, or his fellow human beings, are being shafted by any given business, which can only happen when the empathy hasn't been beaten out of him at an early age, as is the case today, as we're all living in our own bubbles, and in some cases around the world, wouldn't even stop a woman from being raped in public.

OK, now, do you know the difference between a coercive monopoly, and a natural monopoly?
Standard Oil, at it's peak, had 88% of the refinery market. Hardly a monopoly. By the time the regulation came in, they were down to 60-something percent. If anything, the regulation prevented them from losing more. And for a real eye-opener, check the prices of heating oil for that time period, too. MGox, again, does not have 100% of the trades. The only actual monopoly you mentioned is the Fed, and they are a monopoly only by virtue of government force.

Economies of scale do tend to lead one or two agencies to be dominant players. That does not mean that they have, or even can control, the entire market. And not every industry is one where economies of scale play a major part. Government's stated purpose, the provision of security, in fact, is clearly one of those where diseconomies of scale come into play.

Again, it comes down to natural monopolies, game theory, and dis/economies of scale. If a company is fairly out-competing all the others, then there is no reason why they should not be the dominant player. "Shenanigans," as you call them, would be prevented, as the natural requirement of a free market. I'd have to go pretty in-depth on free-market law to explain exactly how. Let's just leave it at "Slander is a form of fraud, and fraud is a no-no," for now.

Let's assume that a company manages to become the only player in a particular industry, because they can provide their service more cheaply and effectively than all the others. What then? Can they start to raise their prices? No, because the moment they raise them enough for a competitor to make a profit by undercutting them, that's exactly what will happen. Can they provide poor service? No, because the moment they do, a competitor can enter the market promising better service, and people will pay a little extra. The only way you can sustain a natural monopoly is by maintaining the conditions which allowed you to gain that position in the first place - ie, being the best in the marketplace.

Agorism, as a strategy, is only about as old as I am. Sam Konkin came up with it in the late 70's. Drastic political change takes longer than 30-odd years to happen.

Yes and no. Often, something that is seen as going off-topic is actually just striking the root of the problem expressed in the OP.

We are officially 100% off topic lol

It's true. It's logical. It's human nature. It's animal nature.

The logic is bombproof and used by the the players themselves: "Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it." How do you convince the players to do otherwise?

Historically there are tons of examples: Rockefeller, Mt Gox, US Steel, Bell, Rothschild, Wal Mart, OPEC, the FED, ...

Some of these are cartels or overly dominant players, but you can see what im saying.



I don't see how these services provided in these markets don't get provided by fewer and fewer players over time as they unchecked gobble each other up until the whole thing is replaced by corporate fascism.

For example, how is company A in a market prevented from saying, "hey look company B is having trouble, let's merge" and acting on it? Now company A has a bigger customer base and there is one less player in the market. This happens all the time.

Or what about slandering company B into oblivion, or any other shenanigan? Or simply just fairly outcompeting everybody else? Or engage in cartel tactics? Statistically, over time, I can't see how it doesn't happen.

I'm thinking that if agorism addressed this phenomenon, it would have happened a long time ago and remained and we would be living in utopia already.

It doesn't. Agorism is how to get from what we have now to a market anarchy. Market anarchy keeps the "state vacuum" empty by recognizing that it is not a vacuum. There is no need for people to take money by force to provide services. Those services can and should be provided on the market.

This sums up my whole problem with agorism. Other than this, i love it. But monopoly is actually a form of "state", and i don't see how agorism keeps this "state" vacuum empty.

Why do I always hear this fallacy?

Can you prove that, through either logic or historical evidence?

The players keep each other honest just fine. You, too, are welcome to join my game.

Totally free and unchecked markets will always eventually cartelize, then monopolize. Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it. A market for armed force will do this sooner rather than later, due to the nature of its "commodity".

As for other markets to replace government, up to and including government services as you said earlier, I can go for that, except for the inevitible tendency for these things to monopolize naturally, leaving us with corporate fascism, which is a form of government much like we have now.

