Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Immigration Bill goes down in flames

14567810»

Posts

  • PicardathonPicardathon Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Yar wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    That's a fairly interesting observation. What it looks like, to me, is that the two lines are marching along in perfect counterpoint, which implies to me that there's pretty much a set number of immigrants coming here per year, regardless of any other factors. Those that can enter legally do, those that can't say "fuck it" and cross the border anyway.

    The logical extension of this would be that if we greatly increased legal immigration numbers, we would create a corresponding plummet in illegal numbers.
    Wow, it's almost as if we should just open the borders and consider them all citizens.

    I wholeheartedly endorse this course of action.

    It gets rid of all this "rule of law" nonsense that our own little Platonist has such a damn fixation on.

    Would we see a spike in immigration? Probably. Would it be a significant spike? Probably not. People come across the border if they want to, and realistically, we can't stop them. They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    So, what would be bad about inviting everyone in who wants to come, again (barring of course terrorists, blah blah blah)?

    Plus all those genius Chinese and Indians will come to mexico and fill in the high end.

    Picardathon on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Endomatic wrote: »
    How about an even larger wealth gap for starters?

    Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.

    You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.

    It'd probably be quite cyclical like that.

    That's just a possibility.

    That's not how wages work, though. If you get cheap labor coming in here and other developed nations, developing nations will be losing their tax base (unless they're rentier states but they're an exception). Manufacturing jobs will start coming back to the US since it will become efficient to create goods in the US thanks to lower labor costs. The cost of goods comes down markedly (most of our goods are sold at an inflated price thanks to high domestic labor costs or tariffs).

    Meanwhile, overseas, you see increasing pressure to raise wages and improve work conditions. Labor will flow to where there are the best wages and work conditions if it is allowed. So you see a leveling effect on global prices. While wages will go down in the US, so will the cost of goods. In developing nations, wages will rise as will the cost of goods there as well (since they will no longer be artificially depressed by trapped worker populations).

    This might actually revitalize the US manufacturing sector and spur huge gains in human/worker's rights worldwide while addressing market inefficiency across the board.

    sanstodo on
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Endomatic wrote: »
    How about an even larger wealth gap for starters?

    Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.

    You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.

    It'd probably be quite cyclical like that.

    That's just a possibility.

    Now what if we increased the minimum wage?

    Couscous on
  • EndomaticEndomatic Registered User
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Endomatic wrote: »
    How about an even larger wealth gap for starters?

    Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.

    You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.

    It'd probably be quite cyclical like that.

    That's just a possibility.

    That's not how wages work, though. If you get cheap labor coming in here and other developed nations, developing nations will be losing their tax base (unless they're rentier states but they're an exception). Manufacturing jobs will start coming back to the US since it will become efficient to create goods in the US thanks to lower labor costs. The cost of goods comes down markedly (most of our goods are sold at an inflated price thanks to high domestic labor costs or tariffs).

    Meanwhile, overseas, you see increasing pressure to raise wages and improve work conditions. Labor will flow to where there are the best wages and work conditions if it is allowed. So you see a leveling effect on global prices. While wages will go down in the US, so will the cost of goods. In developing nations, wages will rise as will the cost of goods there as well (since they will no longer be artificially depressed by trapped worker populations).

    This might actually revitalize the US manufacturing sector and spur huge gains in human/worker's rights worldwide while addressing market inefficiency across the board.

    What you say makes sense. I didn't really think of that.
    Raising wages?

    It'd be a good start. But what Sanstodo said has quite a bit of merit.

    Endomatic on
  • MrMisterMrMister A pup must first get in the water to be successful as a seal!Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Phoenix-D wrote: »
    Its not our job to fix Mexico's rampant corruption or other problems.

    When a man is drowning, is it your job to throw him a lifesaver?

    MrMister on
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Psh- every man for himself, dummy.

    Loren Michael on
    2ezikn6.jpg
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    it seems to me that the only way a free market can work properly is if we free up both capital and labor. now im not sure that we've all signed up to the idea of a free market, but assuming one does support a free market, logical consistency seems to suggest that one should also support the free movement of labor.

    Ketherial on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    it seems to me that the only way a free market can work properly is if we free up both capital and labor. now im not sure that we've all signed up to the idea of a free market, but assuming one does support a free market, logical consistency seems to suggest that one should also support the free movement of labor.

    I support basically no border controls, but I find this argument dubious. It's often a good idea for the government to step in and limit the flow of capital in order to protect the stability of a country, and the same can also apply to labor I imagine.

