Hi -- New here.

[Legion]

Mind you, I do not agree with her focus on the major issue she has dealt with so far, but the way she presents her arguments is awesome.

You mean you like the way "she" generates glib generalities and refuses to provide any evidence to back them up?

 

[Oneuli]

You have a "final solution", don't you sock? The one you advocated for lowering the infant mortality rate, wasn't it, sock?

Contraception?

 

[Oneuli]

No, sock, I don't see that your approach is compassionate. I see that it would conveniently benefit Y O U while leaving hundreds of millions of others hurting, sock.

Which hundreds of millions, in particular, do you think my approach would leave hurting?

 

[Jack]

The advantage of immigrant labor is that it's flexible. If the demand is there for low end labor, then people come in to meet that demand. If the demand isn't there, then people don't come in -- they go somewhere else that there is labor. I'm not saying we should forcibly abduct people and bring them in on slave ships to do our work for us. I'm saying we should have a fairly open door for low-end immigrants who want to come here and meet existing demand.



I'd like to hear more about what you mean by that.



So long as those immigrant laborers have it better than they would had they not come here, wouldn't that still be an improvement for them? Is there suffering somehow more problematic when it's here than when it's "out of sight, out of mind?"



I hadn't thought about those two things together. Could you explain more what you mean by that question?


I think the short- and medium-term problem is a big enough consideration that we'd do well to focus on it first. We are going to have waaaay too few working-age residents per retiree for the next quarter century. So, we should deal with that. Longer-term, those immigrants we bring in will tend to integrate and can give rise to an echo generation of highly successful children of immigrants (traditionally the most productive citizens).

I just don't see much downside. Generation one comes in and pays its dues with the crap jobs (but less crap than the alternative if they hadn't been admitted), fixing our demographic balance and enhancing the quality of life of existing citizens. Then generation two gives us the combined benefit of native-born-citizen cultural fluency, and immigrant work ethic. It seems like a win-win to me.

1. "The advantage of immigrant labor is that it's flexible. If the demand is there for low end labor, then people come in to meet that demand. If the demand isn't there, then people don't come in -- they go somewhere else that there is labor. I'm not saying we should forcibly abduct people and bring them in on slave ships to do our work for us. I'm saying we should have a fairly open door for low-end immigrants who want to come here and meet existing demand."
Jack: Your view is a 'Capitalist' view, not a 'Human Labor' view. You are supporting exploitation of Third World Labor by 'bring them in to do the Labor, then shipping them out when unneeded'. Basically, you see them as 'Clogs' in the Production Process. Disposable as a 'Used Tool'.

2. "Jack: I agree with this. But I could also see the benefit in widening the 'gene pool' in highly technical jobs."
Oneuli: "I'd like to hear more about what you mean by that."
Jack: Briefly, I support 'Eugenics'. Admittedly, importing 'Smart People' is a rather slow way to the eventual goal (genetic engineering is more practical) but I could see this as a valid argument to an Immigration Plan.

3. "So long as those immigrant laborers have it better than they would had they not come here, wouldn't that still be an improvement for them? Is there suffering somehow more problematic when it's here than when it's "out of sight, out of mind?" "
Jack: That is the 'lure'. I don't want to dismiss this, but you could say the same thing about the African Slave Trade.

4. "Jack: Is the Benefit of importing cheap Foreign Labor now, offset by the cost of a UBI (Universal Basic Income) in the Future?"
Oneuli: "I hadn't thought about those two things together. Could you explain more what you mean by that question?"
Jack: As Automation and Robotis, Artificial Intelligence, ramps up, MORE human jobs will be taken over by Machines. Something will have to be done for the 'excess humans'. Capitalism in our Country is based on Consumption, so, not the Worker Drones, but the Capitalist will insist on putting 'disposable income' in the hands of the 'excess humans', the UBI.
Now a second theory is based on the 'English Experience' of 500 years ago. When it was more profitable for the Feudal Lords to raise sheep rather than crops. The Tenant Farmers were kicked off the Land they had tilled for Centuries. They migrated to Cities (having no skills other than Farming) where the men became Robbers, the women became Prostitutes and the children became Pick Pockets. As many as 20 men a day were hung for theft in London, one way to ease the 'excess people' problem. Naturally, I wouldn't expect that here ... hence the dramatic rise of Prisons-for-Profit. Another solution for the 'excess people' problem going forward.

