Welcome to Gaia! ::

Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
Kaltros
Nope. It's not just about color, but also culture. Do you fancy bringing into the U.S. a bunch of Africans with a fondness for genital mutilation, and who use cutting off hands and feet as a favorite method of punishment?
Hey, if the Lord's Resistance Army asks to immigrate, we can say no to them.

Of course, the policy you've proposed would mean rejecting Fauziya Kasinga, which would lead to her being subjected to involuntary surgery by her family back home. Something to which she would be unlikely to subject any daughters she might have here. So...interesting argument you're making.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Kaltros
I don't hate job creators, but I do hate lawbreakers. Many Mexicans are illegals.
Uniformly? There are a number of illegal immigrants because there's work for them that isn't being filled by citizens at the price that's necessary for the desired price of the goods. In other words, there are illegal employers, and there is a market for such illegal employers because people want cheap goods made by people willing to work for lower wages.

But, y'know, in general this just sounds racist. You keep talking about excluding legal Mexican immigration because you say "many Mexicans are illegals"? s**t, so are many Asians.

Kaltros
Maybe that's a plus for you, though. Maybe you like nurturing a new generation of robber barons with no respect for the law.
Well, I like cheap food. So, that's a plus. Moreover, I recognize that breaking one law is not equivalent to breaking every other law. Plenty of people will steal, but would refuse to murder. Some people will jaywalk, but abhor littering. The law and individual values do not always match up, and, as Oliver Wendell Holmes noted some years ago, we should not confuse the question of law with the question of morality.

Kaltros
You're also misrepresenting your own source, there. According to the Fiscal Policy study, 2.0 percent of the Latinos in the labor force are small business owners. For U.S. born overall the rate is 3.3 percent, and for U.S. born whites, the highest among U.S. born groups, it's 3.8 percent. Latinos, along with immigrant blacks, are worse job creators than the average for U.S. born as a whole.
Yet, they're better than U.S. born Latinos and Blacks. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm just pointing out that there are a huge number of Latino immigrants, and they fill jobs and spend money, which is good, and create business, which is good. Do they do it less efficiently than other ethnic groups? Sure. But they do it a lot in raw numbers.

Which is what I'm paying attention to. Others create jobs by working, consuming, paying taxes, and so forth, but this is a direct example of job creation.

Kaltros
If you really want to support job growth, you'd do it by supporting those who do better at creating new jobs: U.S. citizens, or white/asian immigrants.
It's kind of becoming clear that U.S. citizens are bad at creating jobs, on a ethnic basis, compared to their immigrant counterparts. I mean, you point out the highest among U.S. is whites, with 3.8%, but European immigrants have a 6.8%. Well, "European," but given the limitations of the categories and the numbers presented, the use of the word white probably includes Arabs, Afghanis, Turks, Persians, and others from the Middle East.

Point is, the best ethnic group among U.S. citizens is still worse than than its counterpart among foreign born.

Kaltros
Stop hating your own source, Ban. You cited it originally, now why don't you listen to it more?
I don't. I'm pointing out the things you're specifically omitting. And a hundred thousand businesses is a huge ******** omission.

Also, just pointing out that there are a variety of businesses, and some specific businesses that have a high portion of immigrant ownership do so because of a particular immigrant group being drawn to that business.

In addition, many of the groups you'd like to go after prosper here in America. There's a neat statistic on page 17 of my source showing how if immigrants stay longer than ten years their chances of becoming business owners tends to go up tremendously. Nigerians, for example, go from a 1% chance in their first decade to a 6% chance beyond that. That's higher that the U.S.-born white statistic by a significant margin. Argentinians go from 5% to 9%, Cubans from 3% to 8%, Iraqis from 1% to 12%. Maybe a lot of that is simply that people who don't succeed immigrate back, or to another country. But, again, point is, they create more business.

Kaltros
And if you hadn't been paying attention, the U.S. unemployment rate is still close to 8 percent. If only 2 percent of Latinos or, at best, nearly 7 percent of white immigrants become small business owners, that means the other 93-98 percent will be competing with U.S. citizens in the labor force for existing jobs.
Seriously? You're using the old "they're taking our jobs" line? How ******** ignorant can you get. You realize that's not a fixed pie, right?

Immigrants create jobs when they get work. They will be competing for existing jobs plus the new jobs created by the growth of capital and new businesses and jobs created thanks to immigration. As my source shows, the 900,000 immigrant owned small businesses employed 4.7 million people. The roughly 50 percent that were not sole proprietor type arrangements employed an average of 11 people. But beyond direct jobs, they create new taxpayers, economic growth, and so forth, which means a greater need for municipal and public service jobs, more jobs in subsidiary businesses or at the places those taxpayers shop and more dollars in general flowing through the economy. That's how the economy works.

Kaltros
What you are calling for is even more economic hardship and making it even more difficult for Americans to find work.
Old rhetorical line, not supported by evidence. After all, immigrants are also starting large businesses, as I pointed out. A number of large, established publicly traded firms that account for another big chunk of employment numbers were also founded by immigrants or their second generation children. So, what I am calling for is the recognition that this line of argument is basically just racism. Whether they're creating businesses or getting employed, it's good for our economy.

Kaltros
Why do you hate ordinary Americans, Ban?
Immigrants are ordinary Americans. We're a nation of immigrants. These xenophobic nonsense from anti-immigration immigrants about immigrants "taking our jobs" has no basis in fact and runs counter to our great heritage.

But, if your question is, why do I not care when, if this does indeed happen, an individual native born American doesn't get a job because it goes to someone who jumped the fence yesterday? Well, because I believe that hard work and skill pays off. And if the ******** beaner can do the job better or cheaper or whatever, then he's the right guy for the job, isn't he? That's just capitalism at ******** work, and this whiny privileged bullshit about how you deserve a job because you've been here longer is just asking the government to engage in financial protectionism.

So, if by "ordinary Americans," you mean whiny pricks who want the government to keep out skilled laborers so they can keep sucking on the teat of their employer who would rather have said skilled laborer instead of said whiny p***k, it's because I hate Communism. And that's all that is, when the state is acting like a goddamn union rep.
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros
Ban
Wendigo
Kaltros
Whatever the reasons behind it, there aren't enough employers hiring to put America's current citizens to work. How does more immigration help that job shortage?
Well, one thing you might wanna get updated on, there are rich black guys. In the world. Some of them don't live here at present.
Also, immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs.


Hmm. Small sample sizes are bad for you! From the article:

Quote:
The report, Immigrant Founders and Key Personnel in America’s 50 Top Venture-Funded Companies, was released by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), a non-profit research group based in Arlington, Virginia. The research was conducted by analyzing a list of 50 of America's top private venture-funded companies, as ranked by VentureSource, a research firm owned by Dow Jones.


Okay, so fifty companies. That's a drop in the bucket of the U.S. economy. According to the census bureau, there were nearly 6 MILLION employer firms in the U.S. in 2008.

