U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
 [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)
 
Old 10-30-2012, 06:07 AM
 
31,463 posts, read 14,559,147 times
Reputation: 8347

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by malamute View Post
Then essentially you admit we can't have these open borders -- not until we eliminate the welfare system and that's not going to happen any time soon. So currently we have a welfare state and open-immigration where anyone can come here, give birth, and live happily ever after on government handouts. Welfare is the only reason we have the huge immigration rates we currently suffer -- for one, too many Americans can chose not to work for a living, and too many immigrants can make the same choice.

Countries by nature are protectionist. All countries have borders and immigration laws. Otherwise we have no countries.

In a natural situation, wages would be set by the laws of supply and demand. With a limited supply of labor, employers offer better wages and/or benefits to attract labor -- but open immigration like we have now disrupts that natural supply and demand by making labor supplies unlimited. A Mexican might gladly work for $5 an hour, but you can bring in Guatemalans who would work for $3 an hour, and if that's more than you want to pay, you can find even cheaper labor -- you could easily find indentured servants who would work for free just to be here where no one is allowed to fail or go without food and health care.
Excellent post!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-30-2012, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Native Floridian, USA
4,896 posts, read 5,863,520 times
Reputation: 6050
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1AngryTaxPayer View Post
No successful long term model includes 50 trillion people and paving every square inch of a Continent.
I am seriously trying to follow, take in the various arguments with an open mind, and form an opinion. The above was what I arrived at......<s>

We are not in Great Debates are we ? If so, my post is not cerebral enough....lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-30-2012, 08:44 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
But you are making an assumption that Friedman is arguing for restrictions to immigration. He is not, nor did he ever advocate restrictions on immigration. His argument is purely based on a limitation of government. When he discusses immigrants and limited government, he argues that without a restriction placed on government, then the people who come to this country who are poor, will tend to demand more benefits for themselves(welfare), and that that will destroy our limited government. Which is true. But it still isn't an argument for strict immigration laws, it is an argument for strict limits to government.
I haven't made any assumption he is arguing against immigration. You obviously hold Friedman in high regards to his one time discussion of immigration from 1999. He was for a limited govt, which is counter intuitive to free immigration. People would bring with them their political ideologies and vote in their interests. You even agree with that. So how is that assumption then by me?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I'm not going to argue your entire condescending post. But I do want to address two points, in which I think you are misrepresenting reality. First is your argument that conservatives have any intention of helping developing nations in any practical way, with my example of China. And secondly, your argument that the poor in this country would be worse off over the long run with libertarian government and open immigration.
Condescending? Yea, maybe, you simply keep repeating the same assumptions without actually addressing the questions I pose.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Had the entire world had high restrictive tariffs over the last 50 years. Where would China be today? Most of the goods produced in China today are exported. Without the United States and other developed nations, China would have no market for its goods, it would never have had the capital it needed to develop itself. It would probably still be a 3rd-world country, and we would hardly speak its name.
I'm sure their peasants don't mind, or their indentured servants.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If you go back to the case of China. What China did was allow huge foreign investment in its market. It allowed many foreigners to live in China, which created huge investments in real estate, and the real estate values in many major cities in China went up substantially. In a very real sense, what allowed China to develop so rapidly, was that it allowed foreigners to come in and develop China, in exchange for utilizing cheap Chinese labor. Had Chinese labor not been cheap, then China never would have developed.
Huge foreign investment? Are you sure its not that China came here and invested, purchased companies and then relocated them back to China? Look into China's FDI's into the US.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
So even if you believe that you want to help other nations develop. I would insist, that you are completely going about it the wrong way. And you must always separate good intentions from good results. In my view, the policies that most Americans support, are helping to keep the vast majority of the world in the state it is in.
As you state; In your view.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Secondly, the argument that through worldwide libertarianism and open immigration you would see an overall drop in wages of the poor in this country, while the cost of living stays the same or goes up, is simply wrong.
You are assuming to much about the COL going down due to more workers. You are still limited by materials that are not infinite. Demand for everything would increase, if productivity can not keep up or catch up then prices increase. Stop making claims as factual when they are nothing more than theory based assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
First, lets take open immigration out for a minute and just discuss libertarianism. If the government took away all housing regulations, would the price of housing go up or down? Milton Friedman argues that without regulation housing would be considerably cheaper than it already is, and for the poorest people in this country, the housing and the kinds of environments where the housing is located, would be drastically improved by removing government regulations. And I agree.
"Roofs or Ceilings" from 1946? Really? Rent control was what he was discussing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
That basic idea of government can be applied not only to housing, but everything. The reality is, without the governments constant meddling, the cost of living for the average person in this country would go down not up. Nothing the government does makes anything cheaper in the broader picture. So nothing the government does lowers the cost of living. But it is nearly impossible to explain that to anyone.
I agree there are things that the Govt tries to do to help certain classes that actually end up costing them, your examples are incorrect.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
So to the charge that the cost of living would stay the same, or rise as a result of open immigration. It would be interesting for you to explain why that would be true. Because in order for it to be true, you would have to argue that the cost of goods and services would stay the same or go up. But that simply isn't the case. With open-immigration, you would see a lowering of average wages, which necessarily means a decline in the cost of goods and services. And so yes, someone might take a wage cut, but a wage cut is not the same as losing buying power. Nor is a pay increase the same as an increase in buying power. If I moved to Manhattan tomorrow, and made 50% more money than I currently do, my buying power would be less than it is right now. And thus my standard of living would be less than it is right now.
I have explained it rather simply, your entire argument is all based on assumptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
In order for the poor to be worse off from open-immigration. You would basically need to argue that the average amount of goods and services available to the poor would be less than they have now. To do that, you basically have to explain that the amount of food available per person will go down as a result of open immigration. That the amount of housing per person will go down as a result of open immigration. That the availability of electricity will be less, or the cost of electricity and other utilities will go up as a result of open immigration.
The issue is about COL not about goods and services, nice attempt at changing the scenario. Food will go down, prices will increase for the same until more food can be acquired. Simple supply and demand, the market would have to keep up or be ahead of the population growth in order for your assumptions to pan out. As it stands right now, food production can't keep up with today's population, what makes you think it will catch-up or surpass it in the near future?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I do agree, that if these policies were enacted tomorrow, that for a short period of time. You would see a significant drop in wages, and a potential rise in the price of certain items that relate directly to demand. But you would see a significant drop in the prices of practically everything.

But over the long term, you would see a steadying off of wages, and incredible increases in productivity of the parts of the world which are currently undeveloped. And as a result, I would predict you would actually see more availability of food and energy, and thus cheaper prices, and thus the lowering of the cost of living across the board. I mean, take for instance oil prices. If most of the oil in the world was privately owned instead of being nationalized and controlled by OPEC, how much would a gallon of gas cost right now?
You see, you answered my question, yet you assume over the long term things will catch up or surpass.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I mean, if you are arguing that over the long term that immigration would be harmful. Then you can't possibly be a libertarian. Because the only way for that to be true, would be if you believe the free market cannot produce good results. Or that it necessarily creates bad results for the poor.
No I'm not a Libertarian, I thought I made that pretty clear. I am a Classic Liberal, a big difference from a Libertarian. They are not one in the same but two totally different ideologies. Libertarians took Classic Liberalism and perverted it and claimed it as a new ideology, Libertarianism.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2012, 06:57 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,130 posts, read 4,315,819 times
Reputation: 2636
I'm really getting tired of your replies, because they seem to be more interested in arguing trivial crap and looking for excuses, rather than getting to the actual heart of the matter.

