Jump to content

CEOs Urge Trump to Keep Dreamer Program


Dubayoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-01/u-s-ceos-urge-trump-to-keep-daca-dreamers-program-in-letter

Yet again, businesses are sympathizing with social justice movements while forsakening the properness behind property rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read your stuff, how is DACA related to property rights? 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Caecus said:

I didn't read your stuff, how is DACA related to property rights? 

It deals with compromising on the due process that ensures freedom of assembly, rights to privacy, meeting of the minds, offer and acceptance, etc. DACA compels the youth of our country to associate with youth from other countries while having the resources that would ordinarily be dedicated to them dedicated to others.  It displaces domestic talent with foreign talent, condemns the pursuit of excellence in the usage of time, energy, and attention used to accumulate and consolidate property, and says that we don't need to treat you with respect in the course of making something of yourself since there's someone else who can make something of yourself.

In a nutshell, it enables something that I call "hypercompetition" where the rules of the game are broken from people playing strategies that go too far.  It's like allowing people to deliberately engage in handballs while playing soccer, and telling those who handballs are played against to deal with it.

Edited by Dubayoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/2/2017 at 6:43 AM, Dubayoo said:

It deals with compromising on the due process that ensures freedom of assembly, rights to privacy, meeting of the minds, offer and acceptance, etc. DACA compels the youth of our country to associate with youth from other countries while having the resources that would ordinarily be dedicated to them dedicated to others.  It displaces domestic talent with foreign talent, condemns the pursuit of excellence in the usage of time, energy, and attention used to accumulate and consolidate property, and says that we don't need to treat you with respect in the course of making something of yourself since there's someone else who can make something of yourself.

In a nutshell, it enables something that I call "hypercompetition" where the rules of the game are broken from people playing strategies that go too far.  It's like allowing people to deliberately engage in handballs while playing soccer, and telling those who handballs are played against to deal with it.

Ok, I read a little more about it. 

First, "domestic talent" is not being displaced by "foreign talent." The US has always had a labor deficiency, this idea that immigrants are taking jobs from "domestic" people is a scam peddled by (white protestant) nationalists since the dawn of our country. There have been multiple studies done on this topic, each time and time again showing that immigrants are not overwhelming the job market. More often than not, immigrants take jobs that nobody wants. 

But even though it's wrong, let's assume that there is "hypercompetition" in the job market because of immigrants. DACA is a program that only defers deportation, it doesn't give out loans or other "resources" that "domestic talent" would use. It allows people who are here illegally to obtain work permits. Thus, the government isn't giving an edge up on these immigrants, just allowing them to stay here. If these immigrants get a job, that simply means they were better than the "domestic talent." In which case, !@#$ THESE WHINY LITTLE COMPLACENT SHITS FOR THINKING THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THEY CAN BE LAZY AND NOT GO TO SCHOOL. I'm not for hand-feeding our "domestic talent." If chubby little white kids don't think school is important and want to smoke weed all day, I'm all for an immigrant who actually wants to stay in this country and contribute to its economic wealth and prosperity. 

This is entirely excluding the fact that immigrants overall are an economic boon to the country. Keynes' theory on economic consumerism makes it clear that population growth is a vehicle for a stronger economy. More people means more production of goods and more consumption of said goods. Unless you are a traditional economist from before the industrial revolution, everyone agrees that a larger population means a larger consumer economy. It's practically the reason why China and India are such huge economies despite being behind on practically everything else. 

 

 

 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I cry for the companies that now may have to hire Americans and pay much more than they were both in wages and other benefits. 

Caecus in there with the "Native people are lazy" meme I see, which for those not aware applies to people of colour too and is not simply an attack on white people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Caecus said:

Ok, I read a little more about it. 

First, "domestic talent" is not being displaced by "foreign talent." The US has always had a labor deficiency, this idea that immigrants are taking jobs from "domestic" people is a scam peddled by (white protestant) nationalists since the dawn of our country. There have been multiple studies done on this topic, each time and time again showing that immigrants are not overwhelming the job market. More often than not, immigrants take jobs that nobody wants. 

