Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

Explore the business, economy, finance and trade aspects of human society.

Moderators: Calilasseia, ADParker

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#21  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 22, 2013 4:44 am

Loren Michael wrote:What's not going to matter a whole lot to the fact that starting with 10 middle-class Americans and then adding a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up?

If House and Senate bullshit makes nothing matter, we might as well not talk about anything.

Oh I don't know about that, there's lots of issues we could discuss that don't involve the Senate or the House. Lke, for example, do you think Obama shoul greenlight the KXL pipeline? There's a litany of such issues, all of grave import.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#22  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 22, 2013 5:03 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:What's not going to matter a whole lot to the fact that starting with 10 middle-class Americans and then adding a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up?

If House and Senate bullshit makes nothing matter, we might as well not talk about anything.

Oh I don't know about that, there's lots of issues we could discuss that don't involve the Senate or the House. Lke, for example, do you think Obama shoul greenlight the KXL pipeline? There's a litany of such issues, all of grave import.


The subject of this thread and the related tangent we were discussing are both things that can be discussed irrespective of what is or is not in the legislative pipeline.

If you'd rather not discuss something, okay. Changing the subject doesn't really work with me. The discussion is still there, you can pick it up or not:

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:1) In regards to the particulars of health and security, I'm not certain; I tend to think that if someone would otherwise be able go somewhere (if they had the resources necessary to get a visa and bus/plane ticket), then they should be allowed to live and work there as well. If there's some evidence to suggest that might be problematic, that might be a good reason to put some restrictions up.

People can walk around and look perfectly normal when they're carrying Hepatitus or Tubercular or Herpes or other similar pathogens that may be recessive at the moment. Allowing such persons to immigrate only invites public health issues.

Loren Michael wrote:
2) Regarding people's education and language skills, those are possibilities at the individual level, but is there any evidence that it's a broader problem?

Every immigrant is an individual.


1) That's a fair point in regards to health, but I'd have to see some studies before I weigh in.
2) Yes, but is there any evidence that would present a broader problem?

Loren Michael wrote:
Immigration policies should serve to improve or enhance the population's ability to contribute to the greater good, not detract from it. Immigration should boost a country's ability to move forward, not go backward.


3) When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

Many would say that Hispanic immigration into Arizona and California has caused those States to go backward.


3) Many would say that the earth is 6000 years old.

When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

What does it mean to make a country "go backward"? If a poor person from Mexico goes to the US and works, that person is one more poor person. Statistically, they make the country poorer, but it's not clear what adverse impact such a person has.

Loren Michael wrote:
4) What part does the welfare of the potential immigrants play in this moral calculus?

5) Again, you're comparing America to some absolute standard, right? What is that standard?


On the whole, though, I think immigration is a mistaken social policy. Right now for example there are probably tens of millions of people in third world countries who would give their eye teeth to immigrate to Canada or the US. It would be utterly foolish to throw the doors open to them.

The nature of immigration in the US has changed since 100 years ago when most immigrants came from Europe and were white and easily melded into the existing population, creating what became known as the "melting pot." This hasn't been true for some time now as most immigramts over the past 40 or 50 years have been non-whites who do not chose to integrate but rather create their own communities and neighborhoods in the vein of the "Chinatowns" of the past. Today we have "Koreatowns" and "Little Saigons," or Spanish barrios and solidly Russian neighborhoods in New York city. The days when America was a "melting pot" are long gone.


4) What problems does that actually present? So what if there are Koreans, so what if there are Russian neighborhoods. What's the problem of their existence?

I also think that people who are aren't satisfied with conditions in their country of origin should stay home and work to improve their lot, rather than running off to some other country where they think their prospects will be better. Countries won't improve if everyone just wants to flee. They should stay home and work to make them better.


5) The receiving countries improve, and the welfare of the people improves. Why care about countries? The important thing is people. Countries only matter insofar as they're a stand-in for groups of people. If those people can enjoy dramatic improvements in conditions by simply crossing a border and enjoying the new opportunities, why stop them?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#23  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 23, 2013 3:33 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:What's not going to matter a whole lot to the fact that starting with 10 middle-class Americans and then adding a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up?

If House and Senate bullshit makes nothing matter, we might as well not talk about anything.

Oh I don't know about that, there's lots of issues we could discuss that don't involve the Senate or the House. Lke, for example, do you think Obama shoul greenlight the KXL pipeline? There's a litany of such issues, all of grave import.

The subject of this thread and the related tangent we were discussing are both things that can be discussed irrespective of what is or is not in the legislative pipeline.

If you'd rather not discuss something, okay. Changing the subject doesn't really work with me. The discussion is still there, you can pick it up or not:

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:1) In regards to the particulars of health and security, I'm not certain; I tend to think that if someone would otherwise be able go somewhere (if they had the resources necessary to get a visa and bus/plane ticket), then they should be allowed to live and work there as well. If there's some evidence to suggest that might be problematic, that might be a good reason to put some restrictions up.

People can walk around and look perfectly normal when they're carrying Hepatitus or Tubercular or Herpes or other similar pathogens that may be recessive at the moment. Allowing such persons to immigrate only invites public health issues.

Loren Michael wrote:
2) Regarding people's education and language skills, those are possibilities at the individual level, but is there any evidence that it's a broader problem?

Every immigrant is an individual.

1) That's a fair point in regards to health, but I'd have to see some studies before I weigh in.
2) Yes, but is there any evidence that would present a broader problem?

Loren Michael wrote:

3) When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

Many would say that Hispanic immigration into Arizona and California has caused those States to go backward.


3) Many would say that the earth is 6000 years old.

When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

What does it mean to make a country "go backward"? If a poor person from Mexico goes to the US and works, that person is one more poor person. Statistically, they make the country poorer, but it's not clear what adverse impact such a person has.

