4 ms·

> The billionaire tech investor has been a staunch opponent of immigration. Back in 2008, Gawker found that Thiel had donated $1 million to NumbersUSA, an anti-

by bko 10y ago

> The billionaire tech investor has been a staunch opponent of immigration. Back in 2008, Gawker found that Thiel had donated $1 million to NumbersUSA, an anti-immigration group that has consistently been labelled racist and a firm fan of active population control. ... > He then invested in the SeaSteading Institute which wanted to turn Thiel’s dream into a reality. The reason? He felt the government wasn’t doing enough to keep Silicon Valley stocked with foreign talent. [0] Some mixed messaging here... [0] http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-surprised-peter-thiels-secret-crush-donald-trump/#gref http://thenextweb.com/insider/2016/05/10/shouldnt-surprised-...

bruceb 10y ago
It isn't you are just changing the mix of who is coming. One could argue that decrease low skilled immigration and upping higher skilled immigration would boost those at the bottom. Raising wages at the bottom while reducing the price of some more complex services.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- bko 10y ago
  I guess it's under the whole idea the immigration drives down wages. It's likely true that it does drive down wages for certain individuals but the net impact is at worse break even. Wages are an expense after-all, and if you cut the expense and prices go down, everyone benefits by at least the amount that the price had dropped. Some lose out by losing their job so their losses would be offset by the gains of others by having lower prices. This ignores the fact that more people are buying the product at the lower price. And this also assumes that markets are competitive and that the company can't just continue to charge the same price and pocket the difference, which I don't think is unreasonable in a competitive market economy. So the many get lower prices, and pay taxes that compensate the concentrated few that are affected by the job losses or lower wages.
  - Houshalter 10y ago
    Companies benefit a ton from cheaper labor. But the existing laborers lose out because of competition driving down wages. There might be a neg positive effect on the economy, but the benefits go to the rich and the immigrants, at the expense of the local poor and middle class. Prices are not going to fall that much because of immigrant labor, and certainly not enough to make up for the decreased wages.
wmil 10y ago
"In February 2009, NumbersUSA was called a nativist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center's report 'The Nativist Lobby', though the SPLC also stated that there is no evidence of racism on behalf of Roy Beck or his organization."[1] There are plenty of people in the press who consider all discussion of immigration reduction or control racist. That doesn't make it so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA
- Houshalter 10y ago
  I've noticed a phenomenon for political words to lose meaning over time, and become fully general insults. The right uses "socialist" excessively for example. The left uses words like "racist" in a similar way. Most people called socialist would say they don't support socialism or socialist policies. Most people called racist would say they don't think their race is superior or that we should discriminate based on race.
  - throwaway13337 10y ago
    Most people called socialist do indeed support socialist policies - they support government programs like medicare, public schools, and other social welfare programs. Those calling them socialists are probably a bit socialist too, though. This only fuels your argument that political words lose meaning over time.
ohnomrbill 10y ago
(Disclaimer: I will vote for some candidate this election, but I would write in a name before voting for Trump.) I see this conflation in almost all the election news I hear - people assume that Trump supporters are against any immigration. In fact, the white, blue collar workers making Trump's base are okay with most immigrants. They (quite understandably) dislike illegal South American immigrants, who compete with them for a shrinking pool of manufacturing and menial labor jobs. While immigration may benefit the country as a whole, illegal immigration from South America does not benefit them; instead, it contributes to ever-worsening employment prospects. To convince Trump supporters of the benefits of immigration, one must present a solution which simultaneously addresses the lack of jobs for workers at the low end. Until then, the tradeoff is clear - blue collar workers would rather ship illegal immigrants home than have increased local competition for employment, which I find understandable. Trump is also in favor of tariffs, etc. to keep American manufacturing jobs, and has spoken against NAFTA. For a blue collar worker, he may be the best candidate left in the race - and his protectionist position combined with a strong stance against illegal immigration may mean that he has been the best candidate in the race for a long time. (Again, seen from the perspective of a white, blue collar worker). For Thiel, I can see a few reasons why a protectionist, anti-illegal immigration stance makes sense. He may believe we really do have an overpopulation problem, and wishes to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into America on those grounds. A protectionist stance makes more sense - America's prosperity in the 70's and 80's and South Korea and China's relative prosperity today make the case for keeping a manufacturing base at home, coupled with a reasonably strong creative and technical sector. Again, this is just speculation on the beliefs of others; my own beliefs are different. But I think it's important to consider that Trump supporters may have reasonably nuanced views on immigration too, even if they don't align with our own stance.
- choko 10y ago
  (disclaimer: also not a Trump supporter) I don't think Trump's opponents assume that his supporters are against all immigration at all. I think his opponents deliberately misinterpret Trumps' message to paint his supporters as ignorant racists. That's not to say that there aren't Trump supporters who are actually racist, but I see little actual evidence that it's the norm. Throwing the racist card has been a pretty effective tactic for the left over the past 8 years, so I can't blame them for drawing from that well until it's dry, but I do get tired of the rhetoric. It's not helping the divisiveness in the United States.

