What Happens When You Tax Billionaires At 90%

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Sam Adams."

Ah, an American classic! Well, tip your Sam Adams to this: we’ve got a socio-economic puzzle on our hands, and plugging our ears and blaming immigrants ain’t solving it. It’s like trying to fix a leaky dam with a Band-Aid.

"I agree, the quicker we boot the illegals, the more the American Walmart worker will earn & save."

Ah, the simple solutions are always so beguiling, aren't they? Except the world has a pesky habit of being a tad more complicated. There’s a panoply of studies showing the positive impacts of immigration on economies. Immigrants – both legal and undocumented – have been found to be a net benefit to the economy. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, immigrants are “integral to the nation’s economic growth.”1

"Boot enough illegals, Walmart will be forced to pay more. Stick it to those Waltons!"

So, the master plan is to boot millions, twiddle thumbs, and hope that the Waltons feel the pinch and graciously open their coffers? It’s almost poetic in its idealism. But a little dig into history shows us that corporate generosity is as rare as hen's teeth.

Instead of setting up an Olympic-sized hurdle course for immigrants, maybe, just maybe, redirect that ardor towards policies that encourage fair wages and wealth distribution. The funny thing about money is, it doesn’t do much good hoarded in dragon-sized piles by a select few. Spreading it around a bit tends to make the whole village flourish.

I know it’s tempting to find a scapegoat and believe that removing it will magically restore balance, but economies are not bedtime stories with fairy godmothers. They are intricate, delicate machines where rash moves can have cascading consequences. So maybe, instead of booting folks, we focus on lacing up the policies that can actually move the needle towards a fairer society.

Just a thought to mull over with that Sam Adams.

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press ↩

we’ve got a socio-economic puzzle on our hands, and plugging our ears and blaming immigrants ain’t solving it.

Supply and demand isn't a puzzle, unless you're a commie.

So, the master plan is to boot millions, twiddle thumbs, and hope that the Waltons feel the pinch and graciously open their coffers?

Graciousness isn't required.

I know it’s tempting to find a scapegoat and believe that removing it will magically restore balance, but economies are not bedtime stories with fairy godmothers.

Supply and demand isn't magic.

They are intricate, delicate machines where rash moves can have cascading consequences.

I know, just look at the negative cascading consequences unlimited illegal immigration has caused

 

[Cellblock2429]

Make that illegal.

/——/ Hello Communist dictatorship.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

"Sam Adams."

Ah, an American classic! Well, tip your Sam Adams to this: we’ve got a socio-economic puzzle on our hands, and plugging our ears and blaming immigrants ain’t solving it. It’s like trying to fix a leaky dam with a Band-Aid.

"I agree, the quicker we boot the illegals, the more the American Walmart worker will earn & save."

Ah, the simple solutions are always so beguiling, aren't they? Except the world has a pesky habit of being a tad more complicated. There’s a panoply of studies showing the positive impacts of immigration on economies. Immigrants – both legal and undocumented – have been found to be a net benefit to the economy. According to a report from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, immigrants are “integral to the nation’s economic growth.”1

"Boot enough illegals, Walmart will be forced to pay more. Stick it to those Waltons!"

So, the master plan is to boot millions, twiddle thumbs, and hope that the Waltons feel the pinch and graciously open their coffers? It’s almost poetic in its idealism. But a little dig into history shows us that corporate generosity is as rare as hen's teeth.

Instead of setting up an Olympic-sized hurdle course for immigrants, maybe, just maybe, redirect that ardor towards policies that encourage fair wages and wealth distribution. The funny thing about money is, it doesn’t do much good hoarded in dragon-sized piles by a select few. Spreading it around a bit tends to make the whole village flourish.

I know it’s tempting to find a scapegoat and believe that removing it will magically restore balance, but economies are not bedtime stories with fairy godmothers. They are intricate, delicate machines where rash moves can have cascading consequences. So maybe, instead of booting folks, we focus on lacing up the policies that can actually move the needle towards a fairer society.

Just a thought to mull over with that Sam Adams.

1. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press ↩

Thanks for the link.

