No. I am refuting the biased analysis of census data. I am sure the Census data is pretty darn good - though it does tend to undercount immigrants and other populations. Something they have tried to correct for and the GOP has stubbornly fought against - but that is a different argument.

Did they? You know this because you went to the Census Bureau site and verified it?

Joe is the guy who blasted TShipman for linking to a NYT article in the Astros thread and then a short time later linked to a NYT article as evidence of his rightness.

Unlike you I provided evidence. It's in the Astros thread.

Until yesterday, I didn't believe it was disputed that the U.S. has high unemployment among low-skilled workers or that low-skilled workers have suffered from wage stagnation.

The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.

If this is what you think people are arguing against, we've identified the problem. You apparently can't read.

You claim to be an economist, but your arguments aren't rooted in any real-world economic principles.

"We can have more low-skilled workers and a much higher minimum wage and lower unemployment and a bigger, better safety net! Because ... well, just because!"

I didn't believe it was disputed that the U.S. has high unemployment among low-skilled workers or that low-skilled workers have suffered from wage stagnation.

No, I read quite well. I'm reading suggestions from people like 'Bitter Mouse' that the U.S. should add more low-skilled immigrants at a time of high unemployment and wage stagnation, and I believe such ideas are nuts.

I'm reading suggestions from people like 'Bitter Mouse'

This is the key sleight-of-hand in the article. Undocumented immigrants have an extremely difficult time getting good jobs because they don't have papers. If you want to argue that more legal immigration will have ill effects, you have to look at only the legal immigrant population.

The bald racism of CIS appears in that last paragraph - after stacking the deck by including undocumented immigrants, a huge percentage of whom are Mexican, the study then blithely compares the economic status of Mexican and English immigrants.

I got scare quotes! And there are people like me! This is awesome.

Illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare,

You think all that's separating a high school-dropout immigrant from a "good job" is a piece of paper from the U.S. government?

Those aren't scare quotes.

Applying special qualities - inherent goodness - among those who fail financially is one of the more pernicious elements of the left wings beliefs.

Your problem is you know just enough "Supply/Demand" but have no idea how to apply it. Increasing the supply of workers does shift the curve over. this does result in lower wages and such in the short term. However (for like the forth time and you have never addressed this point at all) the immigrants also shift the demand curve over because they need stuff like houses, clothes, health care and so on. The net effect of these two shifts is overall a society which is better off, but there is some pressure on the low end wage earners especially in that short term. This is why we need the safety net.

I have said I want more open immigration of all types. I want a higher minimum wage. I would also like a better safety net. I have explained what the relationship between this is and why I want it. I never said I wanted lower emplyment, but yeah I do want that. Currently I think that would require monetary easing and some additional fiscal stimulus. In fact those too things would much more than offset any pressure on the low wage earners from increased immigration.

What are your solutions? I have offered a bunch.

What do you think we should do to handle immigration, wage stagnation and high unemployment?

I will be shocked if "some form of welfare" doesn't include forms of government assistance that you can get without having legal immigrant status. There's absolutely no reason for CIS to design the study this way unless the undocumented immigrants tip things in the direction they want.

No, of course not. But if CIS wanted to demonstrate that, they should have looked only at legal immigrants. The fact that they didn't is a huge red flag for the study - they used the wrong data set, which suggests they selected a data set that could be massaged to get the results they wanted.

Why put my handle in quotes then?

My objection is to the absurd claim that there's a net economic positive for a 21st-century economy to add mid-20th-century workers. The idea that a new job is created every time some low-skilled person enters the country is ridiculous.

All I've seen is a call for more immigration and more welfare.

The border with Mexico should be secured. Low-skilled immigration should be reduced to zero until there's a clear low-skilled labor shortage, which is probably years from happening.

Chain migration should be ended and replaced with a Canada-style skills-based immigration system. Employers who hire illegal immigrants should face steep penalties. A WPA-style program should be started to employ low-skilled workers, whose job prospects are dim in the near term.

Proposed:

The people who get angry about poor people theoretically gaming the welfare system (and the voting system?) are not nearly as angry at the thought of rich people theoretically gaming the tax system (and other systems that help them maintain and increase their wealth).

