If You Are in Favor of Open Borders. Why?

[notimp]

Work ethic is motivation - pretty much solely.

Qualification is the only way out of poverty. Education is part of that.

IQ, dumb, lazy, .. we can pretty much leave out of it entirely.

Look at Trump for gods sake... It usually doesnt matter that much. Opportunity, economic development, social scene and so on are more important.

Dumb people get rich. All the time. Motivated, high work ethic people loose jobs. All the time. There has to be zero correlation (one has nothing to do with the other) at this point...

What happens rather, is that successful people get praised by everyone around them (social mechanism of people wanting to make friends) -- then they start to believe, that they are something special, and look at certain character traits to rectify that.

Look I've had high work ethik. Look I've had strong business acumen, look - I have superior intelligence.

Usually its nothing of the above.

But then you have them telling that to everyone - and people are picking it up, because that person must know, because they are successful...

(...writes book "The art of the deal"

People start buying his steaks. )

 

[IncredulousP]

I quote here:If you just give money away, then I think the main issue is, that people may fall into addiction or depression, and further more I think, that the biggest issue is not just the loss of income, but the loss of identity, because many people associate their worth with the jobs they have."

This is a weak argument without much evidence. There simply hasn't been enough instances of a recorded society in human history, as of yet, that has enacted a UBI long enough, nor has there been enough instances of such society to extract reliable data from and come to solid conclusions regarding the positives and negatives. Aside from the depression-inclined, depression as he refers results from needs of humans not being met, which lack of money is a major source of. People do not just become depressed by not having to be forced to work, forced to do something they don't necessarily want to. If people didn't have to worry about providing for themselves, they would become productive by other means, means that would benefit them greatly. Humans are innately productive, we do what we want to do. We make things, we create. We discuss. We philosophize. We write and express. Have you tried just doing nothing? Like staring at a wall? It is difficult. Some misguided individuals may turn to harmful addictions, but this can be combated by providing rehabilitation and behavioral cognitive therapy, in addition to other medical services.

Also, on the basis of personal experience I wholeheartedly disagree that welfare in general is bad for a functioning, content society. I, myself, fell into great depression, and struggle with bouts of suicidal ideation, in large part to the poverty I have faced my entire life and continue to face. The few times I earned enough money to start climbing out of the poverty hole, my mood vastly improved. Most of my family, and many friends fell into addiction. Not simply just because, but because they started drug use to treat their mental and physical health issues that they couldn't afford to fix (e.g. depression, ptsd, chronic pain), due to poverty. Of the ones that didn't die from drug use, alcoholism, or other self-destructive behaviors, they were able to go to rehab or receive mental health services and became clean, productive citizens. Due to the welfare I have recently qualified for, my life has dramatically improved. My mental and physical health are both being treated, and I am now able to focus on bettering myself for the job market. I have been starting to get more interviews and I hope to not be on welfare for much longer, landing a position that would provide me basic needs. The process to qualify for that welfare, however, was strenuous and extremely difficult, especially for having been in a mental state where I was incapable of taking care of myself. I believe the process of checking for qualification should be quicker and easier. I also believe UBI would help expedite this process.

My biggest fear for UBI, is that the wealthy powers that be would find a way to induce flaws, then point out those flaws and label the system "impossible" and "harmful", preventing any further social and economical progress.

 

[gamesquest1]

the whole UBI thing is kinda doomed to fail unless we somehow develop infinite resources, if there isn't enough resources to go around no matter how much money you make all you do is move the "poor" level in number only, if everyone has $1,000,000 suddenly everything will adjust to meet the market value, and bread will cost $10,000, money is not the solution resources are, if you wanted to improve peoples lives you would focus on resource creation not money, if you could create unlimited food and energy everyone would be able to exist, that said i feel that kind of future would no doubt cause a lot of depression and absurd behaviour as people struggle to find any purposeful meaning in their life

 

[IncredulousP]

the whole UBI thing is kinda doomed to fail unless we somehow develop infinite resources, if there isn't enough resources to go around no matter how much money you make all you do is move the "poor" level in number only, if everyone has $1,000,000 suddenly everything will adjust to meet the market value, and bread will cost $10,000, money is not the solution resources are, if you wanted to improve peoples lives you would focus on resource creation not money, if you could create unlimited food and energy everyone would be able to exist, that said i feel that kind of future would no doubt cause a lot of depression and absurd behaviour as people struggle to find any purposeful meaning in their life

There are plenty of resources to support the human population. The problem is a VERY small group of them are hording the world's majority of resources using a system that allows them to do such behind the veil of law and order.

