What about all the people who are aware of the conditions and costs and because of them choose not to apply?

They polled adults. Many of them have children who would be coming along for the ride. This at least doubles the upper bounds.

Also there're a lot of people who don't currently desire it, but if it became a practical option would start to give it serious consideration.

Maybe it wouldn't be 250m in 1 year but the point isn't about nailing the number dead on... it seems highly probable that it would be in excess of 100m within a very short span of time (if not 1 year, then in 2 years), and the fact that the number is larger than the population of mexico / some countries in the Caribbean tells you pretty much nothing.

regardless the number looking to settle is a very big number, far more than what is currently being handled...10 mil migrants is a nightmare to handle.

just ask those who voted for brexit to stop the influx
ask those who have merkel hanging by a thread and forced concessions
ask Justin Trudeau why hes being attacked from all angles for not acting on the problem
ask italy who forces migrants to remain at sea in rickety boats rather than have more dock at thier ports
even the new mexican president elect is promising a border patrol force to stop migrants from the south.

everywhere in the world is buckling dealing with migrants, suggesting to get rid of ICE is laughable and the complete opposite of what everyone else is finally realizing...that they need to get tougher on borders.

honestly i think people just take a position to oppose trump, and throw all common sense out the window. all the above countries criticized us immigration stance, but they are getting tough now.

Common sense and reason don't matter anymore. Tribalism has taken over society. If the right does something the left must yell and scream and visa versa. Doesn't matter if the idea is good, bad or indifferent. It only matters where the idea started. It's only Us versus Them without thought or reason. If "they" want it, it must be bad and if "we" want it, it must be good. If people don't actually start thinking for themselves instead of simply villainizing every thing "the other guys" do we are headed toward a civil war that nobody will win.

I never vouched for its reliability. It was introduced by piepounder and someone else.

But I would take survey more seriously over your argument of "Did you know there's 7B people on this planet?"

You went from "standing by 250m" to "big number". Anyway, just wanted where the at 250M came from. Sounded awfully high. That was my only goal in this dialogue.

And keep in mind, at some point (100M?) it may not be advantageous for unskilled labor to move here due to rising housing costs and high labor supply.

Sure, but if you take it seriously it says that at least 330M people and their families would move to one of the 7 most desired countries if they could, so conservatively, it sets the upper bound at something like at least 500M but probably at least 1B or so.

In any case, the argument that the US couldn't possibly see 250M migrants because it's close to the sum of *several* small countries' populations is still really really really really really really dumb.

Just call the upper bound 7.5B.

You're dumb for not understanding the purpose of the post. Very level 1 thinking. piepounder didn't put any careful thought to how large 250M is. I was putting that number in context. I'll keep my audience in mind the next time I post.

But I don't think anything is as dumb as saying that immigration rate would rise by 25000% for one 1 year because, you know, the population for the world is 7B.

The only thing dumber than quoting a percentage increase going from an arbitrary cap to zero restrictions is the first post of yours I responded to.

my original guess was 50mil to 250mil, just from applying some logic. I didn't see the actual report. I then stated even 10 mil is a big number and a nightmare to deal with. I think it would be enough for officials to realize the crisis and shut the border.

what i'm seeing from the report is well over a billion including kids wish to move and what I know from having traveled a lot is most aren't picky - any western democracy or rich middle east country will do.

ofc it will. rather than spending all of their time and energy at maintenance wages to provide food and home, a person could actually study and acquire such skills.

People below 85 IQ are worthless economically beyond the lowest end jobs, and education is pointless for them. Already education produces negative returns and negative life outcomes for the lowest rung of suitability.

How will UBI motivate people? How is UBI better than educational financial aid?

I dunno, how is a steak better than an apple pie?

My post was two sentences long, yet you took the effort to snip out one sentence. Are you purposely trying to quote me out of context or is English your second language?