But even though it's wrong, let's assume that there is "hypercompetition" in the job market because of immigrants. DACA is a program that only defers deportation, it doesn't give out loans or other "resources" that "domestic talent" would use. It allows people who are here illegally to obtain work permits. Thus, the government isn't giving an edge up on these immigrants, just allowing them to stay here. If these immigrants get a job, that simply means they were better than the "domestic talent." In which case, !@#$ THESE WHINY LITTLE COMPLACENT SHITS FOR THINKING THAT JUST BECAUSE THEY LIVE IN THE GREATEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD THEY CAN BE LAZY AND NOT GO TO SCHOOL. I'm not for hand-feeding our "domestic talent." If chubby little white kids don't think school is important and want to smoke weed all day, I'm all for an immigrant who actually wants to stay in this country and contribute to its economic wealth and prosperity. 

This is entirely excluding the fact that immigrants overall are an economic boon to the country. Keynes' theory on economic consumerism makes it clear that population growth is a vehicle for a stronger economy. More people means more production of goods and more consumption of said goods. Unless you are a traditional economist from before the industrial revolution, everyone agrees that a larger population means a larger consumer economy. It's practically the reason why China and India are such huge economies despite being behind on practically everything else. 

 

 

 

The U.S. has a labor deficiency because of the lack of discipline in education that allows students to run amok without developing quality study habits which shows in how America's educational performance has lagged behind since the end of the Cold War.  Back then, we were first across the board.  Now, we're on the bottom of the first world and behind many third world countries in PISA rankings.  On top of this is the lack of organic networking which inhibits students from networking into the workforce after they graduate.  

Basically, American education and networking needs to be comparable to far eastern countries where students are expected to dedicate their minds to their studies and schools are harmoniously incorporated into their wider communities.  Academia is not supposed to be isolated.  It's supposed to be integrated.  

The problem is many believe we don't need to establish quality study habits or organic networking because we can replace that with simply bringing foreign talent into the country.  They would prefer to create a distracting environment for the sake of libertine civil rights that have no sense of civic responsibility while telling the distracted to block distractions out, blocking which takes effort that would ordinarily be dedicated towards the cultivation of talent.  Yes, it can be done, but the more it's done, the less students are doing something else.

If you really want to address people being lazy, then this is what needs to be addressed.  I've no argument against what you say about China or India either.  However, we need to understand that consumption is best when it supports a dependable lifestyle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

The U.S. has a labor deficiency because of the lack of discipline in education that allows students to run amok without developing quality study habits which shows in how America's educational performance has lagged behind since the end of the Cold War.  Back then, we were first across the board.  Now, we're on the bottom of the first world and behind many third world countries in PISA rankings.  On top of this is the lack of organic networking which inhibits students from networking into the workforce after they graduate.  

Basically, American education and networking needs to be comparable to far eastern countries where students are expected to dedicate their minds to their studies and schools are harmoniously incorporated into their wider communities.  Academia is not supposed to be isolated.  It's supposed to be integrated.  

The problem is many believe we don't need to establish quality study habits or organic networking because we can replace that with simply bringing foreign talent into the country.  They would prefer to create a distracting environment for the sake of libertine civil rights that have no sense of civic responsibility while telling the distracted to block distractions out, blocking which takes effort that would ordinarily be dedicated towards the cultivation of talent.  Yes, it can be done, but the more it's done, the less students are doing something else.

If you really want to address people being lazy, then this is what needs to be addressed.  I've no argument against what you say about China or India either.  However, we need to understand that consumption is best when it supports a dependable lifestyle.

The US has a labor deficiency because there is a deficiency in the amount of people available for labor, not because of some lack of discipline in schools (though that does occur). Also, to be entirely fair, the literacy rate in China at the start of the Cold War was 15-25%, same as most of the "third world countries." We brought an F1 race car to a bicycle race. The only difference is, China (along with most of the world) undergone an education revolution that jumped that rate up to low 80s. 

Agree, agree, agree! Human capital is very important, especially in a country with a labor shortage. 