 

[notimp]

This is a weak argument without much evidence. There simply hasn't been enough instances of a recorded society in human history, as of yet, that has enacted a UBI long enough, nor has there been enough instances of such society to extract reliable data from and come to solid conclusions regarding the positives and negatives.

I dont disagree. If societal values change as a whole - and all of a sudden you have "self help" groups forming, or "self empowerment" (whatever you want to call them). But then those wouldnt catch close to all cases.

But as long as you are talking about 40% of people on UBI, and the rest on normal job trajectories...

Eh... societal change is hard.

You have to find something for the people that really start to live without perspectives and start to reduce social interaction.

There are documentaries out there about the "blood plasma donation industry" that sets up shop in the US (where it can run commercially) in poor parts of town, in cities, that are on an economic down trend - and the social studies around people that stock up their income there, had me thinking "they need assistance - not money".

So thats the main point here.

There is also the famous Marienthal study ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Lazarsfeld ) that points in a similar direction.

(german title: Die Arbeitslosen von Marienthal)
(english title: Marienthal: the sociography of an unemployed community )

 

[gamesquest1]

There are plenty of resources to support the human population. The problem is a VERY small group of them are hording the world's majority of resources using a system that allows them to do such behind the veil of law and order.

but again, people "do" stuff to benefit themselves, this is just human nature and the reason all communistic societies fail, you cannot defeat human nature no matter how many gulags and death camps you erect, nobody wants to work their arses off to just scrape by, the only way to bypass this reality is that resource levels are so vast and easy to achieve that people cannot be controlled by corporations/governments etc

 

[kuwanger]

but you also have to keep everyone roughly at the same economic "competitiveness" level, because if you do not - one state would start to undercut the other, or one state would want to refuse to payback state loans (if they see the system as unfair) - and then the system gets unstable.

Actually, the free market tends to inherently cause States to be "roughly" at the same economic competitiveness level...except not really. States do constantly try to undercut other ones, but it's not enough to really shift the economic power base of the Northeast or West coast. There even was a whole "outsource to the midwest" that AFAIK has basically gone nowhere. This is part of why money is shuffled around by the federal government to maintain stability, especially in funding enough infrastructure to at least offer the opportunity for economic development. It's of course, also used to provide the means to ship raw goods made in the interior to the exterior or around for production into finished goods.

Basically, everything I've seen people complain about open borders within the EU and all the benefits are precisely the sort of stuff you read about in the 1800s in the US. And the UK sounds like a California, especially with the whole No Deal Brexit mess. At least, so far, California has been wise enough to not actually try to leave.

I would argue that the true cause of inflation is not the availability of spending power in the lower economic brackets, but rather, due to the amassing and hording of wealth at the top, requiring additional money to be created for the bottom to be able to live.

The true cause of inflation is the federal reserve manipulating the interest rates banks charge to manipulate the money supply. In theory raising minimum wages will indirectly raise the money supply, but I'm not sure that's true given now days most people are paid by direct deposit and pay cashless. So, the real loose cash may or may not increase much as a result of a small minimum wage increase. Conversely, those at the top who are receiving compounding wealth through investments are likely not driving much in the wage of inflation because meaningfully most of their wealth is shuffling around various accounts between various companies.

Of course, it's a lot more complicated than the above in practice. Globalization pushes most everyone to buy from external sources--aka China, et al--which both draws money out of the country and undercuts local development. Yet, the same lower prices allow for assembly of goods to be sold locally or simply for local retailers--service business jobs are 80% of the workforce--to charge a higher premium allowing them to leverage that increased income to expand. So, this tends to lead to overall better outcomes for everyone involved--assuming what you buy doesn't burn your house down. :/

 

[Xzi]

This is the most disingenuous way of phrasing this question possible. It's like asking, "why are Republicans in favor of tear gassing women and children and then locking those children in cages?" Although the difference is that shit is actually happening, and nobody is actually in favor of an open border. We just don't want 25 billion of our taxes wasted for a useless fucking wall, when smarter individuals know that the border could be completely secured for less than 1 billion.