Just answer a few simple questions.

Was Milton Friedman against open-immigration? Or was he against the welfare state? Why would Milton Friedman advocate for open-immigration repeatedly in every discussion he ever had about it, if he really believed it was impossible?

Is China better off today because it was allowed to trade with the United States and other developed countries?

Had the people calling for "fair trade" with China, gotten their way forty years ago, would China be less developed today than it is now, just as developed, or more developed? If we put up heavy tariffs and restrictions on trade with China, then fast-forward 20 years into the future, is China better off because of those restrictions and tariffs or worse off? If we put up heavy restrictions on trade with Guatemala, and enforce our immigration laws even more than we already are, and start deporting the illegals that are here, will that help develop Guatemala? Will that make our cost of living higher or lower than it is today?

Do government regulations on housing cause the price of housing to go up? Do zoning laws cause the price of housing to go up? Do building codes increase the price of housing? Does contractor license requirements cause the cost of housing to go up? Are there any government regulations that cause the price of housing to go down?

Does government involvement in energy(gas/oil/coal/etc) cause the price of energy to down or go up? Does the existence of OPEC cause the price of oil and gas to go up or down?

If this country was to implement libertarian policy positions tonight, would the cost of living for the average American go up or down? Do the illegal immigrants who are in this country right now, increase the average cost of goods and services or decrease them? Would we be better off if we rounded up all the illegal immigrants right now and deported them? Why is there no real effort whatsoever to deport these illegal immigrants? What would happen to housing values if you were to deport all the illegal immigrants tomorrow?


If the entire world implemented basically the Milton Friedman free-market open-immigration plan, would the world overall, develop more quickly than it is now, or more slowly? Would the number of malnourished people in the world go down or up? Would the cost of energy go down or up?

In 1950, there were 150 million Americans. In 1980 there were 226 million Americans. In 2000 there were 282 million Americans. If you compare apples to apples, was the cost of living comparatively higher in 1950, 1980, or 2000? If the population of the United States had not grown from 1950 to 2000, and stayed at just 150 million, with zero immigration. Would we be better off today or worse off? Would the cost of living be higher, lower, or the same as it is today? Would our military be as large as it is today? Would we have as many roads as we have today? What about the internet, and cell phones, how might they be affected by a smaller population?

Currently the United States has a population of about 314 million, and a population density of 89 persons per square mile. By 2050, the population of this country is projected to be about 450 million, meaning the population density should be around 126 persons per square mile. The UK currently has a population density of 663 persons per square mile. Japan has 875, and Hong Kong 16,711. The United States has one of the lowest population densities in the entire world. In fact, the population density of even Mexico is 148 persons per square mile.

List of sovereign states and dependent territories by population density - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lets look a particular country, Hong Kong, which has long been a sort of darling for libertarian ideology... Is the cost of living higher in Hong Kong than the United States or lower than in the United States? Does the average person from Hong Kong have more buying power or less buying power than the average American compared to their average income?

The per-capita income of Hong Kong is $34,259, but its purchasing power is $49,417, compared to just $48,328 for the United States. So in a real sense, Hong Kong is richer than the United States, even though they have wages 50% less.

List of countries by GDP (nominal) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When we look into the future. When adjusted for inflation, will the cost for the same amount of food be more than it is today, or less? Will the cost of housing be a larger fraction of the average income or a smaller fraction? When adjusted for inflation, will the average car be more expensive to buy or less expensive in 2050?



The only real issues anyone should concern themselves with in regards to population growth, is food, water, and energy. But, I'm simply not concerned about any of them, and neither should you.

If you could go back in time, before industrialization, the world population was about one billion. If you could have estimated then, what you believed the maximum population that the world could sustain. I highly doubt that you could have imagined 7 billion people, nor would you have thought it was even possible.

If we look into the future, any projections for future population growth are always based on the technology we currently have.

I always find it peculiar, that the types of people that are so interested in curing world hunger, and limiting population growth, are also the same people fighting against things like crop hybrids and genetically modified organisms. When they obsess about water, they fail to realize that the vast majority of the water we use now is effectively wasted. We aren't talking about drinking water here, we are talking about water people use for their lawns, it is water that goes down our toilets. I remember when I was living in Tampa they were basically in a drought, and the city was putting restrictions on watering your lawn, because the river was so low. And these rich people were complaining because their expensive manicured lawns and landscaping was dying. Its the people living in places like Las Vegas or Phoenix who insist on having lush lawns and landscaping, while failing to recognize the fact that they live in a desert.

In the future, we are going to have crops that are much more resistant to heat and drought, as well as insects and disease. You are going to have crops that grow faster, need less water, grow larger, and will be healthier to eat. We may even see a rise of "vertical farming", which could exponentially increase the amount of food we can produce, while requiring almost no water.

When it comes to energy, let me first link this snippet from another site...

Quote:
In full sun, you can safely assume about 100 watts of solar energy per square foot. If you assume 12 hours of sun per day, this equates to 438,000 watt-hours per square foot per year. Based on 27,878,400 square feet per square mile, sunlight bestows a whopping 12.2 trillion watt-hours per square mile per year.
With these assumptions, figuring out how much solar energy hits the entire planet is relatively simple. 12.2 trillion watt-hours converts to 12,211 gigawatt-hours, and based on 8,760 hours per year, and 197 million square miles of earth’s surface (including the oceans), the earth receives about 274 million gigawatt-years of solar energy, which translates to an astonishing 8.2 million “quads” of Btu energy per year.
In case you haven’t heard, a “quad Btu” refers to one quadrillion British Thermal Units of energy, a common term used by energy economists. The entire human race currently uses about 400 quads of energy (in all forms) per year. Put another way, the solar energy hitting the earth exceeds the total energy consumed by humanity by a factor of over 20,000 times.
How Much Solar Energy Hits Earth? | Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Basically, since all the energy we can use has to come from the sun, then the only limitation to human energy consumption, is the amount of energy the sun beams to Earth. And the reality is that, energy is simply not a long-term problem.

If I was to make a projection for what I believed was a hard limitation to human population growth. It simply would not be anywhere near 10 billion, it would be more like 50 billion, or 100 billion, or even more. I mean, for the United States to have the same population density as Japan, would mean the United States would have to have a population of 3.14 billion people. To have the same population density as South Korea, would mean the United States would have 4.6 billion people. To have the same population density as Bangladesh, would mean the United States would have a population of 9.4 billion people. And to have the same population density as Hong Kong, the United States would have a population of 59 billion.

