[jonottawa]

I really liked this 6+ minute video and I'd be curious to hear what others think.

[kenberg]

No not terrible, yes interesting, yes perhaps misleading.


The misleading part is that I have never heard these "elites' (somehow "elite" never seems to come out as a compliment) say that we are making a massive impact on world poverty with our immigration policy current or planned. There is certainly an impact on the lives of those who immigrate, but as the speaker vividly demonstrates the problem of worldwide poverty is far too massive for our immigration policy to alleviate it in any substantial way. I have never thought otherwise.

The issue of helping them where they live is a variant on an old theme that played out in the early 1960s. I knew many foregin graduate students at that time, particularly from India and Pakistan. The governments of those countries were upset that students would come to the states, get advanced training, and then stay rather than return and help with the problems in their own country. The brain drain, it was called. Various laws were put into place to deal with it and I suppose that they has an effect but, as is usually the case, where there is a law there is a way around the law. I don't know the details but as I recall it went something like this: Someone would come to the University of Minnesota on a student visa, that's where I was a student, he would get an advanced degree, he would go to Canada for a while, he would re-enter the U.S. Something like that, don't hold me to the details.

Anyway, I have no illusions that we can solve the problems of world poverty. And definitely it would be an illusion.Perhaps we can be of some small help. I favor trying, if anyone has a good idea.

[barmar]

I never know how to understand statements like "Workers in country X make only $2 a day". OK, but how does that relate to their living expenses? I spend several times that much on lunch each day, but villages in 3rd World countries don't have sub shops that charge $6 for a sandwich.

I'm not trying to say that these people aren't dirt poor -- when you see their living conditions, it's obvious that they are literally so. But I just dislike this particular way of describing it. 50 years ago wages in the US were also much less than they are now, but so were prices of everything else. Dollar amounts are all relative. It's like when they describe movie successes in terms of box office revenues, without adjusting for the inflation in ticket prices. I have to assume that $2 in one of those poor nations buys more than it does here, because otherwise all those people would die of starvation or exposure.

[kenberg]

 barmar, on 2014-January-13, 11:27, said:

I never know how to understand statements like "Workers in country X make only $2 a day". OK, but how does that relate to their living expenses? I spend several times that much on lunch each day, but villages in 3rd World countries don't have sub shops that charge $6 for a sandwich.

I'm not trying to say that these people aren't dirt poor -- when you see their living conditions, it's obvious that they are literally so. But I just dislike this particular way of describing it. 50 years ago wages in the US were also much less than they are now, but so were prices of everything else. Dollar amounts are all relative. It's like when they describe movie successes in terms of box office revenues, without adjusting for the inflation in ticket prices. I have to assume that $2 in one of those poor nations buys more than it does here, because otherwise all those people would die of starvation or exposure.

There is a sort of interesting book, selected by Maryland libraries as something that they encourage all Marylanders to read, called King Peggy. A woman from Ghana, living in the states, is elected King of the village that she came from. Yes they are poor, dirt poor, and part of the story is how she was able to help. But also they were a fishing community, and they had decent farmland. It's just as you say. Yes, poor, yes very poor, but their annual income is not a correct measure of their circumstances. King Peggy, for example, had gone to the U.K. for training before moving to the U.S. to work in the Embassy. No one disputes that there is massive poverty, but as with most things it quickly gets complicated when you look into it.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-January-13, 11:27, said:

I never know how to understand statements like "Workers in country X make only $2 a day".

Me neither. It always annoys me, and it gives no information. I think it is just used an an appeal to the emotions.

[Vampyr]

 barmar, on 2014-January-13, 11:27, said:

It's like when they describe movie successes in terms of box office revenues, without adjusting for the inflation in ticket prices.

Time was, you could see a double feature for a nickel.

[kenberg]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 12:39, said:

Time was, you could see a double feature for a nickel.

Old song: Do you remember, if you remember, then dearie you're much older than I

12 cents when I was young, as far back as I can recall. And that was if you were under 12. (And no, it wasn't 8 cents if you were under 8). It was thirty-five cents when I reached my teens. Exception: The Lyceum used to show god-awful triple features and they may have gone for a dime.

[Winstonm]

 Vampyr, on 2014-January-13, 12:39, said:

Time was, you could see a double feature for a nickel.

Tell that to kids nowadays and they won't believe you

[32519]

Would you change your mind to allow legitimate refugees fleeing from their war-torn countries to enter your country?

[nigel_k]

If you are walking by the river and see a kid drowning, do you:

A. Save them
B. Let the kid drown because 400,000 other people drown every year so rescuing that kid won't fix the problem
C. Let them drown but spend some time organising swimming classes because that is more effective
D. Let them drown because you never liked the kid anyway but use B and C as excuses if anyone asks questions

[kenberg]

 nigel_k, on 2014-January-14, 02:02, said:

If you are walking by the river and see a kid drowning, do you:

A. Save them
B. Let the kid drown because 400,000 other people drown every year so rescuing that kid won't fix the problem
C. Let them drown but spend some time organising swimming classes because that is more effective
D. Let them drown because you never liked the kid anyway but use B and C as excuses if anyone asks questions

Are we speaking of wading ten or twenty feet into the water, grabbing him and pulling him out? Someone did this for me when I was 4 or so, or so my parents told me.
Or are we speaking of a kid struggling in the Mississippi, 200 yards from shore, water temperature 35F? I am not that great a swimmer, I could drown myself, I could not rescue him.