Loren Michael wrote:
4) What part does the welfare of the potential immigrants play in this moral calculus?

5) Again, you're comparing America to some absolute standard, right? What is that standard?


On the whole, though, I think immigration is a mistaken social policy. Right now for example there are probably tens of millions of people in third world countries who would give their eye teeth to immigrate to Canada or the US. It would be utterly foolish to throw the doors open to them.

The nature of immigration in the US has changed since 100 years ago when most immigrants came from Europe and were white and easily melded into the existing population, creating what became known as the "melting pot." This hasn't been true for some time now as most immigramts over the past 40 or 50 years have been non-whites who do not chose to integrate but rather create their own communities and neighborhoods in the vein of the "Chinatowns" of the past. Today we have "Koreatowns" and "Little Saigons," or Spanish barrios and solidly Russian neighborhoods in New York city. The days when America was a "melting pot" are long gone.


4) What problems does that actually present? So what if there are Koreans, so what if there are Russian neighborhoods. What's the problem of their existence?

I also think that people who are aren't satisfied with conditions in their country of origin should stay home and work to improve their lot, rather than running off to some other country where they think their prospects will be better. Countries won't improve if everyone just wants to flee. They should stay home and work to make them better.


5) The receiving countries improve, and the welfare of the people improves. Why care about countries? The important thing is people. Countries only matter insofar as they're a stand-in for groups of people. If those people can enjoy dramatic improvements in conditions by simply crossing a border and enjoying the new opportunities, why stop them?

I first visited the city of Vancouver in 1972 and found it to be a quite pleasant situation, not crowded, easy going, clean and well groomed. I stayed almost a year, hanging out with people in the entertainment industry, looking to see if there might not be an opportunity there for me. I worked with some local bands and produced some shows and took a few bands on the road.

But it wasn't working and the reason why it wasn't related to the fact that I was an immigrant and Canadians at the time didn't have any real willingness to work with immigrants. So I left and moved back to the Interior where I've resided since. It was even worse being an immigrant here, lots of the jobs I looked at had citizenship requirements hanging on them. I banged around doing odd jobs, worked at a sawmill for awhile as a laborer and helped people build their homes. I was solo at the time so my needs were minimal.

Then in 1974 I bought the land I've lived on since and managed to get on at the local community college as an Instructor, a good paying job. I did that for the next 16 years, met a lady, and started a family. I visited Vancouver on a number of occasions and watched how it transmogrified from what I had seen there in 1972 to a city that had so many Chinese (and Punjabis) people had taken to calling it "Hongcouver," because all those Chinese had come from Hong Kong, having paid $50,000 a pop to immigrate before that city reverted to Chinese control. They made very little effort to learn English. Many were high end criminal types (Chinese mafioso). They were aloof and insular. The city had taken on a completely different air from what it had been in 1972, and the Punjabis took every cab driving, gas station attendant, retail clerk, burger flipping, tire changing job in town, settled in the burbs and formed criminal gangs that were soon involved in the vices, the drug trade, car theft, armed robbery, prostitution, gambling, and overall thuggery of the worst kind. They never made much of an effort to learn English either.

Today you can walk six blocks in downtown Vancouver and not hear an English word spoken.

The real estate industry has managed to keep the Punjabis out of some communities like North and West Vancouver by sustaining home prirces at levels they won't pay. The Chinese have created their own communities.

I've not been back in 20 years and don't intend to ever go there again. It's crowded, dirty, and crime ridden. I read about it in the papers, lots of shooting deaths and rape. Law enforcement struggles to maintain a semblance of order, but they have a real job on their hands.

Immigration has brought ruin to what at one time was one of Canada's best city's.

This has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth when it comes to immigration. Hardly any of those people have relocated to the interior. My little town here had a population of 8,000 in 1970 and today doesn't top 10,000. Fine with me. They valley in which I reside had about 3,000 people in 1970 and today has maybe 3,500. Again, fine with me. I know them all, and they know me.

My interest in discussing immigration is at a very low ebb. That's unlikely to change any time soon. I've seen what it can do, and there appears to be very little upside and boatloads of downside.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#24  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 23, 2013 3:53 pm

I have three questions for you Loren:

1. Do you think havind a city full of ghetto's is a healthy situation?
2. Does America have a welfare state?
3. Have you lived in a ghetto?

You live in China just now the chances of seeing a ghetto is next to nil. You preach easily about open borders while you dont even live in the country.
America has a welfare state? Could have fooled me. No healthcare, bad education, hardly non-existant social services and welfare stamps. A great way to describe the welfare state of a first world country.

Another thing the title is a general one. You talk constantly about one country how about the rest or change the title but ofcourse for you the world only exists out of one country with the one you present live in being just a shadow.

As a European we know the effect immigration has on the welfare state. For a start most European countries have a proper welfare state. Free immigration would be devastating to our welfare state which is why it is so strictly controlled. With countries outside the EU group we have negative immigration and it is going to stay that way.

This idea of open borders is absolutely pure madness.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#25  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 24, 2013 6:02 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:What's not going to matter a whole lot to the fact that starting with 10 middle-class Americans and then adding a poorly educated Mexican immigrant into the mix, the average wage of the group can go down even if each individual person's wages go up?

If House and Senate bullshit makes nothing matter, we might as well not talk about anything.

Oh I don't know about that, there's lots of issues we could discuss that don't involve the Senate or the House. Lke, for example, do you think Obama shoul greenlight the KXL pipeline? There's a litany of such issues, all of grave import.

The subject of this thread and the related tangent we were discussing are both things that can be discussed irrespective of what is or is not in the legislative pipeline.

If you'd rather not discuss something, okay. Changing the subject doesn't really work with me. The discussion is still there, you can pick it up or not:

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
People can walk around and look perfectly normal when they're carrying Hepatitus or Tubercular or Herpes or other similar pathogens that may be recessive at the moment. Allowing such persons to immigrate only invites public health issues.