Let's round the number of companies founded by immigrants in the survey to 50%. Which is 25 of the companies surveyed. On average, according to the survey, those 25 companies created 3750 jobs. Even if all those companies doubled the number of employees, bringing it to around 7500 new jobs, that still wouldn't put a dent in the country's unemployment rate.

I say again, small sample sizes are bad for you.

Finally, if the article has any validity, it's only for high-skilled immigrants from, according to the article, India, Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. Apparently they couldn't turn up any Mexican or other Central American business founders for the article. If anything, this article is an argument for restricted, discriminatory immigration policy in favor of high-skilled immigrants from a select list of countries.

Try again, Ban.

I love how quickly you back-pedal from the point. First it's a drop in the bucket, despite the study completely legitimizing what Ban said by stating that immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs. Next you try hard and fail to state that the study didn't show any business owners from Latin American countries, but seeing as you apparently have a s**t time at reading comprehension, here's what the article actually said and I quote, "The most common country of origin for immigrant founders was India, followed by Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. "

Where does it say only? Stop lying about sources that everyone can read, Kaltros. Or is that there fancy book learnin that trips you up?


You just couldn't stay away from me, could you? You love me too much. Do you want a big kiss, you smitten old fool?

Also, your reading comprehension sucks. The drop in the bucket comment was reference to the article using a mere 50 companies as a data sample. My comment was a specific criticism of JUST THAT ARTICLE. Dumbass. You'll also notice the uncertain tone of my final comment about the 50 companies article, such as the phrase "If the article has any validity". As I made abundantly clear in my comment, I didn't think 50 was a big enough sample to draw any firm conclusions. But I guess your reading comprehension wasn't good enough to catch that, Tactical. Dumbass.

Then you do some crazy kung fu and mix up the article on fifty companies with an entirely different source. Again, stop getting mixed up, dumbass. But it must be hard for you to think clearly when you're so infatuated with me that you can't stop responding to my comments even when you pouted and said I was on your ignore list. Didn't take you long to come sprinting back to me, did it?

There is no back-pedaling. Your fondness for me is clouding your judgment.
Wendigo
Kaltros
Nope. It's not just about color, but also culture. Do you fancy bringing into the U.S. a bunch of Africans with a fondness for genital mutilation, and who use cutting off hands and feet as a favorite method of punishment?
Hey, if the Lord's Resistance Army asks to immigrate, we can say no to them.

Of course, the policy you've proposed would mean rejecting Fauziya Kasinga, which would lead to her being subjected to involuntary surgery by her family back home. Something to which she would be unlikely to subject any daughters she might have here. So...interesting argument you're making.


Did you miss the part of the Wikipedia article which noted that female pro-FGM immigrants often took their daughters back to Africa to get the procedure done, or had 'house doctors' come to their new countries and do the procedure there? Fauziya Kasinga is one person, but there are a lot of others who still view FGM as an essential cultural practice. Both female and male, I might add. Many women are as likely to support FGM for cultural reasons as men.

The article also noted that cases of FGM in America have become so widespread that new laws had to be passed.

Quote:
In the United States nineteen-year-old Fauziya Kasinga, a member of the Tchamba-Kunsuntu tribe of Togo, was granted asylum in 1996 after leaving an arranged marriage to escape FGM, setting a precedent in U.S. immigration law because FGM was for the first time accepted as a form of persecution.[79] FGM became illegal in the United States by a federal law which came into force on 30 March 1997. According to a U.S. Centers for Disease Control estimate, 168,000 girls living in the U.S. as of 1997 had undergone FGM or were at risk.[80] In January 2013 the U.S. federal FGM law was amended by the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act, which prohibits knowingly transporting a girl out of the U.S. for the purpose of undergoing FGM. [81]


Look at the timeline. 1996, Fauziya gets asylum in America to avoid genital mutilation. 1997, FGM becomes illegal. That implies that before 1997 there weren't enough cases in the U.S. to provoke legislation. Also in 1997, 168,000 women had either suffered FGM or were at risk.

Following the 1997 law, pro-FGM people began smuggling their daughters out of the country to get the procedure done. This new tactic became so widespread that the law was amended in Jan 2013 to make it illegal to take girls out of country to get mutilated. January 2013. That's very recent history. This crap is still going on, and going strong, apparently.
Kaltros
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros
Ban
Wendigo
Well, one thing you might wanna get updated on, there are rich black guys. In the world. Some of them don't live here at present.
Also, immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs.


Hmm. Small sample sizes are bad for you! From the article:

Quote:
The report, Immigrant Founders and Key Personnel in America’s 50 Top Venture-Funded Companies, was released by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), a non-profit research group based in Arlington, Virginia. The research was conducted by analyzing a list of 50 of America's top private venture-funded companies, as ranked by VentureSource, a research firm owned by Dow Jones.


Okay, so fifty companies. That's a drop in the bucket of the U.S. economy. According to the census bureau, there were nearly 6 MILLION employer firms in the U.S. in 2008.

Let's round the number of companies founded by immigrants in the survey to 50%. Which is 25 of the companies surveyed. On average, according to the survey, those 25 companies created 3750 jobs. Even if all those companies doubled the number of employees, bringing it to around 7500 new jobs, that still wouldn't put a dent in the country's unemployment rate.

I say again, small sample sizes are bad for you.

Finally, if the article has any validity, it's only for high-skilled immigrants from, according to the article, India, Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. Apparently they couldn't turn up any Mexican or other Central American business founders for the article. If anything, this article is an argument for restricted, discriminatory immigration policy in favor of high-skilled immigrants from a select list of countries.

Try again, Ban.

I love how quickly you back-pedal from the point. First it's a drop in the bucket, despite the study completely legitimizing what Ban said by stating that immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs. Next you try hard and fail to state that the study didn't show any business owners from Latin American countries, but seeing as you apparently have a s**t time at reading comprehension, here's what the article actually said and I quote, "The most common country of origin for immigrant founders was India, followed by Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. "

Where does it say only? Stop lying about sources that everyone can read, Kaltros. Or is that there fancy book learnin that trips you up?


You just couldn't stay away from me, could you? You love me too much. Do you want a big kiss, you smitten old fool?

Also, your reading comprehension sucks. The drop in the bucket comment was reference to the article using a mere 50 companies as a data sample. My comment was a specific criticism of JUST THAT ARTICLE. Dumbass. You'll also notice the uncertain tone of my final comment about the 50 companies article, such as the phrase "If the article has any validity". As I made abundantly clear in my comment, I didn't think 50 was a big enough sample to draw any firm conclusions. But I guess your reading comprehension wasn't good enough to catch that, Tactical. Dumbass.

Then you do some crazy kung fu and mix up the article on fifty companies with an entirely different source. Again, stop getting mixed up, dumbass. But it must be hard for you to think clearly when you're so infatuated with me that you can't stop responding to my comments even when you pouted and said I was on your ignore list. Didn't take you long to come sprinting back to me, did it?

