American Politics Discussion Thread

[darrelljs]

The first time I read the poll I mentally substituted "dilute" for "replace". It made no sense otherwise.

Darrell

[Boro]

It's not like it didn't happen before. Both dilution, and outright replacement (mainly replacing lost workers in the then-agricultural economy) that drastically changed demographics (and ethnicity maps) are part of hungarian history. Germans (Swabs) for example were settled in hungary precisely because they were loyal to the Habsburg court. This settlement was financed straight from the royal treasury! The result was going from 80% hungarians in the Kingdom of Hungary in the XVth century down to 40-42%, centered mainly around the central part of hungary, with ethnic islands in various outer regions (like today's Székelyföld in Transylvania), and the events of both 1848, and at the end of the first world war.

[Mjmd]

The theory as I understand it is presented is Democrats are somehow purposefully bringing in people to win elections, which should be easily dismissed....... I mean there is dilution in the % of white population as people try to immigrate to improve their lives as immigrants always have, but who cares (/should)? Some vague fear of people of a different color with different cultures doesn't mean people trying to build a better life should be denied that, hated, or feared. Again its natural human tribalism, but we should know better...

As stated by AdrienIer the whole anti immigrant thing is especially ironic in America as we did replace the Native Americans who were here. Literally almost everyone living in America is descended from people who came just looking for a better life.

Immigrants / cultural tolerance also are generally good for nations historically (I want to note this list is at their heights and not their declines as politicians like blaming "others" for their failings: Persia, Rome, Byzantium, and the Ottomans after them). Even taking a look at the US now a lot of our agricultural work is done by immigrants and in general are willing to do work others aren't, because again they are working towards a better life. They also start more small businesses (I suspect people who are willing to take the risk of leaving the familiar are in general less risk averse). Immigrants who are educated are just the best to steal away. Russia is going to have major problems with brain drain going forward. In addition to its intact industrial base, one of the reasons the US was so dominant after WWII was the intellectual brain drain from other countries to the US.

[T-hawk]

Democrats want to bring in more people, because doing so represents the government serving them with resources and hospitality, which creates correlation and precedent for more government handouts for everyone.

I believe that's the underlying psychology. They don't think about it themselves in such direct terms. If asked, their virtue-signaling "good person" programming will kick in and you'll get answers about being tolerant and inclusive and all that. But fundamentally, it's people insecure about resources seeking to create any precedent for government to distribute more resources. Anyone who is a net-negative tax payer (consumes more government resources than they pay, which is most Democrats) wants more net-negative tax payers because they will be aligned politically.

[Mjmd]

Or Democrats realize those are real people facing unimaginable hardships you and I can't even comprehend. They maybe realize our ancestors struggled through the same. They maybe realize it strengthens the nation.

Resource guarding is one of those unfounded fears. Its one of those things that might "sound" logical and worms its way into peoples minds. Its an easily debunked myth..... Multiple studies have been done on this and they contribute more in tax revenue than they take in benefits. That's not even counting that they often are willing to work jobs others aren't (/ do jobs. My wife worked at a sewing facility in the Milwaukee area and it was almost all immigrants or children of because no one knows how to sew in the US anymore)

Its fascinating studying the "enlightened" rulers of the 1800s. Many of them implemented reforms such as hospitals or licensing midwives. They were tolerant to immigrants (jews sometimes exception).  They didn't do it out of the goodness of their hearts. They realized it created a larger more productive nation that also had more resources to draw on for war.

[T-hawk]

It is not the job of American taxpayers paying American resources to use them for anybody else's "unimaginable hardships". Their problems are their own, not that of America or its taxpayers.

[Ginger()]

I’m very interested in why you would posit that most Democrats are net negative tax value for the government, when the most populous and urban states create the most tax revenue and receive smaller subsidies. This pattern repeats itself when you break it down to the state level and look at the tax revenue from the most urbanized municipalities (which as I’m sure you’ll know, vote strongly liberal)

[Mjmd]

It is not the job of American taxpayers paying American resources to use them for anybody else's "unimaginable hardships".  Their problems are their own, not that of America or its taxpayers.

Its a good thing they actually produce more tax revenue than they use then. All while starting businesses, working, and enabling entire sections of the economy.

Again, those "others" have a natural fear. One that has played out AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. But when you actually look at it, through both a current lens and also the lens of history you start understanding that not only is it the MORAL thing to do, but it also makes sense for nation building.

[Boro]

Democrats want to bring in more people, because doing so represents the government serving them with resources and hospitality, which creates correlation and precedent for more government handouts for everyone.

I believe that's the underlying psychology.  They don't think about it themselves in such direct terms.  If asked, their virtue-signaling "good person" programming will kick in and you'll get answers about being tolerant and inclusive and all that.  But fundamentally, it's people insecure about resources seeking to create any precedent for government to distribute more resources.  Anyone who is a net-negative tax payer (consumes more government resources than they pay, which is most Democrats) wants more net-negative tax payers because they will be aligned politically.

Wouldn't it make more sense to consider not "tax payer" when deciding who is net-negative (i.e. parasitic), but actual production? So who is engaged in actual production, and who is "only" in distribution of goods (let's just call it net-neutral), and who is in a nonproductive office job? (think tanks, etc.)

After all, there is this trade deficit that would be worth elaborating on, and the whole money printer too. The two combined does remind me of the "gold for glass baubles" trade of the original explorers and settlers of the americas with the locals. Except with a few extra steps to make it less obvious.

In one of your earlier posts I do recall you comment on the urban-rural productivity divide (since it's been mentioned by the other posters) and you had a firm grasp of actual production as opposed to non-productive "jobs".

[T-hawk]

The causation goes the other way around from the "blue areas are economically productive" canard. What really happens is that economic productivity attracts resource-insecure people.

Wall Street exists, and produces a large amount of economic value per person. This economic value makes for many lower-class jobs in supporting infrastructure: voluntary spending on things like restaurants and theater, involuntary spending on government bureaucracies and handouts paid for by taxing Wall Street, and public works like subways and road infrastructure. It's a power law distribution, and the lower end outnumbers the higher end so the region votes blue.

A shorter version of this is "every successful ecosystem attracts parasites." It's the parasites that constitute the numbers to vote blue, not the engines of economic success. It's a thousand barnacles outvoting the one whale they're attached to.

Austin, Texas is the notable example in recent times. 40 years ago, it was as red as the rest of Texas. It became a center for tech and economics and then turned blue politically.

Wouldn't it make more sense to consider not "tax payer" when deciding who is net-negative (i.e. parasitic), but actual production? So who is engaged in actual production, and who is "only" in distribution of goods (let's just call it net-neutral), and who is in a nonproductive office job? (think tanks, etc.)

Yes, there can be different definitions of productivity, but the distinctions aren't really important for the points I'm making. Any definition will have net-positive producers and net-negative consumers. By and large they'll have mostly similar overlap, even if a few percent of the details differ.