Well, it's happening, Trump is starting to lose bad in the polls..

[Ghostpanther]

yes.

i was inferring that pandering to a specific demographic at the expense of another was a blight on politics no matter who does it.

therefore it should not be accepted or encouraged just because your specific politician does it

Well said. I agree.

[Breccia]

I don't believe Trump is really losing in the polls unless he threatens to sue them.

[Osmeric]

That we need more people.. we dont. In fact we'd probably need less people cause automation will leave many unemployed. We do need highly educated people though, and those 3rd world migrants most certainly dont qualify.

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.

Typical leftist SJW garbage. If you cant win with with facts, resort to name calling and personal attacks. No one cares any more.

Actually, I've been a rather conservative voter for years. I just don't like idiots and their idiotic wrong arguments.

[Deleted]

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.

So using that logic, India has 4-5 times as many people as the US. It must be super awesome, ha? A welfare paradise and an economic and military superpower?

Or maybe it has something to do with the quality of the people we let in as well as other factors.

[Bollocks]

Even if this was true, which it isnt, we don't need to accept just anyone, especially not illegals and people who hate us and our culture. If they immigrate the right way and prove themselves to be useful, hard-working people, sure, why not. Give them citizenship. However we definitely don't need 3rd world people building their ghettos, demanding money and forcing their stone age laws on us.. or worse, enforcing them like they do in UK already.

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

[Osmeric]

So using that logic, India has 4-5 times as many people as the US. It must be super awesome, ha? A welfare paradise and an economic and military superpower?

There's a ceteris paribus assumption, of course. But India is stronger with its current population than it would be if its population were 1/10th its current level, all else being equal.

[Spectral]

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?

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.

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.

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.

[Osmeric]

If you take the population down to absurd numbers, sure, that'd be a bad thing. But to suggest that there's a direct relationship between "more people" and "strong nation" seems silly. It's not like India is wrecking us on virtue of having 4x as many people as us, nor is Germany garbage for having under 100m.

The taking of population down to "absurd levels" just demonstrates the absurdity of the argument that the strength of a country doesn't depend on its population size.

[apples]

So using that logic, India has 4-5 times as many people as the US. It must be super awesome, ha? A welfare paradise and an economic and military superpower?

Or maybe it has something to do with the quality of the people we let in as well as other factors.

this is actually the argument used by people who say the quality of people dont matter

and that a country's strength is entirely based on the "other factors"

[apples]

No, it doesn't. Just because you can't have a nation with one single dude doesn't automatically mean that "more people" = "better" or "less people" = "worse".

You might as well claim that just because you can't make a cake without an egg that throwing more and more eggs into it makes it better.

you should look up micronations

[Osmeric]

No, it doesn't. Just because you can't have a nation with one single dude doesn't automatically mean that "more people" = "better" or "less people" = "worse".

You might as well claim that just because you can't make a cake without an egg that throwing more and more eggs into it makes it better.

Now THIS is a silly argument. People are eggs? Countries are cakes? Silly analogy is silly.

[Bollocks]

No one reads my rebuttal FeelsBadman

[Synros]

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.

This is where the Trump supporters finally realize what the real world is like.

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"...

[Bollocks]

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"...

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.

[Ghostpanther]

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"...

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.

[Osmeric]

It's not silly at all. You're trying to make the argument that just because X requires some amount of Y, that adding more of Y is ALWAYS beneficial. That's exactly the situation with the cake.

Except I'm not making that universal argument. I'm making a specific instance of that universal, an instance that actually makes sense.

You are strawman-extending my argument to a much broader statement that I DIDN'T MAKE, then arguing against that.

[Draco-Onis]

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.

Anyone who will vote for Trump would never vote for any democrat period, I think the better question for you would be if you would have picked anyone that was in the rather large republican field instead of Trump.

[Osmeric]

But you're not making any case for that specific. You just keep repeating that since "few" people is "absurd" that therefore "more" people is always better.

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.

[Alydael]

if youre gonna put somethin in quotes, spell it correctly or you look like an idiot

Oh! Good point! Touche!

[Osmeric]

So again, why is the US in such an enormously, ridiculously dominant position despite holding a grand total of ~4.5% of the global population?

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.