Post: #1

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...s-taxpayer

Then the gang of 8 set their staffers on a hunt to dig up dirt, and they found the goldmine:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/140239668/IQ-a...n-Richwine

One thing I have noticed in the ensuing screams for the destruction of Jason Richwine as an individual, is that no one who is criticizing him has read his dissertation and the arguments go as so:

"this is false because Hitler", "this is false because conservative", "this is false because racism", and "this is false because equality".

Rather than facing the FACTS.

This is an exact parallel to the utterings of the manosphere. It's blasphemous to say anything that will upset a feminist or the politically correct discourse.

The hounds have a scent and they will not rest until Richwine, who wrote a PhD supervised by some of the country's best minds on economics and social policy, who's made it his niche to apply solid empirical methods to social analysis, has been burned at the stake.

Post: #2

There is some objections to this guy's talk about race and IQ from the progressive and mainstream media. Personally, I don't have a problem with that. I've got no love for HBD, which is mostly based on a phony empiricism.

The real story is his incredibly shoddy Heritage immigration paper. A lot of other right of center organizations came out in opposition to that paper and that has nothing to do with political correctness.

The main objection to the paper is that it only counts the presumed costs of illegal immigration, while ignoring the benefits to the economy. In technical terms this is called dynamic economic analysis and for the most part conservatives support it, because it allows them to argue for things like tax cuts, which increase the federal deficit, because the loss of revenue is offset by economic growth. In fact, here is link to the Heritage site of one of their scholars congressional testimony arguing in favor of dynamic economic analysis: http://www.heritage.org/research/testimo...tax-policy

For some reason, the immigration paper eschews dynamic economic analysis. Long story short: Heritage is full of shit. This is, after all, the same group that first proposed the individual mandate. They will flip flop back and forth based on whatever end result that they want to justify.

Post: #3

I don't for a second doubt immigrants will benefit the economy in the short-term. It's just comparative advantage. Are there other benefits?

You ignore is that Hispanic immigrants receive far more benefits than they pay in taxes, and this persists even generations after their arrival, unlike other immigrant groups. They also displace other low-wage workers and push them onto welfare. This has social and economic consequences. These are particularly pronounced for the lower-class, who are especially vulnerable to setbacks.

In order for the loss of revenue to be offset by growth, we need to see far more job creation and wage growth. This is the opposite of what's happening now.

You say the paper is shoddy because it doesn't use dynamic scoring, but show me a paper that proves with dynamic scoring that immigration will do the following:

1) reduce unemployment
2) cause productivity gains in the lower classes (without productivity gains, no higher wages)
3) not cause growing inequality
4) not cause more crime

Basically, your rebuttal is too vague, JR. Please substantiate?

Illustrate how dynamic scoring will significantly alter the conclusions. I can be swayed

Post: #4

Another major issue is that due to increased automation, the demand for low skilled workers is decreasing - a major reason, apart from immigration - why wages have stagnated. The demand for high skilled workers is increasing. Low skilled immigration does nothing to address this skills gap.

Looks like Richwine is going to be the next Larry Summers.

Post: #5

Yeah. Forget the merits or demerits of the analysis. The real reason i posted the story is because a serious social scientist is about to have his career destroyed because he said something displeasing to the American left. It is a lynching. Not a fair discussion.

Post: #6

Post: #7

To be honest, I wasn't rebutting the Heritage paper. I was detailing the hypocrisy of it and explaining why there was backlash against it.

As for "the typical Hispanic immigrant," I honestly don't know what that means. I don't really see the world through a racialist filter. I've met Hispanic immigrants who are undocumented line cooks and I've met Hispanic immigrants who are PhD economists. Latin America is a big place.

I do find it funny that some people like to focus on the negative actions of one group while ignoring others. Brighton Beach, a Russian (ie white) enclave in Brooklyn, is the capital of Medicaid and insurance fraud, but for some reason it's always the brown people who are the greatest threat. Undocumented Mexicans aren't even eligible to collect on most entitlements and they use fake Social Security numbers, which means that they are paying payroll taxes.

