Trump presidency

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:23 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:
@trpmb6
So what you are saying is, you could bring in immigrants, tax the wealthiest by about $300,000,000,000, give that money to poor Americans, and everyone including the rich and immigrants and poor Americans would still be better off?


That article addresses that somewhat.

Obviously I'm against doing such a thing but I'm not going to address it from that stand point.

Assuming you were to attempt to do such a policy would everyone be better off? No. The only winner in that scenario is the government because they gained a bigger tax base. You'd have to tax the richest more than the gains they received in order to get the money to the poorest population because the government will need the bureaucracy in place to collect and distribute it. (To be fair, a lot of that structure is already in place but you know how the government works - instead of a direct monetary transfer it will be various programs that the government *thinks* the population needs in the form of various assistances - housing assistance - work training programs - higher education etc. Meanwhile, they probably would have rather had the cash they could have had if immigration would have just been curbed.)

The bigger tax base is actually one aspect of immigration I can support - increasing our tax base would allow us to lower taxes on everyone - theoretically - and we DO need to be able to supplement parts of our work force. I'm not saying lock the borders and don't let anyone in. I'm saying our immigration policy should be driven by the economic interests of the native population first. Yes we should be a benevolent country and take care of those with the greatest needs - refugees and asylum seekers etc. But we need to make sure we balance all the numbers. Take in 80,000 refugees this year, then only let in 20,000 non refugee, non asylum seeking immigrants along with them. If refugee numbers drop to 20,000 the next year, increase the remaining numbers to 80,000. As long as it is balanced. (those numbers being hypotheticals)

The numbers you let in each year would vary based on economic conditions. Have it trigger based on GDP and wage inflation numbers. If wage growth is stagnant you may even consider dropping your immigration numbers some. You might even consider throwing in other targets that deal with population growth in general such as birth and death rates of native population (btw, I will admit using the phrase "native population" is kind of disingenuous, I'm merely continuing that phrasing from the politico article).
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10156
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:38 pm UTC

My own personal view of immigration is that we should expand the student visa program (seriously, other countries pay us $200,000 to Americanize the richest and most well connected families of the world?!), fix the H1-B visa program including replacing the lotto system with, yes, Trump's proposal of highest bidder, expand the H1-B visa program to include skilled and semi-skilled workers, and allow in more immigrants than we currently are. The ones that are currently here illegally but have never caused trouble should be granted amnesty, but their time as illegal immigrants should not be counted as part of the 7 years needed to become citizens.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3585
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 21, 2018 1:42 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:You'd have to tax the richest more than the gains they received in order to get the money to the poorest population because the government will need the bureaucracy in place to collect and distribute it.

Whereas all the lesser ways of trickle-down don't rely upon one monolithic unified attempt to move money where it's needed but instead loads and loads of micro-attempts, independently set up with no shared experience, no shared aim, no efficiency of scale. And also as each nexus of tax-savings decides for themselves how to redistribute their spare change (perhaps hire a new guy for the HR department to deal with the extra bottom-of-the-pyramid workers hired, perhaps skip both those things and upgrade the executive limo for personal gratification only).

Oh, and you want an increased beaurocracy in place to not collect and fairly redistribute trivial degrees of wealth but instead to stand guard on walls, outside housing blocks, by the doors to cages, etc, soaking up resources that only helps the poor if the poor now become your Guard Class.


There are arguments against "pure, unjustified welfare" (although GMI is a thing that serious people have been seriously thinking about, however much an anathema that might be to your worldview), but a government like a woman has to big in all the right places! Insist upon that Size 0 Supermodel version of government and you might be disspointed at how it tends to the home and whether it can even raise the next generation.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:03 pm UTC

Yes I am grossly simplifying it.

Economics and Immigration are intrinsically linked. Impact to either side will influence the other.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

moiraemachy
Posts: 190
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2012 9:47 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby moiraemachy » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:08 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Even if you are a shithead who cares about money more than people, the economic cost of immigration is less than criminally prosecuting and indefinitely detaining everyone who tries to enter the country.
Only if you assume that not treating them horribly won't increase the number of immigrants significantly.


I tend to think of American immigration policy as being fundamentally hypocritical, but effective considering the real goals of the parties involved (the disconnect between rhetoric and action makes sense in international politics, where people make decisions about dealing with foreigners who can't vote). Americans (here I mean the aggregate of how Americans vote on this topic) are very much okay with immigrants as long as they seem healthy, employed and peaceful. However, it is hard, costly and controversial to make legal provisions to gauge these things - you'd have to have laws explicitly treating immigrants as lesser citizens who can be deported when suspect of wrongdoing - so it's better to just make them all illegal and enforce selectively. Then you get to pretend there is due process.

