|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On June 27 2013 14:10 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 13:37 coverpunch wrote:
Oh, there are far bigger whoppers if you read the entire article. It concludes with advocating a flat tax, shorter work weeks, and protectionism with a hint of trust-busting.
I will give the article some points for pointing out the dangers of inflation and especially the shifting methods of measuring it as well as pointing out tangentially that globalization is putting downward pressure on wages in the US. There's a hat tip to income inequality but I give no credit because there is no attempt to find a cause or a solution to it. Anybody that takes shadowstats seriously most likely doesn't see anything wrong with income inequality, or think it's because the government WANTS income inequality to happen and is fostering it deliberately.
False This is such a trolly post I literally type this as protest. What a tool.
|
I suppose it's possible. I wouldn't bank on that though.
|
With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign.
Source
|
On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source
This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field...
|
On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field...
And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do.
The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security.
Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs:
![[image loading]](http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/images/pubs-images/44xxx/44134-land-ForeignBornPop.png)
Link
And question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that?
|
On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that?
If I had to guess, it would be part of the "globalization trend." There's also the possibility it's a response to the rent seeking aspect, where employers have more incentive to hire as cheap labor as possible as it increases their own income much more. Third, it could simply be a response to the Civil Rights Act, which reversed discrimination that (unintentionally) affected Hispanics.
Then there's a question about Mexico stability at that time and US allowance of immigration. I don't have any clue about either one.
|
On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that?
Educated immigrants tend to be far and above the kind of education most Americans have. They tend to be MD's or rearch PhD's. They aren't taking our jobs in middle management or even corporate executorship.
I think that U shape just has to do with Mexico becoming a less tolerable place to live and the U.S. being more immigrant friendly (despite what the politics would have you believe). Also, with the recent economic crash (albeit that's not a big portion of the U) there's been a surge in demand for unskilled (borderline unpaid) labor that immigrants are willing to meet much more quickly than college educated Americans who have an enormous stigma attached to "flipping burgers."
Oh and falling American birth rates inevitably means that immigrants are going to make a higher percentage.
|
The most powerless speaker in political history, has to rely on Democratic and moderate Republicans to push through the very few legislation that makes it through the house. Now this:
With the Senate poised to wrap up passage of comprehensive immigration reform, House conservatives are firing a warning shot to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH): Don’t you dare bring up a bill without the support of a majority of House Republicans or we’ll depose you.
“There gets to be a point in time where there is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) said Wednesday, arguing that if Boehner violates the Hastert Rule again on the issue, “I think that a lot of members in the conference would probably be frustrated to the point of looking for new leaders.”
Speaking at a Capitol Hill panel organized by the Heritage Foundation, Salmon said there’s “great unrest” among Republicans about the violations of the majority-of-the-majority principle this year. GOP leaders have this year brought up four bills without the support of most House Republicans — including legislation to avert the fiscal cliff, provide aid to Hurricane Sandy victims and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) issued the same threat.
“The American people elected a Republican majority to the House of Representatives,” McClintock said. “Were a leader of that majority to use his authority to circumvent that majority, that would be cause for removal in my judgment.”
Source
|
On June 28 2013 03:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The most powerless speaker in political history, has to rely on Democratic and moderate Republicans to push through the very few legislation that makes it through the house. Now this: Show nested quote +With the Senate poised to wrap up passage of comprehensive immigration reform, House conservatives are firing a warning shot to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH): Don’t you dare bring up a bill without the support of a majority of House Republicans or we’ll depose you.
“There gets to be a point in time where there is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) said Wednesday, arguing that if Boehner violates the Hastert Rule again on the issue, “I think that a lot of members in the conference would probably be frustrated to the point of looking for new leaders.”
Speaking at a Capitol Hill panel organized by the Heritage Foundation, Salmon said there’s “great unrest” among Republicans about the violations of the majority-of-the-majority principle this year. GOP leaders have this year brought up four bills without the support of most House Republicans — including legislation to avert the fiscal cliff, provide aid to Hurricane Sandy victims and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) issued the same threat.
