Why Are Lefties Against Guns, Secure Borders, etc?

[N3bu]

Kaltros

N3bu

Kaltros

N3bu

Also, I have to ask. What's the justification behind the claim that American's deserve said jobs more so then others? Where is this line drawn? Is it because they live in America? Or because those companies are american, or operate in America? Maybe because they service American citizens? What is the reason? Those are the only ones I can think of right now.

Each of those reasons has significant problems however because these days the world is incredibly globalised. Not all companies that operate in America are American owned. Not all American companies operate in America. Not all companies that sell to American people are from or based in America.

And if your going to say that American's deserve jobs on the basis that they are born American, I'm going to pre-repetitively give you the big '******** you'.

A country has a duty first to its citizens. If a country's citizens are struggling with unemployment, that country shouldn't encourage immigration, which just adds more people to an already struggling labor pool, increases welfare and infrastructure and other costs, and so on.

Not how labour works, it certainly isn't how you mitigate unemployment. Jobs are mobile for any number of reasons and are not owed to any person other then the most qualified for the job. In addition it has to be recognised that at any single time the labour pool does not match jobs available. There could be 100 jobs and 100 citizens and there will still be unemployment and job shortages at the same time.

Not all jobs are mobile. I have yet to see the local restaurant owners try to outsource the duties of the waitresses / cooks / etc, to phone banks in India.

And why do you think limiting immigration and thus additions to the labor pool would have no effect on local unemployment?

Quote:

Now, you might have a point if immigrants were flooding industries that already have too many workers. If were talking about Mexicans this isn't the case normally because few Americans seek the kind of low paying work intensive labour close to the border. If we're talking about first world immigration, then that immigration only happens when jobs are available since this kind of immigration has the tools to find out where there are job openings in their professional fields.

Mexicans aren't just close to the southern border. There seems to be a growing community as far north as Washington state. Possibly because Washington state, for some dopey reason, gives Driver's Licenses to illegal immigrants.

Quote:

Most American's are having problems, not because there are too many immigrants (which is a tired scape goat of an excuse that's been used for 100s of years), but instead because American consumers can no longer sustain the demand in which American jobs have relied upon, being a consumer economy.

Immigrants are one factor. You could say that labor is one sort of good for sale. More immigrants, past a certain number, tend to flood the labor market. How would you explain the BLS data showing a loss of around 2 million jobs for the native born, and a 2 million gain for the foreign born?

Please link BLS data. I can't make comments until I know numerous factors like dates, states, industries and so on.

You're still arguing from a position of homogeneous labour. That is incorrect. Just because not all jobs are mobile doesn't mean all job are not mobile. The point was to demonstrate that the American economy is not a island, nor does it exist in a vacuum, something you also continue to ignore.

Unemployment hasn't been caused by a supply increase, in fact on a macro scale that's an incredibly naive argument to make. If we were talking about a singular store and there was 1 job available and 2 people applying, then the increase in supply from 1 would create unemployment of one. The ignorance of this argument however is that you cannot apply it to an economy that consists of more then one store and more than one industry. This is because labour is not homogeneous, and despite the title used in statistics labour does not exist in a "pool".

In it's most basic form, unemployment will occur because in a given industry there are more applicant's then there is demand for jobs. Your argument thus cannot work until you isolate increments to given industries to show the supply increase surpasses the given demand of that industry.

For example, you would be hilariously wrong if statistics showed most unemployment occurred in professional fields such as computer programming, or medicine, or law, or accounting. The context and nature of the labour markets is far more complex then a statement that says "2 million more immigrants have displaced 2 million more American workers" and to say otherwise shows your own ignorance and does a disservice to most of Economics.

Even then if you were to prove that it happens both in industries that millions of immigrants apply for and also millions of American were displaced from and from then on unable to reapply for a job you still are approaching it from the wrong angle. Immigrants would displace American workers because they're more productive, either by being cheaper or more effective at their job. There is no guarantee an employer would operate at a lower level of productivity when the recession restricts demands for whatever they sell. It might be easier to just not operate or hire replacement. If you were to disappear from America all of the immigrants, you can in no way be sure that it will provide a net increase in the employment rate of citizens, especially when the immigrants themselves are no longer paid consumers.

To finalise everything I've said into data I'm going to reference this page which is from the BLS, outputting the unemployment numbers and rates based on industry upto 2013. What you will notice is the unemployment rate is reasonably spread across all of those industries, in particular being harsh on construction (oh geez I wonder why?), something you wouldn't see if unemployment was being caused by unskilled immigration.

In addition and perhaps most damning evidence against the argument that immigration causes unemployment is perhaps the most simple of evidence. Here.

This is just the historical unemployment rate. The kicker, well if you look back far enough (a whole 5 years, I know everyone's memory is terrible but just try) you'll notice something amazing, the unemployment rate is below 7%. Even more amazingly it had stayed that way since 1993. Since 1989, US legal immigration has stayed stable at roughly 1 million new permanent residents per year, with a dip around '98, '99. So clearly, since legal immigration didn't cause this jump it must be illegal. Between 2000 and 2007 illegal immigration (by estimation) increased steadily (here) while unemployment barely budged. After 2007 illegal immigration decreased to 11 million (from 12) in 2009, the year in which unemployment jumped to 10%, in the opposite direction of illegal immigration.

So then what the ******** caused all this unemployment? It might have something to do with that darn recession, because until then nobody heard s**t of Immigrants stealing 'merican jobs. Know why? Because for the most part, the really important part, it doesn't happen.

[N3bu]

Oh yeah forgot to site this aswell.

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf

[N3bu]

What's most obvious here is your falling into a simplistic logical trap, which happens to a lot of Economic undergrads, who I had to mark at one point after directions from the lecturer.

Microeconomics works a lot of axioms, we have little choice else wise. It works a lot on theory and logic and human behavioural principles. What you don't learn until 3rd year (and learn by yourself I might add) is that these microeconomic principles don't scale to macroeconomic situations. The reason is because the Macro-economy is made up of millions if not billions of competing microeconomic principles in a manner that makes logically predicting macroeconomic outcomes without room for error impossible.

