2016 US Election thread: the begininning

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

I keep waiting for Trump to list all the nasty things he's done and said to win Republican voters then tell them to take a very hard look at themselves.  He's such a characiture.  

[Bonesy]

The Cruz campaign is now selling American Made "Make Trump Debate Again" hats.

Can't stand Cruz, but that's pretty funny.

[Suttree]

4 hours ago, Altherion said:

 the losers being the people who actually have to live in the same communities and compete for the same jobs as the illegal immigrants (or even if they hold slightly better jobs!). Since the immigrants are in the country illegally, they also create a shadow economy which can be good for people who hire them, but bad for those who interact with them in nearly other way.

But just like 76% of the fact checked statements by Trump which have been "mostly false" or higher, we know the above isn't true. Economists on both sides of the political aisle have long cited immigrants as a net positive for the economy. We also know they pay a huge surplus into things like Medicare and SS.

As for saying they are "competing for the same jobs", there has never been evidence of a big displacement or negative impact on wages. Giovanni Peri, one of the foremost economists studying the issue, explains it this way.

Quote

 

People seem to understand the story of supply and demand. What is a little harder to understand is the idea of “complementarity” versus substitution, which is just as basic in economics.

If two workers are completely identical, supply and demand takes effect — just as if you put more corn on the market, the price of corn will decrease. But if you have workers who do jobs that are not the same, and if they specialize in types of tasks that are complementary, this can increase wages and productivity for both.

An extreme example of this would be if you have an engineer and you add a construction worker. With the engineer by himself you’re not going to do much. But with an engineer plus a construction worker, you can build a building. Therefore, the productivity of the engineer goes up a lot. And the wages for both workers increase.

What I try to address in much of my research is how immigrants are really taking jobs that complement the skills of a lot of native workers. And in fact, the inflow of immigrants pushes some of these native workers to take complementary jobs. That can have positive effects. In economics, this story of complementarity is, in its essence, just as simple as the story of demand and supply.

 

 

[Altherion]

1 hour ago, Suttree said:

Economists on both sides of the political aisle have long cited immigrants as a net positive for the economy.

Ha! Yes, they absolutely have. This worked great for a while, until most people figured out that given the distribution of resources in this country, when economists say "good for the economy", it should usually be read "good for the rich." I see that the propagandists have moved on to more sophisticated fairy tales.

To address your quote, what that article calls "complementarity" is a perfectly valid theoretical idea... but it has nothing to do with the situation at hand. The United States is one of the world's leading technological powers (in many areas, the leading one). There are no fields in which we require the importation of "complementary" talent -- in fact, even the program which explicitly allocates visas for jobs which supposedly cannot be filled by an American sees some use for straight-up replacement (which is in fact illegal). The overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants aren't even trying to use that as an excuse -- they have no skills beyond the most common ones and the sole way they differentiate themselves from natives is that they will do unpleasant jobs for lower wages than the latter. This is exactly the recipe for displacement; there is nothing complementary about it. In fact, he predictably can't even think of a decent example -- every one he gives (construction worker to construction supervisor, taxi driver to taxi dispatcher, strawberry picker to farm manager) involves a transition up the pyramid which cannot possibly absorb all of the displaced native workers resulting in most of them being out of a job and the competition for that step up the pyramid becoming much fiercer (which drives down the wages for it).

I'm not sure how many other "explanations" of this kind are around and how many people see through them, but to be honest, I don't think it matters. Sophisticated sophistry detailing precisely why fire is cold is not going to convince people who are forced to put their hands into the flames.

[Suttree]

If you think economists like Peri, Piketty, Card, etc. mean "good for the rich" when discussing this topic, you really haven't been paying attention.

33 minutes ago, Altherion said:

I'm not sure how many other "explanations" of this kind are around and how many people see through them, but to be honest, I don't think it matters. Sophisticated sophistry detailing precisely why fire is cold is not going to convince people who are forced to put their hands into the flames.

So we are defining facts we don't like as "sophistry" now? Because yeah...pretty much all of the people studying this issue have found almost zero evidence for what you are claiming.

Quote

The U.S. economy is dynamic, shedding and creating hundreds of thousands of jobs every month. Businesses are in a continuous state of flux. The most accurate way to gauge the net impact of immigration on such an economy is to analyze the effects dynamically over time. Data show that, on net, immigrants expand the U.S. economy’s productive capacity, stimulate investment, and promote specialization that in the long run boosts productivity. Consistent with previous research, there is no evidence that these effects take place at the expense of jobs for workers born in the United States.