I'm not saying that this country needs more population or less population. What I'm saying is that, you need to stop listening to the fearmongers who constantly talk about overpopulation. What they really want, is to freeze the world in place just like it is, forever. Many of the people who talk about overpopulation think the world is already overpopulated. I've seen these people saying that the world can only sustain a population of less than one billion. And their argument is that "since before industrialization, the world only had a population of less than one billion, and since industrialization relies on fossil fuels, then without fossil fuels the world cannot sustain a population of more than one billion".

But that is utter non-sense, because they are disregarding our ability to create electricity from non-fossil fuels.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2012, 08:43 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I'm really getting tired of your replies, because they seem to be more interested in arguing trivial crap and looking for excuses, rather than getting to the actual heart of the matter.
So my pointing out your inaccuracies and assumptions is "trivial crap"? You don't like it, quit responding, as it has been shown that your Libertarian interpretations are nothing more then utopian assumption.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Just answer a few simple questions.

Was Milton Friedman against open-immigration? Or was he against the welfare state? Why would Milton Friedman advocate for open-immigration repeatedly in every discussion he ever had about it, if he really believed it was impossible?
Friedman didn't argue anything about immigration until 1999 at the age of 87. He was not an immigration expert, only an economist who was wrong more than he was right. He used "free immigration" as an argument for growing the economy and merely said you can't have "free immigration" with the welfare state. You hold him in too high a regard, very few argue his points, namely Caplan and Riley.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Is China better off today because it was allowed to trade with the United States and other developed countries?
It depends on if you simply go by the numbers vs the people and their caste. You seem to be strictly a numbers type of guy, Friedman didn't believe in stats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Had the people calling for "fair trade" with China, gotten their way forty years ago, would China be less developed today than it is now, just as developed, or more developed? If we put up heavy tariffs and restrictions on trade with China, then fast-forward 20 years into the future, is China better off because of those restrictions and tariffs or worse off? If we put up heavy restrictions on trade with Guatemala, and enforce our immigration laws even more than we already are, and start deporting the illegals that are here, will that help develop Guatemala? Will that make our cost of living higher or lower than it is today?
Why would the tariffs need to be "heavy"? You are exaggerating what "fair trade" is. Restrictions would definitely be needed for quality control and forgeries.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Do government regulations on housing cause the price of housing to go up? Do zoning laws cause the price of housing to go up? Do building codes increase the price of housing? Does contractor license requirements cause the cost of housing to go up? Are there any government regulations that cause the price of housing to go down?
A contractors license is merely a license to operate it's a one time cost of around $500 and holds the contractor responsible for his work, a protection for the consumer. I am a licensed contractor. Without any regulation as you would desire, I could sell you a cardboard box attached to a tree and call it a house. Zoning laws don't really increase the cost of a house either. Govt regulations - some do cause the price to increase, some don't, same with building codes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Does government involvement in energy(gas/oil/coal/etc) cause the price of energy to down or go up? Does the existence of OPEC cause the price of oil and gas to go up or down?
Your asking a ? and wanting either a yes or no answer, the answers aren't that simple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If this country was to implement libertarian policy positions tonight, would the cost of living for the average American go up or down? Do the illegal immigrants who are in this country right now, increase the average cost of goods and services or decrease them? Would we be better off if we rounded up all the illegal immigrants right now and deported them? Why is there no real effort whatsoever to deport these illegal immigrants? What would happen to housing values if you were to deport all the illegal immigrants tomorrow?
1) up; 2) increase; 3) I don't believe in rounding them up; 4) They are being deported at the highest rate ever; 5) nothing as we still have an abundance of foreclosures.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
If the entire world implemented basically the Milton Friedman free-market open-immigration plan, would the world overall, develop more quickly than it is now, or more slowly? Would the number of malnourished people in the world go down or up? Would the cost of energy go down or up?
Friedman didn't even know, he assumed may things, the same as you seem to be doing base d on Friedmans claims.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
In 1950, there were 150 million Americans. In 1980 there were 226 million Americans. In 2000 there were 282 million Americans. If you compare apples to apples, was the cost of living comparatively higher in 1950, 1980, or 2000? If the population of the United States had not grown from 1950 to 2000, and stayed at just 150 million, with zero immigration. Would we be better off today or worse off? Would the cost of living be higher, lower, or the same as it is today? Would our military be as large as it is today? Would we have as many roads as we have today? What about the internet, and cell phones, how might they be affected by a smaller population?

Currently the United States has a population of about 314 million, and a population density of 89 persons per square mile. By 2050, the population of this country is projected to be about 450 million, meaning the population density should be around 126 persons per square mile. The UK currently has a population density of 663 persons per square mile. Japan has 875, and Hong Kong 16,711. The United States has one of the lowest population densities in the entire world. In fact, the population density of even Mexico is 148 persons per square mile.
Population density , so lets pave or build the entirety of the US, we don't need any open range, ranches, farms; or do those still exist and we have them only in the middle of the US while the coasts are heavily populated. Increase the population, increase taxes, build infrastructure to support even more that infrastructure can't keep up with now, increase everything, then have issues with waste, etc. We are a "service" jobs and "technology" oriented nation with very little manufacturing (we will need regulation to have manufacturing here so as not to destroy our newly populated environment). The population of low-skilled workers would dramatically increase, while high-skilled people would too, but much slower. Why would high skilled workers come if they have the same govt (Libertarian) in their home nation?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
Lets look a particular country, Hong Kong, which has long been a sort of darling for libertarian ideology... Is the cost of living higher in Hong Kong than the United States or lower than in the United States? Does the average person from Hong Kong have more buying power or less buying power than the average American compared to their average income?

The per-capita income of Hong Kong is $34,259, but its purchasing power is $49,417, compared to just $48,328 for the United States. So in a real sense, Hong Kong is richer than the United States, even though they have wages 50% less.
You area aware that Hong Kong is not a Country right? Currency manipulation doesn't play a role at all.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
The only real issues anyone should concern themselves with in regards to population growth, is food, water, and energy. But, I'm simply not concerned about any of them, and neither should you.
I'm glad I have you to tell me what I should and should not be concerned with.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
In the future, we are going to have crops that are much more resistant to heat and drought, as well as insects and disease. You are going to have crops that grow faster, need less water, grow larger, and will be healthier to eat. We may even see a rise of "vertical farming", which could exponentially increase the amount of food we can produce, while requiring almost no water.
It is possible, in the future. Costs will play a big role in all of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
When it comes to energy, let me first link this snippet from another site...