Let me rephrase: "Why would UBI better motivate or have a stronger impact on educational investment than financial aid?"

adios was being sarcastic. and ubi is better than financial aid because it can take care of basic needs like food, housing, health, to allow a person to pursue education or improved skills.

financial aid is useless if you are already dirt poor and need to work 40 hours just to put food on the table.

anyway, that seems to be the idea and I think for quite a few people it will work that way. certainly some will remain bums but oh well.

This hinges on the individual. People who argue against any sort of growing of the welfare state seem to act like the welfare state only supports lazy, incompetent, and economically worthless people. It is a true statement that the welfare state supports lazy, incompetent, and economically worthless people. The question is how many of these people are there vs how many make use of said welfare state, get off of it, and go on to be economically productive.

I've never researched for myself, but I was always under the impression that the vast majority of people who go on gov't titty get off after ~1 year. That makes me think gov't titty makes enough worthy investments into people who eventually become productive again and more than compensate for those permanently stuck there or are there through malicious intent and in spite of their long term burden on society.

Also, to directly answer your question, what stinkypete said. 1) Nobody really knows which is better, we can only guess. We have really limited information about impact and no significant real world case studies on UBI, amirite? 2) You can't really know how an individual benefits from help X vs help Y until you walk a mile in their shoes.

Keep in mind that 100's of millions of people live in "shelters" with dirt floors, no running water, no electricity, etc. etc. They'd snap love to live in America even if it meant sharing a 2 bedroom apartment with 10 of their family members. An oven, AC, running clean water, GTFO, this is a dream to them.

And to those talking about "they wouldn't have the means to get here"...you obviously don't even know how 10's of thousands of poor immigrants get here already. They don't pay for it themselves, they are given free trips by charities like "World Relief."

If America opened its doors, charities and other nations would ship their poor/undesirables over here so quick it'd make your head spin. And of course countries like Venezuela or Mexico would NEVER let their paperwork be altered by a bribe if someone did happen to be a criminal and wanted to come anyway. Everyone knows how on the up and up the Mexican police force is.

Doesn't answer my question. You can allocate $200/mo in food aid, $100/mo on medication aid, $500/mo on housing aid to those who qualify, which is roughly $10k per year. Or better, $800/mo aid that only covers food, medication, housing and education. This reduces abuse and much better than UBI.

Sorry but this doesn't exist. 90% of people who

a) finish high school
b) get a job
c) don't have children out of wedlock

End up in the middle class in the US. Not just not dirt poor, not just not poor, but actually in the middle class.

That's an incredibly low bar. This notion of the poor struggling to just make ends meet while working hard and making good life choices is pure fake news.

Also:
Financial aid doesn't put food on the table? If a social safety net takes care of rent + food + health care, what exactly is the problem? Why do they need cash which can be spent on frivolous things and drugs and alcohol and smokes?

From someone who actually acquired more skills and changed careers. The irony.

and I had the opportunity bc I had a bunch of cash laying around.

You’re overestimating how hard it is to make ends meet while studying on the side if your only responsibility is to yourself. People come here precisely because of how easy it is relative to other parts of the world. That people have so many children without financial stability and shoot them selves and their children in the foot is why we should be deterring people living in the edge from having children / not giving them more of an incentive.

In an ideal world if youre financially destitute and cant make things work you can submit to the system to get basic nutrition, live in gov housing that separates by gender to prevent a whole new liability from being created, and you accrue debt based on costs that has to be paid off before you get back in regular society. If people want to live off the dole indefinitely, fine, but you’re not going to be living high off the dole.

Giving cash payments (as opposed to providing food and housing directly)gives people the ability to ‘choose’ only in as much as their choices are for non essential things, usually because they already have their basic needs met and are collecting cash payments for their wants.

https://www.urban.org/sites/default/...Dependency.pdf

" A very different picture of time on welfare emerges if one examines the total time families currently receiving welfare will spend on the welfare rolls over the course of their lifetimes. About 90 percent of those currently on the rolls will eventually spend more than 24 months on the welfare rolls and 76 percent will receive welfare for longer than five years"

FYP

LOL