U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Should PR become a state?
Yes 64 44.44%
No 61 42.36%
Maybe 19 13.19%
Voters: 144. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-09-2015, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Howard County, Maryland
5,654 posts, read 3,638,226 times
Reputation: 16558

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
When people make the minimum-wage kills jobs argument, it would have much more potency if you could point to a state full of poorer people who it would very likely do so. Second, inflation is constantly lowering the minimum wage so it will continue to get lower, and hopefully low enough so that Puerto Rican's can all find jobs.

I don't wish to sound argumentative, but to me it sounds as those these two statements are contradictory. Your second sentence is saying that lowering the "real" (i.e. inflation-adjusted) minimum wage would lead to increased employment in Puerto Rico, and presumably elsewhere as well. Isn't that the same as "mak[ing] the minimum-wage kills jobs argument"?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
Make it easy for the beauties.

I can see the sign at the customs inspection station now: "EXPRESS ENTRY LINE FOR PUERTO RICAN BEAUTIES. NO FAT CHICKS!"


Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
Diversity usually is a killer for welfare states. Why? Because people don't like helping others as much as they purport to in politics. Whenever a politician stands up and says, "We need to help people!" People say (or think to themselves), "Which people? Not my kind! My kind gives all of the stuff! It's their kind that's getting all of the stuff! We always have to pay for their stuff!" And so people generally don't want to give to outsiders.

Your argument certainly seems plausible. I'd be curious to see the result of real-world comparisons between diverse and homogeneous countries regarding their relative levels of welfare.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Logicist027 View Post
Ever notice that even democrats don't like immigration.

That has not been my observation. It seems to me that leftists like immigration (from poorer countries, at any rate) because it's likely to lead to more future Democrat voters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-09-2015, 10:11 AM
 
Location: North Idaho
22,654 posts, read 28,660,433 times
Reputation: 43641
No. Give Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Marshall Islands, American Samoa their independence back.

It's not right to make Puerto Rico a state and to leave the rest of the territories without statehood. Set them all free.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 01:38 PM
 
512 posts, read 376,519 times
Reputation: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by bus man View Post
I don't wish to sound argumentative, but to me it sounds as those these two statements are contradictory. Your second sentence is saying that lowering the "real" (i.e. inflation-adjusted) minimum wage would lead to increased employment in Puerto Rico, and presumably elsewhere as well. Isn't that the same as "mak[ing] the minimum-wage kills jobs argument"?
Yes the statements are the same. I do agree that minimum wage does kill jobs, especially for those who are lower skilled. My only point is that by simply not raising it and adding regulatory costs, it simply will fall in inflation-adjusted terms.




Quote:
Your argument certainly seems plausible. I'd be curious to see the result of real-world comparisons between diverse and homogeneous countries regarding their relative levels of welfare.
Just look at the immigration crisis that is happening in Europe right now. People are complaining because the immigrants are getting too much welfare. No country likes poor people, don't be fooled. Being poor is one of the 3 great sins of immigrants along with having a different religion and not speaking the language.


Quote:
That has not been my observation. It seems to me that leftists like immigration (from poorer countries, at any rate) because it's likely to lead to more future Democrat voters.
Don't be fooled by the Democratic leadership and the average democratic voter. Why didn't the Obama administration do anything about immigration when they controlled both the house and the Senate? Because it is a quagmire for them. Republicans don't like immigrants and are brazen and outspoken about it. Democrats don't like immigration but are quiet about it. They probably would accept a few more immigrants than Republicans, but not very much. Why? It's all about welfare. The unions look at poorer people as competition for jobs, and so the unions (which are on the left) don't like immigration. So enacting more regulation (higher minimum wage) is antithetical to leftists.

This is how it works. Republicans don't want immigrants because they feel that people are getting too much welfare as it is, and with new immigrants they will consume too much welfare. Democrats on the other hand feel as if the country is not giving enough welfare as it is and we cannot give more welfare if immigrants come in and erode the benefits. This is Bernie Sanders exact argument, go look it up.

It's all about poverty, welfare & tribalism. Generally speaking people enjoy giving welfare as long as they can perceive the effect to be large and the group they are helping to be "their kind". However since real-world poverty far outstrips any state's ability to give enough welfare, and immigrants are not "their kind", people don't want any large amount of immigrants. It is seen as unrealistic even by leftists.