How Much Solar Energy Hits Earth? | Environmental News, Articles & Information | Global Warming News | EcoWorld

Basically, since all the energy we can use has to come from the sun, then the only limitation to human energy consumption, is the amount of energy the sun beams to Earth. And the reality is that, energy is simply not a long-term problem.
And yet we have solar companies going out of business. What about wind? That is limited too while it also kills off birds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I'm not saying that this country needs more population or less population. What I'm saying is that, you need to stop listening to the fearmongers who constantly talk about overpopulation. What they really want, is to freeze the world in place just like it is, forever. Many of the people who talk about overpopulation think the world is already overpopulated. I've seen these people saying that the world can only sustain a population of less than one billion. And their argument is that "since before industrialization, the world only had a population of less than one billion, and since industrialization relies on fossil fuels, then without fossil fuels the world cannot sustain a population of more than one billion".
I'm pretty sure I can make up my own mind based on my own understandings. I prefer a different approach than you, is all. We have a hard enough time with ourselves and don't need to compound the problems with more without first being able to support more, you seem to worry about that later - always playing catch-up. Thus the difference of opinion between you and I.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
But that is utter non-sense, because they are disregarding our ability to create electricity from non-fossil fuels.
They are not disregarding anything, they simply question it and its ability to include its development. I believe every new home built should have solar panel roof tiles (but that would be govt regulation in the end and increase the costs of the house), but what about buildings, where will their solar panels go? How much open space do we give to solar farms? What about the costs of maintaining those panels from dust and rain? They produce less or not at all when covered in both. Wind was also an up and coming power source, but where do we put all these turbines? How much open space is needed for wind farms? I'm all for alternative energy, but right now it is limited and will remain that way until the develop much further, that could take years to decades or longer as it has already been how many years since its first use?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2012, 08:55 AM
NCN
 
Location: NC/SC Border Patrol
21,136 posts, read 21,121,261 times
Reputation: 23163
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz View Post
I went to Dallas last weekend, stopped in at my uncles house. He is married to a woman from Guatemala, really sweet lady.

Anyway, I ask her about Guatemala a lot when I'm there. She has mixed opinions about Guatemala, obviously she is from there, and has family there. So she holds a certain amount of nostalgia and bias for the place of her birth, but gets a little frustrated sometimes by the relative state of society there.

She wishes her family could come to the United States, but Guatemala is one of the poorer countries in the Americas, so it is nearly impossible to legally immigrate to the United States from there.

So I asked her what she thought should be done about immigration, which might enable her family to come to the United States. Well, she basically replied that they should just be able to move to the United States. She proclaimed that her family members were good/hard-working people.

So I replied, that is all well and good, but everyone believes the same of their relatives. And when we are talking about immigration policy, we have to understand that it must be applied consistently to the entire nation, and to some extent to the entire world, not simply to your family. So then the question is, how might you structure the government of the US and its policies, that would enable basically all families all over the world to be able to move to the United States, without there being any overall negative effects on the quality of life of the people who already live in this country?


Before you reply. Keep in mind, the three largest obstacles to open-immigration, are cultural incompatibilities, crime, and government per-capita spending/welfare.


Keep in mind, this isn't only about immigration policy itself, the real goal is for you to create a new US Government from scratch, which could hypothetically allow everyone in the entire world to move to the US tomorrow(if they wanted to come), which wouldn't destroy our quality of life.

Is it possible, and how would you do it?

PS : Please no partisan politics and attacks. I intend this to be a serious discussion. I don't want to hear the word Republican or Democrat used in a derogatory way. Thanks.
It is not possible. Everybody in the world cannot live in one country. We have immigration rules that need to be followed. The problem is that at this time both parties are being lax in following them. The result of this is that the quality of life in the United States is getting worse. The result is that some areas of the USA are turning into the appearance of a third world country and the government is the only thing that can fix this. Instead they seem to be preventing its getting fixed.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 08:30 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,130 posts, read 4,315,819 times
Reputation: 2636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Friedman didn't argue anything about immigration until 1999 at the age of 87. He was not an immigration expert, only an economist who was wrong more than he was right. He used "free immigration" as an argument for growing the economy and merely said you can't have "free immigration" with the welfare state. You hold him in too high a regard, very few argue his points, namely Caplan and Riley.
Look, in the Free to Choose video that I linked in this very thread, he was for open immigration. And that was in something like 1978.


Milton Friedman - Illegal Immigration - PT 1 - YouTube

Milton Friedman - Illegal Immigration - PT 2 - YouTube

One of his largest complaints is that, had we had the same immigration laws in the past that we have today, his family wouldn't have ever come to the United States, and thus he would still be living in Eastern Europe(at the time under the Soviet Union).

And I'm sure that that is the case for most Americans. I know that some of my ancestors were poor low-skilled Catholics fleeing Ireland during the potato famine. And if the immigration laws were the same then as they are now, they wouldn't have been allowed to come to this country.

Quote:
Why would the tariffs need to be "heavy"? You are exaggerating what "fair trade" is. Restrictions would definitely be needed for quality control and forgeries.
The concept of fair trade is that, tariffs need to be placed at a level which allows domestic producers to compete with foreign producers. If you look at Barack Obama raising the tariff on tires, it had absolutely nothing to do with quality control or forgeries. It had to do with his desire to protect our tire industry from competition, in the name of "saving jobs". It says, if China can produce a tire for $5 a tire at the prevailing wage, and it costs $15 for an American to make a tire, then we slap a $10 tariff on each tire, so that the tires cost basically the same, thus creating a level playing field.

The problem with this is, it makes it practically impossible for a foreign company to sell to the United States. And if a country is trying to develop itself, it needs to be able to export cheap goods, in exchange for the expensive technology and equipment from the developed country.

Quote:
A contractors license is merely a license to operate it's a one time cost of around $500 and holds the contractor responsible for his work, a protection for the consumer. I am a licensed contractor. Without any regulation as you would desire, I could sell you a cardboard box attached to a tree and call it a house. Zoning laws don't really increase the cost of a house either. Govt regulations - some do cause the price to increase, some don't, same with building codes.
It isn't that the license costs a ton of money, its that to get licensed in the first place is very difficult, and so people with licenses charge a lot of money for their work. In almost all areas of the country, an individual can't even do his own work on his own house unless he is licensed and bonded. I would love to add on to the back of my house right now, but to do so I would need to hire licensed contractors to pull the permits and do the work. So something where the materials might cost $5-7k, will be more like $20-30k to hire the contractors and pull all the permits.

If you go to the older areas of my city, you will find tons of vacant lots, that have remained vacant for years and years. I usually go to county tax auctions, and the majority of the tax auctions are for condemned buildings, or lots that are vacant because the house was demolished.

No one wants to buy those properties. Because it would be more expensive to build a new house there than what its worth. And while you are walking around looking at all these empty lots, right next door to them is some Mexican family in a pretty small house that has 10-15 people living in it. Half of them probably already work in construction, and if they didn't need to jump through legal hoops, would love to buy the lot next door for $500(which is typical of what they sell for at auction), and build a house on it for the cost of materials.

There are absolutely no government regulations that lower the cost of housing, its basically impossible. All government regulations make it more difficult and more expensive to build a house. And the system is already heavily abused anyway. When my mother renovated her house, she basically bribed an electrician to let us do the work and he just had to pull the permit. We paid him $1k to pull the permit, the job would have cost about $6k, and the materials were less than $2k. We were happy because we saved $3k by largely bypassing the electrician, but he got $1k for doing effectively nothing of any value.

Quote:
Friedman didn't even know, he assumed may things, the same as you seem to be doing base d on Friedmans claims.
I could care less if Friedman knew for absolute sure one thing or another. I want your opinion. And it isn't even a difficult question to answer.