There is no back-pedaling. Your fondness for me is clouding your judgment.

No thanks. If I were gay you'd hardly be my type.

Dumbass, do you need me to sit through and cite you what exactly what you said? What am I saying, you're a moron, of course you do.

You
Okay, so fifty companies. That's a drop in the bucket of the U.S. economy


In reference to
Ban
Also, immigrants tend to make a lot of jobsmake a lot of jobs.


So first, you say it's a drop in the bucket. Are you still following, Kaltros? Do you need some bread crumbs? I know your intelligence is so profoundly miniscule that just forming sentences with more than a few words was probably a feat onto itself for you, so I'm quite understanding if trying to wrap your head around your own barely literate grunting is proving difficult.

So then we move onto
You
Finally, if the article has any validity, it's only for high-skilled immigrants from, according to the article, India, Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. Apparently they couldn't turn up any Mexican or other Central American business founders for the article. If anything, this article is an argument for restricted, discriminatory immigration policy in favor of high-skilled immigrants from a select list of countries.


That was in reference to this "
•The most common country of origin for immigrant founders was India, followed by Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand." Where does that say only? Dumbass, most common doesn't equate to entirety. Where am I mixing up the source, ********? It's all about the same article. Jesus, you can barely keep track of what it is you're talking about. No seriously, are you mentally challenged, because making you look like a sputtering moron will legitimately make me feel bad if you're some sort of deficient, which at this point, it's hard to imagine you not being.

Dumbass, I can see when people quote you. So you were on my ignore list, but I decided to take you off because you were busy pitching a whine fest while Ban and Wendigo both handed you your a** with the trimmings and I thought it hilarious to poke the retarded monkey some more.
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros
Ban
Also, immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs.


Hmm. Small sample sizes are bad for you! From the article:

Quote:
The report, Immigrant Founders and Key Personnel in America’s 50 Top Venture-Funded Companies, was released by the National Foundation for American Policy (NFAP), a non-profit research group based in Arlington, Virginia. The research was conducted by analyzing a list of 50 of America's top private venture-funded companies, as ranked by VentureSource, a research firm owned by Dow Jones.


Okay, so fifty companies. That's a drop in the bucket of the U.S. economy. According to the census bureau, there were nearly 6 MILLION employer firms in the U.S. in 2008.

Let's round the number of companies founded by immigrants in the survey to 50%. Which is 25 of the companies surveyed. On average, according to the survey, those 25 companies created 3750 jobs. Even if all those companies doubled the number of employees, bringing it to around 7500 new jobs, that still wouldn't put a dent in the country's unemployment rate.

I say again, small sample sizes are bad for you.

Finally, if the article has any validity, it's only for high-skilled immigrants from, according to the article, India, Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. Apparently they couldn't turn up any Mexican or other Central American business founders for the article. If anything, this article is an argument for restricted, discriminatory immigration policy in favor of high-skilled immigrants from a select list of countries.

Try again, Ban.

I love how quickly you back-pedal from the point. First it's a drop in the bucket, despite the study completely legitimizing what Ban said by stating that immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs. Next you try hard and fail to state that the study didn't show any business owners from Latin American countries, but seeing as you apparently have a s**t time at reading comprehension, here's what the article actually said and I quote, "The most common country of origin for immigrant founders was India, followed by Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. "

Where does it say only? Stop lying about sources that everyone can read, Kaltros. Or is that there fancy book learnin that trips you up?


You just couldn't stay away from me, could you? You love me too much. Do you want a big kiss, you smitten old fool?

Also, your reading comprehension sucks. The drop in the bucket comment was reference to the article using a mere 50 companies as a data sample. My comment was a specific criticism of JUST THAT ARTICLE. Dumbass. You'll also notice the uncertain tone of my final comment about the 50 companies article, such as the phrase "If the article has any validity". As I made abundantly clear in my comment, I didn't think 50 was a big enough sample to draw any firm conclusions. But I guess your reading comprehension wasn't good enough to catch that, Tactical. Dumbass.

Then you do some crazy kung fu and mix up the article on fifty companies with an entirely different source. Again, stop getting mixed up, dumbass. But it must be hard for you to think clearly when you're so infatuated with me that you can't stop responding to my comments even when you pouted and said I was on your ignore list. Didn't take you long to come sprinting back to me, did it?

There is no back-pedaling. Your fondness for me is clouding your judgment.

No thanks. If I were gay you'd hardly be my type.

Dumbass, do you need me to sit through and cite you what exactly what you said?


That would be redundant, since you already quoted my comment in full. Have you forgotten what you did before? Smitten old fools do go senile sometimes. Have you been to the doctor for your check-up recently?
Ban
Kaltros
I don't hate job creators, but I do hate lawbreakers. Many Mexicans are illegals.
Uniformly? There are a number of illegal immigrants because there's work for them that isn't being filled by citizens at the price that's necessary for the desired price of the goods. In other words, there are illegal employers, and there is a market for such illegal employers because people want cheap goods made by people willing to work for lower wages.


That doesn't justify or excuse lawbreaking.


Quote:

But, y'know, in general this just sounds racist. You keep talking about excluding legal Mexican immigration because you say "many Mexicans are illegals"? s**t, so are many Asians.


Excluding illegal immigration would be a good idea because it's breaking the law. And what's your source for 'many Asians' being illegals?


Quote:

Kaltros
Maybe that's a plus for you, though. Maybe you like nurturing a new generation of robber barons with no respect for the law.
Well, I like cheap food. So, that's a plus. Moreover, I recognize that breaking one law is not equivalent to breaking every other law. Plenty of people will steal, but would refuse to murder. Some people will jaywalk, but abhor littering. The law and individual values do not always match up, and, as Oliver Wendell Holmes noted some years ago, we should not confuse the question of law with the question of morality.


Irrelevant. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and should be punished. America is based on the rule of law.


Quote:

Kaltros
You're also misrepresenting your own source, there. According to the Fiscal Policy study, 2.0 percent of the Latinos in the labor force are small business owners. For U.S. born overall the rate is 3.3 percent, and for U.S. born whites, the highest among U.S. born groups, it's 3.8 percent. Latinos, along with immigrant blacks, are worse job creators than the average for U.S. born as a whole.
Yet, they're better than U.S. born Latinos and Blacks. I'm not misrepresenting anything. I'm just pointing out that there are a huge number of Latino immigrants, and they fill jobs and spend money, which is good, and create business, which is good. Do they do it less efficiently than other ethnic groups? Sure. But they do it a lot in raw numbers.


Let's say you're right and immigrant Latinos and blacks do better than the native U.S. versions of the same. Does that mean you're okay with disenfranchising U.S. blacks and latinos in favor of immigrants? Isn't that kind of treasonous and racist against U.S. blacks and Latinos to spit in their faces and say, "There, I like immigrants better than you." ?


