@UnderstandingMouseMagic: It's uncommon in American political discourse to complain about the middle class(es), so your post made me curious about differing class perceptions. Turns out that roughly 60% of Britons identify as working class, compared to under 40% of Americans. If you remove the "working class" option, then nearly 9 in 10 Americans regard themselves as lower-middle, middle, or upper-middle class. I guess it must have a very different connotation there.
I didn't follow the part about minorities being used to maintain privilege.
And one of the most effective ways to maintain privilege is to keep those below at a disadvantage. Builders/handymen/catering/hospitality workers, ordinary non skilled or semi skilled workers have watched their incomes fall. Undermine the value of your countryman/woman's labour by having an inexhaustable supply. Unless of course you have "the right professional qualifications and connections" then you just get pay rises.
According to a variety of academic studies increased immigration does not lead to decreasing wages. There is a lot of evidence that immigration benefits the country as a whole, and strengthens services in the long run. Immigrants tend to be younger, which is good for demographics. The state has not paid for their education etc. while they are younger, which is a net gain as they pax tax & consume goods in the future. While anecdotal evidence may exist for immigrants 'taking jobs', reducing immigrant numbers reduces the number of available jobs. Similarly immigrants are often accused of criminal conduct in numerous countries when they actually tend to have lower crime rates, for the practical reason that they would be at risk of losing their visa for even minor offences.
It's the 50th anniversary of Israel annexing part of Jerusalem, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, as an aside.
The problem isn't with immigrants 'taking jobs', it's with what they do with their wages. Often groups of immigrants will rent cheap, overcrowded accommodation from a slum landlord (to keep their overheads to a minimum) and send every spare penny 'back home' to their families (where the UK Pound buys a lot more than it does here). The problem with this scenario is that their wages aren't being fed back into the UK economy (by buying goods, which would lead to increased retail sales and maybe even increased jobs).
I don't have documented evidence for this by the way, it's just what I've been told by Polish immigrants that I've spoken to.
Trump came in second in Time's Person of the Year.....to the women he sexually harassed and assaulted (and all women who have experienced such behavior). We know that this, more than anything this morning, ia probably making Trump go into a seething rage.
In regards to Jerusalem....my grandma had a large, tall bush in her yard. I used to mow her lawn every couple weeks, and one day I found that the bush had a very large hornet's nest in it. Now, if I had been an idiot, I would have grabbed a stick and knocked it down, surely destroying the nest, but also likely getting stung by dozens of hornets. Turns out there is a better way. Hornets essentially hibernate at night. There is a spray you can buy that, when applied to the nest, kills them. So that's what we did. Trump, in regards to Islamic terrorism all around the world, decided to take the pick up a stick and whack it approach. And now we wait for the stings.
@UnderstandingMouseMagic: It's uncommon in American political discourse to complain about the middle class(es), so your post made me curious about differing class perceptions. Turns out that roughly 60% of Britons identify as working class, compared to under 40% of Americans. If you remove the "working class" option, then nearly 9 in 10 Americans regard themselves as lower-middle, middle, or upper-middle class. I guess it must have a very different connotation there.
I didn't follow the part about minorities being used to maintain privilege.
And one of the most effective ways to maintain privilege is to keep those below at a disadvantage. Builders/handymen/catering/hospitality workers, ordinary non skilled or semi skilled workers have watched their incomes fall. Undermine the value of your countryman/woman's labour by having an inexhaustable supply. Unless of course you have "the right professional qualifications and connections" then you just get pay rises.
According to a variety of academic studies increased immigration does not lead to decreasing wages. There is a lot of evidence that immigration benefits the country as a whole, and strengthens services in the long run. Immigrants tend to be younger, which is good for demographics. The state has not paid for their education etc. while they are younger, which is a net gain as they pax tax & consume goods in the future. While anecdotal evidence may exist for immigrants 'taking jobs', reducing immigrant numbers reduces the number of available jobs. Similarly immigrants are often accused of criminal conduct in numerous countries when they actually tend to have lower crime rates, for the practical reason that they would be at risk of losing their visa for even minor offences.
It's the 50th anniversary of Israel annexing part of Jerusalem, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, as an aside.
I just Googled,
"impact immigration on wages"
And this was the first thing on the page.
" UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.24 Feb 2017"
From the Migratory Observatory (whoever they are).
Something that has been being dismissed since Blair opened the floodgates as anecdotal, false, a lie, wrong, and if that fails "racist".
The prison population in the UK shows some ethnic minorities severely over represented. And there are court cases going on all the time fighting deportations of those who have commited crimes, yet the goverment cannot remove them from the country after the prison sentence has been served.
Pretty sure there's an argument going on at the moment that automatic deportation after serving time basically punishes a person twice and therefore affects human rights and equality.
In the UK a person earning less than 27,000 is not a net contributor. They take more out from the state than they put in. Add children to the mix and that number goes up.
Considering how much immigration there has been in the last 20/30 years and we have been told over and over again how valuable the contribution is, it does beg the question why the UK is in such a mess with it's finances. We should be approaching Monte Carlo levels of wealth by now for every man, woman and child wouldn't you think?
The economic gains from mass migration, when they exist at all, aren't distributed evenly. They go to the top at the expense of the bottom. That's why it is pushed so strongly regardless of whether the population wants it or not.