 

By all means though, if you have data to back up Trump's claims please provide it.

 

[Altherion]

33 minutes ago, Suttree said:

So we are defining facts we don't like as "sophistry" now? Because yeah...pretty much all of the people studying this issue have found almost zero evidence for what you are claiming.

You didn't actually read any of these, did you? If you had, you'd notice that only the two by Giovanni Peri support your point. The other two (by Borgas and Card) claim exactly the opposite. The Card one outright states that immigration reduced the wages and employment rates of low-skilled natives in the abstract. The Borgas one says the same thing (see Table 6), but perhaps by not as much as Borgas concluded in an earlier paper. In fact, the Borgas paper is the best of the lot because he actually explains why it is so hard to estimate these and why people get different results.

I suspect we'll shortly be told that this thread is not for such discussions, so this is my last post on this topic. I think that if somebody is arguing against something as basic as the law of supply and demand, then the burden of proof is on them -- and it has to be rigorous proof, with a full description of systematic uncertainties (which none of these papers do and in fact would probably be very difficult to do). We know that incomes adjusted for inflation have been stagnant for decades for the poor and have actually declined for the poorest (this is a relatively simple thing to measure). There are three candidate causes: automation, outsourcing and the massive influx of illegal immigrants. It is incredibly difficult to disentangle them and assign a specific fraction of the observed effect to any of them. However, it would be extremely surprising if immigration had a negligible effect on wages (as I said, the law of supply and demand is pretty robust).

[Suttree]

I  have read it all, and it certainly  doesn't show "the opposite" of what I've said.

 In my very first post I referenced the consensus amongst economists and noted some of the ways they benefit our society. If there is only an insignificant drop(for one small segment(native born without a HS diploma) of the population that proves exactly what  I've been claiming and shows that like most topics, Trump is pretty much lying through his teeth. Especially considering the most recent work doesn't even show a drop for the least skilled, it's essentially a wash.

Regardless, by your logic we are  now defining every US citizen who has a HS education and above as "rich". Not to mention you are ignoring all the good immigrants do for local economies and how they prop up services like Medicare and SS. I mean, if you had read through the links provided you should have seen this.

Quote

But to the extent that it’s part of the rhetoric of anti-immigrant groups to say, “We know immigrants steal jobs and have a negative economic impact,” I always say that our research shows the contrary. If you poll serious economists who work on this, including George Borjas, they will agree that there is no evidence of big displacement or negative impact on wages. Some will tell you that there is a small negative effect on the bottom 10 percent of American workers, and others will argue that there is no evidence of that. But the consensus is that for the economy as a whole there is a positive effect on productivity, employment, and wages.

The concept of complementarity isn't all that difficult to understand here. More so just throwing out "supply and demand" is a far too simplistic approach when dealing with something as dynamic as this topic.  All in all your claims are clearly false. The reality of the situation bears very little resemblance to what you claimed in your first post.

 

[Bonesy]

Now that Sanders is winning in Iowa and New Hampshire, let's talk about how he can't win South Carolina and Nevada.

And no cheating by mentioning Clinton's inevitable endorsement from Elizabeth Warren.

[IamMe90]

2 minutes ago, Bonesy said:

Now that Sanders is winning in Iowa and New Hampshire, let's talk about how he can't win South Carolina and Nevada.

And no cheating by mentioning Clinton's inevitable endorsement from Elizabeth Warren.

Maybe after Sanders loses the primary. But before that, I think she's gonna either say nothing about it officially,  or endorse Sanders.

[Bonesy]

Apologies. I thought the sarcasm was thick enough to walk on.

If Warren endorses anyone it won't be anyone not named Sanders.

[TrackerNeil]

6 hours ago, Bonesy said:

Now that Sanders is winning in Iowa and New Hampshire, let's talk about how he can't win South Carolina and Nevada.

