Neil deGrasse Tyson's Proposed "Rationalia" Government Won’t Work

[Theodarzna]

That is still available in a democratic technocracy. The only real difference is that most decisions that are related to tech or science are made with experts advising the leadership.

As for the direct example, assisted suicide should be up to the person making the request, and the doctors who advise them. Wealth transfer, with the right logistic data, information theory, and trending is also possible with the right algorithms. This is actually an up and coming thing in stock trading.

People still vote for Representatives, but, think of organizations like the (Proceedings of the )National Academy of Sciences being a bigger part in the decision making process.

And, really, this is just my own preference, I tend to give very little weight to my own emotions when making decisions. Emotions < Data/Facts.

My major challenge to any sort of technocracy is simply that technocrats never craft or enact solutions that harms themselves or the primary people who put them into power. Technocrats are never brought in to enact changes that harm the elite? Why is it? Well its a rhetorical question, a technocrat by its very nature defends the interests of those granting him power.

I can never see a technocracy being in line with democratic principles, in all instances of technocracy, and technocratic government there has never been one that wasn't serving the interests of some elite to enact legislation against the will of the population.

[LilSaihah]

if you think scientists should be elected to positions of power and you think that politicians should make their decisions based on evidence

why not just elect those people

[boberino]

if you think scientists should be elected to positions of power and you think that politicians should make their decisions based on evidence

why not just elect those people

You act like there elections just happen every two years or something! SHEESH!

[Damajin]

not everybody fits in the little box you built for them

That doesn't mean we turn over the keys of society to the ideas and whims of technocrats either.

[Deleted]

Why would that be bad? Provided you give people who are smart and capable enough to drag themselves out of the dirt a chance. Say stipends and free college for only the top students and only for stem fields.

People who are poor because they are .. well losers should remain poor and are a waste of resources.

So what you are saying is that people who had the bad luck of being born in a poor family, and, as such, have problems dragging themselves out of the dirt due to the facts that:
-books cost
-university costs
-they might need to work to have what to eat from very young ages, thus giving them less time to learn
-they might be living in backwards families that put accent on working the fields rather than learning and take them only to work etc.
should be left to rot in poverty and stupidity? We tried that. It was called the Dark Ages. And it was called as such for a reason. It was called as such because our advancement as a society was almost null. Because only the rich would learn and the masses would be kept in poverty and stupidity and they couldn't rise out of that. Uneducated people make uneducated choices. And they end up affecting you too.

I'm not saying everyone should be given university education for example. Some people simply are not good enough for university and when they get help from everyone it does become their fault in the end. But when all the factors are already against poor people and you go against them too... none will rise.

- - - Updated - - -

Its not about that.. its more about helping those who are willing and capable to help themselves first.

Someone who has no ambition, no skills, no wealth and just expects others to give them handouts really should live in poverty as at least then they serve as good example to other about the consequences of those lifestyle choices.

Also poverty isnt really absolute. Even if the poor would earn say 10% of the average income but it would then to survive and take care of their basic needs, whats wrong with that?

Oh, but poverty is quite limiting for the poor. You really don't understand I see so let me make an example for you with fictional numbers.

Person A was born in a family where each parent earns 1000 euros a month. He's alone at parents.
Person B was born in a family where only the mother supports him with a salary of 150 euros a month. He has a brother too.

Now. Each of the families has 3 members, and let's say they spend 50 euros for taxes, 50 euros for food and the rest is left for them.

Now, in family A, you have 1900 euros left to support 3 people.
In family B, you have 50 euros left.

They both get to primary school. It is free. HOWEVER the books are not all free.
Family A can pay expenses and get those books and clothing and other things.
Family B can not. They have only 50 euros left per month, out of which clothing and expenses come first. They have to pay heating in winter and electricity all year. For some months they might not even afford that.

An important part of today's society is having a computer of sorts.
Family A can get one.
Family B can not. Now the two brothers will start falling even more behind. They already fell behind due to no books, now they get no computer too.

Nevertheless, they get to the end of highschool. Important exams await.
Family A can pay their child meditations to ensure said child fills the lacks of education.
Family B can not. They could get no books. No computer. No meditations.

At this point it's clear cut that family A's child will have an immensely higher chance of even entering university. Sure, with hard work, family B's children might reach to be able to go to university too... many years later or with a giant debt they can't repay while working themselves to death. A mediocre child in a rich family has an amazingly higher chance of success than even a good child in a poor family.