    Shinto on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    it seems to me that the only way a free market can work properly is if we free up both capital and labor. now im not sure that we've all signed up to the idea of a free market, but assuming one does support a free market, logical consistency seems to suggest that one should also support the free movement of labor.

    I support basically no border controls, but I find this argument dubious. It's often a good idea for the government to step in and limit the flow of capital in order to protect the stability of a country, and the same can also apply to labor I imagine.

    Except that capital flows far more easily right now than labor. I'm not saying that the capital market is perfect right now (far from it) but it's closer to ideal than the labor market. It's not a bright idea to fling open your doors to labor or capital without making the appropriate preparations (ie don't be Malaysia in the 90's) but we should be moving toward freeing up capital and labor markets as much as possible.

    sanstodo on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Endomatic wrote: »
    How about an even larger wealth gap for starters?

    Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.

    You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.

    It'd probably be quite cyclical like that.

    That's just a possibility.

    That's not how wages work, though. If you get cheap labor coming in here and other developed nations, developing nations will be losing their tax base (unless they're rentier states but they're an exception). Manufacturing jobs will start coming back to the US since it will become efficient to create goods in the US thanks to lower labor costs. The cost of goods comes down markedly (most of our goods are sold at an inflated price thanks to high domestic labor costs or tariffs).

    Meanwhile, overseas, you see increasing pressure to raise wages and improve work conditions. Labor will flow to where there are the best wages and work conditions if it is allowed. So you see a leveling effect on global prices. While wages will go down in the US, so will the cost of goods. In developing nations, wages will rise as will the cost of goods there as well (since they will no longer be artificially depressed by trapped worker populations).

    This might actually revitalize the US manufacturing sector and spur huge gains in human/worker's rights worldwide while addressing market inefficiency across the board.

    This assumes that migration between nations is cheap, and that would only be the case (in our situation) for South American workers. I don't see that low wage workers from Europe or Africa will migrate in large enough numbers to have an evening effect.

    I'm also not sure that we will be able to move back towards a manufacturing economy with any level of success. Wages would have to plummet to compete with Asia and Mexico, and since we don't have "help wanted" signs on the plants here, I don't see the unions supporting it. They are going to continue to push for higher wages, which in turn makes other nations more competitive for the work.

    ryuprecht on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Titmouse wrote: »
    Endomatic wrote: »
    How about an even larger wealth gap for starters?

    Cheap labor comes in, drives down the cost of already cheap labor. Companies hire progressively cheaper labor until you simply can't support yourself or a family because there are too many people looking for jobs. Benefits and health care go right out the fucking window because people need to eat. Dental care and good heart health and all that takes a very large backseat.

    You probably can't afford to go to school, so you probably turn around and start selling drugs. Depression hits the unemployed and drug abuse goes up even more. So cartels ship even more drugs here to the waiting previously employed drug dealers.

    It'd probably be quite cyclical like that.

    That's just a possibility.

    Now what if we increased the minimum wage?

    Increasing minimum wage has a net effect of reducing employment in the short term, then, after stabilization of employment rates, raising costs for goods. It also has a large negative impact on the unskilled labor force, as they become expensive labor, and are unable to sell their services at discounted prices to get experience for better jobs later.

    For the contexts of this discussion, that would increase the demand for black market employment, which is often filled with illegal immigrants.

    ryuprecht on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    Would we see a spike in immigration? Probably. Would it be a significant spike? Probably not. People come across the border if they want to, and realistically, we can't stop them. They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    So, what would be bad about inviting everyone in who wants to come, again (barring of course terrorists, blah blah blah)?
    Nothing. I agree with everything you've said in this thread.
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    And consider a America as a group of people, a society if you will, rather than a geographical location? If you want to be a part of it and are willing to contribute, you're in.
    Absolutely. Send me your tired, and stuff.
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Wouldn't you have exactly the same problem as the Ethiopean healthcare problem just at a later date, at least if you wanted to guarantee some sort of a consistancy of quality of life for the previous members? At least if you didn't just go all the way and declare America to be the (opt in) World Government.
    A safety net should not have to rely on exclusionary birthright in order to sustain itself. If a system crumbles under the weight of need, the system is not possible. If our healthcare system suffers, we need to fix our healthcare system. Controlling immigration in an attempt to fix healthcare, or welfare, or enforce wage laws, or whatever, is so pitifully misguided and hypocritical.

    Yar on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    This assumes that migration between nations is cheap, and that would only be the case (in our situation) for South American workers. I don't see that low wage workers from Europe or Africa will migrate in large enough numbers to have an evening effect.

