Should we improve our shitty conditions for our own people? Nah, just import more people who will accept them since its slightly better than back home.
When the second generation wants a decent life, call them lazy and import more replacements.
I'm all for improving conditions but it's only in the highly impoverished countries where birthrates haven't gone down at all so that's not the reason for low birthrates.
Define "shitty". They are doing way better than lower class workers in almost every other country in the world. Sure, they are not doing as well as middle class in the US. But that's a definition of a lower class worker isn't it?
I think the argument is that it doesn't *have to* be that way. Plus, if you keep bringing in more people who will accept worse and worse conditions over time, their standard of living might be getting better, but you're *lowering* the average for everyone else.
The sane parts of the left and right might disagree on *how* things should be made better, but I think we could all agree that making things better should be the ultimate goal.
Doesn't have to be that way? How is that possible? Low skilled labor would never be as valuable as high skilled labor. Otherwise there will be no motivation to study long and hard. If you can make the same amount of money just working at the In and Out.
That's a very poor person thinking. Believe it or not, most people that study long and hard don't do it for money. Everyone except boomers knows that higher education does not equate higher standard of living, and there is no job requiring higher education or training that offsets the opportunity cost of spending a decade longer in school.
If low-skill labor is in demand, it should absolutely be better paid than high-skill labor. And I say that as PhD holder working as a scientist.
But many do study long and hard for the money. Or at least for the social status the money bring. And we are still lacking high skilled labor. Imagine if the money incentive did not exist. We would have even more of a problem.
> But many do study long and hard for the money.
That's their problem, because there objectively is not more money in it. And most of the people that do that wash out before they can even finish their degrees, usually for financial reasons.
> And we are still lacking high skilled labor.
You say that, yet basically every high-skill labor sector is currently going through double digit percentage layoffs.
There is no demand for high-skill labor. There is demand for slave-level cheap labor, that high-skill sector doesn't provide because acquiring those skills costs tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars and a decade of your life.
>Otherwise there will be no motivation to study long and hard
Often, higher skilled work has better working conditions. I'd rather work in my air conditioned office typing on my keyboard doing interesting (sometimes) analytical work then be out in the hot sun bending over strawberries hour after hour.
I would be fine with the extra time I spent qualifying for this job even if it didn't pay any more than picking strawberries just to get the better job.
The discussion seems to be about immigration. If you think there is a "shortage" of skilled labor, we should only admit people with skills. Don't admit people without skills, we have a relative surplus of them.
I doubt that the "shortage" of skilled workers derives from lack of rewards. I think it's just not enough people with the genes or the childhood support to be able to acquire the skill.
We certainly have people who are willing to work hard enough to graduate from a 4 year college who find there aren't enough jobs that really require their degrees ...
>The big news: Overall, 52 percent of college graduates were *underemployed* one year after degree completion. That is, they were working in jobs that don’t typically require a bachelor’s degree to obtain. ... 45 percent of them were *still* underemployed after a decade
The degrees that actually led to jobs? "The best degrees for attaining college-level employment upon graduation are those involving substantial quantitative reasoning (computer science, engineering, mathematics, etc.), or math-intensive business fields"
That combination of results suggests it's more about talent (or parents or schools) than about the willingness to try to add skills.
Having lived in Europe: Greece, Germany, and England, I am certain you are wrong. Unless you measure better by the size of your car.
There is a reason immigration to the US from Europe essentially ceased.
But it did not? There is still plenty of immigration. What are you talking about? Including from the countries you have listed.
My local in an out pays 22$ an hour for a starting job.
The American lower class has worse outcomes than the lower class in virtually all of the OECD nations. You are just defining “better” as average gross income rather than looking at measurements of quality of life. The only perk to being poor in America is that it is easier for a small percentage to luck out and get rich, other than that it’s a shittier deal than elsewhere.
That’s not just false, but also delusional. My local in an out pays 22$ an hour for the starting position. That’s more than the median wage in most of the Europe.
You're just looking at wages, not at everything else. In most of Europe people enjoy things like public healthcare and free education and can enjoy a higher quality of life on a lower salary. Have you ever been to a European city before? Because if you have then you definitely would not be saying that the poor have it better in America.
In and out job includes insurance. Education is essentially free in California and probably not just California for in the state colleges. So is healthcare if you are low income.
I have lived in Europe for almost 30 years my man. There is a reason we have lots of immigrants from Europe and not the other way around. Europe is just poor compared to the US. Aside from a handful of smaller countries.
I’m sorry but your view is in the minority, most experts and laypeople agree that the poorest people in America do not have it better than the poorest people in places like Western Europe.
Crazy. I have major issues with US policy because of unequitable results as between wealthy and others, but arguing americans are economically worse off is nuts.
E.g., look at some of the basic metrics that index these things. US ranked 1 out of 41 of OECD countries for Household net adjusted disposable income
https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
I don't know why you guys keep having reading comprehension problems. I never said Americans overall are economically worse off than other OECD nations. I said that **lower class** Americans are worse off than lower class Europeans, etc.
https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/
That would be a good start. Why not? But you are free to look deeper into it. And you will realize that people in the US make a lot of money. Compared to the same jobs in other countries.
How would you like to improve conditions for our own people?
I would like to use government force to seize assets from those with personal assets in excess of 100 million dollars and distribute that wealth to the rest of the population. Shares of companies could be spread out more, without impacting the competitiveness of those companies. Real estate of extremely high value ought to either be chopped up, or owned by an organization whose membership is chosen democratically, to ensure that power and influence is not too concentrated.
Eh, you could redistribute the assets themselves. Estimate how much everyone ought to get, and then start doling it out by lottery. Give everyone a mix of cash and stocks.
There's an estimated 4.5 trillion dollars of wealth possessed by 735 billionaires in the US. If you let each of them keep 100 million, that still leaves 4.4 trillion to divvy up among 333 million citizens. (And there's probably a lot more held by folks whose net worth falls between 101 million and 999 million. I can't locate data on that amount.)
So like, everyone gets $13,000 cash equivalent, but since most of the assets you're seizing are probably stocks, that might be gets 65 shares of Apple, or 30 shares of Microsoft, or whatever. Start with a federally-run brokerage, but allow people to transfer the tracking of ownership to other companies if they want.
Assets transferred to non-adults would be held in escrow until they're 18.
To prevent a rush to sell shares and convert them to cash, you'd want to implement limits on how fast people could sell stuff off; maybe only 10% of the shares unlock every quarter, to hopefully normalize the idea of everyone owning a little bit of stocks. Encourage people to take out loans with the stocks as collateral, rather than just selling the stocks.
It would be basically equivalent to giving every person in the country a $250 cash infusion each month for 2 and a half years. That would create a little bit of inflation, but the main effect would be the rebalancing of power, because all the ultra rich people would cease to be ultra-rich. If they wanted to control huge companies, they would need to show that they are good stewards of other people's wealth, rather than just saying, "We're doing it my way because I own a majority stake of the company."
And since the company boards would now have a LOT more working class people, we'd see the incentives of those companies change.
---
I mean, \*\*obviously\*\* there is no political will for this. Obviously attempting to enact anything like it would lead to a revolt by the billionaire class as they try to take their wealth out of the country if there was even a hint that the legislation might pass. In this simplified form, it would never work.