Every immigrant is an individual.

1) That's a fair point in regards to health, but I'd have to see some studies before I weigh in.
2) Yes, but is there any evidence that would present a broader problem?


Many would say that Hispanic immigration into Arizona and California has caused those States to go backward.


3) Many would say that the earth is 6000 years old.

When does immigration make a country go backward? When has immigration made a country go backward?

What does it mean to make a country "go backward"? If a poor person from Mexico goes to the US and works, that person is one more poor person. Statistically, they make the country poorer, but it's not clear what adverse impact such a person has.



On the whole, though, I think immigration is a mistaken social policy. Right now for example there are probably tens of millions of people in third world countries who would give their eye teeth to immigrate to Canada or the US. It would be utterly foolish to throw the doors open to them.

The nature of immigration in the US has changed since 100 years ago when most immigrants came from Europe and were white and easily melded into the existing population, creating what became known as the "melting pot." This hasn't been true for some time now as most immigramts over the past 40 or 50 years have been non-whites who do not chose to integrate but rather create their own communities and neighborhoods in the vein of the "Chinatowns" of the past. Today we have "Koreatowns" and "Little Saigons," or Spanish barrios and solidly Russian neighborhoods in New York city. The days when America was a "melting pot" are long gone.


4) What problems does that actually present? So what if there are Koreans, so what if there are Russian neighborhoods. What's the problem of their existence?

I also think that people who are aren't satisfied with conditions in their country of origin should stay home and work to improve their lot, rather than running off to some other country where they think their prospects will be better. Countries won't improve if everyone just wants to flee. They should stay home and work to make them better.


5) The receiving countries improve, and the welfare of the people improves. Why care about countries? The important thing is people. Countries only matter insofar as they're a stand-in for groups of people. If those people can enjoy dramatic improvements in conditions by simply crossing a border and enjoying the new opportunities, why stop them?

I first visited the city of Vancouver in 1972 and found it to be a quite pleasant situation, not crowded, easy going, clean and well groomed. I stayed almost a year, hanging out with people in the entertainment industry, looking to see if there might not be an opportunity there for me. I worked with some local bands and produced some shows and took a few bands on the road.

But it wasn't working and the reason why it wasn't related to the fact that I was an immigrant and Canadians at the time didn't have any real willingness to work with immigrants. So I left and moved back to the Interior where I've resided since. It was even worse being an immigrant here, lots of the jobs I looked at had citizenship requirements hanging on them. I banged around doing odd jobs, worked at a sawmill for awhile as a laborer and helped people build their homes. I was solo at the time so my needs were minimal.

Then in 1974 I bought the land I've lived on since and managed to get on at the local community college as an Instructor, a good paying job. I did that for the next 16 years, met a lady, and started a family. I visited Vancouver on a number of occasions and watched how it transmogrified from what I had seen there in 1972 to a city that had so many Chinese (and Punjabis) people had taken to calling it "Hongcouver," because all those Chinese had come from Hong Kong, having paid $50,000 a pop to immigrate before that city reverted to Chinese control. They made very little effort to learn English. Many were high end criminal types (Chinese mafioso). They were aloof and insular. The city had taken on a completely different air from what it had been in 1972, and the Punjabis took every cab driving, gas station attendant, retail clerk, burger flipping, tire changing job in town, settled in the burbs and formed criminal gangs that were soon involved in the vices, the drug trade, car theft, armed robbery, prostitution, gambling, and overall thuggery of the worst kind. They never made much of an effort to learn English either.

Today you can walk six blocks in downtown Vancouver and not hear an English word spoken.

The real estate industry has managed to keep the Punjabis out of some communities like North and West Vancouver by sustaining home prirces at levels they won't pay. The Chinese have created their own communities.

I've not been back in 20 years and don't intend to ever go there again. It's crowded, dirty, and crime ridden. I read about it in the papers, lots of shooting deaths and rape. Law enforcement struggles to maintain a semblance of order, but they have a real job on their hands.

Immigration has brought ruin to what at one time was one of Canada's best city's.


That's certainly an interesting story, but is there any kind of data that backs it up? A cursory overview of Vancouver's current situation seems to show the opposite of the "ruin" you're talking about.

This has left me with a very bad taste in my mouth when it comes to immigration. Hardly any of those people have relocated to the interior. My little town here had a population of 8,000 in 1970 and today doesn't top 10,000. Fine with me. They valley in which I reside had about 3,000 people in 1970 and today has maybe 3,500. Again, fine with me. I know them all, and they know me.

My interest in discussing immigration is at a very low ebb. That's unlikely to change any time soon. I've seen what it can do, and there appears to be very little upside and boatloads of downside.


Immigration has a lot of upsides for the people who move, very little in the way of downsides for anyone else, except perhaps people who are made uncomfortable by shifting demographics. It's a great way to better the economy of the receiving country, and a great way to better the people who move.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#26  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 24, 2013 6:15 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:I have three questions for you Loren:

1. Do you think havind a city full of ghetto's is a healthy situation?
2. Does America have a welfare state?
3. Have you lived in a ghetto?

You live in China just now the chances of seeing a ghetto is next to nil. You preach easily about open borders while you dont even live in the country.
America has a welfare state? Could have fooled me. No healthcare, bad education, hardly non-existant social services and welfare stamps. A great way to describe the welfare state of a first world country.

Another thing the title is a general one. You talk constantly about one country how about the rest or change the title but ofcourse for you the world only exists out of one country with the one you present live in being just a shadow.

As a European we know the effect immigration has on the welfare state. For a start most European countries have a proper welfare state. Free immigration would be devastating to our welfare state which is why it is so strictly controlled. With countries outside the EU group we have negative immigration and it is going to stay that way.

