4 ms·

So everyone seems to agree that low-skill and manufacturing jobs are going away and will never come back. Thus, we need a basic income. So then why is it a go

by xienze 9y ago

So everyone seems to agree that low-skill and manufacturing jobs are going away and will never come back. Thus, we need a basic income. So then why is it a good idea to import hundreds of thousands of refugees and "undocumented workers" who are by and large destined to work in these very industries that are going away? It sounds like we'd pretty much be setting BI up to be a "congratulations on making it to the US" lifetime annuity.

lucasmullens 9y ago
Letting in refugees is more about helping the refugees, and less about what's best for the US.
- xienze 9y ago
  > Letting in refugees is more about helping the refugees, and less about what's best for the US. OK, but at some point it has to make mathematical sense. If you basically announce "come here and you'll have income for life!" what exactly do you think will happen? That no one will try to take advantage of the system? I mean you already have refugees passing through multiple European countries just to get to the ones with the best benefits (Germany, Sweden).
  - openasocket 9y ago
    For the US, the refugee visa is one of the hardest to get. It takes like 2 years on average, requires the most extensive background checks and interviews by intelligence agencies, and of course you have to prove you are in danger and have urgent need for it. Also, there is a 50,000 cap on how many refugees the US can take in per year (It was at 70,000 and Obama was pushing to raise it to 110,000, but it was cut by Trump's executive order). As for the refugee crisis in Europe, my understanding is the reason refugees try to get to Germany and Sweden isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs, and are thus less likely to deport asylum seekers.
    - xienze 9y ago
      > Also, there is a 50,000 cap on how many refugees the US can take in per year (It was at 70,000 and Obama was pushing to raise it to 110,000, but it was cut by Trump's executive order). So the next Democrat is elected and raises the cap... Also, you're forgetting that politicians really, really want to give illegal immigrants amnesty. Guess who's eligible for BI now? > isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs Funny how having the most welcoming program and having the best benefits go hand-in-hand.
- exabrial 9y ago
  No, letting in refugees is 100% political pandering. Explained with gumbals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Immigration drives innovation, tolerance, advancement of the arts, and fuels small business. But let's stop fooling ourselves that relocating people halfway across the world is solving any sort of crisis.
  - pm90 9y ago
    I would appreciate a short TL; DW for your opinion, since at most work places, watching videos is not considered good etiquette :).
    - exabrial 9y ago
      I'd bookmark the video and watch it; it's 6 mins long and you could watch it during your commute on public transport or on your lunch break. It puts hard numbers on the world's poor and how immigration really only benefits the USA, not the countries the people are coming from.
    - openasocket 9y ago
      It's basically raising the point that there are a lot of refugees and we can't take all of them. The US currently has a cap of 50,000 refugees a year (after Trump's executive order; Obama pushed for a 110,000 cap) but there are something like 60 million refugees in the world today. So even if we increased our already large efforts to help refugees it's still a drop in the bucket. So they advocate reducing our refugee cap further, since it's a financial burden that doesn't make a serious impact. It also points out that if we take the successful people from other countries and allow them to come here, then the rest of the world will get brain-drain. I think that's a fair characterization of their argument, but I think it's wrong. It's the classic Nirvana fallacy: because something isn't perfect there's no point in trying. Like arguing there's no point in having seatbelts because you can still die in a car crash. We may not be able to help all refugees, but we can help some of them. And that may not seem that important in the big picture, but it means a hell of a lot to the ones we do help.
YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago
You think the US has it bad in this perspective? Many European countries face proportionally massively worse situation when it comes to financially unsustainable immigration, and the far left is as obsessed with BI as anywhere. Money doesn't matter with these politicians. In fact, it isn't even brought into the discussion.
- xienze 9y ago
  Oh I agree completely, Europe is in really bad shape. From my own selfish perspective I just hope that Europe's situation worsens fast enough that people in the US can see what the end result of these policies is.
jedberg 9y ago
Your data is actually wrong. For the most part, immigrants put more into the economy than they take out, especially their children. They tend to start businesses at a much higher rate than native borns, which means they pay more taxes and create jobs for others. But even ignoring that, generally UBI doesn't apply to non-citizens. They would have to earn citizenship first, which would mean paying in taxes without getting anything out for a while.