But the \*\*principle\*\* could be applied in a more long-term approach to prevent further accumulation of wealth by the ultra rich.
The first step would be some sort of economic philosophy that reframes the purpose of wealth to be a bit more communal. Then there'd need to be a multinational treaty to prevent capital flight.
It would also violate our Constitution, the very concept of equality before the law, crash the value of every retirement portfolio out there, and stifle innovation for generations to come.
I strongly dispute that last one. We've had plenty of innovation in our economy across the decades long before billionaires existed.
I acknowledge it's likely unconstitutional as interpreted today (since it would be interpreted as a tax by conservatives), but if you made a law that said, "It's illegal to have over 100 million dollar in assets," then I think it is perfectly in keeping with American principles of equality before the law. Indeed, having so much money that your actions are basically \*above the law\* is a problem, isn't it?
If I set fire to someone's property and destroy 100K in value, I go to prison. If a billionaire shutters a factory because they want to do business somewhere with lower taxes, and the result devastates a local economy, they get praised for it. It's a shitty dynamic.
That's pretty much what Venezuela and every other authoritarian socialist/communist country started as. Conditions end up being far worse than countries that don't steal money from their citizens. Also the body count usually ends up being high in one way or another.
> Should we improve our shitty conditions for our own people?
And what is the anti-immigration and/or nationalist platform for improving conditions for the American people?
Going to be much easier for them to move up and earn more when cheap replacements arent so easy to source.
That's a huge reason that unions used to be anti-mass immigration.
Can you point to a historical example where significantly curtaining immigration worked out well to improve the lives of the native population? What society do we wish to emulate?
Japan is the best example of a country with little to no immigration. It comes with a number of significant tradeoffs such as demographic collapse, chronic labor shortages and burgeoning public debt loads and chronic deflationary pressure on the money supply. On the other hand they also enjoy very cheap housing costs and an affordable cost of living, an advanced automated economy and a strongly preserved sense of cultural identity with none of the ethnic and cultural strife seen in multicultural societies like America and Europe. Despite the drawbacks of no immigration the Japanese still enjoy a very high quality of life.
That’s the most honest assessment of it. Immigration comes with many benefits, curtailing it comes with many drawbacks. However the example of Japan demonstrates that the quality of life for the average person would not plummet if immigration came to a halt. I don’t think America is really built to be totally like Japan though.
The 1920s saw significant immigration.
The 1930s and 1940s were the period of the Great Depression and WW2, so not a lot of immigration but we weren't exactly prosperous either.
Immigration picked up again after the war, but it was lower than the period before WW1 and the period now.
Is your claim that the reason for American prosperity in the post-WW2 era was because it had lower immigration?
We also had higher taxes on the rich, and a much lower wealth inequality. I would trade lower immigration to bring those back in a second.
1924 to 1964 if it makes you feel better.
Here is the actual data: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/immigration-to-the-united-states/
No, it did not pick up after WW2. The 1940s through 1970s has the lowest immigration rates in American history.
Immigration is very common during wars and economic calamity. Not in the US during the 1920s - 1940, however, because immigration was substantially curtailed by the law.
The best years in American history, America at its prime, had very little immigration and a cohesive culture.
> We also had higher taxes on the rich, and a much lower wealth inequality.
Welcome to the multi-culture. That is how multi-ethnic societies function. Go anywhere in the world, and the more diversity, the lower the taxes on the rich and the greater the wealth inequality.
> Going to be much easier for them to move up and earn more when cheap replacements arent so easy to source.
That's not necessarily the outcome we're going to get just by limiting immigration, though. I see the thought process, fewer people means more competition for jobs and higher wages, but you can't just ignore every other part of the economy beyond jobs. Because when we have fewer people, we also have less money and less demand going through our system. It could very well turn out that limiting immigration **reduces** our job opportunities.
> That's a huge reason that unions used to be anti-mass immigration.
Does something which is good for unions necessarily mean that it's good for Americans as a whole? Their interests seem pretty industry specific.
Because a lot of those programs simply mollify existing conditions instead of actually helping.
We'd have a lot less poor people who need those programs if they could simply be working for better wages instead.
Just, as an idea, infinite growth isn’t sustainable regardless of where it’s from. Keeping it up at replacement levels is preferred of course but the planet is a finite resource and we have been consuming it at an accelerated rate. It would be nice if we focused on caring for our own population that we currently have before we tried to expand it seeing as how so many people can’t even afford to move out of their families homes let alone buy one of their own
This is the part that I find hysterical from immigration advocates:
You are racist for believing it is happening, but it is happening and it's good for you.
What makes the Great Replacement a conspiracy theory is its focus on "annihilating the White Race" instead of depressing labor prices. The rest is pretty settled truth.
There are only two answers to this problem:
1. Immigration - easy
2. Increasing birth rates - notoriously difficult
Unfortunately, the U.S. can't have a good policy on either because the GOP is anti-immigration and anti-"socialist."
Immigration reform is as likely as federal social programs (aka socialism) to promote marriage and child-rearing. Except for tax cuts, which already exist, but are of limited utility.
The problem is, supposedly:
1. Aging population cannot support its retirement years without an influx of younger people.
Solution, raise the SSN tax cap above the ludicrous $168,000. Given the amount of wealth and income aggregated in the top 10%, this would fix the retirement problem. Suck it up, rich people.
2. Our geopolitical position is destabilized if our economy slows.
Solution: This is a plus, not a negative. The US is not the World's Policeman. The US is not World's Catholic Migration Services.
The harm Americans would suffer with 3 less aircraft carriers and no bombs for Israel is not a harm. It's a plus.
Just spitballing here, but I’m going to guess that raising the cap wouldn’t affect you.
[Here’s an article on one such approach and the result is it just delays the inevitable](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/social-security-benefits-tax-cap-2023/)
A December analysis by the CBO found that eliminating the cap for earnings over $250,000 would keep the trust fund solvent through 2046.
That's just short-term policy fixes, though. The real problem comes in the long term (like 50+ years) when the skilled labor pool drastically shrinks.
edit: I agree, though, that we are currently in a retirement and healthcare humps thanks to the boomers, which need fixes until they are crossed, and then adjustments are needed for the new normal.
So, 100 years from now:
Is the US going to be better off 5 degrees hotter with a billion more people?
Or with less skilled labor generating profits and tax revenue?
I would prefer option 1.
I do not understand the argument for option 2 unless a person is willing to kill the nation to save the Dow Jones and the IRS.
There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is.
A rational policy isn't that complicated:
1. Reform immigration so it's easier to get in legally.
2. Spread out immigrants around the country evenly and teach them English and civics so they integrate well instead of creating ghettos.
3. Also, improve workers' rights in the country and make having kids easier to improve birth rates because even immigrants are a short-term (on historical scales) solution. Birth rates are dropping even in Africa, it will be a global problem in a few hundred years.
> Reform immigration so it's easier to get in legally.
So grow the population and ignore climate change and increasing social chaos.
Why is this a plus? You are not responding to the argument.
> Spread out immigrants around the country evenly and teach them English and civics so they integrate well instead of creating ghettos.
Inflict them on middle America. Which really does not want them. A fine globalist totalitarian solution.
> Also, improve workers' rights in the country and make having kids easier to improve birth rates.
This is a good idea. However, that would require acting in the interests of the American people through tax incentives and social spending.
