4 ms·

Which is a great argument in support of making immigration easier for the highly intelligent and highly educated. Selfishly, enabling the best and brightest in

by douche 10y ago

Which is a great argument in support of making immigration easier for the highly intelligent and highly educated. Selfishly, enabling the best and brightest in the world to relocate into your country is a win. Particularly if those people were educated at US universities, taking internships at US companies, or doing US research. Nothing is gained by opening the floodgates to average and below average intelligence people, who we have already have a native surplus of.

adventured 10y ago
'A native surplus of below average intelligence people' I'd like to see you prove that claim while defining exactly what you mean by a surplus.
- douche 10y ago
  I grew up in Appalachia. You don't have to look hard...
  - adventured 10y ago
    So did I, and I disagree with you. The part of Appalachia I grew up in for example, in Maryland, had among the best public schools in the state, and had among the highest testing outcomes in the state. That's still true to this day. I'd like to see you prove your claim and define what a surplus of below average intelligence people means. Given the small population base of Appalachia, you're not providing meaningful evidence of anything by referring to that location. The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, Latin America, and so on.
    - douche 10y ago
      What I see, is that the intellectual floor for high-quality employment that results in traditional middle-class security continues to rise. In my grandfather's generation, somebody who could chew gum and walk at the same time could get a decent union industrial job and live the proverbial "two cars and a picket fence" lifestyle. In my father's generation, you had to at least graduate high school, and odds are, you needed your wife to work as well. In my generation, a college degree is table-stakes, and really, you need a degree from one of the places that has more legitimacy, and really, a degree in one of the harder, more intellectually demanding subjects. Roughly, at every generation here, I'm approximating the floor of intelligence and ability to increase at around one standard deviation. > The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy. Fuck, that's bad news for Europe, I suppose. I knew people that had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing.
      - adventured 10y ago
        > I knew people that had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing That isn't a very strong data point. The median household income in Appalachia - which also includes eg Pittsburgh - is above all but a dozen or so major nations, and is above that of the EU and Eurozone. The unemployment rate there is also lower than the EU and Eurozone (in fact, it's about ~45% lower).
        douche 10y ago
        Including Pittsburgh in Appalachia is being very generous. You're way too far west there. Unemployment numbers are mostly bullshit, to boot. Depending on which set of them you are using, that can have huge discrepancies with the actual labor force numbers percentages, since after so many months of a hopeless situation, people drop off the unemployment rolls and into the masses of the long-term unemployed.
        yompers888 10y ago
        It's like you're dangling a pinata and yanking it away at the last second. If you want to talk about your particular backwoods place, name it with greater specificity. If you want us to focus on labor force participation rates vice unemployment stats, offering those up would be similarly wise. For the record, my Appalachia town also had good schools, though we had more than our fair share of meth and poverty as well.
        douche 10y ago
        >For the record, my Appalachia town also had good schools, though we had more than our fair share of meth and poverty as well. Good on you. We had the poverty, although weed was the favorite cash crop, rather than meth. Growing some plants out in the woods is easier to hide than a lab that might blow up and catch the double-wide on fire...
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        10y ago
    - 77pt77 10y ago
      > The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, Latin America, and so on. Care to give a reference?
- Snargorf 10y ago