Asylum seekers, on the other hand, tend to be bad immigrants overall, but it's bad politics to turn them away. So just make the process very bureaucratic to filter the poor and illiterate. And if someone is so desperate they go across the border illegally... then you kick them out silently unless it might blow up in your face.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:26 pm UTC

Quercus wrote:Yes, clearly that's true in practice, however I'm talking about the ethical foundations of the people talking here. I suspect that several of us don't give the the idea and practice of nationhood any moral weight in their thinking at all. I know that's true of me. Practically, nations are what we have to work with, at least for the moment, but it's not at all clear to me that the US (or UK, lest I be accused of having no skin in the game) should always prioritise it's own interests at the expense of people who are not citizens.


Tl;Dr: I think some people in this thread are arguing from explicitly anti-nationalist positions, which helps explain why we are entirely unpersuaded by arguments that appeal to the national interest of the United States.


For morals to be useful, I think they have to work in the real world. At least some degree of pragmatism, I think. I mean, it's fine to be anti-nationalist in theory, but if your morality doesn't work in a world with nation-states, I'm not sure how useful it is?

Sure, one can say that we ought to simply ignore the national interest, but if we do, and everyone else does not, significant problems crop up. Other nation states are advantaged by offloading problems on us. This resulting state of affairs doesn't seem morally desirable.

Also, I suspect that our current situation with regards to immigration is not at a pareto optimum with respect to economics and morality. We can probably find improvements without requiring equal tradeoffs. So, I think both discussions are valid, regardless of if one takes a nationalist position or not.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:36 pm UTC

If morality is incompatible with the state, then the state is immoral and should change.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6459
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby sardia » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:39 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Yes I am grossly simplifying it.

Economics and Immigration are intrinsically linked. Impact to either side will influence the other.

Your immigration to refugee calculation reminds me of the "should you get a mortgage"calculators pre 2008 financial crisis. Everyone assumed that home values can only go up. In this case, why is everyone assumes the number of legal immigrants should go down? It's very possible that the number of immigrants needs to go up. Build (or more practically an expert builds) a model of assumptions, and see how many immigrants you might need. For example, why should a high value student count against the limit on immigration? Seems crazy to think you could have too many rich educated people coming to the US.
Thesh wrote:If morality is incompatible with the state, then the state is immoral and should change.

That's what 2018 is for.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:46 pm UTC

sardia wrote:
trpmb6 wrote:Yes I am grossly simplifying it.

Economics and Immigration are intrinsically linked. Impact to either side will influence the other.

Your immigration to refugee calculation reminds me of the "should you get a mortgage"calculators pre 2008 financial crisis. Everyone assumed that home values can only go up. In this case, why is everyone assumes the number of legal immigrants should go down? It's very possible that the number of immigrants needs to go up. Build (or more practically an expert builds) a model of assumptions, and see how many immigrants you might need. For example, why should a high value student count against the limit on immigration? Seems crazy to think you could have too many rich educated people coming to the US.


A set of quality standards rather than a flat quota makes sense on a number of levels. I'd go for that. Too much money or education has not been much of a problem in the past.

Basically anyone where expected net financial contribution outweighs the expected net burden + immigration costs would be a desirable pick. This could include even low education/low wealth individuals, so long as they are unlikely to consume many public resources.

User avatar
SDK
Posts: 645
Joined: Thu May 22, 2014 7:40 pm UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Trump presidency

Postby SDK » Thu Jun 21, 2018 2:48 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:Assuming you were to attempt to do such a policy would everyone be better off? No. The only winner in that scenario is the government because they gained a bigger tax base.

That doesn't really follow from CU's hypothetical, though. The article said the rich make an extra half-trillion dollars (a tenth of which is actual wealth creation for the economy). CU wants to tax them 60% of that. They'll still gain 40%, so clearly they're winners.

The immigrants are here and working instead of wherever they came from. Presumably they are in a better situation than they would have been, as said in the article. So I guess they're winners too.

And then, even if you're the biggest government cynic ever, clearly they don't need 100% of that extra tax income for bureaucracy. Some of it will make its way to the poor Americans, if that's explicitly the plan. So they're winners too?