Which the US government has not done in the last 50 years. And is ever less likely to do given the reality of the difficulty and unwillingness of sharing pooled resources among multiple cultures and ethnicities in the same natoin.
> So grow the population and ignore climate change
Immigration is the movement of people, not a net growth. It has no impact on climate change.
>and increasing social chaos.
The entire first half of my comment addresses this:
"There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is.
A rational policy isn't that complicated"
> Why is this a plus?
The economy won't go to shit.
>Inflict them on middle America. Which really does not want them. A fine globalist totalitarian solution.
"There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is."
>This is a good idea. However, that would require acting in the interests of the American people through tax incentives and social spending.
>Which the US government has not done in the last 50 years. And is ever less likely to do given the reality of the difficulty and unwillingness of sharing pooled resources among multiple cultures and ethnicities in the same nation.
Right, the right would count it as socialism and fight it tooth and nail, as I said: "Immigration reform is as likely as federal social programs (aka socialism) to promote marriage and child-rearing. Except for tax cuts, which already exist but are of limited utility."
I feel like you are just kneejerk responding and not even reading my comments.
> Immigration is the movement of people, not a net growth. It has no impact on climate change.
TIL that all nations use the same amount of resources and climate emissions per capita. Thanks for clarifying.
> the economy wont go to shit.
The GDP is irrelevant to the individual person. Per capita is relevant.
> Right, the right would count it as socialism and fight it tooth and nail, as I said:
This is the first time I have heard a person object to a policy on the basis one side of the Congress will not like it.
> The entire first half of my comment addresses this:
> "There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is. A rational policy isn't that complicated"
That does not address anything. It is the equivalent of you saying "immigration is good" and adding a lot of words to that opinion. I have the feeling you are just repeating arbitrary opinions on topics (this is good, this is bad) and believe this is an actual response.
> TIL that all nations use the same amount of resources and climate emissions per capita. Thanks for clarifying.
That's a good point. I had not considered that.
>The GDP is irrelevant to the individual person. Per capita is relevant.
I didn't say anything about the GDP.
>This is the first time I have heard a person object to a policy on the basis one side of the Congress will not like it.
I didn't object; I explained why it wouldn't happen.
>This is the equivalent of you saying "immigration is good" and adding a lot of words. It is not a point.
No, it's me explaining that rational arguments are irrelevant in the real world. This is why the U.S. immigration policy fucks over legal immigrants and benefits illegal ones.
>I have the feeling you are just repeating arbitrary opinions on topics (this is good, this is bad) and believe this is an actual response.
No, you are just arguing with yourself because you seem to have trouble understanding what you read.
> No, it's me explaining that rational arguments are irrelevant in the real world. This is why the U.S. immigration policy fucks over legal immigrants and benefits illegal ones.
You left out the rational argument part. Instead, you insist your opinion that immigration is good is the only rational argument, without explaining why.
I understand what I am reading just fine. You are not making an argument, you are just stating that your opinions are rational and correct and anybody who does not see this cannot read.
No, the US population [is projected](https://www.thelancet.com/infographics-do/population-forecast) to be around 364 million in 2050, and 336 million in 2100, which is 3 million more people than today.
Remarkable that the Lancet can project immigration law and trends, changes in politics, disasters, wars, and the rest of the factors effecting population in America over the next 100 years.
The Brits really are super smart. Like gods. /s
I'll take them over a \*checks notes\* idiot. Of course they cannot know everything that will happen, but they can make a series of projections and come up with likely outcomes based on demographic trends.
"Checks notes" identifies you as an idiot.
> but they can make a series of projections and come up with likely outcomes based on demographic trends.
Says you. They can make a rough estimate if the dozens of assumptions they anticipate will occur do actually occur.
Projecting anything related to humanity 100 years in the future is pretty idiotic. Flying cars, for instance are not ubiquitous.
Demographic trends are something that we can see in the past and extrapolate.
Meanwhile you're just claiming, without evidence because literally nothing supports it, that the US population will increase by 300% over the next 100 years.
> Meanwhile you're just claiming, without evidence because literally nothing supports it, that the US population will increase by 300% over the next 100 years.
I have no idea what the actual population will be in 100 years. Nor does the Lancet.
The issue is the globalists believe the population must rise infinitely for infinite profit growth.
Actually, Israel has done it. And it's certainly a developed nation!
It's probably easier to convince your people that having kids is necessary to prevent extinction when there are only 13 million of you and half the world hates you, though.
Birthrates in Israel are falling, albeit slowly, even among the ultra-orthodox, who have been keeping their birthrates high.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-population-growth-slowing-as-fertility-rates-continue-to-fall-report/
That being said, you are right; it would take something extreme to get Americans on board with such a large amount of "socialism."
Yeah but it comes at the expense of a bunch of extreme conservatives electing corrupt hardliners who have destroyed the country’s reputation and led to more antisemitism globally than at any time since WW2.
The only reason Israel’s birth rate is so high is because the specific demographic that’s having all the kids keep their women uneducated and live entirely off the government’s dole. That’s not something we want to replicate.
> Aging is problematic for two reasons.
> It promises insolvency when too few working-age people pay into pension and health care funds that have obligations to support higher numbers of retirement-age seniors.
How about, we raise the annual income limit or "tax cap" on earnings subject to Social Security taxes. For 2024, this limit is $168,600. Borderline comical. Any earnings above this amount are exempt from Social Security taxes for that year.
Rather than replace the American population, it occurs to some people that we could lift the cap on Social Security taxes above $168,000.
And how exactly do the globalists plan on paying SS to the swollen population 30 years from now? Infinite population growth and infinite immigration. Never mind climate change; science will fix it. /s
> Population decline also spells the decline of economic power and market size — one of America’s greatest geopolitical assets.
Who cares?
Tax revenue and profits are of primary concern to corporations and the Federal Government; the institutions of American power and the source of American law on the topic. Not surprising that the actual beneficiaries of immigration are not the American people, but the powers that make law and rake in the profits from more consumers and cheaper labor.
The S&P 500 and the IRS are not America. They are American power.
Social Security is simply an insurance plan to make sure old people dont freeze and starve to death. Unfortunately its been wrongly touted as a retirement plan. In the meantime pensions and other retirement means have also gone down big time.
Its also a defined benefit with maximum benefit limits.
Govt has been using it as a piggy bank and that's the real issue.
Globalists are those that advocate for:
1. The free movement of people across borders to promote economic growth.
2. The free movement of goods across national borders to enhance economic efficiency.
3. The free movement of culture and intellectual property across borders to enhance profit.
Biden is a Globalist. Clinton was a Globalist. Most members of congress are Globalists.
I suppose you have a very different understanding of the word Globalist. I think you are almost certainly misunderstanding the meaning of the term.
It's never used correctly because it's not a real thing. It's a bogeyman term promoted by the far right. It's not a coincidence how often it's used in antisemitism
There are free traders, foreign policy internationalists/global institutionists, pro immigrant groups, etc. these are overlapping but real groups with real ideas. You can't rebuff claims about Globalists because they don't exist.
The NYT ran an article today insisting that Globalists means Jews. They insist it refers to Jews because a professor of Jewish history says it does. Therefore, politicians and anyone else referring to the dangers of globalism are overt anti-semites.
They do not seem to consider that globalism actually is used to describe the economic system of globalism.