Even trying to explain macroeconomic phenomena after the event with access to all the data is hard because you are almost always missing the full picture and can only ever account for some of the reason behind macroeconomic events.

[Ban]

Kaltros

No, I'm asking you what it has to do with immigration.

Well, you were arguing for some strict "rule of law" approach, a procedural justice idea. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus, sort of thing. I'm pointing out that laws, including immigration often change for pragmatic and moral reasons, so simply saying "this is the law" makes little sense when we're talking policy.

Kaltros

Do the foreign less educated and lower class immigrants create more businesses than the similar native demographic? Where are you getting that from?

Same source, that Fiscal Policy Institute study. About 36% of immigrant business owners have only a high school education or less, compared to 26% of native born business owners.

I really wish you would read.

Kaltros

Instead of promoting small business growth through immigration, why not work to promote it among the native born first?

Because immigration works better? See, to promote it here, you would have to figure all the educational and social factors that produce higher numbers in immigrants, and then recreate or improve upon them. Or, y'know, just outsource all that for free. See, immigration essentially means we're freeriding off other countries who are producing good workers and job creators.

Kaltros

You had an unconscious slip, there. Breaking one law IS equal to breaking another, in the sense that a law is being broken each time. Law is law. Law isn't divided into categories such as : "Do not break under any circumstances", "Do not break most of the time", "Break some of the time", "Break every other time", and so on.

It's what I get for typing in the middle of the night after drinking. But, in any case, no. Law is not always "law." That's why there's civil disobedience. It's why people can jaywalk or speed or illegally download music, but still feel murder is unacceptable. People break laws they feel are unimportant or have small consequences, and some people break laws they feel are unjust.

Kaltros

Removing people means fewer jobs? Why?

Because you lower aggregate demand. Fewer people means there's less need for municipal services, support services, just regular businesses like restaurants and stores, and so on. You have removed millions of taxpayers and consumers from the economy. People will lose jobs because of that.

Kaltros

How many jobs would be created by adding ten thousand penniless beggars to the economy?

Well, apples and oranges, but probably quite a few. I mean, unless these beggars are really bad at begging, money that might not have been spent probably will be. I mean, there's actually been some economic studies that there's a huge amount of unrealized capital in coins, that individual consumers don't really go for just because of high opportunity costs. In other words, most people lose their coins, or throw them away, or let them sit in a jar somewhere. A homeless dude is gonna spend that s**t.

Plus there's support services for the homeless and that sort of thing. Depending on the exact demographics of this hypothetical group, some might be able to hold down a job in the future, even if they're destitute now. Lots of people fall on hard times and reenter the job market at a later date.

Kaltros

But those government jobs are paid through taxes, and taxes take away from the economy and lead to fewer jobs in the private sector.

Prove it, if you will.

Kaltros

In that sense it's at least a wash, maybe a net loss for the economy. You'd also need to factor in the costs of the initial crimes. Firemen/policement/etc might get a salary which leads to economic stimulus later on, but the building the arsonist lit on fire is a huge cost to the economy. Touting crime as indirect economic stimulus is the broken window fallacy.

Well, that depends if you rebuild the building or not. See, destruction of the building is a loss of wealth, but can spur growth, because now there's a building that needs to be replaced. You need workers for that, contractors, an architect, someone to supply materials, and so on and so forth.

Of course, there's always the possibility that the money you spend rebuilding a building could have been spent elsewhere to equal overall benefit. But the problem is that there's a large portion of our money supply essentially not doing much. It needs to be spent in order for it to have an economic effect.

So, sometimes, burning down a building can actually be a good thing, economically. Indeed, arson itself is often a crime with sound economic reasoning behind it. A building might have fire insurance, a high mortgage, and low real estate value, so, to the owner, it's essentially a money pit. It makes more sense to destroy the building, collect on the insurance, and pay off the mortgage. Which is why a lot of arsonists are in fact owners of the very property being destroyed.

Kaltros

Is it? Where are you getting the idea that most anyone, anywhere, no matter what, will always turn to crime when the economy gets bad?

I didn't say "always." Neither did you. You said "might." Anybody, any demographic, might turn to crime to make money, regardless of economic circumstances. It might not always be the same crime, but yeah, people turn to crime to make money. There's no demographic group, no gender, ethnicity, education level, income bracket, or citizenship status that is crime free. So what?

Kaltros

Not to the same degree. Lots of people use foodstamps, but it would be untrue to say pretty much everybody uses them. Same thing for low income housing subsidies, and etc.

It's not a question of if they do in fact. You haven't provided any data saying they do in fact. You're speculating. So, I'm speculating, too. I'm saying everyone could get these things, if they meet the requirements. Who knows? Maybe Bill Gates will go through a real rough patch.

Kaltros

You seem to enjoy making obscure statements. The numbers have to mean something to begin with, otherwise your 'analysis' just adds in a meaning that wasn't there to begin with.

They mean things, but not the things you want them to mean just because you wish really hard. For example, the number of people aged sixteen and over not in the labor force. That means they are neither employed nor unemployed, according to the glossary. What does it mean that between 2005 and 2013, the number of native born citizens who are not in the labor force has increased by 11 million? Are they in school? Retired? What?

You haven't made any attempt at analysis. You haven't done anything to make your number mean anything beyond what the glossary says they mean. You haven't identified a trend or accounted for changes. You haven't proven anything because you've merely stuck two numbers together and said they had a causal relationship. And I'm not going to argue with you until you have a real argument.

Kaltros

<trying to justify a correlation causation fallacy>

Again, not going to do this. Your argument is invalid. You have no proof of a causal connection. Your data is meaningless. If you want to try again, provide evidence that actually supports your assertions.

[Kaltros]

Ban

Kaltros

No, I'm asking you what it has to do with immigration.