All this seems to show that the article you cited is either flawed, or actually shows that immigration is good for the country. Or, can be good for the country with proper tax schemes in place.

trpmb6 wrote:To be fair, a lot of that structure is already in place but you know how the government works - instead of a direct monetary transfer it will be various programs that the government *thinks* the population needs in the form of various assistances - housing assistance - work training programs - higher education etc. Meanwhile, they probably would have rather had the cash they could have had if immigration would have just been curbed.

Would you support this if they instead gave cash, strait-up, no strings attached? I actually think that's a great idea, and the money lost from people taking advantage of the system will certainly be less than the cost of administering these programs. Typically conservatives fight me on this point since they hate the idea of untied money being given to people, but if you're game, then great!
The biggest number (63 quintillion googols in debt)

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9990
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Trump presidency

Postby addams » Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:17 pm UTC

Without the back breaking labor our Brothers and Sisters from the South do,
we will Not be get low priced food at our local stores.

FOX says so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bd0ect-9hBE

CNN says so:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmGXnwK2J4M

Another:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txFne6g5tRw

American reporters will do the work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yg3WFt72RM8

Many are legal:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5qMZbPjnGo
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 3:52 pm UTC

SDK wrote:
Spoiler:
trpmb6 wrote:Assuming you were to attempt to do such a policy would everyone be better off? No. The only winner in that scenario is the government because they gained a bigger tax base.

That doesn't really follow from CU's hypothetical, though. The article said the rich make an extra half-trillion dollars (a tenth of which is actual wealth creation for the economy). CU wants to tax them 60% of that. They'll still gain 40%, so clearly they're winners.

The immigrants are here and working instead of wherever they came from. Presumably they are in a better situation than they would have been, as said in the article. So I guess they're winners too.

And then, even if you're the biggest government cynic ever, clearly they don't need 100% of that extra tax income for bureaucracy. Some of it will make its way to the poor Americans, if that's explicitly the plan. So they're winners too?

All this seems to show that the article you cited is either flawed, or actually shows that immigration is good for the country. Or, can be good for the country with proper tax schemes in place.

trpmb6 wrote:To be fair, a lot of that structure is already in place but you know how the government works - instead of a direct monetary transfer it will be various programs that the government *thinks* the population needs in the form of various assistances - housing assistance - work training programs - higher education etc. Meanwhile, they probably would have rather had the cash they could have had if immigration would have just been curbed.

Would you support this if they instead gave cash, strait-up, no strings attached? I actually think that's a great idea, and the money lost from people taking advantage of the system will certainly be less than the cost of administering these programs. Typically conservatives fight me on this point since they hate the idea of untied money being given to people, but if you're game, then great!


You're still picking winners and choosers no matter what.

My understanding from the article (and maybe I'm wrong on this and I'm missing something here) was that 500 billion dollars is transferred from the poorest natives to the richest natives. I don't see how transferring 300 billion back to the poorest natives makes them "whole". It's still less than what could have been. Sure, we're bringing the immigrants up.

What I think would help is a nice chart of percent changes in income.

But at the end of the day I'm opposed to the government "redistributing" wealth (call it what you want). I'd rather we find a balanced approach that results in wage growth for our poorest - that doesn't require the government picking and choosing winners and losers.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:13 pm UTC

How about a federally-mandated minimum $20/hr, then?
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Mutex
Posts: 1368
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Mutex » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:21 pm UTC

Wait, how would changing the tax code to offset the effects of immigration be choosing winners and losers? It's just undoing the damage of something else.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 4:25 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:How about a federally-mandated minimum $20/hr, then?


It's always seemed to me that a policy of a high minimum wage, and a policy allowing immigration of a low wage workforce are fundamentally opposed.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1819
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:28 pm UTC

in other news trump wants to do away with the department of education and just have combined departmentfor "education and the workforce"
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6238
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Thesh » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:30 pm UTC

Woohoo! We can finally have the country we always wanted: teaching people just enough so that they can work for a corporation, but not so much that they are a threat to the wealth of the owners. Maximize the profit to cost of education ratio!
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1819
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:37 pm UTC

yup i mean it's fine for rich people who can buy whatever éducation they want but everyone else can get rekt
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:41 pm UTC

I think it is kind of a cop out to be honest. He said he was going to completely get rid of the department of education (typical conservative view point is that educashun should be handled at the most local level possible). So combining it with the department of labor is kind of a way to say you're doing away with it - to make his supporters happy - but still keep all the policies and various things the department of education currently does in place.