The bottom line is that this is simply another way for Trump to scam money from the American taxpayers. If the wall ever actually does get built, it'll be built on the cheap, and people will be able to cut through it with a spoon. The rest of the money will end up in the Trump organization bank account.

 

[SG854]

Ah, you are speaking of the problem of inflation, one of the fundamental effects of capitalism. I would argue that the true cause of inflation is not the availability of spending power in the lower economic brackets, but rather, due to the amassing and hording of wealth at the top, requiring additional money to be created for the bottom to be able to live. Additional money (new money, not re-appropriated money or welfare) diminishes the spending power of the money, causing less economic purchasing, which stagnated economic growth, fueling further inflation. Welfare is not "free money", there is no such thing, it is value re-appropriated via taxes, of which is makes sense to extract more from higher brackets as they are past the threshold of poverty and even comfortable living, but I digress. Welfare isn't a perfect solution, but until we solve poverty, it's the solution I dislike the least. If welfare keeps up with inflation, people won't starve, suffer, and pass on poverty to future generations. Remember, this is capitalism by design, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.

I don’t know if higher taxes are a good thing. There is a recent article and New York is close to bankruptcy.

Experts say it’s due to high taxes and over spending. Basically social programs they can’t afford and high taxes scaring away business owners to different states and countries so there is less tax revenue coming in. New York has the 2nd highest taxes on the rich in the country. It’s pretty much what economists have predicted will happen. One recession and they are done for.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ity-BANKRUPT-recession-hits-experts-warn.html

 

[Xzi]

I don’t know if higher taxes are a good thing. There is a recent article and New York is close to bankruptcy.

Experts say it’s due to high taxes and over spending. Basically social programs they can’t afford and high taxes scaring away business owners to different states and countries so there is less tax revenue coming in. New York has the 2nd highest taxes on the rich in the country. It’s pretty much what economists have predicted will happen. One recession and they are done for.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.da...ity-BANKRUPT-recession-hits-experts-warn.html

Daily Mail is a tabloid, not really worth putting stock into their opinions. Besides, there are a lot of red states already extremely deep in debt, simply hitting zero wouldn't mean much of anything for New York given the amount of money they pour back into the economy.

 

[notimp]

@kuwanger (the part thats in response to me): Interesting and, yes - but there is also the part that, if you start pitching europeans the "United States of Europe" model (just by name) right now, they'll kill you with pitchforks.

Me included.

Such is the animosity over what we might lose (as more affluent countries) in return. I mean we look at the US and see the model of a two party system ("four more years" and "change"), a constant state of dumbing down on issues.

(Have you seen even the democratic candidates for precidency? "I'd be best, because I feel with them people!?")

Although we have that going on here as well. Almost no accountability of representation, the selling of national dreams, gerrymandering, locked congresses, almost open election fraud (financing), ... your freaking media, atm...

And you contrast that with france, where if the president raises their taxes on gas a little too high, they burn down Paris... and you somewhat start to question if the two models are compatible...

You also have the language barrier, wich is huge - because for european elections, we are only focused on our regional candidates, not on overall fraction policy at the EU level. The presumed heads of EU parliament take trips around different countries, but thats it.

You can vote a party into the EU parliement currently that presents you one stance as what they are for as "domestic policy", and then they might be part of a fraction at the EU parliament level, where they are holding the entire contrary position - and you usually know nothing about it.

Attempts to make that more transparent with european media in english language have failed spectacularly...


Then I was at a "promising cultural and political young prospects" event (kind of EU centered) last summer, and it was mainly an introduction to the power of lobbying and facebook bubbles.

I was awestruck, when presented with an argument for political correctness, because "finally it allows us to speak openly".

Meaning, I now have a very distinct image - when thinking of the concept of "removed from the factual realities on the ground"...

Its hard. And it almost seems like that the scope of political messaging has to dumb down, to really be accepted by people regardless of regionality, life experiences, economic state of a region....

And not even I'm sure if I like that.

 

[kuwanger]

Such is the animosity over what we might lose (as more affluent countries) in return. I mean we look at the us and see the model of a two party system ("four more years" and "change"), a constant state of dumbing down on issues.