The economic gains from mass migration, when they exist at all, aren't distributed evenly. They go to the top at the expense of the bottom. That's why it is pushed so strongly regardless of whether the population wants it or not.
And the same argument was made against Irish and Italian immigrants who came in to Ellis Island. Moreover, their religion (Catholicism) was attacked endlessly by the Protestant majority in this country as well, which was why it was such a big deal when Kennedy won the Presidency. Scapegoating every new arrival of immigrants is nothing new under the sun.
Whole wave of Democratic female Senators are now calling on Franken to resign after another allegation. He has to go. Personally very disapppointed in him. In contrast:
Pure politcal terms: by the end of the week, it now seems a guarantee that two high profile Dems will have stepped down based on pressure in their own party, and Republicans will still have Donald Trump in the White House and pushing hard for Roy Moore in Alabama.
In the last hour, 25% of the Democratic Senate caucus has called on Franken to resign, as has Tom Perez. The DNC Chair is calling for holding one of his own accountable, and the RNC is funneling money to a child molester. And those are just the facts.
The economic gains from mass migration, when they exist at all, aren't distributed evenly. They go to the top at the expense of the bottom. That's why it is pushed so strongly regardless of whether the population wants it or not.
And the same argument was made against Irish and Italian immigrants who came in to Ellis Island. Moreover, their religion (Catholicism) was attacked endlessly by the Protestant majority in this country as well, which was why it was such a big deal when Kennedy won the Presidency. Scapegoating every new arrival of immigrants is nothing new under the sun.
Do not equate immigration to the US with immigration to the UK.
There is no equivalence between a country that was founded on immigration and still has a lot of room to expand with a country that has a settled population, is very well populated and has a generous, non contributory welfare state.
And why on earth bring religion up? Unless you are going to point out that having large numbers of people arriving in a country from places with no concept of religious freedom or freedom from religion is a spectacularly bad idea. Then I would agree.
@jjstraka34 That isn't surprising--political victories and/or having more votes on their side in the Senate is more important than adhering to the standard set of moral values they claim to represent. At the very least, they aren't even trying to avoid even the *appearance* of supporting wrongdoing. On the one hand, it is true that Roy Moore is technically innocent of the allegations until proven guilty in a court of law but on the other hand allegations like the ones made against him probably would not have happened if he hadn't been trying to hook up with teenagers at the mall.
The question as to whether or not there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault is an entirely different matter altogether.
*************
We have been putting off moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jersualem for over 20 years now (albeit in 6-month increments), so "moving the embassy" is *not* a Trump idea. Even if he doesn't sign the next 6-month delay it will take a couple of years for a new embassy to be built--trying to retrofit 21st-Century security onto a building dating from the 1980s or 1990s is probably not wise. That being said, concerns that moving the embassy will derail the peace process are unfounded because there is no peace process currently underway. At best, there is simply a "cease fire" in effect but that does not equal actual peace talks. Any lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis is not going to depend upon the location of the United States embassy, though.
McConnell and Flake and Romney and McCain and others have all chosen to call for him to resign and say he will face an ethics committee if elected, it's simply not accurate to say they are not doing it. I personally think Trump is stupid for endorsing him AFTER this when he didn't even endorse him FOR the seat itself. Even if Moore is innocent of these particular allegations, that recklessness is gonna get him in trouble eventually. At least he shows far more restraint on international affairs, where it matters, than he does on domestic political/cultural ones. I would slam any democrat that would back Franken or Conyers, and there were a few, but condemn Moore, and that's precisely what he did a couple days ago.
Also, the replacement for Conyers appears to be either Conyers Jr. or Conyers newphew. I didn't realize they were operating a political dynasty.
Meet our new congressman and social justice champion! They have probably been getting away with this kind of stuff with impunity for years before the internet age and social media.
Whole wave of Democratic female Senators are now calling on Franken to resign after another allegation. He has to go. Personally very disapppointed in him. In contrast:
Pure politcal terms: by the end of the week, it now seems a guarantee that two high profile Dems will have stepped down based on pressure in their own party, and Republicans will still have Donald Trump in the White House and pushing hard for Roy Moore in Alabama.
In the last hour, 25% of the Democratic Senate caucus has called on Franken to resign, as has Tom Perez. The DNC Chair is calling for holding one of his own accountable, and the RNC is funneling money to a child molester. And those are just the facts.
I don't know why I keep having to bring this up, but there is no 'moral' equivalent to the dems calling on Franken and Conyers to resign. Conyers seat is meaningless and even if the Republican governor Snyder appoints a Republican to the his place (which I doubt he'd do since Conyers district is overwhelmingly blue and there would be no point in pissing those folks off) it would be totally irrelevant to the make-up of the House. If Franken resigns, the Democrat governor would appoint a Democrat to replace him. Again, no change in dynamics. If Moore loses, that's a gain for the Democrats of one seat in the Senate which could be huge. Once again I have to point out that this stance is very easy for the dems and requires no real power structure change whatsoever. Boy are they brave!
Whole wave of Democratic female Senators are now calling on Franken to resign after another allegation. He has to go. Personally very disapppointed in him. In contrast:
Pure politcal terms: by the end of the week, it now seems a guarantee that two high profile Dems will have stepped down based on pressure in their own party, and Republicans will still have Donald Trump in the White House and pushing hard for Roy Moore in Alabama.