by bko 10y ago

bruceb 10y ago

It isn't you are just changing the mix of who is coming. One could argue that decrease low skilled immigration and upping higher skilled immigration would boost those at the bottom. Raising wages at the bottom while reducing the price of some more complex services.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
bko 10y ago
I guess it's under the whole idea the immigration drives down wages. It's likely true that it does drive down wages for certain individuals but the net impact is at worse break even. Wages are an expense after-all, and if you cut the expense and prices go down, everyone benefits by at least the amount that the price had dropped. Some lose out by losing their job so their losses would be offset by the gains of others by having lower prices. This ignores the fact that more people are buying the product at the lower price. And this also assumes that markets are competitive and that the company can't just continue to charge the same price and pocket the difference, which I don't think is unreasonable in a competitive market economy. So the many get lower prices, and pay taxes that compensate the concentrated few that are affected by the job losses or lower wages.
- Houshalter 10y ago
  Companies benefit a ton from cheaper labor. But the existing laborers lose out because of competition driving down wages. There might be a neg positive effect on the economy, but the benefits go to the rich and the immigrants, at the expense of the local poor and middle class. Prices are not going to fall that much because of immigrant labor, and certainly not enough to make up for the decreased wages.

wmil 10y ago

"In February 2009, NumbersUSA was called a nativist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center's report 'The Nativist Lobby', though the SPLC also stated that there is no evidence of racism on behalf of Roy Beck or his organization."[1] There are plenty of people in the press who consider all discussion of immigration reduction or control racist. That doesn't make it so. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NumbersUSA

Houshalter 10y ago
I've noticed a phenomenon for political words to lose meaning over time, and become fully general insults. The right uses "socialist" excessively for example. The left uses words like "racist" in a similar way. Most people called socialist would say they don't support socialism or socialist policies. Most people called racist would say they don't think their race is superior or that we should discriminate based on race.
- throwaway13337 10y ago
  Most people called socialist do indeed support socialist policies - they support government programs like medicare, public schools, and other social welfare programs. Those calling them socialists are probably a bit socialist too, though. This only fuels your argument that political words lose meaning over time.

ohnomrbill 10y ago

(Disclaimer: I will vote for some candidate this election, but I would write in a name before voting for Trump.) I see this conflation in almost all the election news I hear - people assume that Trump supporters are against any immigration. In fact, the white, blue collar workers making Trump's base are okay with most immigrants. They (quite understandably) dislike illegal South American immigrants, who compete with them for a shrinking pool of manufacturing and menial labor jobs. While immigration may benefit the country as a whole, illegal immigration from South America does not benefit them; instead, it contributes to ever-worsening employment prospects. To convince Trump supporters of the benefits of immigration, one must present a solution which simultaneously addresses the lack of jobs for workers at the low end. Until then, the tradeoff is clear - blue collar workers would rather ship illegal immigrants home than have increased local competition for employment, which I find understandable. Trump is also in favor of tariffs, etc. to keep American manufacturing jobs, and has spoken against NAFTA. For a blue collar worker, he may be the best candidate left in the race - and his protectionist position combined with a strong stance against illegal immigration may mean that he has been the best candidate in the race for a long time. (Again, seen from the perspective of a white, blue collar worker). For Thiel, I can see a few reasons why a protectionist, anti-illegal immigration stance makes sense. He may believe we really do have an overpopulation problem, and wishes to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into America on those grounds. A protectionist stance makes more sense - America's prosperity in the 70's and 80's and South Korea and China's relative prosperity today make the case for keeping a manufacturing base at home, coupled with a reasonably strong creative and technical sector. Again, this is just speculation on the beliefs of others; my own beliefs are different. But I think it's important to consider that Trump supporters may have reasonably nuanced views on immigration too, even if they don't align with our own stance.

choko 10y ago
(disclaimer: also not a Trump supporter) I don't think Trump's opponents assume that his supporters are against all immigration at all. I think his opponents deliberately misinterpret Trumps' message to paint his supporters as ignorant racists. That's not to say that there aren't Trump supporters who are actually racist, but I see little actual evidence that it's the norm. Throwing the racist card has been a pretty effective tactic for the left over the past 8 years, so I can't blame them for drawing from that well until it's dry, but I do get tired of the rhetoric. It's not helping the divisiveness in the United States.