And now, unfortunately, I will also give you another piece of information. While I said I made up those numbers... that situation is quite a problem in Eastern Europe now. Fortunately for us, most of our governments here pay for education, pay for books and give computer loans and have some opportunities for university. Yet we still have a few percents of people who can't even read or write. Because they were born poor and found that helping their parents work the fields is more useful for the day to day life. Not because it gives them a happy life, but rather because that's how they live, from today to tomorrow, they can never think of a future where they could do what they like, take free time etc since it would mean death due to poverty. Richer families can think of the long run too, not just life today. They can invest in their children so that their children rise beyond them.

- - - Updated - - -

Well for several reasons.

First, the French government was weak. A mob carrying torches and pitchforks could easily overpower French soldiers.. not to mention many soldiers had really no reason to stay loyal to the king. What would a mob armed with molotovs and maybe a few crappy handguns do against the army now? Then intelligence. You can't organize something like this without the government getting wind and arresting the leaders and controlling the masses using propaganda and turning them against the idea.

And last, the most important reason! No one would throw their lives away in the modern society like that, not even the poor! You cant really compare people starving to death and dying from diseases while the nobles were pretty much above the law and could do anything they wanted to people who have roofs over their head and would never die from starvation. At least not in big enough numbers to organize a revolution.

So you're saying that a modern dictator with at least moderate weapons of war under his command could quell any problem so people would never rise?

Bashar al Assad was a dictator. His army was not the best in the world but it was quite equipped to deal with molotovs. The punishments for doing riots and stuff were death or improsionment for life. How is he doing nowadays? Rebels got rifles by smuggling. Rebels then manged to steal/smuggle even some tanks. And then the advantage was lost. And Syria is a mess.

By keeping the majority of the population poor, you're ensuring that you will have violent uprisings. Again and again and again. Sure, you might beat some, but in the end it will be the death of a thousand cuts. Your military men will start leaving you as you're recruiting them from same poor people and some might come with a grudge, your funding at the top will start to lower as the most part of your population is uneducated and is starting to drag you down, you won't be able to buy as good military equipment anymore... and then it's just a matter of time. People can hold grudges for centuries of need be from family members to family member. The Soviet Union for example was not weak. But it became weak as it acted just as you are advocating. It cut many of the intellectuals and tried to hold the rest down through gulags, murders, forced labour. In the end, they failed, and the issues got to the top and crumbled it.

- - - Updated - - -

Wouldn't work like that from a scientific perspective as the goal of the government would be to do what was best for the people in it at which point that logic would fall apart immediately as the rate of return wasn't the number one priority, taking care of the people as a whole in a long term viable way was.

For them go that route would be for them to go off mission and against their purpose.

You have 10 million euros.

There are like 10 k wealthy people who can afford to go to school and pay large taxes and whatnot. You'd need to only spend like 1 mil euros for them as they cover much of the rest, to educate them so that they can offer you 10% more in taxes.
There are 90k poor people. They can't afford university, books etc. So, you need to spend some 9 mil to ensure that they have that. However, even if they would also pay 10% more in taxes, their 10% of 90k people means less than the 10% of the rich for the rich earn 20 times more than the poor.

Furthermore, since you spend less on the wealthy people, you can afford other things too. Like, deal with environmental issues, build a highway, build a reactor, build a hospital. These things also somewhat improve the lives of the poor... over time. So you might choose that.


Last, but not least, how many governments, technocrat or not, care about the people themselves instead of economical growth? There are countries with economical growth where many of their people live in mud houses. But in the end the growth of the economy is all that matters for many, no matter where those money go.

[Deleted]

A political ideology that could evolve based on evidence.

In a system that would truly be based 100% on objective rationalism, certain types of people might be in for an uncomfortable surprise.

On the other hand, they already tend to think logic and reason are racist.

- - - Updated - - -

I disagree. Government of people should be done in the interest of people. However, when you involve science too much, you can start getting logic such as:
"those people are poor and have little chances of success, so investing in them is bad, however, investing in these already rich people has a higher profit growth" - this can be a scientific statement. However, it is unethical to leave the poor in the dirt and unpopular. Therefor, in the end, a scientific type of leadership would fail.

On the contrary. A rational leadership aiming to improve the overall quality of life would determine that having a "healthy" population base with good education, competence and a uniform or otherwise compatible set of values and morals would greatly benefit the nation in the long run. It would then take the necessary steps to promote healthy values and ideas and dismiss unhealthy ones -- ones that contradict reason, humanism and progression.