Here's my immigration policy: Do you have a criminal record? No. Are you willing to work? Yes. Welcome to America.

Post: #8

Hmm but is the hysteria warranted? People are screaming for his blood because of his thesis. Which meets the highest academic standards. But he spoke truth to power, so he must suffer

Post: #9

(05-10-2013 09:08 AM)j r Wrote:  To be honest, I wasn't rebutting the Heritage paper. I was detailing the hypocrisy of it and explaining why there was backlash against it.

As for "the typical Hispanic immigrant," I honestly don't know what that means. I don't really see the world through a racialist filter. I've met Hispanic immigrants who are undocumented line cooks and I've met Hispanic immigrants who are PhD economists. Latin America is a big place.

I do find it funny that some people like to focus on the negative actions of one group while ignoring others. Brighton Beach, a Russian (ie white) enclave in Brooklyn, is the capital of Medicaid and insurance fraud, but for some reason it's always the brown people who are the greatest threat. Undocumented Mexicans aren't even eligible to collect on most entitlements and they use fake Social Security numbers, which means that they are paying payroll taxes.

Here's my immigration policy: Do you have a criminal record? No. Are you willing to work? Yes. Welcome to America.

Let's allow in immigrants from anywhere in the world with STEM master's and/or PhD degrees, but only immigrants with such degrees or are obtaining one here. The left will still shriek because they wouldn't get sufficient "vibrancy."

It's not hard to see that income across nations and across individuals is tightly linked to IQ. Crime rates as well.

We have enough of our own problems as it is. We certainly don't need anymore low IQ denizens.

Post: #10

(05-10-2013 10:00 AM)Kabal Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:08 AM)j r Wrote:  To be honest, I wasn't rebutting the Heritage paper. I was detailing the hypocrisy of it and explaining why there was backlash against it.

As for "the typical Hispanic immigrant," I honestly don't know what that means. I don't really see the world through a racialist filter. I've met Hispanic immigrants who are undocumented line cooks and I've met Hispanic immigrants who are PhD economists. Latin America is a big place.

I do find it funny that some people like to focus on the negative actions of one group while ignoring others. Brighton Beach, a Russian (ie white) enclave in Brooklyn, is the capital of Medicaid and insurance fraud, but for some reason it's always the brown people who are the greatest threat. Undocumented Mexicans aren't even eligible to collect on most entitlements and they use fake Social Security numbers, which means that they are paying payroll taxes.

Here's my immigration policy: Do you have a criminal record? No. Are you willing to work? Yes. Welcome to America.

Let's allow in immigrants from anywhere in the world with STEM master's and/or PhD degrees, but only immigrants with such degrees or are obtaining one here. The left will still shriek because they wouldn't get sufficient "vibrancy."

It's not hard to see that income across nations and across individuals is tightly linked to IQ. Crime rates as well.

We have enough of our own problems as it is. We certainly don't need anymore low IQ denizens.

That's not a useful solution if you want wages to be high.

If you're an employer, more labor competition is good for you. You have a stronger negotiating position.

For the job-takers, you want less competition. With higher labor supply, your relative value is diminished.

This is ignoring the cultural aspects. If the US is to maintain a Anglo-American cultural heritage that manifests itself through traditions of common law and sound reason, you need to ensure the stream of immigrants from abroad is slow enough so that they are culturally absorbed before they are too numerous for that to be practically possible. If they arrive in too great numbers too quickly, integration will become impossible since they'll be able to reside in parallel societies where they'll miss out on the opportunities of integration. The resulting divide can potentially cause conflicts.