How will free markets providing for any and all services and institutions enforce fair and peaceful competition in order to avoid monopolies? They need external forces to keep the players honest within them. The players in any market, if they are allowed to, will abide by "Eliminating your competition is the ultimate way to compete with it".

See, bottom line, that's the problem. Borders. It's the reason for the problems in the OP, it's the reason for the problems in Damascus, it's the reason for practically every political problem.

I disagree. :p
btw, I'm running a "game" in the politics & society board, it's still in the very early stages, and I'd appreciate your participation. The more the merrier, and I especially want statists to play.

And if you were there, it would not work for you either because they won't use it.  So you would have to choose a side with all the risks of violence and abuse that comes with that choice.

That's why people prefer to settle it by giving 1 body a monopoly of violence.

Anyway, this is way off topic.  Tell me you disagree and I'll stop hijacking this thread

It won't work for them. Because they won't use it. If they won't work the plan, is it any surprise the plan won't work for them?

You'll note that there hasn't been a religious war in the US... ever. Why?

Because we actually accept freedom of religion, and don't see it as a reason to firebomb a pub.

It's the same concept.

It means your "solution" won't work.  The nutters won't back down.  "Voluntary" is not part of their philosophy.  So to avoid being killed in the crossfire, people prefer to have 1 government with a monopoly on violence. 

None of which speaks in the least to my offered solution to the problem townf stated.

Um; you've never dealt with deeply religious guys who will kill you for impiety and regard it as a blessing to die in the act of killing you.  The word "voluntary" doesn't enter their way of doing things.  And as a non-believer, you would have a very bad time in their hands.

That's the problem. they all claim the city. They want a monopoly on it. Now, if all three were to offer their services on a voluntary, market basis to the citizens of Damascus, the violence would stop, would it not?

A quick flight to Damascus might help you see why most people disagree with you.  At least 3 governments claim the city and they are duking it out with violence.  You may well feel that is not normal way for states to settle border disputes but its what people expect.

Erm - just for some insight from someone who semi-recently had to look for unskilled employment (even though the OP topic was apparently dropped 2-3 pages ago) -- if they can get a GED (maybe not even essential), there's a high level of demand for them pretty much everywhere in the country, because Americans aren't taking these jobs (in fact, the company I was at has frequently considered moving, possibly out-of-country, because they're paying $15/hr to a staffing agency and still have crazy-high turnover and have turned "over-time" into "expected time" because they simply don't have enough labor). It's not even the minimum wage law fucking them over. The jobs are very tedious and have long hours (night-shift is pretty much in-demand at every factory on Earth), but pay $8.50-$13.50 an hour, 65-80 hours/wk, anything over 48h = 1.5x pay, 2x on Sunday, so... yeah... tons of jobs for unskilled workers, but not tons of people willing to stand on their feet 11h/day willing to do an exceptionally unfulfilling and tedious job working every day of the week. Bring on the Mexicans!

ETA: Racial stereotype alert!

There's no reason for market competition of governments to cause violence. In fact, you would expect the opposite, a reduction in politically motivated violence.

Because you can't have competing states without more violence than most people want. 

Rational ignorance is the problem. Voters have little incentive to make sure they're getting the right news, making the right decisions, or even voting at all. So the question is, how to give them that incentive? Give them exactly what they ask for. If the reason democracy is so fragile is that each individual vote matters so little in the grand scheme of things, we should make each vote matter a great deal - to the person making it. Why do we not hear about massive numbers of shirts not fitting? Because every person can get the shirt that fits him. Why do we not hear about massive disappointment in fast food? Because every person can get the fast food that they want. It's been said that we pick our presidents the same way we pick our laundry detergent, so why don't we hear about how low the "approval rating" is of Tide detergent? Because every person gets the detergent they want.

The market works so well for everything else, why do we give the most important things to a monopoly?

