And why have incomes stagnated? Because we keep on importing more workers to keep the price of labor down.
The data doesn’t support that view - immigrants encourages the economy to expand. Kind of weird to blame income stagnation on the one clear factor that helped grow the USA for 200 years:
Back to the point, there really has been a class war for 40 years.
No one is disputing that we don’t have economic growth. The issue is incomes. Yes, immigrants contribute to economic growth, but they cause income stagnation. Incomes=price of labor, and when you increase labor supply, you lower labor price.
So, historically, how did a nation built on immigration achieve income growth?
Second chart, you’ll see that the period that liberals laud as the time of greatest middle class prosperity also featured the lowest immigration:
http://www.immigrationeis.org/eis-documents/us-demographic-history
That is why many sensible progressives (including myself) are open to modest and sensible restrictions on immigration such as moving towards a skills-based system and why Sanders opposes the silly superstition of open borders. Of course, existing immigrants must be assimilated as much as possible and as quickly as possible to ensure the sort of social solidarity and internal cultural homogenity necessary to sustain political support for a broad-based welfare state.
Yeah, it all depends on what your priorities are. There’s a good, liberal argument for increased immigration based on freedom and diversity and how we’re enriched by immigration culturally and economically.
But you can’t have a generous welfare state with mass immigration and you can’t have rising wages with it either.
Sort of; only the ruling class has been fighting it.
That said, weren’t you complaining about Bernie Sanders previously for “betraying” “progressive ideals” by opposing open borders?
No, I was complaining about him muddling his message by opposing Keystone. He had a real shot at maybe bringing some union endorsements in, but now they’ve got no reason to not back Clinton.
I mean the posts on this page some months ago: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=755599&page=6
Am I mistaken or are there really people on this board, who think having white elderly male career politicians, like Bernie, running the US, is a good idea?
You’re mistaken if you think that there are people on this board who have a problem with it. Indeed, for practical consideration, all of our serious options this time are elderly, white, career politicians.
As opposed to who exactly? It was already pointed out that elderly, white, career politicians are all we have for serious consideration this time around. I find it odd you have chosen to focus on Bernie out of all the other options. Whether he is your cup of tea or not, he is undoubtedly the most progressive/liberal one in the running. Or is that the real issue?
Yes, obviously I would very much rather have a white elderly male liberal like Bernie Sanders as President than a black young female conservative like Mia Love of Utah.
Well, surely, there must be someone else out there on Democratic side, who hasn’t spent all his life being a politician and actually worked for a living? I mean, sure, we’ve got Monica Lewinsky’ ex-boyfriend wife…anyone else?
Who gives a fuck?
People who actually want someone else, other than elderly white male career politicians to run for President?
So useless SJWs and right-wing concern trolls.
Ahhh, now I understand.
Don’t you have an appointment with some billy goats? Run along now.