In the last hour, 25% of the Democratic Senate caucus has called on Franken to resign, as has Tom Perez. The DNC Chair is calling for holding one of his own accountable, and the RNC is funneling money to a child molester. And those are just the facts.
I don't know why I keep having to bring this up, but there is no 'moral' equivalent to the dems calling on Franken and Conyers to resign. Conyers seat is meaningless and even if the Republican governor Snyder appoints a Republican to the his place (which I doubt he'd do since Conyers district is overwhelmingly blue and there would be no point in pissing those folks off) it would be totally irrelevant to the make-up of the House. If Franken resigns, the Democrat governor would appoint a Democrat to replace him. Again, no change in dynamics. If Moore loses, that's a gain for the Democrats of one seat in the Senate which could be huge. Once again I have to point out that this stance is very easy for the dems and requires no real power structure change whatsoever. Boy are they brave!
I don't see how anyone can change the dynamics of whether it is easier or not. They are still doing it. And while your argument makes a decent amount of sense, you can't sell that to the public once Franken resigns and Moore is still in the race. Nuance won't play. It will be a.) and b.)
@Balrog99: Not true. Losing Franken is a bigger loss for the Democrats than losing Moore is for the Republicans.
If Franken goes out, then the Democratic party loses 2.2% of their Senate seats. If Moore goes out, the Republican party loses 1.8% of their Senate seats. The former means the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate is 53-44. The latter means it's 54-43.
Either way, the GOP has exactly 9 more seats than the Democratic party, and retains full control of the Senate.
If BOTH Moore and Franken go out, then the balance is 53-43, which is an even higher Republican-to-Democrat ratio than the current ratio of 54-44.
So, no. The Democratic party stands to lose more from calling on Al Franken to step down in light of less serious allegations (harassment). The GOP stands to lose less from calling on Moore to step down in light of more serious allegations (child molestation).
EDIT: The numbers assume that there's a 50/50 chance of Moore or Franken being replaced by a Republican or Democrat. That's why I put 53-44 and 54-43 instead of "either 53-45 or 54-44" (otherwise the number of Senators wouldn't add up to 100, including the 2 independent Senators).
I will absolutey admit (again, pure political calculus) that Democrats would be insane to not throw Franken overboard while the GOP has re-hitched their wagon to Roy Moore. I mean, that goes without saying. I mean, the big story this morning was the Time Person of the Year selection. And women who are sexually harassed/abused. The Republicans are going to cede the issue, and it is a BIG issue.
Also, mark me down as highly, HIGHLY skeptical any ethics investigation of Moore ever takes place if he wins. I'm willing to put a moderate amount of money down on that.
@Balrog99: Not true. Losing Franken is a bigger loss for the Democrats than losing Moore is for the Republicans.
If Franken goes out, then the Democratic party loses 2.2% of their Senate seats. If Moore goes out, the Republican party loses 1.8% of their Senate seats. The former means the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate is 53-44. The latter means it's 54-43.
Either way, the GOP has exactly 9 more seats than the Democratic party, and retains full control of the Senate.
If BOTH Moore and Franken go out, then the balance is 53-43, which is an even higher Republican-to-Democrat ratio than the current ratio of 54-44.
So, no. The Democratic party stands to lose more from calling on Al Franken to step down in light of less serious allegations (harassment). The GOP stands to lose less from calling on Moore to step down in light of more serious allegations (child molestation).
EDIT: The numbers assume that there's a 50/50 chance of Moore or Franken being replaced by a Republican or Democrat. That's why I put 53-44 and 54-43 instead of "either 53-45 or 54-44" (otherwise the number of Senators wouldn't add up to 100, including the 2 independent Senators).
Franken's replacement would be chosen by the Governor of Minnesota until elections next November. Since the Minnesota governor is a Dem I'd be inclined to believe he would choose a Democrat. No change in current power structure until an election next year that would have happened anyway.
The Moore seat is open because Sessions was appointed to the Cabinet. That's what makes it a contested seat if I understand things correctly. Therefore, if Moore drops out then the Democrat wins by default. If Franken resigns, no contested election just an appointment by a Democrat Governor. I don't think I'm wrong here.
I do think it's still meaningful, though, that Democrats are calling on Franken to resign. He's a prominent figure, his replacement would not be as strong, and it sets a precedent that they'd have to follow if a Democrat was accused of this during an election. Nor is this the first time Democrats have turned their back on other Democrats who have committed sexual misconduct of one kind or another. Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein have also been under attack by their own party.
On multiple previous occasions, the Democratic party has held its own politicians and supporters accountable for misconduct. We can't dismiss this as a mere PR move when it's clearly part of a larger trend.
Nor can we defend Roy Moore simply on the grounds that he's a Republican and his replacement would probably be a Democrat. That's not holding officials accountable for their actions; that's just playing cynical partisan politics. We shouldn't give an excuse to people who care more about maximizing GOP power than keeping child molesters out of the Senate.
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about Franken resigning. He's offered no excuses. He's offered no denials. He's launched no counterattacks on his accusers. His response to every allegation was to apologize and voluntarily refer himself to the ethics committee. It might not be enough to justify staying in office, but owning up to the offense and taking responsibility is exactly what you're supposed to do in this situation.
Also, the replacement for Conyers appears to be either Conyers Jr. or Conyers newphew. I didn't realize they were operating a political dynasty.
