5 ms·

Yes, and one whose bags of money has given him a vastly disproportionate say over the actions of the government. You can call it extortion if you want, I guess.

Yes, and one whose bags of money has given him a vastly disproportionate say over the actions of the government. You can call it extortion if you want, I guess. Provided it's in the interests of the American citizen to restrict access to the US labor market, I don't see why they should care what you call it. If you think it's not in their interest, I'd be interested to hear your argument. On the other hand, if you want them to forgo their own interests for some of your ideals, maybe start by pointing out someone that has for those ideals forgone their own interests for the benefit of the American citizen. Good luck finding some.

conanbatt 7y ago
You would be hard pressed to find economic evidence that immigration has negative results to an economy. It is always better to allow immigration for economic prosperity and the entire science of economics has validated this theoretically and pragmatically since 1776. Moreover, the importation of labor happens every day every single time you use any manufacture or service produced outside, from software like Google/Facebook (it is partially imported) to manufactures like iphones and macs (it is also imported labor). You could arguably increase the salaries of american citizens by banning by penalty of death any kind of importation: but more dollars do not increase purchasing power. Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions. You can however, import nannies with no limits from anywhere in the world. Talk about regulatory capture!
- HBKXNCUO 7y ago
  It's certainly true that immigration has a positive effect on GDP, at least in the short term, and in the long term depending on other circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in the interest of everyone or even most people in the country. We are not paid as a percentage of GDP. It doesn't help me out too much that goods and services are slightly cheaper or more plentiful, or that the stock market goes up, if my wages are depressed to a larger degree. You admit that wage depression happens to workers in fields where foreign labor is allowed to participate ("Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions."), so it is only a matter of which outpaces the other. It seems pretty clear that for low and medium skilled workers in the US, it has not been a good deal, at least for the past few decades. And that is only to speak of their short term interests. It is almost certainly not in the long term interests of the majority of the people in a country to import large numbers of people who fail, for whatever reason, to fully assimilate into the country, especially if there is a democratic system of government, where identity politics can take hold and corrode the government in addition to the damage done to the social fabric. >You could arguably increase the salaries of american citizens by banning by penalty of death any kind of importation Is that what every country on earth with import restrictions and duties does? I had no idea. That seems a bit over the top. Can't they just make people pay money for bringing those things in, instead of killing them?
  - conanbatt 7y ago
    > It doesn't help me out too much that goods and services are slightly cheaper or more plentiful, or that the stock market goes up, if my wages are depressed to a larger degree. You admit that wage depression happens to workers in fields where foreign labor is allowed to participate ("Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions."), so it is only a matter of which outpaces the other. It seems pretty clear that for low and medium skilled workers in the US, it has not been a good deal, at least for the past few decades. It reduces rent-seeking but it increases the value-wages of everyone else. It is true that if you are to personally hold a monopoly for all the software engineering possible to be consumed in the US your wages would go through the moon, and if that monopoly were broken your wages would go down. But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident: less software products would be made, meaning the entire society takes a hit. A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. > Is that what every country on earth with import restrictions and duties does? I had no idea. It used to -> > By the 8th of Elizabeth, chap. 3, the exporter of sheep, lambs, or rams, was for the first offence, to forfeit all his goods for ever, to suffer a year's imprisonment, and then to have his left hand cut off in a market town, upon a market day, to be there nailed up; and for the second offence, to be adjudged a felon, and to suffer death accordingly. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade, not to the brutality of the measures. The benefits of Free trade are not up to debate in the economics field. Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost?
    - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
      >the value-wages of everyone else. Yes, but when "everyone else" just means certain groups of high-skilled workers, owners of large businesses, government employees, and people reliant on government benefits, because they're the only ones whose income is not reduced by the importation of labor, you have a pretty big problem for your country. >But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident OK, but no one is talking about giving a monopoly to a single person, so the negative effects are going to be vastly smaller. >A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. Good thing no one is suggesting that. Keeping foreign labor out of the market is not the same thing as a monopoly. >It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. Please elaborate. >It used to -> OK, but, like, it doesn't any more. >Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade Better for everyone that's still trading, I guess. >Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost? I'm not sure about me, personally. I've done fairly well in the economy we have. The people in, say, Appalachia, who are killing themselves or addicted to drugs, are probably not as well off as they would be if we had employed economic protectionism to their benefit, even if their smartphones cost more. In the long term, I'd prefer to pay more for my computer and phone and know that people who my children and grandchildren are going to share a country with are going to have each other's interests in mind, and that those people are going to be raised by people that are not suffering from the effects of poverty or from lacking any meaning in their lives. It doesn't do much good for my posterity if the people with which they share a country see them as an economic resource to squeeze for whatever they're worth because they have no common bonds of shared history or culture that tie them together, or if those people are damaged from being raised in squalor. I believe we need to put our communities above our GDP for a while.

conanbatt 7y ago

You would be hard pressed to find economic evidence that immigration has negative results to an economy. It is always better to allow immigration for economic prosperity and the entire science of economics has validated this theoretically and pragmatically since 1776. Moreover, the importation of labor happens every day every single time you use any manufacture or service produced outside, from software like Google/Facebook (it is partially imported) to manufactures like iphones and macs (it is also imported labor). You could arguably increase the salaries of american citizens by banning by penalty of death any kind of importation: but more dollars do not increase purchasing power. Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions. You can however, import nannies with no limits from anywhere in the world. Talk about regulatory capture!