Democracy works in some environments, but it might be too fragile to live very long.

If the media is not free and competitive, you don't have a democracy anymore.

The act of feeding bad information to the public automatically subverts democracy by default. It's like constantly misinforming the king in a monarchy.

The achilles heel of democratic government is the media. So is monopolized money creation for that matter. The media needs to be paid, and so do government officials.

The collective joe shmoe could make it work if he was constantly blasted with accurate information instead of misinformation and omissions, because as you said, he does not act on the incentive to be a private investigator all the time.

This 35 million jobs story is a perfect example of how strings are pulled in a fake democracy pro-wrestling match.

Go ahead try me.



This is debatable, but instead of debating it right this second, I just want to point out that this debate was totally suppressed when it could have happened.

Instead, as always, with the 35 million job story, we just get a bunch of hype and facilitation of posturing about the fallout, which totally ignores the larger situation.

I read a couple of pages, but the writer jumps back and forth between the 70's, 80's and 90's making assertions and cannot seem to hold a single idea and develop it.  It didn't seem worth continuing.

Regarding the cause of Mexico's problems, they go way back.  Back to Cortez taking the place over with his 400 soldiers.  Back to the mixing of the native weird excuse for religion with Catholicism, which to an extent continues to today.  Back to the establishment of a class society where those with Spanish blood are highly esteemed, and those of Indian blood are not.

Back to Pancho Villa, a murderer and rapist of innocent Americans, who was nonetheless sheltered by the Mexican people.

There have been continual problems with Mexico, and there have been many devaluations of the peso.  At the core is corruption, and the inability to see contracts honored.  To even attempt to focus on one devaluation of a currency is ridiculous, and to assert that somehow some group manipulated to it's benefit the drop in value when a currency moves from fixed to floating is carrying the theory of top down control past the point where the top down control has been purposefully abandoned.

When a country moves from fixed exchange rates to floating, there are of course consequences.  They may be estimated by comparing the black market to the official exchange rates.

No, the problem is Democracy. Rational ignorance. If the perceived benefit of doing the proper research is outweighed by the effort required to do that research, most people will not do that research. Given how much an individual vote actually affects the outcome of an election, the average Joe has very little incentive to make sure he votes "correctly," or even at all. When you base your government on a logical fallacy, you should not be surprised when it falls apart.

Compound that fact with the previously mentioned tendency for a monopoly to abuse it's customers, to provide the least and lowest quality service, for as much money as can be wrung out of them, and the end result of any government, but especially a democratically elected one, is blindingly obvious.

I have a proposed solution, but you won't like it.

Well apparently an effective way to do it is to trick the government into borrowing money instead of issuing it, thereby mortgaging itself into submission, and then use the proceeds to gain control of the media and to purchase government policy and legislation.

Here is truly the real problem: the collective ignorance, complacency, brainwash, and apathy of the vast majority of regular people. This is a direct result of an anti-competitive media cartel, which is one of many strings, but probably the most important one. So maybe you could say the media is the problem.

A people need a competitive media in order feed themselves accurate information, especially if you're attempting to have a democracy. Only then can people collectively understand how to disable the other strings that can be pulled.

This 35 million jobs story is a perfect example of misinformation and distraction from the crux of a real issue. It's a total pivot, just like most other stories are in the MSM.

Therefore, the problem is t.v. There you have it.

That the fact that there are strings to be pulled is the problem.

If you wanted to take over America, would you kick down the door of every home in the US?

Not sure what point you're trying to make there.

Even though i was half joking calling for a clarification of the problem, I figured somebody would try to tell me something i didn't know, not something somebody thinks everybody knows, gimme a break

The government is totally owned, it's not the problem. The fact that it is owned is probably the problem. I really hope you don't think the government is the one pulling the strings.

u mad?

Does it really surprise you that a monopoly fucks it's "customers"?

Especially after it got bought out?