“The American people elected a Republican majority to the House of Representatives,” McClintock said. “Were a leader of that majority to use his authority to circumvent that majority, that would be cause for removal in my judgment.” Source
This is one of those moments when a leader needs to be one and grow some balls. Without this legislation, the party solidifies a rapid decline among Hispanic support. Yes, Republicans won the House, but lost the national popular vote only 2 years after winning it. Certainly, some of these new guys understand that gerrymandering will protect them less and less each cycle. Although, I'm convinced at this point that some of them feel their job was to get to DC and do as much damage as possible, damn the reelection.
|
On June 28 2013 04:22 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The most powerless speaker in political history, has to rely on Democratic and moderate Republicans to push through the very few legislation that makes it through the house. Now this: With the Senate poised to wrap up passage of comprehensive immigration reform, House conservatives are firing a warning shot to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH): Don’t you dare bring up a bill without the support of a majority of House Republicans or we’ll depose you.
“There gets to be a point in time where there is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) said Wednesday, arguing that if Boehner violates the Hastert Rule again on the issue, “I think that a lot of members in the conference would probably be frustrated to the point of looking for new leaders.”
Speaking at a Capitol Hill panel organized by the Heritage Foundation, Salmon said there’s “great unrest” among Republicans about the violations of the majority-of-the-majority principle this year. GOP leaders have this year brought up four bills without the support of most House Republicans — including legislation to avert the fiscal cliff, provide aid to Hurricane Sandy victims and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) issued the same threat.
“The American people elected a Republican majority to the House of Representatives,” McClintock said. “Were a leader of that majority to use his authority to circumvent that majority, that would be cause for removal in my judgment.” Source This is one of those moments when a leader needs to be one and grow some balls. Without this legislation, the party solidifies a rapid decline among Hispanic support. Yes, Republicans won the House, but lost the national popular vote only 2 years after winning it. Certainly, some of these new guys understand that gerrymandering will protect them less and less each cycle. Although, I'm convinced at this point that some of them feel their job was to get to DC and do as much damage as possible, damn the reelection.
1) Am I the only one that finds gerrymandering to be an incredibly embarrassing and pathetic political practice? Why the fuck does it exist and when are we going to get rid of it?
2) I called it about a year ago, but I foresee the death of the Republican party, and I really, really hope it happens soon. The Republican party is a giant clusterfuck of random conservative viewpoints on a massive variety of issues, and the party is tearing itself apart. The Democratic party isn't much better, but I think the combined loathing for Republicans holds them together better than it holds Republicans together. I'm not exactly optimistic about anything concerning politics in this country, but I really hope that the Republican party fractures soon and it brings about some kind of change in political dynamics.
|
On June 28 2013 03:25 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? If I had to guess, it would be part of the "globalization trend." There's also the possibility it's a response to the rent seeking aspect, where employers have more incentive to hire as cheap labor as possible as it increases their own income much more. Third, it could simply be a response to the Civil Rights Act, which reversed discrimination that (unintentionally) affected Hispanics. Then there's a question about Mexico stability at that time and US allowance of immigration. I don't have any clue about either one.
On June 28 2013 03:30 Klondikebar wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? Educated immigrants tend to be far and above the kind of education most Americans have. They tend to be MD's or rearch PhD's. They aren't taking our jobs in middle management or even corporate executorship. I think that U shape just has to do with Mexico becoming a less tolerable place to live and the U.S. being more immigrant friendly (despite what the politics would have you believe). Also, with the recent economic crash (albeit that's not a big portion of the U) there's been a surge in demand for unskilled (borderline unpaid) labor that immigrants are willing to meet much more quickly than college educated Americans who have an enormous stigma attached to "flipping burgers." Oh and falling American birth rates inevitably means that immigrants are going to make a higher percentage.
What about supply and demand in labor markets? Could a large influx of unskilled immigrants, coupled with a low influx of skilled immigrants put downward pressure on low end wages? If so, wouldn't that play a role in inequality?