If the world enacted a libertarian government, and provided for open immigration. Would Africa develop more quickly than it is now?

The answer is so ****ing obviously yes, that there is no reason for me to even ask the question to begin with. I only asked it to pound into your stubborn ass the very purpose of this post to begin with.

And that is that I find it completely ironic that the very policies that immigrants tend to support, are the very policies that make it more difficult to have immigration to begin with. And it is also ironic, that the well-intentional people that want to help developing nations, and feed the hungry, advocate policies that actually make it more difficult for poor countries to develop, and thus indirectly cause people to go hungry.

As I said before, if we had the same government in the past that we do today, most of the people who came as immigrants in the past, wouldn't have been allowed to come here. Because the vast majority of immigrants in the past, were poor and unskilled. Which I bet applies to your ancestors as well.

Quote:
Population density , so lets pave or build the entirety of the US, we don't need any open range, ranches, farms; or do those still exist and we have them only in the middle of the US while the coasts are heavily populated. Increase the population, increase taxes, build infrastructure to support even more that infrastructure can't keep up with now, increase everything, then have issues with waste, etc. We are a "service" jobs and "technology" oriented nation with very little manufacturing (we will need regulation to have manufacturing here so as not to destroy our newly populated environment). The population of low-skilled workers would dramatically increase, while high-skilled people would too, but much slower. Why would high skilled workers come if they have the same govt (Libertarian) in their home nation?
First, if you go back to 1950, when the population was less than half what it is today. You actually had less open space in this country than you do today. The reason is that, there has been a mass exodus of people from the countryside, moving into cities. This pattern is still occurring to this day. Most of the midwest is more sparsely populated today than it was even 10 years ago.

To argue that doubling our population would result in less open space, would be like in 1950 when our population was 150 million, you argued that once we had 300 million people, that we would have less open space. You would have been incorrect then, and you would be incorrect now.

Mapping the 2010 U.S. Census - NYTimes.com

As for land itself, something like 1/3rd of all the land in the entire country is currently owned by the federal government, and most of it isn't allowed to be developed whatsoever. Much of the rest of the land is controlled by the states, who also don't allow development. And some more land is owned privately, in places like eastern Oregon, where there is basically completely empty land for miles and miles.

But as for the population being mostly low-skill immigrants and few highly-skilled immigrants. Lets pretend that that was true. The question is, why does it actually matter?

If there is a demand for high-skilled labor somewhere in the world, then high-skilled labor will find its way there. If there is demand for low-skilled labor somewhere in the world, then low-skilled labor will find its way there. In a libertarian world, there is no need for high-income people to support a social welfare state, so it doesn't truly matter to me whether or not you make $1 million a year or $1,000 a year. Or vice versa.

I mean, why would it?

The truth is, if there was open immigration and libertarian government, people would go to whatever country benefited them the most. The reality is that, with such a system, we may or may not attract many immigrants. If there are no jobs here, they won't come. It is more likely that in a short period of time, there will be massive investment in places like Africa and other countries with large resources, nice weather, and access to the ocean. And thats where the labor migration will go.

I mean, think about it from the perspective of even an African-American living in this country. If you saw a boom in development in Africa, and all of these jobs there, that why wouldn't you see a huge wave of African-Americans moving to Africa? Just like you see a lot of Muslims from Europe repatriating to the middle-east, to places like the UAE.

Quote:
You area aware that Hong Kong is not a Country right? Currency manipulation doesn't play a role at all.
Hong Kong was a protectorate under the United Kingdom, it was recently returned back to China, but it is considered a SAR(special administration united), which basically makes it an autonomous province. It is largely a libertarian state, yet it has the longest life expectancy of anywhere in the world.

Milton Friedman refers to Hong Kong constantly in his speeches about free-market capitalism. As an example of how quickly a country can develop if government gets out of the way. He shows the vast difference in standard of living between China and Hong Kong.


Milton Friedman Describes Hong Kong as an Example of the Free Market System - YouTube

It is generally ranked the most economically free place in the world. It is one of the most tightly packed countries in the world, yet it still population is still growing. Though its population is growing at a much slower rate since China took over in 1997(which never should have been allowed to happen).

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom
World Development Indicators and Global Development Finance - Google Public Data Explorer

Quote:
And yet we have solar companies going out of business. What about wind? That is limited too while it also kills off birds.
The whole bird argument is kind of stupid. Domestic cats kill far more birds every year than wind turbines. Cars kill more birds every year than wind turbines. People shoot and kill more birds every year than wind turbines. We farm and kill more many times more chickens and turkeys every year than wind turbines.


My argument wasn't that solar is a good alternative to oil, in terms of current economics. Oil is effectively stored energy from the sun in a more convenient and more densely packed package. My argument was that, even in the absence of oil, we have plenty of energy. If there was no more oil tomorrow, solar and wind companies would be booming. And since all the investment will turn to those industries, solar power will get cheaper and better.

I remember reading an article talking about the wind resources in this country. And it said something like, if you were to put wind turbines on the great lakes, five miles off the coast, spread a quarter of a mile apart from each other, that it would produce more electricity than the entire world uses. I think I remember something else saying, that if you covered the entire state of Arizona in solar panels, it would produce more electricity than the entire world uses.

And thats based on the current technology with solar panels, which is usually only capable of converting about 15% of the suns energy into electricity.



My point is, if you are worried about population growth because we are going to run out of oil. Then you shouldn't be worried about population growth at all. We are going to run out of oil regardless of if the population grows or not. But oil is simply not a requirement for humanity, nor would we return to the dark ages if tomorrow we ran out of "fossil fuels".

If we had no fossil fuels tomorrow, we would just use renewable energy. We would drive electric cars, and probably use far more mass transit. It would not be the end of the world, nor would it mean that our current population would be too large. Obviously if it happened overnight, it would create a lot of chaos, because our industries rely heavily on oil to operate their machinery. But even then, oil can be created from organic material. So even if we had no oil tomorrow from the ground, we would just create oil to run the machinery we have now, until we shifted production to electric.

It is more efficient to produce energy from fossil fuels than solar or wind, so if we had no oil tomorrow, there would be a significant demand for labor to build and maintain solar panels and wind turbines, and the grid and other infrastructure that would be necessary. Energy prices would go up relative to other goods. But the potential to grow food would not be diminished, nor would the availability of energy itself be diminished. So this would not create a real limitation to human population growth.

What it does do, is shift the percentage of the labor force that is required to produce energy to higher relative numbers, meaning that there is less of a percentage of the labor force to do other activities(such as providing services). Basically, if 5% of the population was required for maintaining our current energy consumption, then it might go up to 7% of the population with renewables. And so whatever that 2% is producing right now that isn't energy, would basically be lost. In a sense, everyone might be 2% poorer, because there would be 2% less total availability of goods and services. If that makes any sense. But what that 2% might be, who knows.

But when we look at the grand scheme of things, a larger population also means a larger total availability of labor. More population basically means more people advancing research and technology. And even the pressure placed on the world by population growth helps to advance technology that helps with sustainability.