    I'm also not sure that we will be able to move back towards a manufacturing economy with any level of success. Wages would have to plummet to compete with Asia and Mexico, and since we don't have "help wanted" signs on the plants here, I don't see the unions supporting it. They are going to continue to push for higher wages, which in turn makes other nations more competitive for the work.

    Migration is cheap enough that people do it all the time, across huge distances. And why would people in Asia want to come here, necessarily? They could go to Japan or South Korea. Wages in western Europe are generally good and it would put pressure on eastern European countries to get their shit together or lose their tax bases entirely (and of course, they wouldn't; companies would start building decent paying factories and businesses on their soil but would still face direct competition from other nations, making sure those factories and businesses would pay well with good working conditions). This would certainly have a significant evening effect in those areas and given enough time, across the world.

    Btw, moving to a manufacturing economy isn't moving "back." It's also not saying that we should get rid of the service sector at all. It's more about managing our working population more efficiently. Anyway, I'm not talking about people making shit with their hands. I'm talking about cutting-edge manufacturing centers in which employees are closer to engineers than anything else. Just take a look at how well paid (and ridiculously efficient) workers at South Korean manufacturing plants are and you can see where we would be going. This would be a huge boon to our economy (gee whiz, we could actually have a decent import/export ratio!) and would give lots of poor people a chance at a better life.

    sanstodo on
  • nexuscrawlernexuscrawler Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    1) If 2.7 million illegals received amnesty in the time immediately after the amnesty, the graph would mean that in 1990, the entire population of amnestized (sp?) aliens were replenished.

    Well, if we look at this chart, as well:

    back106.gif

    It starts to paint an interesting picture. The data only stretches back to 1990, but we can see the tail-end of a massive spike in illegal immigration numbers. So it looks like, yes, there was an extremely short-term influx, which rapidly tapered off. Since then, we've seen a fairly constant number which spiked sharply right around 1997-2000. (Hmm... what was the economy here like around that time?)
    2) Which sectors are most likely to employ illegal immigrants and were those sectors the ones who benefited from the bubble? I'd postulate that the majority of industries affected by the 90's stock market bubble didn't hire many illegals. Could be the trickly-down effect, but I'm not sure I've ever seen proof of any correlation between illegal immigration and the 90's stock market.

    Well, I just demonstrated correlation. Not causation, no, but definitely a very conspicuous correlation. And it's not like only dot-coms were prospering during that era. The economy as a whole was going gang-busters, and most industries have a need for cheap, unskilled labor somewhere. Every office building needs janitors. All those wealthy dot-com execs need nannies. You're being awfully myopic in your attempt to view the entirety of the immigration boom through the lens of a single piece of legislature from 1986.

    My guess would be rapidly growing economy = lots of construction work.

    nexuscrawler on
  • TastyfishTastyfish Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Wouldn't you have exactly the same problem as the Ethiopean healthcare problem just at a later date, at least if you wanted to guarantee some sort of a consistancy of quality of life for the previous members? At least if you didn't just go all the way and declare America to be the (opt in) World Government.
    A safety net should not have to rely on exclusionary birthright in order to sustain itself. If a system crumbles under the weight of need, the system is not possible. If our healthcare system suffers, we need to fix our healthcare system. Controlling immigration in an attempt to fix healthcare, or welfare, or enforce wage laws, or whatever, is so pitifully misguided and hypocritical.

    Would you have any basis of exclusion in the opt in society, or would something like that only work if the people who need the most assistance are a significantly smaller minority than those that can cope on their own. The only way birthright based ones function is that nationality isn't just a bonus but also forced participitation to help provide for the less fortunate, I don't see how the opt in nationality is going to deal with the fact that most people would prefer not to pay taxes (even if they would actually benefit) and only do so because they are forced.

    Tastyfish on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    This assumes that migration between nations is cheap, and that would only be the case (in our situation) for South American workers. I don't see that low wage workers from Europe or Africa will migrate in large enough numbers to have an evening effect.

    I'm also not sure that we will be able to move back towards a manufacturing economy with any level of success. Wages would have to plummet to compete with Asia and Mexico, and since we don't have "help wanted" signs on the plants here, I don't see the unions supporting it. They are going to continue to push for higher wages, which in turn makes other nations more competitive for the work.

    Migration is cheap enough that people do it all the time, across huge distances. And why would people in Asia want to come here, necessarily? They could go to Japan or South Korea. Wages in western Europe are generally good and it would put pressure on eastern European countries to get their shit together or lose their tax bases entirely (and of course, they wouldn't; companies would start building decent paying factories and businesses on their soil but would still face direct competition from other nations, making sure those factories and businesses would pay well with good working conditions). This would certainly have a significant evening effect in those areas and given enough time, across the world.