Quote:

Point is, the best ethnic group among U.S. citizens is still worse than than its counterpart among foreign born.


But the worst immigrant groups are worse than U.S. citizens.



Quote:

Kaltros
Stop hating your own source, Ban. You cited it originally, now why don't you listen to it more?
I don't. I'm pointing out the things you're specifically omitting. And a hundred thousand businesses is a huge ******** omission.


I'm not omitting anything. As the data said, 93-98 percent of immigrants do not start small businesses. That's a high ration of job seekers to job creators.


Quote:

In addition, many of the groups you'd like to go after prosper here in America. There's a neat statistic on page 17 of my source showing how if immigrants stay longer than ten years their chances of becoming business owners tends to go up tremendously. Nigerians, for example, go from a 1% chance in their first decade to a 6% chance beyond that. That's higher that the U.S.-born white statistic by a significant margin. Argentinians go from 5% to 9%, Cubans from 3% to 8%, Iraqis from 1% to 12%. Maybe a lot of that is simply that people who don't succeed immigrate back, or to another country. But, again, point is, they create more business.


In ten years. In the meantime they're job seekers like most everybody else. And look at your own numbers. How likely would you be to play a game of chance when the odds of you winning were, at best, 12 percent?


Quote:

Kaltros
And if you hadn't been paying attention, the U.S. unemployment rate is still close to 8 percent. If only 2 percent of Latinos or, at best, nearly 7 percent of white immigrants become small business owners, that means the other 93-98 percent will be competing with U.S. citizens in the labor force for existing jobs.
Seriously? You're using the old "they're taking our jobs" line? How ******** ignorant can you get. You realize that's not a fixed pie, right?


It's not a line. It's evident if you look at the data. If only 2 percent of Latinos become small business owners, it follows, logically, that the other 98 percent have to do something with their time? What does that leave? That leaves job seeker or /on the dole of some kind. And jobs are more or less a fixed pie for a given period of time, which is why there is an unemployment rate. If everyone could instantly create all the jobs they needed unemployment would never go above 1-2 percent.


Quote:

Immigrants create jobs when they get work.


No, immigrants take jobs when they get work.


Quote:

Kaltros
What you are calling for is even more economic hardship and making it even more difficult for Americans to find work.
Old rhetorical line, not supported by evidence. After all, immigrants are also starting large businesses, as I pointed out. A number of large, established publicly traded firms that account for another big chunk of employment numbers were also founded by immigrants or their second generation children. So, what I am calling for is the recognition that this line of argument is basically just racism.


Not all immigrants are equal. Thanks again, Ban, for providing me another invaluable resource. Your latest article leads to another study that provides some perspective. Partnership For a New American Economy put out a report on immigrant founders among the Fortune 500 companies. Here are some snippets.

Quote:


Beginning perhaps with Alexander Hamilton — the first Secretary of the United States Treasury and a native of Nevis in the British West Indies — enterprising people the world over have immigrated to America and played an essential role in our economic success.

-snip-

The immigrants who followed Hamilton have embraced his legacy and run with it, spearheading innovation and, ultimately, America’s global economic dominance. Scottish immigrant Alexander Graham Bell revolutionized communication with the invention of the telephone. And Latvian and German immigrants Jacob Davis and Levis Strauss gave us perhaps the most “American” invention of all — the blue jeans that were so highly sought-after as emblems of America’s youthfulness and freedom that they became a kind of currency the world over.

-snip-

Charles Pfizer and Charles Erhart, cousins born in Ludwigburg, Germany, came to America seeking opportunity — and one year later founded the company that would grow into the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer. Fluor, an engineering and construction company employing almost 40,000, was founded when a family of master builders from Sweden decided to settle in the United States and ply their trade. More recently, eBay was the brainchild of Pierre Omidyar, an entrepreneur of Iranian ancestry who immigrated to the United States from France in the 1970s.


http://www.renewoureconomy.org/sites/all/themes/pnae/img/new-american-fortune-500-june-2011.pdf

Anecdotes about mostly Europeans, including one French Iranian.


At the end of the report are two lists, one for immigrant founders and another for the children of immigrants who founded Fortune 500 companies. It also provides where they came from. There is not one Mexican or black on either list. The vast majority are white Europeans, with Asians/Middle Easterners coming in a distant second.


Quote:

Kaltros
Why do you hate ordinary Americans, Ban?
Immigrants are ordinary Americans. We're a nation of immigrants. These xenophobic nonsense from anti-immigration immigrants about immigrants "taking our jobs" has no basis in fact and runs counter to our great heritage.


Almost all nations are begun by immigrants. People don't just sprout out of the ground like plants. And almost all nations have immigration laws of some sort. And immigrants are obviously not Americans, or they would have been born in America.



Quote:

But, if your question is, why do I not care when, if this does indeed happen, an individual native born American doesn't get a job because it goes to someone who jumped the fence yesterday? Well, because I believe that hard work and skill pays off. And if the ******** beaner can do the job better or cheaper or whatever, then he's the right guy for the job, isn't he? That's just capitalism at ******** work, and this whiny privileged bullshit about how you deserve a job because you've been here longer is just asking the government to engage in financial protectionism.


So you do hate ordinary Americans, apparently. And capitalism works best under a firm and impartial rule of law. Crossing the border illegally is a poor start to a law-abiding career.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Kaltros
That doesn't justify or excuse lawbreaking.
My question is, do you hate Americans as much as you hate immigrants? Because, y'know, you're doing a lot to discriminate against Mexicans who are working and so forth, but don't seem to be discriminating against, say, American farmers who hire illegal workers by the droves. Why aren't white rural folks being discriminated against in your system, if the justification is lawbreaking?

If lawbreaking is actually the issue, rather than just a dislike for Mexicans, then the actual way to stop lawbreaking is to vigorously pursue the demand side of an illegal market.

Kaltros
Excluding illegal immigration would be a good idea because it's breaking the law. And what's your source for 'many Asians' being illegals?
Pew Study and some other stuff I can't be assed to dig up right now. My recollection is that while over half the people in the country illegally are from a Hispanic country, mostly Mexico, Asian countries are the next largest chunk, about ten to fifteen percent.

Kaltros
Irrelevant. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and should be punished. America is based on the rule of law.
That wasn't the point. The point was that you argued breaking one law would lead to a "nation of robber barons," which doesn't even make sense, since that was a term used to describe wealthy nineteenth and early twentieth century businessmen to describe exploitative use of wealth. Not sure how people looking for work without appropriate paperwork leads to that. But, anyway, point wasn't whether something should be punished, but whether breaking a law creates a lack of respect for social order in general.

Kaltros
Let's say you're right and immigrant Latinos and blacks do better than the native U.S. versions of the same. Does that mean you're okay with disenfranchising U.S. blacks and latinos in favor of immigrants? Isn't that kind of treasonous and racist against U.S. blacks and Latinos to spit in their faces and say, "There, I like immigrants better than you." ?
Disenfranchise? How am I taking away their ability to vote? Or removing any power? I'm merely saying immigration is an economically positive thing. Whatever argument you're trying to make is missing several logical steps.

