Here is one for the Liberals. And since I am not a big fan of progressive taxation to fix this, I really don't know what to do about it. MSN Why Small Group Benefits from DOW Growth
To me the answer is to increase the capabilities of American workers:
To me the answer is to increase the capabilities of American workers:
- strongly promote 2 parent households (indifferent to sex of Parents)
- strongly dissuade single parent households
- demand that people on welfare / medicaid improve, grow, change, etc and stop being a drag on our country
- demand that people on welfare / medicaid severely limit their number of children until they can afford and responsibly raise them
- offer low cost education options for sectors that are short of skilled knowledgeable employees
- limit the number of low end workers competing for those jobs (ie ship illegal workers home)
- immigrate more workers for the high dollar jobs to push down those costs
- encourage American consumers to support American workers
Now I am fine with progressive taxation to help the unsuccessful as long as there are strong improvement / learn / work incentives in place for the recipients of that wealth transfer. It is the giving without expectation / consequences thus enabling people and their children to keep making the same mistakes decade after decade that I am against because it keeps them trapped in generational poverty that frustrates me greatly. It is so unfair to the kids.
This piece from the Heritage org explains it pretty clearly. An even simpler summary is:
- Caring for and raising for kids is hard.
- Paying household bills and saving is hard.
- Single parenting often leads to poverty
- Single parenting often leads to child problems
So if we really want to stop this gap from growing, we really need to focus on the bottom end.
52 comments:
some people graduate from college and get married and still get very little benefit from gains in the stock market. Some people need to be paid more to be able to save $ and invest.
Then they likely made some very poor choices.
- degrees in low income field
- spent too much on rent, travel, other
And as I noted in the post, there are many ways to increase wages in the USA. Unfortunately Liberals often fight them because:
- they want to allow a great deal of low skill / low knowledge people to immigrate here even though we have more than enough people here just like that
- they want to let immature, unprepared, irresponsible people be mamas and papas because they thinking having children is a right... Even if it leads to those children not falling far from the tree.
11 Tips for Young People
Money Basics
With everything I have noted above, how do you envision raising wages in the USA when:
- American consumers love a great value no matter who's job is lost?
- Liberals are happy to flood the service and manufacturing economies with immigrants and illegal workers?
- Liberals and Conservatives keep turning their backs on young children who have really incompetent or incapable mamas / papas?
Now if all the illegal workers in the country were deported... What do you think would happen to wages in the meat processing, food service, cleaning, lawn maintenance, agricultural, etc fields?
Do you think we would exit all those industries or do you think wages would increase until someone decided it was worth doing that job?
And yes some of these are going to continue to be automated...
Some good things to teach kids...
People tend to overestimate the importance of the stock market, and particularly the Dow Jones Industrial Average which tracks only thirty stocks, and is calculated in a very idiosyncratic way. Very few companies raise money in the stock market at any given time.
--Hiram
I don't think we are big fans of illegal immigration. I don't think Republicans are either. But both Democrats and Republicans see advantages to it, which is why our policies in this area are mostly ineffective. And it is a problem that solves itself. Time is not on the side of people who get all wild eyed and hysterical about illegal immigration.
--Hiram
What benefit do DEMs see in illegal immigration?
I mean it is decimating our American low end worker incomes.
What benefit do DEMs see in illegal immigration?
A number of them really. To begin with, we see illegal immigrants as people like any other, but also a group of people vulnerable to exploitation. They are supposed to be our natural constituency. We aren't very interested in defining people in terms of their immigration status. Bear in mind, while their presence in the United States might be illegal, it isn't a crime. Why should we be less concerned with illegal aliens than people who are committing crimes, people who double park, for example?
In political terms, illegal aliens are not isolated from the community at large. They have family members who are citizens and who speak on behalf of their interests. Those voices seem to be heard more in our party than in the Republican Party.
But the fact is, illegal immigration has substantial support in the Republican Party as well.
--Hiram
So in summary, DEMs:
- see them as needing protection, support, handouts, etc
- see them as a way to secure votes
As for your question. Please note that the person who is double parking is not:
- taking a potential legal workers job
- causing downwards wage pressure
- which promotes legal citizens from being employed and paid a living wage
If you doubt this... What do you think would happen in MN if the ~95,000 illegal workers were no longer here?