Oneuli: "I think the short- and medium-term problem is a big enough consideration that we'd do well to focus on it first."
Jack: I'm good with that. How much do you think it would take to have an American pick the Vegetable Crop? Then THAT should be the Market price of the Vegetable.

Oneuli: "I just don't see much downside."
Jack: Like Jesse Jackson once said, 'We all view the apple from a different perspective.'

 

[Legion]

Which hundreds of millions, in particular, do you think my approach would leave hurting?

Anyone on the planet who would not enjoy your gratuitous personal exemption from open borders, sock.

Under your selfish "solution", skilled workers would not be able to obtain entry to the US in order to escape grinding poverty, abusive and oppressive governments, famine, disease, war, and persecution, sock.

American citizens would likely suffer from a glut of low-skilled immigrants who would compete with them for non-technical jobs, sock.

The immigrant's countries would suffer the loss of the cultural and economic enrichment that open border advocates say they carry with them, sock.

Of course, if you don't believe that hordes of low-skilled and undereducated immigrants flooding the USA are actually a boon to our country, say so, sock.

 

[Oneuli]

Every one of your positions is from the liberal play book and talking papers. I really enjoyed th Reagan/Bush disaster considering I doubt you were even born during that time so all you are doing is parroting what you have heard.

I was born at the very end of that disaster. But that's actually a reason that I can see the era more clearly. When you live through something, you primarily judge it from what you happened to see around you, personally. For example, if you spent the Reagan era in the military, then that time was a period when constrained budgets were suddenly magnificently bloated, even as the actual burden on the military fell drastically (it was an era with almost no fighting, which contrasted with the hell of the Vietnam years). So, from that vantage point, it would look amazing, and no matter what the statistics told you, it would be hard to see past what you personally felt. On the flip side, if you entered the Reagan years as an air traffic controller, it would have seemed like an absolute nightmare. Your nice upper-middle-class life would have been completely destroyed, along with the lives of your coworkers. And no matter what the stats said about the wider economy, that would be your driving impression of the era.

I, by comparison, am not biased by what my immediate personal surroundings happened to be in that era. I judge by the statistics. And the statistics aren't great, for the Reagan/Bush era. Poverty rates rose. Median real incomes stagnated. Violent crime rates soared to their highest levels in American history. Average unemployment rates were high. I view the era impersonally, through the lens of data that sweeps in EVERYONE'S experience, and I have no reason to apply extra weight to one batch of experiences over another, the way someone would if one batch was her own experience.

 

[Oneuli]

Abortion, wasn't it, sock?

As I recall, it was anything that would lower unwanted births, which would include abortion, but to a greater extent contraception and abstinence.

It's telling that you regard abortion as "contraception"

I don't. Go back and reread.

 

[Legion]

I was born at the very end of that disaster. But that's actually a reason that I can see the era more clearly. When you live through something, you primarily judge it from what you happened to see around you, personally. For example, if you spent the Reagan era in the military, then that time was a period when constrained budgets were suddenly magnificently bloated, even as the actual burden on the military fell drastically (it was an era with almost no fighting, which contrasted with the hell of the Vietnam years). So, from that vantage point, it would look amazing, and no matter what the statistics told you, it would be hard to see past what you personally felt. On the flip side, if you entered the Reagan years as an air traffic controller, it would have seemed like an absolute nightmare. Your nice upper-middle-class life would have been completely destroyed, along with the lives of your coworkers. And no matter what the stats said about the wider economy, that would be your driving impression of the era.

I, by comparison, am not biased by what my immediate personal surroundings happened to be in that era. I judge by the statistics. And the statistics aren't great, for the Reagan/Bush era. Poverty rates rose. Median real incomes stagnated. Violent crime rates soared to their highest levels in American history. Average unemployment rates were high. I view the era impersonally, through the lens of data that sweeps in EVERYONE'S experience, and I have no reason to apply extra weight to one batch of experiences over another, the way someone would if one batch was her own experience.

That looks like a lot of opinion masquerading as fact in those two paragraphs, sock.

Can you corroborate any of it, sock?

I''l understand if you cannot, naturally, sock.

You mentioned data. Where is it, sock?

 

[Legion]

As I recall, it was anything that would lower unwanted births, which would include abortion, but to a greater extent contraception and abstinence.

As you recall, sock?

I don't. Go back and reread.

I did, sock.