    That's why I stated "(in our situation)". The US has limited options for low-cost migrants.
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Btw, moving to a manufacturing economy isn't moving "back." It's also not saying that we should get rid of the service sector at all. It's more about managing our working population more efficiently. Anyway, I'm not talking about people making shit with their hands. I'm talking about cutting-edge manufacturing centers in which employees are closer to engineers than anything else. Just take a look at how well paid (and ridiculously efficient) workers at South Korean manufacturing plants are and you can see where we would be going. This would be a huge boon to our economy (gee whiz, we could actually have a decent import/export ratio!) and would give lots of poor people a chance at a better life.


    Back = what we used to be. We are now by and large a service economy. I was not making judgements as to which one is better, or more advanced.

    ryuprecht on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    This assumes that migration between nations is cheap, and that would only be the case (in our situation) for South American workers. I don't see that low wage workers from Europe or Africa will migrate in large enough numbers to have an evening effect.

    I'm also not sure that we will be able to move back towards a manufacturing economy with any level of success. Wages would have to plummet to compete with Asia and Mexico, and since we don't have "help wanted" signs on the plants here, I don't see the unions supporting it. They are going to continue to push for higher wages, which in turn makes other nations more competitive for the work.

    Migration is cheap enough that people do it all the time, across huge distances. And why would people in Asia want to come here, necessarily? They could go to Japan or South Korea. Wages in western Europe are generally good and it would put pressure on eastern European countries to get their shit together or lose their tax bases entirely (and of course, they wouldn't; companies would start building decent paying factories and businesses on their soil but would still face direct competition from other nations, making sure those factories and businesses would pay well with good working conditions). This would certainly have a significant evening effect in those areas and given enough time, across the world.

    That's why I stated "(in our situation)". The US has limited options for low-cost migrants.
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Btw, moving to a manufacturing economy isn't moving "back." It's also not saying that we should get rid of the service sector at all. It's more about managing our working population more efficiently. Anyway, I'm not talking about people making shit with their hands. I'm talking about cutting-edge manufacturing centers in which employees are closer to engineers than anything else. Just take a look at how well paid (and ridiculously efficient) workers at South Korean manufacturing plants are and you can see where we would be going. This would be a huge boon to our economy (gee whiz, we could actually have a decent import/export ratio!) and would give lots of poor people a chance at a better life.


    Back = what we used to be. We are now by and large a service economy. I was not making judgements as to which one is better, or more advanced.

    Why would we need more than what South/Central America can offer? If you build an efficient rail line connecting major metropolitan centers, then you could see huge labor flow in both directions. That is pretty feasible (hell, if North and South Korea can clear away a bazillion land mines to build a railroad, we can build one too) and would lower the cost of migration substantially.

    I mean, we've had people float across the large stretches of ocean on shitty, barely seaworthy boats to get here. I have a feeling that people would find a way.

    sanstodo on
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    The only place I would see a problem would be sub-Saharan Africa. But that's a while different issue.

    sanstodo on
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Tastyfish wrote: »
    Would you have any basis of exclusion in the opt in society, or would something like that only work if the people who need the most assistance are a significantly smaller minority than those that can cope on their own. The only way birthright based ones function is that nationality isn't just a bonus but also forced participitation to help provide for the less fortunate, I don't see how the opt in nationality is going to deal with the fact that most people would prefer not to pay taxes (even if they would actually benefit) and only do so because they are forced.
    I'm not sure what you're getting at. It isn't exactly "opt-in." If you're within the jurisdiction, then you are subject to the laws, including the ones about taxes.

    Yar on
  • RedShellRedShell Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Yar wrote: »
    A safety net should not have to rely on exclusionary birthright in order to sustain itself. If a system crumbles under the weight of need, the system is not possible. If our healthcare system suffers, we need to fix our healthcare system. Controlling immigration in an attempt to fix healthcare, or welfare, or enforce wage laws, or whatever, is so pitifully misguided and hypocritical.

    Is there a safety net in the world right now that does not rely on exclusion, usually based on citizenship?

    Because I'm saying there isn't. And the reason that there isn't isn't because people are misguided or hypocritical. It's because it's not feasible.

    You've got a huge wall to climb here to prove that such a thing can even be done. The reason it hasn't been done yet is because resources are limited, and the world's population continues to outstrip our collective ability to take care of folks.

    Which is why immigration policies are necessary. If you opened our borders to any and everyone tomorrow, America would become a 3rd world shithole punctuated by the occasional gated enclave of wealth.

    /edit -- TL:DR? You can't have safety nets without exclusion. So WTF are you talking about in that quote?