Well, you were arguing for some strict "rule of law" approach, a procedural justice idea. Fiat iustitia et pereat mundus, sort of thing. I'm pointing out that laws, including immigration often change for pragmatic and moral reasons, so simply saying "this is the law" makes little sense when we're talking policy.

Changing the law through legal processes is one thing. Disregarding existing law just because you don't like it is something else.

Do you support illegal immigrants breaking current immigration law?

Quote:

Kaltros

Instead of promoting small business growth through immigration, why not work to promote it among the native born first?

Because immigration works better? See, to promote it here, you would have to figure all the educational and social factors that produce higher numbers in immigrants, and then recreate or improve upon them. Or, y'know, just outsource all that for free. See, immigration essentially means we're freeriding off other countries who are producing good workers and job creators.

Not really. Especially not in the case of unskilled immigrants crossing the border illegally who often don't even have a high school education. Perhaps most significantly, why would you expect immigrants from openly socialist countries to make good little capitalists? Take Mexico, for example. Two of Mexico's major political parties are members of the Socialist International. Isn't expecting dedicated socialists to make good capitalists a bit much?

Quote:

Kaltros

How many jobs would be created by adding ten thousand penniless beggars to the economy?

Well, apples and oranges, but probably quite a few. I mean, unless these beggars are really bad at begging, money that might not have been spent probably will be. I mean, there's actually been some economic studies that there's a huge amount of unrealized capital in coins, that individual consumers don't really go for just because of high opportunity costs. In other words, most people lose their coins, or throw them away, or let them sit in a jar somewhere. A homeless dude is gonna spend that s**t.

And how does the beggar spending the coins create jobs that didn't exist before?

Quote:

Kaltros

But those government jobs are paid through taxes, and taxes take away from the economy and lead to fewer jobs in the private sector.

Prove it, if you will.

It's self-evident. The private sector only has a limited amount of money, since it hasn't got a printing press from which to draw an infinite money supply. If the money supply is limited, then money taken out of the private sector through taxes means that the private sector has less to invest in companies with. Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to this, more so than the huge corporations.

Quote:

Kaltros

In that sense it's at least a wash, maybe a net loss for the economy. You'd also need to factor in the costs of the initial crimes. Firemen/policement/etc might get a salary which leads to economic stimulus later on, but the building the arsonist lit on fire is a huge cost to the economy. Touting crime as indirect economic stimulus is the broken window fallacy.

Well, that depends if you rebuild the building or not. See, destruction of the building is a loss of wealth, but can spur growth, because now there's a building that needs to be replaced. You need workers for that, contractors, an architect, someone to supply materials, and so on and so forth.

That makes about as much sense as saying you can get richer by making yourself poor. It's like Job from the bible. God destroyed his family, his wealth, and took nearly everything except his life. Then at the end God rewarded Job with a new wife and kids and wealth. But the new stuff doesn't change the former losses. It's pretty clear that Job would have been a lot better off if he never had to lose his first wife, kids, and wealth.

Quote:

Of course, there's always the possibility that the money you spend rebuilding a building could have been spent elsewhere to equal overall benefit. But the problem is that there's a large portion of our money supply essentially not doing much. It needs to be spent in order for it to have an economic effect.

So, sometimes, burning down a building can actually be a good thing, economically. Indeed, arson itself is often a crime with sound economic reasoning behind it. A building might have fire insurance, a high mortgage, and low real estate value, so, to the owner, it's essentially a money pit. It makes more sense to destroy the building, collect on the insurance, and pay off the mortgage. Which is why a lot of arsonists are in fact owners of the very property being destroyed.

Again, the money is just transferred from elsewhere. It's not a creation of new wealth, but a redistribution of existing wealth from the insurance company/whatever to the arsonist. Assuming the arsonist gets away with it and successfully fools the company. The arsonist might get found out and sent to jail, which is an added cost to the taxpayer. And since the arsonist would just be sitting in jail, he wouldn't be contributing much to the economy.

Quote:

Kaltros

You seem to enjoy making obscure statements. The numbers have to mean something to begin with, otherwise your 'analysis' just adds in a meaning that wasn't there to begin with.

They mean things, but not the things you want them to mean just because you wish really hard. For example, the number of people aged sixteen and over not in the labor force. That means they are neither employed nor unemployed, according to the glossary. What does it mean that between 2005 and 2013, the number of native born citizens who are not in the labor force has increased by 11 million? Are they in school? Retired? What?


You haven't made any attempt at analysis. You haven't done anything to make your number mean anything beyond what the glossary says they mean. You haven't identified a trend or accounted for changes. You haven't proven anything because you've merely stuck two numbers together and said they had a causal relationship. And I'm not going to argue with you until you have a real argument.

Perhaps you'd like to offer an analysis, then. What is the cause behind the shift of around 2 million jobs from native to foreign born?

Also, I looked over that NAP study again. It's not quite as supportive of the economic benefits of immigration as you suggested. Some quotes:

Quote:

Overall, barring sizable immigration-induced economies or diseconomies of scale, the most plausible magnitudes of the impacts of immigration on the economy are modest for those who benefit from immigration, for those who lose from immigration, and for total gross domestic product. The domestic gain may run on the order of $1 billion to $10 billion a year. Although this gain may be modest relative to the size of the U.S. economy, it remains a significant positive gain in absolute terms.

-snip-

Some studies have investigated the impact of immigration on aggregate labor markets, rather than on local labor markets. Such studies estimate the effects of changing the relative proportions of skilled to unskilled workers to simulate the effects of the supply increases brought about by immigration. This approach also has its limitations, as it relies on an assumed underlying model of the economy. But plausible estimates based on this second approach show that, since 1980, immigration has been partly responsible for increasing the supply of high school dropouts by 15 percent, relative to the supply of workers with at least a high school education. Based on previous estimates of responses of wages to changes in supply, the supply increase due to immigration lowered the wages of high school dropouts by about 5 percent, that is, about 44 percent of the total decline in wages of high school dropouts observed between 1980 and 1994. This wage reduction is concentrated in a declining proportion of American workers. By 1995, high school dropouts represented less than 10 percent of the American workforce.

