Trump reiterates claim that he wants more legal immigration

[devil21]

And notice in that quote, even this immigration restrictionist writer at Breitbart admits that most of the foreign nationals showing up at the southern border are there because they want American jobs. Not because they are trying to get on American welfare or engage in lives of crime here. If we let these foreign nationals in, they would be a boon to our economy, not a drag.

A boon to the "employment" numbers perhaps but a further drag on wages. It's still always about keeping wages suppressed, cheap labor suppressing price inflation. That becomes more and more important as the dollar further loses reserve status and monetary inflation, which leads to price inflation, can't be exported like in the past.

[Superfluous Man]

A boon to the "employment" numbers perhaps but a further drag on wages.

In other words, production costs us less. This is a good thing.

[Anti Federalist]

In other words, production costs us less. This is a good thing.

So, if labor costs drop to "0"...we all get rich...that about the long and short of it?

[Superfluous Man]

So, if labor costs drop to "0"...we all get rich...that about the long and short of it?

Of course. That would mean everything we wanted was free. What you just described is a perpetual motion machine though.

[devil21]

In other words, production costs us less. This is a good thing.

For shareholders, perhaps. For everyone that's still living with stagnant wages that have, compared to price inflation, barely increased since the 70's, no it's not a good thing. In fact, it is what keeps the wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% expanding further and further.

[Superfluous Man]

For everyone that's still living with stagnant wages that have, compared to price inflation, barely increased since the 70's, no it's not a good thing.

This is inaccurate. It's a good thing for them too. It means that they work fewer hours to buy the same amount of stuff.

In fact, it is what keeps the wealth gap between the 1% and the 99% expanding further and further.

And this is where the disconnect is. You're one of those people who cares about the wealth gap.

[devil21]

This is inaccurate. It's a good thing for them too. It means that they work fewer hours to buy the same amount of stuff.

Keeping wages suppressed and working less hours while prices continue to rise is a good thing for workers? And competing against more imported workers? You're going to have to explain your logic there. Sorta sounds like you're touting a socialist model....are ya?

And this is where the disconnect is. You're one of those people who cares about the wealth gap.

Of course I do. The wealth that once went to the middle class has instead been funneled upward and kept in a friendly little 1% recycling loop.

[Superfluous Man]

Keeping wages suppressed and working less hours while prices continue to rise is a good thing for workers?

I never said anything about prices continuing to rise.

If prices rose, then wages would rise too. But the influx of cheap labor would mitigate against both. The net result of that cheap labor, though, would be that we consumers would be able to work fewer hours to buy the same stuff. The advantage of looking at it in terms of hours worked, rather than a dollar amount, is that it allows us to get past confusion caused by thinking in terms of changing prices.

Of course I do. The wealth that once went to the middle class has instead been funneled upward and kept in a friendly little 1% recycling loop.

And this is the problem. As long as you choose to make it into a class warfare thing, you'll be driven by envy of the successful. If the rich get richer and the poor get richer too, you'll see it as a bad thing because the gap between them will still widen.

[devil21]

I never said anything about prices continuing to rise.

Fair enough, you didn't, but here in the real world of Keynesian central bank economics, prices continue to rise. Suppressing wages only serves to keep price inflation low enough that it can be hidden through various means instead of rocketing up faster than it can be managed. See Fed's dual mandate.

If prices rose, then wages would rise too. But the influx of cheap labor would mitigate against both. The net result of that cheap labor, though, would be that we consumers would be able to work fewer hours to buy the same stuff. The advantage of looking at it in terms of hours worked, rather than a dollar amount, is that it allows us to get past confusion caused by thinking in terms of changing prices.

We've already imported a lot of cheap labor and prices still rise while wages are still suppressed, as intended. I don't see how doing more of the same, but on a grander scale, will yield a different result.

And this is the problem. As long as you choose to make it into a class warfare thing, you'll be driven by envy of the successful. If the rich get richer and the poor get richer too, you'll see it as a bad thing because the gap between them will still widen.

