271–280 of 402 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1) legal? 2) Historical laws vs current laws 3) Adjust for population size Even for say Software Eng. moving to US is a very f@#$up process, but pretty much any other country is trivial often with immediately being permanent resident or some visa that converts to PR in 1-2 years.
Its easier to get into the us than the eu so thats simply wrong. The us have way more ways too.
Why dont we experiment in smaller scale with liberal companies like facebook/google/microsoft opening its employment where anyone from anywhere can come and say i want to be employed here and goog/fb/msft have to take them in? Lets even throw in a restriction that person should be cs degree holder from anywhere in the world. Lets see how it goes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A lot of how we “got to here” has to do with being all the was left after WWII. Trying to pretend like all the things you advocate for are the reasons for prosperity is silly. Your statement is basically, “things are good now and they are good because ” There are other periods of time that have been as good or better with a different political platform. In the 1950s (when America was “great”) the top tax rate was 90%…
Sure, and we could have blown the lead in the 70s, the 80s, the 90s, the 00s, the 10s, etc. But we didn't. We valued entrepreneurship, hard work, and being the best. 50s was an anomaly with a 36% growth rate, like you said, because we were all that were left. The economy currently is very stable, diversified, and fast growing still for its size, some 70 years later.
https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease...
I keep seeing these overly optimistic GDP growth numbers, but I can't find them.
Open borders will, at first, cause downward pressure on wages, as the labor pool of workers able and willing to perform work for a lower price grows. The magnitude would be more pronounced than with what we've been currently able to observe with controlled borders, because the article proposes a scenario where welfare and public assistance would readily apply to newcomers too. In fact, there would be a growth in the…
This is true if you define 'coyote' as anyone who transports an immigrant to their destination country. Most people would just call them 'airlines', just as immigrants used to arrive on 'ocean liners'.
>Increased demand for housing will cause costs to spike
This is only true in the presence of severe restrictions on supply. These exist in some, but not all, areas of the United States with high immigrant populations. http://www.nber.org/papers/w13071.pdf
>It's not too different from our world's current direction, except within a particular state, the absolute numbers of the wage class and the underclass would be much larger.
For a thought-provoking modest proposal to realize these potential gains and ensure they are captured by current working-class Americans, see the Posner-Weyl Sponsor an Immigrant plan. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/13/immigrati...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>"but pretty much any other country is trivial often with immediately being permanent resident or some visa that converts to PR in 1-2 years." Not at all. I know a couple that tried to move to Canada after Trump got elected but were shocked to find out they'd have to deposit 250k USD with the Canadian government for 5 years in order to be considered for permanantly residency. Not only that, the demand for people to m…
If they are from US and for some very strange reason can not get enough points to pass the simplest route is 1 person from the couple goes to college in Canada (even the cheapest one) the second person can get work permit based on being spouse of a student (student can work half time too) With 1 year of work experience and a Canadian degree they will have enough points for PR.
>If the worry is that immigrants will outvote the locals and impose an uncongenial government on them, one solution would be not to let immigrants vote—for five years, ten years or even a lifetime. This is actually an interesting idea worth thinking about more. If the concern for those on the right is that more immigrants to the US would cause a permanent electoral Blue Wall by flipping Texas in a couple election cyc…
No taxation without representation is a huge part of the culture of the US. I'm guessing suggesting open immigration without voting rights will have a large amount of detractors for this reason. Unless the immigrants aren't taxed, which is kind of the current situation anyway for illegal immigrants.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I love this idea. I think it should be applied to all jurisdictions in the US. If I move to another town or state my vote should count as 1/X increasing by 1/X per year until it's 1/1. I shouldn't have the opportunity to vote at a full 1/1 until I've assimilated to that locale. If I'm moving somewhere I presumably like the status quo there so much that I shouldn't have much need to change things.
Assuming my taxes are applied at an equal percentage. I pay thousands to the state of California and I just moved here. I have a right to my vote if the state has a right to my tax dollars.
I am ok with selective immigration. But open borders is truly crazy idea at this point. If we open borders like suggested next thing we know will be - developed countries becoming like garbage dumps we see in other countries. There is a reason why some countires fall into downward spirals. If u get its people en mass without filters, you get that mentality too. Why dont we experiment in smaller scale with liberal com…
If we are thinking of pie-in-the-sky ideas like open borders, then why also try to think of a way to spread good government and wealth across all parts of the world? I.e., spread the best practices so they become universal.
Some ideas in the past, like Europe colonising and controlling much of the world, are obviously out of fashion today. Yet ironically many people have voted with their feet (or would like to, if given the opportunity) and moved to Europe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The proposition that all gains in productivity are absorbed by rental charges sounds completely off to me. How would that even work? Just imagine: If housing were that great of an investment, everyone would get enough credit to build, making effectively everyone a landlord.
It depends how tight the rental market is, if there is a lot more demand than supply it is possible that the full increase would be absorbed in rental increases.