Infant mortality is calculated as a ratio of infants that die within a certain period of being born and infants that are born. An aborted fetus doesn't count in either the numerator or the denominator, so abortions shouldn't impact infant mortality rates, except to the extent that aborted fetuses would, if not aborted, have disproportionately been unhealthy or neglected infants (and thus die at higher rates). I suppose it's possible that terminating unwanted pregnancies is, in fact, reducing the share of people who die as infants (or children), but I'd need to see statistical support for that. Now that I think of it, there's another theoretical way that terminating unwanted pregnancies could mean a higher share of infants/children surviving: basically, poverty is a risk factor for infant/childhood death, and women who have unwanted births are probably at higher risk of falling into poverty. So, for example, an infant that would have survived if its mother had terminated an unwanted pregnancy might, instead, die if she carries that unwanted pregnancy to term, creating an additional burden on her energies and financial resources that might otherwise have spared the baby's life. If that speculation is right, that would be a specific example of a Democrat-supported policy (defending a woman's choice when it comes to abortion) that would help to produce the results I cited (lower infant mortality rates).

 

[Oneuli]

Your view is a 'Capitalist' view

Yes. I think it's fair to call me a capitalist, since I think the ideal mix is about 2/3 capitalist to 1/3 socialist.

You are supporting exploitation of Third World Labor by 'bring them in to do the Labor

No. I'm supporting decreasing their exploitation. If it's voluntary immigration, then they're voting with their feet -- telling us they would be more exploited if forced to stay in their homeland than if allowed to come here to work. Denying them that choice would increase their level of exploitation.

Jack: Briefly, I support 'Eugenics'. Admittedly, importing 'Smart People' is a rather slow way to the eventual goal (genetic engineering is more practical) but I could see this as a valid argument to an Immigration Plan.

The problem with supporting that with immigration policy is that skills are probably a very poor proxy for genetic predisposition for intelligence. Most countries are so far removed from meritocracy, that the highly skilled people are generally going to be highly skilled for reasons having almost nothing to do with genetically determined ability.

Think of it, more simply, in terms of height. Imagine it's the 1700s and you want to pursue a eugenic policy of making Americans taller. Well, then, you'd avoid letting most Dutch people come here, because they were the shortest people in Europe, at the time. But, it turns out, that was a quirk of history at that moment -- a result of diet and disease factors at work in Holland in those generations, rather than genetic predisposition for shortness. Today the Dutch, with pretty much an identical gene pool, are the tallest people in the world, on average. It turns out they were genetically predisposed to be tall, and it just wasn't showing up in the results at that moment in history. Having excluded short Dutch people from the gene pool in the 1700s, by not letting them immigrate, might well have reduced average American heights in subsequent generations, since they may have been carrying a disproportionate share of latent genes for tallness.

In the same sense, the people who are low-skill now could very well be genetically predisposed to have very high intelligences, but thanks to accidents of this moment in history, they're mentally stunted by various factors. A eugenicist making a primitive choice based on an individual's skills could well be bringing in all the wrong people if his goal is raising the gene pool's intelligence level. To do that, you'd need a more sophisticated approach that considered things like markers for diet, and economic class, to account for those. Then you might end up favoring a lower-IQ poor person over a higher-IQ rich one, if the lower-IQ person were higher relative to others in his social class, and thus presumably more genetically predisposed for intelligence (albeit having had that suppressed by other factors). That person's descendants could be more likely to be high IQ than the rich person's descendants, once each set had the same opportunities for nutrition, childhood enrichment, disease prevention, education, etc.

I'll pick up with more later. I'm meeting up with some friends to hit the clubs this evening and have some prep work to do.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

I was born at the very end of that disaster. But that's actually a reason that I can see the era more clearly. When you live through something, you primarily judge it from what you happened to see around you, personally. For example, if you spent the Reagan era in the military, then that time was a period when constrained budgets were suddenly magnificently bloated, even as the actual burden on the military fell drastically (it was an era with almost no fighting, which contrasted with the hell of the Vietnam years). So, from that vantage point, it would look amazing, and no matter what the statistics told you, it would be hard to see past what you personally felt. On the flip side, if you entered the Reagan years as an air traffic controller, it would have seemed like an absolute nightmare. Your nice upper-middle-class life would have been completely destroyed, along with the lives of your coworkers. And no matter what the stats said about the wider economy, that would be your driving impression of the era.

