Let Anyone Take A Job Anywhere
Вставка
- Опубліковано 30 жов 2013
- If we value a free market in goods and free movement of capital, should we embrace the free movement of labor? Reciprocal treaties would allow citizens of the U.S. and other countries to work legally across borders. Would the elimination of barriers in the labor market depress wages and flood the marketplace with workers? Or would the benefits of a flexible labor supply be a boon to our economy, all while raising the standard of living for anyone willing to work?
Ron is adorable. His smile could bring about world peace.
The economist has the smarmy expression of someone who lives in an ideological bubble, and whose lack of experience in the real world precludes him from seeing the logistic and social implications and ramifications of his theories.
They aren’t theories. Most of the planet has had open border policies all through their history. The greatest industrial revolution in the history of our species came when we had open borders to Europe in the US. At the time, Europe was 75% illiterate.
@@firstlast9916no difference in volume? How many now vs then? No difference in speed? Today humans can travel around the world within 24 hours, most of human history we could not. Very theoretical as OP said.
Most humans can’t travel today. The average African makes $1 per day. A plane ticket to the US is $1200. And even if you handed $1200 to an average african,, he won’t spend it on a plane ticket. Just like the average guy in Detroit doesn’t leave Detroit. They like living in Detroit. They feel that they belong there.
The debate actually demonstrates just how far economics, as an academic discipline, has gone off the tracks. Time was when "Economics" was concerned with studying the factors involved in maximizing human well-being. It included social institutions, political institutions, as well as business. It now focuses exclusively on finance and money value chains; which ignore it's original objectives.
Commenting five years later, this is exactly right. Economics has become the same kind of industry as psychoanalysis was under Freud, a soothsaying business around hypnotising people to do what the authority wants them to do and fleece them while they are at it. Guys like that indian on the panel are just useful idiots, they actually believe the gibberish but can't even follow it. They only parrot the talking points because it provides their selfish backsides with a living.
There are general social sciences programs. I have a B.A. in social science. From there you can narrow the focus to political science, economics law and society, etc..
Social science do cover a broad range of topics.
This talk reminds me of the fable of the frog and the scorpion with Bryan Caplan playing the role of the scorpion. "Let me on your back Mr Frog. In the name of equality we shall cross the river together."
From the economic viewpoint, free transport of workers is great.
But people are not just workers. When they immigrate in large numbers into another country, they also bring with them their culture, their politics, their social background.
This can be overwhelming for a society.
Just imagine what would happen to a democratic country which imports millions of people who don't believe in democracy - they can just vote to abolish it!
No disrespect but I kind of almost would rather have seen this as just a Caplan vs. Unz debate. It seems like all four debaters were on different pages on some pretty foundational issues.
The Indian guy has a very narrow perspective: his own personal greed.
@@JustMe-uc1ltHe's unable to think of low skilled worker, the majority of jobs. I guess he's unable to think outside of his own direct environment, which is sad, as all it would take is thinking of the person serving you coffee at starbucks or scanning your groceries.
He's very ego-centric
Bryan Caplan's moral high ground seems analogous to saying that you're a heartless scumbag if on your way home you don't invite every homeless person that you encounter to come home with you. After all, you probably have floorspace for 10+ homeless people, and you could dramatically elevate their standard of living beyond their current living conditions. Bryan sure talks like he's the bigger man, but I bet he wouldn't go so far as to do that, since it would unreasonably reduce the standard of living of the population in his house.
Regardless, I would love to see the top 1% possess a lot less wealth, but I see this motion just hurting the lower and middle class, and concentrating more money with the 1%.
False, what he advocates is not using violence against people who take jobs. You owe your fellow human beings nothing but non violence.
At 43:25 it sure sounds like his argument is what I described.
He doesn't bring up violence at that particular moment, but maybe it comes up later on (it's been a while since I watched this). Regardless of what his ultimate position is, he made the above argument (more than once I believe), and that's what my comment was referencing.
