Google Climate Change Camp in Italy to feature celebrities arriving by 114 private jets

Heartless wrote:

The position laid out above is consistent with the public position from every Liberal / Democrat politician (and individuals) pre-2016. Democrats always preached about the middle class being the backbone of America. It’s been fascinating watching them turn into free trade globalists in just a couple years. Quite humorous.

Think about your local farmers market. All you see is “Fair trade”, “support local”, etc., with clearly more Liberals than conservatives walking around, right? Guess that was all bullshiit.

Yeah it was all BS. Agreed.

Heartless wrote:

Harambe wrote:

"Sent from my iPhone"

Protectionists need to go the way of Malthusians. They have literally always been wrong.

The position laid out above is consistent with the public position from every Liberal / Democrat politician (and individuals) pre-2016. Democrats always preached about the middle class being the backbone of America. It’s been fascinating watching them turn into free trade globalists in just a couple years. Quite humorous.

Think about your local farmers market. All you see is “Fair trade”, “support local”, etc., with clearly more Liberals than conservatives walking around, right? Guess that was all bullshiit.

Not to mention the Dems supposedly being ultra pro-union, which globalists are staunchly against. See Amazon fighting it HARD as we speak.

There’s no denying there’s been a wild, unhinged shift from neoliberal to neocon policy positions since Trump won in 2016. Aside from silly SJW stuff, Dems are basically all neocons now. I’m not sure if these shifts ever revert back. This may be a good thing though, as our fake duopoly uniparty has been exposed like no other time in history. None of our politicians are “fighting for you.” Look what happened to Bernie FFS. Pathetic.

Harambe wrote:

comedyre1i3f wrote:

The difference between Trump's border policies and Obama's is Trump's kept more people out, so they didn't have to be deported. Crossings were down a ton under Trump.

Nice gotta love turning away asylum seekers.

Might as well give the Statue of Liberty back to France.

Turns out immigration is generally popular in the US. Another thing the GOP got hilariously wrong and lead to the spanking last November.

I'm all for legal immigration when there is a need for individuals to fill certain jobs. I am against illegal immigration as it exploits individuals, deflates wages, is interwoven with smuggling and human trafficking, etc. Unfortunately illegal immigration limits the numbers of legal immigrants we can allow into the country each year. There is a legal way to seek entry and asylum in this country. Line cutters should not be rewarded for breaking the law.

comedyre1i3f wrote:

I'm all for legal immigration when there is a need for individuals to fill certain jobs. I am against illegal immigration as it exploits individuals, deflates wages, is interwoven with smuggling and human trafficking, etc. Unfortunately illegal immigration limits the numbers of legal immigrants we can allow into the country each year. There is a legal way to seek entry and asylum in this country. Line cutters should not be rewarded for breaking the law.

No, the legal route is byzantine and slow. We should accept many times more asylum seekers with less waiting period. I don't blame people for coming here illegally when the process is intentionally so difficult.

Our population would be shrinking without immigration. I don't want us to end up like Japan.

P.S. illegal immigration almost certainly doesn't deflate wages in the US. There is far, far more evidence suggesting no effect/benefit.

Illegal immigration obviously does depress wages for low-skilled jobs. It’s basic Economics. That’s the paradox the our fake duopoly uniparty has been spinning for years: Dems took the position of it being about morals, Reps took the position of cheap labor is good. We now know it’s ALL ABOUT the cheap labor that businesses desire.

The issue is we aren’t in the same position as we were 30-50 years ago; our economy has evolved. With all the talk of automation/AI increasingly killing off jobs in the near future- which most certainly will target tye low-skilled type first- why would we import more low-skilled workers? We should be importing (trying hard to ATTRACT, actually) the highest skilled, most-intelligent. California has basically piloting this for us. Ha

Unfortunately, Americans don't want those low paying jobs...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/15/north-carolina-needed-6500-farm-workers-only-7-americans-stuck-it-out/

Americans don't want their meat prices to go up either and so we're more than happy to have immigrants working in horrible conditions with low pay, just so our beef prices stay reasonable.

Heartless wrote:

The position laid out above is consistent with the public position from every Liberal / Democrat politician (and individuals) pre-2016. Democrats always preached about the middle class being the backbone of America. It’s been fascinating watching them turn into free trade globalists in just a couple years. Quite humorous.

.

Is it equally fascinating to watch the republicans turn away from believing in capitalism and free trade like they did up until 2016 into a bunch of protectionist? Personally I have always thought that electing a .01% east coast elite to be the voice of the people was beyond humorous.....

rocky mtns wrote:

Unfortunately, Americans don't want those low paying jobs...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/05/15/north-carolina-needed-6500-farm-workers-only-7-americans-stuck-it-out/

Americans don't want their meat prices to go up either and so we're more than happy to have immigrants working in horrible conditions with low pay, just so our beef prices stay reasonable.

They don’t want those low-paying jobs when they can make roughly the same or more from unemployment. Of course. But that’s all part of the equation. If cheap illegal labor wasn’t available... and if at the same time, unemployment paid out a lower “wage”... businesses would be forced to innovate/evolve technologically to keep costs down. But wages would naturally increase *some* amount.