I, by comparison, am not biased by what my immediate personal surroundings happened to be in that era. I judge by the statistics. And the statistics aren't great, for the Reagan/Bush era. Poverty rates rose. Median real incomes stagnated. Violent crime rates soared to their highest levels in American history. Average unemployment rates were high. I view the era impersonally, through the lens of data that sweeps in EVERYONE'S experience, and I have no reason to apply extra weight to one batch of experiences over another, the way someone would if one batch was her own experience.

That is the biggest pant load I have heard for awhile. You sound like you are teaching a psych class. But using your theory you never living through the Vietnam era understands what the Vietnam War veterans went through better than those of us who fought there.

 

[Jack]

Google can be your friend. January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001.



Your computer or smart phone have calculators that can handle that calculation if math isn't your thing. The Clinton era ended about seventeen and a half years ago.



Are they? Well, then, if that were a driving consideration, we ought to have expected job creation in the Clinton years to have been outpaced by job creation in the Reagan/Bush years. It didn't work out that way, though. The Clinton-era job creation was much more rapid, despite that geometric increase in robotics and automation pressure. I think the key is whether the economy adapts well to create new and better jobs as old ones become obsolete. Lots of old jobs were made obsolete in the Clinton years. Think, for example, of the huge typing pools and secretarial staffs that vanished as office workers moved to networked computers with word processors. Yet more and better jobs were created. We need to focus on how to replicate that success. Maybe some day it will no longer be possible and we'll need to move to some sort of guaranteed income system, but I think we're still not there.



Yes, the same applies equally to all skilled American workers whose investments in their productivity are being negated by way of importing low-cost foreign competitors with the same skills. As for those who are finding themselves displaced by unskilled foreign labor, though, I have some advice: step up your game. If you're really in a position where someone with nothing but a third-world primary education, limited language skills, and little familiarity with US culture is out-competing you for work, perhaps it's time to take a look at your choices in life. If you're in that position where the only work you can do is mowing lawns or washing dishes, but it's through no fault of your own, due to brain damage or something like that, I'm all for having a generous social safety net to make sure you're taken care of. But if you're in that position because you can't be bothered to invest in educating yourself, or because you refuse to relocate to where the jobs are, then I'm not convinced we should throttle immigration just to protect you from your own bad choices.



I recognize my position on it. If you want to say it's an elitist position, that's fine by me. I subscribe to the notion of "elitism for everyone." I'm all for policies that will put the tools in citizens' hands to up-skill themselves to the point that low-end immigrant competition is simply not a threat to them. That makes the citizens the elite within the country,... or at least the citizens with a little gumption. Is that "elitist"? I suppose so. But I think it's good policy that will result in improved lives for the majority.

Oneuli: "Yes, the same applies equally to all skilled American workers whose investments in their productivity are being negated by way of importing low-cost foreign competitors with the same skills. As for those who are finding themselves displaced by unskilled foreign labor, though, I have some advice: step up your game."
Jack; I have another theory. Each person is a result of 'the genetic roll of the dice'. Meaning none of us are responsible for what are genetic make-up is. Some are blessed, others, not so much.

Oneuli: "If you're really in a position where someone with nothing but a third-world primary education, limited language skills, and little familiarity with US culture is out-competing you for work, perhaps it's time to take a look at your choices in life."
Jack: I'm guessing the 'average' American is a High School graduate. Maybe he works as a Roofer. The "out-competing" is the Wage issue. The 'Third World Immigrant' will 'out-compete' the American on 'Wage'.

Oneuli: "I recognize my position on it. If you want to say it's an elitist position, that's fine by me.'
Jack: OK. Nice listening to your opinions.

 

[Jack]

Yes. I think it's fair to call me a capitalist, since I think the ideal mix is about 2/3 capitalist to 1/3 socialist.



No. I'm supporting decreasing their exploitation. If it's voluntary immigration, then they're voting with their feet -- telling us they would be more exploited if forced to stay in their homeland than if allowed to come here to work. Denying them that choice would increase their level of exploitation.



The problem with supporting that with immigration policy is that skills are probably a very poor proxy for genetic predisposition for intelligence. Most countries are so far removed from meritocracy, that the highly skilled people are generally going to be highly skilled for reasons having almost nothing to do with genetically determined ability.