    RedShell on
    Homing In Imperfectly?
    Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why would we need more than what South/Central America can offer? If you build an efficient rail line connecting major metropolitan centers, then you could see huge labor flow in both directions. That is pretty feasible (hell, if North and South Korea can clear away a bazillion land mines to build a railroad, we can build one too) and would lower the cost of migration substantially.

    I mean, we've had people float across the large stretches of ocean on shitty, barely seaworthy boats to get here. I have a feeling that people would find a way.

    We're much much bigger than Korea. Feasibly you could build one to serve a few hundred miles into Mexico, but I'm not sure it would be worth the expenditure.

    ryuprecht on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why would we need more than what South/Central America can offer? If you build an efficient rail line connecting major metropolitan centers, then you could see huge labor flow in both directions. That is pretty feasible (hell, if North and South Korea can clear away a bazillion land mines to build a railroad, we can build one too) and would lower the cost of migration substantially.

    Rail is only an effective means of long distance travel when there is a large density of urban areas to be connected rather than great stretches of nothing between them. The Eastern and Western seabords each could have a somewhat effective high speed rail system for passengers but everything else would be better suited to air travel. Possibly have a bit of a system setup in the midwest connecting some of the big cities there, but it'd probably be cost prohibitive to be a better alternative to flying there. Connecting anything useful to Mexico for pedestrians would just be a waste of time and money. Now, regular rail lines for cargo shipments wouldn't be a bad idea, but a bullet train from Mexico City to New York wouldn't make any sense.

    moniker on
  • Irond WillIrond Will WARNING: NO HURTFUL COMMENTS, PLEASE!!!!! Cambridge. MAModerator mod
    edited July 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why would we need more than what South/Central America can offer? If you build an efficient rail line connecting major metropolitan centers, then you could see huge labor flow in both directions. That is pretty feasible (hell, if North and South Korea can clear away a bazillion land mines to build a railroad, we can build one too) and would lower the cost of migration substantially.

    Rail is only an effective means of long distance travel when there is a large density of urban areas to be connected rather than great stretches of nothing between them. The Eastern and Western seabords each could have a somewhat effective high speed rail system for passengers but everything else would be better suited to air travel. Possibly have a bit of a system setup in the midwest connecting some of the big cities there, but it'd probably be cost prohibitive to be a better alternative to flying there. Connecting anything useful to Mexico for pedestrians would just be a waste of time and money. Now, regular rail lines for cargo shipments wouldn't be a bad idea, but a bullet train from Mexico City to New York wouldn't make any sense.

    This is only really true if you're talking about passenger transport only. Freight is greatly more efficient if you can get it by rail, but it requires collective action.

    Irond Will on
    Wqdwp8l.png
  • sanstodosanstodo Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    moniker wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why would we need more than what South/Central America can offer? If you build an efficient rail line connecting major metropolitan centers, then you could see huge labor flow in both directions. That is pretty feasible (hell, if North and South Korea can clear away a bazillion land mines to build a railroad, we can build one too) and would lower the cost of migration substantially.

    Rail is only an effective means of long distance travel when there is a large density of urban areas to be connected rather than great stretches of nothing between them. The Eastern and Western seabords each could have a somewhat effective high speed rail system for passengers but everything else would be better suited to air travel. Possibly have a bit of a system setup in the midwest connecting some of the big cities there, but it'd probably be cost prohibitive to be a better alternative to flying there. Connecting anything useful to Mexico for pedestrians would just be a waste of time and money. Now, regular rail lines for cargo shipments wouldn't be a bad idea, but a bullet train from Mexico City to New York wouldn't make any sense.

    Oh, I wouldn't say it would be from Mexico to NYC directly but rather, a network from major cities in the US to each other and then at a reasonable point, from the US to Mexico (say, from San Diego to Tijuana and then onward). It's not very expensive to go from the San Diego airport to LaGuardia or JFK (I've done it myself and it's pretty cheap). So I would see migration being fairly feasible.

    sanstodo on
  • monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Irond Will wrote: »
    moniker wrote: »
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Why would we need more than what South/Central America can offer? If you build an efficient rail line connecting major metropolitan centers, then you could see huge labor flow in both directions. That is pretty feasible (hell, if North and South Korea can clear away a bazillion land mines to build a railroad, we can build one too) and would lower the cost of migration substantially.