|
On June 28 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? If I had to guess, it would be part of the "globalization trend." There's also the possibility it's a response to the rent seeking aspect, where employers have more incentive to hire as cheap labor as possible as it increases their own income much more. Third, it could simply be a response to the Civil Rights Act, which reversed discrimination that (unintentionally) affected Hispanics. Then there's a question about Mexico stability at that time and US allowance of immigration. I don't have any clue about either one. Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:30 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? Educated immigrants tend to be far and above the kind of education most Americans have. They tend to be MD's or rearch PhD's. They aren't taking our jobs in middle management or even corporate executorship. I think that U shape just has to do with Mexico becoming a less tolerable place to live and the U.S. being more immigrant friendly (despite what the politics would have you believe). Also, with the recent economic crash (albeit that's not a big portion of the U) there's been a surge in demand for unskilled (borderline unpaid) labor that immigrants are willing to meet much more quickly than college educated Americans who have an enormous stigma attached to "flipping burgers." Oh and falling American birth rates inevitably means that immigrants are going to make a higher percentage. What about supply and demand in labor markets? Could a large influx of unskilled immigrants, coupled with a low influx of skilled immigrants put downward pressure on low end wages? If so, wouldn't that play a role in inequality?
Hmm...depends on how sticky wages are. The graph does cover a fair number of years so I'd say it's definitely possible. Especially since many undocumented workers will work for considerably less than minimum wage, that wouldn't so much create "downward pressure" on wages as it would tie an anchor to them and throw them in a river. And if those incomes are also unreported but the savings are still passed on to higher ups, it would make it appear as though business owner income is skyrocketing for no reason when, in reality, they're just dealing in the labor black market.
|
On June 28 2013 04:30 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:22 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 03:52 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:The most powerless speaker in political history, has to rely on Democratic and moderate Republicans to push through the very few legislation that makes it through the house. Now this: With the Senate poised to wrap up passage of comprehensive immigration reform, House conservatives are firing a warning shot to Speaker John Boehner (R-OH): Don’t you dare bring up a bill without the support of a majority of House Republicans or we’ll depose you.
“There gets to be a point in time where there is the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back,” Rep. Matt Salmon (R-AZ) said Wednesday, arguing that if Boehner violates the Hastert Rule again on the issue, “I think that a lot of members in the conference would probably be frustrated to the point of looking for new leaders.”
Speaking at a Capitol Hill panel organized by the Heritage Foundation, Salmon said there’s “great unrest” among Republicans about the violations of the majority-of-the-majority principle this year. GOP leaders have this year brought up four bills without the support of most House Republicans — including legislation to avert the fiscal cliff, provide aid to Hurricane Sandy victims and reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act.
Rep. Tom McClintock (R-CA) issued the same threat.
“The American people elected a Republican majority to the House of Representatives,” McClintock said. “Were a leader of that majority to use his authority to circumvent that majority, that would be cause for removal in my judgment.” Source This is one of those moments when a leader needs to be one and grow some balls. Without this legislation, the party solidifies a rapid decline among Hispanic support. Yes, Republicans won the House, but lost the national popular vote only 2 years after winning it. Certainly, some of these new guys understand that gerrymandering will protect them less and less each cycle. Although, I'm convinced at this point that some of them feel their job was to get to DC and do as much damage as possible, damn the reelection. 1) Am I the only one that finds gerrymandering to be an incredibly embarrassing and pathetic political practice? Why the fuck does it exist and when are we going to get rid of it? 2) I called it about a year ago, but I foresee the death of the Republican party, and I really, really hope it happens soon. The Republican party is a giant clusterfuck of random conservative viewpoints on a massive variety of issues, and the party is tearing itself apart. The Democratic party isn't much better, but I think the combined loathing for Republicans holds them together better than it holds Republicans together. I'm not exactly optimistic about anything concerning politics in this country, but I really hope that the Republican party fractures soon and it brings about some kind of change in political dynamics.
It's easy to call the death of a party based on what we perceive to be fragmented viewpoints but I doubt it. Come election time, people will put on their party uniforms and vote based on names rather than on policies. And, to some extent, I can't really blame them. A two party system is not going to give us candidates that line up with our worldviews. At best, they'll agree with about 60% of what we think and the only reason we're voting for them is because the other guy only agrees with 30%. Then once all the votes are counted we'll go back to the weird free-for-all of tearing each other apart cause everyone except us is a drooling moron.
|
Party's never enjoyed much hispanic support. Reagan passes amnesty (at least he had the balls to call it that), hispanics voting for Republicans declined the following election. Democrats are just too effective scaring that community out of voting for Republicans. The only demographic challenge the Republicans face is their conservative base abandoning their candidates as they oppose building a fence at every turn. I'll give you amnesty today for a fence tomorrow!