The Economic and Fiscal Consequences of Immigration finds that the long-term impact of immigration on the wages and employment of native-born workers overall is very small, and that any negative impacts are most likely to be found for prior immigrants or native-born high school dropouts.

Sounds like they're talking about a huge part of the Walmart workforce.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Todd, the contortionist of economic theories. It's a spectacle for the ages to observe how his economic worldview bends into impossible shapes, trying to simultaneously embrace and reject government involvement as if entangled in a philosophical Twister game.

It seems the market’s invisible hand that is held so dear by Todd, conveniently develops arthritis when it comes to paying Walmart employees a living wage. But never fear, for the government, the entity he seems to scorn when it comes to public welfare, gallantly steps in like a medieval knight with subsidies and benefits.

Yet, when the suggestion arises that the government should perhaps play a more active role in directly creating employment, the spectacles through which he views the world appear to fog up with the steam of ‘Venezuela’ terror. It’s as though the government's touch is an elixir when padding the pockets of large corporations, but a poison should it dare to employ people directly.

The dance Todd engages in is a peculiar one. Why is it that Walmart enjoying the fruits of government subsidy doesn't send him into a frenzy of ‘socialism alert’ and "Venezuela"? Such a sweet serenade, pay your employees crumbs, and let the government be the hero by subsidizing Walmart's labor force.

He stands at the crossroads of ideological conundrums. Holding a torch for the free market in one hand, whilst the other is extended, palm up, for the socialist safety net.

Now, let us muse upon a radical idea: What if we dismiss the corporate intermediaries? What if, in this grand ballroom of society, a job was guaranteed for those willing to work, either in the private sector or public, and it paid a wage fit for life's dignity? This, my fellow spectators, is not the phantom of socialism that haunts Todd's dreams. This is a symphony, a balanced society that holds the dignity of labor in one hand and the safety net in the other, without allowing the corporate puppeteers to pull the strings.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd, the contortionist of economic theories. It's a spectacle for the ages to observe how his economic worldview bends into impossible shapes, trying to simultaneously embrace and reject government involvement as if entangled in a philosophical Twister game.

It seems the market’s invisible hand that is held so dear by Todd, conveniently develops arthritis when it comes to paying Walmart employees a living wage. But never fear, for the government, the entity he seems to scorn when it comes to public welfare, gallantly steps in like a medieval knight with subsidies and benefits.

Yet, when the suggestion arises that the government should perhaps play a more active role in directly creating employment, the spectacles through which he views the world appear to fog up with the steam of ‘Venezuela’ terror. It’s as though the government's touch is an elixir when padding the pockets of large corporations, but a poison should it dare to employ people directly.

The dance Todd engages in is a peculiar one. Why is it that Walmart enjoying the fruits of government subsidy doesn't send him into a frenzy of ‘socialism alert’ and "Venezuela"? Such a sweet serenade, pay your employees crumbs, and let the government be the hero by subsidizing Walmart's labor force.

He stands at the crossroads of ideological conundrums. Holding a torch for the free market in one hand, whilst the other is extended, palm up, for the socialist safety net.

Now, let us muse upon a radical idea: What if we dismiss the corporate intermediaries? What if, in this grand ballroom of society, a job was guaranteed for those willing to work, either in the private sector or public, and it paid a wage fit for life's dignity? This, my fellow spectators, is not the phantom of socialism that haunts Todd's dreams. This is a symphony, a balanced society that holds the dignity of labor in one hand and the safety net in the other, without allowing the corporate puppeteers to pull the strings.

It seems the market’s invisible hand that is held so dear by Todd, conveniently develops arthritis when it comes to paying Walmart employees a living wage.

It's working perfectly.
Competition from millions of low-skilled illegal aliens allow low-skilled Americans to be paid less.

Why is it that Walmart enjoying the fruits of government subsidy doesn't send him into a frenzy of ‘socialism alert’ and "Venezuela"?

The government isn't paying Walmart. If you hate the "subsidy", end it.
Booting 30 million illegal aliens, to start, would raise wages and reduce the need for "subsidy".