Agree or disagree?

EDIT: And contrariwise, the people who get angry at rich people's gaming the system are not nearly so angry when poorer people game the system.

Well a whole bunch of professional economists who studied the matter came to the conclusion it is a net benefit to allow in immigrants.

Better safety net, not just welfare. And also fiscal stimulus and monetary easing.

Securing some of the longest borders in the world. Good luck with that. How much are you willing to spend on it? Because it is going to cost a huge amount.

Applying special qualities - inherent goodness - among those who fail financially is one of the more pernicious elements of the left wings beliefs.

Fixed that for you!

The net effect of these two shifts is overall a society which is better off, but there is some pressure on the low end wage earners especially in that short term. This is why we need the safety net.

Illegal immigrants may have children who are U.S. citizens. The children may qualify for various welfare programs, yet I have seen this described by conservatives as illegal immigrants receiving benefits. That may be part of the disconnect.

I will be shocked if "some form of welfare" doesn't include forms of government assistance that you can get without having legal immigrant status. There's absolutely no reason for CIS to design the study this way unless the undocumented immigrants tip things in the direction they want.

Note that this does NOT mean that liberal policy cannot have this effect - I readily accept that some programs simply haven't worked as we hoped... but until conservatives put the strawman to bed and at least accept that no serious liberal WISHES such outcomes, there is no possible way any compromise or discussion can be had on the topic.

No thoughts on #915? (Thanks for the note on under/over-qualified, btw.)

It's why this discussion terminally goes nowhere... We can't really have any honest discussions on policy until one side stops believing that the other actually believes the strawman argument they've created for political purposes is honest-to-goodness a true intention of said side.

Well, "gaming the system" is a bit of an ambiguous standard. Is hiring an accountant to do your taxes gaming the system? What about a whole firm of really smart accountants, along with some tax attorneys? What about creating an elaborate network of corporate entities to protect your money from taxation, all done legally of course? I differentiate such activities from acts of fraud, which typically constitute the sort of "gaming the system" that's done by poor people.

EDIT: And contrariwise, the people who get angry at rich people's gaming the system are not nearly so angry when poorer people game the system.

Yes, this is quite obviously true, whether our liberals here will care to admit it or not.

So, the difference is, the rich can afford to get professionals to lie for them, so they aren't as bad as the poor who have to lie themselves.

The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on the so-called War on Poverty over the past 50 years, and yet we have more poor people — both in numbers and percentages — than we did in the late '60s when the Great Society was fully underway. So why should conservatives and libertarians be the ones to compromise? Why should we double down on a failed strategy?

The vast majority of lefty profs I had would not only "admit" it- they would proudly state it.

Can we play a thought exercise where you tell me

People deserve what happens to them, so the less fortunate deserve it and also deserve our scorn.

I really think it is back to Calvanism. God chooses the victors, they are chosen and blessed. God chooses the losers, they deserve their fate.

Depending on whether you're considering entitlements 'safety nets' or not -- there has been a marked decrease in seniors living in poverty that tracks almost perfectly with 2 big events: Enactment of Social Security and enactment of Medicare.

There have been successful affordable housing programs and unsuccessful affordable housing programs. There have been successful jobs training programs and unsuccessful jobs training programs. There have even been successful food, heat, etc assistance programs.

And we are getting it. Today is today. 10 years ago was 10 years ago. You need to update your policy ideas to reflect this reality.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, a lifelong liberal, and I know plenty of liberals -- and I have yet to meet or read a single Democrat or liberal that comes anywhere close to believing that our end goal is to make any individual, any group, or any subset lifelong ensconced in the 'safety net'.

Note that this does NOT mean that liberal policy cannot have this effect - I readily accept that some programs simply haven't worked as we hoped... but until conservatives put the strawman to bed and at least accept that no serious liberal WISHES such outcomes, there is no possible way any compromise or discussion can be had on the topic.

Social Security isn't a Great Society program. Nobody's talking about getting rid of Social Security.

Could you name a few failed social programs that liberals are currently in favor of drastically cutting or eliminating?