    Rail is only an effective means of long distance travel when there is a large density of urban areas to be connected rather than great stretches of nothing between them. The Eastern and Western seabords each could have a somewhat effective high speed rail system for passengers but everything else would be better suited to air travel. Possibly have a bit of a system setup in the midwest connecting some of the big cities there, but it'd probably be cost prohibitive to be a better alternative to flying there. Connecting anything useful to Mexico for pedestrians would just be a waste of time and money. Now, regular rail lines for cargo shipments wouldn't be a bad idea, but a bullet train from Mexico City to New York wouldn't make any sense.

    This is only really true if you're talking about passenger transport only. Freight is greatly more efficient if you can get it by rail, but it requires collective action.

    Freight is great on rails (so are rubies) but I don't think it's possible to have those guys go on anything other than your regular gauge track that we currently have. Maybe they could do maglev or something, but all that weight couldn't be good for a japanese bullet type deal. Strap a few passenger cars to the end and it wouldn't even really be an issue since the cost could be so low thanks to the time frame and you could possibly kill a few birds with one stone, but you're not going to get reasonable passenger travel over long distance with on rail for anyone that has less than a week to spare in travel time.

    moniker on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2007
    Aemilius wrote: »
    They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    I suspect this is largely true specifically because they're trying to lay low. Sort of like if you're hauling a dead body in the back of your car, you try not to break the speed limit. If they became legal residents, I'm sure they would adapt the same crime rates as the legal citizens/residents in their demographic.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • EndomaticEndomatic Registered User
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    I suspect this is largely true specifically because they're trying to lay low. Sort of like if you're hauling a dead body in the back of your car, you try not to break the speed limit. If they became legal residents, I'm sure they would adapt the same crime rates as the legal citizens/residents in their demographic.

    Perhaps starting a new job would be a good example as well.

    At first, you work your fucking ass off to impress your boss and show him that you came to work. Eventually, you get kind of apathetic and start finding ways to cut corners or make things easier (in some minds, criminal activity is that shortcut).

    You might think to yourself, I'm NEVER fucking lazy, and always do my work 110% and never complain or whine, or wish things were different or easier. I never take short cuts or find ways to make things easier for myself at the expense of production/efficiency for the company even if it's minute.

    If you said that to yourself, you are probably lying.

    Endomatic on
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited July 2007
    Endomatic wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    I suspect this is largely true specifically because they're trying to lay low. Sort of like if you're hauling a dead body in the back of your car, you try not to break the speed limit. If they became legal residents, I'm sure they would adapt the same crime rates as the legal citizens/residents in their demographic.

    Perhaps starting a new job would be a good example as well.

    At first, you work your fucking ass off to impress your boss and show him that you came to work. Eventually, you get kind of apathetic and start finding ways to cut corners or make things easier (in some minds, this is criminal activity).

    And in time you stumble onto an internet forum, and then you find you're actually moderating it.

    Yeah, I can see how that might happen.

    ElJeffe on
    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    sanstodo wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    it seems to me that the only way a free market can work properly is if we free up both capital and labor. now im not sure that we've all signed up to the idea of a free market, but assuming one does support a free market, logical consistency seems to suggest that one should also support the free movement of labor.

    I support basically no border controls, but I find this argument dubious. It's often a good idea for the government to step in and limit the flow of capital in order to protect the stability of a country, and the same can also apply to labor I imagine.

    Except that capital flows far more easily right now than labor. I'm not saying that the capital market is perfect right now (far from it) but it's closer to ideal than the labor market. It's not a bright idea to fling open your doors to labor or capital without making the appropriate preparations (ie don't be Malaysia in the 90's) but we should be moving toward freeing up capital and labor markets as much as possible.

    at the moment, i can't help but think that we regulate labor far more heavily than capital. this has led to a world community which grants serious advantages to those who possess capital, almost always at the expense of those who provide labor.

    if anything, in order for the free market to "work", we need to take serious steps to deregulate labor. there are already enough natural barriers to movement of labor (as mentioned above). i dont think the market regulator (in this case, governments) needs to add any more artificial barriers against the freedom of labor.

    im not concerned solely with the regulation of capital or with the regulation of labor. i agree with shinto in that regulation is both useful and necessary to ensure equitable results. however, what i am concerned with is the unbalanced regulation of capital and labor. i think strict regulation of labor and lax regulation of capital has penalized and disenfranchised labor while granting unfair advantages to capital.