Kaltros
But the worst immigrant groups are worse than U.S. citizens.
Yeah, that is kind of comparing apples and oranges, though, isn't it? One group versus a collective? You have multiple variables you aren't controlling for.

Kaltros
I'm not omitting anything.
As has been pointed out, that's not true. Hence, why your big quote contained "-snip-". See, that's the definition of an omission.

Kaltros
As the data said, 93-98 percent of immigrants do not start small businesses. That's a high ration of job seekers to job creators.
That's actually pretty standard. It's not high at all. The point being that overall and within specific ethnic categories, immigrants are actually better job creators than U.S. citizens.

Kaltros
In ten years. In the meantime they're job seekers like most everybody else. And look at your own numbers. How likely would you be to play a game of chance when the odds of you winning were, at best, 12 percent?
Again, the whole point about small business owners was a specific example. This rhetoric you keep bringing up, that someone who has a job is just taking a job from someone else, is just dumb.

Kaltros
It's not a line. It's evident if you look at the data.
No, it's not.

Kaltros
If only 2 percent of Latinos become small business owners, it follows, logically, that the other 98 percent have to do something with their time?
Yes, like because they, like everyone else, like to buy things and use services and create demand and so forth.

Kaltros
What does that leave? That leaves job seeker or /on the dole of some kind. And jobs are more or less a fixed pie for a given period of time, which is why there is an unemployment rate. If everyone could instantly create all the jobs they needed unemployment would never go above 1-2 percent.
That's not how unemployment works.

Kaltros
No, immigrants take jobs when they get work.
That's not how the economy works.

Kaltros
Not all immigrants are equal. Thanks again, Ban, for providing me another invaluable resource. Your latest article leads to another study that provides some perspective. Partnership For a New American Economy put out a report on immigrant founders among the Fortune 500 companies. Here are some snippets.
Yeah, Partnership for a New American Economy. The guys who want to give amnesty to all those undocumented workers.

Kaltros
At the end of the report are two lists, one for immigrant founders and another for the children of immigrants who founded Fortune 500 companies. It also provides where they came from. There is not one Mexican or black on either list. The vast majority are white Europeans, with Asians/Middle Easterners coming in a distant second.
No, not a lot of blacks. There never have been, arguably because America has only relatively recently become a friendly business environment to blacks. As for Hispanics, depends if you count Amazon's Bezos, or the Behn brothers from the Carribean. But, yeah, the larger companies that have Hispanic founders tend to stay in their home country. A lot of them never even get traded in the U.S., despite having billions in assets. Grupo Carso is an example, which is Carlos Slim's company.
Reluctant Samurai's avatar

Dangerous Genius

4,650 Points
  • Millionaire 200
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Tycoon 200
A long while back I had this huge, vitriolic argument with some crazy British broad about gun control. It was pretty hilarious, pretty infuriating, and surprisingly educational.

I learned a lot. Mostly, I learned that racially integrated societies are a LOT harder to keep under control. Well, I shouldn't say racially. Race has nothing to do with it. Rather, culturally integrated societies, so on, so forth.

You see lower incidences of violent crime in more homogenous societies. For instance, Japan.

Anyway, there's a whole interesting mishmash of socioeconomic factors that will increase violence and crime. Things like poverty levels, enfranchisement/disenfranchisement, female rights, education, and cultural homogeneity are a few.

How this applies to gun control is neither simple nor easily explained, so first I'll state my opinion of it and go from there.

******** you, you're not taking my gun. I'm not killing anyone with it. It isn't available to children, or anyone who isn't me. If you ******** with me, I'll be happy to defend myself court after scrambling your insides.

Now, as stupid, confrontational, and narrow-minded as all of that sounds... Yeah, I agree. Here's an explanation.

No one, never, ever, anyway, anyhow, is getting rid of all guns in America. You can try. Good luck. I'm not volunteering to go with you to collect guns.

So, what do you do when you can't seem to get rid of the guns? You know, especially considering how hilariously rich you'll make black market gun sellers the day after you enact gun Prohibition.

What you might be able to do is give people less of a reason to kill each other. We're ******** monkeys. We kill for resources. We war within the scheme of tribes. And we have way too many ******** tribes.

You wouldn't believe how easy it is to make money slangin some dope on the side. Everyone wants some kind of drug, so you never run out of customers. Sure, it's easy, but not everyone does it, because duh. It's gross. I'm not a dirtbag. I have a job. But, I guess not everyone does.

Anyway, the point of that meandering is, hey, let's kill the War on Drugs. Pot doesn't kill people. People selling pot kill people. The illicit drug trade creates a wonderful demand for black market weapons. You want to control guns more effectively? Eliminate some of the need for procuring them illicitly.

It's the same tactic in all corners of the socioeconomic spectrum. Increase employment, and don't be a d**k, increase it with jobs that actual, average people can get. Provide decent education so those actual, average people can have a hope of getting better jobs eventually.

Also, don't stack the deck against or for cultural groups within the whole. Enfranchisement, bitches.

Reducing violence isn't about neutering or incapacitate people. It's about giving them less reason to resort to violence.

Now, I'm not stupid. I know that you can't stop all violence. There are SO many shitheads. Most people, in fact, are shitheads. No matter how well cared for by society each individual may be, someone is still going to beat his wife, go nuts and murder her kids, or shoot up a school.

Mass murder though, is not the norm. It is not a large cause of death. It is simply the most spectacular, the most horrifying. The vast majority of violence is normal shithead people, one on one, usually for something to do with resources, tribal conflict, or instability.

All of that can be fixed. It takes time, it takes investment.You take care of people and make sure that they have the opportunity to care for themselves and you eliminate a lot of problems.

Let me make it clear that for the most part I have NO IDEA how to make a lot of this happen.

In summary, the cause of violence isn't available weapons. Available weapons only ensure lethality. The causes of violence are numerous and amorphous, moving targets. And if you don't address them all, you're not going to come up with a real solution.
Kaltros
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros
Tactical Leg Sweep
Kaltros


Hmm. Small sample sizes are bad for you! From the article:



Okay, so fifty companies. That's a drop in the bucket of the U.S. economy. According to the census bureau, there were nearly 6 MILLION employer firms in the U.S. in 2008.

Let's round the number of companies founded by immigrants in the survey to 50%. Which is 25 of the companies surveyed. On average, according to the survey, those 25 companies created 3750 jobs. Even if all those companies doubled the number of employees, bringing it to around 7500 new jobs, that still wouldn't put a dent in the country's unemployment rate.

I say again, small sample sizes are bad for you.

Finally, if the article has any validity, it's only for high-skilled immigrants from, according to the article, India, Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. Apparently they couldn't turn up any Mexican or other Central American business founders for the article. If anything, this article is an argument for restricted, discriminatory immigration policy in favor of high-skilled immigrants from a select list of countries.

