>our economic models say we need more immigrants to keep the economy growing
pretty sure i identified a fundamental flaw in economics. they treat everyone equally. they say that we need more people to keep the economy growing but we dont need any more spics cutting lawns. that's not what they're trying to say. what they really want is more white people to grow the economy because in their models a white person is the same as a dirty spic or some knuckle-dragging african.
the message has been perverted by politicians to bring in as many people as possible from anywhere in the world because "the economists told us!" but the reality is that you're not going to grow a fucking economy by bringing in niggers that were sitting on their asses in the desert hitting sticks together last year. that doesnt make sense to anyone. that's why economics is flawed at its core.
here's how it should be for white collar labor and asians should be changed to .8 if we are going to do blue collar labor
until economists factor something like this in to their equations they cannot be taken seriously. all labor is not created equally.
lets say my above labor productivity categories are true. that means if you bring in 2 niggers you would get less than one job done but the niggers will eat up the resources of 2 people.
think about this shit guys. economics is built in a foundation of sand.
no they don't, because a vast majority of people do not want to compete with third worlders for their jobs, services and living spaces.the only reason they arrive at all is because the system is so massively unbalanced.
Lucas Bennett
>automation is the future >bring in more unskilled ppl that will be replaced my automation >this will make our economies grow >leftist logic
>>they treat everyone equally the point is 1 person /= 1 labor but economists see 1 person = 1 labor. see my labor productivity table above to get a better sense of what i mean.
Christian James
>Nigger is still considered positive for a society in this model
Adrian Sanders
Everyone except White males are negative labor.
Landon Bailey
>economics is built in a foundation of sand. Check your premises.
Interviewer: "It seems that intellectuals pushing government control are malicious."
Hayek: "The resistance against being guided by something that is unintelligible to them is, I think, quite understandable in an intellectual. Go back to the origin of it all: DESCARTES of course explicitly argued only that we should not believe anything which we did not understand. But his followers immediately applied it to we should not accept any rules which we did not understand. And the intellectual has very strongly feeling that what is not comprehensible must be nonsense. And to him the rules he's required to obey are unintelligible and therefore nonsense. He defines rational almost as intelligible, and anything which is not intelligible to him is automatically irrational, and he's opposed to it."
so what you are saying is that we need a million new workers, but we need to bring in 2.5 million africans to cover it?
sounds good desu senpai
James Myers
and they'll cost you twice the resources
Josiah Thompson
Bump for visibility Where are all the smart ass economists?
Henry Ortiz
thanks for the bump m8. i probably need to refine my thoughts on this before anyone really pays attention. economists really do need to take a good hard look at themselves if they want to build accurate models of the economy. if not dividing by race they should at least find a way to create classes of people that are less productive than others because anyone that has worked with a nigger knows first-hand that they do half the work of the average white person. so when nigger unemployment goes down you're not increasing the productivity of your economy as much as when white unemployment goes down.
Andrew Williams
>Where are all the smart ass economists? >accurate models of the economy
*Macro...although marxo about sums it up if we are looking from the Keynesian perspective
Kayden Jackson
>GUUUHUUU HUUU HUUU HUUUUU STOP OBLITERATING MY CRINGY ANTI-WHITE IDEOLOGY HUU HUU HUUUUUUUUU
Joseph Wright
>our economic models say we need more immigrants to keep the economy growing Literally no economic model says this.
Logan King
Oh, you would be surprised. That's factually not true. If we are dealing with an aging, shrinking population but would like to grow the economy, what, according to modern Keynesians of post Keynesians or however they are calling themselves, should we do?
Camden Thomas
>user if you are serious about it then read maxro economics 101 first. WRONG
What you need to do is read Human Action. First chapter is theory, rest is applied.
You'll realize how many fallacies you believe.
Or, read a normie Macro book. Without retards, there are no non-retards.
Jacob Watson
>You'll realize how many fallacies you believe. like what?
James Davis
Some jobs are not cost effective to automate.
Alexander Mitchell
>>Wrong >>Or read normie macro book The same thing that I recommend and yet I'm wrong? How so user?
Leo Nelson
Keynesians are all about artificially increasing demand through extending credit. Keynes doesn't even talk about immigration that much, in fact he was for strict immigration.
