Immigration, Explained with Gumballs

[Chiropteran]

You haven't made any there weren't destroyed within minutes, predictably wimping out of replying, lol.

Sorry, but personal attacks do absolutely nothing to disprove my points. I try to avoid lowering myself to their level so I don't respond unless I am bored. You got a problem with that?

 

[Chiropteran]

Yes, I'm sure that a billionaire who boasts about not paying taxes & the richest cabinet in History will really look out for the little guy

Based on... your feels?

"well duh I think a billionaire probably quit his extremely well paying job and spent a ton of time and money to run for presidency where he is taking $0 salary probably did it for the moneys!"

 

[WelshBloke]

Procreating with your cousins is generally a bad idea.

What an excellent phrase to use when you are arguing against diversity!

 

[Jaskalas]

Wrong.

If there are 10 jobs and 10 Americans, it's all fine and good. If there are 10 jobs, 10 Americans, and 20 immigrants all trying to get the same jobs, a lot of people are going to be unemployed.

I oppose immigration because I seek stability and sustainability.

Sure, it helps my economic agenda too, but I wouldn't want to replace this topic with that argument. You think it is central? Hah... because they've been scapegoated. Americans are suffering and someone pointed the finger at immigrants. Automation is a far greater concern if you want to talk jobs.

 

[Jhhnn]

Based on... your feels?

"well duh I think a billionaire probably quit his extremely well paying job and spent a ton of time and money to run for presidency where he is taking $0 salary probably did it for the moneys!"

Trump didn't quit his job. He just delegated more authority to people under his control & expanded the reasons that people would want to do biz with Trump branded enterprise.

The potential for corruption & malfeasance is astounding. I'm confident that Donald & crew will deliver on that in ways we haven't seen in our lifetimes other than in third world dictatorships.

 

[Chiropteran]

The part you are missing is that Clinton's only source of income is corruption. She has nothing, other than money made on pay to play speeches and political donations.

Trump has an incredibly comfortable life if he wants, entirely due to money he has made legally within the system. Trump doesn't need to be corrupt because he already has money.

I do get your point: even someone who already has money might want more money. But someone who has nothing will want that money even more, because they are desperate and have no other way of obtaining money. And really a silly line of logic, because it literally applies to everybody in the world.

 

[Amused]

lol, you seemingly agreed with my point in the original thread. Do you now admit that it is not a strawman?



WOW a list of population density, that tells everything. Everyone knows that the ability to sustain a society is defined by the number of square miles within its borders. Brilliant.



In case you didn't know, this is a result of our extremely strict immigration policy. Non-European immigrants in Europe have a roughly 50% unemployment rate after living there for 5 years.

So deny one fact while spouting another non-fact.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...es-show-fall-in-non-eu-arrivals-a6895341.html

Let's take the UK. Your employment stat is false.

'Immigrants are coming here for benefits'
One of the most frequently raised allegations about immigrants entering the UK is that they aim to exploit the national welfare system, despite numerous studies showing European migrants pay more in taxes than they receive in benefits.

David Cameron once called public concern about benefits tourism “widespread and understandable” but research has not found a statistical foundation for the fears.

Recent immigrants have made a net contribution of £20 billion to the UK over the last ten years, according to a UCL study, and foreigners are barred from several types of benefits without having permanent residency in the UK, unlike those on work visas, students and asylum seekers don't qualify.​

And Germany:

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2016/sdn1602.pdf

In 2013, the immigrants’ unemployment rate was twice as high as natives’, and fewer immigrants participated in the labor market. The probability of unemployment is initially 7 pps higher for recently arrived immigrants than for natives with similar characteristics. While the gap narrows over time, in the long run the unemployment rate remains 3 pps higher among immigrants. Again, German language skills and a German degree help close the gap and immigrants from advanced economies perform better than other immigrants. Female immigrants have a high probability of unemployment than otherwise comparable male migrants. While the participation rate of immigrants is initially lower—with the expected effects of the immigrants’ characteristics—the participation rate converges fully after 20 years. The analysis of the German experience shows that immigrants make substantial contributions to the economy but face considerable obstacles in the labor market that are overcome only gradually.
​

50%? No.