Who totally outright pwns this organization you speak of, that you for some reason think i cannot see?

You have simultaneously insulted my intelligence and exposed your own giant naivete, good job numbnuts. And thanks for the link to wikipedia about what a corporation is LOL.

Who does this organization bail out over and over again, at the crippling expense of the public?

If this organization's members are democratically elected, why do their decisions and policies not favor the public but rather the multinational/finance bloc?

Who owns the information sources from where voters who elect the members of this organization get their information?

If any organization, including the one you speak of, owes 16 trillion dollars to something, then that something gets to tell the organization what to do, not the other way around.

Who campaign finances the people who want to join this organization? Who hires the irresistable lobbies which dictate the legislation produced by this damn mysterious organization?

Who benefits the most from this organization? Who really controls this organization? Who totally uses this organization you speak of. This organization is totally eat up, dominated.

Think about it, I'm sure you'll come up with the answer.

What organization enables big corporations to even exist as corporations? What organization gives the bankers the monopoly power to print (and overprint) our money? What organization determined that on this side of the imaginary line in the desert there should be one set of economic policies, and on that side, another?

Think about it, I'm sure you'll come up with the answer.

I love that movie!!!

Please enlighten me on what the problem is. Is it brown people wandering around the desert looking for your job (for the past 20 years) and chinese people wandering around china looking for your job? Is that the problem? Or is it our secret reptilian overlords from planet x?

I can't tell what context you're in. Don't be all mysterious about it. Gimme something i can work with already!

I will however go out on a limb to say a problem is that the hilariously bogus insinuation that we need to create 35 million new jobs all of a sudden, but not earlier, is probably being swallowed whole by flag waving morons.


Not sure what you mean by all that, especially the URL bit. Hopefully you made it past the first paragraph or even the URL since you made a comment. It doesn't sound like you did.

If your nation's currency took a total crap on itself like the peso did and the economy was tanked and you could make a living the next country over, I'm pretty sure you'd go do it. Not much to refute there. I've travelled greater distances than this for better work myself.

So therefore if you are in the know about how the peso actually crashed which is different than the link I posted, I would love to hear it.

Lol you beat me to it....

We are, of course, looking for THE Problem...

It is like the They, in They Live.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp_K8prLfso

 It is the Capitalized version of The Problem.

Then again, having been around our southern border and Mexico for a long time, I could seriously discuss it but the above linked to "webofdebt" states it's premises to which facts must be bent to fit, well, even in the URL...

Big corporations and bankers are problems... but are they the problem?

Holy wow, where have you been? LOL

I must not have met the haters of whom you speak.  I certainly have met haters, from all backgrounds of religion and athiest and don't care, and from all sections of the country and other countries.  The idea that some type of geographic area and some sort of supposedly Christian ideology  brings forth some virulence similar to Al Queda is certainly quite interesting.  Unfortunately, and demonstratably, the major haters of the world are Muslim, and within that large grouping, the minor sect and believers in the writings and additions to the Koran of Sayyid Qutb. 

It's all the big corporations and the bankers that are the problem!

Suuuurrrreeee....

Immigrants, illegal or not it doesn't matter, have been outcompeting US citizens for jobs here for the past 15 years. This article is a bunch of bullshit hype meant for comsumption by the braindead.

Furthermore, the gov has facilitated the outsourcing of entire domestic industries overseas for the past 20 years at the behest of its corporate masters. It's totally criminal.

Here's what caused the Mexican invasion, get enlightened:
http://www.webofdebt.com/excerpts/chapter-22.php

The whole book is a must-read, google for the pdf of it or go buy it.

The U.S. among many other nations is on a road to decline. Get out of USD and in Bitcoin!!! 

I WISH those numbers were true.  They wouldn't even be worth mentioning.  Unfortunately with a population of over 300 million, you are talking at minimum single digit millions and probably double digit.  I'll make it easy, just look at the southern states.  Again doesn't mean everyone, so no one needs to get all defensive.  But this is the sect of the country that started a civil war to preserve slavery, fought against civil rights, fightings against amnesty (immigration) and gay rights, just to name a few.