Anyway, I'm just saying, I think the worries about overpopulation are seriously exaggerated, and totally misrepresented.

For instance, 40% of the US corn crop goes to making ethanol for cars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-01-2012, 07:12 PM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
Let me pose some questions.

1) All these immigrants in "free migration" based on your Libertarian ideology, will they automatically receive citizenship in the country they migrate to or will they have to apply for citizenship status? Or will there be a One World Nation, world citizenship?

2) Whats keeping Africa from developing now?

3) You seem to be dismissive of many things (to include over generalizing your ideals; and I'm the stubborn ass ), What of prejudices that people have towards one another? (Religion comes to mind) How are people going to assimilate into their newly migrated to country? You are forcing people that can't live in their home country to migrate to survive.

4) Are you talking Hong Kong prior to 1997 when Friedman's video shows, or after? Either way, Hong Kong limited immigration to wealthy and high-skilled workers. The border was enforced prior to and afterwards. Hong Kong seems to be more like the US and its Bill of Rights than anything else. So what is so great about Hong Kong when it isn't and wasn't much different then the US other than they lacked technology of the time?

5) Are you also promoting no corporation regulation, i.e. your house remodel scenario on a larger scale?

6) How do you limit monopolies of companies? Your ideology seems to create classes of people and forces them to move to a country that offers labor for their class, a world caste system if you will.

Last edited by Liquid Reigns; 11-01-2012 at 08:13 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 02:17 AM
 
Location: Midwest City, Oklahoma
7,130 posts, read 4,315,819 times
Reputation: 2636
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liquid Reigns View Post
Let me pose some questions.

1) All these immigrants in "free migration" based on your Libertarian ideology, will they automatically receive citizenship in the country they migrate to or will they have to apply for citizenship status? Or will there be a One World Nation, world citizenship?
The intention of my post was that, I had been talking to my aunt about immigration of her family from Guatemala. And I was attempting to think about how you could create a system that would allow for as much immigration as possible. And after much thinking, I came to the conclusion that the kind of system that best enables free-immigration, is what amounts to the Milton Friedman/libertarian policy of minimal government intervention in both social issues, and economic issues. Especially the removal of all welfare-type programs, or other social spending that isn't absolutely necessary for preventing fraud, coercion, theft, assault, or anything else where there is real direct harm being done.

When I look at the obstacles to immigration in this country, and in all other countries. The objections to open-immigration are almost always based on economic reasons. There are social reasons, such as language/religion and crime. But economic reasons are the largest factors when it comes to immigration by far, and everything else is largely tolerated as long as people feel like economically they are better off.

If you look at protests against immigration in this country. It really comes down to the idea that if immigration increases, that government will need more and more money to pay for a variety of social programs that immigrants will benefit from. Basically, that immigrants will get food stamps, public housing, free healthcare, and other welfare benefits, which will be an increasing burden on American taxpayers.


Anyway, the intent of my post was not to advocate for open-immigration. My intent was actually just a way for me to discuss what I felt was a bit of irony about the whole immigration situation. And that actually came when I asked my aunt what she thought about Ron Paul. I'm obviously a big supporter of Ron Paul, being that I tend to lean more libertarian on most issues. But my aunt felt like Ron Paul was basically a loon, and would not help Hispanics in any way.

Which, I'm not entirely sure how Ron Paul feels about immigration itself. He isn't always very candid about some of his policy positions. But I thought it was sort of ironic that my aunt, a Hispanic, scoffed at the ideas of libertarians as basically crazy and unrealistic. But at the same time, her biggest issue was wanting to bring her family to America from Guatemala. Which I feel is simply impossible as long as you keep in place, or continue to expand the welfare programs. Guatemala is poor, her family is poor, so its simply not realistic to believe that they would be allowed to come here, when there is a 100% chance that they will end up on government assistance.

So when I looked at the broader picture, I thought it was funny that Hispanics not only tend to support in high numbers the welfare programs that make it nearly impossible for their loved ones to come to this country. But also, I feel like Hispanics and liberals tend to support the protectionist policies that make it difficult for developing nations(such as Guatemala) to develop in the first place. And so in a real sense, she supports policies that keep her family members in a state of poverty and misery. But she doesn't seem to realize it, and basically refuses to acknowledge it, because she doesn't want to piece together the whole situation. Democrats will espouse a desire for more immigration and more welfare, and Hispanics jump on it, sort of blindly.


Anyway, my basic prescription for open-immigration. Is complete elimination of all welfare/entitlement programs on the federal level, including public education(though the states could still have them if they desired). To repeal the 14th amendment(which is effectively illegal to begin with), to get rid of most federal powers, and also to eliminate birthright citizenship. To repeal all federal laws concerning discrimination, which will most likely usher an end to preferential hiring and admissions, and will ultimately bring to an end much of our push for multi-culturalism. While encouraging a more natural state, of the melting pot.

If there is not a wholesale return of the immigration system to pre-1875. Then we can effectively keep the system we have now, but the states themselves should at least have the authority to issue VISA's and give residency to foreigners to live only within the borders of their own states, totally independent of federal oversight(except for national security, criminals/terrorists, etc). Without birthright citizenship, individual states with relatively lax immigration policies won't harm the people of other states who heavily restrict immigration.


I feel like these changes would give local governments more authority. In a sense, it creates a system where states must compete with each other over their immigration and economic policies. If immigration is helpful, and New York is allowing in immigrants, but Arizona refuses to allow in immigrants. Then it will become obvious very quickly that Arizona's immigration policies don't work. And as New York becomes better off, you'll see the people of Arizona demanding changes to their immigration policies(or vice versa).

I think states' rights is really the only sustainable way to keep immigration as open as possible.

As I said before, if we had the same immigration polices in the 1800's as we have now, my ancestors would have had to stay starving to death in Ireland.

Quote:
2) Whats keeping Africa from developing now?
Africa is a continent absolutely rich in natural resources and productive farmland. The problems in Africa are really political problems. A lot of those problems stems from an overall hostility towards the colonialism of the past, which tends to be hostile to foreigners wanting to buy land and exploit the resources of that land. Most of the natural resources in African countries are either owned by their governments, or greatly regulated by the governments to prevent foreigners from having access to them.

Part of the problem is what I can only describe as ethnic nationalism, which stems from basically socialist ideals of equality, which tend to be anti-capitalist/free-market. Its where one group of people blames all its problems on another group, and demands some sort of reparations or other welfare'ish payments from the wealthy in society who are supposedly taking advantage of everyone else.

Part of the problem, is that religious zealots have tried turning many countries in Africa into basically theocratic states, which tend to be completely opposed to any concept of "personal freedom", or even free-markets for that matter.

What Africa needs to do to develop, is end the nationalization of the natural resources. Allow for foreign investors with the capital, technology, and knowledge to come to Africa and develop those resources. To generally free the markets and immigration laws, to allow for people across Africa to move to where there is a demand for labor(African countries tend to have very strict immigration laws, even against each other). Create more appropriate constitutional limits to government, and make sure the governments are secular in nature. And lastly, Western nations need to allow for as free of trade as possible from these countries, so that they can start out producing inexpensive goods to developed markets, while they are developing their own internal markets.