The declining support for candidates that campaigned on Tea Party positions and flipped in office is reflective of this. I personally have had enough of empty promises (Oh sure you're gonna make citizenship contingent upon English proficiency tests. The courts of course will stand behind a temporary legal status and not strike that right out of the law). I've had enough of congressmen voting in fence acts that are never built. The false promises have got to end, and legislators have to know that its stopping future illegals first, then talk about what pathway to give those already in the country. Senate bill is so backward. At least Ted Cruz has been steady in his opposition (R-TX)
|
On June 28 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? If I had to guess, it would be part of the "globalization trend." There's also the possibility it's a response to the rent seeking aspect, where employers have more incentive to hire as cheap labor as possible as it increases their own income much more. Third, it could simply be a response to the Civil Rights Act, which reversed discrimination that (unintentionally) affected Hispanics. Then there's a question about Mexico stability at that time and US allowance of immigration. I don't have any clue about either one. Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 03:30 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? Educated immigrants tend to be far and above the kind of education most Americans have. They tend to be MD's or rearch PhD's. They aren't taking our jobs in middle management or even corporate executorship. I think that U shape just has to do with Mexico becoming a less tolerable place to live and the U.S. being more immigrant friendly (despite what the politics would have you believe). Also, with the recent economic crash (albeit that's not a big portion of the U) there's been a surge in demand for unskilled (borderline unpaid) labor that immigrants are willing to meet much more quickly than college educated Americans who have an enormous stigma attached to "flipping burgers." Oh and falling American birth rates inevitably means that immigrants are going to make a higher percentage. What about supply and demand in labor markets? Could a large influx of unskilled immigrants, coupled with a low influx of skilled immigrants put downward pressure on low end wages? If so, wouldn't that play a role in inequality?
Depends on employment. If the economy isn't at full employment, the downward pressure is greater than any gains of increased production/consumption. Right NOW, if you introduced a lot of new immigrants, it would put further downward pressure on wages. However, through the 70s-00s, employment was always near full except for very small recessions, and the downward pressure on wages were happening outside of those recessions as well as within.
Ideally, each new worker, immigrant or natural born, grows the economy by some degree. As long as new technology comes along and competition is fostered, the average additional worker will add real value to the economy greater than the worker before. Even if there is a disproportionate influx of low skilled workers, the mid and high skill workers will remain unaffected. In this scenario, prices will either fall (signalling deflation) or wages would rise to correspond with the increase in production. Neither of these things happened, so there is some outside variable that forces it to deviate.
|
On June 28 2013 04:57 Danglars wrote:
Party's never enjoyed much hispanic support. Reagan passes amnesty (at least he had the balls to call it that), hispanics voting for Republicans declined the following election. Democrats are just too effective scaring that community out of voting for Republicans. The only demographic challenge the Republicans face is their conservative base abandoning their candidates as they oppose building a fence at every turn. I'll give you amnesty today for a fence tomorrow!
The declining support for candidates that campaigned on Tea Party positions and flipped in office is reflective of this. I personally have had enough of empty promises (Oh sure you're gonna make citizenship contingent upon English proficiency tests. The courts of course will stand behind a temporary legal status and not strike that right out of the law). I've had enough of congressmen voting in fence acts that are never built. The false promises have got to end, and legislators have to know that its stopping future illegals first, then talk about what pathway to give those already in the country. Senate bill is so backward. At least Ted Cruz has been steady in his opposition (R-TX)
If Reagan had vetoed amnesty, would he have done better next election? You have to think of this as a whole, as a party effort. You can't offer somebody a dead branch and expect them to glorify your generosity. You have to fight for their support until you drive the other party to either give up, or go so far beyond what's reasonable to gain the support back. Maybe the party's reliance on a fired up radical base prevents that, and a collapse/restructure will ultimately become inevitable.
