Snarls entire misguided post was about limiting cheaper labor. So of course it was about limiting immigration. Not falling for that bait and switch.
Need more workers?
- Thread starter snarlcakes
- Start date
Snarls entire misguided post was about limiting cheaper labor. So of course it was about limiting immigration. Not falling for that bait and switch.
What’s the cost of childcare? What is the salary of the parent making the least amount of money? Did government involvement increase the cost of childcare?
You added the question after I responded to you. I don't have to run a business to know the trade offs of allowing in low skilled workers.
The only way our lives get better is by increasing productivity through innovation, which isn't accomplished by allowing in cheap labor at large scale, especially when you have the welfare state and public services we have.
You need to update your mental model if you can't figure that out. It's why Bush fans like yourself no longer have a say in the GOP.
Doubt many would be taking a $16/hr job only to pay for child care. It's a net zero... Or close to it.
That said, full time child care is a fairly short window in time compared with a 40 year working career.
I'm fine with some immigration. High skilled and a small amount of refugees. I'm against illegal immigration and low skilled immigration.
Don't be such a lost cause. Read and try to get better.
Yes, but even after school care for kids is expensive.
We want families to have kids, it is something the administration is pushing. It is awfully hard for people making $80,000, which is above the median, to afford kids. Heck, I know people on here making far more who have complained about how hard it is to make ends meet.
I don't know what insurance at Cook costs, but it is fair to assume a decent amount comes out of that $16. Then add in the need to save for retirement, 4% matching is what they offer so at least 4% should come out. It all adds up and comes off. If two people are working that specific job with two kids, they have $66,000/year before deductions. It is fair to assume if they work it for a few years it may get to $80,000. That still isn't a lot for a family, retirement planning, and healthcare.
The techs that work with me make $16-20 for the most part. There may be an outlier at $22-23. I have no idea what full time child care costs but I’m betting there is not much positive trade off when you also have someone else providing a good chunk of the “parenting” during a very important time in child development.
I understand the tread water for a while in order to maintain “seniority” in the job market but outside of the professional level I’m betting it’s a net negative.
Why do you want people to come in at jobs ABOVE existing Americans? We want Americans to clean the floors (not that there is anything wrong with that) of the people coming in?
It’s because of the extreme distortion in value and the degradation of the buying power of the dollar. What caused this to happen? It’s multi-faceted and almost all has been self-induced
Sure as hell don't follow the snarl model of making every day to day life costs even more expensive by limiting labor supply. Want childcare and healthcare costs to continue to go up? Keep depending upon an ever shrinking labor pool.
Because they produce more than they take. I want more engineers, doctors, dentist, and etc.
I need to address this. I look fantastic. I'm a solid 235 and the stomach and chest is shaved from my surgery. Throw some oil on me, bronze me up, and watch out. I'm begging the wife to leave me. I know the talent strolling around this county. Turn me loose and I'll make @larsIU look like the Virgin Mary.
No we haven't. Not even close. Because of too many people with your mindset has greatly lowered immigration to what it should and could have been.
Now we're all paying the price with ever increasing costs of services, out of control debt since we don't have enough young people to support the amount of old, failure all around. We've tried twice in the last 30 years to fix the busted system.... Only to be shot down by the Breitbart/snarl mentality.
Go read the Cato info. You claim to be a libertarian.
Less than 15 percent of the U.S. population was born outside the United States. This ranks 56th highest in the world.72 It ranks in the bottom third of wealthy countries in the world, and the gaps are massive. To catch up to Canada (21.4 percent), nearly 30 million immigrants would have to arrive this year. To reach the immigrant share in Australia (30.3 percent), the number grows to 76.4 million. To hit Hong Kong’s percentage (39.2 percent), it would have to exceed 140 million. These totals are unfathomable, but they illustrate how much flexibility the United States has when it comes to changing its immigration policy and remaining well within the norms for the wealthy world.
It’s a conundrum because we’ve dug such a big hole that I’m not sure we can even get out with a backhoe.
The government pays for nothing in real time. For the most part….consumers do not either. Which increases the costs. From housing to healthcare it’s all distorted and we might as well all be cam kickers because we don’t have the willpower to withstand the pain that it would take to begin to fix the problem.
What is Cato’s stance on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security? I’m guessing they would be for elimination and to let the markets work?
All of those countries have healthcare and retirement.
I read a CATO book on open borders. It did not sell me, but it did make the point that we can exclude immigrants from services X number of years to make sure they are "profitable".
Every other time i (push) mow I leave the shirt off. Gotta keep some color on the playground.I need to address this. I look fantastic. I'm a solid 235 and the stomach and chest is shaved from my surgery. Throw some oil on me, bronze me up, and watch out. I'm begging the wife to leave me. I know the talent strolling around this county. Turn me loose and I'll make @larsIU look like the Virgin Mary.
You're pulling a COH and defining conservatism to be only what you believe. The history and breadth of the term and movement and people who started and called themselves that is much broader than what you're allowing for.
You'd know that if you had a decent liberal arts education.
CATO is a bunch of leftists. Mises institute is the standard bearer for Libertarian thought in the U.S.
You're pulling a COH and defining conservatism to be only what you believe. The history and breadth of the term and movement and people who started and called themselves that is much broader than what you're allowing for.
You'd know that if you had a decent liberal arts education.
Lol.