Not taking someone into your property is not an act of violence. Forcibly preventing someone from bringing someone into their property is an act of violence. Preventing me from employing someone from a foreign country is an act of violence against ME. Stopping me from letting an apartment to someone from a foreign country is an act of violence against ME. Do you see what I mean?
The employer's head will be placed under the guillotine when working class America revolts against your "kindness" to third world labourers because, instead of improve the living standards of the immigrants, you drove the standard of living of the entire working class down as a thank you for sucking up the last 40 years of real wage stagnation.
@@AustenJenius23 Caplan and you are advocating much more than non-violence, you're advocating self-impoverishment via charity to the non-deserving poor. It's a hard no from me.
Thoroughly unimpressed by this Wadwha guy. He doesn't address his interlocutor's points and makes endless relentless strawmen and appeals to empty feel, accompanied by endlessly jabbering catchphrases he's clearly reciting from rote learning and not real understanding or a sense of the actual debate. He casually glosses over making "balancing regulations" as if these challenges are an hour in a rainy afternoon and not massive challenges that would require costs and years of investment to develop in advance in order to make sure they work properly. He just repeats himself and spams words, presumably to buy himself time to think, whether he's on the spot or relentlessly interrupting Kathleen. I don't agree with Caplan's point but at least he makes it. He doesn't just say "it's already happening DEAL WITH IT" as if that's an argument, nevermind a compelling one.
Oh and he always brings up his access to all this women around the world, how he wouldn't be able to write his book if he didn't have access to all these women. Shudder.
He’s a creep. He just seems to be driven by his own greed. He doesn’t seem to give a damn about social cohesion or the welfare of those affected by open borders.
Look at Caplan's face whenever Wadwha talks.
I went to new York city once. And ya, it was diverse. But another way to describe it was a gigantic traffic jam. It took hours just to drive a few blocks. If we try to make the whole country like new York city We would all starve to death in no time. No employer's going to hire a native born if they can hire an illegal immigrant for less money and never have to give them a raise. These guys are slavers.
And yet New York is the financial capital of the planet. How is that possible with that many legal and illegal immigrants in the last 100 years in New York?
Blaming autocentric infrastructure and Robert Moses' urban planning on immigrants. Big brain right here. If you make immigration legal, then there would be no illegal immigrants.
The one female participant isn't able to finish any of her sentences without being cut-off by the men on stage
There are a lot of Semitic money changers on here talking about how great infinite GDP is.🤔🤔🤔
They are right. Increased world wide GDP is the main reason the world is as technologically advanced as it is. GDP made it all possible.
@BC Covington Norway has 5 million people with an average IQ similar to the US. The only Norwegian invention I found online was the cheese slicer.
Still convinced population increase is not good?
@BC Covington didn’t say having babies was good. The topic of conversation is immigration. Not having babies. Focus.
@BC Covington didn’t know that. Is it worth it to list the first thousand American inventions or are you actually denying that Norwegians invented 100 times less than Americans? Should I bother making a list for you?
Shows what you know. The greatest industrial revolution in our species history happened with open borders. And get this: Europe was 25% literate at the time Ellis island was open with no restrictions. Try again.
@BC Covington 1% rejection rate through the industrial revolution at shipping ports. Wide open southern border too. This is not debatable.
John Donvan is an awesome moderator, but somebody's gotta do something about the audience question segment problem.
I wish that I lived in new york so that I could attend these debates
Any country that will allow foreigners to have an equal footing, in ANY respect, with it's own citizens, is not a country that holds its own citizens' best interests at heart.
The job of my government is to protect me. If anyone from another country wants to compete with me for my job, in my own country, then they should become a citizen of my country. Green cards and visas should not enable them to compete for my job.
I wonder what Mr Caplan and Mr Wadhwa are thinking now that Trump was elected, as Mr Unz had predicted.