    Ketherial on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    RedShell wrote: »
    Which is why immigration policies are necessary. If you opened our borders to any and everyone tomorrow, America would become a 3rd world shithole punctuated by the occasional gated enclave of wealth.

    you're making some empirical conclusions based on unproven assumptions.

    for example, why do you believe that immigrants cannot produce enough value to support their own burden on the system? are immigrants necessarily resource drains? if they can produce more value than what they take out, then more immigration would equate to america growing in strength.

    furthermore, if immigrants are pouring into the u.s., wouldn't other countries raise their standards or attempt to compete on a similar level in order to maintain their population?

    ideally, countries should compete for immigrants. humans should be seen as a valuable resource. wait, let me rephrase that: humans are a valuble resource. i agree with yar completely. we should not use immigration as some kind of tool to support our unsustainable safety net program. the problems in the program itself need to be addressed.

    and im not convinced that it's impossible to create a feasible safety net. do you have conceptual concerns regarding government provision of a safety net or are your concerns rooted in the specifics of our system?

    Ketherial on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    I suspect this is largely true specifically because they're trying to lay low. Sort of like if you're hauling a dead body in the back of your car, you try not to break the speed limit. If they became legal residents, I'm sure they would adapt the same crime rates as the legal citizens/residents in their demographic.

    I don't know. A lot of the immigrants I've met have a pretty aspirational attitude. They are poor because they've come from a poor country. They lack the attitude of poverty that a lot of people on the same income level here have.

    Shinto on
  • ryuprechtryuprecht Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    I suspect this is largely true specifically because they're trying to lay low. Sort of like if you're hauling a dead body in the back of your car, you try not to break the speed limit. If they became legal residents, I'm sure they would adapt the same crime rates as the legal citizens/residents in their demographic.

    I don't know. A lot of the immigrants I've met have a pretty aspirational attitude. They are poor because they've come from a poor country. They lack the attitude of poverty that a lot of people on the same income level here have.

    Just to clarify, you are talking of illegal immigrants?

    ryuprecht on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    ryuprecht wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Aemilius wrote: »
    They're a boon to our economy, they contribute tax revenue, and they're less criminal than the home population.

    I suspect this is largely true specifically because they're trying to lay low. Sort of like if you're hauling a dead body in the back of your car, you try not to break the speed limit. If they became legal residents, I'm sure they would adapt the same crime rates as the legal citizens/residents in their demographic.

    I don't know. A lot of the immigrants I've met have a pretty aspirational attitude. They are poor because they've come from a poor country. They lack the attitude of poverty that a lot of people on the same income level here have.

    Just to clarify, you are talking of illegal immigrants?

    I haven't met any illegal immigrants. I imagine that the legal definition applied by our government doesn't make a big difference concerning the type of person.

    Shinto on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    at the moment, i can't help but think that we regulate labor far more heavily than capital. this has led to a world community which grants serious advantages to those who possess capital, almost always at the expense of those who provide labor.

    Your point is a little bit muddy here. Those who possess substantial capital are not generally threatened by immigration anyway, so the labor/capital dichotomy you are putting forth is inaccurate.

    Shinto on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    at the moment, i can't help but think that we regulate labor far more heavily than capital. this has led to a world community which grants serious advantages to those who possess capital, almost always at the expense of those who provide labor.

    Your point is a little bit muddy here. Those who possess substantial capital are not generally threatened by immigration anyway, so the labor/capital dichotomy you are putting forth is inaccurate.

    if what you mean to say is that those who possess substantial capital (worldwide finanical institutions and investment banks) are not generally in control of congress (whether by lobbying or otherwise) and hence likely have not put any pressure on lawmakers to restrict immigration, then yes, i agree with you. capital and labor in the same country do not necessarily have competing interests.

    on a world scale however, they definitely do have competing interests. because capital can move so freely, it can place itself in a country where labor standards and compensation are lowest (hence outsourcing) and due to (both natural and) artificial restrictions on movement, labor is essentially captured within that market. the pressure to improve compensation and working conditions is minimal because it is purely pressure from the local market, not from a worldwide economy.

    if immigration and labor were freed up, labor could more easily detach itself from such countries. even without immigration laws, labor comes up against significant natural barriers. such barriers in addition to restrictive immigration laws (in all countries, not just the u.s.), make it impossible for labor to find balance against capital.

    Ketherial on
  • captmorgancaptmorgan Registered User
    edited July 2007
    I’m sorry if this aspect has already been discussed but what about infrastructure?
    Lets say tomorrow the borders are opened and hundreds of thousands if not millions of people came across. How would city’s cope? All these people need a place to stay, use water, electricity, roads, services, jobs, extra.
    Right now I live in Alberta and we’re in a major boom if you have two feet and a heartbeat there’s a fairly high paying job waiting for you, but the thousands of people are putting a massive strain on everything, vacancy’s are under 1 percent you could be making 3000 a month and still being living in the streets. I bought I house 2 years ago for 150K I was offered 380K last month. The roads have been destroyed by all the extra traffic, and crime is through the roof, they just can’t train and put enough officers on the streets.
    I`m just wondering if labor was completely liquid and could move around without control of numbers how do you handle the boom and busts. Place x is booming everyone moves there not enough infrastructure is in place, stuff is built rapidly, Now Y is booming and people move again, Y begins to crumble do to lack of tax base and so on and so forth.

    captmorgan on
  • EndomaticEndomatic Registered User
    edited July 2007
    Perfect point.