It is the politicians who are claiming that immigration will somehow save the doomed western civilization, not economic theories.
Ian Torres
but this thinking is not being practiced by any mainstream economists, correct?
Zachary Perry
Correct. I'm actually surprised to see this kind of study published anywhere.
>economics treats ppl equally That's like saying that chemistry treats all atoms equally.
Economics is the study of exchange. It makes no moral judgements.
Oliver Young
>but this thinking is not practiced by the mainstream That's because, largely, the mainstream is not thinking. And to the extent they are thinking, their thinking is "what should I say to get what I want?"
Justin Baker
>but this thinking is not being practiced by any mainstream economists, correct?
". Education, whatever benefits it may confer, is transmission of traditional doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces imitation and routine, not improvement and progress." -Mises, Human Action
Nolan Taylor
>So... 2/5ths now? well i'm just spitballing to make the overall point that all labor is not equal. in many ways employing niggers could be net negative productivity in which case my .4 labor productivity assessment is extremely generous.
Ryan Moore
I actually did, because he has absolutely no clue what he is talking about. In the other hand your approach seems better. Harder, but better. Maybe let's start him with a Wikipedia article? I'm all for starting slow to not completely discourage people. The Keynesian economics truly has nothing to do with Keynes, or little to do, that's true. It's not that the economic theories don't talk about immigrants as means of boosting economies, it's that economists do. Especially the wonderful undereducated IMF ones. Look here: nber.org/papers/w12736 (Feldstein), surprisingly advocates what? I'm actually being half serious here. A lot of economists came out against the increased immigration, unfortunately too late. Also quite a few of them advocated for the increase in it in the early 2000's
Jace Davis
Mises on retards: "Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term and not only in the legal sense) are practically not human."
Asher Russell
>>it makes no moral judgements It tries not to, but very often, in practice, economist push a stupid agenda just so they can pat themselves on the back and look good. So in that way, they do morally reprimand entire countries and economies.
>". Education, >whatever benefits it may confer, is transmission of traditional >doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces >imitation and routine, not improvement and progress." >-Mises, Human Action so what's your point here?
Blake Hughes
>maybe you did it better >I'm all for starting slow to not completely discourage people. I gave him the chapter on Entrepreneurs, is a good read.
>Maybe let's start him with a Wikipedia article? Probably good.
IMO understanding that money is a good will help- countering the 'people use fiat on fait' tripe.
I also think, and I'm not sure where to find it, that without inflation people would stop buying indefinitely.
Colton Barnes
>why shouldn't I attend Uni to become a technician practicing as the state demands?
Leo Evans
Immigration per se is not objectively negative, immigration can be positive for a society. The argument that uncontrolled immigration of low skilled workers from the third world would somehow same the European welfare system is at best a misunderstanding and at worst a plot to ruin Europe. Anyone who read one Econ 101 book can figure out that does not work. It's often times political rather than economic. The problem is easily solved and it's not through migration.
Anthony Howard
>economists push moral judgments I'm only saying that economics is judgement free.
"While to the Nazi the communist, and to the communist the Nazi, and to both the socialist, are potential recruits who are made of the right timber, although they have listened to false prophets, they both know that there can be no compromise between them and those who really believe in individual freedom." -Hayek, Road to Serfdom
Lincoln Harris
>economist push a stupid agenda They're simply tools of the state, doing as the state says.
Just as psychology, as practiced, is not a real science, neither is economics are practiced. It's simply state propaganda for state actions.
Easton Perez
i fully support the notion that level of education is not a good measure of productivity. i have an advanced degree and i've seen plenty of people that wear their education on their sleeve like it's somehow a measure of work ethic or intelligence. i feel like it means even less today now that basically everyone has at least a bachelors degree.
but how does this fit in to the overall discussion that 1 person /= 1 labor?
Wyatt Myers
>but how does this fit in to the overall discussion that 1 person /= 1 labor? I was addressing (but this thinking is not being practiced by any mainstream economists, correct?) this, in the case you were concerned about state approval.
>but how does this fit in to the overall discussion that 1 person /= 1 labor?