How does expanding a policy that has led to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer suddenly become the rich getting richer and the poor getting richer, unless you're referring to the newly imported poor getting richer while the current poor continue to stagnate and the not-yet-poor getting poorer? I don't have a problem with immigration as a whole but pushing for more of it, specifically to keep labor costs and wages down, only rewards those at the top and the newly imported poor.

[Superfluous Man]

We've already imported a lot of cheap labor and prices still rise while wages are still suppressed, as intended. I don't see how doing more of the same, but on a grander scale, will yield a different result.

Yes, and while prices have risen the number of hours ordinary working Americans have had to work to buy the same amount of stuff has decreased, just as I said. Yielding more of this result is a good thing.

How does expanding a policy that has led to the rich getting richer while the poor get poorer suddenly become the rich getting richer and the poor getting richer,

Because you're wrong about that, the poor haven't been getting poorer, they've been getting richer, by leaps and bounds.

[Brian4Liberty]

I never said anything about prices continuing to rise.

If prices rose, then wages would rise too. But the influx of cheap labor would mitigate against both. The net result of that cheap labor, though, would be that we consumers would be able to work fewer hours to buy the same stuff. The advantage of looking at it in terms of hours worked, rather than a dollar amount, is that it allows us to get past confusion caused by thinking in terms of changing prices.

And that was the policy of Alan Greenspan. An ever growing labor pool, beyond demand, stagnates wages, which mitigated against expensive government debt and money printing. Trump is certainly on board with that. Budget deficits, uncontrolled debt and inflation, all mitigated by a cheaper labor pyramid.

[Superfluous Man]

And that was the policy of Alan Greenspan. An ever growing labor pool, beyond demand, stagnates wages, which mitigated against expensive government debt and money printing. Trump is certainly on board with that. Budget deficits, uncontrolled debt and inflation, all mitigated by a cheaper labor pyramid.

If that was the policy of Greenspan, then it's one of the things he was right about.

[devil21]

Yes, and while prices have risen the number of hours ordinary working Americans have had to work to buy the same amount of stuff has decreased, just as I said. Yielding more of this result is a good thing.

You're going to need to present some metrics to demonstrate that, seeing how food prices continue higher, energy prices continue higher, transportation costs continue higher, among others. What I think you're seeing is the appearance of "less is more". For example, yes, someone's power bill may be only marginally higher than 10 years ago but that is not because someone can buy more power. It is because the consumption of power has been lessened, while the cost of the power has risen. That is not buying the same amount of stuff. It is buying a lesser amount of stuff for the same or more cost. My own average power bill hasn't risen much but the kwh rate has doubled.

Because you're wrong about that, the poor haven't been getting poorer, they've been getting richer, by leaps and bounds.

Need some metrics on that too. The amount of people on various government assistance programs seems to indicate the opposite. The only poor getting richer that I see are the imported poor. And that's only if you ignore that somehow debt=wealth these days.

Bottom line is that the logical progression of these policies leads to an equally poor 99% (really poor boosted, current poor stagnant, not-yet-poor becoming poor) and a fabulously wealthy 1%. That is a socialist outcome. At least own it if that's what you're advocating.

[Superfluous Man]

You're going to need to present some metrics to demonstrate that, seeing how food prices continue higher, energy prices continue higher, transportation costs continue higher, among others.

And along with those things, wages have gone higher. Meanwhile prices of some things have gone down considerably. But the net result is that we're working fewer hours to buy more stuff. It's easier to get this when you think in terms of productivity, rather than price tags. More cheap labor means more productivity. That labor is used in providing goods and services that we all, not just the rich, want, and are willing to pay for using the wages that we earned with our own labor. All those extra goods and services being produced are more wealth for all of us.

