I don't believe Trump is really losing in the polls unless he threatens to sue them.
So, the country would be as strong if we only had 100M people? 10M? The strength of a country is independent of the number of people in it?
To state your position so bluntly is to demonstrate its absurdity. The more people we have, the more exceptional people we have, and the stronger the country becomes. The only limit is when carrying capacity (for our tech) is neared, but the US is nowhere near that.
Actually, I've been a rather conservative voter for years. I just don't like idiots and their idiotic wrong arguments.Typical leftist SJW garbage. If you cant win with with facts, resort to name calling and personal attacks. No one cares any more.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
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.nber.org/papers/w13229.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
Last edited by Bollocks; 2016-06-18 at 01:19 PM.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
I don't think national strength should be an important policy goal for the median citizen. The Swiss and Swedish don't seem any worse off for not being able to compete militarily with the Russians. I don't think the ability of my leaders to engage in pissing matches with the Putins of the world is something I should care much about.
In any case, the American population will always be gigantic. The only nations likely to have more people in the foreseeable future are China, India, and possibly Indonesia, Nigeria, and Pakistan. China and India have such an enormous population edge that it seems silly to pursue them. The notion of the other three overtaking the US in anything other than population is downright laughable.
In sum, increasing population doesn't seem like a worthy policy goal to me.
I'm much more interested in per capita excellence. As IQ is firmly established as a heritable trait, this implies that if we want to maximize per capita exceptionalism, we should focus on taking the highest quality immigrants.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
No one reads my rebuttal FeelsBadman
Well, I don't believe any poll that comes from CNN or MSNBC. They've been caught several times manipulating polls in favor of Hillary.
If the "real world" is having a President who's leaked classified documents, destroyed evidence in a Federal investigation, got Americans killed in Benghazi, lies about everything, has secret paid meetings with bank, and had 20% of their campaign funded by Saudi Arabia, I'll stick the "fantasy"...
ON WEDNESDAYS WE WEAR PINK
Sorry bro, but the world Trump promises needs the us to have an economic growth of 10% for ten years.
http://www.crfb.org/papers/adding-do...posals-so-far/
That's shite. Hate Hillary, but at least she has realistical expectations.
Yep. Which is why I can never, ever vote for someone like Hillary. While Trump is not my favorite type candidate, I at least agree with most of his policies, while at the same time, I disagree with him on some issues and esp. his delivery. I would however seriously consider a democrat candidate if they can come up with one other than Lying Warren, Socialist Bernie or Clueless Biden.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
But I did. I pointed out the absurdity that results if one says the power of a country doesn't depend on its population. To use your silly analogy, it's as if you were trying to argue the calories in a cake doesn't depend on its size.
There is evidence that small countries are weaker than larger countries, all else being equal. Luxembourg isn't a world power for a reason. India is much more powerful than, say, Bolivia, which has similar per capita GDP.
Going forward, tech levels across the world will tend to equalize. Globalization has a leveling effect. In this leveled world, the power of a country will depend on its population (and, to a lesser extent, resources), not an ephemeral tech advantage.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"
Because we are both fairly large, and at a high tech level. The US would be much less powerful if our population were 1/2 its current level (at the same per capita GDP).
More people in the US will mean higher GDP, which means a larger economy and higher tax revenue.
It's bizarre you're even trying to argue against this.
That country Luxembourg I mentioned earlier? Their per capita GDP is nearly twice that of the US. But you don't hear about them as a world power because the US population is more than 500x larger.
"There is a pervasive myth that making content hard will induce players to rise to the occasion. We find the opposite. " -- Ghostcrawler
"The bit about hardcore players not always caring about the long term interests of the game is spot on." -- Ghostcrawler
"Do you want a game with no casuals so about 500 players?"