So far as you can measure productivity, you're right saying that productivity increases more when a White is employed than a Black.
That said, the absence of context is economic proclamations (look, less unemployment!) is cancer.
Just like Jordan Peterson saying that SSRIs work- they 'work' insofar as they have a positive effect in one regard, albeit at a cost, and it's important to remain mindful of this cost.
I just saw it. It's actually a very good read. And reminded me of mises.org.Nothing crazy and easy (relatively ) read. I like the basics of the terms. Like what is fiat and how is it created and then the detail. Here's something that will explain some basic terms of money, and exchange and goods. There are a few ways to look into it, bit some are not what I subscribe to, so you will have to get it from other anons. Austrian school of Economics,
Agreed completely As I said before, I'm half joking, half serious. Economics do not pass judgment, economists do. Again. Agreed. So nice to once in a while be able to agree with everyone in the thread. (I probably jinxed it now) That little study that I linked kind of agrees with you. I would say, go for it. It sounds very vague for me to have an opinion on it. Also, why would you want to prove this point? To improve on current models? To figure out a way to point it to the economists and tell them where they are wrong? 1 persons productivity=/ other person's productivity, that's why the economists work on bid datasets. To figure how much on average in an average country 1 person produces in a given year.
Blake Phillips
>So nice to once in a while be able to agree with everyone in the thread.
I can't have this. Here.
Return of the Planners: Transgenders and NatSocs While transgenderism is understood as a person's unease with their biological gender, pursued physical remediation's near-complete inability to quell said unease indicates that physical appearance and hormonal physiology are non-factors in transgenderism.
Just as NatSocs intended to suit their environments to themselves instead of themselves to their environment, transgenders attempt the same. For male-to-female transgenders, given contradictory instructions and scolded without explanation, they chooses to limit both their accountability and their societal pressure to be "the deciders," by identifying as female.
The following quote describes Britain eroding competition (liberty) in favor of a new ideal- planning. I changed 2 words:
1. competition to liberty, since competition is a stand-in for the actions of free peoples.
2. planning to transgenderism, since transgenderism is the type of planning to which I refer.
"The modern movement for p̶l̶a̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ TRANSGENDERISM is a movement against c̶o̶m̶p̶e̶t̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ LIBERTY, a new flag under which all the old enemies of c̶o̶m̶p̶e̶t̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ LIBERTY have railed.
And although all sorts of (((interests))) are now trying to re-establish under this flag privileges which the liberal era swept away, it is socialist propaganda for p̶l̶a̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ TRANSGENDERISM which has restored to respectability among liberal-minded people opposition to c̶o̶m̶p̶e̶t̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ LIBERTY, and which has effectively lulled the healthy suspicion which any attempt to smother c̶o̶m̶p̶e̶t̶i̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ LIBERTY used to arouse."
Robert Edwards
Also this there are variables that you have to consider if you are honest. Variables that won't necessarily validate your assertion. Someone also already pointed out that if you think that productivity(you call it labor)is a problem and you postulate that 1 white person =2 blacks, then instead of importing 1 million blacks, the politicians will import 2 million blacks. Variable called - labor cost is very important here.
Shit user I actually agree with that. As far as I'm concerned and some of the research is concerned being transgender is a choice. And forcing the society to accept you as a female, after trying the Male version is nothing short of deliberate planning. I mean this isn't some mutilation that one is born with and needs to get rid of in order to survive/ or reproduce. This is a choice, again, based on research, that can be influenced heavily by the environment and is almost non existent to the environment that is void of transgender persons. Now, National Socialism. I know that there are some people that believe that this system promotes freedom and happiness and the free-fish market and nothing could be further from truth. Socialism=Collecticism=Strong Overseeing Authority=Redustribution of Equalitybof Otcome=-Growth of Overseeing Authority=Authoritarian, big Government=Servitude to the State= No liberty.
Luke Adams
Hayek on the hubris of intellectuals:
"The resistance against being guided by something that is unintelligible to them is, I think, quite understandable in an intellectual. Go back to the origin of it all: Descartes of course explicitly argued only that we should not believe anything which we did not understand. But his followers immediately applied it to we should not accept any rules which we did not understand. And the intellectual has very strongly feeling that what is not comprehensible must be nonsense. And to him the rules he's required to obey are unintelligible and therefore nonsense. He defines rational almost as intelligible, and anything which is not intelligible to him is automatically irrational, and he's opposed to it."