Barack Obama's brother George Obama wrote a book that talks about colonialism. He says that most people in Kenya and elsewhere, tend to blame the colonialist powers for the poverty of Kenya and other African countries. But he argues that had the colonial powers stayed in Kenya, it would be much better off today than it is now.

So what do you think? If Kenya was still a British colony today, instead of fighting for independence through the 1950's, and eventually achieving independence. Would the average Kenyan be better off or worse off today?

That isn't to argue that blacks wouldn't be greatly disproportionately living in poverty in Kenya, or that there wouldn't be discrimination against blacks or whites in Kenya. I'm sure there would be human rights groups complaining every day about the inequality that would be existing in Kenya.

But when we really look at the situation, we have to think of it like this. Would you rather be living in poverty in the UK, or middle-class in Kenya? Would you rather live in poverty in the United States, or as middle-class in Kenya?

I will say one thing, I think that had the UK maintained Kenya, that blacks would overwhelmingly be at the bottom income brackets in Kenya relative to whites. But we need to put that in perspective. The poverty level in the United States is about $12,000 a year, with a per-capita income of $48,000 a year. The per-capita income in Kenya is only $1800 a year. So if poverty level was at the same relative level as the United States(1/4th of per-capita gdp), then the poverty level in Kenya is $450 a year, which is about $1.25 a day. So you could argue that if the colonialists still controlled Kenya, the people who were so terribly living in poverty today, would probably be about 30 times richer than they are today.

If you were Kenyan right now, and you could go back in a time machine and prevent independence from Britain, would you?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1661686.html

Quote:
3) You seem to be dismissive of many things (to include over generalizing your ideals; and I'm the stubborn ass ), What of prejudices that people have towards one another? (Religion comes to mind) How are people going to assimilate into their newly migrated to country? You are forcing people that can't live in their home country to migrate to survive.
Well, I'm not forcing anyone. But, many people will want to immigrate for better opportunity. I mean, the majority of Mexicans could stay in Mexico if they wanted to, but life is just better in the United States. Just like many people move from Iowa to New York City for more opportunity. No one is forcing anyone. People are just given more choices. And while I agree, sometimes the choices you have won't be as satisfactory as you would like, it is still a choice. There has been an exodus from small towns into large cities for decades in this country. I'm sure when young people looking for work come to the cities, they might not have wanted to leave home, and I'm sure they miss their families, and I'm sure a great many of them could have stayed in the small towns if they had to. But they simply felt that their opportunities were greater elsewhere. It was basically the difference between living in poverty in rural Arkansas, or living a middle-class life in Nashville.

As for assimilation. I often think to myself. If I wanted to move to France tomorrow, how would I do it? Would I first learn to speak French? Secondly, once I got to France, would I largely adopt French culture and customs because I wanted to basically blend in? Or would I have an attitude where I was still an American, and would stay an American forever, and I was simply residing in France for the time being?

In my mind, if I was to move to France, or Norway, it would be important to me to learn the language. I can't reasonably expect people not to disdain my presence in their country, if I refuse to learn their language. Secondly, I wouldn't want to upset their culture and customs, which could cause a backlash towards myself and other immigrants. So for instance, I probably wouldn't be protesting against Muhammad if I was living in Saudi Arabia. Just like if I came to America, I wouldn't be out demanding nativity scenes be taken down, or be out protesting on the streets, thanking "allah" for destroying the twin towers. Basically, I would be grateful and considerate, not hostile and entitled.

I think the natural way humans work, is that they are distrustful of people different than them. And so without government protections, immigrants would have a huge incentive to want to act as socially acceptable as possible. Like my example with Norway. In the absence of government regulations, its probably nearly impossible to get a job or housing, if you don't speak Norwegian, or you don't attempt to behave in a socially acceptable manner.

The same thing can be said in the United States. I don't particularly like immigrants if they can't speak English, or they behave in ways that I consider crude, hostile, or immoral. But, I could care less if you have black skin or brown skin or which god you believe in, or don't, as long as you basically have similar values as me, and behave a socially sort of "normal" way.

Quote:
4) Are you talking Hong Kong prior to 1997 when Friedman's video shows, or after? Either way, Hong Kong limited immigration to wealthy and high-skilled workers. The border was enforced prior to and afterwards. Hong Kong seems to be more like the US and its Bill of Rights than anything else. So what is so great about Hong Kong when it isn't and wasn't much different then the US other than they lacked technology of the time?
I don't particularly know what Hong Kong's immigration laws are, or what they have been. I will say that about 43% of the people who live in Hong Kong are foreign born, compared to about 12% being foreign born in the United States.

But regardless of that, when you actually read about Hong Kong immigration laws, you have to understand that while Hong Kong is relatively free-market, it still has almost all of the social programs that we have in this country. Such as free education, housing subsidies, social security, etc.

There is a recent case in Hong Kong about a woman who is applying for residency in Hong Kong. What you need to read is why there is opposition to her becoming a legal resident. And it basically that, if she becomes a resident, then she would be eligible for those government benefits. And if she was allowed to become a resident under the circumstances, then hundreds of thousands more people would also be eligible.

Vallejos v. Commissioner of Registration - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Democratic alliance for betterment and progress of Hong Kong legislator Starry Lee predicted that 125,000 foreign domestic helpers would each sponsor an average of three dependents to come to Hong Kong, meaning a total of 500,000 persons newly eligible for government programmes such as public education, housing subsidies, and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, leading to tens of billions of dollars in additional public expenditures.

The average pay for foreign domestic helpers, is about $450 a month. Which would put a person at poverty level in Hong Kong. So, basically all foreign domestic helpers if given permanent residency status, will almost certainly need assistance just to survive.

Foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:
5) Are you also promoting no corporation regulation, i.e. your house remodel scenario on a larger scale?
The funny thing about corporation legislation, is that it is really the most unnecessary regulation on the books. I'm much more interested in regulating individuals than corporations. Just like I'm more interested in regulating the poor than the rich.

If a corporation is doing something harmful, they can and will be sued. And they have the assets to lose if a case is brought against them.

In my mind, the only times where you should have regulations on corporations. Are in any places where the damages that might be incurred by a company would be far greater than their assets. Such as a nuclear power plant for instance. The costs associated with a nuclear reactor meltdown would be so high, that most companies simply wouldn't have the assets to pay for it. And so, the kinds of companies that fit that relative idea, should be required to carry an insurance policy that would cover the costs.

For instance, the BP oil spill, BP had plenty of assets to cover any potential harm they could do with an oil spill. And so, why do you really need to regulate a company like BP?


As for the banks. If you are really blaming the banks for the financial crisis, I think that is really unfair.

The other day I went to the bank, and the lady there was talking to me about opening up a savings account. I asked her what the rate was right now, and it was less than 1%. So she says "yeah, I don't know why its so low, it used to be a lot higher, I guess its because the economy is so bad."

