4 ms·

You're contrasting the people whose forefathers built the country, with the people who came later, after it was already built and there was no risk to be taken.

You're contrasting the people whose forefathers built the country, with the people who came later, after it was already built and there was no risk to be taken. How much risk is an immigrant really taking on, when there is a safety net in terms of social services available to them, that pays multiples of their yearly earnings back in "the old country"? Meanwhile, the native-born Americans have too much assets (even if in a crappy location, it still disqualifies them) to qualify for that same assistance...

derefr 8y ago
Off-the-wall idea: pay out Unemployment in multiples of the cost-of-living of whatever area you’re in, rather than in multiples of your previous wage/salary. Worked at a factory in small-town Michigan and qualify for six months’ “runway”? Move to SF and now it’s six months of SF-cost-of-living “runway” instead. (Would this be abused for nice vacations? Almost certainly. But maybe there’s a better version of this which couldn’t.)
- paulddraper 8y ago
  A high cost of living is a market signal that "too many" people live there. If unemployment/basic income adjusts for cost of living, you wind up with a positive feedback loop that ignores these messages.
  - derefr 8y ago
    Hmm, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest that basic income should be based entirely on cost-of-living, though. My thinking was something more like: NewUI = OldUI * (CostOfLiving[NewJobMarketLocation] / CostOfLiving[PrevEmploymentLocation]) Thus, if you got paid the going rate for a factory-worker in Michigan, and you moved to SF, then you'd now be getting the UI that a factory-worker in SF would be receiving if they had been getting paid the going rate for factory-workers in SF. So you could afford to "switch" to the SF jobs market, or any other jobs market, and compete for jobs with the unemployed factory-workers currently living in the SF area: you'd be able to afford to live roughly where they live, feed the family you moved with to the same standard they were used to back home while you're job-hunting, show up in clothes of the same quality they show up in, maintain your car as well as they do to get to interviews at roughly the same time they do, etc. But that assumes that there are factory workers in SF. There aren't—running a factory in SF is an unprofitable proposition. Whether or not you could come to the area and job-hunt, supply of your job (or any job at your pay-grade) might just not be there to meet your demand. And that's not even accounting for the second-order effects: decreasing friction of movement between jobs markets would cause everyone else who ever wanted to live in SF to also come there to job-hunt. So, even if there were some factory-worker openings right at the beginning of this policy, they'd quickly be filled, and the markets in cities like SF would come to resemble Hollywood: a place where you have to put up with unreasonable amounts of shit to get anywhere, because there's so much more talent who has come from all over to vye for attention, than there are productions needing talent, that the productions take absolutely no care in how they treat their talent. In other words, at equilibrium, you'd just be back to where you started as far as "number of people employed" goes, at most levels†; and you'd also not see any change in the population density, demand for gentrification, or any other such thing in these cities, because Unemployment only lasts a fixed amount of time—you can't afford to stay if you don't succeed in finding a job. The one thing that would change is that companies the nation over would be seeing far more "talent liquidity", and thus thinking of employees as even more fungible/replaceable than they do now. (But, the flip-side of that statement: an individual new hire at an SF company would now have much more even probability of having originated anywhere in the country.) --- † Maybe you'd get more startups, from several people coming to SF (or other expensive cities) and deciding to spend their UI as initial runway to form a company together. But that'd be the exception, not the rule, I think. (Might still have nice knock-on effects for employment if those companies need to grow by hiring later on, though.)
verelo 8y ago
I find this pretty upsetting to read. Moving country has significant risk and difficulty, have you tried it? I have. The challenges today are not about finding clean water or basic shelter no, but if you have ever had to figure out healthcare, ID cards, banks, tax and find a job while managing a family? I’m sure you would might consider that it’s not easy after trying it.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  I grew up in 1 country and moved to USA (though both were English speaking 1st world countries). I didn't have to move a family, however.
  - verelo 8y ago
    That is great, so you should be able to somewhat relate! I think we should just all have a little more empathy. There is a lot of hate going around and somewhat like in the tech systems many of us work on daily, even problems that seem simple are very difficult in complex systems. Countries, the US in particular, are very complex systems and the issues that are imposed on those moving around western nations are not simple to navigate. I'm not a visible minority, but i still ran into many roadblocks, I'd hate to be easily singled out visually or have a language barrier, and have to deal with the issues I had to deal with.
