This post address literally nothing that I said. In fact it's just again doing exactly what I was talking about, i.e. stating as fact things that are far less clear cut than you seem to believe them to be.

To emphasise it again, even something that sounds simple like this is not actually borne out by the evidence:

Research actually finds:

If there's a short-list for items under the heading "American Way" cheating on taxes is definitely on it

Conservatives: LAW AND ORDER
Also conservatives: no no not tax laws

The Federal Government is the nation's largest employer.

You don't seem to understand that we have a mixed economy, we don't depend only on the private sector for jobs.

You also don't seem to understand that the government can spend less money on things like the defense budget and put that money to better use. Entitlements actually stimulate the US economy more than bombs dropped on brown people. No matter how much you dislike the browns.

Also, why don't you ever rail against the trade deficit. That's a huge drag on our economy. It's as if you only whine about what someone else told you to whine about. meh.

I'm pretty sure it's hot said above that our standard of living is too high here in the US.

At least he's working to further his ideals.

Why? (it's becasue cash is taken out of the market) I don't have time to explain further, but you are actually missing the point....you also have to explain the unemployment figure prior to COVID.

Our standard of living is fueled by debt is what I said, and the left is upset that some our wealth is going offshore to poor people in El Salvador, et al.

U.S. companies repatriate over half a trillion dollars in 2018, but pace slows.

You're upset because some poor illegal may get health care.

I'm not sure you should be throwing pebbles at lefties.

I appreciate if you don't have time to expand but every reply has followed the exact same pattern of making simplistic assertions about things that are way more complicated and not at all clear-cut.

The bit about the unemployment is almost a complete non sequitur and I have no idea how that applies to anything I've said beyond that they are both related to the economy. The relationship between employment levels and tax rates are an order of magnitude more complex than everything else that you're already making oversimplified assertions about.

Is there enough housing including community housing in the US to support the kind of increases in immigration the proponents are looking for?

Housing isn't some fixed thing.

Yeah, I'm an evil racist/xenophobe.


When you want to be a big boy, come back and amend your post.

Thinks back on my entire life--Ya, it's pretty much been ~100% of people complaining about foreign aid are conservative Especially not w/o strings of various types attached. Are we in the twilight zone? I think that desert heat might be getting to you Wouldn't be the first lol

Outsourcing, manufacturing...

Easy fix. Write into law unionization, wage compression, etc that would have X + 10% welfare increase to the poor and middle class and then cut government spending by X (preferably starting with programs that benifit the wealthy). The deficit would go down and the standard of living for the poor and middle class would go up. You must support that right?

Can't do that. Rich people would have less money. Economics.

Capital didn't go looking for cheap labor and less regs out of the goodness of its heart or a desire to share the wealth lol. It went for the exact opposite reason In its own self-interest.

Interesting that it is still a net gain short term with only 1 earner. I assume you mean that while they are able bodied and paying taxes it is a gain, but after they retire it ends up a loss? As opposed to long term = 2nd, 3rd generations, etc.

Makes sense when entitlements are super high. However I wonder if this calculation factors in the possible economic downturns due to negative population growth.

Gee, I wonder who that was

"The idea that you can have these pie in the sky welfare programs (UBI, UHC), and the immigration the US has, is not supported by economics."

Is Canada bound by your mystical 'economics' ?

Your whole premise implies that immigrants aren't productive enough to pay for basic entitlements. The fact that the right deficit spends on things like the military and corporate tax cuts for the express purpose of cutting entitlements is lost on you. You seem to actually believe that anything the right does is bound my immutable 'economic' laws. And when I point out some of the basic holes in your thinking you ignore me.

So yeah. Big boy.

I love immigration, as "half" a second generation immigrant in to the UK (mums side was South African), and ended up doing a Masters on it. Was super interesting, and what I found most eye opening was:

- Free movement of capital, and free movement of labour are both fully supported by Hayekian liberatarian economists that conservatives love. They're just happy to throw away the free movement of labour readily when political expediency allows it, as the richer modern nations we refer to much more rely on free movement of capital than labour.

- Old school lefties were anti immigration and anti free movement of capital, at least in the UK. Our Labour parties in the 60's/70's were super against the EU as it was founded on just this. The fact that they are now the poster boys for more open borders is again, a demonstration of how labour is less important than capital in our economic system. As a lefty, I less cynically put this down to the increasingly globalist tendencies of the left who value social justice more than economic justice to greater degrees than we did post war.

From the research I did in my masters, all pointers demonstrate that from a macro-economic power perspective immigration= long term good for the economy. But, from a mirco-economic and short term perspective, it has problems e.g. affording welfare. As with most economic policy....if its good from a macro-economic perspective you should implement it (more open borders) and then use other policies to control for the micro economic effects!

Immigrants also bring so much culturally, from a social perspective it seems a great idea to me too.

The lol is on us stupid taxpayers who elected leaders that literally sold off the countries wealth.

Now you have bots like IHIV yelling buzz words like 'post industrial economy' as if that's a natural outcome.

The US has been running a trade deficit for decades. The US intentionally allowed US based companies to outsource jobs. The transfer of wealth was incredible.

The pitch is that we now have middle class societies in India and China.
As if India and China wouldn't have grown their own middle class anyway.

What a **** show.

Politicians were literally paid to loot the country and conservatives cheer them on.

Thanks for the non-U.S.take, I enjoy reading them as I know next to nothing regarding the immigration histories of other nations. I wonder though at what point, as a super urbanized nation, overcrowding starts coming into play. I would assume if you had stayed in the EU, you would just reach equilibrium at some point.

As to long-term effects on the U.S., I think the 1965 Hart-Cellar act definitely saved our butts. We had been hovering at a 10~15% immigrant share of the population for forever and just as demand from Europe began to die out, we (inadvertently) opened up to immigrants from other nations. (I might be a little biased on this as I would not have been born if not for it )

I think a pretty good case could be made we're already there/past the point in all reality. Our infrastructure etc seems pretty ill-suited to the volumes of people using it anyway. We've kinda painted ourselves into a corner on several fronts imo. And development in outlying areas is often so slapdash/rushed it often looks like any kinda planning went right out the window.

I've heard more than a few (probably mostly Southern if I really think about it)Rs say we should reverse the '65bill(and toss everybody out lol--even a couple that moved here after it if you can figure that one out lol). Not really sure what the best course is really.

It's a bit of both. Conservatives (and neoliberals) who take the capital point of view would think that outsourcing is fine, and from a systematic point of view it is fine. Should X widget be manufactured at a higher price or a lower price? Lower would be better all things being equal.

That combined with a very libertarian-esq approach that the economy and the workers who lose their job in manufacturing will automatically reconfigure themselves into the most optimal way. In other words, when they lose their job they'll learn to code without much pain, or if there is pain, it's good, because people will recognize the pain and reconfigure themselves to quickly get away from it.

From that view point, sharing the gains or taking into account the people who lose their job doesn't make much sense. If you're going to hand people money for losing their job or because of some nebulous loss, you're only prolonging the time when they need to change to something more optimal.

The end result is a hollowing out of the middle. The capitalists rake in the benefits of lower labor costs, the global poor benefit from increased jobs, consumers generally benefit from lower prices, but those whose jobs got outsourced take a large hit, but they don't automatically learn to code. You get deaths of despair, rust belt, etc.