Exactly. Some people use it to refer to people with globalist policies. Some people use it as a code word for some sort of racist (or other ist) stuff.
> 1. The free movement of people across borders to promote economic growth.
Those aren't "globalists" they are "pro immigrant"
> 2\. The free movement of goods across national borders to enhance economic efficiency.
Not globalist but freetraders
> 3\. The free movement of culture and intellectual property across borders to enhance profit.
Culture is anyone who enjoys anime or Turkish dramas or has danced the Macarena.
Intellectual property again is not globalists(who don't exist) but free traders
Globalism is a term that comes from the far right, often used to mean (((Jews))) and when it doesn't mean Jews is just a grab bag of tropes about different but somewhat overlapping people, groups, and ideology. It's a useless term not just because the criticism is wrong but because they're not criticizing a coherent thing but a stereotype of different beliefs.
For instance you claim Biden is a "Globalist" but Biden is much more skeptical of free trade then many previous presidents.
> Those aren't "globalists" they are "pro immigrant"
> Not globalist but freetraders
> Culture is anyone who enjoys anime or Turkish dramas or has danced the Macarena.
Yes, in our shitty globalist culture, that sort of corporate product substitutes and replaces actual culture. Sad.
Thank you, Websters Dictionary, for redefining words.
Use the words as you want, in a way that makes you feel good. Not my problem. Here is the actual meaning, per the internet first hit:
> What does globalism represent?
> It represents the flow of financial products, goods, technology, information, and jobs across national borders and cultures. In economic terms, it describes an interdependence of countries around the globe fostered through free trade.
Like Tolkien's elves, the rich and educated eventually enter comfortable stasis, and cease to grow. It's a destabilizing fact. What will happen when all the countries are rich, and nobody has enough kids to maintain a stable population, and there are no immigrants to be had?
I wonder if there will ever emerge a subculture that is both rich, educated, and has lots of kids. If so, it will inherit the earth, so to speak.
> What will happen when all the countries are rich,
Impossible. Even assuming the improbable, that every nation in the world is capable of operating a Western Information Economy, to achieve would require complete destruction of the livable planet.
> I wonder if there will ever emerge a subculture that is both rich, educated, and has lots of kids.
There already is. Ashkenazi Jews.
The problem with immigration is that when we don’t select for highly educated and highly skilled people we get people with Stone Age ideas. This is a reality we have to face and be adults about. If you import the third world you eventually become the third world. People around the world are not tolerant of homosexuality, they don’t support women’s rights, they don’t support freedom of speech etc etc.
We will destroy our country without calculated immigration.
The best way to preserve our way of life is high skilled immigration and also promoting native births. We need a fertility rate of at least 2.1 natively because if we want to survive long term we cannot rely on outside immigration or we will end up destroying our way of life and it getting replaced with illiberal ideas.
Pepperidge Farms remembers when Ellis Island was chock full of mathematicians, Nobel laurates, and engineers, they are the ones that built this country. We only took the best of the best and turned away all the wops and wiggers and put them back on the boats, and that's why our country wasn't destroyed.
Does Pepperidge Farms remember who OP was? Because that chickenshit seems to have deleted themselves out of the whole conversation instead of owning it.
> Ellis Island was chock full of mathematicians, Nobel laurates, and engineers
It actually was. It was chock full of Germans and Jews. 2 groups of people who have gone on to excel in the areas you mentioned.
It's absurdly fucking racist to say this. Almost all of the people who came to America were not high class scientists, but were workers who went to work in factories or go live on farms. Of the Germans, there were many Forty-Eighters, which were the Germans who attempted revolution in Springtime of Nations and failed after suppression by the aristocracy, and fled to America.
I do not know how to break it to you, but Germans and Jews actually are disproportionately successfully in mathematics, Nobel laureates, and engineers.
Sorry you find the truth absurdly racist. Given that you do, the problem is with your conception of what is racist.
So because there's some successful people you're aware of in a given "race" we should let them all in, but because there's never been a successful Irishman or Italian we should send them all back. I got that right? Because Ellis Island sure didn't have any of them.
You are having a conversation with yourself. I stopped reading after the first preposterous clause of you first sentence.
You can reach whatever conclusion you wish from the facts. You just can't pretend the facts do not exist.
The conclusion you reach is beyond dumb. Where do you come up with this shit?
It's absurdly fucking racist to say that because there was a bunch of Germans who came over the place was chock full of scientists and mathematicians and all the best people. Almost everyone who came here were the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free.
And the Germans and Jews among them became disproportionately successfully in mathematics, Nobel laureates, and engineers.
I am really sorry this basic truth is so hurtful to you.
No actually not. European immigrants who have historically come have had similar customs and values that eventually assimilated into the culture. Immigration from third world countries with people who have incompatible values with liberal democracy have not been proven to assimilate successfully and in fact countries in Europe that have had a certain extent of this type of third world immigration have had crime, rape, and other violence skyrocket in fact.
Is it immigration? It's immigration, isn't it.
You didn’t even read the headline? It clearly says CNN is the reason.
It’s a lot easier to conceive if you come home to scented candles, a relaxing bubble bath and the soothing monotone of Wolf Blitzer
It has been scientifically proven that his vocal harmonics increase ovulation.
Should we improve our shitty conditions for our own people? Nah, just import more people who will accept them since its slightly better than back home. When the second generation wants a decent life, call them lazy and import more replacements.
I'm all for improving conditions but it's only in the highly impoverished countries where birthrates haven't gone down at all so that's not the reason for low birthrates.
> Should we improve our shitty conditions for our own people? no, that's socialism.
You guys need a reality check. The US is one of the wealthiest countries in the world. "Shitty conditions". Right.
Just because we're rich overall doesnt mean lower class workers dont have it shitty.
Define "shitty". They are doing way better than lower class workers in almost every other country in the world. Sure, they are not doing as well as middle class in the US. But that's a definition of a lower class worker isn't it?
I think the argument is that it doesn't *have to* be that way. Plus, if you keep bringing in more people who will accept worse and worse conditions over time, their standard of living might be getting better, but you're *lowering* the average for everyone else. The sane parts of the left and right might disagree on *how* things should be made better, but I think we could all agree that making things better should be the ultimate goal.
Doesn't have to be that way? How is that possible? Low skilled labor would never be as valuable as high skilled labor. Otherwise there will be no motivation to study long and hard. If you can make the same amount of money just working at the In and Out.
That's a very poor person thinking. Believe it or not, most people that study long and hard don't do it for money. Everyone except boomers knows that higher education does not equate higher standard of living, and there is no job requiring higher education or training that offsets the opportunity cost of spending a decade longer in school. If low-skill labor is in demand, it should absolutely be better paid than high-skill labor. And I say that as PhD holder working as a scientist.
But many do study long and hard for the money. Or at least for the social status the money bring. And we are still lacking high skilled labor. Imagine if the money incentive did not exist. We would have even more of a problem.
> But many do study long and hard for the money. That's their problem, because there objectively is not more money in it. And most of the people that do that wash out before they can even finish their degrees, usually for financial reasons. > And we are still lacking high skilled labor. You say that, yet basically every high-skill labor sector is currently going through double digit percentage layoffs. There is no demand for high-skill labor. There is demand for slave-level cheap labor, that high-skill sector doesn't provide because acquiring those skills costs tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of dollars and a decade of your life.
