these claimed numbers about immigrants improving things are generally based on a rather strict policy, a policy designed to ensure that on average those immigrants allowed in give back more than they take, which should more than offset for refugees and so on. It's a tautology.
-
-
Show this thread
-
This is an evergreen problem for marketing: you get the ROI numbers up, which is great, but then when you scale out the quality necessarily plummets. Often consultants do not mention that increasing spend will drop the quality of the dollars spent, and % ROI.
Show this thread -
this is just to say arguing for immigration based on the quality of past immigrants has a reflexivity problem. You can certainly argue to continue a certain immigration policy based on the results, but expanding it must necessarily change those numbers.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
They cannot admit that incentive structures actually work, though. They've been arguing against them for 50+ years.
-
Sure. And bear in mind that incentives are pretty much non-existent on the individual level; they only have effects in aggregate, singletons can and often do ignore them. So you can't look at Van Braun as an example of immigration.
-
Well, that's what a lot of people get wrong about statistics in general. Politics is full of "My neighbors (one example overrepresented in my memories) totally contradict your data; therefore your data are wrong!"
-
Right. if 80% of people follow the incentives, and there are 1,000,000 people, that's 200,000 people who didn't - you could live your whole life and never meet a person who did respond to the incentive. But the difference between 50% following and 80% following is huge!
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
Open immigration WITHOUT welfare will by contrast attract the most talented. At least when there is rule of law and opportunity, as with the early United States.
-
not sure about the open immigration thing. I think it's generally a negative to attracting the talented, the USA never had open immigration (in general) iirc, and the state of "rule of law" in many of the expanding territories was iffy. Probably "open exit" if things go south.
-
I still want screening and skills based immigration, but without welfare you wouldn't have anywhere near the problems we have now.
-
This is true! But since in a society all types exist, the system would have to stop crushing local institutions and communities' power to discriminate and police themselves, or you will end up with welfare as a necessity to prevent ruin from the externalities of such poverty.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