And that's where SJW's would start shitting their pants.

[hachidori]

I work with scientists. They are (usually) not leaders, and they are (usually) not socially-minded people. In other words, not politicians.

People who buy into Neil deGrasse Tyson, Bill Nye and other members of the Le Science Man Reddit Image Macro Cabinet are also not politicians for these same reasons. Many of them are merely technically smart, not wise or empathetic.

[Deleted]

On the contrary. A rational leadership aiming to improve the overall quality of life would determine that having a "healthy" population base with good education, competence and a uniform or otherwise compatible set of values and morals would greatly benefit the nation in the long run. It would then take the necessary steps to promote healthy values and ideas and dismiss unhealthy ones -- ones that contradict reason, humanism and progression.

And that's where SJW's would start shitting their pants.

Someone put a good idea earlier, not sure if you saw. Eugenics is a good scientific way to improve the lives of those that come by eliminating hereditary diseases, mating only those with higher potential etc.
You know what else might help a scientific leadership? A hive mind. It would be good for everyone per total. You'd just have to give up all it means to be you for the benefit of everyone.

Neither sound like such great ideas to me to be honest. But as scientific ideas, if we ignored everything else, they actually would improve the lives of everyone.

[hachidori]

Someone put a good idea earlier, not sure if you saw. Eugenics is a good scientific way to improve the lives of those that come by eliminating hereditary diseases, mating only those with higher potential etc.
You know what else might help a scientific leadership? A hive mind. It would be good for everyone per total. You'd just have to give up all it means to be you for the benefit of everyone.

Neither sound like such great ideas to me to be honest. But as scientific ideas, if we ignored everything else, they actually would improve the lives of everyone.

Calls people they don't like Hitler, considers government-mandated eugenics "for the good of society" a reasonable proposal.

The Quandary of the Liberal Mind.

[Deleted]

Someone put a good idea earlier, not sure if you saw. Eugenics is a good scientific way to improve the lives of those that come by eliminating hereditary diseases, mating only those with higher potential etc.

I think you misunderstood what I ment by "healthy". I ment a healthy society free of ignorance, superstition and other forms of mental corruption.

You know what else might help a scientific leadership? A hive mind. It would be good for everyone per total. You'd just have to give up all it means to be you for the benefit of everyone.

Sounds very much like all practical applications of socialism so far. Individuals with differing opinions are quickly and mercilessly silenced in an attempt to make everyone sing the exact same song.

Hive mind, eugenics, favoring the rich etc... your views seem to be somewhat limited. You seem to have missed that many scientists are also great humanists, although their reasoning might elude those who only pretend to be humanists for image and political reasons.

Individual differences, and especially giving the most talented individuals a chance to prove themselves, are the basis of all progression. People don't need to think the same way, but having at least a certain minimum level of basic knowledge through education helps communication and giving birth to new ideas. However, there are good ideas and bad ideas. Good ideas bring forth scientific and social progress, happiness and beauty; bad ideas bring stuff like superstition, regression and suffering. Now based on this, what kind of ideologies might be considered "bad" in a rational society, I wonder...?

[Deleted]

I think you misunderstood what I ment by "healthy". I ment a healthy society free of ignorance, superstition and other forms of mental corruption.



Sounds very much like all practical applications of socialism so far. Individuals with differing opinions are quickly and mercilessly silenced in an attempt to make everyone sing the exact same song.

Hive mind, eugenics, favoring the rich etc... your views seem to be somewhat limited. You seem to have missed that many scientists are also great humanists, although their reasoning might elude those who only pretend to be humanists for image and political reasons.

Individual differences, and especially giving the most talented individuals a chance to prove themselves, are the basis of all progression. People don't need to think the same way, but having at least a certain minimum level of basic knowledge through education helps communication and giving birth to new ideas. However, there are good ideas and bad ideas. Good ideas bring forth scientific and social progress, happiness and beauty; bad ideas bring stuff like superstition, regression and suffering. Now based on this, what kind of ideologies might be considered "bad" in a rational society, I wonder...?

My point is that just because a society lead by scientists could be good it doesn't mean it is with 100% certainty. There's also the other scientists, those who would enforce progress at the cost of aspects we deem human.