  A surplus just means "more than you need". Other poster isn't necessarily making any statement that Americans are dumb overall. But there is a surplus of low-IQ people. In the modern (and definitely future) economy, dumb bodies just aren't needed. They're the "unnecessariat". If you want proof of that, look up the unemployment stats on low-education or low-IQ workers.
- djf1 10y ago
  I think it would be reasonable to claim that the larger the proportion of smart people in your population, the better. If that's true, than any number of below average intelligence people would be a surplus.
  - laxatives 10y ago
    I get your point, but I think what your describing isn't particularly meaningful. By definition, nearly 50% of any population is categorically an undesirable surplus.
    - djf1 10y ago
      Yes, you could argue that. But a _nation_ could improve its proportions by restricting immigration to a subset of the _global_ population. To a certain extent, this principle is applied today. But I imagine it could be scaled up to something akin to highly selective university admissions process (e.g. interviews, standardized testing, resume critique, references). If a country starts with sufficient desirability, this could result in a positive feedback loop -- an increasingly competent and productive society.
      - laxatives 10y ago
        I agree with you there. Unfortunately, the greatest motivation to bring in someone outside the country is rarely for their exceptionalism, its usual about making/saving money. And at most institutions, its far more cost effecting to get individuals who are just sufficient and will accept a substantially lower compensation than their domestic peers. The individuals who are exceptional have loads of options/opportunities in their own homeland.
        netheril96 10y ago
        > The individuals who are exceptional have loads of options/opportunities in their own homeland. That is simply not true. Most countries do not have the demand, willpower or money to sustain, say, a world-class research institution.
antoineMoPa 10y ago
I love it. An American telling Americans are dumb and trying to use this fact in a way that makes it look bright to restrict US immigration. At least he started with "Selfishly" and warned users with his username.
- jonathankoren 10y ago
  No, it's called taking advantage of a brain drain, and has long been a point of pride for Americans.
  - laxatives 10y ago
    Immigration is a zero-sum game. Americans should be proud when they can poach the best.
- Gustomaximus 10y ago
  You've misread/understood. They dont state or imply Americans are dumb. More recognise America (as do all countries) has a surplus of average, so points out why increase that.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
Opening the floodgates can be tremendously beneficial provided we allow capitalism to work. It's called comparative advantage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage Of course, the modern welfare state cuts against that, as do the harmful externalities imposed by (eventual) voting. But the humane solution here - which might be politically impossible - is to allow immigration while eliminating the welfare state and making the newcomers into a permanent non-voting underclass.
- netheril96 10y ago
  > is to allow immigration while eliminating the welfare state and making the newcomers into a permanent non-voting underclass. If the political climate allows a separate class of citizens, then there is no need to eliminate the welfare state.
- Chris2048 10y ago
  > Opening the floodgates can be tremendously beneficial Beneficial to who? Factory owners - yes, factory workers - no ...
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    It's true that rent seekers who currently use state-sanctioned violence to prevent economic competition might be harmed in a visible manner. But factory workers are consumers too and gain (less visible) benefits from immigrants. I.e. if you work at factory X but consume goods produced at factory Y, you benefit from cheaper labor at factory Y. If you work at factory X but consume medicine, you benefit from having an Indian doctor and a Filipina nurse.
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      > but consume goods produced at factory Y, you benefit from cheaper labor at factory Y Assuming the savings are passed on to the consumer. I think it's more important that the owners vastly benefit, and may manage to push down wages across more than just one industry by leveraging economic differences between nations that only they can take advantage of.

