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.
Dude. The Penn Wharton Budget Model is not left leaning, but it must be easy to write anything off that challenges you as “left leaning” instead of having a coherent conversation.
Location: Was Midvalley Oregon; Now Eastside Seattle area
13,072 posts, read 7,505,741 times
Reputation: 9798
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
My thought process is inarguably correct. Immigrants get a share of the wealth already created, secured, and owned by the natives. They add something to the numerator, but they add far more (proportionately) to the denominator, making Americans poorer per capita.
That's a pretty wild statement. Can your 'thought process' be modified to incorporate new and more accurate data? At least some thinking rule relaxation can avoid looking like a butt of jokes and walk-backs. I do however believe that your conclusion is correct but there could be other reasons that can make Americans poorer.
That's a pretty wild statement. Can your 'thought process' be modified to incorporate new and more accurate data? At least some thinking rule relaxation can avoid looking like a butt of jokes and walk-backs. I do however believe that your conclusion is correct but there could be other reasons that can make Americans poorer.
*While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages.
*The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.
*Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers benefit equally. In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education.
*While some policymakers have blamed immigration for slowing U.S. wage growth since the 1970s, most academic research finds little long run effect on Americans’ wages.
*The available evidence suggests that immigration leads to more innovation, a better educated workforce, greater occupational specialization, better matching of skills with jobs, and higher overall economic productivity.
*Immigration also has a net positive effect on combined federal, state, and local budgets. But not all taxpayers benefit equally. In regions with large populations of less educated, low-income immigrants, native-born residents bear significant net costs due to immigrants’ use of public services, especially education.
Your first point admits that immigration is bad for workers.
Your second point is wrong in all respects.
Your third point? Sentence 1 is wrong. So is sentence 3.
Your first point admits that immigration is bad for workers.
Your second point is wrong in all respects.
Your third point? Sentence 1 is wrong. So is sentence 3.
So you’re cherry picking? That’s pretty intellectually lazy. You take what you like and disregard the rest without any evidence to the contrary.
Do you have peer reviewed research data to support your position like I do? It’s very easy to say “wrong” without providing any credible supporting evidence.
I question the truth of this given the advent of increasingly capable robots and AI automation. We should be focusing on improving the skill levels of workers we already have.
This. The official "unemployment rate" is low, but there are large numbers of people, especially among African Americans and American Indians, who are terribly underemployed, if they are working at all. We can't all be rocket scientists (especially me), but it seems like our own workforce should be better utilized, especially with the predictions of much-increased automation. Personally, I liked living in the U.S. when it had half its current population. based on traffic congestion, lakes being over-fished, national parks being overcrowded, standard of living, etc.. How much congestion is "good", even if it means a higher economic output for the country? I've never traveled overseas, but have seen pictures of jam-packed roads in more populous countries - when did something like that become "desirable"? Thirty eight MILLION people currently living in Tokyo? That's a "Good" thing? And, the comment on climate change is correct, you can't have it both ways - "more people living a carbon-heavy lifestyle, and less pollution".
And, I'm not anti-immigrant, but "we", as a nation, need to be able to vet and decide exactly who we let in going forward, our population needs are not the same as they were when France gave us that copper landmark. Lazarus had lofty thoughts, but the world has changed significantly since then. Our greatest export (and gift to the world) should be condoms and birth control pills, if we want to eliminate global poverty.
Dude. The Penn Wharton Budget Model is not left leaning, but it must be easy to write anything off that challenges you as “left leaning” instead of having a coherent conversation.
Mmmm yeah. Just as it's easy for many to write off anyone who is against illegal immigration or uncontrolled legal immigration as racist.
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.
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.