by xienze 9y ago

lucasmullens 9y ago

Letting in refugees is more about helping the refugees, and less about what's best for the US.

xienze 9y ago
> Letting in refugees is more about helping the refugees, and less about what's best for the US. OK, but at some point it has to make mathematical sense. If you basically announce "come here and you'll have income for life!" what exactly do you think will happen? That no one will try to take advantage of the system? I mean you already have refugees passing through multiple European countries just to get to the ones with the best benefits (Germany, Sweden).
- openasocket 9y ago
  For the US, the refugee visa is one of the hardest to get. It takes like 2 years on average, requires the most extensive background checks and interviews by intelligence agencies, and of course you have to prove you are in danger and have urgent need for it. Also, there is a 50,000 cap on how many refugees the US can take in per year (It was at 70,000 and Obama was pushing to raise it to 110,000, but it was cut by Trump's executive order). As for the refugee crisis in Europe, my understanding is the reason refugees try to get to Germany and Sweden isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs, and are thus less likely to deport asylum seekers.
  - xienze 9y ago
    > Also, there is a 50,000 cap on how many refugees the US can take in per year (It was at 70,000 and Obama was pushing to raise it to 110,000, but it was cut by Trump's executive order). So the next Democrat is elected and raises the cap... Also, you're forgetting that politicians really, really want to give illegal immigrants amnesty. Guess who's eligible for BI now? > isn't because they have the best benefits, but because they have the most welcoming refugee programs Funny how having the most welcoming program and having the best benefits go hand-in-hand.
exabrial 9y ago
No, letting in refugees is 100% political pandering. Explained with gumbals: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPjzfGChGlE Immigration drives innovation, tolerance, advancement of the arts, and fuels small business. But let's stop fooling ourselves that relocating people halfway across the world is solving any sort of crisis.
- pm90 9y ago
  I would appreciate a short TL; DW for your opinion, since at most work places, watching videos is not considered good etiquette :).
  - exabrial 9y ago
    I'd bookmark the video and watch it; it's 6 mins long and you could watch it during your commute on public transport or on your lunch break. It puts hard numbers on the world's poor and how immigration really only benefits the USA, not the countries the people are coming from.
  - openasocket 9y ago
    It's basically raising the point that there are a lot of refugees and we can't take all of them. The US currently has a cap of 50,000 refugees a year (after Trump's executive order; Obama pushed for a 110,000 cap) but there are something like 60 million refugees in the world today. So even if we increased our already large efforts to help refugees it's still a drop in the bucket. So they advocate reducing our refugee cap further, since it's a financial burden that doesn't make a serious impact. It also points out that if we take the successful people from other countries and allow them to come here, then the rest of the world will get brain-drain. I think that's a fair characterization of their argument, but I think it's wrong. It's the classic Nirvana fallacy: because something isn't perfect there's no point in trying. Like arguing there's no point in having seatbelts because you can still die in a car crash. We may not be able to help all refugees, but we can help some of them. And that may not seem that important in the big picture, but it means a hell of a lot to the ones we do help.

YSFEJ4SWJUVU6 9y ago

You think the US has it bad in this perspective? Many European countries face proportionally massively worse situation when it comes to financially unsustainable immigration, and the far left is as obsessed with BI as anywhere. Money doesn't matter with these politicians. In fact, it isn't even brought into the discussion.

xienze 9y ago
Oh I agree completely, Europe is in really bad shape. From my own selfish perspective I just hope that Europe's situation worsens fast enough that people in the US can see what the end result of these policies is.

jedberg 9y ago

Your data is actually wrong. For the most part, immigrants put more into the economy than they take out, especially their children. They tend to start businesses at a much higher rate than native borns, which means they pay more taxes and create jobs for others. But even ignoring that, generally UBI doesn't apply to non-citizens. They would have to earn citizenship first, which would mean paying in taxes without getting anything out for a while.