For the former, that's sadly just a property of how the country formed: two parties formed around radically opposing views--federalist and anti-federalists--and short of a few large third parties that eventually split/merged, the song has been mostly the same. As for dumbing down on issues? See the former: making everything binary is how things devolve when you don't have much in the way of options. My point is, the baggage of being a United States doesn't inherently have to work out the way the USA did.

You also have the language barrier, wich is huge - because for european elections, we are only focused on our regional candidates, not on overall fraction policy at the EU level. The presumed heads of EU parliament take trips around different countries, but thats it.

There's that too in the US even without the language barrier: Republicans in California and Florida are radically different and have to sell themselves to the people in different ways. I'd tend to argue the above two party system, though, tends to disenfranchise a lot of people at the local or national level, especially when supporters from either side attack you for daring to have and express an opinion. I don't think this is exclusive to really anywhere: it only takes a few people to raise a lot of hell.

I was awestruck, when presented with an argument for political correctness, because "finally it allows us to speak openly".

Which speaks something about having a very binary view about free speech... And then we have the (near) binary view about borders. At least, the dumbed down version doesn't talk about quotas from countries, the standards for immigration, the requirements for citizenship, etc. There's just mostly handwaving that yes, technically very few people are for completely closed borders to people. The whole "11 million illegal immigrants" ignores "that came here over the last 40+ (or whatever) years". There's just this sort of expectation that people who care will be knowledgeable about the subject not only in how we're at this point but also that the soundbites only convey a general idea of the general theme of the general position of one group vs what the other presumably disagrees with*.

* Look no further than the Republicans trying to paint Democrats as anti-Semitic by denouncing anti-Semitism.. So, Democrats have to virtue signal they're not anti-Semitic by denouncing anti-Semitism. Fun stuff.

 

[SG854]

Daily Mail is a tabloid, not really worth putting stock into their opinions. Besides, there are a lot of red states already extremely deep in debt, simply hitting zero wouldn't mean much of anything for New York given the amount of money they pour back into the economy.

This is about New York not other states.
You’re calling them fake news?

Peter C. Earle is the Economist the Daily Mail is quoting. https://www.aier.org/staff/peter-c-earle

This guy has been quoted by the Wall Street Journal, Routers, NPR. Do you trust this guy?

 

[notimp]

Not awestruck, gobsmacked.. but you got the point..

 

[Xzi]

This is about New York not other states.
You’re calling them fake news?

It's relevant because New York pays so much in taxes that they help prop up several poorer red states on their own.

Again, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, I shouldn't have to say more than that. The people they quote might sometimes be legit, but that doesn't mean the story itself is legit. If there is some crisis going on in New York now, there's no doubt it is a result of Trump's tax cut on the rich and tax increase on the poor.

 

[bennyman123abc]

Open borders removes the need for importation, and importation tax, thus eliminating one of an economy's key factors to continue running.

 

[SG854]

For the former, that's sadly just a property of how the country formed: two parties formed around radically opposing views--federalist and anti-federalists--and short of a few large third parties that eventually split/merged, the song has been mostly the same. As for dumbing down on issues? See the former: making everything binary is how things devolve when you don't have much in the way of options. My point is, the baggage of being a United States doesn't inherently have to work out the way the USA did.



There's that too in the US even without the language barrier: Republicans in California and Florida are radically different and have to sell themselves to the people in different ways. I'd tend to argue the above two party system, though, tends to disenfranchise a lot of people at the local or national level, especially when supporters from either side attack you for daring to have and express an opinion. I don't think this is exclusive to really anywhere: it only takes a few people to raise a lot of hell.



Which speaks something about having a very binary view about free speech... And then we have the (near) binary view about borders. At least, the dumbed down version doesn't talk about quotas from countries, the standards for immigration, the requirements for citizenship, etc. There's just mostly handwaving that yes, technically very few people are for completely closed borders to people. The whole "11 million illegal immigrants" ignores "that came here over the last 40+ (or whatever) years". There's just this sort of expectation that people who care will be knowledgeable about the subject not only in how we're at this point but also that the soundbites only convey a general idea of the general theme of the general position of one group vs what the other presumably disagrees with*.

* Look no further than the Republicans trying to paint Democrats as anti-Semitic by denouncing anti-Semitism.. So, Democrats have to virtue signal they're not anti-Semitic by denouncing anti-Semitism. Fun stuff.

They are painting the far left as anti semetic, from the stuff Rashida Tlaib and others on her side are doing or following.