It's a serious group that has dominated America since its founding and decade after decade, they become smaller and smaller.  And that's the only reason we have a president of color is because they are now dominated by progressives and minorities.  This is an ideological bunch that claims "Christianity" but who's actions produce nothing but separation, division, hatred and bigotry.  

Those are the sad facts and remain the stains on the fabric of America.  The good news is, good will toward one another is slowly winning out.  Now, I'm going to have to excuse myself from this thread because it's not doing me any good, so I'm going back to focus on Bitcoins.  

In a word, Agorism. The black and gray markets can and should supplant the "white" one, for as many goods and services as possible, up to and including "government" services.

I'm certain it did just that, that being a critical function of a black market, which grows in proportion to needs.

But it's not clear how that shows what you advocate.  I have some guesses, but rather than state them, would you like to clarify?

I guess I'm reasonably familiar with that bunch, as best as I can imagine who you may be describing. 

The assertion was this:

the thinking here in the US by some, is that only immigrants with white skin are exceptable and thus "American".  The rest are leaches, takers and criminals and should be deported immediately to preserve the "real America."

Although fundamentalists no doubt differ with you on many, many topics, I do not think any sizable minority of them fit such a description.  Checking into it a bit, I do find a "Christian Identity" estimated at 2000-50,000 members which would fit the first part of the proposition.  Of that a further subgroup might agree with your second assertion.

But what do I know?  Some of us have run into a bad dude or group from time to time, me included.

You're apparently not very familiar with our "redneck", "evangelical" sect of America. Most of whom think like this, are in the baby boomer group. There are no absolutes of course but this is fact. And I didn't specify a political group, so I'm not sure why you injected that.  In the end, it won't matter because as has been proven in the last two presidential elections, they are the minority so, they can only slow progress but progress will come, nonetheless.

I look forward to it.  The way we treat immigrants is a disgrace, given we are a nation of immigrants.  The ultimate hypocrisy.

I don't know anyone and have not read of anyone, however extreme, that believed such a thing, so I can only guess that you totally fabricated it.  You are clearly ignoring the vast prejudice, typically by Democrats, against Irish, Jews, Polacks...all of whom are "white skinned", as you put it.  I guess you're also ignoring the fraction of Hispanics who are "white skinned" but hey, they are an ethnic rather than a so called racial minority.

I really hope you're right.

I'd go so far as to say inevitable.

I'm down for an open society any day of the week.  Funny, I think Bitcoin and crypto currency as a whole, is what will make this possible. 

Exactly. Borders are just imaginary lines, anyway.

Unfortunately the thinking here in the US by some, is that only immigrants with white skin are exceptable and thus "American".  The rest are leaches, takers and criminals and should be deported immediately to preserve the "real America."

Not really - anyone who is willing to save up and reject everything they're used to and quit their $100 per month job in Vietnam (or wherever) and travel half way around the world to start a new life, are exactly the kind of person America needs.
Such people should be welcomed with open arms anywhere.

well sure, when there was a better life and better opportunities here! with the exception of some inhumane conditions in some countries, we're just like the rest of the world now.

Yes we absolutely can.  My apologies if my use of "republican" was offensive.  

EDIT:  As it relates to the OP post, it was a about a Republican politicians statements.  But I will be more mindful in making that clear.

Isn't America a country of immigrants?
Why are so many American immigrants against immigration?
It seems to have worked ok so far.
Were your grandparents all post graduates with  Phds?
- or just people looking for a better life and better opportunities who then gave you the life you have now?

I think we're arguing at cross purposes here. For an example of what I am actually advocating, look at how the black market in Russia saved many people from starving in the '90's.