This idea of open borders is absolutely pure madness.


1) Less "healthy" than a homogenized city possibly, but not necessarily so.
2) America has a welfare state that is largely targeted at old people. It otherwise has a very weak welfare state.
3) I've lived in expat "ghettos" in Korea and China, but I assume you're talking about something else.

Comments like "you preach easily about open borders while you don't even live in the country" are nonsensical. I don't live in Russia, but I can tlk about the problems of their legislation against gay people. People not living in America can and do have valid input on things like gun control.

One doesn't have to live somewhere to be educated about it, but, irrelevant as it is, I have lived in America, and I have lived with immigrants.

Tell me, what does immigration do to a welfare state? What's the evidence?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#27  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 24, 2013 9:17 am

Also FACT-MAN-2, I just read this, which says kind of exactly the opposite of what you're saying about immigrants causing ruins to cities:

A couple years ago, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg had a clever idea for dealing with cities like Detroit, whose populations are dwindling: let immigrants live there.

[...]

Vigdor estimates that the average immigrant adds 11.5 cents to the value of the average home in his county. Considering that there are 40 million immigrants in the U.S., and 800,000 housing units, that adds up to about $3.7 trillion in increased housing value.

That could be a blessing or a curse. On the one hand, that’s $3.7 trillion more wealth that somebody holds. On the other, it translates into costlier mortgages which in turn translate into costlier rents, making housing less affordable. But Vigdor’s not particularly worried about that. In already costly counties like San Francisco or Manhattan, the effects are muted. “You don’t see an effect at all in Manhattan or San Francisco,” Vigdor says. “You see it in other neighborhoods that have fallen out of favor. If you look at what part of New York has had a big impact from immigration, it’s the Bronx, it’s Queens.”

Areas like those, which saw middle class families flee in the 1970s, tend to develop more once immigrants arrive, not least because there’s just more people around. “In a service economy, the number of jobs depends on the number of people to provide services to,” Vigdor says. But immigrants don’t just shift housing demand to blighted areas of metro regions that are wealthy overall, like the Bay Area or New York City. They also help out entire metro regions that otherwise would have undergone decline, especially in the Rust Belt. “The number of U.S.-born Americans residing in Chicago and surrounding Cook County, IL, has declined by 900,000 since 1970,” Vigdor writes. “The arrival of nearly 600,000 immigrants over the same time period offset most of that decline—and most likely kept additional natives from leaving—blunting what could have been a catastrophic impact on the local housing market.”
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#28  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 24, 2013 10:27 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state

Modern welfare programs differed from previous schemes of poverty relief due to their relatively universal coverage. The development of social insurance in Germany under Bismarck was particularly influential. Some schemes were based largely in the development of autonomous, mutualist provision of benefits. Others were founded on state provision. The term was not, however, applied to all states offering social protection. The sociologist T.H. Marshall identified the welfare state as a distinctive combination of democracy, welfare and capitalism. Examples of early welfare states in the modern world are Germany, all of the Nordic countries, the Netherlands, Uruguay and New Zealand and the United Kingdom in the 1930s.

Changed attitudes in reaction to the Great Depression were instrumental in the move to the welfare state in many countries, a harbinger of new times where "cradle-to-grave" services became a reality after the poverty of the Depression. During the Great Depression, it was seen as an alternative "middle way" between communism and capitalism.[12] In the period following the World War II, many countries in Europe moved from partial or selective provision of social services to relatively comprehensive coverage of the population.

The activities of present-day welfare states extend to the provision of both cash welfare benefits (such as old-age pensions or unemployment benefits) and in-kind welfare services (such as health or childcare services). Through these provisions, welfare states can affect the distribution of wellbeing and personal autonomy among their citizens, as well as influencing how their citizens consume and how they spend their time.[13][14]


No mention of the American welfare state.

So for America immigration would have little effect on something that almost does not exist wheras in Europe it would have a dramatic effect and be far too costly.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#29  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 24, 2013 12:52 pm

I don't think the US's welfare is well-distributed, but the US is mentioned six times on that page, in particular it's listed under "effects on poverty" and "welfare expenditure". Please avoid being disingenuous if you're trying to make a point.

Again, what does immigration do to a welfare state? What's the evidence?
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#30  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 24, 2013 2:01 pm

Loren Michael wrote:I don't think the US's welfare is well-distributed, but the US is mentioned six times on that page, in particular it's listed under "effects on poverty" and "welfare expenditure". Please avoid being disingenuous if you're trying to make a point.

Again, what does immigration do to a welfare state? What's the evidence?

"Welfare state" is a pejorative term invented by right wing zealots to demonize the class of people who've fallen prey to the many predatory capitalists who operate in society and to attack any notions of extending them a helping hand, accusing them of being "moochers" and "takers" and worse.

So your premise here is all fucked up and little more than a right wing trope.

Any modern nation that considers itself civilized will help those who find themselves in dire economic straights, which most often occurs through no fault of their own. Right wing ideologues prefer to let them die on the streets or becomes leeches on their brethren as they struggle to survive. In capitalist economies there will always be a certain number who are in need of assistance. If you think not, take a look at Mexico, Indonesia or any third world capitalist country.

Large scale immigration can only exacerbate these conditions.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#31  Postby james1v » Jun 24, 2013 4:27 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
james1v wrote:I dont think organised immigration harms anyone, or anything. Chaotic immigration may do. Look at Turkey, Jordan etc. Now.

Without external financing, chaotic immigration can bankrupt a country. Its not good for the emigres, or the hosts.


I tend to think some sense of order is better than chaos, all else being equal, so I'm sympathetic to that. But what do you mean by that, and what do you mean by external financing?