I see this as a change in name only - which imo is a failure of what he promised.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26453
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby gmalivuk » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:43 pm UTC

Nah, the typical conservative viewpoint is that it should be handled at the most conservative level possible. If a city wants educational policy that's farther to the left than the state government, those same "small government" types will happily pass laws restricting what local jurisdictions can do.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 5:54 pm UTC

That's something that happens on the left and right.

As a conservative, I want as many things as possible handled as local as possible.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
natraj
Posts: 1819
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 10:13 pm UTC
Location: away from Omelas

Re: Trump presidency

Postby natraj » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:02 pm UTC

the left doesn't pretend that small gouvernement is a central tenet of their beliefs. the right constantly talks like they care about small government while actively working to overturn local policies they dislike in favor of forcing local governance to abide by the whims of conservative federal policies.

(as a dc resident this hurts me personally quite often; dc is an extremely liberal city and we, it's residents, often vote for extremely liberal city government and policies which are then undermined by conservative politicians who tout "Small government" to their base in other states while actively fucking over our right to govern ourselves)
You want to know the future, love? Then wait:
I'll answer your impatient questions. Still --
They'll call it chance, or luck, or call it Fate,
The cards and stars that tumble as they will.

pronouns: they or he

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:04 pm UTC

So you're saying you'd be in favor of smaller government then...
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
freezeblade
Posts: 1271
Joined: Fri Aug 24, 2012 5:11 pm UTC
Location: Oakland

Re: Trump presidency

Postby freezeblade » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:07 pm UTC

:roll:
Belial wrote:I am not even in the same country code as "the mood for this shit."

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:09 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Nah, the typical conservative viewpoint is that it should be handled at the most conservative level possible. If a city wants educational policy that's farther to the left than the state government, those same "small government" types will happily pass laws restricting what local jurisdictions can do.


Small government is mostly a convenient hobby horse for the Republicans, sure. They like it right up until it contradicts their beliefs. If asked to choose between a federal abortion ban and local governments deciding, I suspect they'd mostly choose the former.

The small government folks are mostly the libertarian/libertarian influenced folks. They don't hold a ton of pull in the party. The traditional republican pro-business wing and religious sector are both comfortable with a great deal more authoritarianism.

User avatar
trpmb6
Posts: 425
Joined: Tue Jul 09, 2013 6:27 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby trpmb6 » Thu Jun 21, 2018 6:16 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The small government folks are mostly the libertarian/libertarian influenced folks. They don't hold a ton of pull in the party. The traditional republican pro-business wing and religious sector are both comfortable with a great deal more authoritarianism.


I rate this as mostly true.

As i've noted before I'm a weird right wing nut job. I apply my views about small government (read as: keep government out of my life) to my views on same sex marriage and other LGBTQ type issues. As far as I'm concerned the government should have no role in such issues - other than to simply recognize a contract that is established between two parties. There are other things, but this is one of the 'easier' to convey ones.
(terran/protoss/zerg/fascist fuck)

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10156
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:44 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
Sableagle wrote:How about a federally-mandated minimum $20/hr, then?


It's always seemed to me that a policy of a high minimum wage, and a policy allowing immigration of a low wage workforce are fundamentally opposed.


If you have a high and enforced minimum wage as well as labor laws, that "humanely" eliminates illegal immigration as there's no longer a reason to hire immigrant labor over local labor.

Thesh wrote:Woohoo! We can finally have the country we always wanted: teaching people just enough so that they can work for a corporation, but not so much that they are a threat to the wealth of the owners. Maximize the profit to cost of education ratio!


As opposed to the jobs that only exist due to labor laws that don't provide meaningful protection to workers but rather force companies to spend a small fortune hiring otherwise useless HR employees in order to ensure that all those left-wingers who graduated with a degree with "studies" in the name have a job, thus ensuring that those university programs don't die off and the professors can still provide a health dose of propaganda? I can uze hihperbowlee two!
Last edited by CorruptUser on Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:54 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:46 pm UTC

Presuming you kill the safety net, or are fine with them starving in the street when they come here, then realize they can't get a job, I suppose.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10156
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 21, 2018 7:49 pm UTC

The safety net is only for citizens, IIRC.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8222
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:00 pm UTC

A lot of government social plans don't require a person to be documented. For example WIC lets you enroll children born in the US, regardless of the parents' documentation status.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10156
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby CorruptUser » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:01 pm UTC

...in which case, the child is a citizen.

User avatar
Zohar
COMMANDER PORN
Posts: 8222
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 8:45 pm UTC
Location: Denver

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Zohar » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:04 pm UTC

And the parent is not, and still gets benefits.
Mighty Jalapeno: "See, Zohar agrees, and he's nice to people."
SecondTalon: "Still better looking than Jesus."