I'm in favor of a steady stream of immigrants, but once the number of immigrants in your personal network is above 50 percent, you run the risk of creating parallel societies with dubious loyalities. Assuming that said immigrants converge to the norm after a number of generations, which Hispanics consistently do not do. Cubans did, but that's because the US received the most productive Cubans when Castro imposed socialism on Cuba in '59. George Borjas is from that segment.

So... 60 million immigrants is far too many. Half that number would end unemployment, enable rising wages, help reduce the deficit, improve school quality in the inner cities and give Americans at the bottom of the social ladder a fighting chance.

Post: #11

I don't buy the racialist arguments. 200 years ago, English descendants argued that America shouldn't let in the Irish and the Germans, because they wouldn't culturally assimilate. 150 years ago, nativists argued the same thing about Southern and Eastern Europeans. As late as WWI, people were using IQ tests to argue for Jewish inferiority. They were all wrong. It's nice to think that we have it right this time, but I don't buy it.

Also, the whole don't let in too many brown people cause they're all socialists argument is pure bullshit. The biggest statists I know aren't brown, they're white progressives.

Post: #12

(05-10-2013 10:44 AM)j r Wrote:  I don't buy the racialist arguments. 200 years ago, English descendants argued that America shouldn't let in the Irish and the Germans, because they wouldn't culturally assimilate. 150 years ago, nativists argued the same thing about Southern and Eastern Europeans. As late as WWI, people were using IQ tests to argue for Jewish inferiority. They were all wrong. It's nice to think that we have it right this time, but I don't buy it.

Also, the whole don't let in too many brown people cause they're all socialists argument is pure bullshit. The biggest statists I know aren't brown, they're white progressives.

Biggest statists I know as well are white women, but surveys do consistently show that latino Americans favor big government policies more than American whites. I'm not too concerned about that, though.

IQ arguments aren't racialist arguments--those who are in favor of IQ-based restriction just want to to be sure immigrants bring more to the table than take away.

One cannot ignore the empirical fact that IQ (and/or the suite of cognitive traits associated with IQ) is coupled with individual and national prosperity.

It is "progressives" who in fact favor judging people by the color of their skin rather than the content of their minds.

I don't care what potential immigrants look like; I care if they're smart.

Unless they're girls I'm trying to bang, in which case the vice versa is true.

Post: #13

(05-10-2013 10:44 AM)j r Wrote:  I don't buy the racialist arguments. 200 years ago, English descendants argued that America shouldn't let in the Irish and the Germans, because they wouldn't culturally assimilate. 150 years ago, nativists argued the same thing about Southern and Eastern Europeans. As late as WWI, people were using IQ tests to argue for Jewish inferiority. They were all wrong. It's nice to think that we have it right this time, but I don't buy it.

Also, the whole don't let in too many brown people cause they're all socialists argument is pure bullshit. The biggest statists I know aren't brown, they're white progressives.

You're missing the point: ignoring the evidence that even after several generations, Hispanics do not converge to the mean, by shrugging it of as "I don't believe that". You don't have to believe. It's a fact whether you care or not.

For one, this is not a character judgment. It's an observation. And one that has enormous economic and social consequences.

Ignoring these huge consequences is what this man failed to do. And now the inquisition wants him destroyed. It's a gross perversion of a thoughtful discourse. It's hard to see a future for the US where basic reasoning skills and simple observations are regarded as heresy by a self-appointed priesthood of ideologues and fanatics. This is as bad if not worse than Fox News.

Second, you also ignore the huge consequences large-scale immigration for instance has for unemployment amongst African-Americans, or Hispanics already in this country.

Check out Cornell's Vernon Briggs and Harvard's George Borjas for some sound research on immigration and its consequences. No one is saying immigration is all bad. But it's not all good either.

Post: #14

(05-10-2013 10:44 AM)j r Wrote:  I don't buy the racialist arguments. 200 years ago, English descendants argued that America shouldn't let in the Irish and the Germans, because they wouldn't culturally assimilate. 150 years ago, nativists argued the same thing about Southern and Eastern Europeans. As late as WWI, people were using IQ tests to argue for Jewish inferiority. They were all wrong. It's nice to think that we have it right this time, but I don't buy it.