In the end, that's what I understood from the premise of the thread, that a scientists lead society would prosper no matter what. I disagree. I think the chances are the same as with a regular politician one. Some could be good, some would be bad. I have some bad examples as... examples of bad thoughts conceived by scientists. I don't deny that there are great scientists who care about their fellow brothers and sisters, but it doesn't mean all scientists are like that.

- - - Updated - - -

Calls people they don't like Hitler, considers government-mandated eugenics "for the good of society" a reasonable proposal.

The Quandary of the Liberal Mind.

Who did I call Hitler? As for eugenics, scientifically speaking, getting rid of hereditary diseases would be a boon for humanity. But for that you'd need to ensure that people with these diseases don't reproduce. And that is called eugenics. Which in itself is a bad idea due to other reasons which I believe I don't need to mention. So, overall, if you took the time to understand my point, what I'm saying is that eugenics would have the boon of getting rid of hereditary diseases, but due to the control of state on how it's done, the selection process and the ethical issue, it's a bad idea. But it is an idea that could be used by bad scientist leaders. Sure, we might get lucky with good scientist leaders, but my point remains that the leaders being scientists doesn't automatically make them good leaders.

[Bollocks]

I"m not sure where this is actually applicable. Global warming policy? Comes down to morals about environment anyway. Abortion? Comes down to morals.

Tax levels? Still comes down to how much money you want personally available. Immigration? All about whether people have a right to live here, how many, how easily, etc...

I just don't see how an "evidence based" government would change much. All we need is for policy makers to be accountable to science and to facts. Science doesn't prescribe moral actions it just describes and predicts natural phenomena.

Immigration is actually good for the economy, be it either low skill immigration or high skill immigration. And enviroment protection policies can be justified using the costs of potential harm it may cause.

[Deleted]

So what you are saying is that people who had the bad luck of being born in a poor family, and, as such, have problems dragging themselves out of the dirt due to the facts that:
-books cost
-university costs
-they might need to work to have what to eat from very young ages, thus giving them less time to learn
-they might be living in backwards families that put accent on working the fields rather than learning and take them only to work etc.
should be left to rot in poverty and stupidity? We tried that. It was called the Dark Ages. And it was called as such for a reason. It was called as such because our advancement as a society was almost null. Because only the rich would learn and the masses would be kept in poverty and stupidity and they couldn't rise out of that. Uneducated people make uneducated choices. And they end up affecting you too.

I'm not saying everyone should be given university education for example. Some people simply are not good enough for university and when they get help from everyone it does become their fault in the end. But when all the factors are already against poor people and you go against them too... none will rise.

Oh, but poverty is quite limiting for the poor. You really don't understand I see so let me make an example for you with fictional numbers.

Person A was born in a family where each parent earns 1000 euros a month. He's alone at parents.
Person B was born in a family where only the mother supports him with a salary of 150 euros a month. He has a brother too.

Now. Each of the families has 3 members, and let's say they spend 50 euros for taxes, 50 euros for food and the rest is left for them.

Now, in family A, you have 1900 euros left to support 3 people.
In family B, you have 50 euros left.

They both get to primary school. It is free. HOWEVER the books are not all free.
Family A can pay expenses and get those books and clothing and other things.
Family B can not. They have only 50 euros left per month, out of which clothing and expenses come first. They have to pay heating in winter and electricity all year. For some months they might not even afford that.

An important part of today's society is having a computer of sorts.
Family A can get one.
Family B can not. Now the two brothers will start falling even more behind. They already fell behind due to no books, now they get no computer too.

Nevertheless, they get to the end of highschool. Important exams await.
Family A can pay their child meditations to ensure said child fills the lacks of education.
Family B can not. They could get no books. No computer. No meditations.

At this point it's clear cut that family A's child will have an immensely higher chance of even entering university. Sure, with hard work, family B's children might reach to be able to go to university too... many years later or with a giant debt they can't repay while working themselves to death. A mediocre child in a rich family has an amazingly higher chance of success than even a good child in a poor family.

And now, unfortunately, I will also give you another piece of information. While I said I made up those numbers... that situation is quite a problem in Eastern Europe now. Fortunately for us, most of our governments here pay for education, pay for books and give computer loans and have some opportunities for university. Yet we still have a few percents of people who can't even read or write. Because they were born poor and found that helping their parents work the fields is more useful for the day to day life. Not because it gives them a happy life, but rather because that's how they live, from today to tomorrow, they can never think of a future where they could do what they like, take free time etc since it would mean death due to poverty. Richer families can think of the long run too, not just life today. They can invest in their children so that their children rise beyond them.