-snip-

Across the immigrant population, the size of the net fiscal burden imposed on native residents varies significantly. It is by far the heaviest for households of immigrants originating in Latin America. Immigrants from Europe and Canada actually make an average net fiscal contribution. These differences arise because households of Latin American immigrants tend to have lower incomes and to include more school-age children than do other immigrant households.

-snip-

In fact, except for immigrant households from Latin America, today's current immigrants are net fiscal contributors to the overall fiscal position of native U.S. households, primarily because of their large positive net contributions to the federal treasury to help pay for defense spending. The Latin American immigrant cohort is large, however, and their negative net annual fiscal impact more than offsets the aggregate fiscal contributions paid to natives by Canadians, Europeans, Asians, and other immigrants.

Weighting each cohort's contribution by its share in the national immigrant population provides an estimate of the net annual fiscal impact imposed by a national average immigrant receiving either the New Jersey or the California state and local budgets. The national average immigrant imposes a net annual fiscal impact of -$1,613 per immigrant household when receiving the New Jersey budget and a net fiscal burden of -$2,206 per immigrant household when receiving the California budget. The aggregate NAFIN on native residents for all U.S. immigrants is estimated by multiplying these per-immigrant burdens by the number of immigrant households in the nation as whole. In 1994-95, there were 9,156,000 immigrant-headed households in the United States.47 The aggregate net annual fiscal impact imposed on native households by all immigrant-headed households in the United States is therefore estimated to range from -$14.77 billion (New Jersey budgets) to perhaps as high as -$20.16 billion (California budgets) (see Table 6.5, panel B).

So, economically, immigrants give an economic gain of about 10 billion per year, but then cost American natives between 14 and 20 billion a year. That's either no economic benefit at all or a loss.

[Ban]

Kaltros

Changing the law through legal processes is one thing. Disregarding existing law just because you don't like it is something else.

Yeah, they are different things, except when they're the same thing. Sometimes the most efficient way to change a law is to create a case where the flaws are obvious, and obtain a jury nullification, or pardon, or policy change on the part of the executive authority, or, depending on the reason the law is deficient, to create a cognizable harm so as to have to standing to challenge the validity of the law. Of course, that's not the case here, but the point is, breaking the law is not always a bad thing.

Kaltros

Do you support illegal immigrants breaking current immigration law?

No. I wouldn't really discourage it either.

Kaltros

Not really. Especially not in the case of unskilled immigrants crossing the border illegally who often don't even have a high school education.

We're talking about small business creation, which is largely legal immigrants, and even if uneducated, have at least some skills necessary to run a business. Try and stay on topic.

Kaltros

Perhaps most significantly, why would you expect immigrants from openly socialist countries to make good little capitalists? Take Mexico, for example. Two of Mexico's major political parties are members of the Socialist International. Isn't expecting dedicated socialists to make good capitalists a bit much?

No. Communists make good capitalists. Take a look at the Chinese. Besides, the U.S. is already a socialist state. We have a mixed economy, labor laws, and government ownership of a huge amount of natural resources, though we do give out licenses to private firms. We haven't been all that laissez-faire since the 20s. So, insofar as the U.S. churns out decent capitalists, yes, socialists make good little capitalists. Of course, we're not as good at creating small business as, say, Greek immigrants, and Greeks are huge Socialists, much more than we are. To the point that their whole country is collapsing under the weight of their social welfare net.

So, just making a shitty correlation like you do, those data points would suggest Socialism is positively associated with being good at small business creation.

Kaltros

And how does the beggar spending the coins create jobs that didn't exist before?

How does people spending money that wouldn't otherwise be spent create jobs? Seriously, do I have to explain this again? It increases profit, because money is being spent, and increases demand, because now there's another consumer.

You've asked variations of this question before, but you don't seem to be absorbing the information.

Kaltros

It's self-evident.

No, it's not.

Kaltros

The private sector only has a limited amount of money, since it hasn't got a printing press from which to draw an infinite money supply.

Do I have to explain the difference between limited and fixed again? This makes it sound like you don't understand anything about how the money supply works.

Kaltros

If the money supply is limited, then money taken out of the private sector through taxes means that the private sector has less to invest in companies with. Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to this, more so than the huge corporations.

This doesn't prove either of your assertions though. You haven't demonstrated that taxes "take away" from the economy, a phrase which demonstrates a huge amount of ignorance, nor have you demonstrated taxes lead to fewer jobs. You've only made a second assertion that profits are put into investments, which isn't always true, because profits often go to dividends. In any case, investment only leads to new jobs if there's new demand. You don't expand unless you have to demand to meet. And you haven't demonstrate at all why they would lead to fewer jobs. If demand is high enough, you don't fire people, because then you don't have enough employees to meet demand and you lose money.

Kaltros

That makes about as much sense as saying you can get richer by making yourself poor. It's like Job from the bible. God destroyed his family, his wealth, and took nearly everything except his life. Then at the end God rewarded Job with a new wife and kids and wealth. But the new stuff doesn't change the former losses. It's pretty clear that Job would have been a lot better off if he never had to lose his first wife, kids, and wealth.

The economy isn't a dude with a bunch of stuff, or about being rich, really. The whole system functions on supply and demand.

Kaltros

Again, the money is just transferred from elsewhere. It's not a creation of new wealth, but a redistribution of existing wealth from the insurance company/whatever to the arsonist. Assuming the arsonist gets away with it and successfully fools the company. The arsonist might get found out and sent to jail, which is an added cost to the taxpayer. And since the arsonist would just be sitting in jail, he wouldn't be contributing much to the economy.

On the personal level, that's just another factor to be taken into account when calculating risk.

Kaltros

Perhaps you'd like to offer an analysis, then. What is the cause behind the shift of around 2 million jobs from native to foreign born?

Why would I? It's your argument to make, that such jobs did shift from one group to the other in the first place.

