View Single Post
Old 07-27-2019, 02:06 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,481
Originally Posted by Scylla View Post
Those who make a net positive contribution to our society.
How do you determine this? Are you looking only for people that can hit the ground running and help SpaceX get its next rocket into orbit, or are we talking about people with potential? Do children make a net positive contribution?

I would say that the overwhelming majority of those who want to come here and make a better life for themselves and their families will be net positive contributors, and in fact, immigrants tend to contribute to the economy more than native born. So, if your only desire is to get people in here who will be contributors, than your best bet is to outlaw reproduction of citizens and get as many immigrants here as you can.

I may be wrong, but I think he is fine with legal immigration.
That's up in the air, but any legal immigration that he wants is based on racist ideals, not based on who would make a net positive contribution to our society.
I don’t think I’ve made such a complaint. It doesn’t make sense to extend benefits to non citizens, when our society does not fully meet the needs of all of its less fortunate ones though. So, I am not a fan of benefits to illegals.
This addresses nothing that I have said. I talked about helping those less fortunate, which includes, and in my statement was only referring to, your fellow citizens. I have no idea why you chose to throw in your stuff about non-citizens, and then without missing a beat, then conflate non-citizens with the soft slur of "illegals".
Yes. Economically the country needs more.
Yep, unfortunately, those we need are currently sitting in a detention center wondering if they will ever see their children again.
This may surprise you, but not all jobs can or should provide a living wage.
This may surprise you, but people need a living wage in order to you know, live. Sure, I agree that not all jobs can or should, but jobs should be available that do. If there are no jobs that one can obtain that pay a living wage, then the job market has failed at its job.
What do you mean make plans for? This whole market economy thing works because people respond to incentives. They are capable of determining their market value, making plans and decisions for themselves as individuals better than we are.
If they have access to the resources to fully understand and implement their decisions, which they do not, which is why your theory here utterly fails in the real world.
Why not. Labor is a service like any other good or service. What is the nature of your objection to suggest that it is invalid?
Labor is not a service like any other good or service. In fact, labor is not considered by economists to be a good or a service, but rather, an input into goods and services. Do you also consider rent and capital to also be no different than other goods and services?

Tell you what, you said you had economics friends, you ask them your question of "People own their own labor and can sell it as they see fit. If it was not a living wage, wouldn’t they go elsewhere, thus limiting supply and driving up price?". After the congratulate you on making a good joke, then explain that no, you are serious, and you do not understand why they do not go elsewhere in order to drive up the price.

They will start off by trying to explain terms like "fungibility" and "elasticity" to you, but if you then tell them that they need a refresher because they don't agree with you that the labor market can be accurately modeled by a simple curve on a supply demand graph, they will use terms amongst themselves like "opportunity cost" and "dead loss", then they will go out to lunch without inviting you along.

I’m not insulting. To speak intelligently about this topic you either have to know certain things, or be cognizant of your ignorance. That is, to know that you don’t know. You are demonstrating neither. That’s not an insult. It’s an observation.
It is observed by the fact that I called you out on your simplistic notion that you can model the labor market with a single curve on a supply demand graph? That's a pretty poor observation on your part.

Your post demonstrated a massive ignorance of the nuance of economics, and your followup posts have done nothing to show otherwise.

As your only basis for thinking that I need a refresher was in my pointing out of your simplistic post, it is you that everyone can observe to be severely lacking in this subject.

Yes. Why is that a problem?
Okay, so how bad do you want to let things get? Keep in mind that whole food riots are one of the least efficient way of distributing resources, they are an inevitable effect of seeing how bad things can get.
Yes. The unemployment rate should be higher. Overall the fact that is not means that we are not doing as well as we could.
Actually, as an employer, I kinda agree. It is hard to attract and retain good talent in the current labor market. Unfortunately, I cannot raise my pay much without raising my prices, and I can't raise my prices unless there are more customers that are able to afford them.
Unfortunately, that’s just a fact.
I disagree. There were times in history that that was true. There were times when there wasn't enough food to feed everyone, so there were those who went without. Now there is. Now we have houses sitting empty with homeless in the street. We have food being wasted with people suffering from malnourishment.