Here's a great Reason TV episode about this. It's 10 years old now, but it still applies. And it cites the sources that you can check for the metrics you're looking for.
https://reason.com/reasontv/2008/02/03/living-large

[Brian4Liberty]

You're going to need to present some metrics to demonstrate that, seeing how food prices continue higher, energy prices continue higher, transportation costs continue higher, among others. What I think you're seeing is the appearance of "less is more". For example, yes, someone's power bill may be only marginally higher than 10 years ago but that is not because someone can buy more power. It is because the consumption of power has been lessened, while the cost of the power has risen. That is not buying the same amount of stuff. It is buying a lesser amount of stuff for the same or more cost. My own average power bill hasn't risen much but the kwh rate has doubled.

Need some metrics on that too. The amount of people on various government assistance programs seems to indicate the opposite. The only poor getting richer that I see are the imported poor. And that's only if you ignore that somehow debt=wealth these days.

Bottom line is that the logical progression of these policies leads to an equally poor 99% (really poor boosted, current poor stagnant, not-yet-poor becoming poor) and a fabulously wealthy 1%. That is a socialist outcome. At least own it if that's what you're advocating.

The argument that is often made by beltway libertarians is that advances in technology are an increase in wealth. The fact that everyone has a cell phone and a flatscreen TV is a dramatic increase in “wealth”. “Even kings of the past never had such standards of living.” Plumbing and sanitation is another great advancement that people of the past never had. And parts of the world still don’t have plumbing.

Likewise, some government statistics have used increases in processing power to fudge numbers. For instance, if a computer costs $1K, but it has twice the storage, memory and processing speed of the prior version, it is a 50% reduction in cost/performance. You are getting “more” for your money, even though you are still just buying a computer for the same price. Thus it is counted as a 50% price reduction.

[Superfluous Man]

Need some metrics on that too. The amount of people on various government assistance programs seems to indicate the opposite.

I'm going to call your bluff here and ask you for your metric showing this.

In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The number of people on various government assistance programs fluctuates with the economy, but in recent years it's been going down. Now you might be talking about Social Security, which I suspect the numbers of retirees on that has been going up lately, but that's a function of the nation's age and the retirement of the baby boomers, not people getting poorer.

[Brian4Liberty]

If that was the policy of Greenspan, then it's one of the things he was right about.

The motivation and real world result of that is to enable massive government debt and monetary inflation. Do you agree with that?

[Superfluous Man]

The motivation and real world result of that is to enable massive government debt and monetary inflation. Do you agree with that?

No, and I doubt that you're right, just going by your previous explanation. It sounds more like the motivation, if what you said was accurate, was to mitigate the costs of massive government debt and monetary inflation.

[Brian4Liberty]

No, and I doubt that you're right, just going by your previous explanation. It sounds more like the motivation, if what you said was accurate, was to mitigate the costs of massive government debt and monetary inflation.

Mitigating bad government policy is enabling it.

[devil21]

And along with those things, wages have gone higher. Meanwhile prices of some things have gone down considerably. But the net result is that we're working fewer hours to buy more stuff. It's easier to get this when you think in terms of productivity, rather than price tags. More cheap labor means more productivity. That labor is used in providing goods and services that we all, not just the rich, want, and are willing to pay for using the wages that we earned with our own labor. All those extra goods and services being produced are more wealth for all of us.

Here's a great Reason TV episode about this. It's 10 years old now, but it still applies. And it cites the sources that you can check for the metrics you're looking for.
https://reason.com/reasontv/2008/02/03/living-large

Price tags is all that matters to the average person when they go shopping for what they need to maintain the productivity you refer to. Productivity means value of the energy outputted versus the input costs necessary to extract that energy, yes? I won't get into how that essentially is the equation for managing the overall slave class but I try to look at it in more than simply human resource management terms. If that's how you view it, that's fine, but it comes off as elitist.

And again, this is all ignoring how somehow debt=wealth, in addition to how few have any "wealth" in the first place since few actually own anything outright or of actual value. The definition of wealth is so badly corrupted that it's pointless to even use the word any more. Either way, basic logic says that expanding the current system will only lead to expanding the same results thus far, not lead to a different result entirely.

I'm going to call your bluff here and ask you for your metric showing this.