As it is, our genius politicians have established a system where we incentivize low-skilled US citizens to not work... look away as even lower wage illegal immigrant (and quite often ‘off the books’) labor depresses/de-values low-skilled labor... and then for optics, our those same politicians push to raise the minimum wage artificially.

But I guess what should we expect when our ‘leaders’ are all lawyers (a profession trainee to perpetuate problems and profit from them)?

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want our population to shrink.

ALL populations should stabilize and shrink the same way Japan's does.

We all blabber on and on about carbon footprint and climate effects, but for some reason, every country wants its population to continue increasing for the sake of economic output. It's idiotic. Who cares if your economy shrinks as a result of reduced labor supply? It's for the better of everyone on the planet in the long-term.

Harambe wrote:

How mad are you that Biden undid the entire Trump presidency in... 2 weeks?

Literally zero legacy. Fitting.

That's an exaggeration. He hasn't reversed the tax cuts or the increased expenditure - perhaps these will be reversed later this year.

He can't remove Trump's Supreme Court appointments. This is Trump's legacy and will likely remain so for several decades.

More broadly, Trump's legacy is a debasement of political culture and proliferation of lying.

Heartless wrote:

Illegal immigration obviously does depress wages for low-skilled jobs. It’s basic Economics. That’s the paradox the our fake duopoly uniparty has been spinning for years: Dems took the position of it being about morals, Reps took the position of cheap labor is good. We now know it’s ALL ABOUT the cheap labor that businesses desire.

The issue is we aren’t in the same position as we were 30-50 years ago; our economy has evolved. With all the talk of automation/AI increasingly killing off jobs in the near future- which most certainly will target tye low-skilled type first- why would we import more low-skilled workers? We should be importing (trying hard to ATTRACT, actually) the highest skilled, most-intelligent. California has basically piloting this for us. Ha

See, it seems obvious but people ignore the demand boost of new consumers in the economy, the fact that we are generally below full employment (Trump's term did show this), the fact that low-skill immigrants don't really compete with Americans for the types of jobs they do, etc.

There really isn't much evidence that immigration depresses wages, even at the low end. There is a lot of evidence it is neutral or a benefit!

One thing economics has gotten criticized for in the past to leaning too much on theory -- "it's obvious wages are reduced, my model says so!" Modern economics is much more empirical and when you look at the data.... the obvious wage depression.. just isn't there!

Roundup here:

Seyta wrote:

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want our population to shrink.

ALL populations should stabilize and shrink the same way Japan's does.

We all blabber on and on about carbon footprint and climate effects, but for some reason, every country wants its population to continue increasing for the sake of economic output. It's idiotic. Who cares if your economy shrinks as a result of reduced labor supply? It's for the better of everyone on the planet in the long-term.

No, the Malthusians have always been wrong, and they still are. Degrowthers are dumb.

More people = more innovation = solve the climate crisis without throwing us into a Dark Age.

Besides, the world is much more than the US. Blowing up our country to set an example would be counter productive.

Harambe wrote:

Seyta wrote:

I'm not sure why you wouldn't want our population to shrink.

ALL populations should stabilize and shrink the same way Japan's does.

We all blabber on and on about carbon footprint and climate effects, but for some reason, every country wants its population to continue increasing for the sake of economic output. It's idiotic. Who cares if your economy shrinks as a result of reduced labor supply? It's for the better of everyone on the planet in the long-term.

No, the Malthusians have always been wrong, and they still are. Degrowthers are dumb.

More people = more innovation = solve the climate crisis without throwing us into a Dark Age.

Besides, the world is much more than the US. Blowing up our country to set an example would be counter productive.

Take a look at the top 10 most populous countries on earth, and try to say “more people = more innovation” with a straight face.

More [super-intelligent] people = more innovation is likely true. Which is why we should strive to attract and let in proportionately more highly-skilled & educated, and less low-skilled folk.

Again- why would we let in more people of the very demographic that we know will be replaced by automation and AI in the near future? It’s asinine. Near term, we’d be incentivizing businesses to NOT innovate (letting them get away with cheap/off books labor). Long term, we’d be on the hook to support even more low-skilled people.

Umm...ever heard of Bernie Sanders? Not exactly a neoliberal or neocon, and yet one of the most popular Democrats. Ditto AOC.

Heartless wrote:

Take a look at the top 10 most populous countries on earth, and try to say “more people = more innovation” with a straight face.

More [super-intelligent] people = more innovation is likely true. Which is why we should strive to attract and let in proportionately more highly-skilled & educated, and less low-skilled folk.

Again- why would we let in more people of the very demographic that we know will be replaced by automation and AI in the near future? It’s asinine. Near term, we’d be incentivizing businesses to NOT innovate (letting them get away with cheap/off books labor). Long term, we’d be on the hook to support even more low-skilled people.

1) Because we are a nation of immigrants and pulling of the ladder after yourself is very, very lame. I still think the American ideal means something. Most people have given up on it, I'll admit.