These are not a lack of resources needed to take care of people and alleviate their suffering, these are artificially created scarcities that serve only to enrich the already wealthy at the expense of others.
Not right now. Why should the government pay to train workers and move them for corporations? Especially when those corporations are desperate for workers. Why would we subsidize the Fortune 500 any more than we already are?
Believe it or not, the Fortune 500 is actually not the only employers out there. There are many more smaller companies that are trying to grow, and need edcuated workers to do so.

I ask, since you are against retraining, are you also against training, as in publicly funded school systems? Do you complain that we spend public monies in order to train workers for the Fortune 500?

Originally Posted by Shodan View Post
You misunderstand. I wasn't pointing out that Romney was wrong, because he wasn't. I was pointing out that you were wrong, because you are. That is, your claim that Romney's wealthy peers do not pay taxes for the government services they receive is amusingly bizarre, but not otherwise worthwhile.
In order for me to be wrong, then there would be no high net worth person who payed no federal income tax. In order for Romney to be wrong, there only needs to be one high net worth person who didn't pay federal income tax.

Is that the hill you are willing to die on here, that not a single one of Romney's peers managed to avoid paying federal income tax?
Also, your notion that property taxes are regressive. Can you explain how a person with a million-dollar home pays less in property taxes than a person living in an apartment? Rhetorical question, obviously, because you can't.
Your question makes no sense, as a regressive tax does not mean that the wealthy pay less, but that they pay less proportionally to their income. Please rephrase your question into something that resembles reality and try again.
I am not strawmanning you. You are strawmanning yourself, and not doing a very good job.
You straight up admitted that you were strawmanning in that last post. Are you taking that back?

Originally Posted by Wrenching Spanners View Post
Maybe it's because I live abroad, but with the possible exception of relocation assistance which I haven't heard about as a government program, I consider every one of the things you've listed to be a conservative value. My starting point is that I want a government that’s effective and that operates under a reasonable tax burden. That requires that the vast majority of people meet most of their own needs. It also involves trade-offs. At their worst, liberals have a very broad list of the needs government should meet, far more than your basic list, and think that all those needs can be met if the rich are taxed sufficiently. And their definition of rich is someone making more money than they are.
You may consider them to be conservative values, but, when talking about the US, the party that claims to be conservative considers them to be an anathema.
By the way, in a thread about personal responsibility, if we want to talk about a proposed US federal program that liberals favour and traditional conservatives should disagree with, can we talk about the Student Loan Debt Relief Act? If you want evidence liberals don’t believe in personal responsibility, there you go:
Student loan debt is a problem for more than just the student. It is a problem for the economy, the job market, well for everyone. I personally have a bit of SLD, meaning that I give about $400 a month to some loan companies, rather than spending it in the economy. Now, if you understand debt, then you know that when you create debt, you create money, you grow the economy. When you retire debt, you destroy money, you shrink the economy.

There is 1.5 trillion in student debt, and that is 1.5 trillion dollars that will not be contributing to the economy.

It's a double sided problem. Not only does the debt hold back students from becoming productive members of society, but the apprehension of taking on the debt will dissuade many from pursuing a degree. The ability to take on debt to finance education is one of the factors that allowed tuition costs to explode as they have.

So, student loan debt makes students less able and/or willing to go to college, it burdens those students and prevents them from moving on with their life, and it drains money out of the economy that all these 20-30 college graduates should be spending.
Originally Posted by Bone View Post
I'm not quite sure because it's difficult and tedious to read the fisking style you seem to like, but this sounds like both a personal insult, and an accusation of lying. Dial back the hostility, or go play in the Pit where it's appropriate.

I apologize, at the time, I thought that Shodan was admitting that that line was an example of a strawman, and so I was responding to the fictional poster that would hypothetically make such a bad faith statement.

Now that he has changed his mind, and claimed the statement as one of his own, I can see how my comments would be seen as directed at him.

Quick question, was your observation of my posting style an actual mod instruction, or just a chance to get a dig in while wearing the mod hat?

I'll admit to the fisking(even though it makes it sound dirty), as that is not an inaccurate description of how I make sure that I respond to the things that other posters say, but I find the style of declaring "So, you're wrong" in response to any question you can't answer or point you cannot refute to be far more tedious.

Last edited by k9bfriender; 07-27-2019 at 02:07 PM.