There's no point in trying to reason with the Steve Sailer types.

WIA

Post: #15

(05-10-2013 10:44 AM)j r Wrote:  I don't buy the racialist arguments. 200 years ago, English descendants argued that America shouldn't let in the Irish and the Germans, because they wouldn't culturally assimilate. 150 years ago, nativists argued the same thing about Southern and Eastern Europeans. As late as WWI, people were using IQ tests to argue for Jewish inferiority. They were all wrong. It's nice to think that we have it right this time, but I don't buy it.

Also, the whole don't let in too many brown people cause they're all socialists argument is pure bullshit. The biggest statists I know aren't brown, they're white progressives.

The difference was that those immigrants were brought in at much smaller numbers than the current immigration today.

How can you discount such factors?

Post: #16

Most the illegals don't have to be smart to come here. They pay some mule a few hundred or few thousand and pay it off by working shitty jobs.

Is it good for our country? Hell no.

Usually illegals are not as intelligent and fuck like rabbits.
Whereas, intelligent people debate having even 1 or 2 kids.

Argue all you want, higher IQ people have a better chance overall.

If you take a 130 IQ person with equal determination, hard work, luck, appearance, etc. as someone with a 90 IQ, who will do better most of the time?

To argue that IQ means nothing is stupid.

Post: #17

(05-10-2013 10:00 AM)Kabal Wrote:  Let's allow in immigrants from anywhere in the world with STEM master's and/or PhD degrees, but only immigrants with such degrees or are obtaining one here. The left will still shriek because they wouldn't get sufficient "vibrancy."

It's not hard to see that income across nations and across individuals is tightly linked to IQ. Crime rates as well.

We have enough of our own problems as it is. We certainly don't need anymore low IQ denizens.

I know someone with a Bachelor's in Computer Science that has to work construction because he is illegal. He's been here for over 6 years.

The country isn't helping the smart ones nor is it encouraging smart people to become citizens here.

It's giving "free shit" to uneducated demographics that vote for them to run in office again so they can put their liberal policies upon us.

Post: #18

Mark Steyn had a great post last Saturday about immigration rates of different countries, most are like 1% or less. Except, of course, idiotic Western nations run by liberals that think open borders, everyone holding hands singing Kumbayah is reality when in fact most foreigners just want to come here and get all the free shit liberals are only too happy to sign them up for ASAP.

Smart countries have stringent quotas that only allow for intelligent, educated foreigners that help advance their society. Try emigrating to Mexico as a peniless foreigner and signing up for welfare, they'll throw you in jail immediately then run your ass right out of the country.

The US used to be the same way, we didn't want any more unassimilatable trash here than we already have but now we'll bend over backwards and pay top dollar so garbage can come here, spit in our face and, in some cases, make pressure cooker bombs and blow up the Boston Marathon because they hate us so much.

But hey, it's worth importing losers as long as they vote Democrat on election day.

Post: #19

(05-10-2013 02:28 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:44 AM)j r Wrote:  I don't buy the racialist arguments. 200 years ago, English descendants argued that America shouldn't let in the Irish and the Germans, because they wouldn't culturally assimilate. 150 years ago, nativists argued the same thing about Southern and Eastern Europeans. As late as WWI, people were using IQ tests to argue for Jewish inferiority. They were all wrong. It's nice to think that we have it right this time, but I don't buy it.

Also, the whole don't let in too many brown people cause they're all socialists argument is pure bullshit. The biggest statists I know aren't brown, they're white progressives.

The difference was that those immigrants were brought in at much smaller numbers than the current immigration today.

How can you discount such factors?

Today's economy is many times larger than it was then, so I'm not worried about the United States absorbing more immigrants. Immigration is largely self-regulating. Look at what happened when the housing market crashed and construction jobs dried up. Immigration from Mexico ground to a halt.