I think that, if Sanders wins those two states, yes, his prospects in the others will improve at least somewhat--assuming Democrats take those victories as a sign that party support is shifting from Clinton to Sanders. However, I intend to wait until those states have actually voted before declaring anyone the winner.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I do think it's a little bit funny when, in talking about immigration, liberals adopt the kind of steely, cold-hearted economic arguments that, in other contexts, they reject when conservatives and libertarians make them. When liberals start arguing that there are significant downstream benefits to the economy from having all of these cheap illegal immigrant labor inputs, and that's why illegal immigration is not something to fear - well, that's the kind of argument that they reject when libertarians and conservatives make it against having a minimum wage for fast food workers.  

In a sense, I think it's kind of fair to respond to all of these "illegal immigration is bad for the economy!" arguments with "illegal immigration is good for the economy!" arguments, but at least when it's liberals making the latter argument, it seems kind of misleading and incomplete, because whether something is good or bad for "the economy" is not necessarily the type of argument that they should find compelling, especially if your outlook is about (supposedly) individual social and economic fairness or justice.

I mean, take the argument that Suttree cites above about how illegal immigrants "prop up" services like Medicare and Social Security - which is true if they're being paid with a stolen Social Security Number or an ITIN, since they are paying into but will never be able to collect from those systems. But, far from being an argument "in support of" illegal immigration, isn't that just a terrible thing and a moral wrong that offends our basic sense of fairness and be the type of thing that liberals want to correct? Isn't it just wrong for a person to be fleeced by paying into a system they are being excluded from benefiting from? 

According to the US Department of Agriculture, half of the hired workers employed in US crop agriculture are unauthorized workers, with most coming from Mexico. There's an obvious benefit to "the economy" from having all these cheap labor inputs - but is that actually a good thing in line with liberal values? The US crop agriculture system exists largely outside of federal wage and hour laws - there is no minimum wage for fruit-pickers and these people are not being paid what most liberals would consider to be anywhere near a "living wage." It's also some of the most physically onerous and backbreaking labor. It literally destroys peoples bodies and limits their ability, long-term, to engage in productive labor. Do we really WANT this system to continue? A system so bad that it only continues to exist because something like half of the people who do it are being imported from the "global South" ? I really think that we don't want this, or at least, liberals shouldn't want this. 

And when it's the case that these economic benefits for "the economy" are really just propping up a system that, I think, most liberals do find, or should find, to be deeply, deeply troubling - well, I think the "good for the economy" needs to be recalibrated just a little bit. 

 

 

[Fez]

I'd still be quite surprised if Sanders wins Iowa. He has a very good chance of winning New Hampshire, although New Hampshire can swing very quickly (although usually against the Iowa winner, so it wouldn't matter in this case).

The thing about Iowa is, the polls that show Sanders winning and the polls showing Trump winning, are using voter screens that would mean around 300,000 people caucusing for each party. The recent average for competitive Iowa caucuses has been around 140,000 people caucusing for each party. And the polls with voter screening that would mean that size caucus all show Clinton winning and often show Cruz winning. I would suspect the caucus sizes will be roughly the same size they always are; there simply aren't enough usual non-voters energized by Sanders and Trump who are actually going to vote this time.

Polls can be wrong of course, but if I bet on political outcomes I'd definitely bet on Clinton winning Iowa. And I might bet on Cruz winning, depending on the odds I was given (the difference between the two is that Trump sometimes wins the polls with tighter voter screeners; Sanders never does).

[OnionAhaiReborn]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/28/69-percent-say-president-trump-makes-them-anxious/

Nearly 7 in 10 Americans say the idea of Donald Trump becoming president makes them anxious, according to a new Washington-Post-ABC News poll that is the latest to reinforce the fact that the GOP front-runner faces clear obstacles to broadening his appeal in a general election. 

The Post-ABC poll finds 69 percent of Americans feel anxious about of a Trump presidency, while 3 in 10 are comfortable with the idea -- both similar to a Post-ABC poll last month.

Few of the top presidential contenders inspire great comfort with the public at-large. Nearly half say they feel anxious about Ted Cruz as president (49 percent), while 48 percent say the same of Marco Rubio.

Among Democratic hopefuls, 51 percent of Americans say they are anxious about Hillary Clinton becoming president, while 43 percent are similarly concerned about Bernie Sanders in the White House. Sanders is the only candidate tested in the poll for whom a plurality -- 50 percent -- says they feel comfortable with as president. (Expect the Sanders campaign to push this number as they make their case that the democratic socialist is electable.) 