In Turkey and Jordan's case, refugees fleeing to their countries need food, shelter etc. Some countries couldn't afford to keep those refugees fed and sheltered without seriously damaging their economies. So, some countries need help to cope with these immigrants.

We see other examples in African countries, where war or famine causes mass emigration. Some of those countries economies would be seriously buggered if it wasn't for external financing, from other governments or charities.
"When humans yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon". Thomas Paine.
User avatar
james1v
 
Name: James.
Posts: 8953
Age: 62
Male

Country: UK
United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#32  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 24, 2013 4:58 pm

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I don't think the US's welfare is well-distributed, but the US is mentioned six times on that page, in particular it's listed under "effects on poverty" and "welfare expenditure". Please avoid being disingenuous if you're trying to make a point.

Again, what does immigration do to a welfare state? What's the evidence?


"Welfare state" is a pejorative term invented by right wing zealots to demonize the class of people who've fallen prey to the many predatory capitalists who operate in society and to attack any notions of extending them a helping hand, accusing them of being "moochers" and "takers" and worse.

So your premise here is all fucked up and little more than a right wing trope.


Did you just make that up and think nobody would call you on it? It's 2013, the internet makes this shit easy. Whatever. You're wrong. The etymology is there for anyone to look up:

The German term Sozialstaat ("social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs devised by German Sozialpolitiker ("social politicians") and implemented as part of Bismarck's conservative reforms.[7] The literal English equivalent "social state" never caught on in Anglophone countries,[8] until the Second World War, when Anglican Archbishop William Temple, author of the book Christianity and the Social Order (1942), popularized the concept using the phrase "welfare state", contrasting wartime Britain's welfare state with the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany.[9] Bishop Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to Benjamin Disraeli's 1845 novel Sybil: or the Two Nations (i.e., the rich and the poor), which speaks of "the only duty of power, the social welfare of the PEOPLE.'"[10] At the time he wrote Sybil, Disraeli, later Prime Minister, belonged to Young England, a conservative group of youthful Tories who were appalled by what they saw as the Whig indifference to the horrendous conditions of the industrial poor and attempted to kindle among the privileged classes a sense of responsibility toward the less fortunate and a recognition of the dignity of labor that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages.[11]

The Italian term stato sociale ("social state") reproduces the German term. The Swedish welfare state is called Folkhemmet — literally, "folk home", and goes back to the 1936 compromise between Swedish trade unions and large corporations. Sweden's mixed economy is based on strong unions, a robustly funded system of social security, and universal health care. In Germany, the term Wohlfahrtsstaat, a direct translation of the English "welfare state", is used to describe Sweden's social insurance arrangements. Spanish and many other languages employ an analogous term: estado del bienestar— literally, "state of well-being". In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: estado do bem-estar social, which means "state of social well-being", and estado de providência— "providing state", denoting the state's mission to ensure the basic well-being of the citizenry. In Brazil, the concept is referred to as previdência social, or "social providence".


Any modern nation that considers itself civilized will help those who find themselves in dire economic straights, which most often occurs through no fault of their own. Right wing ideologues prefer to let them die on the streets or becomes leeches on their brethren as they struggle to survive. In capitalist economies there will always be a certain number who are in need of assistance. If you think not, take a look at Mexico, Indonesia or any third world capitalist country.

Large scale immigration can only exacerbate these conditions.


Any evidence for that claim? Here's some evidence that immigration reduces black unemployment in America. That seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you're saying.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#33  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 24, 2013 5:07 pm

james1v wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:
james1v wrote:I dont think organised immigration harms anyone, or anything. Chaotic immigration may do. Look at Turkey, Jordan etc. Now.

Without external financing, chaotic immigration can bankrupt a country. Its not good for the emigres, or the hosts.


I tend to think some sense of order is better than chaos, all else being equal, so I'm sympathetic to that. But what do you mean by that, and what do you mean by external financing?


In Turkey and Jordan's case, refugees fleeing to their countries need food, shelter etc. Some countries couldn't afford to keep those refugees fed and sheltered without seriously damaging their economies. So, some countries need help to cope with these immigrants.

We see other examples in African countries, where war or famine causes mass emigration. Some of those countries economies would be seriously buggered if it wasn't for external financing, from other governments or charities.


Ah, I agree with that, absolutely. Refugee situations are typically the result of events that don't allow for a lot of planning (war or natural disaster), and as such people are a lot more resource poor and unprepared than other kinds of migrants.

I actually took a class on refugee flows a long time ago in university, it kind of turned me on to immigration-as-aid as a subject more generally, but I moved away from focusing on just refugees. They are an issue that is related but different enough to be considered separately from other migrating people in my mind at least.

I think a lot of refugee situations are exacerbated by migration restrictions preventing people from moving preemptively.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#34  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 24, 2013 5:45 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I don't think the US's welfare is well-distributed, but the US is mentioned six times on that page, in particular it's listed under "effects on poverty" and "welfare expenditure". Please avoid being disingenuous if you're trying to make a point.

Again, what does immigration do to a welfare state? What's the evidence?


"Welfare state" is a pejorative term invented by right wing zealots to demonize the class of people who've fallen prey to the many predatory capitalists who operate in society and to attack any notions of extending them a helping hand, accusing them of being "moochers" and "takers" and worse.

So your premise here is all fucked up and little more than a right wing trope.