Kaltros

So, economically, immigrants give an economic gain of about 10 billion per year, but then cost American natives between 14 and 20 billion a year. That's either no economic benefit at all or a loss.

I quoted the study in support of a different point, that immigrants do not affect unemployment, than you are suggesting, which appears to be about economic detriment. Plus, you are confusing a fiscal burden with detrimental economic activity. As explained by James Smith, one of the guys who authored the study, even though taxes may be higher, "the vast majority of Americans are enjoying a healthier economy as the result of the increased supply of labor and lower prices that result from immigration... Immigrants increase the supply of labor and help produce new goods and services."

Insofar as addressing the point, I would note that the study itself discusses that the use of current financial estimates is misleading because it only shows current impact of households with young children and education costs and the like, and doesn't create a point for extrapolating future economic impact as populations age and their fiscal contributions and liabilities to society change. Chapter Seven goes into the future benefits, largely concluding that the average net value of individual immigrants is positive. Insofar as they cost money now, individual immigrants pay back that investment over time. Hence, the "average fiscal impact of immigrants under the baseline assumptions is positive in part because they tend to arrive at young working ages, in part because their descendants are expected to have higher skills and incomes, in part because they pay taxes for some items, such as national defense and interest on the federal debt, for which they do not impose costs, and in part because they will help to pay the public costs of the aging baby-boom generations." In fact, a large portion of the initial investment is actually of native born children of immigrants, who, well, are citizens.

I thought you liked citizens?

[Kaltros]

Ban

Kaltros

Changing the law through legal processes is one thing. Disregarding existing law just because you don't like it is something else.

Yeah, they are different things, except when they're the same thing. Sometimes the most efficient way to change a law is to create a case where the flaws are obvious, and obtain a jury nullification, or pardon, or policy change on the part of the executive authority, or, depending on the reason the law is deficient, to create a cognizable harm so as to have to standing to challenge the validity of the law. Of course, that's not the case here, but the point is, breaking the law is not always a bad thing.

You think immigration law is unjust, I take it? Why?

Quote:

Kaltros

And how does the beggar spending the coins create jobs that didn't exist before?

How does people spending money that wouldn't otherwise be spent create jobs? Seriously, do I have to explain this again? It increases profit, because money is being spent, and increases demand, because now there's another consumer.

You've asked variations of this question before, but you don't seem to be absorbing the information.

Because you're not making sense. What new jobs would the beggar's spending create? Walk me through the daily life of the beneficent beggar, and show me how he makes new jobs sprout up with his pocket change.

Quote:

Kaltros

The private sector only has a limited amount of money, since it hasn't got a printing press from which to draw an infinite money supply.

Do I have to explain the difference between limited and fixed again? This makes it sound like you don't understand anything about how the money supply works.

Explain away. Maybe one of these times you'll actually make sense, and stop resorting to economic fairy dust.

Quote:

Kaltros

If the money supply is limited, then money taken out of the private sector through taxes means that the private sector has less to invest in companies with. Small businesses are particularly vulnerable to this, more so than the huge corporations.

This doesn't prove either of your assertions though. You haven't demonstrated that taxes "take away" from the economy,

Perhaps I should've held your hand while I explained slowly using the smallest words possible.

Will you agree that to tax someone is to take some of their money? If you don't agree that taxing is taking money from someone, what do you think taxing is and why? Will you also agree that small business owners are a big part of the economy, and that each small business owner has a limited amount of money? Further, will you agree that there is some relationship in the world between taxes and small business owners, perhaps with money as the common denominator?

Quote:

Kaltros

That makes about as much sense as saying you can get richer by making yourself poor. It's like Job from the bible. God destroyed his family, his wealth, and took nearly everything except his life. Then at the end God rewarded Job with a new wife and kids and wealth. But the new stuff doesn't change the former losses. It's pretty clear that Job would have been a lot better off if he never had to lose his first wife, kids, and wealth.

The economy isn't a dude with a bunch of stuff, or about being rich, really. The whole system functions on supply and demand.

Stay on topic. You were busily trying to justify the broken window fallacy.

Quote:

Kaltros

Again, the money is just transferred from elsewhere. It's not a creation of new wealth, but a redistribution of existing wealth from the insurance company/whatever to the arsonist. Assuming the arsonist gets away with it and successfully fools the company. The arsonist might get found out and sent to jail, which is an added cost to the taxpayer. And since the arsonist would just be sitting in jail, he wouldn't be contributing much to the economy.

On the personal level, that's just another factor to be taken into account when calculating risk.

I'll take that as your concession that collecting money from burned down buildings is not a creation of new wealth.

Quote:

Kaltros

Perhaps you'd like to offer an analysis, then. What is the cause behind the shift of around 2 million jobs from native to foreign born?

Why would I? It's your argument to make, that such jobs did shift from one group to the other in the first place.

If you want to get all high and mighty about how much better you are at analysis, it's time you proved it. If you think I don't know how to analyse the data, analyse it yourself. Work your wonders and show the power of your intellect. What's the cause behind the shift of around 2 million jobs from native born to foreign born? I already linked to the BLS data. Now analyse it.

Quote:

Kaltros

So, economically, immigrants give an economic gain of about 10 billion per year, but then cost American natives between 14 and 20 billion a year. That's either no economic benefit at all or a loss.

I quoted the study in support of a different point, that immigrants do not affect unemployment, than you are suggesting, which appears to be about economic detriment.

It still has bearing on your argument that 'immigration is good for the economy' in general terms. And as the study pointed out, immigration does negatively impact working class Americans.

Quote:

Plus, you are confusing a fiscal burden with detrimental economic activity. As explained by James Smith, one of the guys who authored the study, even though taxes may be higher, "the vast majority of Americans are enjoying a healthier economy as the result of the increased supply of labor and lower prices that result from immigration... Immigrants increase the supply of labor and help produce new goods and services."

What page is that quote from?