Meet our new congressman and social justice champion! They have probably been getting away with this kind of stuff with impunity for years before the internet age and social media.
@Balrog99: Not true. Losing Franken is a bigger loss for the Democrats than losing Moore is for the Republicans.
If Franken goes out, then the Democratic party loses 2.2% of their Senate seats. If Moore goes out, the Republican party loses 1.8% of their Senate seats. The former means the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate is 53-44. The latter means it's 54-43.
Either way, the GOP has exactly 9 more seats than the Democratic party, and retains full control of the Senate.
If BOTH Moore and Franken go out, then the balance is 53-43, which is an even higher Republican-to-Democrat ratio than the current ratio of 54-44.
So, no. The Democratic party stands to lose more from calling on Al Franken to step down in light of less serious allegations (harassment). The GOP stands to lose less from calling on Moore to step down in light of more serious allegations (child molestation).
EDIT: The numbers assume that there's a 50/50 chance of Moore or Franken being replaced by a Republican or Democrat. That's why I put 53-44 and 54-43 instead of "either 53-45 or 54-44" (otherwise the number of Senators wouldn't add up to 100, including the 2 independent Senators).
Franken's replacement would be chosen by the Governor of Minnesota until elections next November. Since the Minnesota governor is a Dem I'd be inclined to believe he would choose a Democrat. No change in current power structure until an election next year that would have happened anyway.
The Moore seat is open because Sessions was appointed to the Cabinet. That's what makes it a contested seat if I understand things correctly. Therefore, if Moore drops out then the Democrat wins by default. If Franken resigns, no contested election just an appointment by a Democrat Governor. I don't think I'm wrong here.
Yes, absolutely. I want to reiterate I don't believe Moore will face any meaningful ethics investigation if he wins next week.
As for @semiticgod's point on Franken resigning (which he clearly will tomorrow, as almost 3/4 of Senate Democrats have now called on him to), it IS true he hasn't attacked his accusers and Moore and Trump have (viciously in some cases, Moore is actually suggesting his accusers should be criminally charged themselves). He can't stay in this climate, and I loved the guy up til a few weeks ago. Democrats are going to defeat Trump and the Republicans (if they do) because of women voters, and they simply cannot afford to ignore this or turn a blind eye. Everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt with one accuser (at least initially), that could be anything. Once more start coming out of the woodwork, game over. It's not a coincidence that the #metoo movement sprung up after Trump got elected. It's by and large woman who are coming for Trump and the Republican's political heads. Throwing Franken and Conyers aside is a no-brainer.
Sexual assault is not the only reason numbers show women are gunning for Republicans. They (usually) take care of healthcare arrangments in the household. This is about the GOP's endless quest this year to take away healthcare.
@Balrog99: Not true. Losing Franken is a bigger loss for the Democrats than losing Moore is for the Republicans.
If Franken goes out, then the Democratic party loses 2.2% of their Senate seats. If Moore goes out, the Republican party loses 1.8% of their Senate seats. The former means the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate is 53-44. The latter means it's 54-43.
Either way, the GOP has exactly 9 more seats than the Democratic party, and retains full control of the Senate.
If BOTH Moore and Franken go out, then the balance is 53-43, which is an even higher Republican-to-Democrat ratio than the current ratio of 54-44.
So, no. The Democratic party stands to lose more from calling on Al Franken to step down in light of less serious allegations (harassment). The GOP stands to lose less from calling on Moore to step down in light of more serious allegations (child molestation).
EDIT: The numbers assume that there's a 50/50 chance of Moore or Franken being replaced by a Republican or Democrat. That's why I put 53-44 and 54-43 instead of "either 53-45 or 54-44" (otherwise the number of Senators wouldn't add up to 100, including the 2 independent Senators).
Franken's replacement would be chosen by the Governor of Minnesota until elections next November. Since the Minnesota governor is a Dem I'd be inclined to believe he would choose a Democrat. No change in current power structure until an election next year that would have happened anyway.
The Moore seat is open because Sessions was appointed to the Cabinet. That's what makes it a contested seat if I understand things correctly. Therefore, if Moore drops out then the Democrat wins by default. If Franken resigns, no contested election just an appointment by a Democrat Governor. I don't think I'm wrong here.
Yes, absolutely. I want to reiterate I don't believe Moore will face any meaningful ethics investigation if he wins next week.
I think he might have until Trump stuck his nose in there. Now Trump had made it about him and there's about 0% chance of anything being done unless Moore is convicted.
I think Moore is guilty as Hell btw but I understand how important everybody on the right thinks this election is. I wish the Repubs were up a few more seats so they could safely send this piece of garbage packing...
@Balrog99: Not true. Losing Franken is a bigger loss for the Democrats than losing Moore is for the Republicans.
If Franken goes out, then the Democratic party loses 2.2% of their Senate seats. If Moore goes out, the Republican party loses 1.8% of their Senate seats. The former means the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate is 53-44. The latter means it's 54-43.
Either way, the GOP has exactly 9 more seats than the Democratic party, and retains full control of the Senate.
If BOTH Moore and Franken go out, then the balance is 53-43, which is an even higher Republican-to-Democrat ratio than the current ratio of 54-44.
So, no. The Democratic party stands to lose more from calling on Al Franken to step down in light of less serious allegations (harassment). The GOP stands to lose less from calling on Moore to step down in light of more serious allegations (child molestation).