Connor Wright
>Also, why would you want to prove this point? because i often hear arguments for increased immigration being tied to the security of the economy. therefore economists are operating under the assumption that increasing the population will lead to increased productivity and increased growth. my assumption is that they dont account for different groups of people being less productive than the existing population, or possibly even counterproductive at worst.
then aside from immigration, i dont think that economists are able to present an accurate picture of the economy without measuring productivity across races.
Ayden Parker
>>Descartes Gets me every time. I actually tried to adhere to his beliefs and found out that in this age of light fast information it's impossible, not if someone tries to stay informed or God forbid relevant in the academia. The sheer amount of information will cause any individual to accept some "truths" as the ones that one understood, without actually understanding them. I really tried, bit for example I don't believe in global warming. Partially I know why(problem with their data collection mostly and some of the bigger scandals that popped up) bit I know that I don't know enough to argue with even semi knowledgeable eco terrorist. In that way I'm being dishonest. I actually don't have the time to get honest about this debate and refuse to let go of my ego long enough to simply say: I don't know lol
Aiden Rivera
>As far as I'm concerned and some of the research is concerned being transgender is a choice. IMO the inability to check one's emotional premises holds them back. >but gays are born this way I agree with "heavily influenced by the environment." Single factor thinking prevents people from realizing this. >but I never consciously chose to be gay They assume that their values don't contribute. >instinct Just another false god.
If you agree again, Imma post my thought on IP rights.
>Socialism == No liberty. Agreed.
Consider the perversion of language: Trudeau explaining why outlawing criticism of Islam is good: "Those of us lucky enough to benefit from Canadian liberty's many blessings need to be strong and confident custodians of its character- inclusive freedom, expansive freedom. That is the Canadian idea of liberty- the idea that the liberty of all is enhanced when new freedoms are granted to individuals." >the liberty of all is enhanced when new freedoms are granted to individuals
Makes me sick.
Parker Wilson
>Someone also already pointed out that if you think that productivity(you call it labor)is a problem and you postulate that 1 white person =2 blacks, then instead of importing 1 million blacks, the politicians will import 2 million blacks. >Variable called - labor cost is very important here. this is my point. if you have to hire two niggers for a job that could be performed by one white person that hinders a business's ability to grow and spread that across tens of thousands of businesses and that impacts the economy's ability to grow.
and you can't say the labor cost of two niggers would equal the pay of 1 white guy because that's not how it works in the real world. in the real world the white guy makes a buck or two more per hour than each nigger.
Carter Hughes
>>economists are operating under the assumption that increasing the population will lead to increased productivity Not really, these are the politicians that I actually have no clue why, want migrants. Economists, even in Sweden ran their numbers and concluded that migrants are a net cost to the country, not gain. The problem is that they get ignored for these opinions and promotes for the ones that align with the government. Which you can deduct, leads where? In any case I understand what you are saying and also am of the opinion that the all colors of refugees are a net drag to economy. Also if you think about the labor market like an exchange of goods between many vendors instead of people offering other people jobs, you can see that some people(let's call them subset X) offer their skills and numbers while some other people(Y) offer money or other goods for their service. Now if the number of X is larger than the number of Y, what happens? If the number of X is smaller than Y, what happens? From here you can imagine any situation, like what has to be done if Y needs a skill Z from the X, but there are only few X's with this particular skill Z. Are they willing to pay more or less for this particular X? And so on and so forth.
Michael Young
>tried to stay informed on all I don't blame you, considering the left's tools are that of a lawyer: overwhelm your opposition with nonsense until they're overwhelmed.
>climate change Funny that anyone needs to defend their disbelief in GOVERNMENT SCIENCE. >scandals, data collection In the little I argue about climate change, my 'antic,' while perhaps dumb, is to concede the data but ask if they really believe government can fix any problem, especially one without data to prove anything.
>eco terrorist. In that way I'm being dishonest Remember that their data is government propaganda, and that without honesty, intelligence is worthless.