Try again, Ban.

I love how quickly you back-pedal from the point. First it's a drop in the bucket, despite the study completely legitimizing what Ban said by stating that immigrants tend to make a lot of jobs. Next you try hard and fail to state that the study didn't show any business owners from Latin American countries, but seeing as you apparently have a s**t time at reading comprehension, here's what the article actually said and I quote, "The most common country of origin for immigrant founders was India, followed by Israel, Canada, Iran, and New Zealand. "

Where does it say only? Stop lying about sources that everyone can read, Kaltros. Or is that there fancy book learnin that trips you up?


You just couldn't stay away from me, could you? You love me too much. Do you want a big kiss, you smitten old fool?

Also, your reading comprehension sucks. The drop in the bucket comment was reference to the article using a mere 50 companies as a data sample. My comment was a specific criticism of JUST THAT ARTICLE. Dumbass. You'll also notice the uncertain tone of my final comment about the 50 companies article, such as the phrase "If the article has any validity". As I made abundantly clear in my comment, I didn't think 50 was a big enough sample to draw any firm conclusions. But I guess your reading comprehension wasn't good enough to catch that, Tactical. Dumbass.

Then you do some crazy kung fu and mix up the article on fifty companies with an entirely different source. Again, stop getting mixed up, dumbass. But it must be hard for you to think clearly when you're so infatuated with me that you can't stop responding to my comments even when you pouted and said I was on your ignore list. Didn't take you long to come sprinting back to me, did it?

There is no back-pedaling. Your fondness for me is clouding your judgment.

No thanks. If I were gay you'd hardly be my type.

Dumbass, do you need me to sit through and cite you what exactly what you said?


That would be redundant, since you already quoted my comment in full. Have you forgotten what you did before? Smitten old fools do go senile sometimes. Have you been to the doctor for your check-up recently?

And apparently you're still too daft to connect the dots, which is why I had to hold your hand like the intellectual infant you are.

Guess you've had enough of being made to look stupid. Better luck next time. Although it seems you haven't had your fill with Ban.
It's funny how all these immigrants are going to take all da jerrrbbss! And yet throughout the last forty years, even coinciding with the largest influx of immigrants both legal and undocumented, the American economy has seen no sustained or long term growth in unemployment. The numbers have fluctuated during cycles as they normally would, but it's still remained relatively static.

I know Kaltros has trouble with numbers though. They're big and scary.
Ban
Kaltros
That doesn't justify or excuse lawbreaking.
My question is, do you hate Americans as much as you hate immigrants? Because, y'know, you're doing a lot to discriminate against Mexicans who are working and so forth, but don't seem to be discriminating against, say, American farmers who hire illegal workers by the droves. Why aren't white rural folks being discriminated against in your system, if the justification is lawbreaking?


It's lawbreaking I dislike, whether from immigrants or citizens. I think employers who hire illegals should be held accountable and punished. I also support counter-measures such as the mandatory use of E-verify.


Quote:

Kaltros
Irrelevant. Breaking the law is breaking the law, and should be punished. America is based on the rule of law.
That wasn't the point. The point was that you argued breaking one law would lead to a "nation of robber barons,"


That wasn't my argument. I used 'robber barons' as a figure of speech, not as an integral part of a logical argument.


Quote:

Kaltros
But the worst immigrant groups are worse than U.S. citizens.
Yeah, that is kind of comparing apples and oranges, though, isn't it? One group versus a collective? You have multiple variables you aren't controlling for.


Not really, when the same thing, rates of being small business owners, is being measured for each group. Comparing one group's percentage of small business owners to that of another group is comparing apples to apples. Percentage of business owners is the measure in all cases.


Quote:

Kaltros
I'm not omitting anything.
As has been pointed out, that's not true. Hence, why your big quote contained "-snip-". See, that's the definition of an omission.


You've taken my words out of context. Shame on you. The comment was in response to a specific part of your last post, not a universal claim.


Quote:

Kaltros
As the data said, 93-98 percent of immigrants do not start small businesses. That's a high ration of job seekers to job creators.
That's actually pretty standard. It's not high at all. The point being that overall and within specific ethnic categories, immigrants are actually better job creators than U.S. citizens.


Some immigrants, such as white immigrants, do better than citizens at job creation. Black and Latino immigrants do worse. But even the best percentage is about 7 percent of white immigrants. The rest become job seekers and compete with American citizens, making jobs more scarce and helping to drive wages down since there's a glut in the labor market.

Quote:

Using conventional methods of analysis, the data show that the median earnings for prime-age (25-64) working men have declined slightly from 1970 to 2010, falling by 4 percent after adjusting for inflation.

This finding of stagnant wages is unsettling, but also quite misleading. For one thing, this statistic includes only men who have jobs. In 1970, 94 percent of prime-age men worked, but by 2010, that number was only 81 percent. The decline in employment has been accompanied by increases in incarceration rates, higher rates of enrollment in the Social Security Disability Insurance program and more Americans struggling to find work. Because those without jobs are excluded from conventional analyses of Americans’ earnings, the statistics we most commonly see — those that illustrate a trend of wage stagnation — present an overly optimistic picture of the middle class.

When we consider all working-age men, including those who are not working, the real earnings of the median male have actually declined by 19 percent since 1970. This means that the median man in 2010 earned as much as the median man did in 1964 — nearly a half century ago. Men with less education face an even bleaker picture; earnings for the median man with a high school diploma and no further schooling fell by 41 percent from 1970 to 2010.


http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-american-wages/

Note the base date for that article, 1970, which was a mere five years after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that first opened the immigrant floodgates.

Quote:

The 1965 act marked a radical break from the immigration policies of the past. The law as it stood then excluded Asians and Africans and preferred northern and western Europeans over southern and eastern ones.[2] At the height of the civil rights movement of the 1960s the law was seen as an embarrassment by, among others, President John F. Kennedy, who called the then-quota-system "nearly intolerable".[3] After Kennedy's assassination, President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill at the foot of the Statue of Liberty as a symbolic gesture.

In order to convince the American populace - the majority of whom were opposed to the act - of the legislation's merits, its liberal proponents assured that passage would not influence America's culture significantly. President Johnson called the bill "not revolutionary", Secretary of State Dean Rusk estimated only a few thousand Indian immigrants over the next five years, and other politicians, including Senator Ted Kennedy, hastened to reassure the populace that the demographic mix would not be affected; these assertions would later prove wildly inaccurate.[4]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_and_Nationality_Act_of_1965





Quote:

Kaltros
In ten years. In the meantime they're job seekers like most everybody else. And look at your own numbers. How likely would you be to play a game of chance when the odds of you winning were, at best, 12 percent?
Again, the whole point about small business owners was a specific example. This rhetoric you keep bringing up, that someone who has a job is just taking a job from someone else, is just dumb.