EDIT: The numbers assume that there's a 50/50 chance of Moore or Franken being replaced by a Republican or Democrat. That's why I put 53-44 and 54-43 instead of "either 53-45 or 54-44" (otherwise the number of Senators wouldn't add up to 100, including the 2 independent Senators).
Franken's replacement would be chosen by the Governor of Minnesota until elections next November. Since the Minnesota governor is a Dem I'd be inclined to believe he would choose a Democrat. No change in current power structure until an election next year that would have happened anyway.
The Moore seat is open because Sessions was appointed to the Cabinet. That's what makes it a contested seat if I understand things correctly. Therefore, if Moore drops out then the Democrat wins by default. If Franken resigns, no contested election just an appointment by a Democrat Governor. I don't think I'm wrong here.
Yes, absolutely. I want to reiterate I don't believe Moore will face any meaningful ethics investigation if he wins next week.
I think he might have until Trump stuck his nose in there. Now Trump had made it about him and there's about 0% chance of anything being done unless Moore is convicted.
I think Moore is guilty as Hell btw but I understand how important everybody on the right thinks this election is. I wish the Repubs were up a few more seats so they could safely send this piece of garbage packing...
The Moore vote is about (let's face it) religious fanaticism. Trump moving the embassy to Jerusalem is part of the same line of thought. As we discussed before, Christian Right support of Israel is based on the belief that biblical prophecy dictates that the Jewish people are in that part of the world at end-times. At which point they will either convert or be relegated to eternal damnation. In my mind, that would be like me casting a vote because I ACTUALLY believe that dead Cthulhu waits dreaming in his house at R'leyh.
@UnderstandingMouseMagic: It's uncommon in American political discourse to complain about the middle class(es), so your post made me curious about differing class perceptions. Turns out that roughly 60% of Britons identify as working class, compared to under 40% of Americans. If you remove the "working class" option, then nearly 9 in 10 Americans regard themselves as lower-middle, middle, or upper-middle class. I guess it must have a very different connotation there.
I didn't follow the part about minorities being used to maintain privilege.
And one of the most effective ways to maintain privilege is to keep those below at a disadvantage. Builders/handymen/catering/hospitality workers, ordinary non skilled or semi skilled workers have watched their incomes fall. Undermine the value of your countryman/woman's labour by having an inexhaustable supply. Unless of course you have "the right professional qualifications and connections" then you just get pay rises.
According to a variety of academic studies increased immigration does not lead to decreasing wages. There is a lot of evidence that immigration benefits the country as a whole, and strengthens services in the long run. Immigrants tend to be younger, which is good for demographics. The state has not paid for their education etc. while they are younger, which is a net gain as they pax tax & consume goods in the future. While anecdotal evidence may exist for immigrants 'taking jobs', reducing immigrant numbers reduces the number of available jobs. Similarly immigrants are often accused of criminal conduct in numerous countries when they actually tend to have lower crime rates, for the practical reason that they would be at risk of losing their visa for even minor offences.
It's the 50th anniversary of Israel annexing part of Jerusalem, in contravention of the Geneva Convention, as an aside.
The problem isn't with immigrants 'taking jobs', it's with what they do with their wages. Often groups of immigrants will rent cheap, overcrowded accommodation from a slum landlord (to keep their overheads to a minimum) and send every spare penny 'back home' to their families (where the UK Pound buys a lot more than it does here). The problem with this scenario is that their wages aren't being fed back into the UK economy (by buying goods, which would lead to increased retail sales and maybe even increased jobs).
I don't have documented evidence for this by the way, it's just what I've been told by Polish immigrants that I've spoken to.
I'm very familiar with Nepali people who often do the same thing. However, I believe that this kind of economic behaviour is linked to jobs at the lowest end of the scale, which are in less demand - e.g. fruit picking. It's not the usual behaviour of long term migrants who expect to grow old & claim a pension.
Wait, are you saying Chthulhu isn't real? Mind blown!
Incidentally, I think love for Cthulhu might be unanimous here. In fact, I think the first paragraph of "The Call of Cthulhu" (along with the first paragraph of "The Haunting of Hill House") are the best lines written in English literature.
The Migratory Observatory appears to be a project by Oxford University, which seems like a fairly reputable source . However if you read into the fine print regarding the fiscal impact of migration you will find that they argue that the impact is relatively small, and that "available research further shows that any adverse wage effects of immigration are likely to be greatest for workers who are themselves migrants. This is because the skills of new migrants are likely to be closer substitutes for the skills of migrants already employed in the UK than for those of UK-born workers." So it is existing ethnic minorities and immigrants which may be squeezed by immigration, which helps to explain the otherwise rather surprising support of some lower income ethnic minorities for Brexit. Far from being favoured by existing policies, if you remove initiatives like increasing boardroom representation ethnic minorities are being crushed between protection of existing class priveliges and being undercut by new migrants.
Additionally if you read beyond the first result there are other studies which conclude that the effects of immigration can be positive in the longer term- we need those workers as people age or the pyramid collapses! There are also news reports which argue that the Brexit vote was influenced by misrepresentation of academic research, and that the UK Home Office suppressed studies which argued that immigrants tend to be employed in expanding industries which are offering jobs that the local population are less willing to apply for. The issue of wages does however seem to be complicated by austerity- reductions in welfare may also be hurting lower income earners. Poor governance and lack of strategy has not helped the economy.