Everyone knows that third world 70IQ people come to first world countries on welfare. Everyone knows they destroy social cohesion and vote based on tribal identity. This stuff is excluded from all calculations.
Remember GDP = C + I + G + X - M. The important ones here are C (consumer spending) and G (government spending).
Whenever economists talk about how immigration leads to growth, they’re counting that increase in government spending. They’re counting on the fact that banks give them a credit card and an auto loan. They’re counting on the fact that their kids become worthless iphag drones.
Look, we have had mass immigration for fifty years. Sure enough the numbers are bigger. But are we better off? Nobody below the 90th percentile would say so, and this was doctrinaire liberal thinking for decades... until people started saying mass immigration is one reason for the widening inequality.
Parker Butler
>economy needs to grow ask people why when they start bullshitting, spit in their face and walk off that's what I do /shrugs
Liam Rogers
>>Those of us lucky enough to benefit from Canadian liberty's many blessings need to be strong and confident custodians of its character- Appeal to emotions and the need to be a whole and worthy human being aka guilt based manipulation(very prevalent amongst psychopats) It's essentially an emotional blackmail dressed as logic. No logic here because of absolutisms (need, must) also an appeal to what is strong and confident as a matter of his personal opinion, now presented as a generally accepted truth. And people want to be strong and confident of course. Disgusting form of manipulation of language. Crafty though. >>inclusive freedom, expansive freedom. Statements, completely meaningless. >>the Canadian idea of liberty- the idea that the liberty of all is enhanced when new freedoms are granted to individuals. True when taken out of context, aka objective truth or truism actually It's obvious that the liberty grows when new freedoms are granted to individuals. The logical part that is missing >>all individuals
But in context it's a complete lie: He means granting the chosen few individuals the new freedoms. I started to write a formula and realized that my brain froze from not sleeping, so I will just write: essentially he is proposing to substract freedoms from one group in order to add freedoms to another and advertising it as a freedom net gain. When in reality is a freedom net LOSS. Sleazy but crafty. And I agree it's sickening
Luke Morales
This is how 'muh GDP' sounds to me: "you'll be heavier if you drink this poison" It really is that simple.
Sebastian Martin
as if an aging population is bad.
>when they die off, more living space becomes available >less youth, so much houses remain unsold. lowering the prices. >alot of jobs become available >lower housing prices causes the new generation to get a good start to get a job and build a family >build a family, so your children can inherit OR buy these unsold houses when they grow up >unsold houses are now all sold, prices rise again. >aging population >rinse and repeat.
this is the very reason why we are memed by our parents generation to get out and get our own place by the age of 18-20, yet they do not know THEY are the last generation that could (majorly) afford this.
No, they want more cheap labor. what you are witnessing is imperialism
Brody Evans
Agreed. And as I said if you wrote it down as a model, aka using simple mathematics then you will be able to see that it's possible for Blacks or immigrants to be a net loss for the economy as a whole. I'm pretty sure that a lot of economists share your view as far as macroeconomic s go. The homogeneity of a society and a shared culture is more important to productivity than the color to be honest, in my opinion at least. Culture and common values keep people more productive. Case in point the US in 50's and 60's. Not as fast growing as now but the unemployment amongst Blacks(and single mother families) were low and the cohisevnes of culture kept the country going. Then in 1964 >>war on poverty happen. And you know what happened? The family structure started to fall apart, especially in colored households. The result is after this many years of this meme war, the crime rates the alienation from society rates and the unemployment and the violent crime rates all but eliminate Black Americans from the US, culturally. So that war should be called war on culture, more than anything else. The immigration, especially when there is unemployment still present in the population of the natives is completely unnecessary and hurtful to the host country.
Brandon Gutierrez
>he is proposing to substract freedoms from one group in order to add freedoms to another and advertising it as a freedom net gain. When in reality is a freedom net LOSS. Exactly. >crafty Should be obvious.
They wanted (introduced the idea in our legislature) of a $180B 'infrastructure bank' to help (unions and government friends) realize gains in hard economic environments.
Given that our government possesses no special ability/knowledge to decrease the cost or increase the success of these projects, they're (in the open!) saying they want to use government money to pay their friends/voters/lobbyists. It's all so tiresome.
