Asylum out of control in USA

[mintoots]

It is truly sad that in technologically advanced countries this kind of thing can be done by machines and because we are so deficit in STEM we are trying to export it to low paid immigrants who overall actually cost more money than if we used technology to automate it...

The ultimate question about productivity and efficiency is who gains and loses from it? The principle of automation in my view is risky because it is rooted in the principle of extraction. Tech requires material resource which is extracted through dirt cheap labor. For instance, lithium mines in South Africa are pretty much run with the same oppressive practices as the cotton gin. When the tech does start to run, i.e. a.i., massive volumes of resources are often necessary to keep it running, like water and energy for data centers. The jobs lost to automation are not just immigrant jobs, it is jobs in general, available for many. On the other hand, it is quite notable that many immigrants are instead saturated in the dirty labor that tech has not fully infiltrated yet, like some aspects of farming or corner store assistance ---which are much needed food access points in areas with no food access. Meanwhile, companies that automate may experience some efficiency which translates to profit but this profit rarely ever trickles down. Instead it keeps getting invested in some other industry which may also be seeking to transition to automation.

So on the question of what is lost: natural resources and jobs in general. Who gains: capitalists at the higher bits of the pyramid.

 

[just me]

It reminds me of how a lot of folk view the Civil War so differently.

Some people work for cash and don't report it. Fact. The South refused to pay taxes on slaves.

Illegal immigrants benefit from taxes paid by others and don't want to pay taxes themselves. Maybe not everyone, huh?

 

[mintoots]

It reminds me of how a lot of folk view the Civil War so differently.

Some people work for cash and don't report it. Fact. The South refused to pay taxes on slaves.

Illegal immigrants benefit from taxes paid by others and don't want to pay taxes themselves. Maybe not everyone, huh?

When immigrants buy their food and other necessities, they pay their taxes regardless. If you are referring to income tax, that is the duty of the employer. Not all that employ undocumented immigrants are documented immigrants. Some are just abusive capitalists regardless of race. The onus of paying the income tax is on the employer. Some employers who are fair do turn over income tax anyhow. Some employers who are neither fair nor what, still turn over income tax even though wages are at the minimum. It's the abusive employer that does not turn over income tax that the government should be after. In any case, all that is beyond migrant status and/or skin color and/or race. These things may intersect but should not be conflated.

 

[TomasM]

And bigger picture, we are below the replacement rate, like many other countries. Immigration is the way, unless you want to do forced birthing (not at all beyond possible).

Interesting idea. I was thinking about that awhile back. Pay (subsidy) people to have more children and people would definitely do it. It would be more sustainable than overloading the public infrastructure and there wouldn’t be massive culture shock.

I’m not against immigration as long as it is paced, legal, and manageable.

Of course none of this would ever happen because that would require giving money to the people for a good reason, which would require reducing money given to greedy special interest groups.

Alas, I catch myself daydreaming again.

 

[TomasM]

"Kill the farmers; kill the boers" is just a slogan. So if someone had a slogan of "kill the blacks" it is important to remember that the same news agencies would be totally passive about that and treat the latter the same as the former.

What if the slogan was to kill the politicians or .1 percent-ers? I wonder if that would get the media to change its tune?

There’s a reason that people are tuned in to a certain direction - most people are just oblivious to it.

 

[aeon]

Of course none of this would ever happen because that would require giving money to the people for a good reason, which would require reducing money given to greedy special interest groups.

Perhaps not, but the idea has been floated.

Can $1,000 at birth change a child's future? A Republican proposal aims to find out

A House Republican proposal backed by President Donald Trump would set up tax-deferred investment accounts with $1,000 for infants born across the U.S.

apnews.com

Cheers,
Ian