Think of it, more simply, in terms of height. Imagine it's the 1700s and you want to pursue a eugenic policy of making Americans taller. Well, then, you'd avoid letting most Dutch people come here, because they were the shortest people in Europe, at the time. But, it turns out, that was a quirk of history at that moment -- a result of diet and disease factors at work in Holland in those generations, rather than genetic predisposition for shortness. Today the Dutch, with pretty much an identical gene pool, are the tallest people in the world, on average. It turns out they were genetically predisposed to be tall, and it just wasn't showing up in the results at that moment in history. Having excluded short Dutch people from the gene pool in the 1700s, by not letting them immigrate, might well have reduced average American heights in subsequent generations, since they may have been carrying a disproportionate share of latent genes for tallness.

In the same sense, the people who are low-skill now could very well be genetically predisposed to have very high intelligences, but thanks to accidents of this moment in history, they're mentally stunted by various factors. A eugenicist making a primitive choice based on an individual's skills could well be bringing in all the wrong people if his goal is raising the gene pool's intelligence level. To do that, you'd need a more sophisticated approach that considered things like markers for diet, and economic class, to account for those. Then you might end up favoring a lower-IQ poor person over a higher-IQ rich one, if the lower-IQ person were higher relative to others in his social class, and thus presumably more genetically predisposed for intelligence (albeit having had that suppressed by other factors). That person's descendants could be more likely to be high IQ than the rich person's descendants, once each set had the same opportunities for nutrition, childhood enrichment, disease prevention, education, etc.

I'll pick up with more later. I'm meeting up with some friends to hit the clubs this evening and have some prep work to do.

1. "Yes. I think it's fair to call me a capitalist, since I think the ideal mix is about 2/3 capitalist to 1/3 socialist."
Jack: I think our perceptions are based upon where we are on the 'economic totem pole'. So ... we both agree you're a Capitalist.

2. "No. I'm supporting decreasing their exploitation. If it's voluntary immigration, then they're voting with their feet -- telling us they would be more exploited if forced to stay in their homeland than if allowed to come here to work. Denying them that choice would increase their level of exploitation."
Jack: Mmmmm, that's very humanitarian of you. Amazing how you empathize with people on the other side of the Planet, ... rather than your fellow American down the street. (I'm guessing your answer to #1 above may have something to do with your answer to #2 here)

3. "The problem with supporting that with immigration policy ..."
Jack: I agree. I've admitted it's a poor way to achieve the Goal. If it was used as a 'Immigration' point, I could understand why it would garner support.

3. "I'm meeting up with some friends to hit the clubs this evening and have some prep work to do."
Jack: Have fun. Nice talking to you. Bye.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Contraception?

LMAO.

 

[Jade Dragon]

As I recall, it was anything that would lower unwanted births, which would include abortion, but to a greater extent contraception and abstinence.



I don't. Go back and reread.

Don't engage Legion. He's a troll, and will knowingly push ignorance, and bullshit people in debating things, just to get a rise. He does it in lieu of a good nap, and quaaludes.

 

[Gotcha68]

That's right I forgot you have to write to the level of the dumbest person who might read it. Guess that is why you reared your ugly Bowel sock head again.

You are nothing if not predictable...but mostly nothing.

Who gives a flying fuck whether you think everyone's a sock or not? Apparently only you and a few others who feel impelled to figure out the identities of everyone you don't agree with.

Everyone needs a hobby I suppose.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

You are nothing if not predictable...but mostly nothing.
Who gives a flying fuck whether you think everyone's a sock or not? Apparently only you and a few others who feel impelled to figure out the identities of everyone you don't agree with.
Everyone needs a hobby I suppose.

Nothing.... nailed it!

Wait, what? So now you're my sock? Or I'm your sock? We're each other's socks? I thought Oneuil was my sock too. I wish!

Conservatives are among the most paranoid, suspicious, and fearful ppl on the planet. Ugliest too.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Don't engage Legion. He's a troll, and will knowing push ignorance, and bullshit people in debating things, just to get a rise. He does it in lieu of a good nap, and quaaludes.

Lesion doesn't debate. He harries and harasses. He couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag, especially with someone as sharp as Oneuil.

 

[Jade Dragon]

Lesion doesn't debate. He harries and harasses. He couldn't debate his way out of a paper bag, especially with someone as sharp as Oneuil.

I think it's pretty obvious Oneuil is new, just from the effort into integrity filled debate. I gave up trying awhile ago.

 

[Eagle_Eye]

Ah yes the Bowel sock posts and in just enough time to log in Bowel posts.