No it isn't. Commonly multiple people are interviewed for one job position, but only ONE of the interviewed candidates gets hired. Before that many candidates who turned in applications got turned down without even getting an interview. Haven't you heard one of those stories that goes: "Wal-Mart, which had 100 job openings, has received over 5,000 applications, and will be interviewing about 800 people" ?



Quote:

Kaltros
What does that leave? That leaves job seeker or /on the dole of some kind. And jobs are more or less a fixed pie for a given period of time, which is why there is an unemployment rate. If everyone could instantly create all the jobs they needed unemployment would never go above 1-2 percent.
That's not how unemployment works.


No? How do you think unemployment works?





Quote:

Kaltros
No, immigrants take jobs when they get work.
That's not how the economy works.


Sure it is. Job A is available, and an immigrant takes it. Therefore, the job the immigrant now holds cannot be filled by a U.S. citizen or anyone else until the immigrant dies, quits, or gets fired.



Quote:

Kaltros
At the end of the report are two lists, one for immigrant founders and another for the children of immigrants who founded Fortune 500 companies. It also provides where they came from. There is not one Mexican or black on either list. The vast majority are white Europeans, with Asians/Middle Easterners coming in a distant second.
No, not a lot of blacks. There never have been, arguably because America has only relatively recently become a friendly business environment to blacks. As for Hispanics, depends if you count Amazon's Bezos, or the Behn brothers from the Carribean. But, yeah, the larger companies that have Hispanic founders tend to stay in their home country. A lot of them never even get traded in the U.S., despite having billions in assets. Grupo Carso is an example, which is Carlos Slim's company.


Since the topic was immigrants in the U.S., I saw no point in discussing businesses native to Mexico or other places besides the U.S. You have been arguing, after all, for the supposed economic benefits to the U.S. of immigration.
Ban's avatar

Jeering Regular

Kaltros
It's lawbreaking I dislike, whether from immigrants or citizens. I think employers who hire illegals should be held accountable and punished. I also support counter-measures such as the mandatory use of E-verify.
Punished how? For most illegals we just deport. Should we try denaturalization proceedings? Or make them serve the sentences the undocumented worker would normally get if we wanted to waste the money on keeping them in prison?

Kaltros
That wasn't my argument. I used 'robber barons' as a figure of speech, not as an integral part of a logical argument.
Poor figure of speech, and doesn't answer my point.

Kaltros
Not really, when the same thing, rates of being small business owners, is being measured for each group. Comparing one group's percentage of small business owners to that of another group is comparing apples to apples. Percentage of business owners is the measure in all cases.
Yes, but there are a number of differences between all native-born business owners and one ethnic subgroup of foreign-born business owners.

Kaltros
You've taken my words out of context. Shame on you. The comment was in response to a specific part of your last post, not a universal claim.
Yes a specific part where I accused you of omitting facts when you were quoting the provided source. Facts that you indeed omitted, and that I discussed, and you have purposefully ignored. For example, that "-snip-" included the paragraph pointing out 105,000 Latino-owned small businesses.

Kaltros
Some immigrants, such as white immigrants, do better than citizens at job creation. Black and Latino immigrants do worse. But even the best percentage is about 7 percent of white immigrants. The rest become job seekers and compete with American citizens, making jobs more scarce and helping to drive wages down since there's a glut in the labor market.
Actually, there are further subdivisions. Best percentage, at least under ten years of residency, is people the Israel/Palestine area. But, yeah, again, most economic studies demonstrate the complete opposite of what you're saying, that the addition to the labor force doesn't affect unemployment or wages, except for native-born unskilled laborers. And again, I don't feel the need to be protecting that guy's job.

Kaltros
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-american-wages/

Note the base date for that article, 1970, which was a mere five years after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that first opened the immigrant floodgates.
I notice the article draws no connection between the two, and in fact focuses on our high rates of incarceration and lack of investment in education as prime suspects for sticky wages.

You're drawing an incredibly weak correlation.

Kaltros
No it isn't. Commonly multiple people are interviewed for one job position, but only ONE of the interviewed candidates gets hired. Before that many candidates who turned in applications got turned down without even getting an interview. Haven't you heard one of those stories that goes: "Wal-Mart, which had 100 job openings, has received over 5,000 applications, and will be interviewing about 800 people" ?
Yes, that's how it's always worked. Because they interview a bunch of people and the best person gets the job. Nobody has a right to a particular job just because of where they were born.

Kaltros
No? How do you think unemployment works?
Unemployment is caused by a great number of factors beyond merely the supply of labor. Economic cycles, slow growth, low aggregate demand, certain structural issues such as the outsourcing of certain jobs, real wage unemployment caused by wages being set too high, and a dozen other factors. Your reduction of it to the amount of jobs being "more or less" a fixed pie makes no sense and is simply not grounded in fact, given that the job supply has thousands of gains and losses each day.

Kaltros
Sure it is. Job A is available, and an immigrant takes it. Therefore, the job the immigrant now holds cannot be filled by a U.S. citizen or anyone else until the immigrant dies, quits, or gets fired.
And, again, a new consumer means new jobs. A filled job means greater demand for goods and services as disposable income rises.

Kaltros
Since the topic was immigrants in the U.S., I saw no point in discussing businesses native to Mexico or other places besides the U.S. You have been arguing, after all, for the supposed economic benefits to the U.S. of immigration.
Yes, and you've been largely ignoring the argument.
pockybot
I don't get my fellow liberals. They talk about violent crimes happening to women, yet seem to not be too keen on the right to own firearms. I was actually surprised to see Obama and Biden really run with proposed new gun bans in the works, or at least looking at it.
Shouldnt it be liberals who are for gun rights?

And then, forget the war on invisible phantom jihadists. Ranchers with cameras have shown video evidence of countless ak-47 armed drug smugglers flood into the border states, criss crossing back and forth hawking their poison. Why the heck wouldnt liberals support having an undeniably strong border? It's nigh time.

American left, American right, all it means is reduction of liberty.


Don't hate on the drug smugglers. Without the black market, there would be no way out of poverty for many. It does seem a tad bit CIA-backed, though, just on the merit that they know everything and this s**t usually meets with some fiery opposition from the Feds.


And then this virulent hatred of anyone who warns of communism/totalitarian socialism.
Im a lifelong liberal and I KNOW communism is bad. Even if its not mass murderers like Mao, Stalin, etc. its a total controlled nanny state that goes against the individual.

Liberals support Obama blowing up Muslims to smithereens with drones, which to me is not very liberal. But then they dont support things that just make sense.
There's also that virulent hatred of anyone who supports communism/socialism.


You can expect a person who's being fed opinions by a political party to not make sense. You don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything.
Ban
Kaltros
It's lawbreaking I dislike, whether from immigrants or citizens. I think employers who hire illegals should be held accountable and punished. I also support counter-measures such as the mandatory use of E-verify.
Punished how? For most illegals we just deport. Should we try denaturalization proceedings? Or make them serve the sentences the undocumented worker would normally get if we wanted to waste the money on keeping them in prison?