by douche 10y ago

adventured 10y ago

'A native surplus of below average intelligence people' I'd like to see you prove that claim while defining exactly what you mean by a surplus.

douche 10y ago
I grew up in Appalachia. You don't have to look hard...
- adventured 10y ago
  So did I, and I disagree with you. The part of Appalachia I grew up in for example, in Maryland, had among the best public schools in the state, and had among the highest testing outcomes in the state. That's still true to this day. I'd like to see you prove your claim and define what a surplus of below average intelligence people means. Given the small population base of Appalachia, you're not providing meaningful evidence of anything by referring to that location. The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, Latin America, and so on.
  - douche 10y ago
    What I see, is that the intellectual floor for high-quality employment that results in traditional middle-class security continues to rise. In my grandfather's generation, somebody who could chew gum and walk at the same time could get a decent union industrial job and live the proverbial "two cars and a picket fence" lifestyle. In my father's generation, you had to at least graduate high school, and odds are, you needed your wife to work as well. In my generation, a college degree is table-stakes, and really, you need a degree from one of the places that has more legitimacy, and really, a degree in one of the harder, more intellectually demanding subjects. Roughly, at every generation here, I'm approximating the floor of intelligence and ability to increase at around one standard deviation. > The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy. Fuck, that's bad news for Europe, I suppose. I knew people that had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing.
    - adventured 10y ago
      > I knew people that had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing That isn't a very strong data point. The median household income in Appalachia - which also includes eg Pittsburgh - is above all but a dozen or so major nations, and is above that of the EU and Eurozone. The unemployment rate there is also lower than the EU and Eurozone (in fact, it's about ~45% lower).
      - douche 10y ago
        Including Pittsburgh in Appalachia is being very generous. You're way too far west there. Unemployment numbers are mostly bullshit, to boot. Depending on which set of them you are using, that can have huge discrepancies with the actual labor force numbers percentages, since after so many months of a hopeless situation, people drop off the unemployment rolls and into the masses of the long-term unemployed.
        yompers888 10y ago
        It's like you're dangling a pinata and yanking it away at the last second. If you want to talk about your particular backwoods place, name it with greater specificity. If you want us to focus on labor force participation rates vice unemployment stats, offering those up would be similarly wise. For the record, my Appalachia town also had good schools, though we had more than our fair share of meth and poverty as well.
        douche 10y ago
        >For the record, my Appalachia town also had good schools, though we had more than our fair share of meth and poverty as well. Good on you. We had the poverty, although weed was the favorite cash crop, rather than meth. Growing some plants out in the woods is easier to hide than a lab that might blow up and catch the double-wide on fire...
        deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
        10y ago
  - 77pt77 10y ago
    > The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, Latin America, and so on. Care to give a reference?
Snargorf 10y ago
A surplus just means "more than you need". Other poster isn't necessarily making any statement that Americans are dumb overall. But there is a surplus of low-IQ people. In the modern (and definitely future) economy, dumb bodies just aren't needed. They're the "unnecessariat". If you want proof of that, look up the unemployment stats on low-education or low-IQ workers.
djf1 10y ago
I think it would be reasonable to claim that the larger the proportion of smart people in your population, the better. If that's true, than any number of below average intelligence people would be a surplus.
- laxatives 10y ago
  I get your point, but I think what your describing isn't particularly meaningful. By definition, nearly 50% of any population is categorically an undesirable surplus.
  - djf1 10y ago
    Yes, you could argue that. But a _nation_ could improve its proportions by restricting immigration to a subset of the _global_ population. To a certain extent, this principle is applied today. But I imagine it could be scaled up to something akin to highly selective university admissions process (e.g. interviews, standardized testing, resume critique, references). If a country starts with sufficient desirability, this could result in a positive feedback loop -- an increasingly competent and productive society.
    - laxatives 10y ago
      I agree with you there. Unfortunately, the greatest motivation to bring in someone outside the country is rarely for their exceptionalism, its usual about making/saving money. And at most institutions, its far more cost effecting to get individuals who are just sufficient and will accept a substantially lower compensation than their domestic peers. The individuals who are exceptional have loads of options/opportunities in their own homeland.
      - netheril96 10y ago
        > The individuals who are exceptional have loads of options/opportunities in their own homeland. That is simply not true. Most countries do not have the demand, willpower or money to sustain, say, a world-class research institution.

antoineMoPa 10y ago

I love it. An American telling Americans are dumb and trying to use this fact in a way that makes it look bright to restrict US immigration. At least he started with "Selfishly" and warned users with his username.

jonathankoren 10y ago
No, it's called taking advantage of a brain drain, and has long been a point of pride for Americans.
- laxatives 10y ago
  Immigration is a zero-sum game. Americans should be proud when they can poach the best.
Gustomaximus 10y ago
You've misread/understood. They dont state or imply Americans are dumb. More recognise America (as do all countries) has a surplus of average, so points out why increase that.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

Opening the floodgates can be tremendously beneficial provided we allow capitalism to work. It's called comparative advantage. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage Of course, the modern welfare state cuts against that, as do the harmful externalities imposed by (eventual) voting. But the humane solution here - which might be politically impossible - is to allow immigration while eliminating the welfare state and making the newcomers into a permanent non-voting underclass.

netheril96 10y ago
> is to allow immigration while eliminating the welfare state and making the newcomers into a permanent non-voting underclass. If the political climate allows a separate class of citizens, then there is no need to eliminate the welfare state.
Chris2048 10y ago
> Opening the floodgates can be tremendously beneficial Beneficial to who? Factory owners - yes, factory workers - no ...
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  It's true that rent seekers who currently use state-sanctioned violence to prevent economic competition might be harmed in a visible manner. But factory workers are consumers too and gain (less visible) benefits from immigrants. I.e. if you work at factory X but consume goods produced at factory Y, you benefit from cheaper labor at factory Y. If you work at factory X but consume medicine, you benefit from having an Indian doctor and a Filipina nurse.
  - Chris2048 10y ago
    > but consume goods produced at factory Y, you benefit from cheaper labor at factory Y Assuming the savings are passed on to the consumer. I think it's more important that the owners vastly benefit, and may manage to push down wages across more than just one industry by leveraging economic differences between nations that only they can take advantage of.