(Unless Google is showing different results to you? That would be interesting and disturbing if search engines start filtering results based on pre-existing beliefs... )
You give a figure of £27,000 as the point which payers become net contributors, however I assume this is an aggregated figure, as our requirements for benefits will vary over our lifetime. We are obviously not net contributors as children or when retired. As immigrants tend to arrive later, and may not settle, they are therefore likely to provide a net gain for the local population. The site you mention, Migration Observatory, notes that: "Official data suggests that foreign nationals pay more in income taxes and national insurance contributions than they receive in tax credits and child benefit". Of course many migrants do not even receive much in the way of benefits in any case...
Finally, I think that you have suggested that present immigration rules are something which helps to maintain privilege, a benefit to the upper class. I would agree that in some respects this may be true, as very few things are done which actually run counter to elite interests. The UK has consistently chosen not to enforce many restrictions on immigration compatible with EU rules, and then blamed the EU for unrestricted migration! However... a project like Brexit is, for me, an example of inter-elite conflict rather than some form of revolution. The no-deal outcome favoured in some quarters aims toward a low-tax & low welfare economy which will reduce the contributions of higher income earners and make the NHS even more unsustainable. (In some ways similar to the Republicans and Obamacare...) Additionally immigration will not be reduced as much as promised, instead we would likely see an increase in immigrants from non-EU countries who will have fewer rights, and are therefore more vulnerable to exploitation.
In my opinion the answer is not to punch down on weaker groups like migrants & ethnic minorities, but to question how existing power structures perpetuate inequality... and work to change them. Hopefully before the planet is ruined by chronic mismanagement.
It seems that over half of Democratic senators are now calling for Franken to resign. I'm guessing he'll probably do it, if that many of his own colleagues are saying it.
It seems that over half of Democratic senators are now calling for Franken to resign. I'm guessing he'll probably do it, if that many of his own colleagues are saying it.
I can't fathom he is having a press conference tomorrow to shake his fist in the air and refuse to step down, despite the fact that 3/4 of his caucus has now turned on him. He has proven he is capable of shame, which is good, and it would be very, very surprising if tomorrow wasn't the end. As has been mentioned, Gov. Mark Dayton of MN will get to name a replacement, but, because of the rules in MN, instead of having to defend the seat in 2020, Dems have to defend yet ANOTHER seat in 2018. Which means both MN Senate seats and the governorship are up in MN next year. Given the climate in the country, and the fact that MN narrowly remained blue in 2016, I still like their chances in all 3 of those races, but MN is no different than the rest of the country (and I know because I have lived there most of my life). The Twin Cities, Rochester and Duluth (and to an extent the Iron Range because of unions) are extremely liberal. The rural areas of the state might as well be Alabama. So, Dems absolutely ARE giving something up here. They have to defend a seat 2 years early in a year where they are already defending almost 3 times as many seats as Republicans on the Senate side. Which, again, just makes the already steep, steep hill to take back BOTH chambers nearly impossible. They likely weren't going to take the Senate back anyway, but this just drains more financial resources.
I actually was not aware until I was listening to the Twin Cities top political reporter on the way home from work that this move will mandate the election be next year. Franken was supposed to be up in '20, but it's now clear that a resignation stipulates that the Governor's appointment only lasts til the next election. I am unsure if this ALSO means that the same person would have to win again in '20, or if this just means that both MN Senate seats are now going to be contested every 6 years at the same time. Regardless, even though it IS true that a Democrat is going to take this seat, it does not really put them in a very rosy situation considering the uphill climb the Senate always was. Frankly, I think it makes the decision of the caucus to turn on him more meaningful.
It seems that over half of Democratic senators are now calling for Franken to resign. I'm guessing he'll probably do it, if that many of his own colleagues are saying it.
I can't fathom he is having a press conference tomorrow to shake his fist in the air and refuse to step down, despite the fact that 3/4 of his caucus has now turned on him. He has proven he is capable of shame, which is good, and it would be very, very surprising if tomorrow wasn't the end. As has been mentioned, Gov. Mark Dayton of MN will get to name a replacement, but, because of the rules in MN, instead of having to defend the seat in 2020, Dems have to defend yet ANOTHER seat in 2018. Which means both MN Senate seats and the governorship are up in MN next year. Given the climate in the country, and the fact that MN narrowly remained blue in 2016, I still like their chances in all 3 of those races, but MN is no different than the rest of the country (and I know because I have lived there most of my life). The Twin Cities, Rochester and Duluth (and to an extent the Iron Range because of unions) are extremely liberal. The rural areas of the state might as well be Alabama. So, Dems absolutely ARE giving something up here. They have to defend a seat 2 years early in a year where they are already defending almost 3 times as many seats as Republicans on the Senate side. Which, again, just makes the already steep, steep hill to take back BOTH chambers nearly impossible. They likely weren't going to take the Senate back anyway, but this just drains more financial resources.
I actually was not aware until I was listening to the Twin Cities top political reporter on the way home from work that this move will mandate the election be next year. Franken was supposed to be up in '20, but it's now clear that a resignation stipulates that the Governor's appointment only lasts til the next election. I am unsure if this ALSO means that the same person would have to win again in '20, or if this just means that both MN Senate seats are now going to be contested every 6 years at the same time. Regardless, even though it IS true that a Democrat is going to take this seat, it does not really put them in a very rosy situation considering the uphill climb the Senate always was. Frankly, I think it makes the decision of the caucus to turn on him more meaningful.