But history shows that when a currency fails, one or several substitutes simply move into place.  What you are doing or what we are "getting to" is not relevant.  In fact, you err in thinking that a peaceful and gradual transition can be engineered or would even be a good thing, and you likely don't envision accurately the nature of "a collapse."  For reference check Russia, 1990; Argentina, 2000.  These transitions occur over certain timeframes and with certain governmental interventions (which may be helpful or more commonly, highly destructive).

Perhaps, then, we could come to the agreement that one should avoid listening to politicians, rather than specifying one political label or another.

I'm not a Democrat and we were talking about economic decisions.  That said, thanks for conceding which party did get the economics right, which was my point from the start.  I'm not listening to repubs on economics because they are always wrong based on previously stated evidence.  And I do mean legislators and not necessarily Joe Smoe Republican.  Lot of brilliant republican minds in finance.  They just don't seem to work in Congress.   

Tsk... you left the blinders on.

Very well, I'll state my position clearly and without mincing words.

We're fucked whatever we do. The only hope is to build an alternative economy not dependent on the dollar. That economy is not yet ready. We're getting there, but it's not ready yet. So, when asked if I would like the economic apocalypse to happen today, or sometime in the future, I will chose "sometime in the future," in order to give us the time to finish developing that alternative economy. With luck, we may even be able to keep the chaos at bay when it finally does happen.

Sure.  Generally speaking, putting a problem off makes it worse when it's finally faced up to.  In economics, there is a theory that a an ec0nomic crisis can be outrun by printing money, simply by having growth at a higher rate than the inflation.  With the events of the last four years, both the evidence and simple math will show that's neither been the case nor is going to be the case.  In the past, though, this has been done successfully for limited periods of time.

I'd suggest a different approach to understanding the problem.  Not starting with a premise that the money printing was done because it was "good for us", that was all propaganda and lies.  Instead, start by asking "what's good about the printing for those who are doing the printing?"

From that point of view, the answer is quite simple.  By printing and keeping interest rates near zero, the US government pays very little interest on it's debt.  It's now refinanced short term treasuries into long term, locking in those low rates.  Of course, low rates and the FED buying all the papers means only that the party continues until average world interest rates exceed those of the US and capital flight begins.

Well, then.  We make out as long as there are big crises "outside" in Europe, Iceland, Greece, Cyprus, Argentina, etc, because the focal point of the media is pointed somewhere else.

Consider this - The stagflation created by the above policies does not allow for business or jobs expansion, because it is predicated upon low velocity of money.  High employment has in the past mean high inflation, and so it does now.  Thus the very basis of the argument for the stimulus (although perhaps well intentioned at the time of the first or second one) is now false.

You'r stuck between a rock and a hard point.

I think you misunderstand my position somewhat.

Reexamine my last post, without the blinders.

Ha, yes I do understand the spin made to rationalize the printing.  And since austerity would mean the party stopped, CLEARLY IT "LESS GOOD".

Because, hey...

You know that partying, that's good.

Lots of countries, my friend, have gone down this path, and the results of their decisions are out in the open to study.  The general theme is the "hollowing out of the middle class", which may be roughly understood is they steal everything you got, then toss you out on the road.

But hey.

For now, how about those drinks?

Well, given the choice of kicking the can down the road again or strangling the economy... I'll take kicking the can down the road. Neither plan was good, but I think it's pretty clear that austerity would have been "less good."

There's no easy way out of this hole that the two sides, working together, have dug us into. The only thing we can really hope to achieve is lessening the impact by creating a new economy within the shell of the old... and the longer they kick the can, the longer we have to get that done.

Fascinating!  Yes, printing the money will keep the booze flowing and the band playing for a bit longer!  Print!  Print!  Print, I say!  And stick with the party line!  A bit of a chore, yes, but by ignoring problems, it can be done!  And then back to the party!  Print!

Good, you've picked an issue which the democrats got right. Would you like me to list the ones they get wrong?

Picking a "party line," and sticking to it, is probably the worst thing you can possibly do, intellectually. It's shutting off your brain and letting someone else do your thinking for you.