Quote:

Insofar as addressing the point, I would note that the study itself discusses that the use of current financial estimates is misleading because it only shows current impact of households with young children and education costs and the like, and doesn't create a point for extrapolating future economic impact as populations age and their fiscal contributions and liabilities to society change. Chapter Seven goes into the future benefits, largely concluding that the average net value of individual immigrants is positive. Insofar as they cost money now, individual immigrants pay back that investment over time. Hence, the "average fiscal impact of immigrants under the baseline assumptions is positive in part because they tend to arrive at young working ages, in part because their descendants are expected to have higher skills and incomes, in part because they pay taxes for some items, such as national defense and interest on the federal debt, for which they do not impose costs, and in part because they will help to pay the public costs of the aging baby-boom generations."

And where is that quote from specifically?

[Ban]

Kaltros

You think immigration law is unjust, I take it?

No. I think it's impractical. There's plenty of objections on the injustice bit, but they aren't ones I necessarily ascribe to.

Kaltros

Because you're not making sense. What new jobs would the beggar's spending create? Walk me through the daily life of the beneficent beggar, and show me how he makes new jobs sprout up with his pocket change.

Aggregate demand is the largest determiner of how many jobs will exist at any given time. Demand means people want goods and services, and there needs to be employees to provide those goods and services insofar as the business owner cannot do that himself, as well supervisors, HR, accounting, legal, and a whole host of other ancillary personnel to deal with associated issues of providing said goods and services. It does not matter whether demand comes from a millionaire or someone who is destitute, as long as they have the funds to complete the transaction.

If bums want things, and have enough money to buy those things, they increase aggregate demand. Ergo, they make jobs.

Kaltros

Explain away. Maybe one of these times you'll actually make sense, and stop resorting to economic fairy dust.

Maybe one of these times you'll stop trying to make economic arguments when you clearly do not know the first thing about them. In most cases, the majority of a business's assets aren't liquid. They don't correspond to actual physical dollars in circulation. A company's earnings, while never infinite, is not limited by the existence of a "printing press."

Frankly, the government does not have an infinite money supply, unless they would like to have infinite inflation. Hence, monetary supply is usually adjusted on the basis of inflation and increased economic activity.

Kaltros

Perhaps I should've held your hand while I explained slowly using the smallest words possible.

Interesting you cut out the rest of my point. Perhaps you should address arguments in a coherent manner?

Kaltros

Will you agree that to tax someone is to take some of their money? If you don't agree that taxing is taking money from someone, what do you think taxing is and why?

Taxing is redistributive, yes. The vast majority of taxes go to pay for services that would otherwise not exist due to collective action problems. This doesn't prove that anything is taken away from the economy, since these are still services for which there is demand, and that demand is met through taxpayer funds.

Kaltros

Will you also agree that small business owners are a big part of the economy, and that each small business owner has a limited amount of money?

Small business owners employ a large portion of the populace, yes, and yes, receipts for small businesses are a fixed number.

Kaltros

Further, will you agree that there is some relationship in the world between taxes and small business owners, perhaps with money as the common denominator?

I'm not sure what you mean by relationship. Small business owners pay taxes, certainly. Are you suggesting some sort of proportional correlation to the tax code and the amount of small business owners? Because I don't think you have data to prove that.

In any case, it doesn't demonstrate that taxation means less jobs, since taxation goes to wages of public sector employees and services provided by public sector employees. Nor does the argument about investment get you anywhere since, as pointed out, you haven't demonstrated that lower taxes would lead to higher demand. After all, demand is limited, too. One person can only consume so much.

Kaltros

Stay on topic. You were busily trying to justify the broken window fallacy.

No, I'm just rebutting an illogical argument. As far as the broken window fallacy, it only applies if the glazier produces a less useful work than what the money would have been spent on otherwise. Which is what I said at the beginning of this whole point.

Kaltros

I'll take that as your concession that collecting money from burned down buildings is not a creation of new wealth.

Well, the insurance industry in general doesn't operate on the creation of wealth. It operates on actuarial studies and low-risk gambling, essentially.

Kaltros

If you want to get all high and mighty about how much better you are at analysis, it's time you proved it. If you think I don't know how to analyse the data, analyse it yourself. Work your wonders and show the power of your intellect. What's the cause behind the shift of around 2 million jobs from native born to foreign born? I already linked to the BLS data. Now analyse it.

I haven't said I'm a better analyst. I'm saying you simply haven't analyzed the data. At all, really.

Again, it's your argument to make. Prove that these numbers actually indicate the shift that you are describing. Account for retirees and students. Account for monthly fluctuations of job numbers. Account for seasonal changes. Just putting two number together doesn't prove that jobs that could have gone to one went to another.

It's your argument. Prove it. Provide something convincing. Otherwise, you're just a dude with tinfoil on his head.

Kaltros

It still has bearing on your argument that 'immigration is good for the economy' in general terms. And as the study pointed out, immigration does negatively impact working class Americans.

Yes, I'm just pointing out you mischaracterized my use of the source.

Kaltros

What page is that quote from?

Not from the study directly. It's here on the summary. Part of the quote is also here in the NAP news release.

Kaltros

And where is that quote from specifically?

Page 353.

Y'know, you have the source. It has a search box on the website. Also, Google pops it up right away. You could just, y'know, not waste my time and respond to the point.

[deadroosters]

N3bu

Oh yeah forgot to site this aswell.

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf

I don't think that DHS is an unbiased source.

[N3bu]

deadroosters

N3bu

Oh yeah forgot to site this aswell.

http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2011/ois_yb_2011.pdf

I don't think that DHS is an unbiased source.

I think it's perfectly fine if I'm quoting the number of legal immigrant per year, an easily tracked number.

[Kaltros]

Ban

Kaltros

You think immigration law is unjust, I take it?

No. I think it's impractical. There's plenty of objections on the injustice bit, but they aren't ones I necessarily ascribe to.

So how do you think immigration law is impractical?

Quote:

Kaltros

Because you're not making sense. What new jobs would the beggar's spending create? Walk me through the daily life of the beneficent beggar, and show me how he makes new jobs sprout up with his pocket change.