Luciana Vieira Luciana Vieira? Que nome brazuka.
9:45 I see there's plastic sleeves on the keypads. I wonder if this is a sanitary thing or if that's where IQ2 can put the branding? Is this usual?
ok here something the lady said that was messed up. "its not the job of the employers to peruse the public good" ? mm were shifting from me to us, please join. align your good so its the same as the public good, no? first wealth(energy, water, food, housing, education, health care, transportation) and money second
I'm curious why they didnt mention culture, immigrants will bring their positive and negative cultural views with them.
A countries prosperity also has to take culture into account.
He used hypothetical farmers in Antarctica and explained they would produce more if they were somewhere else because they were only poor farmers because of frozen soil , but in the real world a person's success has alot to do with culture/religion/ worldview and alot of other things , sometimes there is a reason one country is more or less successful , unlimited immigration will change cultures drastically
the free market with the appropriate guiding hand of fiscally responsible governments overwhelms all cultural differences
@@user-hg6vd2iz7m
I'm a big believer in The Free Market , but don't downplay culture / religion
Good job, Ron Unz!
everything runs off of ego and love, someday will stop avoiding it. myself included anyone willing to admit it.
I dont think the main argument for immigrants was mention. The argument is "welfare"
My gf came here when she was 21 from russia. Russia paid for her primary education, for her upbringing. She now works in DC and pays every tax and even money towards social security, but because she is here on work visa, those taxes she pays do not go towards her pension or in any way help her.
In other words, here we have an immigrant on whom the state wasted no tax money so far, and who will pay taxes like any other citizen but will not reap certain benefits of it such as his/her primary education or pension. This person, from an economic point of view, is like a slave. Why wouldnt we want more of such immigrants?
If an immigrant is a young adult on whom a foreign state, especially an enemy state like russia, comes here with education and skills, that means we not only just saved hundreds of thousands and maybe millions of dollars on developing this person, but we've also effectively stole that investment from a different country.
Moreover, if that person does not become a citizen/permanent resident, we've also effectively stolen certain taxes from this immigrant because he/she will not benefit in any way from some of them
25:55 I used to like this guy and then he spouted unintelligent nonsense - belligerent broad assumptions and mischaracterizations of Tea Party "anti-immigration."
The side for argues for integration of knowledge, while the side against argues the downfall of geographical movement to the country. Even if we had good regulations, amazing politicians that actually represent the people, and the will to accept immigrants, we would still be unable to deal with millions of people physically moving here. US foreign policies are hideous, such as not allowing AFRICA to sell raw materials, where do you think the skilled or unskilled workers in Africa want to live?
So no one seems to understand basic econ. Well I'm happy to explain it to you. There's ALWAYS a demand for slave labor and NEVER a demand for a well paid work force. In America we have a high cost of living, we have to waste half our lives in school, we pay a ton in taxes, we have to pay for car insurance, phone, electric, gas, etc. We have insane costs we have to deal with for things like eyecare, medicine, etc.
All that being said, we then let people from halfway around the world compete for the same jobs even though their cost of living is almost nothing compared to us. There's a good name for this. It's called slavery. A nicer name for it would be scab workers.
It's been two years and I'm just checking in to see if you learned basic econ yet? Your first attempt at explaining the demand for labor was atrocious.
Why is the issue of mass immigration, which is a massive demographic transformation, discussed almost exclusively in terms of economics? Who really cares if you can have cheaper low skilled labour if it means you feel like a foreigner in your own country?
Also, Caplin talks about the miserable conditions in other nations and argues as though this is merely a matter of geography. No, the reason these nations are miserable is largely due to the economic and social pathologies of those nations. If you import millions of people from such nations, you will import those pathologies with them. This isnt idle speculation: immigrants from poor countries (unless it is very selective immigration like it has been from India, not the low skilled free for all Caplin is talking about) are much more likely to commit crime and be in poverty, and this deficit in outcomes persists through generations.