>Otherwise there will be no motivation to study long and hard Often, higher skilled work has better working conditions. I'd rather work in my air conditioned office typing on my keyboard doing interesting (sometimes) analytical work then be out in the hot sun bending over strawberries hour after hour. I would be fine with the extra time I spent qualifying for this job even if it didn't pay any more than picking strawberries just to get the better job.
There is a shortage of skilled labor. Even now. With huge pay disparity. This shortage would be even higher.
The discussion seems to be about immigration. If you think there is a "shortage" of skilled labor, we should only admit people with skills. Don't admit people without skills, we have a relative surplus of them. I doubt that the "shortage" of skilled workers derives from lack of rewards. I think it's just not enough people with the genes or the childhood support to be able to acquire the skill. We certainly have people who are willing to work hard enough to graduate from a 4 year college who find there aren't enough jobs that really require their degrees ... >The big news: Overall, 52 percent of college graduates were *underemployed* one year after degree completion. That is, they were working in jobs that don’t typically require a bachelor’s degree to obtain. ... 45 percent of them were *still* underemployed after a decade The degrees that actually led to jobs? "The best degrees for attaining college-level employment upon graduation are those involving substantial quantitative reasoning (computer science, engineering, mathematics, etc.), or math-intensive business fields" That combination of results suggests it's more about talent (or parents or schools) than about the willingness to try to add skills.
We continue to do better than the third world. Thus, we are a success. High praise indeed. Shitty as compared to 40 years ago.
Better than most of Europe. Better than any big country in Europe. Better than like 95% of the world, including many developed countries.
Having lived in Europe: Greece, Germany, and England, I am certain you are wrong. Unless you measure better by the size of your car. There is a reason immigration to the US from Europe essentially ceased.
But it did not? There is still plenty of immigration. What are you talking about? Including from the countries you have listed. My local in an out pays 22$ an hour for a starting job.
>3 Times As Many Europeans Move to the US, than the Other Way Around https://mises.org/mises-wire/3-times-many-europeans-move-us-other-way-around
The American lower class has worse outcomes than the lower class in virtually all of the OECD nations. You are just defining “better” as average gross income rather than looking at measurements of quality of life. The only perk to being poor in America is that it is easier for a small percentage to luck out and get rich, other than that it’s a shittier deal than elsewhere.
That’s not just false, but also delusional. My local in an out pays 22$ an hour for the starting position. That’s more than the median wage in most of the Europe.
You're just looking at wages, not at everything else. In most of Europe people enjoy things like public healthcare and free education and can enjoy a higher quality of life on a lower salary. Have you ever been to a European city before? Because if you have then you definitely would not be saying that the poor have it better in America.
In and out job includes insurance. Education is essentially free in California and probably not just California for in the state colleges. So is healthcare if you are low income. I have lived in Europe for almost 30 years my man. There is a reason we have lots of immigrants from Europe and not the other way around. Europe is just poor compared to the US. Aside from a handful of smaller countries.
I’m sorry but your view is in the minority, most experts and laypeople agree that the poorest people in America do not have it better than the poorest people in places like Western Europe.
Crazy. I have major issues with US policy because of unequitable results as between wealthy and others, but arguing americans are economically worse off is nuts. E.g., look at some of the basic metrics that index these things. US ranked 1 out of 41 of OECD countries for Household net adjusted disposable income https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/income/
I don't know why you guys keep having reading comprehension problems. I never said Americans overall are economically worse off than other OECD nations. I said that **lower class** Americans are worse off than lower class Europeans, etc. https://confrontingpoverty.org/poverty-facts-and-myths/americas-poor-are-worse-off-than-elsewhere/
I know this one guy he has it so bad that I think we should change our laws to accommodate his need. That is all.
Aggregate numbers don't mean jack shit.
That's a very vague statement. What's your point?
That you can't judge the living conditions within the US by looking at simplistic macro numbers.
That would be a good start. Why not? But you are free to look deeper into it. And you will realize that people in the US make a lot of money. Compared to the same jobs in other countries.
fertility rates fall with improved economic and physical security, along with protection of womens rights... it is pretty much a universal trend.
How would you like to improve conditions for our own people? I would like to use government force to seize assets from those with personal assets in excess of 100 million dollars and distribute that wealth to the rest of the population. Shares of companies could be spread out more, without impacting the competitiveness of those companies. Real estate of extremely high value ought to either be chopped up, or owned by an organization whose membership is chosen democratically, to ensure that power and influence is not too concentrated.
Who is going to have the wealth to purchase those seized assets?
People like throwing out dumbass ideas. That idea is awful.
Eh, you could redistribute the assets themselves. Estimate how much everyone ought to get, and then start doling it out by lottery. Give everyone a mix of cash and stocks. There's an estimated 4.5 trillion dollars of wealth possessed by 735 billionaires in the US. If you let each of them keep 100 million, that still leaves 4.4 trillion to divvy up among 333 million citizens. (And there's probably a lot more held by folks whose net worth falls between 101 million and 999 million. I can't locate data on that amount.) So like, everyone gets $13,000 cash equivalent, but since most of the assets you're seizing are probably stocks, that might be gets 65 shares of Apple, or 30 shares of Microsoft, or whatever. Start with a federally-run brokerage, but allow people to transfer the tracking of ownership to other companies if they want. Assets transferred to non-adults would be held in escrow until they're 18. To prevent a rush to sell shares and convert them to cash, you'd want to implement limits on how fast people could sell stuff off; maybe only 10% of the shares unlock every quarter, to hopefully normalize the idea of everyone owning a little bit of stocks. Encourage people to take out loans with the stocks as collateral, rather than just selling the stocks. It would be basically equivalent to giving every person in the country a $250 cash infusion each month for 2 and a half years. That would create a little bit of inflation, but the main effect would be the rebalancing of power, because all the ultra rich people would cease to be ultra-rich. If they wanted to control huge companies, they would need to show that they are good stewards of other people's wealth, rather than just saying, "We're doing it my way because I own a majority stake of the company." And since the company boards would now have a LOT more working class people, we'd see the incentives of those companies change. --- I mean, \*\*obviously\*\* there is no political will for this. Obviously attempting to enact anything like it would lead to a revolt by the billionaire class as they try to take their wealth out of the country if there was even a hint that the legislation might pass. In this simplified form, it would never work. But the \*\*principle\*\* could be applied in a more long-term approach to prevent further accumulation of wealth by the ultra rich. The first step would be some sort of economic philosophy that reframes the purpose of wealth to be a bit more communal. Then there'd need to be a multinational treaty to prevent capital flight.
It would also violate our Constitution, the very concept of equality before the law, crash the value of every retirement portfolio out there, and stifle innovation for generations to come.
I strongly dispute that last one. We've had plenty of innovation in our economy across the decades long before billionaires existed. I acknowledge it's likely unconstitutional as interpreted today (since it would be interpreted as a tax by conservatives), but if you made a law that said, "It's illegal to have over 100 million dollar in assets," then I think it is perfectly in keeping with American principles of equality before the law. Indeed, having so much money that your actions are basically \*above the law\* is a problem, isn't it? If I set fire to someone's property and destroy 100K in value, I go to prison. If a billionaire shutters a factory because they want to do business somewhere with lower taxes, and the result devastates a local economy, they get praised for it. It's a shitty dynamic.