One of the problems is using terms like "bringing in" or "importing" immigrants, which implies that we call up Mexico and order whatever they have to send us. In reality, immigrants are proactive. They have networks and go to where the jobs are. Immigration selects for those who show initiative. I want more of those people here.

If there is some tendency of the children and grandchildren of immigrants to show less promise, then I would characterize that as America ruining immigrants as opposed to vice versa.

The one issue I do agree is that the American model of expecting immigrants to assimilate is far superior to the Western European multiculturalist model. Again, the problem is Western progressives, not immigrants.

Post: #20

I think it is funny most of the people attacking him are white people, just a funny observation. As a White, I don't understand why Whites are the most adamant in denying differences between the races. Like not just adamant, but like if you diverge from the notion that race is just skin color and we are absolutely the same in every other way(denying genetic separation and evolution and natural over tens of thousands of years), they will yell at you and shame you with insults. The funny thing is, I brought this up with my mother and sister(big mistake bringing up politics to women). They go angry with higher pitched voices and drowned out reason and tried to shame me into their position of egalitarianism.

The funny thing is, I actually agree with the cultural marxists on one point, white privilege, well I guess white female privilege. Particularly my mom and sister, white blondes; they are literally one of the few groups that can skate through life with a lack of critical thinking or worldly perspective.

Post: #21

(05-10-2013 09:08 AM)j r Wrote:  Here's my immigration policy: Do you have a criminal record? No. Are you willing to work? Yes. Welcome to America.

Which is precisely the policy that the heritage foundation takes pains to describe as a very naive and self-destructive position. At least: that attitude is not compatible with the current attitude towards government spending and social welfare.

Specifically: "can work" does not imply "net tax surplus." And a flood of people who are unable to go from being net tax consumers to net tax payers will burden the government and lower the standard of living for everyone except those who directly benefit from the immigrant labor (IOW the top 1% who benefit from high food and housing prices and hire maids and lawncare workers)

If you want to actually debunk the Heritage paper you have to address that fundamental assertion.

Post: #22

(05-10-2013 09:08 AM)j r Wrote:  Here's my immigration policy: Do you have a criminal record? No. Are you willing to work? Yes. Welcome to America.

"Will you actually work after I let you in and not take all the benefits this country has to offer?"

"Of course man. America is land of freedom..."

Post: #23

(05-10-2013 06:41 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 09:08 AM)j r Wrote:  Here's my immigration policy: Do you have a criminal record? No. Are you willing to work? Yes. Welcome to America.

Which is precisely the policy that the heritage foundation takes pains to describe as a very naive and self-destructive position. At least: that attitude is not compatible with the current attitude towards government spending and social welfare.

Specifically: "can work" does not imply "net tax surplus." And a flood of people who are unable to go from being net tax consumers to net tax payers will burden the government and lower the standard of living for everyone except those who directly benefit from the immigrant labor (IOW the top 1% who benefit from high food and housing prices and hire maids and lawncare workers)

If you want to actually debunk the Heritage paper you have to address that fundamental assertion.

Another reason why we need to restrict IQ to the right tail of intelligence/productivity.

The average person is a net tax-consumer. Thus, the probabilistic break-even point is well to the right of the middle of the cognitive ability bell curve.

Post: #24

(05-10-2013 12:50 PM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

(05-10-2013 10:44 AM)j r Wrote:  I don't buy the racialist arguments. 200 years ago, English descendants argued that America shouldn't let in the Irish and the Germans, because they wouldn't culturally assimilate. 150 years ago, nativists argued the same thing about Southern and Eastern Europeans. As late as WWI, people were using IQ tests to argue for Jewish inferiority. They were all wrong. It's nice to think that we have it right this time, but I don't buy it.

There's no point in trying to reason with the Steve Sailer types.

WIA

It would help, if you want to reason, to actually read the relevant papers and theories.