Now as I have noted, there are Billions of non-Americans in the world who may be better off in America. Do you think Democrats want to allow anyone who shows up on other Southern Border or applies for refugee status to come in?
I truly understand that many bleeding heart folks think of the USA as a big life boat for the world's needy... Same as they think the USA should provide healthcare, food, housing, etc to all unsuccessful people with no requirements. The question is are they even capable of seeing the negative consequences of their actions? (ie high low end unemployment, low wages, etc)
How do DEMs think they will resolve these problems that they are helping to create?
Yes I have acknowledge that their are some GOP folks who have a vested interest in drowning the work force with labor and driving wages down or keeping them down.
That is capitalism... It is the DEMs who keep me confused by wanting the same thing.
Do you think Democrats want to allow anyone who shows up on other Southern Border or applies for refugee status to come in?
No, I don't think that. It's important to keep in mind that so often our reality fails to live up to the extremist, self interested caricature of us. I don't think the views of most democrats on immigration differ much from the views of most Republicans on immigration. You notice that despite all the rhetoric, we aren't getting much closer to building a wall in the Trump administration than we were under President Obama. This, despite the fact that Republicans are in firm control of all three branches of government.
I understand the hard heartedness, the bloodlessness of Republicans. I do respect their eagerness to divide families, to deny children education, to refuse the sick and the infirm at our hospital's doors. These are choices that reflect fundamental values. I just don't happen to share those values, and my vote counts. Not as much as it would count if I lived in Ohio but still.
--Hiram
I guess I would not deem a 49/51 split in the Senate as "firmly in control" of the Legislature. The reality is that the GOP is very constrained in what they can do on their own.
Since your answer is "no", under what circumstances do you think the further Left DEMs would block the "children, infirm, needy, family members, etc" at the border and send them home?
When do you think they support shipping illegal workers home? Please remember that many DEMs were unhappy with Obama's high deportation rate. And then of course we have all the folks setting up sanctuary cities and states to protect these illegal workers from deportation.
It is easy to say the DEMs and GOP both support illegals, however their actions seem very different to me.
Please remember this post is about how to help more legal American's earn, save and invest more?
And I am pretty sure that there is no doubt that having ~11,000,000 illegal workers in the country is putting downward pressure on wages.
Sanctuary cities are not designed to prevent people from getting deported; they are designed to prevent people from getting exploited and victimized.
Sean,
Don't kid yourself... If every illegal worker was sent home, there would be no one to "exploit and victimize"...
The reality is that the Liberals in these cities are against dividing families, denying children education, treating the sick and the infirm, saving people from going home to their struggling home country, etc.
This is what soft hearted people do and it is not a bad thing necessarily. Except that it has many negative consequences for our low income citizens and those who it encourages to risk their lives to come here.
"If every illegal worker was sent home, there would be no one to "exploit and victimize"..."
That's not going to happen, so leave fantasyland and join us in the real world where we have to make real decisions.
Why will it "NEVER HAPPEN"? I am pretty sure we could deport the vast majority or encourage them to self deport if many folks weren't about giving them sanctuary.
Sanctuary defined...
A sanctuary is a place where people who are in danger from other people can go to be safe. His church became a sanctuary for thousands of people who fled the civil war.
From MP Approval Ratings
"Conservative justice: To many of us, suggests; you get justice if you are born, white, male, hetero-sexual and reasonably well off. Good old Sheriff Joe Arpaio was the poster child for "conservative justice".
How do our personal values align with the goal of America? refresher, its the "Preamble". We don't get to chose our own preamble, just like we don't get to chose what parts of the constitution are applicable. As we get wiser about our world shouldn't we adjust accordingly? We don't burn witches at the stake anymore, at least some of us.
"Liberalism": is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality.
First derivative: Liberals are proud to believe in "All men are created equal" no matter, race, religion, national origin, or sexual orientation. Seems to very clearly support "We the people" "in order to form a more perfect union"
Seems liberalism is a "We" perspective, where conservatism is a "me" perspective. We'll leave the rest for now." Dennis W
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
I am pretty sure both Liberals and Conservatives fully support "The Preamble". How to "Promote the General Welfare" seems to be where the perspectives vary greatly.