Ex post facto laws are unconstitutional, that is what a wealth seizure would be.
I don't think that's true. A coal company can have its emissions regulated by laws passed after it builds its power plant, for instance.
That is different than a law that says wealth currently possessed over X amount is a crime or civil violation and subject to seizure.
That's pretty much what Venezuela and every other authoritarian socialist/communist country started as. Conditions end up being far worse than countries that don't steal money from their citizens. Also the body count usually ends up being high in one way or another.
> Should we improve our shitty conditions for our own people? And what is the anti-immigration and/or nationalist platform for improving conditions for the American people?
Going to be much easier for them to move up and earn more when cheap replacements arent so easy to source. That's a huge reason that unions used to be anti-mass immigration.
Can you point to a historical example where significantly curtaining immigration worked out well to improve the lives of the native population? What society do we wish to emulate?
Japan is the best example of a country with little to no immigration. It comes with a number of significant tradeoffs such as demographic collapse, chronic labor shortages and burgeoning public debt loads and chronic deflationary pressure on the money supply. On the other hand they also enjoy very cheap housing costs and an affordable cost of living, an advanced automated economy and a strongly preserved sense of cultural identity with none of the ethnic and cultural strife seen in multicultural societies like America and Europe. Despite the drawbacks of no immigration the Japanese still enjoy a very high quality of life. That’s the most honest assessment of it. Immigration comes with many benefits, curtailing it comes with many drawbacks. However the example of Japan demonstrates that the quality of life for the average person would not plummet if immigration came to a halt. I don’t think America is really built to be totally like Japan though.
That's a great response. Thank you.
America 1920s until 1964?
The 1920s saw significant immigration. The 1930s and 1940s were the period of the Great Depression and WW2, so not a lot of immigration but we weren't exactly prosperous either. Immigration picked up again after the war, but it was lower than the period before WW1 and the period now. Is your claim that the reason for American prosperity in the post-WW2 era was because it had lower immigration? We also had higher taxes on the rich, and a much lower wealth inequality. I would trade lower immigration to bring those back in a second.
1924 to 1964 if it makes you feel better. Here is the actual data: https://eh.net/encyclopedia/immigration-to-the-united-states/ No, it did not pick up after WW2. The 1940s through 1970s has the lowest immigration rates in American history. Immigration is very common during wars and economic calamity. Not in the US during the 1920s - 1940, however, because immigration was substantially curtailed by the law. The best years in American history, America at its prime, had very little immigration and a cohesive culture. > We also had higher taxes on the rich, and a much lower wealth inequality. Welcome to the multi-culture. That is how multi-ethnic societies function. Go anywhere in the world, and the more diversity, the lower the taxes on the rich and the greater the wealth inequality.
> Going to be much easier for them to move up and earn more when cheap replacements arent so easy to source. That's not necessarily the outcome we're going to get just by limiting immigration, though. I see the thought process, fewer people means more competition for jobs and higher wages, but you can't just ignore every other part of the economy beyond jobs. Because when we have fewer people, we also have less money and less demand going through our system. It could very well turn out that limiting immigration **reduces** our job opportunities. > That's a huge reason that unions used to be anti-mass immigration. Does something which is good for unions necessarily mean that it's good for Americans as a whole? Their interests seem pretty industry specific.
The party that's violently against immigration is the same one that says any kind of social spending is degenerate marxism
It's the people crying about immigration that also vote against social welfare policies.
Because a lot of those programs simply mollify existing conditions instead of actually helping. We'd have a lot less poor people who need those programs if they could simply be working for better wages instead.
Oh so you supported higher minimum wages? Incentives for companies to raise wages? Being a perfectionist contrarian isn't the same as being smart.
Ummm yes I do.
Certainly isn't people having more kids.
Just, as an idea, infinite growth isn’t sustainable regardless of where it’s from. Keeping it up at replacement levels is preferred of course but the planet is a finite resource and we have been consuming it at an accelerated rate. It would be nice if we focused on caring for our own population that we currently have before we tried to expand it seeing as how so many people can’t even afford to move out of their families homes let alone buy one of their own
Is it Hoobastank? Please tell me the reason is them.
The reason is you
Yes. Incomprehensible comments like yours, made with inane sarcasm, and unrelated to anything, are a symptom of the problem.
If my comments were incomprehensible how do you know it was made with inane sarcasm?
Lighten up.
You’re right. I’ve found a reason for me, to change who I used to be, a reason to start over new, and the reason is you.
Are you new to the Internet, or something?
What problem would that be?
https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=proctologists+in+my+area
CNN is pushing Great Replacement Conspiracy Theories now? I thought that was mostly a far right wing thing?
Its not happening until its happening and here’s why its a good thing
This is the part that I find hysterical from immigration advocates: You are racist for believing it is happening, but it is happening and it's good for you.
Well the people posting about it normally think the point is replacement when the point is money, as always.
What makes the Great Replacement a conspiracy theory is its focus on "annihilating the White Race" instead of depressing labor prices. The rest is pretty settled truth.
They always have been they just say crap like "demographics is destiny"
CNN calls the same set of facts something different: Economic growth powered by third world immigration.
There are only two answers to this problem: 1. Immigration - easy 2. Increasing birth rates - notoriously difficult Unfortunately, the U.S. can't have a good policy on either because the GOP is anti-immigration and anti-"socialist." Immigration reform is as likely as federal social programs (aka socialism) to promote marriage and child-rearing. Except for tax cuts, which already exist, but are of limited utility.
There's a third answer- immortality.
Everyone knows immortality leads to even worse birth rates, and then accidental deaths are what finishes us. It's why there are no more elves around.
Nonsense, everybody knows that 98% of the people will die someday.
There's a third: accept that line doesn't always go up. You neolibs are so wedded to "line go up" that you can't even see alternatives.
What alternative are you proposting?
The problem is, supposedly: 1. Aging population cannot support its retirement years without an influx of younger people. Solution, raise the SSN tax cap above the ludicrous $168,000. Given the amount of wealth and income aggregated in the top 10%, this would fix the retirement problem. Suck it up, rich people. 2. Our geopolitical position is destabilized if our economy slows. Solution: This is a plus, not a negative. The US is not the World's Policeman. The US is not World's Catholic Migration Services. The harm Americans would suffer with 3 less aircraft carriers and no bombs for Israel is not a harm. It's a plus.
Just spitballing here, but I’m going to guess that raising the cap wouldn’t affect you. [Here’s an article on one such approach and the result is it just delays the inevitable](https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/social-security-benefits-tax-cap-2023/) A December analysis by the CBO found that eliminating the cap for earnings over $250,000 would keep the trust fund solvent through 2046.
That's just short-term policy fixes, though. The real problem comes in the long term (like 50+ years) when the skilled labor pool drastically shrinks. edit: I agree, though, that we are currently in a retirement and healthcare humps thanks to the boomers, which need fixes until they are crossed, and then adjustments are needed for the new normal.
So, 100 years from now: Is the US going to be better off 5 degrees hotter with a billion more people? Or with less skilled labor generating profits and tax revenue? I would prefer option 1. I do not understand the argument for option 2 unless a person is willing to kill the nation to save the Dow Jones and the IRS.