forapurpose 8y ago
> no risk to be taken I can't believe the parent means that literally. > people whose forefathers built the country You don't get credit for what some ancestor did; you get credit for what you do. I'd say that trying to lean on your ancestors is 'un-American'; earn your own way. Also, the U.S. has been 'built' continuously and it continues today. The work and progress didn't stop in 1776 or 1930 or whatever date the parent is assuming. The question is, what are you going to leave for the next generation? > How much risk is an immigrant really taking on, when there is a safety net in terms of social services available to them, that pays multiples of their yearly earnings back in "the old country"? This comment ignores the great burden of most immigrants: Leaving your home, moving to a foreign culture where you don't speak the language, where you have no contacts or network, and bringing few resources. I'd like to see most Americans pick up and move to a non-English speaking, completely foreign culture, with no money and no contacts. It also assumes a decent quality of life in the U.S. 'social safety net', which is pretty awful, especially compared to other first world nations. No health care and terrible education, for one thing. Even people with jobs have a tough time, and need several of them just to get by.
- patrickg_zill 8y ago
  Although the USA has problems, it is a "no-risk" to "little-risk" proposition provided you make it to the USA. (I am talking about the legal routes.) I can't quite articulate it, but I have a serious problem with the attitude that seems to say "well yes, your family for 5 generations struggled to clear the land, make it productive, worked in factories, sent sons off to die in wars, but, if you aren't being 100% economically productive RIGHT THIS MINUTE, just get out of the way already and let immigrants take your place..."
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    > it is a "no-risk" to "little-risk" proposition provided you make it to the USA. (I am talking about the legal routes.) That's just absurd. People who were born in the U.S. face many risks. > get out of the way already and let immigrants take your place Nobody is taking anybody's place. Economics is not zero sum; the better your neighbor does, the better you do. Your successful neighbors are your employers, customers, taxpayers, etc. > if you aren't being 100% economically productive RIGHT THIS MINUTE, just get out of the way already ... That's not a problem with immigration; it's a problem with U.S. government policy that doesn't educate, provide health care for, feed, or house its citizens, and concentrates economic opportunity in the hands of a very few. Those things are clearly doable, because almost every other wealthy country does them much better. And the political leaders who oppose such things, and continually try to 'shrink' government, try to distract attention from their responsibility (and the responsibility of their wealthy constituents who try to avoid paying taxes) by blaming immigrants.
dakna 8y ago
Which social services to use as a safety net are you talking about? Because it is not Medicaid: "In order to get Medicaid and CHIP coverage, many qualified non-citizens (such as many LPRs or green card holders) have a 5-year waiting period. This means they must wait 5 years after receiving "qualified" immigration status before they can get Medicaid and CHIP coverage. There are exceptions. For example, refugees, asylees, or LPRs who used to be refugees or asylees don’t have to wait 5 years." https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immigrants/ https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immig... Unemployment benefits? You have to pay into it to get money out of it. Same as everyone else. Emergency treatment at a hospital? I don't see a difference between citizens and immigrants. I would really like to know where that free money is I hear so much about.
me_again 8y ago
Most US immigrant visas (h-1b etc) are conditional on not becoming "a burden to the state" so you would be deported if you tried to claim unemployment etc.
- dakna 8y ago
  H-1B is a temporary (nonimmigrant!) visa category.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Most US immigrant visas (h-1b etc) H-1B is a non-immigrant work visa. The only relation it had to immigrant visas is that, as a dual intent non-immigrant visa, it's not illegal for you to enter on an H-1B with the intent of applying for an immigrant visa without departing in between. > are conditional on not becoming "a burden to the state" That's not exactly true. The condition that actually exists in law relates mostly to the future likelihood at time of admission of becoming a “public charge”. > so you would be deported if you tried to claim unemployment etc. No, but your I-864 sponsors (whose income and assets are considered in making the public charge decision at admission) will have to pay back any payments you get from certain federally-funded public benefit programs. You can be deported for you not paying back your debts for certain other benefit programs in a specified time period, but very few benefit programs create the kind of debts that relate to that. Unemployment, as an earned benefit, isn't actually an issue at all.