Despite those tepid ratings, anxiety surrounding a Trump presidency exceeds all candidates by a wide margin, with the gap concentrated with intense concerns. The 51 percent who feel "very" anxious about Trump is significantly higher than Clinton (35 percent), Cruz (26), Sanders (24) or Rubio (18).

Trump is not breaking or realigning America's dominant political coalitions, he's exposing something within Republican politics that has been there all along (where past politicians dogwhistled toward it, Trump uses a blowhorn). It's not about limited government ideology, but resentment of the 'other' and 'undeserving.' If he wins the nomination, he will suffer an historic defeat, because most of the rest of the country considers him unacceptable.

[Suttree]

It should go without saying that providing facts in response to the many myths(take our jobs, drain our social systems, etc.) people like Trump and Altherion spread in trying to scapegoat immigrants ≠ support of the current system. It's merely providing the true data on one aspect of this issue. Although I suspect Nestor already knows this as he runs away cackling,  a trail of straw strewn about in his wake.

That said, I agree with the case he makes above, it's long past time we had comprehensive immigration reform. Once we acknowledge the system is hopelessly broken then we must move on to solutions...and I think we all can agree those don't include a magic wall and snapping our fingers to make 11 million people disappear over night. Which brings us full circle to Trump and all his various falsehoods(see Politifact stats linked up thread). He sure as hell is not speaking the hard truths that other politicians won't mention.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

16 hours ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

The Southern Strategy is a great example of what I'm talking about about how Trump's nativism is exposing the weaknesses and stress points of the current political party coalitions. I tend to agree with the commentators that Trump's campaign is collapsing, perhaps permanently, the coalition of interests that allows the Southern Strategy to function. I think it's possible that we are beginning to witness a major realignment of electoral politics in the United States. I want the nativists to part ways with the moderates and business interests  - in part, because I don't think (well, I'm hoping at least) that the nativists can ever win the White House on their own. And it seems to becoming clearer and clearer in retrospect that in order for that alliance to be shattered, someone needed to come and empower the nativists to enter the mainstream political arena and articulate their agenda in a way that the moderates and business interests simply can't tolerate. And that's exactly what Trump is doing, and why the Republican party elites are trying like mad to Caesar him on the Senate floor.

I'd argue it's actively happening. The 6th wave of American politics is at an end. The main question now is what happens to the "country club Republicans," who've gone from being the major power brokers in the party to being a weak minority.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

5 minutes ago, Tywin et al. said:

I'd argue it's actively happening. The 6th wave of American politics is at an end. The main question now is what happens to the "country club Republicans," who've gone from being the major power brokers in the party to being a weak minority.

Trump will lose, and the next election cycle will begin. It will not be a permanent displacement of "country club Republicans," they'll have another shot at choosing a Bush/McCain/Romney/Rubio type in 4 years. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans (led by the thoroughly Serious and acceptable Paul Ryan) will continue to represent their interests.

[Commodore]

This Cruz supporter would enthusiastically support Rubio, grudgingly support Christie, despairingly support Jeb. I would not vote for Trump.

[lokisnow]

I would make no predictions about the Iowa caucuses before the Des Moines register poll. It comes out Saturday at 330pm cst whatever it says, go with that as your extremely likely actual outcome.

Median of polls has sanders up 10 points in New Hampshire, that is probably correct. Clinton will roll out the warren endorsement after iowa, which will help in New Hampshire.

Nestor, I agree. I think a lot of democrats have never had any life experience living or working with blue collar low end and minimum wage folk, if one has, you know much free trade and open immigration turns these folks on the margins into economic losers. There are always financial winners and losers in any trade or immigration decision, and those democrats making cold-hearted economic arguments are financial winners from free trade and immigration and their blue collar low/minimum wage fellow party members are those who have to lose so the middle class, and upper middle class educated castes can win.

showing that immigration improves gdp or growth overall does not mean that growth is evenly distributed.

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

2 hours ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

Trump will lose, and the next election cycle will begin. It will not be a permanent displacement of "country club Republicans," they'll have another shot at choosing a Bush/McCain/Romney/Rubio type in 4 years. Meanwhile Congressional Republicans (led by the thoroughly Serious and acceptable Paul Ryan) will continue to represent their interests.

I think assuming nothing will change is a mistake. There has been a fissure in the Republican party for some time now, and the current campaign cycle is riping it open in public for all to see. It's not something that can just be swept under the rug after the cycle ends.