    Calgary is a complete CLUSTERFUCK right now.

    It's in BAAAD fucking shape. Simply because of the Oil Boom, and that's only what, a few hundred thousand people over several years?

    Sure it's one city, but how likely are people coming across the border are going to nomad it all the way north? Or at least spread the population around?

    I can't say for sure, but I propose that it wouldn't be that many. The mexicans would want a climate similar to what they are used to. This means MASSIVE population increases for the south western states specifically. California would be ridiculous. Nevada, Arizona, Texas.

    All the southern states would get fucked up by such a large influx, and if Katrina is any example, the government won't do fucking shit all about it until it's too late (if ever).

    Endomatic on
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    although i understand the concern, im skeptical that such mass migration would occur. migration to a country where the culture and language are different is likely more intimidating than migration by english speaking peoples to calgary. however, i admit that i know nothing about the situation in calgary so if there is something i am missing, please let me know.

    and even if mass migrations were to occur, i can't help but feel that such mass migrations are indicative of how terrible a job we are doing of balancing the interests of both capital and labor. were we to open up immigration on a worldwide scale, the adjustment period would no doubt cause quite a bit of strain upon developed countries. but i can't help but feel that in the long run the majority of the world would benefit.

    quite honestly, im not sure what a good long term and short term solution would be. i can think about it more and provide concrete proposals regarding how we could regulate immigration to achieve our desired goals. For example, we could restrict immigration only to those who can find a sponsor that is willing to be legally liable for the wellfare and for all acts of its sponsoree. the scope of the sponsor's liability could decrease over time as the immigrant establishes himself in the community.

    the point is, i cant help but think that failing to relax immigration laws (or worse, making immigration laws more prohibitive) is a step in the wrong direction.

    Ketherial on
  • ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS
    edited July 2007
    Ketherial wrote: »
    Shinto wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    at the moment, i can't help but think that we regulate labor far more heavily than capital. this has led to a world community which grants serious advantages to those who possess capital, almost always at the expense of those who provide labor.

    Your point is a little bit muddy here. Those who possess substantial capital are not generally threatened by immigration anyway, so the labor/capital dichotomy you are putting forth is inaccurate.

    if what you mean to say is that those who possess substantial capital (worldwide finanical institutions and investment banks) are not generally in control of congress (whether by lobbying or otherwise) and hence likely have not put any pressure on lawmakers to restrict immigration, then yes, i agree with you. capital and labor in the same country do not necessarily have competing interests.

    on a world scale however, they definitely do have competing interests. because capital can move so freely, it can place itself in a country where labor standards and compensation are lowest (hence outsourcing) and due to (both natural and) artificial restrictions on movement, labor is essentially captured within that market. the pressure to improve compensation and working conditions is minimal because it is purely pressure from the local market, not from a worldwide economy.

    if immigration and labor were freed up, labor could more easily detach itself from such countries. even without immigration laws, labor comes up against significant natural barriers. such barriers in addition to restrictive immigration laws (in all countries, not just the u.s.), make it impossible for labor to find balance against capital.

    It strikes me that you can't have any kind of stable society if people are sloshing around to an extent necessary for anything like a liberal international labor market. First world countries alone would have a hard time coping, nevermind developing countries with poorer neighbors.

    Also, I think that ultimately having FDI in poor countries is a better method of development than having the citizens of poor countries leave for richer countries.

    Shinto on
  • Gnome-InterruptusGnome-Interruptus Registered User regular
    edited July 2007
    I was going to make a joke about how they should send a couple hundred thousand Mexicans up here to Alberta over the summer, complete with their own security/police force to build infrastructure and housing. Then at the end of the summer after paying their taxes or whatever in addition to whatever they spend on food and luxury while they are here. They head back home to the warmer climate of home and bring wealth with them that they then spend there.

    Its very similar to exporting natural resources, but the natural resource is your population. The only way to really make it work is to have the population come back to their native country at the end of the work term. This brings back wealth into the country which benifits the country. And it also benefits the population because they have more money.

    In fact, I think this is the whole reason for Work Visas..

    Gnome-Interruptus on
    steam_sig.png
    MWO: Adamski
14567810»
Sign In or Register to comment.