I prefer Trudeau senior, in response to 'terrorists.' "It is more important to keep law and order in this society than to be worried about bleeding hearts who don't like the look of men with guns. Go on and bleed."
I have never heard a reason why, for example, Japan’s shrinking economy and population is a bad thing. There’s still tons of Japanese people. It’s still a wealthy country with a high standard of living, low crime, and with people who understand and strengthen their social norms.
Indeed I remember reading about how those tiny islands were overpopulated.
Nobody at that time thought they needed to be full of Muslims and Africans.
Jonathan Myers
> Economists, even in Sweden ran their numbers and concluded that migrants are a net cost to the country, not gain This is wrong and is not what the study actually concluded. I'll link the study and cite sentences from it to show how you're wrong. To begin with, the study isn't about migrants (note that migrants is an umbrella term for sub-groups of people entering a country) it's specifically about refugees who've applied for asylum here in Sweden as evidenced by this sentence:
"The study also forecasts the effects of current refugee immigration on current and future Swedish public finances."
Secondly the conclusion of the study is that specifically refugees have a net fiscal impact on public finances. This doesn't mean that it's an net negative for the economy, it simply means that tax revenue versus the tax expenditure comes up short as evidenced by this paragraph:
"The results show that refugee immigration has a negative fiscal impact, both in the short and the long run. The cost is highest in the first few years after immigration. Over a certain part of their time in Sweden, the average refugee makes a positive net fiscal contribution, yet not large enough to cover the initial deficit, and the deficit that appears later as they reach retirement age."
>>the left's tools are that of a lawyer: overwhelm your opposition with nonsense until they're overwhelmed. Completely true. There is no way to keep up while also think about what we are consuming. Only a passing thought now and then. Bit AI think in a longer run it leads to consolidation of peoples own beliefs. People build core beliefs and then associate the knew "knowledge" with these beliefs or reject the knowledge based on these. So that creates more polarized society, that doesn't understand by and large what its fed, but believes that it's right. That's a dangerous road to follow. And I have a feeling that we are about to see the end of it. This. And, again, I agree. The labor force from outside of host country should be allowed when the country lacks a a particular skill, that is not easily trained and is new That's why I'm not opposed in theory to H1B aka worker visas in the US. But these, of course are abused by the companies in order to lower the cost. So obviously the system is not working.
Carter Myers
>It’s still a wealthy country with a high standard of living, low crime, and with people who understand and strengthen their social norms. Perhaps Europeans were too welcoming, too willing to change too much too fast. But then consider Japanese wages- they too followed Keynsian 'thinking.' I remember watching a Jap say that their situation (which they still have) is that too many people were saving at the same time...he neglected to mention that people had not stopped consuming...as though consumption and production independent.
Jace Ramirez
>>I have never heard a reason why, for example, Japan’s shrinking economy and population is a bad thing Oh but ai will tell you user >>DEFLATION >>b-but why is it ba- >>DEFLATION >>Ok I can hear you, but what's bad about de- >>DEFLATION This is about how it goes. >>We are the government and we are here to help OUR BUDDIES at least they didn't come to you and offered their help. Joking, of course. I live next to New Orleans, Louisiana. In the neighboring, Republican run parish(county). There is a particular road to the commie run city that is a perfect illustration how the bribe and coercion based economic policies don't work. The road is painted and straight with no potholes exactly to the demarcation line, the demarcation line is actually an across the road wide pothole, kind of natural -is speed bump. And New Orleans is the only city in the world that DARES you to do the speed limit. 2 years ago the city spent around 10 million dollars to hire a "company" to map the potholes. Mind you, not to mend them, just map them. There probably isn't a street without one on the entire parish. Also that's just the immediate and visible problems.
Adam Smith
>People build core beliefs and then associate the knew "knowledge" with these beliefs or reject the knowledge based on these. One might say "A Fatal Conceit."
>And I have a feeling that we are about to see the end of it.
Trump Derangement Syndrome showed me the extent to which people have abandoned their minds.
Sadly, I agree that the end is near...riots, surveillance, who knows...