A hefty fine on employers that makes it prohibitively expensive to get caught with illegal workers would probably do the trick. Coupled with better enforcement of immigration law, among other things. Employers couldn't hire illegals if most of the illegals got deported.



Quote:

Kaltros
Not really, when the same thing, rates of being small business owners, is being measured for each group. Comparing one group's percentage of small business owners to that of another group is comparing apples to apples. Percentage of business owners is the measure in all cases.
Yes, but there are a number of differences between all native-born business owners and one ethnic subgroup of foreign-born business owners.


Then you could compare different subgroups as well if you like. Native-born whites, 3.8 percent become small business owners. Immigrant Latinos, 2.0 percent, immigrant blacks, 2.1 percent.




Quote:

Kaltros
You've taken my words out of context. Shame on you. The comment was in response to a specific part of your last post, not a universal claim.
Yes a specific part where I accused you of omitting facts when you were quoting the provided source. Facts that you indeed omitted, and that I discussed, and you have purposefully ignored. For example, that "-snip-" included the paragraph pointing out 105,000 Latino-owned small businesses.


105,000 out of nearly 6 million. Which is about 1.75 percent of the total businesses. This despite there being around 50 million latinos in the country, or about 16 percent of the total population.

If we assume one Latino founded each business, that means that only about 0.21 percent of Latinos become small business owners. Only a little above a fifth of 1 percent, to be clear, which is far below the suggested numbers of the other study.

Let's say 20 million of those are illegals, and that the 105k was only among the remaining 30 million who are legal. Even then, only about 0.35 percent of legal Latinos are business owners. Still a pretty abyssmal percentage.

And that doesn't even factor in how profitable those 105,000 businesses are, or how many jobs they are really responsible for. And do these immigrant business owners send a large portion of their earnings back to family in Mexico or elsewhere, thus taking those profits out of the U.S. economy?


Quote:

Kaltros
Some immigrants, such as white immigrants, do better than citizens at job creation. Black and Latino immigrants do worse. But even the best percentage is about 7 percent of white immigrants. The rest become job seekers and compete with American citizens, making jobs more scarce and helping to drive wages down since there's a glut in the labor market.
Actually, there are further subdivisions. Best percentage, at least under ten years of residency, is people the Israel/Palestine area. But, yeah, again, most economic studies demonstrate the complete opposite of what you're saying, that the addition to the labor force doesn't affect unemployment or wages, except for native-born unskilled laborers. And again, I don't feel the need to be protecting that guy's job.



Could you be more specific when you say "most economic studies"? That's too vague as is.

The source you provided is about as partisan and biased as can be, and most disposed to lie in favor of immigrants:

Quote:

The Immigration Policy Center (IPC) is the research and policy arm of the American Immigration Council. IPC's mission is to shape a rational conversation on immigration and immigrant integration. Through its research and analysis, IPC provides policymakers, the media, and the general public with accurate information about the role of immigrants and immigration policy on U.S. society. IPC reports and materials are widely disseminated and relied upon by press and policy makers. IPC staff regularly serves as experts to leaders on Capitol Hill, opinion-makers and the media. IPC, formed in 2003 is a non-partisan organization that neither supports nor opposes any political party or candidate for office.

All too often, the debate about immigration is dominated by fear and misinformation. IPC works to make sure that fact is separated from fiction. To do this, we monitor and rapidly respondto statements made by anti-immigration groups, providing lawmakers, the media and the general public with accurate, up-to-date information.


You see that site's blatant partisanship and bias in implying that any anti-immigration statement couldn't possibly be factual? You need to find a less obviously biased source, Ban.






Quote:

Kaltros
http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/the-uncomfortable-truth-about-american-wages/

Note the base date for that article, 1970, which was a mere five years after the 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act that first opened the immigrant floodgates.
I notice the article draws no connection between the two, and in fact focuses on our high rates of incarceration and lack of investment in education as prime suspects for sticky wages.

You're drawing an incredibly weak correlation.


Weak in what way? They strongly correlate. Do you deny that immigration has increased significantly since 1965, or that, as the NYT article says, wages have stagnated or fallen since 1970? If you deny neither claim, you have to accept that they correlate with each other over the same time period. Correlation means that two or more things occur together.


Quote:

Kaltros
No it isn't. Commonly multiple people are interviewed for one job position, but only ONE of the interviewed candidates gets hired. Before that many candidates who turned in applications got turned down without even getting an interview. Haven't you heard one of those stories that goes: "Wal-Mart, which had 100 job openings, has received over 5,000 applications, and will be interviewing about 800 people" ?
Yes, that's how it's always worked. Because they interview a bunch of people and the best person gets the job. Nobody has a right to a particular job just because of where they were born.


The point is that in a given geographic area and over a given time period, jobs are not unlimited. Only a certain amount of jobs exist at a given time and/or place.


Quote:

Kaltros
No? How do you think unemployment works?
Unemployment is caused by a great number of factors beyond merely the supply of labor. Economic cycles, slow growth, low aggregate demand, certain structural issues such as the outsourcing of certain jobs, real wage unemployment caused by wages being set too high, and a dozen other factors. Your reduction of it to the amount of jobs being "more or less" a fixed pie makes no sense and is simply not grounded in fact, given that the job supply has thousands of gains and losses each day.


Labor supply is the most important factor when it comes to unemployment.

And, even if there are thousands of job gains and losses each day, that averages out to a definite and limited number at the end of each day. Sometimes the number is enough to employ everybody that wants a job in a given geographic area. Sometimes not. In either case, the jobs pie is not unlimited.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why a steady unemployment rate is even measured from month to month if it is so wildly fluctuating and uncertain like you suggest.



Quote:

Kaltros
Sure it is. Job A is available, and an immigrant takes it. Therefore, the job the immigrant now holds cannot be filled by a U.S. citizen or anyone else until the immigrant dies, quits, or gets fired.
And, again, a new consumer means new jobs. A filled job means greater demand for goods and services as disposable income rises.


A new consumer means a new consumer, which may or may not result in new jobs. Companies in general try their hardest to maximize productivity without needing to hire more workers. Hiring more workers, in general, is a last resort. If a company can find a way to make a lot more money without hiring a single new worker, that company will pursue it. The prevalence of machine labor in some industries is an example of this. Because of the increase of productivity from machines, fewer workers can produce more. Which, for that particular industry, reduces the number of jobs.


Quote:

Kaltros
Since the topic was immigrants in the U.S., I saw no point in discussing businesses native to Mexico or other places besides the U.S. You have been arguing, after all, for the supposed economic benefits to the U.S. of immigration.
Yes, and you've been largely ignoring the argument.


On the contrary. Your argument is pretty thin so far, mostly a bunch of theoretical babbling that you haven't supported with evidence. If argument is contradicted by reality, the argument must give way.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games