This problem has another, far better solution which is making child labor illegal and staying in school compulsory and aiding the children, not their families with free books and school lunches. There are a lot of poor families who just have lots of children in order to collect more welfare and this shouldn't be allowed.

Technocracy would be logic and reason based, so if providing education for these children will have bigger returns than leaving them without, by all means, do that. As I said before.. if people are willing to and want to rise above and lift themselves out of poverty, give them a helping hand, if they're just stupid or lack ambition and want free stuff, leave them in their squalor.

So you're saying that a modern dictator with at least moderate weapons of war under his command could quell any problem so people would never rise?

Bashar al Assad was a dictator. His army was not the best in the world but it was quite equipped to deal with molotovs. The punishments for doing riots and stuff were death or improsionment for life. How is he doing nowadays? Rebels got rifles by smuggling. Rebels then manged to steal/smuggle even some tanks. And then the advantage was lost. And Syria is a mess.

By keeping the majority of the population poor, you're ensuring that you will have violent uprisings. Again and again and again. Sure, you might beat some, but in the end it will be the death of a thousand cuts. Your military men will start leaving you as you're recruiting them from same poor people and some might come with a grudge, your funding at the top will start to lower as the most part of your population is uneducated and is starting to drag you down, you won't be able to buy as good military equipment anymore... and then it's just a matter of time. People can hold grudges for centuries of need be from family members to family member. The Soviet Union for example was not weak. But it became weak as it acted just as you are advocating. It cut many of the intellectuals and tried to hold the rest down through gulags, murders, forced labour. In the end, they failed, and the issues got to the top and crumbled it.

No what I was saying was two-fold. Trying to intimidate people with "give them money or they will revolt and kill you" is about the same as threatening with killing a hostage of you dont give a terrorist money. The solution to that is not giving in but instead just investing in better guns to first make sure the uprising never happens and second, make sure it will be over as soon as possible to guarantee that no innocent people get hurt.

Also, in the west, the poor have it really well. No on is starving to death, no one is unjustly killed.. there is no tyranny so no real reason to rise up. Sure they might get maybe a few hundred crazies and loonies together and go riot a bit but thats where those weapons come in.. of maybe smoke grenades and water cannons if they arent too violent. You cant compare any country in the West to some third world craphole where people have no rights or freedoms.

[muto]

I don't want to live in "The Giver". No thanks.

[artemishunter1]

Immigration is actually good for the economy, be it either low skill immigration or high skill immigration. And enviroment protection policies can be justified using the costs of potential harm it may cause.

Is there a neutral source showing its good for the economy? Not liberal source. And you are also discounting public treasury. Low skilled immigrants consume the public treasury like the tax breaks do.

[Berengil]

Immigration is actually good for the economy, be it either low skill immigration or high skill immigration. And enviroment protection policies can be justified using the costs of potential harm it may cause.

Outright nonsense. Immigration works to hold down the wages of the working class by increasing the labor supply. It is the holy grail of pro-business conservatives and one of the causes of populism.

[Bollocks]

Is there a neutral source showing its good for the economy? Not liberal source. And you are also discounting public treasury. Low skilled immigrants consume the public treasury like the tax breaks do.

Yes I have.
This is a copypasta I made a long time ago to post in case I needed sources to defend myself.

I think the majority of the literature in economics is showing immigrants, including those with the lowest skills/are illegal, tend to increase wages. This is because they shift outwards demand more by providing labor/services natives lack, hence why immigrants tend to have skill sets at the top or bottom.
It is also true that immigrants have a negative effect, because by increasing the supply of labor, the may decrease labor prices overall, thus resulting for lower pay for natives. This is especially alarming, as most immigrants (including those who are illegal) tend to have low skills, and thus drag downwards the pay of similarly unskilled natives, who are arguably those most in need of greater pay.

I think though that the most recent papers tend to show that the benefits outweights the negatives.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/asset...migration3.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21123

And most economists tend to agree that low skilled immigration does have a positive effect in the economy.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...vuNnqkBeAMAfHv

Some recent papers even argue that with open borders that global poeverty would be obliterated
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/res...penBorders.pdf

As for the crime, illegal immigrants tend to commit 1/5 of crimes than natives:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/res...penBorders.pdf

And the immigration process is screwed for the US:
http://www.openlawlab.com/wp-content...lon-Reason.jpg

Now even if the wages were to drop Borjas, the most pessimistic economist here doesn't even find this effect to be greater than about 5%.
https://cmuinsider.com/2016/02/22/an...-donald-trump/

Those can be overcomed with a net safety program or through a small tax to the immigrants.