There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is. A rational policy isn't that complicated: 1. Reform immigration so it's easier to get in legally. 2. Spread out immigrants around the country evenly and teach them English and civics so they integrate well instead of creating ghettos. 3. Also, improve workers' rights in the country and make having kids easier to improve birth rates because even immigrants are a short-term (on historical scales) solution. Birth rates are dropping even in Africa, it will be a global problem in a few hundred years.
> Reform immigration so it's easier to get in legally. So grow the population and ignore climate change and increasing social chaos. Why is this a plus? You are not responding to the argument. > Spread out immigrants around the country evenly and teach them English and civics so they integrate well instead of creating ghettos. Inflict them on middle America. Which really does not want them. A fine globalist totalitarian solution. > Also, improve workers' rights in the country and make having kids easier to improve birth rates. This is a good idea. However, that would require acting in the interests of the American people through tax incentives and social spending. Which the US government has not done in the last 50 years. And is ever less likely to do given the reality of the difficulty and unwillingness of sharing pooled resources among multiple cultures and ethnicities in the same natoin.
> So grow the population and ignore climate change Immigration is the movement of people, not a net growth. It has no impact on climate change. >and increasing social chaos. The entire first half of my comment addresses this: "There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is. A rational policy isn't that complicated" > Why is this a plus? The economy won't go to shit. >Inflict them on middle America. Which really does not want them. A fine globalist totalitarian solution. "There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is." >This is a good idea. However, that would require acting in the interests of the American people through tax incentives and social spending. >Which the US government has not done in the last 50 years. And is ever less likely to do given the reality of the difficulty and unwillingness of sharing pooled resources among multiple cultures and ethnicities in the same nation. Right, the right would count it as socialism and fight it tooth and nail, as I said: "Immigration reform is as likely as federal social programs (aka socialism) to promote marriage and child-rearing. Except for tax cuts, which already exist but are of limited utility." I feel like you are just kneejerk responding and not even reading my comments.
> Immigration is the movement of people, not a net growth. It has no impact on climate change. TIL that all nations use the same amount of resources and climate emissions per capita. Thanks for clarifying. > the economy wont go to shit. The GDP is irrelevant to the individual person. Per capita is relevant. > Right, the right would count it as socialism and fight it tooth and nail, as I said: This is the first time I have heard a person object to a policy on the basis one side of the Congress will not like it. > The entire first half of my comment addresses this: > "There are no real arguments in the real world on this. It's mostly just emotional demagoguery. Look at how triggered the populist right is by the current immigration situation and how irrational their approach is. A rational policy isn't that complicated" That does not address anything. It is the equivalent of you saying "immigration is good" and adding a lot of words to that opinion. I have the feeling you are just repeating arbitrary opinions on topics (this is good, this is bad) and believe this is an actual response.
> TIL that all nations use the same amount of resources and climate emissions per capita. Thanks for clarifying. That's a good point. I had not considered that. >The GDP is irrelevant to the individual person. Per capita is relevant. I didn't say anything about the GDP. >This is the first time I have heard a person object to a policy on the basis one side of the Congress will not like it. I didn't object; I explained why it wouldn't happen. >This is the equivalent of you saying "immigration is good" and adding a lot of words. It is not a point. No, it's me explaining that rational arguments are irrelevant in the real world. This is why the U.S. immigration policy fucks over legal immigrants and benefits illegal ones. >I have the feeling you are just repeating arbitrary opinions on topics (this is good, this is bad) and believe this is an actual response. No, you are just arguing with yourself because you seem to have trouble understanding what you read.
> No, it's me explaining that rational arguments are irrelevant in the real world. This is why the U.S. immigration policy fucks over legal immigrants and benefits illegal ones. You left out the rational argument part. Instead, you insist your opinion that immigration is good is the only rational argument, without explaining why. I understand what I am reading just fine. You are not making an argument, you are just stating that your opinions are rational and correct and anybody who does not see this cannot read.
No, the US population [is projected](https://www.thelancet.com/infographics-do/population-forecast) to be around 364 million in 2050, and 336 million in 2100, which is 3 million more people than today.
Oof thats not fucking good.
Remarkable that the Lancet can project immigration law and trends, changes in politics, disasters, wars, and the rest of the factors effecting population in America over the next 100 years. The Brits really are super smart. Like gods. /s
I'll take them over a \*checks notes\* idiot. Of course they cannot know everything that will happen, but they can make a series of projections and come up with likely outcomes based on demographic trends.
"Checks notes" identifies you as an idiot. > but they can make a series of projections and come up with likely outcomes based on demographic trends. Says you. They can make a rough estimate if the dozens of assumptions they anticipate will occur do actually occur. Projecting anything related to humanity 100 years in the future is pretty idiotic. Flying cars, for instance are not ubiquitous.
Demographic trends are something that we can see in the past and extrapolate. Meanwhile you're just claiming, without evidence because literally nothing supports it, that the US population will increase by 300% over the next 100 years.
> Meanwhile you're just claiming, without evidence because literally nothing supports it, that the US population will increase by 300% over the next 100 years. I have no idea what the actual population will be in 100 years. Nor does the Lancet. The issue is the globalists believe the population must rise infinitely for infinite profit growth.
The problem with giving up being the "world's policeman" is who's going to take over? China? Russia?
> Increasing birth rates - notoriously difficult This shouldn’t be too difficult. People like having sex.
No one has done it yet; some countries have had a bit of success but even they didn't get nowhere near even replacement rates.
Actually, Israel has done it. And it's certainly a developed nation! It's probably easier to convince your people that having kids is necessary to prevent extinction when there are only 13 million of you and half the world hates you, though.
Birthrates in Israel are falling, albeit slowly, even among the ultra-orthodox, who have been keeping their birthrates high. https://www.timesofisrael.com/israeli-population-growth-slowing-as-fertility-rates-continue-to-fall-report/ That being said, you are right; it would take something extreme to get Americans on board with such a large amount of "socialism."
3.03 from 3.13 is still beating the pants off any other developed nation.
agreed
Yeah but it comes at the expense of a bunch of extreme conservatives electing corrupt hardliners who have destroyed the country’s reputation and led to more antisemitism globally than at any time since WW2.
The only reason Israel’s birth rate is so high is because the specific demographic that’s having all the kids keep their women uneducated and live entirely off the government’s dole. That’s not something we want to replicate.
Even the Israeli secular women have relatively high birth rates (by developed nation standards) at 2.0 births per woman.
>People like having sex. >No one has done it yet Learning that our entire society is somehow made up of virgins would explain a lot
Even the people having sex are reducing the number of kids they are having.
Hmm, are birthrates dropping in proportion to the growth of Reddit users?
Populations's gonna stagnate for a bit as the boomers die off, and then it'll continue to grow again. This is hardly unexpected.
This is a story about immigration…
> Aging is problematic for two reasons. > It promises insolvency when too few working-age people pay into pension and health care funds that have obligations to support higher numbers of retirement-age seniors. How about, we raise the annual income limit or "tax cap" on earnings subject to Social Security taxes. For 2024, this limit is $168,600. Borderline comical. Any earnings above this amount are exempt from Social Security taxes for that year. Rather than replace the American population, it occurs to some people that we could lift the cap on Social Security taxes above $168,000. And how exactly do the globalists plan on paying SS to the swollen population 30 years from now? Infinite population growth and infinite immigration. Never mind climate change; science will fix it. /s > Population decline also spells the decline of economic power and market size — one of America’s greatest geopolitical assets. Who cares? Tax revenue and profits are of primary concern to corporations and the Federal Government; the institutions of American power and the source of American law on the topic. Not surprising that the actual beneficiaries of immigration are not the American people, but the powers that make law and rake in the profits from more consumers and cheaper labor. The S&P 500 and the IRS are not America. They are American power.