These questions are a trap, not the least because I don't think anyone really knows what he would do in a highly risky crisis until he is in it. Seems maybe in college I read a book on this. The Bridge by Camus maybe?

I greatly appreciate the enormous privilege of life, and I am fine with making some effort to make things better for others, including those whom I will never meet. I am not a saint, I don't aspire to be one, and I have serious doubt about the possibility of saving humanity from itself. First do no harm is often a tough enough mandate to follow.

It's just too easy to try to impose guilt on someone with "You are not helping with X, why not?". X has a very large realm of possibilities.

[barmar]

The drowning analogy is not apt. I don't think he's saying that we shouldn't allow poor people to immigrate. The issue is whether encouraging such immigration is a realistic way to address the global poverty problem.

To continue the drowning kid analogy, you should of course save the kid if you happen upon them. But if there's an epidemic of drowning kids, that won't solve it, it just saves one kid. If you want to solve the general problem, you need a more general solution like erecting barriers at river banks to make it harder for kids to fall in.

A more apt analogy might be whether you should give money to homeless pan-handlers. That might make you feel good about yourself for a moment, and helps that one beggar a little, but there are far more effective ways to address the homelessness problem.

[Vampyr]

 kenberg, on 2014-January-13, 11:18, said:

No not terrible, yes interesting, yes perhaps misleading.


The misleading part is that I have never heard these "elites' (somehow "elite" never seems to come out as a compliment) say that we are making a massive impact on world poverty with our immigration policy current or planned. There is certainly an impact on the lives of those who immigrate, but as the speaker vividly demonstrates the problem of worldwide poverty is far too massive for our immigration policy to alleviate it in any substantial way. I have never thought otherwise.

I have now watched the video and I agree. I had never previously heard the argument that allowing larger numbers of immigrants is a solution for world poverty.

[barmar]

I also hadn't heard the argument before, but I assumed it was because I just don't follow immigration reform debates very much.

This looked like a TED Talk, was it? It seemed like he might just have been reacting to some previous talk. Or maybe it's just a niche argument that has was trying to ensure didn't become widespread.

[gwnn]

Fantastic news (of course it is still a bit misleading to add up the wealth of 3.5B people, c.f. $2/day, but whatever)! http://www.thealbatr...-fantastic-news

[kenberg]

 gwnn, on 2014-January-21, 17:25, said:

Fantastic news (of course it is still a bit misleading to add up the wealth of 3.5B people, c.f. $2/day, but whatever)! http://www.thealbatr...-fantastic-news

I never heard of this guy. Do people actually watch this show? Why would someone watch a show where (at least) one of the co-hosts is a proven moron?

[kenberg]

I looked on the Forbes site for the richest people in the U.S. The wealth of the top ten adds up to about $350B so if we divide this total by the 3.5B population we get around $100. That's just with the top 10, and just in the U.S.

As Casaba, and earlier barmar, note, it's not very easy to say exactly what the total wealth of 3.5B people is. In my early graduate school days I rented an apartment, I had a bicycle but no car, little or no money in the bank, and some student loan debt. Depending on how you added numbers up, perhaps I had negative wealth. But I was not particularly bad off. I was being paid, not much but paid, no one went hungry, we had friends in roughly the same shape, and we enjoyed our lives. And, very importantly, we had plans for the future. So that while the host's characterization of the figures as being great news is sufficiently bizarre that he should be fired on the grounds of mental incompetence, it is quite fair to say that the numbers are one more of the many instances where statistical data sounds more significant than it actually is.

Gates, Buffet and others have a lot of money but this is not really the problem we face, personally, nationally or worldwide. They use their wealth creatively and, in some cases, charitably. There is a problem with that much concentrated wealth having heavy political influence, and this can be a problem whether the influence is on the left, the right, or, as in some cases, the looney. This problem needs serious attention. But we will not solve the problem of, for example, childhood poverty by looting the bank accounts of Gates et al.

[gwnn]

The host is a Canadian (very) rich dude apparently paid to say outrageous stuff regularly and to argue with the woman paid to say reasonable stuff. Well, that's what I gather.

http://en.wikipedia....7Leary_Exchange

[Winstonm]

Oxfam taking data from Credit Suisse and Forbes:

Quote

....found that the world's 85 richest people own the same amount as the bottom half of the entire global population.

[blackshoe]

Obama and others would "solve the problem" by taking from all these rich folks - at gunpoint, in effect - and "redistributing" the wealth to the poor folks. I supposed then we'd all
be equally poor.

Speaking of Gates, he seems to be making the talk show circuit lately. I don't think he's ever done that before, so what's it all about?