 

[First]

Do you really think Germany and Syria have as much in common with each other as Germany and Estonia or Germany and Spain?

They don't have as much in common....which makes no material difference. It's like saying my son should only be friends with white people because he'll have more "in common" with them. You must see the logical fallacy there.

But whatevs, this ignores the more important distinction which is that the EU operates as a two-way street. A Pole can work in the UK and make better money, a Brit can buy a vacation home in Poland for cheap. Anyone in a third-world country can come to America and improve their life dramatically, no Americans can try the same buying up dirt-cheap assets in Africa.

Why does being a 2-way street (which I will contest, btw) matter in an argument about how immigration impacts countries in the EU?

The difference between immigrants inside of and outside of the EU makes all the difference. EU citizens and nationals generally have very similar employment rates.That's intuitive since they always have the freedom to move back home or to another country when they can't find work. Non-EU citizens are always significantly less employed, and the gap is particularly strong in the most industrialized nations.

Why does relative unemployment rates matter and how does this dispute my argument that an influx of immigration does not lead to mass unemployment in the long term?

Though I will admit that Germany is something of a model nation. They've gradually incorporated Turks into their workforce for decades now, have an incredibly low unemployment rate and highly productive/industrial economy, and they've managed to avoid the kind of nationalism you see rising in nearly every other nation in Europe. I'd personally credit a superior brand of socialism within their nation for keeping them above most of the peers (plus their general position/power in the EU which makes them exporter-in-chief to all the poorer nations), and blame other nations for far less efficient governments that make work not worth it.

Germany is indeed a model, and please note how many thousands of Syrian refugees they've promised to take in.

There are some that have said so on this forum who are posting in this very thread.

K. My point is still indisputable, they are an extreme minority with no significant impact on public policy debates.

If it was just immediate unemployment I'd agree, but it persists for many years. Even non-ethnic French (e.g. Algerians) face far worse employment prospects, even as second generation citizens, approximately double the unemployment rate (which is already quite high to begin with).

2nd generation immigrants in the U.S. do just fine in terms of unemployment rates when you adjust for income. I cannot speak for the Algerians in France, however.

Who work sub-minimum wage, or more than 40 hours a week, or without employers having to file as much paperwork, or without paying a federal income tax (withholdings possibly aside), or any other number of things that make them easier to employ and easier to make a living.

Most immigrants in those fields are documented, for one. Two, those that aren't documented are still getting at or above minimum wage here in the largest state of CA, because demand for them is high so $10+/hr is very easy to get for them. Three, if you want withholdings and more taxes levied than simply amnesty them, problem solved (clearly you must support this now that I've told you how easy it is ;-) ).

The BLS apparently says there are 40k valets in the USA. There are only so many openings for jobs built around driving the cars of middle and upper-class travelers/vacationers a couple hundred feet into a parking garage.

Ok, and if so, what's your point? Btw, link?

Correct, illegals. Joe making $100k/yr can afford to pay Maria and her daughter to dust the house for $20 and a few hours' work and come out feeling like a powerful man with servants, he probably can't afford to pay them at American prices. For that, Joe needs to be a 1%er. Californians live in a bubble, and a lot of that money goes back to family in Mexico.

For one, as I already stated, both legal and illegal housekeepers will get at or above minimum wage, as the demand for that labor is high (in CA and elsewhere) and if you're concerned about undocumented's being treated fairly you must obviously support amnesty'ing them with a path to citizenship. ;-) They are not working for $5 or $6/hr, sorry that's unsubstantiated fantasy for both illegal and legal. Two, it's a myth that a worrisome amount of money goes to Mexico; vast, overwhelming majority of that money stays here in the form of demand for food, clothing, housing, simple math says it's so.

 

[First]

Sorry, but personal attacks do absolutely nothing to disprove my points. I try to avoid lowering myself to their level so I don't respond unless I am bored. You got a problem with that?