The solution to the problem that you pose is voting rights. Free immigration, but a long path to voting/citizenship.
You're coming at the issue from a them-and-us standpoint. If you remove the assumption that people from 'my' country are more important than people from elsewhere, then your argument doesn't work. Having said that, Bryan Caplan's argument is actually that everyone would be better off (including the 'in group'), the factors you mention notwithstanding. Also, Caplan's opening remarks concern the MORAL issues, not 'economic' ones.
Such a question is only for the ruling class to ponder. Is the cheaper nanny and gardener worth the upheaval in society? Sure it's worth it in the short term, longer term, Molotov cocktails may start flying over their gates.
Thomaspoa by “ruling class” you mean Washington bureaucrats right? Because bureaucrats know what every industry needs and who is and isn’t qualified to do a specific job. All Mexicans are definitely not qualified to work in the US.
Rudy C No, I don't mean the bureaucrats. I mean the American billionaire class that hires the politicians and sets national policy. It's up to them to judge what's in their best interests.
You got the point, just the other way around. centralization of power and resulting cronyism is responsible for economic disasters.
Yea. Crazy extreme ideas are not going to play well to the audience here.
The concept of an open boarder economy is silly. The example given of Puerto Rico couldn't be further from the truth, given the island is experiencing a booming tourism driven economy the whole of the island, for the most part, is a welfare state. The brain-drain mentioned is exactly what's happening, added to that is the loss of factories who've moved to locals less bothered with a minimum wage let alone a living wage. I wish I knew what the best answer to this question is but open boarders only creates a greater consolidation of poor the world over and a futher thinning of the middle-class.
It seems that no one took Bryan Caplan’s Haiti example seriously. No one truly imagined how horrible it would be to be imprisoned in a third world country from which you cannot get out.
Is this a lack moral imagination? Do people think: something like this could never happen to me or my loved ones?
People have a deeply ingrained them-and-us mentality.
I can imagine it. That's why I don't want unlimited immigration turning my country into a third world country from which I cannot get out.
The lack of imagination is yours. You don't think that it can happen to you but it can and will if we allow our country to become a third world hellhole.
Rich countries already aid poor countries in times of need, there's zero need to invite them to your country which will make things worse for you.
@@johnwilliamson9657foreign aid does next to nothing. And inviting people just for work and denying welfare is good for almost everyone
ron is the bomb!
I'm really surprised by this one. I thought that the side arguing for seemed to have much more knowledge on the subject and brought up much better points.
How strange, I thought the pro-open-borders side was noticeably poorly-informed, unrealistic and tried to debate with false slogans a lot, which didn't go down well with the audience, unsurprisingly.
competition feeds our ego, first subject that should be taught in schools, ego.
Orange picking in Florida is done almost exclusively by...?
What is wrong with that brian guy whenever someone else is talking ?
He literally is moving and looking about like a robot.
I think we would be a better humanity if everyone in the world had to consider that countries, borders, laws and governments could one day magically disappear :D
Let everyone come and work any job here and EVERYONE will end up working longer for less money. More and more people will become homeless, on welfare, disability, depressed, or commit suicide.
Most professional economists who go into the think tanks and get the prof jobs come from the 1%.
how ridiculous - this is what we're paying universities for?
Some morons just can't ask cogent questions.
Protectionism has never helped anyone. If it did we would still be with horse and cart.
"I have never opened an economics textbook and I don't really understand economics. Now listen as I proceed to lay out an economic argument against immigration." LOL
I think that was a bad approach, just objectively. When you admit an area isn't your strong suit, that's okay and even admirable until you start to lecture everyone about what you admittedly don't understand.
At least he's honest! :P
He didn't say he didn't understand, or understands any less than the economists, he said he'd never read an economics textbook. Economics, beyond the basics, like psychiatry, is a pseudoscience.