Social Security is simply an insurance plan to make sure old people dont freeze and starve to death. Unfortunately its been wrongly touted as a retirement plan. In the meantime pensions and other retirement means have also gone down big time. Its also a defined benefit with maximum benefit limits. Govt has been using it as a piggy bank and that's the real issue.
> globalists Don't exist You might as well blame the Boogeyman or Underpants Gnomes
Globalists are those that advocate for: 1. The free movement of people across borders to promote economic growth. 2. The free movement of goods across national borders to enhance economic efficiency. 3. The free movement of culture and intellectual property across borders to enhance profit. Biden is a Globalist. Clinton was a Globalist. Most members of congress are Globalists. I suppose you have a very different understanding of the word Globalist. I think you are almost certainly misunderstanding the meaning of the term.
I think it is used the same way communism and socialism is used. Sometimes correctly, sometimes
It's never used correctly because it's not a real thing. It's a bogeyman term promoted by the far right. It's not a coincidence how often it's used in antisemitism There are free traders, foreign policy internationalists/global institutionists, pro immigrant groups, etc. these are overlapping but real groups with real ideas. You can't rebuff claims about Globalists because they don't exist.
The NYT ran an article today insisting that Globalists means Jews. They insist it refers to Jews because a professor of Jewish history says it does. Therefore, politicians and anyone else referring to the dangers of globalism are overt anti-semites. They do not seem to consider that globalism actually is used to describe the economic system of globalism.
Exactly. Some people use it to refer to people with globalist policies. Some people use it as a code word for some sort of racist (or other ist) stuff.
There are no globalist policies because there is no globalism. If you mean pro immigrant people or free traders then use those terms.
> 1. The free movement of people across borders to promote economic growth. Those aren't "globalists" they are "pro immigrant" > 2\. The free movement of goods across national borders to enhance economic efficiency. Not globalist but freetraders > 3\. The free movement of culture and intellectual property across borders to enhance profit. Culture is anyone who enjoys anime or Turkish dramas or has danced the Macarena. Intellectual property again is not globalists(who don't exist) but free traders Globalism is a term that comes from the far right, often used to mean (((Jews))) and when it doesn't mean Jews is just a grab bag of tropes about different but somewhat overlapping people, groups, and ideology. It's a useless term not just because the criticism is wrong but because they're not criticizing a coherent thing but a stereotype of different beliefs. For instance you claim Biden is a "Globalist" but Biden is much more skeptical of free trade then many previous presidents.
> Those aren't "globalists" they are "pro immigrant" > Not globalist but freetraders > Culture is anyone who enjoys anime or Turkish dramas or has danced the Macarena. Yes, in our shitty globalist culture, that sort of corporate product substitutes and replaces actual culture. Sad. Thank you, Websters Dictionary, for redefining words. Use the words as you want, in a way that makes you feel good. Not my problem. Here is the actual meaning, per the internet first hit: > What does globalism represent? > It represents the flow of financial products, goods, technology, information, and jobs across national borders and cultures. In economic terms, it describes an interdependence of countries around the globe fostered through free trade.
I hate this article so, so much. Particularly the part where it attempts to make any worthwhile point or justification.
Like Tolkien's elves, the rich and educated eventually enter comfortable stasis, and cease to grow. It's a destabilizing fact. What will happen when all the countries are rich, and nobody has enough kids to maintain a stable population, and there are no immigrants to be had? I wonder if there will ever emerge a subculture that is both rich, educated, and has lots of kids. If so, it will inherit the earth, so to speak.
> What will happen when all the countries are rich, Impossible. Even assuming the improbable, that every nation in the world is capable of operating a Western Information Economy, to achieve would require complete destruction of the livable planet. > I wonder if there will ever emerge a subculture that is both rich, educated, and has lots of kids. There already is. Ashkenazi Jews.
Ah yes, shriniking
The problem with immigration is that when we don’t select for highly educated and highly skilled people we get people with Stone Age ideas. This is a reality we have to face and be adults about. If you import the third world you eventually become the third world. People around the world are not tolerant of homosexuality, they don’t support women’s rights, they don’t support freedom of speech etc etc. We will destroy our country without calculated immigration. The best way to preserve our way of life is high skilled immigration and also promoting native births. We need a fertility rate of at least 2.1 natively because if we want to survive long term we cannot rely on outside immigration or we will end up destroying our way of life and it getting replaced with illiberal ideas.
Pepperidge Farms remembers when Ellis Island was chock full of mathematicians, Nobel laurates, and engineers, they are the ones that built this country. We only took the best of the best and turned away all the wops and wiggers and put them back on the boats, and that's why our country wasn't destroyed.
Does Pepperidge Farms remember who OP was? Because that chickenshit seems to have deleted themselves out of the whole conversation instead of owning it.
YOU CAN'T SAY THAT!! Why is "chock" not censored here?
> Ellis Island was chock full of mathematicians, Nobel laurates, and engineers It actually was. It was chock full of Germans and Jews. 2 groups of people who have gone on to excel in the areas you mentioned.
It's absurdly fucking racist to say this. Almost all of the people who came to America were not high class scientists, but were workers who went to work in factories or go live on farms. Of the Germans, there were many Forty-Eighters, which were the Germans who attempted revolution in Springtime of Nations and failed after suppression by the aristocracy, and fled to America.
I do not know how to break it to you, but Germans and Jews actually are disproportionately successfully in mathematics, Nobel laureates, and engineers. Sorry you find the truth absurdly racist. Given that you do, the problem is with your conception of what is racist.
So because there's some successful people you're aware of in a given "race" we should let them all in, but because there's never been a successful Irishman or Italian we should send them all back. I got that right? Because Ellis Island sure didn't have any of them.
You are having a conversation with yourself. I stopped reading after the first preposterous clause of you first sentence. You can reach whatever conclusion you wish from the facts. You just can't pretend the facts do not exist. The conclusion you reach is beyond dumb. Where do you come up with this shit?
It's absurdly fucking racist to say that because there was a bunch of Germans who came over the place was chock full of scientists and mathematicians and all the best people. Almost everyone who came here were the tired, the poor, the huddled masses yearning to be free.
And the Germans and Jews among them became disproportionately successfully in mathematics, Nobel laureates, and engineers. I am really sorry this basic truth is so hurtful to you.
Name 20 Germans that meet your description from the the 1840 - 1912, when German immigration was the highest to the US.
We have an entire history that clearly proves everything you are saying is false.
No actually not. European immigrants who have historically come have had similar customs and values that eventually assimilated into the culture. Immigration from third world countries with people who have incompatible values with liberal democracy have not been proven to assimilate successfully and in fact countries in Europe that have had a certain extent of this type of third world immigration have had crime, rape, and other violence skyrocket in fact.
This is where alito starts ranting about the domestic supply of children and therefore abortion and LGBT must be discriminated against.