Whatever helps you cope with your inadequacy, kiddo.

 

[First]

Trump has an incredibly comfortable life entirely due to inherited money his rich daddy illegally obtained from gov't FHA loans almost a century ago.

FTFY.

 

[Blue_Max]

What an excellent phrase to use when you are arguing against diversity!

I suppose you're right there. Having a bevy of sex slaves readily available certainly expands the gene pool and reduces the genetic diseases that come from inbreeding.

:thumbsup:

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

The part you are missing is that Clinton's only source of income is corruption. She has nothing, other than money made on pay to play speeches and political donations.

Trump has an incredibly comfortable life if he wants, entirely due to money he has made legally within the system. Trump doesn't need to be corrupt because he already has money.

I do get your point: even someone who already has money might want more money. But someone who has nothing will want that money even more, because they are desperate and have no other way of obtaining money. And really a silly line of logic, because it literally applies to everybody in the world.

LOL... You actually believe this. Wow, ok, so narcissistic pigs like him never ever try to game the system to become richer, right? And he inherited his money. He earned fuck-all. If he wasn't born into the drumpf family he'd be a failed used car salesman in Jersey somewhere.

 

[Blue_Max]

LOL... You actually believe this. Wow, ok, so narcissistic pigs like him never ever try to game the system to become richer, right?

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Those people in the "rich" category run into huge taxes but also have access to certain tax breaks and loopholes that we don't. They still wind up paying more than we would and/or benefit many others in ways we can't. One example off the top of my head is that by re-routing profits of a company back into the growth of said company, ~75% of the taxes are written off because of the jobs/employees/salaries created from that growth. Less taxes, but more people earning money instead of food stamps.
But I'm no expert... *shrug*

And he inherited his money. He earned fuck-all.

If he earned ah heck-all, his inheritance would have frittered away to little or nothing. Logic fail.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Those people in the "rich" category run into huge taxes but also have access to certain tax breaks and loopholes that we don't. They still wind up paying more than we would and/or benefit many others in ways we can't. One example off the top of my head is that by re-routing profits of a company back into the growth of said company, ~75% of the taxes are written off because of the jobs/employees/salaries created from that growth. Less taxes, but more people earning money instead of food stamps.
But I'm no expert... *shrug*



If he earned ah heck-all, his inheritance would have frittered away to little or nothing. Logic fail.

aww maxi, so kind of you to come to his defense. He earned fuck-all, not ah heck-all. He used his inheritance to invest, without that, he's this

 

[First]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Those people in the "rich" category run into huge taxes but also have access to certain tax breaks and loopholes that we don't. They still wind up paying more than we would and/or benefit many others in ways we can't. One example off the top of my head is that by re-routing profits of a company back into the growth of said company, ~75% of the taxes are written off because of the jobs/employees/salaries created from that growth. Less taxes, but more people earning money instead of food stamps.
But I'm no expert... *shrug*



If he earned ah heck-all, his inheritance would have frittered away to little or nothing. Logic fail.

lol.

 

[Amused]

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Those people in the "rich" category run into huge taxes but also have access to certain tax breaks and loopholes that we don't. They still wind up paying more than we would and/or benefit many others in ways we can't. One example off the top of my head is that by re-routing profits of a company back into the growth of said company, ~75% of the taxes are written off because of the jobs/employees/salaries created from that growth. Less taxes, but more people earning money instead of food stamps.
But I'm no expert... *shrug*



If he earned ah heck-all, his inheritance would have frittered away to little or nothing. Logic fail.

From a right-wing publication no less:

http://fortune.com/2015/08/20/donald-trump-index-funds/

Donald Trump would be richer if he’d have invested in index funds
Claire Groden
Aug 20, 2015
Trump's net worth has grown about 300% to an estimated $4 billion since 1987, according to a report by the Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion.


The S&P 500 has grown 1,336% since 1988.