I generally favor immigration and closer relationships with other places, even poor ones. In the short-run it would be problematic (look at the Irish in the 1800s). However in the long-run it works as long as the laws don't do something funky. (Look at the Irish now, they have become equal members of our society. No one even cares if you are part-Irish)

I know that I am arguing an uphill battle, but hey, I like people. I know that more integration would benefit all if we just stopped the protectionism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 01:57 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,680 posts, read 8,480,429 times
Reputation: 7034
The major issue with lowering the minimum wage in Puerto Rico, or in any of the US territories for that matter, is simple: why would someone work in Puerto Rico for $5.50 an hour (the suggested rate) when they can work in Florida for $7.25 an hour?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 03:51 PM
 
4,665 posts, read 2,635,451 times
Reputation: 3342
Puerto Rico should vote and decide within the next couple of years. I voted yes, but really am indifferent. Puerto Rico has been part of the US for over a 100 years. They wanted independence the first 50-60 years and the US refused. Now it seems they want statehood and the US should grant it. There was a time to let them go, but that time has passed. The US can't reap all the benefits of a territory then let it go once the benefits run out. Screw the local people both ways, no thanks. Let them decide by a popular vote and end the debate. If they vote for statehood, grant it, if they want independence, grant it. Don't let it be an option to remain a Commonwealth, that's not a fair option for anyone. I don't know if statehood will help their current economy, but independence would hurt a lot. I think we would see a mass exodus of people to the mainland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2015, 11:51 PM
 
512 posts, read 376,519 times
Reputation: 444
Quote:
Originally Posted by WIHS2006 View Post
The major issue with lowering the minimum wage in Puerto Rico, or in any of the US territories for that matter, is simple: why would someone work in Puerto Rico for $5.50 an hour (the suggested rate) when they can work in Florida for $7.25 an hour?
The minimum wage is a federal issue so it will be the same everywhere. There won't be a discrepancy between states unless a state sets their wage higher than the federal. So no one can work legally for $5.50.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2015, 08:13 AM
 
Location: South Jersey
13,356 posts, read 7,012,684 times
Reputation: 4853
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattks View Post
Puerto Rico should vote and decide within the next couple of years. I voted yes, but really am indifferent. Puerto Rico has been part of the US for over a 100 years. They wanted independence the first 50-60 years and the US refused. Now it seems they want statehood and the US should grant it. There was a time to let them go, but that time has passed. The US can't reap all the benefits of a territory then let it go once the benefits run out. Screw the local people both ways, no thanks. Let them decide by a popular vote and end the debate. If they vote for statehood, grant it, if they want independence, grant it. Don't let it be an option to remain a Commonwealth, that's not a fair option for anyone. I don't know if statehood will help their current economy, but independence would hurt a lot. I think we would see a mass exodus of people to the mainland.
Puerto Rican voters prefer their current status.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2015, 12:57 PM
 
4,665 posts, read 2,635,451 times
Reputation: 3342
Quote:
Originally Posted by snj90 View Post
Puerto Rican voters prefer their current status.
Sure, who wouldn't want federal benefits without all the costs. But the current status isn't a long term plan. Long term they will have to decide, independence or statehood. If given only those two options, I bet the majority of Puerto Ricans will vote for statehood. I don't understand why there is even an option to remain a commonwealth. Are Puerto Rican's content with having no representation or federal voting rights? If Puerto Rico became a state, I'm confident there would be an increase in federal spending on the island.

"Puerto Ricans were asked about their desires in two parts. First, by a 54% to 46% margin, voters rejected their current status as a U.S. commonwealth. In a separate question, 61% chose statehood as the alternative, compared with 33% for the semi-autonomous "sovereign free association" and 6% for outright independence."
Puerto Ricans favor statehood for first time - CNNPolitics.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-10-2015, 09:03 PM
 
Location: On a Long Island in NY
7,680 posts, read 8,480,429 times
Reputation: 7034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mattks View Post
Sure, who wouldn't want federal benefits without all the costs. But the current status isn't a long term plan. Long term they will have to decide, independence or statehood. If given only those two options, I bet the majority of Puerto Ricans will vote for statehood. I don't understand why there is even an option to remain a commonwealth. Are Puerto Rican's content with having no representation or federal voting rights? If Puerto Rico became a state, I'm confident there would be an increase in federal spending on the island.

"Puerto Ricans were asked about their desires in two parts. First, by a 54% to 46% margin, voters rejected their current status as a U.S. commonwealth. In a separate question, 61% chose statehood as the alternative, compared with 33% for the semi-autonomous "sovereign free association" and 6% for outright independence."
Puerto Ricans favor statehood for first time - CNNPolitics.com
The pro-commonwealth party basically supports a "enhanced commonwealth" ("ELA mejorado" in Spanish) that would have all the benefits of statehood while also retaining some benefits of the existing territorial status such as federal corporate tax breaks. It's obviously unconstitutional ... we have states and we have territories but we cannot combine them into one super-status with the best of both options.

There's also alot of concern that if we imposed a statehood vs independence referendum the commonwealth supporters could boycott putting it under 50% turnout. Sure, statehood would get 90-95% of the vote ... but only half the electorate showed up. Believe me, as a statehood supporter I would love to pit statehood vs the least popular option and win by a massive landslide but it would certainly raise some objections. SCOTUS could potentially invalidate the results based on the turnout issue.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-11-2015, 04:43 AM
 
Location: Eindhoven, Netherlands
10,422 posts, read 12,406,700 times
Reputation: 4851
Would you Americans want to add the Netherlands as a state to your great country?
Just tired of visa rules, high COL and i want English as my first language.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top