Aggregate demand is the largest determiner of how many jobs will exist at any given time. Demand means people want goods and services, and there needs to be employees to provide those goods and services insofar as the business owner cannot do that himself, as well supervisors, HR, accounting, legal, and a whole host of other ancillary personnel to deal with associated issues of providing said goods and services. It does not matter whether demand comes from a millionaire or someone who is destitute, as long as they have the funds to complete the transaction.

If bums want things, and have enough money to buy those things, they increase aggregate demand. Ergo, they make jobs.

Come down off your abstract mountain and focus on our single hypothetical beggar. What jobs does he create with his pocket change? Get specific.

Quote:

Kaltros

Explain away. Maybe one of these times you'll actually make sense, and stop resorting to economic fairy dust.

Maybe one of these times you'll stop trying to make economic arguments when you clearly do not know the first thing about them. In most cases, the majority of a business's assets aren't liquid. They don't correspond to actual physical dollars in circulation. A company's earnings, while never infinite, is not limited by the existence of a "printing press."

Frankly, the government does not have an infinite money supply, unless they would like to have infinite inflation. Hence, monetary supply is usually adjusted on the basis of inflation and increased economic activity.

What does the government have to do with it? We were discussing the private sector here. Good to see you now agree with me that the private sector doesn't have an infinite amount of money, though. Better late than never.

Quote:

Kaltros

Will you agree that to tax someone is to take some of their money? If you don't agree that taxing is taking money from someone, what do you think taxing is and why?

Taxing is redistributive, yes. The vast majority of taxes go to pay for services that would otherwise not exist due to collective action problems. This doesn't prove that anything is taken away from the economy, since these are still services for which there is demand, and that demand is met through taxpayer funds.

If taxes aren't taken from the economy, where are they taken from? Mars? Saturn? Alpha Centauri?

Quote:

In any case, it doesn't demonstrate that taxation means less jobs, since taxation goes to wages of public sector employees and services provided by public sector employees. Nor does the argument about investment get you anywhere since, as pointed out, you haven't demonstrated that lower taxes would lead to higher demand. After all, demand is limited, too. One person can only consume so much.

Quote:

California voters approved a $50 billion tax hike in November, bestowing the highest marginal income tax rate in the nation on California taxpayers — 13.3 percent.

Now professional golfer Phil Mickelson is thinking of leaving the state. He’s fortunate. He can practice his chosen profession in any region where snow doesn’t cover the ground for too long, and if he moves to Texas or Florida, his state income tax will drop to zero.

Mickelson won’t be the first pro golfer to leave California. Tiger Woods, who used to live in my old Orange County legislative district, moved to Florida in 1996.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/01/23/phil-mickelson-isnt-the-only-future-former-californian/

You raise taxes, and you start to drive capital out of the area, which decreases the tax base, lowers the aggregate spending in the area, and so on.

Quote:

Kaltros

Stay on topic. You were busily trying to justify the broken window fallacy.

No, I'm just rebutting an illogical argument. As far as the broken window fallacy, it only applies if the glazier produces a less useful work than what the money would have been spent on otherwise. Which is what I said at the beginning of this whole point.

If a window hadn't been broken, no money would have to be spent on repair and could be spent somewhere else. Repair is, economically, just treading water, trying to stay where you are. It is not new wealth, just rebuilding the old.

Quote:

Kaltros

I'll take that as your concession that collecting money from burned down buildings is not a creation of new wealth.

Well, the insurance industry in general doesn't operate on the creation of wealth. It operates on actuarial studies and low-risk gambling, essentially.

We weren't discusing how insurance companies worked. You suggested that burning down buildings to collect insurance money was a great way to grow the economy, which looks absurd on its face, unless you can find a scientific study from, say, the Professional Arsonists' League showing that burning down buildings grows the economy.

Quote:

Kaltros

If you want to get all high and mighty about how much better you are at analysis, it's time you proved it. If you think I don't know how to analyse the data, analyse it yourself. Work your wonders and show the power of your intellect. What's the cause behind the shift of around 2 million jobs from native born to foreign born? I already linked to the BLS data. Now analyse it.

I haven't said I'm a better analyst. I'm saying you simply haven't analyzed the data. At all, really.

Again, it's your argument to make. Prove that these numbers actually indicate the shift that you are describing. Account for retirees and students. Account for monthly fluctuations of job numbers. Account for seasonal changes. Just putting two number together doesn't prove that jobs that could have gone to one went to another.

It's your argument. Prove it. Provide something convincing. Otherwise, you're just a dude with tinfoil on his head.

The numbers are straight forward. One number for the employed native born, one number for the employed foreign born. There was a shift of around two million jobs between those two categories. That, to my mind, needs no analysis. It seems obvious that, as the numbers show, there was a shift of 2 million jobs from native to foreign born.

If you think the data means something other than it obviously appears to mean, you need to prove otherwise. With analysis.

Quote:

Kaltros

What page is that quote from?

Not from the study directly. It's here on the summary. Part of the quote is also here in the NAP news release.

Well, the quote is not really important. It talks in vague terms about undefined benefits, while the study previously calculated more specifically a lot of costs. The costs, I'll remind you, were higher than the estimated benefits to GDP.

Quote:

Kaltros

And where is that quote from specifically?

Page 353.
You could just, y'know, not waste my time and respond to the point.

The point is not valid, because you didn't distinguish, as the study did, between different immigrants. Latin Americans did far worse on average than other immigrant groups. And, unfortunately, Latin Americans tend to immigrate in much larger numbers than everybody else. Older immigrants grow up and leave school, but have a bunch more kids very early, which starts the cycle all over again.

Quote:

K-12 school enrollment, 37 million in 1995, is projected to increase to 54 million in 2050 if immigration continues at current levels.

http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1246_0_2_0

[Ban]

Kaltros

So how do you think immigration law is impractical?

The restrictive route that our law currently takes is impossible to evenly enforce, will never be enough of a deterrent without causing public outcry, and has goals that are actually undesirable to obtain.