derefr 8y ago

Off-the-wall idea: pay out Unemployment in multiples of the cost-of-living of whatever area you’re in, rather than in multiples of your previous wage/salary. Worked at a factory in small-town Michigan and qualify for six months’ “runway”? Move to SF and now it’s six months of SF-cost-of-living “runway” instead. (Would this be abused for nice vacations? Almost certainly. But maybe there’s a better version of this which couldn’t.)

paulddraper 8y ago
A high cost of living is a market signal that "too many" people live there. If unemployment/basic income adjusts for cost of living, you wind up with a positive feedback loop that ignores these messages.
- derefr 8y ago
  Hmm, you're right. I didn't mean to suggest that basic income should be based entirely on cost-of-living, though. My thinking was something more like: NewUI = OldUI * (CostOfLiving[NewJobMarketLocation] / CostOfLiving[PrevEmploymentLocation]) Thus, if you got paid the going rate for a factory-worker in Michigan, and you moved to SF, then you'd now be getting the UI that a factory-worker in SF would be receiving if they had been getting paid the going rate for factory-workers in SF. So you could afford to "switch" to the SF jobs market, or any other jobs market, and compete for jobs with the unemployed factory-workers currently living in the SF area: you'd be able to afford to live roughly where they live, feed the family you moved with to the same standard they were used to back home while you're job-hunting, show up in clothes of the same quality they show up in, maintain your car as well as they do to get to interviews at roughly the same time they do, etc. But that assumes that there are factory workers in SF. There aren't—running a factory in SF is an unprofitable proposition. Whether or not you could come to the area and job-hunt, supply of your job (or any job at your pay-grade) might just not be there to meet your demand. And that's not even accounting for the second-order effects: decreasing friction of movement between jobs markets would cause everyone else who ever wanted to live in SF to also come there to job-hunt. So, even if there were some factory-worker openings right at the beginning of this policy, they'd quickly be filled, and the markets in cities like SF would come to resemble Hollywood: a place where you have to put up with unreasonable amounts of shit to get anywhere, because there's so much more talent who has come from all over to vye for attention, than there are productions needing talent, that the productions take absolutely no care in how they treat their talent. In other words, at equilibrium, you'd just be back to where you started as far as "number of people employed" goes, at most levels†; and you'd also not see any change in the population density, demand for gentrification, or any other such thing in these cities, because Unemployment only lasts a fixed amount of time—you can't afford to stay if you don't succeed in finding a job. The one thing that would change is that companies the nation over would be seeing far more "talent liquidity", and thus thinking of employees as even more fungible/replaceable than they do now. (But, the flip-side of that statement: an individual new hire at an SF company would now have much more even probability of having originated anywhere in the country.) --- † Maybe you'd get more startups, from several people coming to SF (or other expensive cities) and deciding to spend their UI as initial runway to form a company together. But that'd be the exception, not the rule, I think. (Might still have nice knock-on effects for employment if those companies need to grow by hiring later on, though.)

verelo 8y ago

I find this pretty upsetting to read. Moving country has significant risk and difficulty, have you tried it? I have. The challenges today are not about finding clean water or basic shelter no, but if you have ever had to figure out healthcare, ID cards, banks, tax and find a job while managing a family? I’m sure you would might consider that it’s not easy after trying it.

patrickg_zill 8y ago
I grew up in 1 country and moved to USA (though both were English speaking 1st world countries). I didn't have to move a family, however.
- verelo 8y ago
  That is great, so you should be able to somewhat relate! I think we should just all have a little more empathy. There is a lot of hate going around and somewhat like in the tech systems many of us work on daily, even problems that seem simple are very difficult in complex systems. Countries, the US in particular, are very complex systems and the issues that are imposed on those moving around western nations are not simple to navigate. I'm not a visible minority, but i still ran into many roadblocks, I'd hate to be easily singled out visually or have a language barrier, and have to deal with the issues I had to deal with.