However, DACA doesn't "import foreign talent." In fact, very few of the DACA kids go on to high-skilled occupations (at a rate much lower than "domestic talent") in healthcare, engineering, computer software, etc. It simply defers deportation of people who came here when they were children. If anything, this program saves resources, not spend it. It takes more money to deport someone than it does to have them fill out an application every two years to work here. To deport someone, you need to find them, put them in a holding cell, transfer them to a deportation facility, arrange border crossings (cause, you can't really just dump them at an embassy), transport them to either an airplane or to the border of Mexico (presuming they are indeed Mexican), and finalize the deal. That is entirely excluding the possibility that they just might jump back over the border anyway, wasting you the same amount of resources. This is also excluding the possibility that some deportees actually know something about the American court system and got a lawyer before deportation and holds you up in court for 3 years. Again, keeping in mind that there is a demand for labor (particularly menial jobs that no plump white kid wants) and could possibly contribute to the economy. DACA is a good program, it's just too damn bad that our government values tax breaks for rich people over funding for public education. If only we valued expertise and skill over 250 pound meat bags running into each other in football. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I cry for the companies that now may have to hire Americans and pay much more than they were both in wages and other benefits. 

Caecus in there with the "Native people are lazy" meme I see, which for those not aware applies to people of colour too and is not simply an attack on white people. 

I hope you're as smug about this, but since you're not American, I hope all of the people ejected from the United States for underpaid, often to the illegal level occupations no American is basically willing to do. Oh and the doubling of food costs as a result of legal payment of farm workers. Enjoy that $5 can of Coke. Massive growth in pricing and a lack of even attempting to envision the issues this would cause are practically a staple of the less stable members of the conservative political area.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always nice to see your sort admit it. You support this sort of immigration because you want a cadre of slaves to work cheaply so you can have some cheap goods. Also why your sort supports what goes on in China and other places. 

Absolutely disgusting. Your care for humanity is simply disgusting. Why do you hate the poor so much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Caecus said:

The US has a labor deficiency because there is a deficiency in the amount of people available for labor, not because of some lack of discipline in schools (though that does occur). Also, to be entirely fair, the literacy rate in China at the start of the Cold War was 15-25%, same as most of the "third world countries." We brought an F1 race car to a bicycle race. The only difference is, China (along with most of the world) undergone an education revolution that jumped that rate up to low 80s. 

Agree, agree, agree! Human capital is very important, especially in a country with a labor shortage. 

However, DACA doesn't "import foreign talent." In fact, very few of the DACA kids go on to high-skilled occupations (at a rate much lower than "domestic talent") in healthcare, engineering, computer software, etc. It simply defers deportation of people who came here when they were children. If anything, this program saves resources, not spend it. It takes more money to deport someone than it does to have them fill out an application every two years to work here. To deport someone, you need to find them, put them in a holding cell, transfer them to a deportation facility, arrange border crossings (cause, you can't really just dump them at an embassy), transport them to either an airplane or to the border of Mexico (presuming they are indeed Mexican), and finalize the deal. That is entirely excluding the possibility that they just might jump back over the border anyway, wasting you the same amount of resources. This is also excluding the possibility that some deportees actually know something about the American court system and got a lawyer before deportation and holds you up in court for 3 years. Again, keeping in mind that there is a demand for labor (particularly menial jobs that no plump white kid wants) and could possibly contribute to the economy. DACA is a good program, it's just too damn bad that our government values tax breaks for rich people over funding for public education. If only we valued expertise and skill over 250 pound meat bags running into each other in football. 

First, I don't agree with you because universities very deliberately recruit foreign talent due to disappointment from domestic education.  DACA might not directly have to do with this, but the fact is it encourages a spirit of replacement that neglects paying attention to domestic students who are willing to apply themselves.  It encourages a dialectic instead of analytic mindset that presumes talent comes simply from bringing people from multiple places together.  In reality, talent comes from dedicating yourself to the actualization of your potential.  It doesn't spontaneously generate like some alchemy equation where you discover gold just from stirring up ingredients. 

Second, the fact is you're wrong because it does directly have to do with this: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2015/04/07/110558/daca-helps-undocumented-students-access-higher-education/

Third, even among lower-skilled jobs, it creates a glut in the labor market.  Not only does this encourage product surpluses (which encourage things like the obesity epidemic and housing crisis), but it also discourages automation since companies believe they can hire workers to get things done cheaply instead of considering advances in capital efficiency.  If anything, this holds us back in old-fashioned ways of doing business. 

Fourth, justice isn't subject to convenience.  When you "save resources" on the rule of law and order by cutting corners just because it's difficult, you're actually compromising on the respect of who people are.  If anything, that costs you more resources over the long-term in doing business.  No, we don't want to spend more than we have to, but that doesn't mean we spend less than we have to either.  There's a difference between being frugal and miserly.