Other billionaires' net worths have beaten the stock market's growth in that time. Bill Gates, for example, saw his grow increase 7,173% since 1988 to $80 billion. Warren Buffet's wealth grew 2,612% in the same time period, to $67.8 billion.
​

Can you say "loser?"

 

[Blue_Max]

lol.

...that's it? No factual rebuttal? No skoolin' me on tax laws? A scoff alone negates an argument? Well done, then!

 

[Blue_Max]

Donald Trump would be richer if he’d have invested in index funds
Associated Press. But the real estate mogul would have made even more money if he had just invested in index funds. The AP says that, if Trump had invested in an index fund in 1988, his net worth would be as much as $13 billion.​

​

See? I can accept that. He wouldn't have created any salaries for x-thousands of contractors and employees, but he'd be sitting on more personal wealth. Don't socialists want people to "spread it around"?

Can you say "loser?"

Break out that card when he hits rock-bottom. It doesn't seem to apply here...

 

[Amused]

​

See? I can accept that. He wouldn't have created any salaries for x-thousands of contractors and employees, but he'd be sitting on more personal wealth. Don't socialists want people to "spread it around"?


Break out that card when he hits rock-bottom. It doesn't seem to apply here...

Um, when a business grows slower than sitting on your ass... you're doing it wrong.

That went right over your head.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Um, when a business grows slower than sitting on your ass... you're doing it wrong.

That went right over your head.

His reflexes are too fast, nothing... wait, that's sp33dy, nm

 

[IronWing]

​

See? I can accept that. He wouldn't have created any salaries for x-thousands of contractors and employees, but he'd be sitting on more personal wealth. Don't socialists want people to "spread it around"?


Break out that card when he hits rock-bottom. It doesn't seem to apply here...

Too bad he missed out on the part about having to pay those contractors for their work. Trump made billions by screwing everybody around him.

 

[Jhhnn]

The part you are missing is that Clinton's only source of income is corruption. She has nothing, other than money made on pay to play speeches and political donations.

Trump has an incredibly comfortable life if he wants, entirely due to money he has made legally within the system. Trump doesn't need to be corrupt because he already has money.

I do get your point: even someone who already has money might want more money. But someone who has nothing will want that money even more, because they are desperate and have no other way of obtaining money. And really a silly line of logic, because it literally applies to everybody in the world.

Pure slander & bullshit. Speaker fees are one of the purest forms of the sacred Free Market currently extant. I'm confident that the Clintons have received a lot more invitations than they've accepted. I also know it's all laid out in black & white in the tax returns they made public. From that, we also know that they pay 30% in federal income tax, donate 10% to charity, don't brag about beating the tax man, either. They were raised middle class & have become wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. Their net worth isn't even in the same league as what the Donald inherited.

Trump's corruption is obvious in deals like Trump U, Trump Baja & turning investor losses in Atlantic City casinos into personal tax credits of nearly $1B. It's obvious in the way he enables regulatory capture with presidential appointees. It's obvious in non-disclosure of tax returns. It's obvious in his so-called charity which really was just a slush fund. It's obvious in the company he keeps, men like Roger Stone & Paul Manafort.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

So deny one fact while spouting another non-fact.

<Amused copy-pasta>

My apologies, it's 75% of refugees that are unemployed for the first 5 years; it only reaches 50% after 10 years, and takes almost 20 (nearly a full generation) for them to reach native levels of employment (and that assumes the mass of refugees today are just as employable as the smaller numbers of refugees from the late 90s were).

Your UK story doesn't differentiate traditional legal immigrants and refugees, and it doesn't consider the full picture of the EU which is that the UK historically had one of the lower refugee per capita rates and that the burden could easily be shifted to a dozen other nations wanting to take them in. Germany is without a doubt the strongest nation in the EU and their ability to support refugees better is not surprising.

 

[Chiropteran]

LOL... You actually believe this.

Okay. Where did Clinton make money that has nothing to do with the family political "business"?

 

[Chiropteran]

It's obvious in non-disclosure of tax returns.

Lying through your teeth. Please explain how his leaked tax form supports your theory. I'd love to hear this one.