"It is then the man or the party who seems strong and resolute enough to get things done" who exercises the greatest appeal. It is here that the new type of party, organised on military lines, comes in."
"Few discoveries are more irritating than those which expose the pedigree of ideas." -Acton
Caleb Jenkins
I bet OP is the same type of guy who will squeeze lemon juice on his face and rob a bank.
>our economic models say we need more immigrants to keep the economy growing Which economic model says we need more immigrants to keep the economy growing?
> they treat everyone equally. Who the fuck are they? Economist? If so which economist? Name them or demonstrate there is a consensus among economist on the supposed need for immigrants to keep the economic growing.
>but the reality is that you're not going to grow a fucking economy by bringing in niggers that were sitting on their asses in the desert hitting sticks together last year. Yeah because this is obviously representative of what black people are doing in the U.S & Europe right?
>until economists factor something like this in to their equations they cannot be taken seriously. all labor is not created equally. Who says economist don't already factor this? Here is the most basic explanation for a dumb fuck like yourself who doesn't understand what is meant by productivity. oecd.org/sdd/productivity-stats/40526851.pdf
Leo Gutierrez
>Asian 1.2 labor More like 1.2 corruption and real estate fraud
Mason Morales
Before I respond fully could you make sure that this is the right translation? >>Employment is defined as an annual income that is higher than 40 per cent of the median income of 20-50-year-old native men in the same year.
And if it is, does it mean that of the government Grant's the immigrants the money, and enough of it to qualify as employment, then officially they are going to be employed without actually working, but taking the welfare money from the government?
Leo Wood
Green text malfunction Sorry >>Employment is defined as an annual income that is higher than 40 per cent of the median income of 20-50-year-old native men in the same year.
Ryder Jackson
>at least they didn't come to you and offered their help Reagan had decent bantz.
>bribe and coercion based economic policies don't work. Funny to expect accountibility from criminals (commies).
>>>>>>rarely find those with whom I, as a rational person, agree Here, or in general? I used to find rationality in Jow Forumslibertarian, then Jow ForumsanarchoCapitalism, but both have put emotion before action, instead of the other way around.
And I've tried 8ch, but they delete my posts...seems I'm not allowed to, even indirectly and only partially, defend Jews.
Is Jow Forums, whelp, the height of rationality on the internet?
Leo Martinez
It is interesting to watch those mainly on the Left argue for mass immigration into the West and when pressed for a reason they cite for work/labor purposes.
>user: Why should we have mass immigration? >Left: We need more people to do the jobs that Americans are too lazy to do. >user: So you want to import non-white laborers from the 3rd world to do low skill low wage labor jobs for the "lazy Americans"?
>libs not realizing that all, except White males, cost more than they earn
And regarding race, they support state racism (making you fund those who hurt you), while objecting to personal discrimination.
Gavin Sanchez
>40 per cent of the median income of 20-50-year-old native men in the same year. Yes that is a correct translation. Income is qualified as salary, unemployment benefits, healthcare benefits, family benefits, pension, activity benefits from the Försäkringskassan, income from a personally owned company, income from sold property, rent and dividends.
>And if it is, does it mean that of the government Grant's the immigrants the money, and enough of it to qualify as employment, then officially they are going to be employed without actually working, but taking the welfare money from the government? This sentence is barely coherent. Rephrase the sentence, because I can only guess what you're asking me is if welfare is considered an income or if the government can cheat the system and make it seem like they're employed. If those are the questions then yes to the first one and no to the second. Having 40% of the median income of 20-50 year old natives is not enough for you to be considered employed thought. All it says is that it's considered proper employment if you make that much from your employment.