HBKXNCUO 7y ago
It's certainly true that immigration has a positive effect on GDP, at least in the short term, and in the long term depending on other circumstances, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's in the interest of everyone or even most people in the country. We are not paid as a percentage of GDP. It doesn't help me out too much that goods and services are slightly cheaper or more plentiful, or that the stock market goes up, if my wages are depressed to a larger degree. You admit that wage depression happens to workers in fields where foreign labor is allowed to participate ("Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions."), so it is only a matter of which outpaces the other. It seems pretty clear that for low and medium skilled workers in the US, it has not been a good deal, at least for the past few decades. And that is only to speak of their short term interests. It is almost certainly not in the long term interests of the majority of the people in a country to import large numbers of people who fail, for whatever reason, to fully assimilate into the country, especially if there is a democratic system of government, where identity politics can take hold and corrode the government in addition to the damage done to the social fabric. >You could arguably increase the salaries of american citizens by banning by penalty of death any kind of importation Is that what every country on earth with import restrictions and duties does? I had no idea. That seems a bit over the top. Can't they just make people pay money for bringing those things in, instead of killing them?
- conanbatt 7y ago
  > It doesn't help me out too much that goods and services are slightly cheaper or more plentiful, or that the stock market goes up, if my wages are depressed to a larger degree. You admit that wage depression happens to workers in fields where foreign labor is allowed to participate ("Americans overpay software, doctors, lawyers, and many other professions because they are unwilling to allow free labor movement from those professions."), so it is only a matter of which outpaces the other. It seems pretty clear that for low and medium skilled workers in the US, it has not been a good deal, at least for the past few decades. It reduces rent-seeking but it increases the value-wages of everyone else. It is true that if you are to personally hold a monopoly for all the software engineering possible to be consumed in the US your wages would go through the moon, and if that monopoly were broken your wages would go down. But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident: less software products would be made, meaning the entire society takes a hit. A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. > Is that what every country on earth with import restrictions and duties does? I had no idea. It used to -> > By the 8th of Elizabeth, chap. 3, the exporter of sheep, lambs, or rams, was for the first offence, to forfeit all his goods for ever, to suffer a year's imprisonment, and then to have his left hand cut off in a market town, upon a market day, to be there nailed up; and for the second offence, to be adjudged a felon, and to suffer death accordingly. Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations. Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade, not to the brutality of the measures. The benefits of Free trade are not up to debate in the economics field. Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost?
  - HBKXNCUO 7y ago
    >the value-wages of everyone else. Yes, but when "everyone else" just means certain groups of high-skilled workers, owners of large businesses, government employees, and people reliant on government benefits, because they're the only ones whose income is not reduced by the importation of labor, you have a pretty big problem for your country. >But the negative effects of that monopoly are evident OK, but no one is talking about giving a monopoly to a single person, so the negative effects are going to be vastly smaller. >A system where every single profession is monopolized would inevitably lead to misery, not to the increase of wages of everyone. Good thing no one is suggesting that. Keeping foreign labor out of the market is not the same thing as a monopoly. >It is also surprising to see people that work with the internet to advocate ideas that would be seen as insane if applied to the internet itself. Please elaborate. >It used to -> OK, but, like, it doesn't any more. >Adam smith buried mercantilism under the argument that it was better for everyone to free trade Better for everyone that's still trading, I guess. >Again, do you think you would be richer if the iphone or computer you use to post here were had to be made in the US as opposed to china, and it cost 2, 5, or even 10x as some Apple officials have claimed it would have cost? I'm not sure about me, personally. I've done fairly well in the economy we have. The people in, say, Appalachia, who are killing themselves or addicted to drugs, are probably not as well off as they would be if we had employed economic protectionism to their benefit, even if their smartphones cost more. In the long term, I'd prefer to pay more for my computer and phone and know that people who my children and grandchildren are going to share a country with are going to have each other's interests in mind, and that those people are going to be raised by people that are not suffering from the effects of poverty or from lacking any meaning in their lives. It doesn't do much good for my posterity if the people with which they share a country see them as an economic resource to squeeze for whatever they're worth because they have no common bonds of shared history or culture that tie them together, or if those people are damaged from being raised in squalor. I believe we need to put our communities above our GDP for a while.