Now, let us muse upon a radical idea: What if we dismiss the corporate intermediaries? What if, in this grand ballroom of society, a job was guaranteed for those willing to work, either in the private sector or public,

Excellent idea! Is that why the Soviet Union has the largest economy in the world?
They pretend to pay us; we pretend to work.

 

[TruthNotBS]

It seems the market’s invisible hand that is held so dear by Todd, conveniently develops arthritis when it comes to paying Walmart employees a living wage.

It's working perfectly.
Competition from millions of low-skilled illegal aliens allow low-skilled Americans to be paid less.

Why is it that Walmart enjoying the fruits of government subsidy doesn't send him into a frenzy of ‘socialism alert’ and "Venezuela"?

The government isn't paying Walmart. If you hate the "subsidy", end it.
Booting 30 million illegal aliens, to start, would raise wages and reduce the need for "subsidy".

Now, let us muse upon a radical idea: What if we dismiss the corporate intermediaries? What if, in this grand ballroom of society, a job was guaranteed for those willing to work, either in the private sector or public,

Excellent idea! Is that why the Soviet Union has the largest economy in the world?
They pretend to pay us; we pretend to work.

American workers don't have to wait for 30 million illegals to be rounded up and deported before being paid a living wage when they're working full-time for a multibillion-dollar company. You have no problem with the US government subsidizing Walmart's labor force, providing food and cash assistance. You only have an issue with the government employing Americans who for whatever reason, can't find a job in the private sector. There are many reasons why someone might not be employable in the private sector and it would be good for society and the economy to have these people employed in the public sector. The more people earn a living wage, the more customers businesses have.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

American workers don't have to wait for 30 million illegals to be rounded up and deported before being paid a living wage when they're working full-time for a multibillion-dollar company. You have no problem with the US government subsidizing Walmart's labor force, providing food and cash assistance. You only have an issue with the government employing Americans who for whatever reason, can't find a job in the private sector. There are many reasons why someone might not be employable in the private sector and it would be good for society and the economy to have these people employed in the public sector. The more people earn a living wage, the more customers businesses have.

Employers won't wait very long, when their illegal employees are deported, to raise wages
to attract American workers. Rising wages will reduce the need for "subsidies".

You only have an issue with the government employing Americans who for whatever reason, can't find a job in the private sector.

It works everywhere it's tried. DURR.

 

[AZrailwhale]

If this person you're describing is so worthless, then why does the wealthy capitalist need him to produce for him? Society should provide the means for people to get an education and that includes vocational job training. The capitalist wants to make money off of other people's labor. If a person is working full-time, they should get paid enough to eat, pay their rent and have clothing on their back. There are also other necessary expenses. The minimum wage should cover all of that.

To put it succinctly, bullcrap. Minimum skills get you minimum wage. Minimum wage is a steppingstone, not an ending. It was never intended to be a living wage for a family. Someone satisfied working for minimum wage needs to be satisfied living in a rented room and having roommates. Workers not satisfied living that way gain skills through either job experience or education and move up to better, more profitable and responsible jobs. Society already provides twelve years of education, far more than ever before and job training is available for anyone willing to step up and take it for little to no cost. If capitalists didn't "make money off of other people's labor" there wouldn't be capital to open businesses and provide jobs for anyone, and everyone would be subsistence farmers like they were in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with a very small educated and very rich upper class.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Germany is led by the German Socialist Party. Spain is led by its Socialist Party. Portugal is led by a coalition of Socialists, Communists, and Greens. Ireland is moving towards a socialist economy, led by socialists. Many Latin American countries are moving towards the left economically.

Cuba is in the shadow of a capitalist-run empire and it's being embargoed. You don't have the ideological luxury of saying socialism doesn't work in Cuba when the US is sanctioning it. Sabotaging it economically.

Ironically the people who pretend to be disciples of Jesus Christ are defenders of capitalism and worship mammon. Jesus, His twelve apostles, and the first Christians were socialists. Socialism is biblical. Only born again, spirit-filled disciples of Jesus who follow His instructions, will become part of his royal family, reigning with Him over the nations.

Cuba is only embargoed by the USA. Every other country on the planet is free to trade with Cuba. Cuba's problem is that it produces nothing that anyone else wants except cane sugar which can be had more cheaply elsewhere.

 

[Billiejeens]

/——/ Hello Communist dictatorship.

Or

Sarcasm

 

[TruthNotBS]

Employers won't wait very long, when their illegal employees are deported, to raise wages
to attract American workers. Rising wages will reduce the need for "subsidies".

You only have an issue with the government employing Americans who for whatever reason, can't find a job in the private sector.

It works everywhere it's tried. DURR.

False Equivalency: A logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is often used to draw attention away from understanding the distinct difference in the quality or legitimacy of the arguments being compared.

The United States, with its strong institutions and market-based economy, has more checks and balances than a librarian with OCD. We're not talking about a centrally planned, command economy where the government has a stranglehold on every industry. We’re talking about giving the unemployed a safety net that doesn’t involve flipping burgers for pennies and being on welfare.

Imagine people earning a living wage while building roads, bridges, and schools. Now imagine those same people taking that decent paycheck and spending it on goods and services. This is called stimulating the economy, Economics 101.

Ah, but wait, here’s the twist: Uncle Sam is already playing sugar daddy to corporate America. It’s like a discreet affair supplementing low wages with government aid. So, why not have the government and the people openly in a relationship where the government provides employment and workers build the nation, earning a wage they can live on?

 

[leftwinger]

This ^^^^^^^^^phony Christian paid cut/paste GOVT Red-Commee- Socialist loon has really killed this thread. Lord have mercy!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

False Equivalency: A logical fallacy in which two opposing arguments appear to be logically equivalent when in fact they are not. This fallacy is often used to draw attention away from understanding the distinct difference in the quality or legitimacy of the arguments being compared.

The United States, with its strong institutions and market-based economy, has more checks and balances than a librarian with OCD. We're not talking about a centrally planned, command economy where the government has a stranglehold on every industry. We’re talking about giving the unemployed a safety net that doesn’t involve flipping burgers for pennies and being on welfare.

Imagine people earning a living wage while building roads, bridges, and schools. Now imagine those same people taking that decent paycheck and spending it on goods and services. This is called stimulating the economy, Economics 101.

Ah, but wait, here’s the twist: Uncle Sam is already playing sugar daddy to corporate America. It’s like a discreet affair supplementing low wages with government aid. So, why not have the government and the people openly in a relationship where the government provides employment and workers build the nation, earning a wage they can live on?

Imagine people earning a living wage while building roads, bridges, and schools.

Imagine the government spends 40% of GDP.
Why don't we already have nice roads, bridges, and schools?

Uncle Sam is already playing sugar daddy to corporate America. It’s like a discreet affair supplementing low wages with government aid.

Imagine people earning a living wage by deporting 30 million illegal aliens.
Imagine the boost in wages on the low end, reducing supplements.
Imagine the drop in rents across the board.

The savings could be used to build roads and bridges.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Cuba is only embargoed by the USA. Every other country on the planet is free to trade with Cuba. Cuba's problem is that it produces nothing that anyone else wants except cane sugar which can be had more cheaply elsewhere.

Any merchant ship that ports in Cuba, can't port in American territory for six months.

https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/779

Devastating. You become like a leper. Merchant fleets stay clear, knowing they can't unload and pick up cargo in the US (The Empire) for 180 days if they go to Cuba.

The US government has strict rules for companies that it does business with, and one of those rules is not doing business with Cuba. All merchant ships have a tracker:

MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence | AIS Marine Traffic

MarineTraffic Live Ships Map. Discover information and vessel positions for vessels around the world. Search the MarineTraffic ships database of more than 550000 active and decommissioned vessels. Search for popular ships globally. Find locations of ports and ships using the near Real Time ships...

www.marinetraffic.com

The US also freezes assets and even intervenes with its navy against ships it deems potential embargo violators. They stopped an oil tanker from Venezuela not that long ago and other ships from other countries. All of this has a negative impact on Cuba's economy. So until the US, the capitalist empire, stops imposing sanctions on developing socialist nations like Cuba, you don't have the ideological luxury to say socialism doesn't work in those countries. List the sanctions and maybe you'll have an argument. Not now.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Any merchant ship that ports in Cuba, can port in American territory for six months.

https://ofac.treasury.gov/faqs/779

Devastating. You become like a leper. Merchant fleets stay clear, knowing they can't unload and pick up cargo in the US (The Empire) for 180 days if they go to Cuba.

The US government has strict rules for companies that it does business with, and one of those rules is not doing business with Cuba. All merchant ships have a tracker:

MarineTraffic: Global Ship Tracking Intelligence | AIS Marine Traffic

MarineTraffic Live Ships Map. Discover information and vessel positions for vessels around the world. Search the MarineTraffic ships database of more than 550000 active and decommissioned vessels. Search for popular ships globally. Find locations of ports and ships using the near Real Time ships...

www.marinetraffic.com

The US also freezes assets and even intervenes with its navy again ships it deems potential embargo violators. They stopped an oil tanker from Venezuela not that long ago and other ships from other countries. All of this has a negative effect on Cuba's economy. So until the US, the capitalist empire, stops imposing sanctions on developing socialist nations like Cuba, you don't have the ideological luxury to say socialism doesn't work in those countries. List the sanctions and maybe you'll have an argument. Not now.

Communism is awesome and will hang us with the rope we sell them.
Unless we don't trade with them. Then communism sucks and will collapse.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Imagine people earning a living wage while building roads, bridges, and schools.

Imagine the government spends 40% of GDP.
Why don't we already have nice roads, bridges, and schools?

Uncle Sam is already playing sugar daddy to corporate America. It’s like a discreet affair supplementing low wages with government aid.

Imagine people earning a living wage by deporting 30 million illegal aliens.
Imagine the boost in wages on the low end, reducing supplements.
Imagine the drop in rents across the board.

The savings could be used to build roads and bridges.

The argument presented above is a classic case of oversimplification and diversion. The assertion that "the government spends 40% of GDP" lacks context and fails to account for the diversity of government expenditures.

Firstly, it's important to acknowledge that government spending includes a wide range of services, from defense to healthcare, social security, and much more. Roads, bridges, and schools are just a fraction of where the money goes. Additionally, there is a glaring oversight in understanding how budget allocation works. Just because a certain percentage of GDP is spent, it doesn't mean it is efficiently or effectively allocated.

Now, moving on to the grandiose proposal of deporting 30 million people as if it's a cure-all potion. This stance entirely disregards the immense economic, social, and humanitarian costs involved. Deporting millions would not only be logistically nightmarish but would rip apart communities and families. Moreover, as mentioned previously, immigrants play a significant role in economic growth. They contribute to the labor force, pay taxes, and create demand for goods and services.

A wholesale deportation is also unlikely to have the effect on wages that is claimed. It's not as if there's a fixed pie of wages, and if there are fewer people, everyone else gets a larger slice. The economy is far more complex, with interdependent sectors, supply chains, and global competition.

As for the purported drop in rents, again, it's an oversimplified view. Housing markets are influenced by numerous factors including location, supply, interest rates, and economic conditions. The assumption that mass deportations would suddenly make housing affordable is not based on any economic theory or data.

The argument rounds off by suggesting the savings from not supplementing low wages could be used to build roads and bridges. This loops back to the point of having people employed in decent-paying jobs that not only builds infrastructure but strengthens the economy and reduces reliance on government aid. However, pitting this against a backdrop of mass deportations is not the solution.

Instead of resorting to drastic measures that are neither feasible nor humane, why not focus on sensible reforms? Invest in education, training, and infrastructure; ensure that workers are paid a living wage; and foster an inclusive society that values the contributions of all its members.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Communism is awesome and will hang us with the rope we sell them.
Unless we don't trade with them. Then communism sucks and will collapse.

Democratic socialism and eventually communism, is the future. Advanced automation and AI make it inevitable. You might as well become a communist now comrade.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The argument presented above is a classic case of oversimplification and diversion. The assertion that "the government spends 40% of GDP" lacks context and fails to account for the diversity of government expenditures.

Firstly, it's important to acknowledge that government spending includes a wide range of services, from defense to healthcare, social security, and much more. Roads, bridges, and schools are just a fraction of where the money goes. Additionally, there is a glaring oversight in understanding how budget allocation works. Just because a certain percentage of GDP is spent, it doesn't mean it is efficiently or effectively allocated.

Now, moving on to the grandiose proposal of deporting 30 million people as if it's a cure-all potion. This stance entirely disregards the immense economic, social, and humanitarian costs involved. Deporting millions would not only be logistically nightmarish but would rip apart communities and families. Moreover, as mentioned previously, immigrants play a significant role in economic growth. They contribute to the labor force, pay taxes, and create demand for goods and services.

A wholesale deportation is also unlikely to have the effect on wages that is claimed. It's not as if there's a fixed pie of wages, and if there are fewer people, everyone else gets a larger slice. The economy is far more complex, with interdependent sectors, supply chains, and global competition.

As for the purported drop in rents, again, it's an oversimplified view. Housing markets are influenced by numerous factors including location, supply, interest rates, and economic conditions. The assumption that mass deportations would suddenly make housing affordable is not based on any economic theory or data.

The argument rounds off by suggesting the savings from not supplementing low wages could be used to build roads and bridges. This loops back to the point of having people employed in decent-paying jobs that not only builds infrastructure but strengthens the economy and reduces reliance on government aid. However, pitting this against a backdrop of mass deportations is not the solution.

Instead of resorting to drastic measures that are neither feasible nor humane, why not focus on sensible reforms? Invest in education, training, and infrastructure; ensure that workers are paid a living wage; and foster an inclusive society that values the contributions of all its members.

/——/ Libtards over simplify everything.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The argument presented above is a classic case of oversimplification and diversion. The assertion that "the government spends 40% of GDP" lacks context and fails to account for the diversity of government expenditures.

Firstly, it's important to acknowledge that government spending includes a wide range of services, from defense to healthcare, social security, and much more. Roads, bridges, and schools are just a fraction of where the money goes. Additionally, there is a glaring oversight in understanding how budget allocation works. Just because a certain percentage of GDP is spent, it doesn't mean it is efficiently or effectively allocated.

Now, moving on to the grandiose proposal of deporting 30 million people as if it's a cure-all potion. This stance entirely disregards the immense economic, social, and humanitarian costs involved. Deporting millions would not only be logistically nightmarish but would rip apart communities and families. Moreover, as mentioned previously, immigrants play a significant role in economic growth. They contribute to the labor force, pay taxes, and create demand for goods and services.

A wholesale deportation is also unlikely to have the effect on wages that is claimed. It's not as if there's a fixed pie of wages, and if there are fewer people, everyone else gets a larger slice. The economy is far more complex, with interdependent sectors, supply chains, and global competition.

As for the purported drop in rents, again, it's an oversimplified view. Housing markets are influenced by numerous factors including location, supply, interest rates, and economic conditions. The assumption that mass deportations would suddenly make housing affordable is not based on any economic theory or data.

The argument rounds off by suggesting the savings from not supplementing low wages could be used to build roads and bridges. This loops back to the point of having people employed in decent-paying jobs that not only builds infrastructure but strengthens the economy and reduces reliance on government aid. However, pitting this against a backdrop of mass deportations is not the solution.

Instead of resorting to drastic measures that are neither feasible nor humane, why not focus on sensible reforms? Invest in education, training, and infrastructure; ensure that workers are paid a living wage; and foster an inclusive society that values the contributions of all its members.

The assertion that "the government spends 40% of GDP" lacks context

How much do they spend? Post the context.

Now, moving on to the grandiose proposal of deporting 30 million people as if it's a cure-all potion

Not a cure-all, a good first step.

This stance entirely disregards the immense economic, social, and humanitarian costs involved.

You entirely disregard the immense economic, social, and humanitarian benefits involved.

Deporting millions would not only be logistically nightmarish but would rip apart communities and families.

That's awful! But think of all the good paying government jobs it would create. Econ 101.

Moreover, as mentioned previously, immigrants play a significant role in economic growth.

I look forward to their role creating growth in their home country.

A wholesale deportation is also unlikely to have the effect on wages that is claimed.

I claim it will increase wages for low-skilled Americans. You have any evidence it won't?

As for the purported drop in rents, again, it's an oversimplified view. Housing markets are influenced by numerous factors including location, supply, interest rates, and economic conditions.

And demand.

The argument rounds off by suggesting the savings from not supplementing low wages could be used to build roads and bridges.

Obviously. Walmart, and other companies as well, will increase wages to attract a smaller group of workers. This reduces government spending on welfare and food stamps.
Spend the savings on infrastructure.

However, pitting this against a backdrop of mass deportations is not the solution.

It's the perfect green solution.

Instead of resorting to drastic measures that are neither feasible nor humane, why not focus on sensible reforms?

Closing the border would be sensible. Biden has gone in the other direction.
You should hear the blacks here in Chicago, whining about resources being spent on illegal aliens instead of on the black community.

Invest in education, training, and infrastructure; ensure that workers are paid a living wage

We can certainly do that at the same time we're deporting 30 million illegal aliens.

 

[TruthNotBS]

The assertion that "the government spends 40% of GDP" lacks context

How much do they spend? Post the context.

Now, moving on to the grandiose proposal of deporting 30 million people as if it's a cure-all potion

Not a cure-all, a good first step.

This stance entirely disregards the immense economic, social, and humanitarian costs involved.

You entirely disregard the immense economic, social, and humanitarian benefits involved.

Deporting millions would not only be logistically nightmarish but would rip apart communities and families.

That's awful! But think of all the good paying government jobs it would create. Econ 101.

Moreover, as mentioned previously, immigrants play a significant role in economic growth.

I look forward to their role creating growth in their home country.

A wholesale deportation is also unlikely to have the effect on wages that is claimed.

I claim it will increase wages for low-skilled Americans. You have any evidence it won't?

As for the purported drop in rents, again, it's an oversimplified view. Housing markets are influenced by numerous factors including location, supply, interest rates, and economic conditions.

And demand.

The argument rounds off by suggesting the savings from not supplementing low wages could be used to build roads and bridges.

Obviously. Walmart, and other companies as well, will increase wages to attract a smaller group of workers. This reduces government spending on welfare and food stamps.
Spend the savings on infrastructure.

However, pitting this against a backdrop of mass deportations is not the solution.

It's the perfect green solution.

Instead of resorting to drastic measures that are neither feasible nor humane, why not focus on sensible reforms?

Closing the border would be sensible. Biden has gone in the other direction.
You should hear the blacks here in Chicago, whining about resources being spent on illegal aliens instead of on the black community.

Invest in education, training, and infrastructure; ensure that workers are paid a living wage

We can certainly do that at the same time we're deporting 30 million illegal aliens.

Ah, the grand symphony of misplaced arguments continues. While I commend your persistence in advocating for sensible reforms, let's address the dissonance in your reasoning.

Indeed, mass deportations of millions are not only logistically impossible but also lack humanity. However, your concession is duly noted, and I share your concern for border security and the need to address illegal immigration. It's high time we focus on comprehensive immigration reform, including securing our borders, improving legal pathways, and addressing the root causes of migration.

But let's not forget the bigger picture. Closed borders alone won't magically solve all our challenges. We must also invest in education, training, and infrastructure to create opportunities for all Americans. This includes ensuring that workers, including low-skilled ones, are paid a living wage that allows them to thrive.

And while we're at it, let's acknowledge the role of historical and ongoing political interventions that have contributed to the complex issues we face today. A holistic approach involves lifting sanctions, promoting stability, and fostering cooperation in the regions from which many migrants originate.

Let Bukele do his job and stop threatening him. He's cleaning up El Salvador and making it livable.​