Fifth, improving education doesn't work by throwing money at the problem.  If you spend a ton of money on students who are undisciplined and have poor study habits because the bullying epidemic isn't addressed and culture still believes "stupid is cool", then it won't make a difference.  If anything, you want to encourage tax breaks so those students who did make something of themselves after the fact of going through a ruined public education system don't get held back by their peers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dubayoo said:

First, I don't agree with you because universities very deliberately recruit foreign talent due to disappointment from domestic education.  DACA might not directly have to do with this, but the fact is it encourages a spirit of replacement that neglects paying attention to domestic students who are willing to apply themselves.  It encourages a dialectic instead of analytic mindset that presumes talent comes simply from bringing people from multiple places together.  In reality, talent comes from dedicating yourself to the actualization of your potential.  It doesn't spontaneously generate like some alchemy equation where you discover gold just from stirring up ingredients. 

Second, the fact is you're wrong because it does directly have to do with this: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/immigration/news/2015/04/07/110558/daca-helps-undocumented-students-access-higher-education/

Third, even among lower-skilled jobs, it creates a glut in the labor market.  Not only does this encourage product surpluses (which encourage things like the obesity epidemic and housing crisis), but it also discourages automation since companies believe they can hire workers to get things done cheaply instead of considering advances in capital efficiency.  If anything, this holds us back in old-fashioned ways of doing business. 

Fourth, justice isn't subject to convenience.  When you "save resources" on the rule of law and order by cutting corners just because it's difficult, you're actually compromising on the respect of who people are.  If anything, that costs you more resources over the long-term in doing business.  No, we don't want to spend more than we have to, but that doesn't mean we spend less than we have to either.  There's a difference between being frugal and miserly.

Fifth, improving education doesn't work by throwing money at the problem.  If you spend a ton of money on students who are undisciplined and have poor study habits because the bullying epidemic isn't addressed and culture still believes "stupid is cool", then it won't make a difference.  If anything, you want to encourage tax breaks so those students who did make something of themselves after the fact of going through a ruined public education system don't get held back by their peers.

Wait a second here. DACA is for people who lived in the United States since they were children. Both "foreign talent" and "domestic talent" go through the same "domestic education." If "foreign talent" is being favored, it's only because "domestic talent" is a failure. 

Second, the article you posted only points out that the DACA classification prevents people from having the undocumented status, which then makes them eligible for work and grants. If you think that somehow one person getting a grant means someone else isn't getting a grant like its some zero sum game, that's not how it works. And the grant program was put in place because it was a sound economic investment, seeing as how people who graduate from college with the most basic associate's degree contribute more than $50,000 back to the economy compared to people who graduate high school. 

Third, there is no evidence of this. This idea that immigrants only take jobs is silly, because by virtue of being in the US and having a job, they are consumers and therefore increase the demand on goods which in turn creates jobs. Also, who the hell told you that immigrants discourages automation? Immigrants typically take jobs that automation can't fix, otherwise people wouldn't be paying them minimum wage to do something a machine does. Just ask literally everyone in Pennsylvania. 

Fourth, the rule of law is stupid because Congress is stupid. The current immigration laws date back to the 1960's. If you think the world is the same place as it was in the 1960's, we would still be rabidly trying to arm ourselves with nukes and conservatism would be dead. The fact that immigration reform hasn't passed in Congress for the last 50 years creates problems in immigration itself. Your solution to a pipe leak is to burn down the house. DACA is a quick duct tape fix pending a plumber to come in and fix it. 

Fifth, perhaps we could use the DACA program then, seeing as how putting some hard-working immigrant children into these classes with lazy !@#$ might encourage them to work harder. Also, that's a real stretch. Tax breaks = economic incentive for high school students to work harder? Are you kidding me? High school students don't even know what the !@#$ a tax break is. And even if they were somehow well-informed and gave two shits enough to know, they would realize that those tax breaks don't apply to 99.997% of the people. Unless your daddy is a rich-mofo who plans on evading the estate tax to make you a spoiled little shit, tax breaks won't help increase incentive for anything. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Wait a second here. DACA is for people who lived in the United States since they were children. Both "foreign talent" and "domestic talent" go through the same "domestic education." If "foreign talent" is being favored, it's only because "domestic talent" is a failure. 