Uff that took me a while.

Conclusion: Low skilled immigrants do benefit the US and you are wrong

[artemishunter1]

Yes I have.
This is a copypasta I made a long time ago to post in case I needed sources to defend myself.

I think the majority of the literature in economics is showing immigrants, including those with the lowest skills/are illegal, tend to increase wages. This is because they shift outwards demand more by providing labor/services natives lack, hence why immigrants tend to have skill sets at the top or bottom.
It is also true that immigrants have a negative effect, because by increasing the supply of labor, the may decrease labor prices overall, thus resulting for lower pay for natives. This is especially alarming, as most immigrants (including those who are illegal) tend to have low skills, and thus drag downwards the pay of similarly unskilled natives, who are arguably those most in need of greater pay.

I think though that the most recent papers tend to show that the benefits outweights the negatives.

http://www.hamiltonproject.org/asset...migration3.pdf
http://www.nber.org/papers/w21123

And most economists tend to agree that low skilled immigration does have a positive effect in the economy.
http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-econom...vuNnqkBeAMAfHv

Some recent papers even argue that with open borders that global poeverty would be obliterated
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/res...penBorders.pdf

As for the crime, illegal immigrants tend to commit 1/5 of crimes than natives:
http://www.ssc.wisc.edu/~jkennan/res...penBorders.pdf

And the immigration process is screwed for the US:
http://www.openlawlab.com/wp-content...lon-Reason.jpg

Now even if the wages were to drop Borjas, the most pessimistic economist here doesn't even find this effect to be greater than about 5%.
https://cmuinsider.com/2016/02/22/an...-donald-trump/

Those can be overcomed with a net safety program or through a small tax to the immigrants.

Uff that took me a while.

Conclusion: Low skilled immigrants do benefit the US and you are wrong

You do realize Hamilton Project is a liberal study. And it included skilled workers will unskilled workers. and read the study again. It says low skilled workers are bankrupting state treasury i.e. education, welfare and it may not even be recovered due to immigrant children moving or just being incompetent. Here is the another thing, we do not tax low income immigrants due to Earned Income Tax credit. We refund them actually.

[Nadiru]

Yes I have.
This is a copypasta I made a long time ago to post in case I needed sources to defend myself.

I think the majority of the literature in economics is showing immigrants, including those with the lowest skills/are illegal, tend to increase wages. This is because they shift outwards demand more by providing labor/services natives lack, hence why immigrants tend to have skill sets at the top or bottom.
It is also true that immigrants have a negative effect, because by increasing the supply of labor, the may decrease labor prices overall, thus resulting for lower pay for natives. This is especially alarming, as most immigrants (including those who are illegal) tend to have low skills, and thus drag downwards the pay of similarly unskilled natives, who are arguably those most in need of greater pay.

[citations]

The US economy as a whole, not those who are worst off in the US economy. In fact, a 5% decline in wages which have been ossified for 40 years is a significant decrease in both household income and total consumption, which are already moribund as a result of rising income inequality. And bringing in low-skilled competition to set the poor off-balance, which is the outcome of large-scale pro-immigration policies - as acknowledged by your own sources - is not an adaptive strategy.

[Bollocks]

The US economy as a whole, not those who are worst off in the US economy. In fact, a 5% decline in wages which have been ossified for 40 years is a significant decrease in both household income and total consumption, which are already moribund as a result of rising income inequality. And bringing in low-skilled competition to set the poor off-balance, which is the outcome of large-scale pro-immigration policies - as acknowledged by your own sources - is not an adaptive strategy.

Point me to the source so I can check it.

- - - Updated - - -

You do realize Hamilton Project is a liberal study. And it included skilled workers will unskilled workers. and read the study again. It says low skilled workers are bankrupting state treasury i.e. education, welfare and it may not even be recovered due to immigrant children moving or just being incompetent. Here is the another thing, we do not tax low income immigrants due to Earned Income Tax credit. We refund them actually.

I never said that there we no downsides, but in the overall it results on a net positive in the federal budget. Which is why I specifically claimed that negatives are outweighted by positives. I'm aware that some states are more affected than others. And I'm also aware about the current policies of the US which is why I made some suggestions.

As to those who still doubt and can't be bothered to read ECONTALK has a chapter on immigration: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/201..._on_immig.html