And then he explained the issue in a way that proved he understood the subject under debate.
The second speaker had a great opening: "I don't understand this issue". The truthfulness of this was proven in his subsequent comments.
High immigration doesn't transfer wealth from young working class people to older richer investment class?
It does Ron was 100% correct and your blind assertion didn't discredit his argument in any way
His opening was brilliant. It was a display of humility, AND showed that you don't need economic voodootalk (aka charlatanry) to understand the principles of the debate. He demonstrated very aptly that he understood the issue.
Ron's voice sounds like he is parodying his position.
Excellent audience. They were able to put aside the vapid and purely emotional arguments about the world's poor and recognize that you can't lift up an impoverished people by cutting the standard of living for the majority of the citizens who perform the labor of your own nation.
Also, the woman who asked about the US citizens currently living in poverty and why the side for the motion seemed to have such little regard for their situation had a perfectly valid question considering the side for the motion spent so much time on the impoverished of other nations. I"m surprised the moderator brushed that rather glaring detail aside.
somuchfortalent
Are they emotional arguments though? It's pretty simple to me. The people who live in rich counties didn't chose to be born there. The ones in poor countries didn't either. Neither of the two groups deserved the situation they were born into. The proposition is simply saying that people who got the wrong end of the stick for no reason other than bad luck should have the opportunity to do better than they are now
Yes, caring about the world's poor is 'vapid'.
The 'impoverished' of the US have a standard of living not remotely comparable to that of the poor foreigners Caplan is talking about.
doesn't matter in pretty sure Brian knows that.
Rudy C ...Yes, that's one of the assumptions behind his argument.
this was terrible. the free movement people never got around to actually rebutting there opponents arguments, which could all easily be refuted. free movement of labor would not decrease the real wages for most pre-existing americans but actually improve them, although the improvement wouldn't be nearly as drastic as for most of the incoming workers.
how would wages improve?
Amount of labor and capital is not fixed. Human growth and prosperity depend on the continuous growth of the pie, that is, labor and capital and growth and prosperity benefit everyone.
example. Growth of the pie must be distributed equally for everyone to benefit.
@@p1b1harper But you have expand pie first which Socialism has never been able to do.
@@NavaidSyed Protectionism has been very successful though. For example, America in the 19th century. Which means restrictions on trade and immigration
@@p1b1harper That is not the problem of Capitalism. Blame government. It happens regardless of any system. That is why Anarcho-Capitalism is the only true solution.
@@NavaidSyed Removing all non-whites is the only solution for white countries. There is no solution for non white countries, excepting Japan, they will always be poor, violent, corrupt places because of the shitty people who populate those nations. That's life.
What about prices. Few people lose in wages. But, everyone benefits from lower prices, including the jobs-creating businesses.
Wow! Totally shocked by the vote results... Strange debate...
Absolutely shocked by the results of this.
Ask the Jew if he wants Israel to opens its doors to anyone who wants a job, 10 million Palestinians for example. Ask the Indian if he wants India to open it's doors to anyone who wants a job, 10 million Pakistanis for ezample.
Why would Chinese even have a desire to move to India?
@TomSwift Second excellent point I’ve read from you while listening to this debate.
> minimum wage
What does that even mean to start with? It is my assertion that it means people insisting on minimal wage would pay EVEN LESS if it was NOT unlawful to start with. It indicate intent toward slavery.
Wow "capital and labour" are the factors of production. How about natural resources?
Natural resources are included in capital.
@@mgonzalez6287 they existed but they weren’t a resource. Natural resources became necessary with capital. It’s just semantics. No big deal.
It is not about world GDP will go up. World GDP is going up in an historically unmatched fashion for over 200 years now mainly due to open immigration and open trade.
You have to look at GDP per capita. India for example has the 7th highest GDP in the world but if we look at per capita GDP India is ranked 141.