Second, the article you posted only points out that the DACA classification prevents people from having the undocumented status, which then makes them eligible for work and grants. If you think that somehow one person getting a grant means someone else isn't getting a grant like its some zero sum game, that's not how it works. And the grant program was put in place because it was a sound economic investment, seeing as how people who graduate from college with the most basic associate's degree contribute more than $50,000 back to the economy compared to people who graduate high school. 

Third, there is no evidence of this. This idea that immigrants only take jobs is silly, because by virtue of being in the US and having a job, they are consumers and therefore increase the demand on goods which in turn creates jobs. Also, who the hell told you that immigrants discourages automation? Immigrants typically take jobs that automation can't fix, otherwise people wouldn't be paying them minimum wage to do something a machine does. Just ask literally everyone in Pennsylvania. 

Fourth, the rule of law is stupid because Congress is stupid. The current immigration laws date back to the 1960's. If you think the world is the same place as it was in the 1960's, we would still be rabidly trying to arm ourselves with nukes and conservatism would be dead. The fact that immigration reform hasn't passed in Congress for the last 50 years creates problems in immigration itself. Your solution to a pipe leak is to burn down the house. DACA is a quick duct tape fix pending a plumber to come in and fix it. 

Fifth, perhaps we could use the DACA program then, seeing as how putting some hard-working immigrant children into these classes with lazy !@#$ might encourage them to work harder. Also, that's a real stretch. Tax breaks = economic incentive for high school students to work harder? Are you kidding me? High school students don't even know what the !@#$ a tax break is. And even if they were somehow well-informed and gave two shits enough to know, they would realize that those tax breaks don't apply to 99.997% of the people. Unless your daddy is a rich-mofo who plans on evading the estate tax to make you a spoiled little shit, tax breaks won't help increase incentive for anything. 

DACA is for children who were brought here illegally instead of having parents who were naturalized through due process.  They have disrupted the rule of law and order simply from being somewhere they shouldn't be.  There are indirect implications of that which carry on in disrupting due process in everything else they participate within which includes the administration of public education.

The article I posted showed how hundreds of thousands of students are being enabled through DACA, and yes, it does work that way since educational resources are not infinite.  The fact of the matter is there are only so many slots for students to attend higher education, and only so much attention for professors to use when teaching students.

Third, it's a definition that applies when you acknowledge they're not necessarily going on to higher education.  It suggests an increase of the labor supply that would be working on farms which increases the food supply and in construction which increases the housing supply.  In turn, there's more food to eat and houses built which creates a surplus and encourages irresponsible consumption. This is especially recognizable if you recognize the supply side of the product market as a problem for social issues which corresponds to the demand side of the labor market.

If you're going to play the evidence card here, then you're basically saying that wrong things should be allowed to happen while hiding behind plausible deniability.  It's the same argument made as those who say illegal immigration doesn't associate with higher crime rates, so it should be tolerated.  Indeed, since that position was taken, there has been proof that a higher proportion of those incarcerated are illegal immigrants than of the general population.  Evidence oriented paradigms force people to assume risks they shouldn't have to assume, especially since proving them requires real people actually getting damaged.  This isn't just a thought experiment we're talking about.

Fourth, Congress might have improperly handled immigration before, but that still has nothing to do with making decisions on cost-cutting measures now while making justice subject to convenience.  The right thing is to reform those past mistakes, not counterbalance them with more mistakes that just make things more of a mess.

Fifth, you're treating domestic students as necessarily lazy while foreign students are necessarily dedicated.  In reality, that's not what's going on.  The point of tax breaks is to let domestic dedicated students hold onto their success. Is there a problem with aristocracy replacing meritocracy?  Yes, but you address that through social policies, not economic policies.

Edited by Dubayoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dubayoo said:

DACA is for children who were brought here illegally instead of having parents who were naturalized through due process.  They have disrupted the rule of law and order simply from being somewhere they shouldn't be.  There are indirect implications of that which carry on in disrupting due process in everything else they participate within which includes the administration of public education.

The article I posted showed how hundreds of thousands of students are being enabled through DACA, and yes, it does work that way since educational resources are not infinite.  The fact of the matter is there are only so many slots for students to attend higher education, and only so much attention for professors to use when teaching students.

Third, it's a definition that applies when you acknowledge they're not necessarily going on to higher education.  It suggests an increase of the labor supply that would be working on farms which increases the food supply and in construction which increases the housing supply.  In turn, there's more food to eat and houses built which creates a surplus and encourages irresponsible consumption. This is especially recognizable if you recognize the supply side of the product market as a problem for social issues which corresponds to the demand side of the labor market.