Kaltros

What does the government have to do with it?

We were discussing the private sector here. Good to see you now agree with me that the private sector doesn't have an infinite amount of money, though. Better late than never. I never said anything different. What I said is that limited isn't fixed. The private sector could make a billion dollars tomorrow, government could tax 30 percent, and the private sector hasn't lost any money. It's gained 700 million.

Kaltros

If taxes aren't taken from the economy, where are they taken from? Mars? Saturn? Alpha Centauri?

Again, the economy is not a measurement of wealth. Having a bunch of dollars does not equal economic activity. And again, the government is itself a market participant. Taxes are redistributive, but that doesn't mean that money doesn't get spent.

Kaltros

You raise taxes, and you start to drive capital out of the area, which decreases the tax base, lowers the aggregate spending in the area, and so on.

By capital, you mean golfers? Aggregate spending actually derives largely from the lower quintiles, who are least affected by modifications to a progressive tax code. More wealthy households, like those of the golfer featured here, tend to have a higher propensity to save their income, which has a negative affect on aggregate demand. As for lowering the tax base, that really depends on a number of factors. This is a local tax, for example, and the guy is talking about moving to Florida. Federal taxation would be a different story.

Hell, we used to have a top marginal rate of 90% in the 50s. Didn't seem to stop us from having an unemployment rate of under 4%.

Kaltros

If a window hadn't been broken, no money would have to be spent on repair and could be spent somewhere else.

Yes, I already said that a while ago. The question is whether it will be spent somewhere else. If not, then breaking the window is efficient.

Kaltros

Repair is, economically, just treading water, trying to stay where you are. It is not new wealth, just rebuilding the old.

So is the medical industry, and the food industry, and MRO, and any number of other businesses that depend on the fact that maintaining your current state requires resources. Welcome to an entropic universe. As long as value is exchanged for value, there is economic activity and is a good thing.

Kaltros

We weren't discusing how insurance companies worked. You suggested that burning down buildings to collect insurance money was a great way to grow the economy, which looks absurd on its face, unless you can find a scientific study from, say, the Professional Arsonists' League showing that burning down buildings grows the economy.

No, I said from a personal point, it could be a rational economic decision. Arguably, from a policy point of view, it could be a rational economic decision. Alan Greenspan argued that one of the better solutions to the housing bubble would have been the destruction of the excess stock.

Kaltros

The numbers are straight forward. One number for the employed native born, one number for the employed foreign born. There was a shift of around two million jobs between those two categories. That, to my mind, needs no analysis. It seems obvious that, as the numbers show, there was a shift of 2 million jobs from native to foreign born.

Again, you're implying a causal action that you haven't demonstrated. If I get fired from working at Burger King in New York, and some dude fresh off the boat gets hired at McDonald's in LA, there isn't any causal chain. There's no "shift."

Kaltros

If you think the data means something other than it obviously appears to mean, you need to prove otherwise. With analysis.

There's nothing prove. There's just two numbers, as far as I can see.

Kaltros

Well, the quote is not really important. It talks in vague terms about undefined benefits, while the study previously calculated more specifically a lot of costs. The costs, I'll remind you, were higher than the estimated benefits to GDP.

Doesn't address the point about future benefits.

Kaltros

The point is not valid, because you didn't distinguish, as the study did, between different immigrants. Latin Americans did far worse on average than other immigrant groups. And, unfortunately, Latin Americans tend to immigrate in much larger numbers than everybody else. Older immigrants grow up and leave school, but have a bunch more kids very early, which starts the cycle all over again.

They cost more in education and social services, yes, because they typically receive lower wages and have more children. That just means they are also producing more future taxpayers and keep prices low in the meantime. Of course, second generation children tend to have lower fertility rates and higher wages, but luckily there's always a fresh supply of immigrants.

Kaltros

Quote:

K-12 school enrollment, 37 million in 1995, is projected to increase to 54 million in 2050 if immigration continues at current levels.

]http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/more.php?id=1246_0_2_0

Awesome. More jobs for teachers.

[N3bu]

Kaltros

That, to my mind, needs no analysis. It seems obvious that, as the numbers show, there was a shift of 2 million jobs from native to foreign born.

If you think the data means something other than it obviously appears to mean, you need to prove otherwise. With analysis.

If you were an academic, you would be the laziest ******** academic in history.

Numerical correlations are not axiomatic, so please stop pretending they are. Ban doesn't need to provide analysis because you have yet to use any analysis to prove your claim. Saying you don't need analysis for your claim because your already convinced just means you're a lazy idiot.

You have to prove your causations. Now admittedly the level of proof required on the Internet is pretty low, since your not arguing with tenured professors, but you still have to do something.

[Yuki the Third]

Why do conderpatives think gun control means forced forfeit of all weaponry?
Why do conderpatives think lowering the minimum wage will result in larger paychecks for employees?
Why do conderpatives think raising the minimum wage will cause Armageddon?

[Kaltros]

N3bu

Kaltros

That, to my mind, needs no analysis. It seems obvious that, as the numbers show, there was a shift of 2 million jobs from native to foreign born.

If you think the data means something other than it obviously appears to mean, you need to prove otherwise. With analysis.

If you were an academic, you would be the laziest ******** academic in history.

Numerical correlations are not axiomatic, so please stop pretending they are. Ban doesn't need to provide analysis because you have yet to use any analysis to prove your claim. Saying you don't need analysis for your claim because your already convinced just means you're a lazy idiot.

You have to prove your causations. Now admittedly the level of proof required on the Internet is pretty low, since your not arguing with tenured professors, but you still have to do something.

With those numbers I'm not even addressing causation really, just noting the shift of 2 million jobs from native to foreign born. For all I know, the actual cause could be the birth of the son of the FSM. Whatever the cause, though, the numbers show a shift.

Something else to consider, though, is that it would be impossible for foreigners to gain those American jobs if they weren't in the country in the first place.

I'd hate to be considered an academic. 'Academic' is a dirty word right up there with 'holocaust denier'.