Isaiah Flores
This was for you
Christopher Lewis
>>Is Jow Forums, whelp, the height of rationality on the internet? It appears so, although I wouldn't recommend defending the Jooo, here neither. No ban though, so if taking the hear for it doesn't bother you, you will be completely fine here, where as in other places the disagreement will wield you the b& hammer. >>Jow Forumslibertarian, then Jow ForumsanarchoCapitalism, but both have put emotion before action, instead of the other way around. This I can't argue with at all. What the Libertarian party is doing now, here is beyond suicidal. They seem to be pondering to the left and their social agenda, along with the rabbit hatred of Trump. I'm a registered Libertarian and I will drop it, because I can't subscribe to this emotional screeching and the idealistic(read simplistic) thinking. It's beginning to get tiresome. I can't listen to podcasts that I enjoyed before because instead of the policy they discuss the character and the implications of said character of the president of the US. And tend to concentrate on this particular subject. Gone are the times of judging people based on their deeds, we now judge people based on their character. A very interesting shift, indeed. So in order to get my news I come to pol/ read the Trumps superlatives, then fo to the other chanels(Reason.com amongst them) and read what he did wrong. Then I can make up my mind of what happened. >>rarely agree I'm fortunate enough irl to be married to a rational human being, but that's 1 person I can discuss things with. The rest, not so much and not in this atmosphere. I find rational people on pol/ almost every day, but mostly educate and argue some moot points desu. Haha
Gavin Wilson
>economy can be improved >by cost > payment of refugees What does 'improved' mean? How to improve when refugees have a net cost to the country?
Levi Stewart
Economists are truly the biggest fucking retards on the planet and should be gassed. It's a hoax "profession".
Leo Russell
What is this incoherent rambling? Can you actually write out a coherent sentence?
Adrian Long
>>welfare!=government cheating in this particular example Sorry for wording my question weirdly I was trying to be simple,pol/ way. Did not work and 5he spelling didn't neither.
I read some more of the study and I can see that we will never agree as to the interpretation of it. If for you, it's normal that welfare=income or, even more = Employment then I don't know what to tell you Unless there is some problem with the translation. For example: my understanding of what employment and income is, and the fact that income doesn't always mean employment, but employment usually means income. Employment simply means selling your skill to and employer, we can argue what constitutes a full employment on a part time employment. Income is all the money that the person receives regularly (or not), usually combined as a yearly sum, but could be broken into many different periods as well. So if in Sweden Employment = Income then we won't agree because the fundamentals for the agreement are not there.
Matthew Bennett
>> Economists, even in Sweden ran their numbers and concluded that migrants are a net cost to the country, not gain >This is wrong
Bigger economies have no necessary relation to a country's benefit/detriment.
Jackson Evans
>>Is Jow Forums, whelp, the height of rationality on the internet? >It appears so. Whelp
>I can't listen to podcasts that I enjoyed before because instead of the policy they discuss the character and the implications of said character of the president of the US. And tend to concentrate on this particular subject. Gone are the times of judging people based on their deeds, we now judge people based on their character. Great minds! And yes, very much dislike the value judgements given to voluntary actions. And simplistic, very much...nuance (context) lacking.
>I find rational people on pol/ almost every day, but mostly educate and argue some moot points desu.
Thank you for the talk! Enjoy you day. I'm self employed or self incomed(same thing in Sweden apparently) so I will take a minute longer lol
Robert Bennett
Love Murphy on that. Hahahahahaha
Carson Parker
Income in this instance just literally means money you've personally received. If you're receiving money from the government, then that money is obviously going to be counted towards your income. You can look up the definition of an income by the IRS, same standard applies there.
Welfare does not constitute employment and having income does not constitute being employed. The reason why employment is defined as a person selling their labour to an employer is because using this very broad definition, you paying me a dollar to do work once a month would constitute me being employed. Which is quite clearly absurd and warrants us defining employment differently so it doesn't become a meaningless word.
Noah Foster
>Love Murphy on that. Shows that answers are nuanced (muh pilpul!), and that the same rational thinking leads to the same rational thoughts. Nice to be among fellow travelers. Take care.
What constitutes a countries benefit/detriment? It's impossible to answer the question of whether or not a bigger economy is necessarily good or bad for the country without knowing what it means for something to be good or bad for the country. I could just say that a bigger economy has a necessary relationship to a country's benefit, because I define a country's benefit as increase in GDP. Your question is vague and without meaning.
Michael Turner
Ok. So we basically agree, and the employment does not equal income. Yet in the study the employment is defined as income that is of X amount. I clearly don't understand something here. Because, according to you and what we discussed the Employment defined as income would include welfare benefits. So here's my first problem: does the employment as defined in the study include welfare benefits? I still feel that there has to be a problem with the translation.