I'm like, you really don't know why the interest rate is so low? I said, look at it this way. If you are a bank and you want to lend out money, that money has to come from somewhere. One of the places it could come from is from borrowing money from a federal reserve associated bank. And right now the Fed system is loaning out money at between .25% to .75%. If you are a bank that can borrow money all day at .75% from the fed, then why would you pay out higher rates to individual savings accounts, which are much more volatile?

Savings accounts are absolutely useless, unless the feds interests rates are higher than the current inflation rates. If you put money into a savings account right now, you are losing money every year.

This system basically forces people to put money into the stock market, or into real assets(such as houses and gold). Because you cannot realistically just save your money. The closest thing to just saving money, is in municipal bonds. But even the current bond rate is generally below the inflation rate. And so because of how the system works, people basically are forced into putting their money in riskier places. And then people complain because the risky bets didn't pay off. Its really a wicked system.

Quote:
6) How do you limit monopolies of companies? Your ideology seems to create classes of people and forces them to move to a country that offers labor for their class, a world caste system if you will.
The funny thing about libertarianism, is that the only legitimate argument against libertarianism, is actually the basis of libertarianism itself, property rights.

The only way to undermine libertarianism, is through a lack of competition. Libertarianism only works as long as you have competition. And as long as you have competition, libertarianism works better than any other system. Where a lack of competition comes in, has nothing to do with the size of a company. The only way you can legitimately have a lack of competition, is where it is impossible for multiple companies to exist in the same geographic area. In an extreme case, if a single person owned all of the land in the United States, then he could absolutely prevent any competition whatsoever, except from outside of the country. And if he was able to buy up all that land as well, then there wouldn't even be a possibility of competition from anywhere.

But even on a more reasonable level, if a person bought up all the land adjacent to a major US port. Then he would sort of hold a monopoly in that geographic location, which could put a strangehold on all of the people in the area.

On the other hand, where there is no real estate involved, I don't believe monopolies can truly exist. For instance, even if Microsoft had an effective monopoly. It could only have had that monopoly by people willingly handing Microsoft money. Linux for instance is a totally free operating system, but people have long chosen Microsoft Windows over the competition, regardless of its cost.

People might complain about supposed monopolies of the past. But to me it reminds me of the situation with Wal-mart. Wal-mart is not a monopoly, but wal-mart had a better business model than its competition, and so many people hate Wal-mart. But when we look at wal-mart objectively, we have to concede that Wal-mart significantly brought down the cost of retail in this country. Which affects all of us in a good way.

Wal-mart simply makes everything work more efficiently. And so they can employ far less people for the amount of merchandise they move than their competitors, making them capable of charging lower prices.

It reminds me a lot of IKEA... I'm sure most people are familiar with the Ikea business model. Basically, hardly anyone actually works at IKEA, there is a showroom and pieces of paper to write down what it is you want.... But in Sweden there was huge hatred towards IKEA. The Swedes didn't like the fact that IKEA had a business model that effectively put people out of work, and lowered wages. But that was through innovation and efficiency, which is a good thing.

I mean, it used to be that 95% of the population were farmers. Think of all the jobs lost when they invented the tractor. Think of the decline of the prices of food once the tractor came along. At one time, you might have been able to make a living on a small acreage. And then the tractor came along and put many small farmers out of business. Was that a good thing or a bad thing?

But regardless, even if a monopoly technically existed. It could only maintain itself if it continued to provide goods and services at prices people were willing to pay. With the sole exception of if they could prevent competition with a monopoly on basically the land itself.

Which is really why I would advocate free trade with all nations, and states' rights here in this country. Because at minimum, it would create 50 states in this country competing with each other. But it could potentially create hundreds of nations, states, and even cities competing with each other. Competition is good. We just don't seem to like competition when our guy isn't winning. And we have sort of an instinctual desire to keep ourselves at the top, even at everyone's expense.

If there does arise a situation where a monopoly does appear to exist. I would rather it be handled on as local a level as possible. So that way, if it is handled poorly, then it will become obvious what a bad decision it was. When it is done on a national or international level, then there ends up being nothing to compare to.

For instance, many cities have decided to ban Wal-mart. But that has done nothing but harm them. Because the people of those cities just go to other cities to shop, taking their money and potential tax revenue with them.



With all of this said. I have actually enjoyed this discussion. In order to continue arguing my case, I am forced to find evidence to support my argument. Which forces me to do a lot of reading and studying. I have spent days reading about Singapore, Japan, China, Macau, Hong Kong, Taiwan, the history of immigration in the United States, and went back over practically every thing that Milton Friedman ever said.

There is something really interesting I did find out, and that is that, I really like the idea of contract foreign domestic helpers(as I mentioned earlier in regards to Hong Kong). I could use someone around the house here, but its too expensive to hire Americans. I need to be able to import one of those Filipino girls to live in my house, working six days a week keeping it clean and cooking me good homemade food for the low price of $450 a month, thats $5400 a year.

To get a maid service to come to my house in this country, for just a few hours, one day a week is like $100-$150. That is $5200-$7800 a year, for crap. For the same price I could get me a 6-day a week maid, that cooks me food, and watches my kids? Why in the hell do we not have this here?

Foreign domestic helpers in Hong Kong - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Last edited by Redshadowz; 11-04-2012 at 02:44 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-04-2012, 07:54 AM
 
Location: California
2,477 posts, read 1,711,133 times
Reputation: 299
After having read your comment, your long responses are thought out; I agree with some and disagree with parts. For instance, your Aunt does think in a way that is counter-intuitive to her desires, which is why I brought up the fact that what you claim about Conservatives was wrong earlier. Conservatives are much more in line with your comment above - the idea of contract foreign domestic helpers (which we already have in place with our immigration laws and visas, the issue we have are the quantity limits per year of issued visas). Hong Kong (my brother-in-law actually lives there and has 2 foreign domestics living at his home to help with his kids and his wife) uses something like the old system of indentured servitude and only allows for a contract with no chance of future residency status for having lived within the country (unlike the US which does allow for a CoS to resident status and eventually citizenship). The indentured servant must re-apply for a new 2 year contract or leave, it is contracted labor, not ones own immigration choice, they are not "ordinary residents". There are also "maid services" in Hong Kong, mostly for those that can't qualify for the Domestic Helpers due to monthly incomes not meeting the requirements, etc for which they are paid a lower wage then if they were able to contract with the entirety of the Hong Kong populace, the rich get cheaper labor simply because they are rich; the rich get richer, the poor get poorer due to unfair competition. Because of this, there is resentment among the populace for foreign domestic helpers. This would be typical of your above scenario for people to have to migrate to jobs outside of their Town, City, State, Country. THE argument against FDH's also incurs an increased labor supply
Quote:
increasing the labour supply by giving FDHs the freedom to pursue other employment could put other workers at a disadvantage.
As I mentioned prior, States should not have control over any immigration from foreign states, as you even posted a court case stating why.

You say "Well, I'm not forcing anyone. But, many people will want to immigrate for better opportunity", I see it as a perception discrepancy, I say, "they will be forced to immigrate for survival." There are a couple other re-wordings I can use in other parts of your comment, but I think you get the picture.

It's been interesting to say the least.
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 > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies > Illegal Immigration
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

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