As for people who entered the country illegally or over stayed their Visa, and are now working jobs that legal American workers could be doing... Thus putting downward pressure on wages and contributing to the high unemployment rate within certain segments of Americans. That is a good example.
Is allowing illegal workers to come and stay in the USA good for the general welfare of American citizens? Does it support tranquility or justice?
Please remember there are supposedly ~95,000 illegal workers in MN. What do you think would happen to wages, minority unemployment rates, etc if they were not here?" G2A
"Why will it "NEVER HAPPEN"?"
Because the American people will never accept what it would take to make that happen -- which would be a door-to-door search of every home, school, church, and place of employment in this country.
And you clearly you have no idea what a sanctuary city is. Thousands of people get deported from sanctuary cities every year.
The definition seems pretty clear...
A sanctuary city is a city that limits its cooperation with the national government effort to enforce immigration law. ... Opponents of sanctuary cities argue that cities should assist the federal government in enforcing immigration law.
I don't think we would need to go house to house... Enforce employment law, block their children from attending US schools, deport them after they get medical assistance, give them no benefits, etc and I think the vast majority would leave pretty quick.
Of course if Local and State officials decide to provide people who are here illegally all the same benefits as they do legal citizens.
And worse yet they choose to release them instead of holding them for ICE... Removing all illegal residents and workers will "BE IMPOSSIBLE"...
"Of course if Local and State officials decide to provide people who are here illegally all the same benefits as they do legal citizens."
But they don't.
Oh come now... Maybe not All, but a great many...
California Expands Benefits
Well at least they apparently did not give them Medicaid.
Apparently they can get welfare though.
"Oh come now... Maybe not All, but a great many..."
That's only in California, and it's still far from having the same status as a citizen.
"Apparently they can get welfare though."
Read carefully. The welfare is for citizen children of undocumented parents.
It is to bad we didn't have that wall and extreme enforcement decades ago...
Then things would not be so screwed up today...
However the longer we wait the more mixed families we create...
"Then things would not be so screwed up today..."
Yeah, our society has really been ruined by the El Salvadorian refugees avoiding a dysfunctional country (that we largely broke during the Reagan years, by the way). If only John Ashcroft wasn't such a squish, right?
Well hopefully those ~250,000 deportees can go home and help straighten their country out after us giving them refuge for so long.
I found this interesting "MS-13 is strongest in Central America, especially El Salvador. But the gang actually began in Los Angeles in the 1980s, during another wave of Salvadoran migration. Analysts say its offshoots in Central America took hold when members were deported by the US.
Immigrant rights groups say it's misleading to use MS-13 as an excuse for any crackdown and note that many of the gang's victims are immigrants."
As for Reagan and Central America... I know nothing and this indicates that there were pros and cons.
Yep. MS-13 started 20 years before the 2001 TPS. Your point?
No point. Just thought it was interesting that it started in LA...
Too bad their are so many Americans willing to pay for drugs.
Maybe that's Reagan's fault also...
"Well hopefully those ~250,000 deportees can go home and help straighten their country out after us giving them refuge for so long."
It's fascinating the way we treat these folks, who have put down roots and paid taxes here versus how we treat corporations who offshore jobs and try to avoid paying taxes here. We're kicking out the people who want to be part of America.
Same old question...
There are maybe 3 Billion people in the world who want to put down roots and pay taxes here... Where do you want to draw the line?
Now if we fortify our border and ensure ZERO people can enter illegally, I am fine with pardoning all past transgressors and giving them citizenship.
Until then we can not promote illegal immigration efforts / hope by rewarding those who have or will do it.
It is like telling everyone...
We really don't want you to break into our house...
But if you do we will forgive you and give you $100,000...
Of course people will risk a lot to get into your house...
These people are already here and following the laws. Why throw their lives and their communities into chaos now?
Then let the Democrats negotiate with Trump.
The wall and enhanced security for pardons...
These poor folks aren't bargaining chips, they're people.
Now that is the most naïve statement I have heard today.
