Hi -- New here.

Legion said:
Sock is delusional, Grumps.
Click to expand...

If she is talking about me, then she is difinately delusional. She admitted it was impossible to prove universal health care is realistic from a cost stand point. So that debate is a draw. And I hope she doesn't take civility as surrender. That would be a huge mistake.
 
Legion said:
is that so, sock?
Click to expand...

Yes, for the reasons discussed. If you'd like a macroeconomic illustration, consider the Clinton era, when immigration rates were far higher than today, and yet job creation kept pace and unemployment dropped below 4%.

That almost sounds like a personal issue...
Click to expand...

Yes, it could well be. I took on lots of student loan debt to qualify for the jobs I fill. That's working out fine right now, because my average income is enough to make my payments easily. But, in theory, if we let in a bunch of H1B immigrants with my same skill set, who had the benefit of low-cost foreign educations and thus could afford to undercut my price, I'd have a harder time. If we want citizens to invest in raising their productivity through education, then we don't want to create an expectation that the government will pull the rug out from under them after they do so, or people won't bother.

You want millions of low-skill immigrants to flood the labor market....
Click to expand...

Yes.

but resent any with the skills to take any jobs you might want....
Click to expand...

No, I don't resent them. I simply don't want them here undercutting the bargaining power of citizens. I'm fine with H1B visas if there's a genuine lack of skills in the domestic market, but then they should be very temporary.... after a set number of years, H1B visas should no longer be available to meet the need for that skill-set. That creates an incentive for home-growing those skills in the meantime, to meet the coming demand when the immigrants are no longer available to fill those roles. The goal of the government should be up-skilling the citizen labor pool, with the general tendency being to bring in immigrants who can slot into the bottom of the career ladder, not the top, to keep upward pressure and career advancement.
 
Last edited:
Oneuli said:
I'd open immigration up, but focused on the low end of the skill ladder. The very low skill laborers tend to create their own jobs. For example, picture it from the perspective of a middle-class householder who is considering whether or not to "outsource" the job of cleaning the house, by getting a maid to come in once a week. If there are a lot of low-skill laborers in the area, the cost for that work will be low, and the middle-class person will find it affordable and will be more likely to have the work done. If, on the other hand, there aren't many low-skill workers in the area, the cost for that work will be above the middle-class price range, and the person will likely just do the work him or herself (or, I suppose, buy some Chinese-made Roomba, or some such).

By comparison, pulling in high-skills workers is more problematic, since they displace citizens in existing jobs -- often citizens who are saddled with a ton of student debt they took on to qualify for those jobs. Where more low-end immigrants raise the quality of life of citizens (e.go., freeing up time from menial tasks) more high-end immigrants lower the quality of life of citizens, by slotting in above them on the career ladder and making it harder to advance.

As for disappearing jobs, that's an advantage of guest workers -- they tend to be flexible to go where the jobs are. Where a citizen whose job goes away is more likely to sit in place and throw a political tantrum until someone makes work for him (e.g., displaced West Virginia coal miners), non-citizens will tend to flow to where the demand is.... which may include flowing right out of the country in times when jobs are too scarce to justify the hardship of living as an alien in a strange land.

So, my position is basically the opposite of yours. Especially in times like now, with unemployment down around 4% (and with the demographic crisis of having too few working-aged residents per retiree), we should be greatly boosting immigration, but we should do so in a less selective way, so that we're displacing fewer skilled citizens from jobs.
Click to expand...

Appreciate your honest response.

1. If the Future holds that LESS humans will be needed (for the higher paying jobs like Manufacturing) there will be LESS people in the Middle Class to hire the 'low end skilled Labor'.
2. "... pulling in high-skills workers is more problematic, since they displace citizens in existing jobs -- often citizens who are saddled with a ton of student debt they took on to qualify for those jobs."
Jack: I agree with this. But I could also see the benefit in widening the 'gene pool' in highly technical jobs.
3. "As for disappearing jobs, that's an advantage of guest workers ..." ... "which may include flowing right out of the country in times when jobs are too scarce to justify the hardship of living as an alien in a strange land. "
Jack: Great for 'Employers who want to exploit Foreign Labor, ... then eject them from the Country when unneeded. I expect this concept to be part of a Republican 'Immigration Plan'.
4. "... (and with the demographic crisis of having too few working-aged residents per retiree), we should be greatly boosting immigration ..."
Jack: That seems like the valid reason for importing Foreign Labor.


Is the Benefit of importing cheap Foreign Labor now, offset by the cost of a UBI (Universal Basic Income) in the Future?
Will the short term benefit be crushed by a long term drain on the economy of the Future that is based on robotics and automation?
 
Oneuli said:
I am not. You've engaged, to some extent, in substantive discussion of issues, and don't seem to be in a state of emotional meltdown. Legion, on the other hand....
Click to expand...

Is this a "personal attack," sock, according to your tender sensibilities? Please note that I don't regard it as such, sock. It is clearly a mis-characterization on your part, sock.
 
Oneuli said:
Jack, you forgot to log in as "Legion" before that latest reply. It's in your "Legion" role that you asked that question. When you're playing "Jack" you're not supposed to regard that question as yours.
Click to expand...


:0 Me and Legina have nothing in common. (I will disregard your personal attack and insult upon me)
 
Oneuli said:
Yes, for the reasons discussed. If you'd like a macroeconomic illustration, consider the Clinton era, when immigration rates were far higher than today, and yet job creation kept pace and unemployment dropped below 4%.
Click to expand...

Cite the relevant statistics that prove that during "the Clinton era immigration rates were far higher than today, and yet job creation kept pace and unemployment dropped below 4%," sock.

Then identify which of BJ Clinton's specific actions improved the pace of the job creation you mentioned, and don't forget to show proof of a causul relationship. sock.

Naturally, I will completely understand if you can't.

Oneuli said:
Yes, it could well be.
Click to expand...

So naked self-interest trumps compassion in your subjective personal morality, sock.

Oneuli said:
I took on lots of student loan debt to qualify for the jobs I fill. That's working out fine right now, because my average income is enough to make my payments easily.
Click to expand...

So you say, sock. BTW, you don't fill any job right now, do you, sock?

Oneuli said:
If we let in a bunch of H1B immigrants with my same skill set, who had the benefit of low-cost foreign educations and thus could afford to undercut my price, I'd have a harder time. If we want citizens to invest in raising their productivity through education, then we don't want to create an expectation that the government will pull the rug out from under them after they do so, or people won't bother.
Click to expand...

What's the downside, sock? Has the famous inscription on the Statue of Liberty been altered in your favor?

Oneuli said:
Yes.
Click to expand...

Your position could be summed up as "open borders for thee but not for me," right, sock?

Oneuli said:
I don't resent them. I simply don't want them here undercutting the bargaining power of citizens. I'm fine with H1B visas if there's a genuine lack of skills in the domestic market, but then they should be very temporary.... after a set number of years, H1B visas should no longer be available to meet the need for that skill-set. That creates an incentive for home-growing those skills in the meantime, to meet the coming demand when the immigrants are no longer available to fill those roles. The goal of the government should be up-skilling the citizen labor pool, with the general tendency being to bring in immigrants who can slot into the bottom of the career ladder, not the top, to keep upward pressure and career advancement.
Click to expand...

It appears that you do resent them, sock. Open borders are OK as long as you aren't being displaced in the marketplace, right, sock?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top