Tom Swift and 150 years ago their average per capita was around zero. Huge improvement in the last 150 years for India.
@@p1b1harper Things do not change overnight my friend. All a good system can do is to change the trends in favor of growth and prosperity.
@@firstlast9916 thsnks to Britidh colonization and now generous trade desls with America. But Americas don't benefit.
Tom Swift Americans definitely profit from India. Maybe by the trillions of dollars. That’s not even debatable. India makes millions of products and service cheaper for the American consumer. That’s more money that stays in your pocket. Indians work hard for you to live a comfortable life. Indian outsourcing creates American management jobs. American logistics jobs. American transportation jobs. Increased revenue for American companies allow Americans to invests in research and technological innovation. Which creates even more American jobs.
A great example of the benefits of Immigration: The Indian guy keeps interrupting the lady every single time. Isn't diversity our strength?
Well they are both contributing to the same country by living here. Isn’t that diversity a strength?
Let's be clear: Free markets, means unregulated markets. That means unstable markets. That has lead, historically to cycles of boom and bust which invariably concentrate more and more wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands. And that, history should have taught us, leads invariably to blood in the streets. The purpose of government is to regulate, period. This may be by the redistribution of wealth, or by the passage of laws to protect the public and individuals from excessive greed and ambition. Or It may become the government's function to protect the wealth and power of a few.
There should be a job for everyone who wants one. There is lots of work to be done.
Although your argument sounds very reasonable in principle, the fact of the matter is that government simply isn't capable of orchestrating a whole economy with laws and regulation. In fact, when they do, it is often to the detriment of everyone.
Sheik Yerboutie Although your argument also sounds reasonable, you're misrepresenting the other side by assuming that the purpose of regulation and law is to "orchestrate" the "whole" economy. As both of you implied, the experiments of unfettered capitalism and communism have both been tried and failed. We are looking for some functional middle ground.
Ruguban, I can definitely agree with you. The average American would find neither unfettered laissez-faire capitalism, nor communism appealing in practice. After having studied economics at length however, I can assure you that nearly every instance of govt intervention creates economic inefficiencies, also called "deadweight loss". Occasionally, some of these programs actually make the people they are meant to serve poorer in the long run. Intervention must therefore be limited in scope, and very carefully implemented to avoid such outcomes.
Ruguban You are wrong. Capitalism is the only experiment that has succeeded. How can you possibly claim that capitalism is anything other than a massive success story? Without capitalism we would not have this debate. Without capitalism we would not even have computers. Without capitalism we would all still be constantly looking for food in the woods.
Free markets does not mean unregulated markets. Free markets means unregulated by politicians. Free markets are instead regulated by market forces. So the question is not whether or not we should have regulation, the question is if you want regulation made by corrupt lying politicians who sells their influence for campaign donations or competing hardworking businessmen trying to give you the best product ever at the best price so you will come back for more making it possible for them to make a profit. Yeah, I will take market forces any day.
Corporate entities pushing for international trade agreements is a frequently observable phenomenon. Elimination of restriction on movement of people are seldom so much as considered. It seam to imply that the fruits of production must flow freely while the means of production, people, are to remain chained to their country of origin. What kind of people does it take to accept the premise than an iPad can and must freely be moved across the world but a person cannot?
I don't like this :
make self interest illegal. boohoo, get over. i think we should debate the cause of problems, and if theres a cause to that problem then debate that one till u find the underlying issues, and fix those first, dont do or talk about anything else until those are fixed(past tense). i apologize if i actually wanna solve problems. and it seems its rides on morals and peoples views of happiness, so change them, please, stop making low frequency media, education and religion. so our children arnt warped.
It would only be a fair path if EVERY country is open at once. not just America opening it's doors, but every nation, every space etc opening up. No more Native American reservations or Aboriginal lands, no areas protected for indigenous peoples, no third world nations blocking others from coming in. If people are going to come to where you are, you have to be free to leave and go somewhere else if you don't like how things have changed. What you would see if you did this is global white flight....it would be a disaster, but slightly less disasterous than only some nations opening the borders and others not.