Wow, that is interesting about both Senate seats in MN possibly being elected at the same time. I can't believe that could be the net result here simply for the fact that the winds of change would potentially hit Minnesota harder than other states. Odds that they would ever have senators of two parties are really slim if this happens...
Comments
The problem with this scenario is that their wages aren't being fed back into the UK economy (by buying goods, which would lead to increased retail sales and maybe even increased jobs).
I don't have documented evidence for this by the way, it's just what I've been told by Polish immigrants that I've spoken to.
In regards to Jerusalem....my grandma had a large, tall bush in her yard. I used to mow her lawn every couple weeks, and one day I found that the bush had a very large hornet's nest in it. Now, if I had been an idiot, I would have grabbed a stick and knocked it down, surely destroying the nest, but also likely getting stung by dozens of hornets. Turns out there is a better way. Hornets essentially hibernate at night. There is a spray you can buy that, when applied to the nest, kills them. So that's what we did. Trump, in regards to Islamic terrorism all around the world, decided to take the pick up a stick and whack it approach. And now we wait for the stings.
"impact immigration on wages"
And this was the first thing on the page.
" UK research suggests that immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain.24 Feb 2017"
From the Migratory Observatory (whoever they are).
Something that has been being dismissed since Blair opened the floodgates as anecdotal, false, a lie, wrong, and if that fails "racist".
The prison population in the UK shows some ethnic minorities severely over represented. And there are court cases going on all the time fighting deportations of those who have commited crimes, yet the goverment cannot remove them from the country after the prison sentence has been served.
Pretty sure there's an argument going on at the moment that automatic deportation after serving time basically punishes a person twice and therefore affects human rights and equality.
In the UK a person earning less than 27,000 is not a net contributor. They take more out from the state than they put in. Add children to the mix and that number goes up.
Considering how much immigration there has been in the last 20/30 years and we have been told over and over again how valuable the contribution is, it does beg the question why the UK is in such a mess with it's finances.
We should be approaching Monte Carlo levels of wealth by now for every man, woman and child wouldn't you think?
Pure politcal terms: by the end of the week, it now seems a guarantee that two high profile Dems will have stepped down based on pressure in their own party, and Republicans will still have Donald Trump in the White House and pushing hard for Roy Moore in Alabama.
In the last hour, 25% of the Democratic Senate caucus has called on Franken to resign, as has Tom Perez. The DNC Chair is calling for holding one of his own accountable, and the RNC is funneling money to a child molester. And those are just the facts.
There is no equivalence between a country that was founded on immigration and still has a lot of room to expand with a country that has a settled population, is very well populated and has a generous, non contributory welfare state.
And why on earth bring religion up?
Unless you are going to point out that having large numbers of people arriving in a country from places with no concept of religious freedom or freedom from religion is a spectacularly bad idea.
Then I would agree.
The question as to whether or not there should be a statute of limitations on sexual assault is an entirely different matter altogether.
*************
We have been putting off moving our embassy from Tel Aviv to Jersualem for over 20 years now (albeit in 6-month increments), so "moving the embassy" is *not* a Trump idea. Even if he doesn't sign the next 6-month delay it will take a couple of years for a new embassy to be built--trying to retrofit 21st-Century security onto a building dating from the 1980s or 1990s is probably not wise. That being said, concerns that moving the embassy will derail the peace process are unfounded because there is no peace process currently underway. At best, there is simply a "cease fire" in effect but that does not equal actual peace talks. Any lasting peace between Palestinians and Israelis is not going to depend upon the location of the United States embassy, though.
Also, the replacement for Conyers appears to be either Conyers Jr. or Conyers newphew. I didn't realize they were operating a political dynasty.
Meet our new congressman and social justice champion! They have probably been getting away with this kind of stuff with impunity for years before the internet age and social media.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/05/john-conyers-son-and-appointed-successor-my-nggas-deal-drugs-dad-is-a-fing-player-video/
If Franken goes out, then the Democratic party loses 2.2% of their Senate seats. If Moore goes out, the Republican party loses 1.8% of their Senate seats. The former means the Democratic/Republican balance in the Senate is 53-44. The latter means it's 54-43.
Either way, the GOP has exactly 9 more seats than the Democratic party, and retains full control of the Senate.
If BOTH Moore and Franken go out, then the balance is 53-43, which is an even higher Republican-to-Democrat ratio than the current ratio of 54-44.
So, no. The Democratic party stands to lose more from calling on Al Franken to step down in light of less serious allegations (harassment). The GOP stands to lose less from calling on Moore to step down in light of more serious allegations (child molestation).
EDIT: The numbers assume that there's a 50/50 chance of Moore or Franken being replaced by a Republican or Democrat. That's why I put 53-44 and 54-43 instead of "either 53-45 or 54-44" (otherwise the number of Senators wouldn't add up to 100, including the 2 independent Senators).
Also, mark me down as highly, HIGHLY skeptical any ethics investigation of Moore ever takes place if he wins. I'm willing to put a moderate amount of money down on that.