Did you just make that up and think nobody would call you on it? It's 2013, the internet makes this shit easy. Whatever. You're wrong. The etymology is there for anyone to look up:

The German term Sozialstaat ("social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs devised by German Sozialpolitiker ("social politicians") and implemented as part of Bismarck's conservative reforms.[7] The literal English equivalent "social state" never caught on in Anglophone countries,[8] until the Second World War, when Anglican Archbishop William Temple, author of the book Christianity and the Social Order (1942), popularized the concept using the phrase "welfare state", contrasting wartime Britain's welfare state with the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany.[9] Bishop Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to Benjamin Disraeli's 1845 novel Sybil: or the Two Nations (i.e., the rich and the poor), which speaks of "the only duty of power, the social welfare of the PEOPLE.'"[10] At the time he wrote Sybil, Disraeli, later Prime Minister, belonged to Young England, a conservative group of youthful Tories who were appalled by what they saw as the Whig indifference to the horrendous conditions of the industrial poor and attempted to kindle among the privileged classes a sense of responsibility toward the less fortunate and a recognition of the dignity of labor that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages.[11]

The Italian term stato sociale ("social state") reproduces the German term. The Swedish welfare state is called Folkhemmet — literally, "folk home", and goes back to the 1936 compromise between Swedish trade unions and large corporations. Sweden's mixed economy is based on strong unions, a robustly funded system of social security, and universal health care. In Germany, the term Wohlfahrtsstaat, a direct translation of the English "welfare state", is used to describe Sweden's social insurance arrangements. Spanish and many other languages employ an analogous term: estado del bienestar— literally, "state of well-being". In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: estado do bem-estar social, which means "state of social well-being", and estado de providência— "providing state", denoting the state's mission to ensure the basic well-being of the citizenry. In Brazil, the concept is referred to as previdência social, or "social providence".


Any modern nation that considers itself civilized will help those who find themselves in dire economic straights, which most often occurs through no fault of their own. Right wing ideologues prefer to let them die on the streets or becomes leeches on their brethren as they struggle to survive. In capitalist economies there will always be a certain number who are in need of assistance. If you think not, take a look at Mexico, Indonesia or any third world capitalist country.

Large scale immigration can only exacerbate these conditions.


Any evidence for that claim? Here's some evidence that immigration reduces black unemployment in America. That seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you're saying.


Why do you keep on going on about a country that has little or no welfare state. America is not a good example but yet you keep on refering to it. We know the cost of mass immigration in Europe but yet you keep on about open borders which is just plain silly.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#35  Postby FACT-MAN-2 » Jun 24, 2013 11:13 pm

Loren Michael wrote:
FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:I don't think the US's welfare is well-distributed, but the US is mentioned six times on that page, in particular it's listed under "effects on poverty" and "welfare expenditure". Please avoid being disingenuous if you're trying to make a point.

Again, what does immigration do to a welfare state? What's the evidence?


"Welfare state" is a pejorative term invented by right wing zealots to demonize the class of people who've fallen prey to the many predatory capitalists who operate in society and to attack any notions of extending them a helping hand, accusing them of being "moochers" and "takers" and worse.

So your premise here is all fucked up and little more than a right wing trope.


Did you just make that up and think nobody would call you on it? It's 2013, the internet makes this shit easy. Whatever. You're wrong. The etymology is there for anyone to look up:

The German term Sozialstaat ("social state") has been used since 1870 to describe state support programs devised by German Sozialpolitiker ("social politicians") and implemented as part of Bismarck's conservative reforms.[7] The literal English equivalent "social state" never caught on in Anglophone countries,[8] until the Second World War, when Anglican Archbishop William Temple, author of the book Christianity and the Social Order (1942), popularized the concept using the phrase "welfare state", contrasting wartime Britain's welfare state with the "warfare state" of Nazi Germany.[9] Bishop Temple's use of "welfare state" has been connected to Benjamin Disraeli's 1845 novel Sybil: or the Two Nations (i.e., the rich and the poor), which speaks of "the only duty of power, the social welfare of the PEOPLE.'"[10] At the time he wrote Sybil, Disraeli, later Prime Minister, belonged to Young England, a conservative group of youthful Tories who were appalled by what they saw as the Whig indifference to the horrendous conditions of the industrial poor and attempted to kindle among the privileged classes a sense of responsibility toward the less fortunate and a recognition of the dignity of labor that they imagined had characterized England during the Feudal Middle Ages.[11]

The Italian term stato sociale ("social state") reproduces the German term. The Swedish welfare state is called Folkhemmet — literally, "folk home", and goes back to the 1936 compromise between Swedish trade unions and large corporations. Sweden's mixed economy is based on strong unions, a robustly funded system of social security, and universal health care. In Germany, the term Wohlfahrtsstaat, a direct translation of the English "welfare state", is used to describe Sweden's social insurance arrangements. Spanish and many other languages employ an analogous term: estado del bienestar— literally, "state of well-being". In Portuguese, two similar phrases exist: estado do bem-estar social, which means "state of social well-being", and estado de providência— "providing state", denoting the state's mission to ensure the basic well-being of the citizenry. In Brazil, the concept is referred to as previdência social, or "social providence".


Any modern nation that considers itself civilized will help those who find themselves in dire economic straights, which most often occurs through no fault of their own. Right wing ideologues prefer to let them die on the streets or becomes leeches on their brethren as they struggle to survive. In capitalist economies there will always be a certain number who are in need of assistance. If you think not, take a look at Mexico, Indonesia or any third world capitalist country.

Large scale immigration can only exacerbate these conditions.


Any evidence for that claim? Here's some evidence that immigration reduces black unemployment in America. That seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Well, actualy, no, it doesn't. For example, in the 1980's when tens of thousands of Cuban immigrnta flooded into South Florida they puhsed thousands of black people out of the menial jobs that had been their domain since the beginning of time. By 1990 there wasn't a black person working as a dishwasher, food prepper, floor sweeper, handyman, burger flipper or in any of the traditional menial jobs that blacks had always done in South Florida. These jobbs were all being done by Cubans, and typically for less wages that blacks had earned doing them. A huge number of blacks were pushed out of South Florida, many went to cities in the north.

This was a real world phenomena that actualy occurred.

Just so you know, I don’t “make shit up,” as you intimate. I probably do come at things a bit differently than yourself, but I don’t just write shit that comes out of thin air.