Myth. People don’t move without plans. Most countries have had open borders for practically all of human history. Thee is no evidence of “disaster” with open borders.
@@firstlast9916 I guess you missed all of human history till the present then....what with all the warfare over resources and territory......
@@firstlast9916 also most of human history didn't have "countries"
@@firstlast9916 Do you disagree with my point about ALL countries, native lands, Aboriginal territories etc ALL must be "open borders" is it it only borders for thee but not for me?
SeaRose not talking about war. I’m talking about the other 99.999999999999999% of migrants. Economic migrants. Practically 100% of migration has been peaceful.
If Liberians block me from going there to open up a business, they are violating a bunch o human rights. Practically all human rights are violated when you stop people from moving around in any direction.
Caplan and Newland made strong arguments; the other two really didn't contribute much.
Bryan Caplan seems very manipulative. He keeps trying to attack Kathleen's character just because she doesn't agree with him. His ideas are outrageous, which is probably why no one is taking him seriously.
Lot's of people take him seriously, which is why he was invited to the debate.
Isn’t Kathleen saying that Haitians are not welcome here because they are Haitian? How is that not a flaw in her character?
@@firstlast9916 Why would you want Hatians in your country?
Tom Swift I don’t own the continent or planet earth or the universe. It’s none of my business who decides to get a job anywhere in the universe.
@@firstlast9916Then go away and leave the matter to people who's business it is to control the universe.
Video spoilers for results ahead:
I think the audience misunderstood the question, for reasonable assertions. It sounds like common sense to say that people should work anywhere, but once the side made it clear they wanted to abolish immigration restrictions with open borders, the audience started to change their minds. Their stance could have meant anything as well (no restrictions or some). It was not completely clear. As for the debate, the pro-open borders side won, and it was not even close. Not because I agree, but because they seemed to have made the best arguments and possess the best ethos.
Conversative: "I have never had economics 101 but here is my economic argument"
Libertarian Economist: "Actually, please take a course!"
Libertarians are fools. They say that capitalism is great but capitalism can never be great because it requires a truly free market in order to work properly, which can never exist because capitalists corrupt the free market to gain dominance in the free market. As long as humans run the show, a truly free market can never exist. As you can see, there is no economic model or form of govt that can ever work properly because humans will corrupt it for individual gain. Everything system always devolves to an oligarchy.
@@whiterationalism4253 all the more reason to get rid of immigration laws.
Open borders won't cost us nothing. It'll cost us EVERYTHING! It's so kind and flowery sounding, but really what does it mean? It's slavery. Every foreign worker brings down wages and raises the hours we all work. That's what slavery is. We all have to work more for less in order to survive and be happy.
I thought no intelligent and informed person would take a job of opposing this motion.
No you didn't.
Classic @ 45:17
>Who is gonna PAY for the schooling of these (...)
That argument assumes and presumes that knowledge/information have to be paid for. I have one question for you: what is the NATURE of your authority over that jurisdiction?
The idea that we should prevent innovation and cost efficiency to protect jobs is a failed ideology. By that reasoning, we should ban farm machinery.
>Stratification of labor. Keeping OUT low skilled workers. Appealing to wage as a measurement of worth.
That system is readily and frequently abused. A frequent effect of this is to favour obedient and compliant behaviour which is consistent with slavery.
Ron's economics is wrong too. It is not just that he is untrained in it, he actually fails to understand some aspects of it.
Stagnation is not due to immigration. It is due to ever-growing government, taxation, and regulations.
The moderator is so biased, Bryan Caplan barely gets to speak!
wtf. I'm only halfway through this so-called debate. I am not enjoying this at all. It already fells like a false assumption sausage festival. Upside down sine qua non. wow. wtf is this shit on about?