Here is an interesting piece.
"A group of Democrats are arguing to hold firm on DACA because if things collapse, they would hopefully win the House and have more leverage in 2019. That's an argument GOP lawmakers who want a deal are making to Trump to convince him he has maximum leverage now that will wane."
WAPO Link
"Democrats in Congress, dismayed but unsurprised by a White House decision to unwind legal status for 800,000 immigrants who arrived in America as children, are approaching it as a political opportunity — a chance for the minority party to get a bill it wants, not one favored by most Republicans."
A different way of asking... What value would you put on giving these folks long term protection.
$18,000,000,000 / 800,000 DACA Folks = $22,500 per person
Is this a good deal or not?
Plus the fact that we will have fewer border incursions... And less smuggling.
"Now that is the most naïve statement I have heard today."
As usual, you have lost the plot. The reason we are in this situation is because of actions taken by Donald Trump. Democrats were fine with the status quo. It is Donald Trump who has leveraged these peoples' lives. So spare me the sanctimonious BS.
A choice politicians often face is, do you want the policy or the issue? The answer to that question depends on a lot of factors. Democrats, perhaps too optimistically, expect big wins in the 2018 election. That being the case, they aren't under a lot of pressure now to make deals that would help Republicans now. That's even more the case with things like DACA where they have considerable under the table Republican support which assures us that nothing much will happen soon.
I view this as a form of the Garland rule which provides that Republicans stop doing their job during the last quarter of their terms of office.
--Hiram
Sean,
Holding DACA and Other Temporary Status folks in Purgatory indefinitely by a President's whim is not a good answer either. At least Trump is forcing the Legislature to deal with the issues.
Now if he can force them to deal with looming entitlement disaster. Or do you want to try and put that off to?
Hiram,
Both sides are happy to screw us as long as it can be blamed on the other side, rally the base, win more votes than it loses and bring in donor funds...
That is a problem with our 2 party adversarial system and with our citizen groups growing further and further apart.
As I have said, this should be a simple negotiation...
Money for Citizenship path...
However the DEM base will be angry if the border is beefed up.
The GOP base will be angry if we pardon people and give them citizenship.
"At least Trump is forcing the Legislature to deal with the issues."
If the legislature wasn't taking action on these folks, maybe they didn't think there was a problem? Just a thought...
"Now if he can force them to deal with looming entitlement disaster. Or do you want to try and put that off to?"
I'm fine with addressing any major issue. But that doesn't mean I have to accept bad solutions.
"However the DEM base will be angry if the border is beefed up."
I don't think that's true. There's actually broad support among Democrats for trying to limit illegal immigration, just not Trump's Wall-based vision of how to achieve it.
Today's White House meeting on immigration was fascinating. This is supposed to be his signature issue. This is what he staked his campaign upon from the moment he descended the Trump Tower escalator in June 2015. And what does he say? He'll sign anything Congress puts in front of him, or "I will be signing it. I’m not gonna say, ‘Oh, gee, I want this or I want that.’ I’ll be signing it." if you want the verbatim version. It's just bizarre to have a President who has no ideas of his own about policy.
I don't know if it is bizarre after 25+ years of dealing with upper level narcissistic managers... Often they see a problem and push on their employees to give them solutions.
And we all know that 5 minutes after signing it Trump will be bashing people randomly for it "not being good enough"... He does like to play the victim...
As for "bad solutions", often I would prefer a bad solution to someone keeping their head buried in the sand as dune buggy approaches...
Or maybe a better visual is the GOP and DEMs playing tug of war across a railroad track as the train approaches.
How can one negotiate if one doesn't know what one is talking about, though? You can't do give-and-take on policy if you don't understand the policy.
He really does not need to know the policy details...
He relies on the GOP Congress Critters to "get the best deal"...
All the while harassing both sides to get moving...
I have run many process improvement projects where I knew little about the process... My job was to drive collaboration between subject matter experts and keep them moving.
"He relies on the GOP Congress Critters to "get the best deal"..."
But he's supposed to be the one with the negotiating skills. That's what he ran on. It's fascinating how the bar just keeps getting moved to excuse this nonsense.
Post a Comment