I understand that all too well. Doesn't mean I will just bend over and let others claim the mantle when they are really just big govt cultural conservatives.
The "no true Scotsman fallacy" is a type of informal fallacy where a generalization is defended by arbitrarily excluding counterexamples. Instead of conceding the point or revising the claim, the arguer simply redefines the category to exclude the specific instance that contradicts the initial statement.
Here's a breakdown:
The Core Idea:
- Initial Claim: Someone makes a broad generalization (e.g., "All Scotsmen love haggis").
- Counterexample: Someone provides an example that contradicts the claim (e.g., "My friend Angus is Scottish and he hates haggis").
- The Fallacy: Instead of acknowledging the counterexample or modifying the claim, the person argues that the counterexample isn't a "true" member of the group (e.g., "Well, he's not a true Scotsman then").
- The Fallacy: Instead of acknowledging the counterexample or modifying the claim, the person argues that the counterexample isn't a "true" member of the group (e.g., "Well, he's not a true Scotsman then").
- It's a form of moving the goalposts, avoiding genuine engagement with the counterexample.
- It relies on a subjective and undefined criteria for "true" membership, rather than objective characteristics.
- It essentially creates a circular argument where the claim is always true by definition because it excludes anything that contradicts it.
- It's a form of moving the goalposts, avoiding genuine engagement with the counterexample.
The 15% number is closer to 35-40%. There have only been two years out of the last, I think 50, we have been above replacement numbers on births. The population was around 205 million at the time. A third of the country is either an immigrant or 2nd generation.
Canada is a shit show. Not sure why we would want to be like them. And all three examples are countries with much smaller populations than the U.S. Once again who is migrating matters.
An easy example. A family of 5 migrates to the U.S. They have 3 children and both parents have low skilled jobs. They make a combined 70k. The state of Indiana pay 35k to educate their children. They receive 10k more in welfare benefits and public benefits. They pay 20% in taxes. So, we're spending 40-45k a year in taxes for this family and they're paying 10-15k. Why do you think this is good for society on a large scale?
Lastly, we don't have free markets and we have a huge government. So the libertarian arguement doesn't fly. I'm working with the system we have. If we get rid of 90% of the Federal and State governments, I would care a lot less about mass low skilled immigration. However, if you want to spend 40-50% of GDP on government, I am against it.
“After introduction of Medicare and Medicaid, physicians’ fees rose at 6.8 percent per year in 1967 and 1968 in comparison to a 3.2 percent annual rise in prices, while hospital prices increased by nearly 15 percent per year from 1966 to 1970. Those higher prices increase private insurance premiums.”
A tale as old as time. Drug prices disproportionately increased once consumers no longer paid for meds at the time of acquisition (PBMs , Medicare D). Insurance premiums skyrocketed and quality of care decreased (Obamacare).
Yes. I agree, and I do actually understand what you are saying.
I don't really think there is any consistent and coherent policy thought with most of the major political ideologies in this county. So I often mock. This is just one topic that makes me want to jump out a window.
Btw @snarlcakes I still like you even if you're wrong so much 😂. Had a terrible start to the day and didn't intend to come across so harsh.
I was pointing out we have had a bunch of immigration the last 50 years. So, what do the number have to be for you to admit it hasn't worked?
No worries. I enjoy arguing. You should be a teacher😁 You get to wake up later and be in a good mood, until you go downstairs and your youngest child is naked and the house a mess because he refuses to sleep in or wear clothes. Every.Damn.Day.
Both sides have struggled for a clear idea of what it means to be conservative or liberal. For a long, long time, conservatism would have been whatever William F. Buckley said it was. Since Buckley was opposed to populism, clearly that is no longer true. But it was Buckley who talked Reagan into rejecting populism, showing the power I suggest he had.
The Democrats had the Kennedy Myth for a long time (and Ted representing it). I would suggest he was the biggest guide to liberalism from 1976 - 2000 or so.
The left is split between old school liberals and progressives who tend to be left-wing populists (ala Bernie). Many progressives really detest liberals as sellouts just making insignificant changes to prevent true change. The right is split between MAGA and Buckley conservatives and we see how Twenty and Aloha get along with them. At some point, Buckley conservatives and liberals should reach a compromise and win elections. I am not sure old school liberals and Reagan Republicans are all that far apart compared to the populists on both sides. Also floating around are true libertarians, though many Republicans only like the sound of libertarian but not the ideals. Rockport seems a true libertarian.
That's fair. I care about average wages as a percentage of GDP and etc. If we're improving as a society it should take fewer hours of work for the average person to purchase a house, healthcare, education, and etc. I know other people don't measure it that way.
Not only that but novelty gives people a dopamine hit. There sheer variety will keep driving consumers to try the newest thing.
We didn't have this many choices even 20 years ago.
A star post. We have four parties condensed in two and your characterizations are spot on imo. This isn’t a good thing by the way. And I’ll add that bad boy is exacerbated by two of the four being damn near polar on fundamental matters
LOL. This may be the dumbest thing you've ever posted, and that's saying something.
It’s an ongoing debate in Libertarian circles. Rothbard is perhaps the most influential Libertarian of the 20th century and he came to oppose open borders later in life.
So whatever hack reasoning you had for making this dismissive and rude post, perhaps shove it up your ass?
Latest posts
-
Israel attacks Iran's nuclear and military infrastructure.- Latest: Marvin the Martian
-
-
-