2) Poor != dumb. Low skill people can learn new skills. Having a young workforce is important. Look at the success rates of second generation immigrants.

3) We don't support low skill immigrants really... again, they are a net benefit to the economy because they fill jobs Americans don't want. They also don't qualify for a lot of welfare.

4) I would argue America is quite good at turning people into innovators! In fact, assimilation and training are one of our biggest competitive advantages over the rest of the world! I would love to have more people in the USA because I believe the USA produces effective citizens.

5) Nativism just sucks. It's predicated on the idea that poor people are worth less. America is the most successful country in the world. We can and should set an example of openness. It is very convenient that it helps us too in every economic sense.

6) I would appreciate if you stopped repeating Ec 101-style arguments to try and defend immigration restrictions. The labor market is complex and often doesn't follow simple models. There is a lot of empirical data to support expanding immigration, even for low skill workers. I will work off of that rather than hand waving just-so stories.

Why are you 1) refusing to acknowledge the innovation/AI elephant in the room and 2) projecting your clearly elementary understanding of economics onto me.

So to respond...

1) Subjefrive/opinion statement. Ok.

2) Why are we limiting our new residents to being disproportionately from countries that happen to be adjacent to us? (Obviously because it supplies the cheap/off the books labor our businesses desire.) But since we’re the most desirable country in the world to immigrate to, shouldn’t we strategically let in the cream of the drop? (Yes)

3) We WILL be supporting them once innovation/AI eliminates their jobs.

4) Applies to all your points- Stop framing my / strategic-immigration proponents’ positions as anti-immigration; it’s not accurate.

5) See #4. Also- again, the unintended consequences of ignoring the cheap labor worship causes the US to distribute unemployment and artificially raise minimum wages inefficiently. It’s so stupid.

6) Wrong opinion.

Controlled immigration is necessarily restrictive immigration. I think we should be much, much less controlled than we are now. I think people who favor the current policies are anti-immigration. We should be doing much better than we are, for all the reasons I've talked about. Wanting to stick to the status quo is lame. Sorry, but that's my opinion: you're anti-immigration.

Is your whole argument just AI/automation? Do you have evidence that AI/automation will take a disproportionate share of jobs done by low skill immigrants? I would love to see a link. As far as I know, digital and data manipulation jobs are likely the first automated, not manual labor! Secondly, my general feel is that the jury is out on the whole automation apocalypse. The US economy has transitioned fundamentally several times and we've been better off for it. I don't think you can just say "AI/automation is coming -- immigration bad" because the situation is uncertain and nuanced.

^Seriously, I think you are just wrong, and you've given me no evidence.

Lastly, you cannot just say "wrong opinion" when I say: I've given you empirical evidence about immigration's effect on wages, let me see your side of the issue.

So far, you have provided zero data to back up your hand waving, simplified models that, yes, are straight out of Econ 101. I need something more convincing.

Here (again) is Noah Smith's roundup of lots of immigration natural experiments and other studies:

Opinions are like asssholes...

I’d say graduate-level econometrics grants me above Econ 101 status. Two masters degrees in quantitative reasoning-based subjects grants me a strong understanding of variables feeding a system.

A “link” from a guy that conveys what you are trying to say isn’t “data.”

It’s just common sense here. It’s all in the incentives being perpetuated. Looking the other way as companies use cheap/off books labor is altering the incentives of the entire economy in a negative manner. It is disincentivizing those very companies to innovate. It is disincentivizing low-skilled folks to take those jobs because unemployment or other grifting work pays same or more. Then politicians want to raise minimum wage for optics, knowing damn well that it incentivizes the competing-wage companies for low-skilled folks to automate them right out of the workforce.

This is all accelerating the move to full automation. Your manual labor comment is unbelievable. “Not manual labor”? It’s already been happening for 20 years! Go to an auto plant nowadays- they’ve automated production to the point that humans just move pieces into place- or make sure the ROBOTS put things in the right place- in many instances. McDonald’s could essentially operate like a giant snack machine if it wanted to within 10 years. Industrial engineers’ jobs are specifically to eliminate as much touch labor as possible. If you think it’s not going to happen in the agriculture industry real soon, you’re crazy.

I can’t believe someone is doubting that automation and AI is going to wreak havoc on the lower and middle class occupations in the coming years. Google that shiit, bruh.

The classic, "I'm reasonably smart and economics is just numbers. Therefore, my back of the napkin reasoning is just as good as dozens of studies suggesting otherwise." (in the link I posted)

Basically this:

If you have 2 masters degrees you should understand the value of actually looking at the literature!

The manual labor line proves my point! We have hearing about the robot revolution since the 80s! It's not here yet! Auto companies in the 80s spent billions trying to automate and we still employ ~80% of the people in auto manufacturing as we did in 1994 (and this tracks manufacturing employment in general)! It's actually an excellent example of "robots taking all the jobs" that never happened!.

If I google AI/automation taking jobs I see plenty pieces arguing both sides. Again, the US labor market has transformed several times in the last 250 years thanks to transformative technology that resulted in huge productivity gains. I am ready to believe the tried-and-true "this time it's different" when I get some actual data out of you :)