Copped to it already. Vastly underestimated the scope/scale of their internal migration. That phase of their economic growth is now played out.
The era of the little emperors has begun.
Biden increases US refugee cap to 62,500 amid backlash over earlier plan
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...olitics-latest
We have issues. But there are solutions.
Copped to it already. Vastly underestimated the scope/scale of their internal migration. That phase of their economic growth is now played out.
The era of the little emperors has begun.
$
yes it will in Texas. and teachers don’t have unions in Texas they have organizations with zero power.
We need more teachers plain and simple. if you think you can adequately teach 30+ kids in high school classes you’re crazy. and they do this seven classes a day, that’s 210 papers to grade from one assignment. this BS about throwing money is not about paying teachers more, it’s about getting more teachers... classes are flat out too crowded.
The same conservative perception gets repeated over and over and it’s just ridiculous.
You will also find that we put out very very good students in very good economic areas where parents care. The education system is outstanding if you live in the right area
people do not read and they really clearly don’t have people they know who are teachers.
Immigration is essential, but it's got to be the right kind. We want the "makers" not the "takers". Biden's decision on H1-Bs is far more important than the refugee cap.
USA should have thought about makers/takers when the CIA was screwing up countries in Central and S America.
That's a separate conversation. Strictly from an immigration standpoint, would there be less central and south americans trying to get here had the US just let the USSR set up a bunch of puppet states? Debatable, but I doubt it.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy...ees-in-america
https://research.newamericaneconomy....es-in-america/
Net economic impact of refugees, across the board, is positive.
"makers" or "takers" conceives of the problem in a way that has no support in reality or evidence, outside of meaningless anecdotes.
People are assets, and grow our economy. Period.
Some assets are more valuable than others. Marketable job skills should be prioritized over any other criteria in determining which immigrants to accept.
Why? The net effect is positive regardless of marketable skills. They learn them, start businesses, and have kids.
People are assets period.
Limiting refugees in any way means you are accepting a loss to the economy from what it would have been otherwise.
Teaching people marketable job skills requires taxpayer resources. Taxpayer resources are limited. By accepting immigrants who already have marketable skills those taxpayer resources can be better concentrated on the all-too-high portion of our native population who lack skills. I'm not suggesting anything different than what is already standard practice in the EU, Canada and pretty much any other western democracy.
We can afford close to a trillion for defense.
Give me a rough percent of the federal budget you think it would take to "teach people marketable skills"?
Did any of the material I linked say that all refugees need this?
It's like you don't really care what is true here.Why? The net effect is positive regardless of marketable skills. They learn them, start businesses, and have kids.
People are assets period.
Limiting refugees in any way means you are accepting a loss to the economy from what it would have been otherwise
We spend too much on defense. Thanks for the non-sequitur.
....and another attempt at diversion. Whatever the number you or I or anyone else wants to come up with it does nothing to change the fact that governmental resources are limited. Given the number of 18 year olds our educational system is cranking out who aren't qualified to do anything other than work at McDonalds or Walmart, I think we've already got an ample supply of worthy causes to devote those resources to within our domestic population.Give me a rough percent of the federal budget you think it would take to "teach people marketable skills"?
I never suggested that it did. If anything, the material you linked supports my point.Did any of the material I linked say that all refugees need this?
Did you even bother to read the material you posted? It doesn't look like you did. What is true here is that you posted two articles saying that the immigrants who are coming here are by and large ready to contribute immediately. Nowhere in either article did I find any mention that the effect of immigration was positive regardless of marketable skills.
Last edited by FrostKing; 05-06-2021 at 07:05 PM.
Its not a non sequitur.
Your point is "taxpayer resources are limited", and I pointed out a spending priority that could be easily reallocated to helping people.
This should not be a difficult concept.
Sure they are limited. So what?
The question is simply that of allocation, a point you are either unwilling to cede, or simply unable to understand.
I think you do get it and are simply being deliberately misleading.
Paul Solman: What’s the economic impact of refugees in America? Positive? Negative?
Jeffrey Sachs: For the world, it’s positive, because people are leaving desperate situations and getting to economically better situations. For the U.S., on net, it’s positive, because there are gains when people come, add to the labor market, add skills and generally, earn less than what they can contribute to the society as a whole.
RG wants wages for unskilled labor to rise while advocating for unlimited immigration of unskilled labor in an economy that is increasingly automating the tasks done by unskilled labor. Unsurprisingly his blue tinted glasses dont allow him to see that his position is not logical.
CC pitching the straw early today.
Not at all what I am advocating for. Not for unlimited immigration of unskilled labor.
I say you people lie all the time, and this is, in essence, a lie.
If you dislike me so much, why do you prove me right all the time? smh
"Add skills", not "learn skills", "get trained in skills", "acquire skills", i.e. by and large they already posses skills when they get here. Also, nice job of cherry picking your quote. Here's Sachs' responses to the next two questions that better represent context.
Uh, yeah. That's what I've been saying all along. Limited resources should be primarily allocated to citizens. You're working awfully hard to fabricate a strawman here.Jeffrey Sachs: The distributional consequences come in two kinds. First, some workers face increased job compe ion, and their wages can be driven down. If lower skilled immigrants come, then lower skilled American workers may see a decline in their wages, whereas business owners may see more workers at lower cost for them.
The second kind of distributional consequence is that migrants get social services. And if they pay less in taxes and receive social services, that’s kind of a tax on the rest of the society. So economists point to both the labor market impacts and to the fiscal impacts.
Paul Solman: If refugees come and go to work, aren’t they paying in more than they’re getting out?
Jeffrey Sachs: What happens depends a lot on who the refugees are, their family structure, if they are lower skilled and in a place where there are lots of social services. If they are coming with large dependent families, maybe they are net recipients. If they are highly skilled workers and relatively young, they are almost surely net contributors. The more one studies this, the more one sees all different kinds of effects.
You are advocating for the flood of immigration from Central America which is exactly the same thing as advocating for unskilled immigration.
Bend over, I'll ing show you unskilled immigration.
You might want to ask Bogie. I don't swing that way.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)