Securing some of the longest borders in the world. Good luck with that. How much are you willing to spend on it? Because it is going to cost a huge amount.

So, the difference is, the rich can afford to get professionals to lie for them, so they aren't as bad as the poor who have to lie themselves.

Can you name a few failed social programs?

The LIHEAP program got a significant cut in Obama's previous budget... I suppose that technically, liberals weren't "in favor" of that - but the combination of falling natural gas prices and luckily, a warm winter in many parts of the country meant it happened without much fanfare or incident.

And wouldn't you know it, those lazy bums still figured out a way to "game the system"! It turns out that the workhouses, by offering medical attention to sick inmates, offered a form of universal health care that was attractive to many of those in the working classes who couldn't afford medical care for themselves or their children. So they would check into a workhouse just for the medical care. The bastards!

Could you name a few failed social programs that liberals are currently in favor of drastically cutting or eliminating?

but 75%? Who in their right mind would stay in the country?

•In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households.

(emphasis added)

That Democrats want people on welfare and that we see some inherent good in someone getting a welfare check rather than a paycheck.

It's why this discussion terminally goes nowhere... We can't really have any honest discussions on policy until one side stops believing that the other actually believes the strawman argument they've created for political purposes is honest-to-goodness a true intention of said side.

No, it's exactly what is going on. Do you read the links that you post?

Illegal immigrants may have children who are U.S. citizens. The children may qualify for various welfare programs, yet I have seen this described by conservatives as illegal immigrants receiving benefits. That may be part of the disconnect.

and that is likely being captured in the Census numbers being cited in the link. And as Matt said, that may skew the numbers so they do not say what you think they do, although to be honest I'd have to go back and re-read more posts than I care to in order to recall what the original debate was.

This is just more of the same here. The medicine hasn't cured the disease so let's stop taking the medicine because surely that'll make us better.

Could you name a few failed social programs that liberals are currently in favor of drastically cutting or eliminating?

Well, the real difference is that the rich aren't breaking the law in my examples, while the poor are.

"The War on Drugs."

LIHEAP is 0.00065 of the federal budget.

Liberals pushed for the harsh drug laws in the '80s but now bash the "racist" conservatives for the laws' existence.

I guess having a short memory is one of the key requirements for being a good liberal.

Liberals pushed for the harsh drug laws in the '80s

Why would the Census count U.S.-born children as immigrants?

REAGAN PROPOSES STIFFER DRUG LAWS

President Reagan today formally proposed a $900 million program to combat drug abuse and ordered the heads of Federal agencies to establish a program of testing for evidence of drug use among a broad range of employees. The tests were required in a strongly worded executive order signed by Mr. Reagan, who also submitted to Congress legislative recommendations, including several measures recently passed by the House of Representatives. Following the House's lead, Mr. Reagan urged Congress to pass legislation that would make capital punishment applicable to drug crimes where offenders ''intentionally'' cause death, and for a law to allow the use of illegally obtained evidence in drug trials. Use of Armed Forces Rejected The House has already acted on bills incorporating these two provisions, and Senate Republican leaders working on new drug legislation were reported to be considering extending the death penalty to drug-related Federal crimes.But in a significant split with the House, the President rejected a provision in its legislation that would require the use of the armed forces to curb the flow of narcotics. White House officials had said previously that the President was concerned about the military being required to make drug arrests.

If U.S.-born children live with foreign-born parents, the U.S. Census would count them as living in "immigrant-headed households" as quoted (and bolded) in #969.

Tip O'Neill was trying to get his push out in front of the what the White House was doing, but I'm too young to remember if he succeeded or not.