forapurpose 8y ago

> no risk to be taken I can't believe the parent means that literally. > people whose forefathers built the country You don't get credit for what some ancestor did; you get credit for what you do. I'd say that trying to lean on your ancestors is 'un-American'; earn your own way. Also, the U.S. has been 'built' continuously and it continues today. The work and progress didn't stop in 1776 or 1930 or whatever date the parent is assuming. The question is, what are you going to leave for the next generation? > How much risk is an immigrant really taking on, when there is a safety net in terms of social services available to them, that pays multiples of their yearly earnings back in "the old country"? This comment ignores the great burden of most immigrants: Leaving your home, moving to a foreign culture where you don't speak the language, where you have no contacts or network, and bringing few resources. I'd like to see most Americans pick up and move to a non-English speaking, completely foreign culture, with no money and no contacts. It also assumes a decent quality of life in the U.S. 'social safety net', which is pretty awful, especially compared to other first world nations. No health care and terrible education, for one thing. Even people with jobs have a tough time, and need several of them just to get by.

patrickg_zill 8y ago
Although the USA has problems, it is a "no-risk" to "little-risk" proposition provided you make it to the USA. (I am talking about the legal routes.) I can't quite articulate it, but I have a serious problem with the attitude that seems to say "well yes, your family for 5 generations struggled to clear the land, make it productive, worked in factories, sent sons off to die in wars, but, if you aren't being 100% economically productive RIGHT THIS MINUTE, just get out of the way already and let immigrants take your place..."
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > it is a "no-risk" to "little-risk" proposition provided you make it to the USA. (I am talking about the legal routes.) That's just absurd. People who were born in the U.S. face many risks. > get out of the way already and let immigrants take your place Nobody is taking anybody's place. Economics is not zero sum; the better your neighbor does, the better you do. Your successful neighbors are your employers, customers, taxpayers, etc. > if you aren't being 100% economically productive RIGHT THIS MINUTE, just get out of the way already ... That's not a problem with immigration; it's a problem with U.S. government policy that doesn't educate, provide health care for, feed, or house its citizens, and concentrates economic opportunity in the hands of a very few. Those things are clearly doable, because almost every other wealthy country does them much better. And the political leaders who oppose such things, and continually try to 'shrink' government, try to distract attention from their responsibility (and the responsibility of their wealthy constituents who try to avoid paying taxes) by blaming immigrants.

dakna 8y ago

Which social services to use as a safety net are you talking about? Because it is not Medicaid: "In order to get Medicaid and CHIP coverage, many qualified non-citizens (such as many LPRs or green card holders) have a 5-year waiting period. This means they must wait 5 years after receiving "qualified" immigration status before they can get Medicaid and CHIP coverage. There are exceptions. For example, refugees, asylees, or LPRs who used to be refugees or asylees don’t have to wait 5 years." https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immigrants/ https://www.healthcare.gov/immigrants/lawfully-present-immig... Unemployment benefits? You have to pay into it to get money out of it. Same as everyone else. Emergency treatment at a hospital? I don't see a difference between citizens and immigrants. I would really like to know where that free money is I hear so much about.

me_again 8y ago

Most US immigrant visas (h-1b etc) are conditional on not becoming "a burden to the state" so you would be deported if you tried to claim unemployment etc.

dakna 8y ago
H-1B is a temporary (nonimmigrant!) visa category.
dragonwriter 8y ago
> Most US immigrant visas (h-1b etc) H-1B is a non-immigrant work visa. The only relation it had to immigrant visas is that, as a dual intent non-immigrant visa, it's not illegal for you to enter on an H-1B with the intent of applying for an immigrant visa without departing in between. > are conditional on not becoming "a burden to the state" That's not exactly true. The condition that actually exists in law relates mostly to the future likelihood at time of admission of becoming a “public charge”. > so you would be deported if you tried to claim unemployment etc. No, but your I-864 sponsors (whose income and assets are considered in making the public charge decision at admission) will have to pay back any payments you get from certain federally-funded public benefit programs. You can be deported for you not paying back your debts for certain other benefit programs in a specified time period, but very few benefit programs create the kind of debts that relate to that. Unemployment, as an earned benefit, isn't actually an issue at all.