I don’t know where you’ve been over the past 15 years but I ‘ve been mostly in North America and I follow American news. During that time and right up to the present, right wing ideologues have consistently belabored what they’ve called the “welfare state” or the “nanny state.” Philosophically, they are dead set against anything and everything that falls under the umbrella of these terms, whether welfare, unemployment benefits, government run retirement and healthcare programs, food stamps, and the like.

As one of their leading voices said, “We want to shrink the government down to a size that can be drowned in a bathtub.”

This sort of commentary has run through conservative discourse in America for at last the past 15 years. I don’t care about how these terms may have been used in Europe or the UK in past times. Those times are not relevant to today; what’s relevant today is the more recent history of their usage in the right wing political discourse that’s gone on the America.

I did a little Googling and found hundreds upon hundreds of sources that pertain to this usage in America:



How to Cut the Nanny State Down to Size
By
Stephen Moore
December 30, 1998
http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... -down-size
For the first time in three years Republicans demonstrated courage, conviction and testosterone when they voted to impeach Bill Clinton. By putting the nation and the Constitution ahead of public opinion polls and political expediency, Republicans took a major step in rehabilitating the party.
Will that fortitude carry over to the budget battles of 1999?
It better. In the last Congress there was no willpower on Capitol Hill to cut anything out of the budget — not peanut butter research grants, not military funding to build skating rinks in Fairbanks, Alaska, not taxpayer handouts to Fortune 500 companies. Nothing.
The result? The federal budget in 2000 will be some $300 billion higher than when the GOP took over the reins of Congress in January 1995. The four-year spending total of $7.6 trillion for 1999-2002 is more money, adjusted for inflation, than the U.S. government spent on everything combined from 1800 to 1970.
________________________________________
Former Democratic Congressman Tim Penny recently remarked, “The powerful political forces that impel Congress to spend money rather than save it have spread like a virus in just four years time from the Democrats to the Republicans.”
________________________________________
One thing is clear: if the Republicans keep enacting the bloated budget deals and pork highway bills that were their “achievements” last year, they will almost certainly lose their House and Senate majorities in 2000. And they will deserve to.
Republicans can succeed only by offering a dramatically different vision of the role of government in our lives than what President Clinton and congressional Democrats propose. The GOP theme should be more freedom and individual responsibility.



http://www.cato.org/publications/commen ... -v-reality
Conservatives and Republicans generally argue that the federal government’s primary constitutional function is national defense, and that America’s security and prosperity is linked to stability abroad. Few see the contradiction between their grandiose global ambitions and their principled opposition to the welfare state. Nation-building in the name of the “war on terror,” itself a counterproductive tool against terrorism, entails what conservatives deride: nationalist collectivism, curtailed due-process rights, and huge, open-ended fiscal commitments supported by government borrowing.


This continues at a host of websites:


I’m not interested in the academic approach you appear to be enamored with on these kinds of things, I’m interested in the actual goings on as they play out of the real world’s stage.

I don’t think these things can be reduced to academic studies or entomological backgrounds. We’re not engaged in a formal debate here.

So stop trying to tell me what I’ve heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes over the past many years.
Capitalism is obsolete, yet we keep dancing with its corpse.

When will large scale corporate capitalism and government metamorphose to embrace modern thinking and allow us to live sustainably?
FACT-MAN-2
 
Name: Sean Rooney
Posts: 10001
Age: 89
Male

Country: Canada
Canada (ca)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#36  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 25, 2013 12:22 am

FACT-MAN-2 wrote:
Loren Michael wrote:Any evidence for that claim? Here's some evidence that immigration reduces black unemployment in America. That seems to suggest the exact opposite of what you're saying.

Well, actualy, no, it doesn't. For example, in the 1980's when tens of thousands of Cuban immigrnta flooded into South Florida they puhsed thousands of black people out of the menial jobs that had been their domain since the beginning of time. By 1990 there wasn't a black person working as a dishwasher, food prepper, floor sweeper, handyman, burger flipper or in any of the traditional menial jobs that blacks had always done in South Florida. These jobbs were all being done by Cubans, and typically for less wages that blacks had earned doing them. A huge number of blacks were pushed out of South Florida, many went to cities in the north.

This was a real world phenomena that actualy occurred.


[Mariel Boat Lift] Effect on the Miami labor market

About fifty percent of the Mariel immigrants decided to reside in Miami permanently and this resulted in a seven percent increase in workers in the Miami labor market and a twenty percent increase in the Cuban working population.

Aside from the unemployment rate rising from 5.0 in April 1980 to 7.1 in July, which should be expected with such a large increase of workers, the actual damage to the economy was marginal and followed trends across the United States at the time. When observing data from 1979 to 1985 on the Miami labor market and comparing it to similar data from several other major cities across the United States focusing on wages it is clear that the effects of the boatlift were marginal.[5]

The wages for Caucasians remained steady in both Miami and comparative cities. Likewise the wage rates for African Americans were relatively steady from 1979 to 1985 when in comparable cities it dropped. Aside from a dip in 1983, wage rates for Non-Cuban Hispanics were stable, when in comparable cities it fell approximately six percent.

There is no evidence of a negative effect on wage rates for other groups of Hispanics in Miami. Wages for Cubans demonstrated a steady decline especially compared to other groups in Miami at the time, however, this can be attributed exclusively to the 'dilution' of the group with the new, less-experienced and lower-earning Mariel immigrants, meaning that there is also no evidence of a negative effect on wage rates for Cubans already residing in Miami prior to 1980.


Again, evidence suggests the opposite of what you say. This is why I float the notion of you of making shit up; there's what you say, and then there's the evidence.

I’m not interested in the academic approach you appear to be enamored with on these kinds of things, I’m interested in the actual goings on as they play out of the real world’s stage.