If you're going to play the evidence card here, then you're basically saying that wrong things should be allowed to happen while hiding behind plausible deniability.  It's the same argument made as those who say illegal immigration doesn't associate with higher crime rates, so it should be tolerated.  Indeed, since that position was taken, there has been proof that a higher proportion of those incarcerated are illegal immigrants than of the general population.  Evidence oriented paradigms force people to assume risks they shouldn't have to assume, especially since proving them requires real people actually getting damaged.  This isn't just a thought experiment we're talking about.

Fourth, Congress might have improperly handled immigration before, but that still has nothing to do with making decisions on cost-cutting measures now while making justice subject to convenience.  The right thing is to reform those past mistakes, not counterbalance them with more mistakes that just make things more of a mess.

Fifth, you're treating domestic students as necessarily lazy while foreign students are necessarily dedicated.  In reality, that's not what's going on.  The point of tax breaks is to let domestic dedicated students hold onto their success. Is there a problem with aristocracy replacing meritocracy?  Yes, but you address that through social policies, not economic policies.

But the law is outdated. You are using a 1960's law on immigration that doesn't apply anymore. 

The limitation of slots only prove to heighten the competition. The fact that "foreign talent" still show up there goes to show you how stupid and lazy "domestic talent" really is. What I meant by unlimited resources was not specific to the universities, but to the grant money that is based solely on income. 

"Irresponsible consumption" is the heart of the American economy. It is LITERALLY the only reason why the United States outranks countries like India and China despite having only a third of the population. Traditional economists died during the Great Depression, and yet here stands before me an ancient relic brought back to life. I call upon Keynes and Blucher to cast this demon from whence it came!

Yes, and I'm sure that evidence-based discussion isn't something our Congress does anyway. Otherwise, we wouldn't be pulling out of the Climate Change accords without a peep from conservatives. Why should we have evidence-based discussion anyway? It's not like we are debating. 

But in lieu of proper immigration reform (which is entirely the fault of Congress), DACA is a program that A. saves money B. is sensible logistically C. morally right, and D. contributes to the economy. Your alternative is the opposite of all these things, and frankly kind of racist. 

You do realize that tax breaks proposed by conservatives is economic, not social right? "Supply-side" economics? So unless your "domestic" talent is graduating high school and landing into a leadership position in a multi-million dollar company, those tax breaks don't apply to them. Again, 99.997% of ALL PEOPLE are not affected by those sweet, sweet tax breaks. And again, go to any high school and ask what a tax break is. Nobody in high school pays taxes, much less know how to file for them. High schoolers don't know what a CPA is. They probably don't even know what the IRS is. 

Edited by Caecus

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we all ready to fill those jobs in sub-legal payment levels harvesting our food that Americans clearly want to do so much that their applications to farms are stacked six feet high and just including long-term immigrants who are obviously put at the top of the list. If we remove them are you prepared for food costs to increase significantly, especially in produce? Firstly, Americans basically refuse to do it. The farmers pay illegally low rates and that reduced cost and abuse of the people doing it are what keep our food costs so low.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ComradeMilton said:

Are we all ready to fill those jobs in sub-legal payment levels harvesting our food that Americans clearly want to do so much that their applications to farms are stacked six feet high and just including long-term immigrants who are obviously put at the top of the list. If we remove them are you prepared for food costs to increase significantly, especially in produce? Firstly, Americans basically refuse to do it. The farmers pay illegally low rates and that reduced cost and abuse of the people doing it are what keep our food costs so low.

Translations: I want pseudo slaves working the cotton fields. 

!@#$ing racist !@#$. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Rozalia said:

Translations: I want pseudo slaves working the cotton fields. 

!@#$ing racist !@#$. 

Nope. I'd prefer to just accept immigrants since that's basically where everyone in the US ultimately came from. Changes would be good to ensure proper payment, lack of abuse towards the workers and related stuff, but there would absolutely be an increase in food pricing because the poor payment keeps prices artificially low.

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On one hand you say America was founded by immigrants so on that it should accept (unlimited amounts) of immigrants. On the other hand America is also often said to have been founded by racist White men who only liked other white people. Pick one story and keep with it please.

So... let me get this straight. You say controlling immigration would increase the price on goods and that is bad... but... want to bring in all these immigrants and... pay them far more, as in what you would have to pay Americans doing those jobs which... WOULD INCREASE THE COST OF GOODS ANYWAY! !@#$ing HELL YOU ARE STUPID. 

You're either an idiot or a liar on this matter. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

On one hand you say America was founded by immigrants so on that it should accept (unlimited amounts) of immigrants. That's not what I said. On the other hand America is also often said to have been <- did not say founded by racist White men who only liked other white people. Pick one story and keep with it please. I have.

So... let me get this straight. You say controlling immigration would increase the price on goods and that is bad... but... want to bring in all these immigrants I want to bring in immigrants? How would they qualify under this program, which requires living within the United States since childhod? How could you add more to that, realistically? and... pay them far more (Which is to say, at least minimum wage), as in what you would have to pay Americans doing those jobs which... WOULD INCREASE THE COST OF GOODS ANYWAY! &#33;@#&#036;ing HELL YOU ARE STUPID. I said it's bad? I said I wanted to bring in all these immigrants? They're already here, so that doesn't even actually make sense.

You're either an idiot or a liar on this matter. I think you'll find the only thing you posted in this message is your thoughts, not mine.

 

GICjEwp.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

So... let me get this straight. You say controlling immigration would increase the price on goods and that is bad... but... want to bring in all these immigrants and... pay them far more, as in what you would have to pay Americans doing those jobs which... WOULD INCREASE THE COST OF GOODS ANYWAY! &#33;@#&#036;ing HELL YOU ARE STUPID. 

You're either an idiot or a liar on this matter. 

I'm not sure what Milton said (cause, I'm done with his bright colored not-quote text shit), but that's typically not how supply and demand works. If you pay for the labor costs of X goods, but you have a surplus of that good, the free market will naturally decrease the cost of said good in order to be able to sell in on the competitive market. It's conservative supply-side economics 101. 

As for legalizing immigrant labor, there are a lot of benefits to that: 

1. Government gets that sweet, sweet tax money

2. Labor regulations apply, and enforcement of those regulations are key to a safe and fair labor environment

3. Paying people at minimum wage (which is generally higher than under the table) increases their purchasing power which promotes spending and consumption, spinning the wheels of the American economy. 

4. It's the morally right thing to do since DACA is primarily for people who were brought here as children and raised as Americans, without knowing what life is like outside of the US. 

 

DACA is a morally, economically, and fiscally-sound program that circumvents an incompetent congress to affect real change to the economy and the lives of people who should be Americans. Throwing it out the window is stupid, even Trump realizes that. That's why he hid behind his "beleaguered AG" and pushed the responsibility of it all onto Congress while reassuring DACA applicants that "Congress will handle it." He's an amoral lying sack of shit who doesn't have a basic understanding of economics, just a bigoted hatred of brown people. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Caecus said:

I'm not sure what Milton said (cause, I'm done with his bright colored not-quote text shit), but that's typically not how supply and demand works. If you pay for the labor costs of X goods, but you have a surplus of that good, the free market will naturally decrease the cost of said good in order to be able to sell in on the competitive market. It's conservative supply-side economics 101. 

As for legalizing immigrant labor, there are a lot of benefits to that: 

1. Government gets that sweet, sweet tax money

2. Labor regulations apply, and enforcement of those regulations are key to a safe and fair labor environment

3. Paying people at minimum wage (which is generally higher than under the table) increases their purchasing power which promotes spending and consumption, spinning the wheels of the American economy. 

4. It's the morally right thing to do since DACA is primarily for people who were brought here as children and raised as Americans, without knowing what life is like outside of the US. 

 

DACA is a morally, economically, and fiscally-sound program that circumvents an incompetent congress to affect real change to the economy and the lives of people who should be Americans. Throwing it out the window is stupid, even Trump realizes that. That's why he hid behind his "beleaguered AG" and pushed the responsibility of it all onto Congress while reassuring DACA applicants that "Congress will handle it." He's an amoral lying sack of shit who doesn't have a basic understanding of economics, just a bigoted hatred of brown people. 

I know how these things work, simply replying to Milton's nonsense. 

DACA was going to be sued and Trump doesn't want to be seen as defending it. Would actually hurt the reputation he has that he actually cares about (and matters).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Rozalia said:

I know how these things work, simply replying to Milton's nonsense. 