She follows anti Semitic things on instagram. And that’s what they are using against her. It seems like a retaliation and self defense, if you call us the right anti Semitic and racist then we will call you anti Semitic from the stuff you do. And arguments boils down to that in right vs left debates now. Both sides have racists.

https://theresurgent.com/2019/03/09/rashida-tlaib-follows-viciously-anti-semitic-instagram-account/

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

It's relevant because New York pays so much in taxes that they help prop up several poorer red states on their own.

Again, the Daily Mail is a tabloid, I shouldn't have to say more than that. The people they quote might sometimes be legit, but that doesn't mean the story itself is legit. If there is some crisis going on in New York now, there's no doubt it is a result of Trump's tax cut on the rich and tax increase on the poor.

Ocasio Cortez screwed up big time on the Amazon deal in New York. She lead the protest against them and lost lots of tax revenue which could have help the state, she thought tax cuts is actual money the state had and was giving to Amazon, surprising that she has a degree in economics, and in recent articles she’s starting to realize she screwed up.

 

[Xzi]

Ocasio Cortez screwed up big time on the Amazon deal in New York. She lead the protest against them and lost lots of tax revenue which could have help the state, she thought tax cuts is actual money the state had and was giving to Amazon, surprising that she has a degree in economics, and in recent articles she’s starting to realize she screwed up.

What are you talking about? Amazon was looking to siphon subsidies from whichever state they headquartered in, and they paid zero in taxes last year. Between that and the shit working conditions, they're a net drain on resources. It's just like a city going deep in to debt to open a massive new sports stadium. They all say it'll pay for itself eventually, but that never happens.

Besides, New York is not lacking in available employment. If Amazon actually cared about this country, they'd headquarter in North Carolina or Wyoming. Places with plenty of space and sparse job markets.

 

[kuwanger]

They are painting the far left as anti semetic, from the stuff Rashida Tlaib and others in her side are doing or following.

Except "the far left" != Democratic Party any more than "the far right" == Republicans. So, no, the point is to condemn the Democrats for not condemning the few (a couple) far left just like the Republicans had to condemn the few (a couple) far right they have. One could argue this reasonable tit for tat, I guess, but it's pretty absurd to argue the Democrats are anti-Semitic when they're the ones being constantly hounded because they seem to go overboard on taking any possible offense at words used to conjecture anti-Semitism/anti-gay/anti-black/anti-woman was intended.

She follows anti Semitic things in instagram. And that’s what they are using against her. It seems like a retaliation and self defense, if you call us anti Semitic then we will call you anti Semitic. And arguments boils down to that in debates.

Reading that is quite horrible, although it sounds like the issue is she followed a user who themselves have posted hateful things. Should she, if she disagrees, remove that person from her list? Yes. Does the fact that one person you follow says horrible things automatically make you an anti-Semite? Or that you get funding from people who are anti-Semitic? By the same logic if I replace "anti-Semite" with "racist" would that still hold? The point isn't that I believe Rashida Tlaib isn't anti-Semitic. It's that the standards you're using to decide this have to be consistent.

As for retaliation and self-defense, it sounds like Tlaib was saying that Democrats and Republicans alike are Islamophobic, not anti-Semitic. So, who was making the claim that Republicans were anti-Semitic? Is it self-defense to not refute the claim against you but claim someone else is equally bad with another religion/ethnicity? Is the issue that we care about only some groups and not others? Is the outrage that a Muslim said horrible things, not a white guy? Or was it because it was in Congress and not at the State level? I tend to think it's the last part.

 

[SG854]

What are you talking about? Amazon was looking to siphon subsidies from whichever state they headquartered in, and they paid zero in taxes last year. Between that and the shit working conditions, they're a net drain on resources. It's just like a city going deep in to debt to open a massive new sports stadium. They all say it'll pay for itself eventually, but that never happens.

They had a chance of bringing in 27 billion in tax revenue. Cortez kept on tweeting that the state should keep the 3 billion and instead use that on infrustrcture. What she didn’t realize is there is no 3 billion to spend. A tax break is a discount.

If you generate 30 billion you only have to pay 27. You don’t buy a $60 video game see its $10 dollars off and think you only pay $50 and the store gives you $10 for purchasing a game, that’s not how discounts work. She though the city was giving them 3 billion to come to New York. They have no 3 billion.