I don’t think these things can be reduced to academic studies or entomological backgrounds. We’re not engaged in a formal debate here.

So stop trying to tell me what I’ve heard with my own ears and read with my own eyes over the past many years.


I know you aren't interested in "the academic approach". If you've read or heard something, I'd love to see or hear it. As it is, you're recounting tales that don't seem to jive with how things actually are, which suggests that your subjective experience filtered through the prism of your prejudices doesn't align with reality. Which is why I ask for evidence of your claims.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#37  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 25, 2013 1:01 am

Scot Dutchy wrote:Why do you keep on going on about a country that has little or no welfare state. America is not a good example but yet you keep on refering to it. We know the cost of mass immigration in Europe but yet you keep on about open borders which is just plain silly.


America has a massive welfare state, one of the most expensive in the world. It's simply poorly distributed, again, largely targetting older people.

I'm curious about the effects of mass migration in Europe, but if you "know" this, why not link to something that actually has some evidence? I've been asking for it repeatedly throughout this thread, why so cagy? We're all just people on the internet. I think we're obligated to think that we're all completely full of shit until we show our work. So show your work.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#38  Postby Scot Dutchy » Jun 25, 2013 10:05 am

Loren Michael wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Why do you keep on going on about a country that has little or no welfare state. America is not a good example but yet you keep on refering to it. We know the cost of mass immigration in Europe but yet you keep on about open borders which is just plain silly.


America has a massive welfare state, one of the most expensive in the world. It's simply poorly distributed, again, largely targetting older people.


America does not have a 'massive' welfare state. Did you read the figures I produced from the OECD?

America is almost bottom on percentage of GDP ppp:

Denmark the top spends 30% America third bottom 15%.



I'm curious about the effects of mass migration in Europe, but if you "know" this, why not link to something that actually has some evidence? I've been asking for it repeatedly throughout this thread, why so cagy? We're all just people on the internet. I think we're obligated to think that we're all completely full of shit until we show our work. So show your work.


The effect of mass immigration has never happened in practice it has only been projected and that is why controles are so tight.
Look at the various governments policies in this regard. Even the immigration from the emerging East European countries within the EU is restricted because of the projections made.

There is no logic behind your standpoint. Mass immigration would reduce living standards of the people at the bottom. Our economies and employment systems dont operate the same as the states. Once again it is something you dont understand. Workers here are far better protected. We dont have an illegal culture in employing illegals. Here almost everyone has a written contract where he works. There are few load paid jobs because we have a minimum wage which is strictly enforced. Only a few workers in the horticultural world are paid day wages when gathering certain fruits in season. No one else is. Everyone has to pay tax.
You cant compare the societies of Europe to that of America.
Myths in islam Women and islam Musilm opinion polls


"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” — Napoleon Bonaparte
User avatar
Scot Dutchy
 
Posts: 43119
Age: 72
Male

Country: Nederland
European Union (eur)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#39  Postby mindhack » Jun 25, 2013 10:13 am

Loren Michael wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:Why do you keep on going on about a country that has little or no welfare state. America is not a good example but yet you keep on refering to it. We know the cost of mass immigration in Europe but yet you keep on about open borders which is just plain silly.


America has a massive welfare state, one of the most expensive in the world. It's simply poorly distributed, again, largely targetting older people.

I'm curious about the effects of mass migration in Europe, but if you "know" this, why not link to something that actually has some evidence? I've been asking for it repeatedly throughout this thread, why so cagy? We're all just people on the internet. I think we're obligated to think that we're all completely full of shit until we show our work. So show your work.

Hi Loren, what does the US welfare state system looks like? What does it consist of? How are the vulnerable protected?
(Ignorance --> Mystery) < (Knowledge --> Awe)
mindhack
 
Name: Van Amerongen
Posts: 2668
Male

Country: Zuid-Holland
Netherlands (nl)
Print view this post

Re: Does immigration hurt support for the welfare state?

#40  Postby Loren Michael » Jun 25, 2013 12:45 pm

mindhack wrote:Hi Loren, what does the US welfare state system looks like? What does it consist of? How are the vulnerable protected?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pro ... ted_States

The biggest bits are Social Security:

The Social Security program mainly refers to the Old Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance (OASDI) program, and possibly the unemployment insurance program. Retirement Insurance Benefits (RIB), also known as Old-age Insurance Benefits, are a form of social insurance payments made by the U.S. Social Security Administration paid based upon the attainment old age (62 or older).

Social Security Disability Insurance (SSD or SSDI) is a federal insurance program that provides income supplements to people who are restricted in their ability to be employed because of a notable disability.

Unemployment insurance, also known as unemployment compensation, provides for money from the United States and the state by a worker who has become unemployed through no fault of their own.


...and Medicare and Medicaid:

Medicare is a social insurance program administered by the United States government, providing health insurance coverage to people who are aged 65 and over; to those who are under 65 and are permanently physically disabled or who have a congenital physical disability; or to those who meet other special criteria like the End Stage Renal Disease program (ESRD). Medicare in the United States somewhat resembles a single-payer health care system but is not. Before Medicare, only 51% of people aged 65 and older had health care coverage, and nearly 30% lived below the federal poverty level.

Medicaid is a health program for certain people and families with low incomes and resources. It is a means-tested program that is jointly funded by the state and federal governments, and is managed by the states.[26] People served by Medicaid are U.S. citizens or legal permanent residents, including low-income adults, their children, and people with certain disabilities. Poverty alone does not necessarily qualify someone for Medicaid. Medicaid is the largest source of funding for medical and health-related services for people with limited income in the United States.
Image
User avatar
Loren Michael
THREAD STARTER
 
Name: Loren Michael
Posts: 7411

Country: China
China (cn)
Print view this post

PreviousNext

Return to Economics

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest