canpakes wrote:Oh, I'm sorry for not concentrating on the majority of illegals - you know, the hordes working as doctors, lawyers, architects and other professionals. Right?
No need to apologize, after all you deliberately mentioned them on every item in your list of questions...are you now wanting to move the goalpost away from them as we move forward with this discussion?
Since the other option on your list of questions was the "work-permitted", can you provide any statistics for how many doctors, lawyers, architects and other professionals are "work permitted"? While I am aware that the US H-1B visa allows for immigrants to join residency/fellowship programs, I am unaware of a work-permit being allowable for State Licensure among many professions. This visa applies to several professions under very limiting qualifications, thus making doctors, lawyers, architects and other professionals working under a "work-permit" a statistically negligent minority in the context of your questions. But, perhaps you could clarify what claim you are insinuating on this regard? (because it still seems to be an argument for the exception and not the rule)
canpakes wrote:Anyhow, if you are going to talk about 401k participation ... less than half of all Americans participate in one, and of those, less than a third save enough to meet recommended retirement standards. So, you'd better widen your net of disdain outside of just poor illegals - who aren't exactly making a boatload to invest in the first place - if 401k participation is your beef.
401k was an example not a new topic - i'll leave the goal post moving to you, you seem to have the back strength for such an endeavor. But you make a good point, unfortunately its a point for your opponent. American participation in the "capital" measurement for economic nationalism is relevant, but if an American that wants to invest but cannot because wages are being kept too low by unfair and unaccounted for labor competition; well then.
canpakes wrote:If you're going to bitch about remittances, then you've lost that argument before you even get your first sentence out:The economics of remittances surprise a lot people, even those who aren't sympathetic to Trump's anti-immigrant rhetoric. People intuitively assume keeping that money in the United States is a good thing for the American economy, but many macroeconomists disagree.
Apart from the obvious counter-point of "many macroeconomists also agree" - it still does not contradict the answer given to your direct question - narrow to the topic of economic nationalism. Leave the goalpost where you first planted it, please.canpakes wrote:Why?
Oh do tell...but make sure its heavy with speculationcanpakes wrote:One reason is that remittances mean cheaper stuff for Americans. The millions of Mexican immigrants working in the United States provide goods and services for American consumers, and in exchange they earn dollars. About 11.7 million Mexican immigrants live in the United States, and last year Mexico received about $24 billion back in remittances. When immigrants send their earnings overseas, America loses dollars, but no actual goods or services. Figuratively, we trade pieces of paper with green ink for real stuff. If families in Mexico use those dollars to buy things made in Mexico or elsewhere, then America has essentially gotten immigrants' services without paying anything tangible in return. If, on the other hand, families in Mexico use their remittances to buy things made in the United States, then American exports increase. Either way, the American economy wins.
Aside from the obvious CFR for just about every speculation you have provided here....you should note that you are, in fact, proving how it hurts economic nationalism...you are describing a scenario that expressly has "control" residing with a foreign body....the choice for spending and investing rests with the Mexican Citizen...ergo, thank you for the affirmation on how your examples hurt economic nationalism. Perhaps you should find yourself a definition of economic nationalism that you can understand before you attempt to argue against it?
Your position reminds me of an old art school saying - "I am not a professional art critic, but I know what I hate when I see it".canpakes wrote:Nice of you to jump in and waffle on without saying anything much, though. It proves the point I'm making just that much more.
Point? You have yet to really make an actual point, what you have done is toss around a few narrow opinions that are tantamount to "no, its not - because i say so". You asked questions and were answered quite effectively. Insinuations and armchair suppositions are not actually rebuttals or refutations of those answers. But perhaps I am falling prey to the "jumping to conclusions" predator that seemingly has you clenched firmly in it teeth.....exactly what was your point about economic nationalism?