|
|
|
No surprises here, I've been following the Paul family's fame on Stormfront for years now 
|
On June 28 2013 05:02 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 04:31 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 03:25 aksfjh wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? If I had to guess, it would be part of the "globalization trend." There's also the possibility it's a response to the rent seeking aspect, where employers have more incentive to hire as cheap labor as possible as it increases their own income much more. Third, it could simply be a response to the Civil Rights Act, which reversed discrimination that (unintentionally) affected Hispanics. Then there's a question about Mexico stability at that time and US allowance of immigration. I don't have any clue about either one. On June 28 2013 03:30 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that? Educated immigrants tend to be far and above the kind of education most Americans have. They tend to be MD's or rearch PhD's. They aren't taking our jobs in middle management or even corporate executorship. I think that U shape just has to do with Mexico becoming a less tolerable place to live and the U.S. being more immigrant friendly (despite what the politics would have you believe). Also, with the recent economic crash (albeit that's not a big portion of the U) there's been a surge in demand for unskilled (borderline unpaid) labor that immigrants are willing to meet much more quickly than college educated Americans who have an enormous stigma attached to "flipping burgers." Oh and falling American birth rates inevitably means that immigrants are going to make a higher percentage. What about supply and demand in labor markets? Could a large influx of unskilled immigrants, coupled with a low influx of skilled immigrants put downward pressure on low end wages? If so, wouldn't that play a role in inequality? Depends on employment. If the economy isn't at full employment, the downward pressure is greater than any gains of increased production/consumption. Right NOW, if you introduced a lot of new immigrants, it would put further downward pressure on wages. However, through the 70s-00s, employment was always near full except for very small recessions, and the downward pressure on wages were happening outside of those recessions as well as within. Ideally, each new worker, immigrant or natural born, grows the economy by some degree. As long as new technology comes along and competition is fostered, the average additional worker will add real value to the economy greater than the worker before. Even if there is a disproportionate influx of low skilled workers, the mid and high skill workers will remain unaffected. In this scenario, prices will either fall (signalling deflation) or wages would rise to correspond with the increase in production. Neither of these things happened, so there is some outside variable that forces it to deviate.
Well, my understanding is that inequality is mainly being driven by differences in labor income, not a divergence between labor and capital income (figure 8). So putting downward pressure on the low end of the wage scale (but not the high end) could have a big impact on inequality.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On June 28 2013 02:37 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 28 2013 01:49 Klondikebar wrote:On June 28 2013 01:44 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:With the Senate poised to end debate on and pass its own comprehensive immigration reform bill, House Speaker John Boehner (R-OH) significantly narrowed the legislative path toward making it law.
At is weekly Capitol briefing Thursday, Boehner extended his requirement that immigration legislation enjoy the approval of at least half of his members to any final agreement between the House and the Senate, known as a conference report.
To be clear that doesn’t preclude a change of heart, or a procedural way around the so-called Hastert rule. But it does add a new layer of difficulty to enacting comprehensive reform.
To reach a conference committee, the House will have to pass legislation of its own. That will be a tall order for Boehner, who won’t be able to count on much, if any Democratic support for measures that lack a viable amnesty provision for current undocumented immigrants.
If he can pass a narrow, conservative House position, the Senate and House can try to merge their dramatically different bills. But by extending the Hastert rule requirement to the negotiated agreement, Boehner is effectively warning senators that House negotiators won’t simply roll over for the Senate bill in conference committee.
It’s extremely hard to imagine an immigration reform bill that wins over a majority of House Republicans, that the Senate will accept, and that President Obama will sign. Source This immigration stuff pisses me off. Mountains of evidence that immigration does nothing but improve our economy and the GOP is still scared of the brown people takin our jobs! Cause picking strawberries in the California summer is such a competitive job field... And liberals are scared of educated immigrants taking their jobs (H-1B visas). Republicans are pretty split on unskilled immigration - rural southerners don't like it but business owners do. The big area of contention seems (to me at least) to be illegal immigration and what to do with illegals in the country and boarder security. Meanwhile immigration is back to historic highs: LinkAnd question to the economists out there: that "U" shaped pattern is similar to the "U" shaped pattern seen with inequality. Should I make anything of that?
Lol, what the hell is this misleading chart? That doesn't mean immigration is back to historic highs, it just means more of the population is foreign born, which can be due to a number of things and not just immigration.
This is what you look at for immigration:
http://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/ois_lpr_fr_2012_2.pdf
Of course, it doesn't document illegal immigration as that's kinda hard, but it's pretty detailed nonetheless. We're still pretty far away from the 'historic highs.'
For charts, check:
+ Show Spoiler +
It's not really the U-shape you're looking for for the corresponding years. :p
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/fed7Ugf.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/2mKN1z5.png)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/9m58Xrg.png)