DACA was going to be sued and Trump doesn't want to be seen as defending it. Would actually hurt the reputation he has that he actually cares about (and matters).

HAHAHAHA, you think Trump has a reputation left to hurt, hahahahahahaaha. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Caecus said:

HAHAHAHA, you think Trump has a reputation left to hurt, hahahahahahaaha. 

I don't think you understand just what reputation is. It is not some sole bar that exists for all peoples. Trump is heavily hated by you and other people true, however he has different level of reputation with others groups. His rock solid supporters for one are cult like in their admiration. There also exist moderates who may not like some of his stances but like others. Trump having to defend DACA like the suing would have forced him to would damage his reputation as someone strong on immigration among his supporters. Instead he gives it time, time for politicians to "save it". If they don't then oh well and if they do then Trump supporters will see as him having done the process properly and any anger they have will go towards the politicians. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Rozalia said:

I don't think you understand just what reputation is. It is not some sole bar that exists for all peoples. Trump is heavily hated by you and other people true, however he has different level of reputation with others groups. His rock solid supporters for one are cult like in their admiration. There also exist moderates who may not like some of his stances but like others. Trump having to defend DACA like the suing would have forced him to would damage his reputation as someone strong on immigration among his supporters. Instead he gives it time, time for politicians to "save it". If they don't then oh well and if they do then Trump supporters will see as him having done the process properly and any anger they have will go towards the politicians. 

Right. Okay, I understand that. But in general, when people think about "good" reputation, it's the good reputation with the majority of the people that typically counts. I could claim I have a good reputation when I go around murdering people because I'm looking for "rock solid support" from 0.005% of the population who enjoy the act of draining the life from someone. Sure, Trump supporters aren't 0.005%. But they are less than 50. When 2/3rds of the country think you are a dick, you can't really claim you have a "good reputation" to harm. 

Also, polls show that 3/4ths of Trump voters actually like the DACA program. 8 in 10 Americans support DACA. And Trump's approval rating isn't below 20% yet. What does that tell me? I don't think it's a matter about saving reputation among his voters. 

It's a useful mental exercise. Through the years, many thinkers have been fascinated by it. But I don't enjoy playing. It was a game that was born during a brutal age when life counted for little. Everyone believed that some people were worth more than others. Kings. Pawns. I don't think that anyone is worth more than anyone else. Chess is just a game. Real people are not pieces. You can't assign more value to some of them and not others. Not to me. Not to anyone. People are not a thing that you can sacrifice. The lesson is, if anyone who looks on to the world as if it was a game of chess, deserves to lose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Caecus said:

Right. Okay, I understand that. But in general, when people think about "good" reputation, it's the good reputation with the majority of the people that typically counts. I could claim I have a good reputation when I go around murdering people because I'm looking for "rock solid support" from 0.005% of the population who enjoy the act of draining the life from someone. Sure, Trump supporters aren't 0.005%. But they are less than 50. When 2/3rds of the country think you are a dick, you can't really claim you have a "good reputation" to harm. 

Also, polls show that 3/4ths of Trump voters actually like the DACA program. 8 in 10 Americans support DACA. And Trump's approval rating isn't below 20% yet. What does that tell me? I don't think it's a matter about saving reputation among his voters. 

Perhaps you could say that is what people think, however as said reputation does not actually work like that. Trump is a saint to some, devil to others. You could swap his name out with many people. To be near universally loved in politics is very difficult. 

Searched it. Poll was done before election and seems to list Trump voters higher than standard Republicans which... seems very much unlikely. As said Trump is keeping his rep positive with his most loyal supporters and letting Congress take any possible fall with them and other groups. If at the end of it Congress does something Trump supporters hate then they'll simply say that Ryan or whoever betrayed them again and is a Democrat in disguise and all that. Trump will be held up as simply following the proper process (unlike Obama they'll tell you) as he should. Of course the whole proper procedure thing is nonsense as if Trump were to do things without Congress they'd happily cheer it on and say it is proper but... that is how politics works for everybody.

I've said this many times but do not believe the polls even if we were to take the %s as accurate. You can vote for someone while disliking them just fine. Trump the most hated man in America won the Presidency because the Democrats decided to run the person considered the most corrupt ever lets not forget. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.