In fact, the exact opposite is the case. The number of people on various government assistance programs fluctuates with the economy, but in recent years it's been going down. Now you might be talking about Social Security, which I suspect the numbers of retirees on that has been going up lately, but that's a function of the nation's age and the retirement of the baby boomers, not people getting poorer.

I did ask for your metrics first and haven't seen any. Perhaps Zippy can help? But yes, various welfare programs, government entitlements are on the whole rising and the unfunded liabilities reported continue to grow.

The argument that is often made by beltway libertarians is that advances in technology are an increase in wealth. The fact that everyone has a cell phone and a flatscreen TV is a dramatic increase in “wealth”. “Even kings of the past never had such standards of living.” Plumbing and sanitation is another great advancement that people of the past never had. And parts of the world still don’t have plumbing.

Likewise, some government statistics have used increases in processing power to fudge numbers. For instance, if a computer costs $1K, but it has twice the storage, memory and processing speed of the prior version, it is a 50% reduction in cost/performance. You are getting “more” for your money, even though you are still just buying a computer for the same price. Thus it is counted as a 50% price reduction.

Yeah that's been hashed out repeatedly in the econ subforum with Zippy pushing that narrative. It is now more economical than ever to program the slave class. Yep, that's true. Maybe that's why the tech has been jumping. I don't think that's a narrative that holds water overall given what most consumer tech advancements is really being created and used for, however.

[Superfluous Man]

Price tags is all that matters to the average person when they go shopping for what they need to maintain the productivity you refer to.

You may unfortunately be correct about that. The average person doesn't always think rationally. Hopefully, in this discussion, we can do better than that though, and try to avoid fallacies like that one.

[PAF]

New slogan...

Instead of End the Fed... Grooowwww the Fed!

“Fair labor”, everybody pays their “fair share”, no more contract or property rights...

We are on a ROLL!

Who needs democrats and “legal” immigrants when we can get’er done ourselves!

[Swordsmyth]

And notice in that quote, even this immigration restrictionist writer at Breitbart admits that most of the foreign nationals showing up at the southern border are there because they want American jobs. Not because they are trying to get on American welfare or engage in lives of crime here. If we let these foreign nationals in, they would be a boon to our economy, not a drag.

And the only reason for these people to cross the border illegally is because no legal means of doing it is afforded to them.

Just let them in legally, and voila, illegal immigration will practically disappear.

But the immigration restrictionists won't have that, because, while most of them may say that they're only against illegal immigration, and not against legal immigration, they don't really mean it.

So ending welfare won't stop the invasion?

It's OK if they vote for communism as long as they came here for jobs?

[Superfluous Man]

So ending welfare won't stop the invasion?

It's not an invasion. But no, I think the notion that ending welfare would substantially decrease immigration is totally false. I've never pushed that myth.

[Swordsmyth]

It's not an invasion. But no, I think the notion that ending welfare would substantially decrease immigration is totally false. I've never pushed that myth.

Good most of the people who side with the invaders do and then turn around and tell me that illegals don't use welfare too.


It's OK if they vote for communism as long as they came here for jobs?

[enhanced_deficit]

Sometimes MAGA reverses his stance too.

[Swordsmyth]

It's OK if they vote for communism as long as they came here for jobs?

Still waiting for an answer @Superfluous Man

[Superfluous Man]

Still waiting for an answer @Superfluous Man

No, it's not ok for them or anyone else to vote for communism.

And just like Strat's stories about murder, that's separate from immigration. You might as well propose deporting natural born citizens whom you think are more likely than others to vote for communism on account of what demographic groups they belong to.

[Swordsmyth]

No, it's not ok for them or anyone else to vote for communism.

And just like Strat's stories about murder, that's separate from immigration. You might as well propose deporting natural born citizens whom you think are more likely than others to vote for communism on account of what demographic groups they belong to.

Citizens have a right to be here and our options for limiting what politics they embrace are limited but foreigners have no right to come here and we may and must be selective and limited about which and how many we allow to come here based on their political leanings.

[Superfluous Man]

Citizens have a right to be here

What gives them that right?