Immediately upon returning from the July 4 recess, Tip O’Neill called an emergency meeting of the crime-related committee chairmen. Write me some ####### legislation, he thundered. All anybody up in Boston is talking about is Len Bias. The papers are screaming for blood. We need to get out front on this now. This week. Today. The Republicans beat us to it in 1984 and I don’t want that to happen again. I want dramatic new initiatives for dealing with crack and other drugs. If we can do this fast enough, he said to the Democratic leadership arrayed around him, we can take the issue away from the White House. — Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure

In 1986, the Democrats in Congress saw a political opportunity to outflank Republicans by “getting tough on drugs” after basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose. In the 1984 election the Republicans had successfully accused Democrats of being soft on crime. The most important Democratic political leader, House Speaker “Tip” O’Neill, was from Boston, MA. The Boston Celtics had signed Bias. During the July 4 congressional recess, O’Neill’s constituents were so consumed with anger and dismay about Bias’ death, O’Neill realized how powerful an anti-drug campaign would be.

O’Neill knew that for Democrats to take credit for an anti-drug program in November elections, the bill had to get out of both Houses of Congress by early October. That required action on the House floor by early September, which meant that committees had to finish their work before the August recess. Since the idea was born in early July, the law-writing committees had less than a month to develop the ideas, to write the bills to carry out those ideas, and to get comments from the relevant government agencies and the public at large.

One idea was considered for the first time by the House Judiciary Committee four days before the recess began. It had tremendous political appeal as “tough on drugs.” This was the creation of mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases. It was a type of penalty that had been removed from federal law in 1970 after extensive and careful consideration. But in 1986, no hearings were held on this idea. No experts on the relevant issues, no judges, no one from the Bureau of Prisons, or from any other office in the government, provided advice on the idea before it was rushed through the committee and into law. Only a few comments were received on an informal basis. After bouncing back and forth between the Democratic controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate as each party jockeyed for poitical advantage, The Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 finally passed both houses a few weeks before the November elections. — Eric E. Sterling, counsel to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary

Also, look, I admit it was BOTH. Now what are you going to do?

In 1986, the Democrats in Congress saw a political opportunity to outflank Republicans by “getting tough on drugs” after basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose. In the 1984 election the Republicans had successfully accused Democrats of being soft on crime.

Joe, I already said it was both.

Is that was you meant - and failed - to say in #975?

Note that second sentence there. The Senate Dems got "tough on crime" in the aftermath of Bias specifically because the GOP had spent the previous decade and a half whinging about how the Dems were "soft on crime."

Classic trolling, really.

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul offered up a different rebuttal. She would have had health insurance, if she had lived in Massachusetts:

“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” Andrea Saul, Romney’s campaign press secretary, said during an appearance on Fox News. “There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President [Barack] Obama’s economy.”

The Dems were soft on crime. As Treder would say, "Own it."

It goes beyond that. In Victorian Britain, wealthy people were obsessed with the concept of "idle paupers" and "shirkers" who would rather lay about and collect public welfare. So they created workhouses, partly out of the belief that hard work and a healthy dose of religion would reform those layabouts, but also out of the desire to make welfare as undesirable as possible. Of course, there were plenty of nasty jobs in Victorian England, so the workhouses had to be even nastier. "Inmates" treated like prisoners, men and women separated from their children (checking into a workhouse was considered proof you were an incompetent parent) and from each other, working at mind-numbing tasks that gave them no useful skills for 80 hours a week, and which didn't bring in any significant amount of money (nor did the workers ever see a penny of that money themselves, naturally). Physical and sexual abuse, disease and misery were rife in those institutions.

Economies are dynamic entities, and sometimes change, which in the long run is beneficial on the whole, really screws over segments of the population.

Allow me to introduce to you Joseph Schumpeter. Well maybe you already know about him.

Again Joe, did you read the report, rather than just the article about the report? From the footnote to the chart with the 43% number - "Welfare use and home ownership are based on the nativity of the household head."

And what a confusing response. So after almost two decades of admitted inaction we finally leapt on Strom's conservative tough-on-crime bandwagon in 1986 and therefore the liberals are solely responsible - as per #915 - for the drug war.

Odd, that. How is it that the law written by the rich serves the rich in this manner? Cui bono?

The more powerful the government, the more power you're giving to rich people to use it and abuse it to their advantage.

Schumpeter claimed that he had set himself three goals in life: to be the greatest economist in the world, to be the best horseman in all of Austria and the greatest lover in all of Vienna. He said he had reached two of his goals, but he never said which two...