The Moore seat is open because Sessions was appointed to the Cabinet. That's what makes it a contested seat if I understand things correctly. Therefore, if Moore drops out then the Democrat wins by default. If Franken resigns, no contested election just an appointment by a Democrat Governor. I don't think I'm wrong here.
@jjstraka34 -does that sum things up correctly?
I do think it's still meaningful, though, that Democrats are calling on Franken to resign. He's a prominent figure, his replacement would not be as strong, and it sets a precedent that they'd have to follow if a Democrat was accused of this during an election. Nor is this the first time Democrats have turned their back on other Democrats who have committed sexual misconduct of one kind or another. Anthony Weiner and Harvey Weinstein have also been under attack by their own party.
On multiple previous occasions, the Democratic party has held its own politicians and supporters accountable for misconduct. We can't dismiss this as a mere PR move when it's clearly part of a larger trend.
Nor can we defend Roy Moore simply on the grounds that he's a Republican and his replacement would probably be a Democrat. That's not holding officials accountable for their actions; that's just playing cynical partisan politics. We shouldn't give an excuse to people who care more about maximizing GOP power than keeping child molesters out of the Senate.
Personally, I'm not sure how I feel about Franken resigning. He's offered no excuses. He's offered no denials. He's launched no counterattacks on his accusers. His response to every allegation was to apologize and voluntarily refer himself to the ethics committee. It might not be enough to justify staying in office, but owning up to the offense and taking responsibility is exactly what you're supposed to do in this situation.
As for @semiticgod's point on Franken resigning (which he clearly will tomorrow, as almost 3/4 of Senate Democrats have now called on him to), it IS true he hasn't attacked his accusers and Moore and Trump have (viciously in some cases, Moore is actually suggesting his accusers should be criminally charged themselves). He can't stay in this climate, and I loved the guy up til a few weeks ago. Democrats are going to defeat Trump and the Republicans (if they do) because of women voters, and they simply cannot afford to ignore this or turn a blind eye. Everyone is entitled to the benefit of the doubt with one accuser (at least initially), that could be anything. Once more start coming out of the woodwork, game over. It's not a coincidence that the #metoo movement sprung up after Trump got elected. It's by and large woman who are coming for Trump and the Republican's political heads. Throwing Franken and Conyers aside is a no-brainer.
Sexual assault is not the only reason numbers show women are gunning for Republicans. They (usually) take care of healthcare arrangments in the household. This is about the GOP's endless quest this year to take away healthcare.
I think Moore is guilty as Hell btw but I understand how important everybody on the right thinks this election is. I wish the Repubs were up a few more seats so they could safely send this piece of garbage packing...
The Migratory Observatory appears to be a project by Oxford University, which seems like a fairly reputable source
Additionally if you read beyond the first result there are other studies which conclude that the effects of immigration can be positive in the longer term- we need those workers as people age or the pyramid collapses! There are also news reports which argue that the Brexit vote was influenced by misrepresentation of academic research, and that the UK Home Office suppressed studies which argued that immigrants tend to be employed in expanding industries which are offering jobs that the local population are less willing to apply for. The issue of wages does however seem to be complicated by austerity- reductions in welfare may also be hurting lower income earners. Poor governance and lack of strategy has not helped the economy.
(Unless Google is showing different results to you? That would be interesting and disturbing if search engines start filtering results based on pre-existing beliefs... )
You give a figure of £27,000 as the point which payers become net contributors, however I assume this is an aggregated figure, as our requirements for benefits will vary over our lifetime. We are obviously not net contributors as children or when retired. As immigrants tend to arrive later, and may not settle, they are therefore likely to provide a net gain for the local population. The site you mention, Migration Observatory, notes that: "Official data suggests that foreign nationals pay more in income taxes and national insurance contributions than they receive in tax credits and child benefit". Of course many migrants do not even receive much in the way of benefits in any case...
Finally, I think that you have suggested that present immigration rules are something which helps to maintain privilege, a benefit to the upper class. I would agree that in some respects this may be true, as very few things are done which actually run counter to elite interests. The UK has consistently chosen not to enforce many restrictions on immigration compatible with EU rules, and then blamed the EU for unrestricted migration! However... a project like Brexit is, for me, an example of inter-elite conflict rather than some form of revolution. The no-deal outcome favoured in some quarters aims toward a low-tax & low welfare economy which will reduce the contributions of higher income earners and make the NHS even more unsustainable. (In some ways similar to the Republicans and Obamacare...) Additionally immigration will not be reduced as much as promised, instead we would likely see an increase in immigrants from non-EU countries who will have fewer rights, and are therefore more vulnerable to exploitation.
In my opinion the answer is not to punch down on weaker groups like migrants & ethnic minorities, but to question how existing power structures perpetuate inequality... and work to change them. Hopefully before the planet is ruined by chronic mismanagement.
I actually was not aware until I was listening to the Twin Cities top political reporter on the way home from work that this move will mandate the election be next year. Franken was supposed to be up in '20, but it's now clear that a resignation stipulates that the Governor's appointment only lasts til the next election. I am unsure if this ALSO means that the same person would have to win again in '20, or if this just means that both MN Senate seats are now going to be contested every 6 years at the same time. Regardless, even though it IS true that a Democrat is going to take this seat, it does not really put them in a very rosy situation considering the uphill climb the Senate always was. Frankly, I think it makes the decision of the caucus to turn on him more meaningful.