Nobody is going to make your decisions better than you. Listen to you, not the guy in the red tie, nor the guy in the blue tie. Neither one has your best interests at heart.

No, the split is not even close to 50/50.  Anyone paying attention to the first 4 years of the Obama admin can clearly see the debates on austerity vs investment.  Repubs were wrong EVERY SINGLE TIME.  If we had listened to them, we'd be double or triple dip recession by now. Hmm...how's Greece doing?   Instead, we have growth plus a record breaking stock market.  Wall Street should be throwing rose peddles at Obama's feet because they are booming.  

Anyway, I don't want to get anymore political than we already have but I obviously agree to disagree with you.    

http://agorism.info/

Just sayin'

and those people with jobs will need somewhere to eat.

republicans have become such a fucking shit party.

and the libertarians cant win an election.

wtf is a guy to do.

Or we could just let them continue doing the jobs they already do?

Probably wise to stop listening to Democrats, while you're at it. While neither is always wrong, they're both wrong about 1/2 the time.

Exactly!  And they are the jobs that arrogant Americans are "too good" to fill.  My suggestion OP, stop listening to Republicans about anything.  They are ALWAYS wrong.  Just more rhetoric to mask their obvious and continued bigotry.  Nothing to see here.

I have an unpleasant truth to tell you:

Those jobs? They already exist. And they're already filled. By Mexicans.

All this bill would do is make legal what is already happening.

Mexican birthrates have largely dropped to replacement levels, and new American immigrants adjust to American birthrates in 1 generation.

It's actually a problem that's multiplied between countries, because low-skilled immigrants have more children in their new countries than they would otherwise, and those in their home countries have more children to replace them.


Only in the short term.  And it makes indigenous low skill workers worse off.

If you look at the aggregates, sure... But that's also ignoring the fact that the addition of the low skill population makes both the high skill workers better off, but the low skill workers will be better off than they were from where they came from (if it's truly because of economic opportunity, which it is in this case.)

Your entire post was predicated on the premise that aggregate measures of a single country accurately reflect the real income mobility of the members of the population, so it's not just the quote that I took from you here. The premise is faulty, and your argument just doesn't stand.

Yes, we can simple add drug violence gone rampant and no proper economic action to the US!

Fixed!!!!

 

Granted, in a steady state of technology and a well populated territory, LOW SKILL population leads to lower standards of living and depleted resources.


This is why sensible countries have an education requirement for immigration, i.e. post secondary and with focus on understaffed sectors.


We do not want to be another England.  


The 'babies born' argument neglects to take in to account the spectrum of socio-economic backgrounds of the parents.  Which does play a part in the economics.  


30 million LOW SKILLED immigrants is a very small economic impact.  Don't believe me?  Visit an immigrant ghetto.  Liquor stores, pawn shops, off-brand grocery stores, and ethnic food markets.  No Best Buy, Starbucks, etc.


While we are at it - why don't we raise the cost of education and lower the wages.  Makes total sense.  


A slew of poor parents and their poor children really doesn't promise progress.  Just a problem transferred between countries.


And, while I'm at it, I do believe in population control.  More people does not always a better society make.

Mexico, the place with drug violence gone rampant and a state that doesn't allow proper economic action to take place?

You have to look at many factors that are involved in the issue before making a straight comparison.

Sure, just like it has in Mexico...

That's pretty much all politics and no economics.

The division of labor, coupled with the massive increase in productivity (both demanded and supplied) will create all the jobs needed.

If you want to see the fallacy a little more clearly, replace "immigrants" with "babies born" and take a look at history to see how economies always adapt to changes in population. On top of that, take a look at where the jobs are needed and how it actually helps to free up workers to be put into more productive, more specialized fields.

http://cnsnews.com/blog/joe-schoffstall/us-will-need-create-unprecedented-35-million-new-jobs-if-immigration-bill