Not how I say my name

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6489
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Trump presidency

Postby ucim » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:06 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:If you have a high and enforced minimum wage as well as labor laws, that "humanely" eliminates illegal immigration as there's no longer a reason to hire immigrant labor over local labor.
It would have to be pretty high. Probably like $30/hr. It would have to be higher than Americans are willing to work for (especially after a few days actually in the fields), because otherwise, immigrants would take the minimum wage while Americans would want more (and then complain).

This makes it not so much a minimum wage as a universal wage.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:08 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:The safety net is only for citizens, IIRC.


Well, immigrants eventually become citizens, yes?

In any case, costs can also be incurred by non-citizens. Consider the case of someone who arrives here, but has difficulty finding work, and finds himself both short on money and in ill health. He's likely to end up in an emergency room with an inability to pay. Medicaid may pay for this, but all the same, the individual himself is going to be unable to, so someone else will pick up the bill directly or indirectly.

Open borders and a rough job market might still result in a fair number of arrivals because it's still better than where they are coming from. And hey, if there's a chance at a good job, even if it's long odds, some will take it.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3585
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:16 pm UTC

trpmb6 wrote:That's something that happens on the left and right.

As a conservative, I want as many things as possible handled as local as possible.

(Inefficient and ineffective as that would be… Soaking up more local taxes, assuming that the locality can even afford higher taxes.)

As a conservative, though, you should be opposed to change or innovation. That the government should keep the current homogonised nationwide system. That there should be no localised attempts at social engineering. Unless you're a different particular nuance of conservatism, of which there are too many to reliably list. I suspect that some of your conservatism is actually liberal ("The freedom of worship, the freedom of education, and the freedom of the press are derived the most directly from the freedom to think."), which is amusing.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:32 pm UTC

Soupspoon wrote:As a conservative, though, you should be opposed to change or innovation.


I don't think this accurately describes the right/left divide in the US.

Many popular "conservative" things are not the status quo, and may never have been the status quo.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3585
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Soupspoon » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:47 pm UTC

Indeed. "As a conservative…" is meaningless and depends on establishing a shared reference to which subset of self-claimed conservatism is meant from across the range of (often incompatible) variants.

"As a Conservative…" might be useful over here (assuming the tories aren't currently split on the subject you're referencing) but is still often a meandering through (ironically) moving goalposts over time.

It was just the futility of the label that struck me. Much like how "liberal" is an insult to some, and there are those who would claim to be "democratic" but distance themselves from anything "Democratic". Whatever that suggests about the respective people.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:51 pm UTC

In the US, at least, "conservative" and "liberal" largely map to Republican and Democrat, but indicate that while a person may end up voting for them frequently and share a preponderance of ideological goals with them, they probably disagree with the party just enough to seek out another label, while not being interesting in switching party.

It's probably somewhat different with a multi-party system. Unfortunately, ours are small enough to be usually ignored, so the ideological right/left divide is largely driven by the parties themselves.

User avatar
Sableagle
Ormurinn's Alt
Posts: 1876
Joined: Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:26 pm UTC
Location: The wrong side of the mirror
Contact:

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Sableagle » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:38 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Presuming you kill the safety net, or are fine with them starving in the street when they come here, then realize they can't get a job, I suppose.

I've been to the pub. My typing should therefore be awesome or atrocious. Anyway, while there I got talking to some people who knew London rather well. One of them was talking about the people begging in the streets there, and rather casually mentioned that some of them are genuine: "They're really homeless or they've been in the Army." Just like that, she implied that veterans can't cope in civilian society, and everyone accepted that as if it was just an accurate protrayal of the way the world is, and the conversation moved on. Nobody commented on it until they'd gone and I mentioned it to the barman.

It's not quite immigration, but in a sense they are coming from another country, even if they were born here.
Oh, Willie McBride, it was all done in vain.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11361
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Trump presidency

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jun 21, 2018 10:48 pm UTC

Sableagle wrote:It's not quite immigration, but in a sense they are coming from another country, even if they were born here.


It's a commonly said thing. There's a risk factor, but it's largely due to PTSD and traumatic brain injury, not having been in another country as such. At least, in the US anyways. Numbers may be somewhat different in the UK.

It's also not *stupidly* high in the US. Most of us veterans are fine. Probably says something about our garbage VA and mental health system, but I don't know that it's really akin to immigration.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: asoban, CorruptUser, elasto, sardia and 12 guests