Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Are DREAMers Net Contributors?

People often claim that "DREAMers," aka DACA recipients, are a boost to the economy. The Center for American Progress (CAP) says that deporting DACA recipients will cost $433.4 billion over ten years, and CATO says $283 billion.

The problem, however, is the lack of context. What does this actually mean per capita? Well, let's do some back-of-the-envelope calculations.

According to Trading Economics, U.S. GDP in 2016 was $18,569.1 billion dollars. We will assume a modest 3% growth rate in the future.
I say this is modest because the average annual growth from 2009 to 2016 was 3.68%. I calculated this by taking the overall growth over 7 years (18569.10 divided by 14418.74 equals 1.2878 or 28.78% growth over 7 years) and taking the 7th root (1.2878^(1/7) = 1.0368 or 3.68% growth per year).

Under this assumption, the GDPs for 2017 will be $19126.17 billion and the GDPs for the next ten years will be:
2018 19699.96
2019 20290.96
2020 20899.69
2021 21526.68
2022 22172.48
2023 22837.65
2024 23522.78
2025 24228.46
2026 24955.32
2027 25703.98
The total GDP for the decade 2018 to 2027 will be $225,837.94 billion, or approximately $226 trillion.

According to Wikipedia, the U.S. Population in 2017 is estimated at 325,365,189. Assuming a growth rate similar to that of 2000-2010, let's say the the population will be 10% bigger in 2027. That would bring it to about 358 million. This includes everyone, children, the elderly, the unemployed.

The number of DACA recipients is estimated at 800,000. The CAP study is based on 741,546 people leaving (645,145 of whom are workers). The Cato study is based on an estimate of 750,000 people. That comes out to between .207 and .2095 percent of the U.S. population. Using the lower number, .207 per cent of the GDP for 2018-2027 is $467.8 billion.

In other words, unless the contributions of DACA recipients are more than $467.8 billion over ten years, they are actually reducing per capita GDP. And remember, this is using the population figure for the end of the period and assuming modest economic growth, both of which would tend to make the per capita GDP smaller and therefore make the DACA recipients' contributions look bigger in comparison. And of course, this is not counting how much collateral population growth letting DACA recipients stay versus deporting them will create - if half of DACA recipients have one kid (who won't be contributing economically at all for at least about fifteen years), that would mean that DREAMers would have to make $701.7 billion to keep per capita GDP flat.

The point is, getting rid of the DACA recipients would reduce the size of the overall U.S. economic pie, but it would reduce the number of people eating the pie by a greater percentage. Most of the discussions of the "economic benefits" or immigration tend to act as if the immigrants simply produce value for the native population without consuming anything.

Now this analysis does not conclusively show that there is no economic benefit to Americans from DACA recipients - that would depend on how much of the recipients' productivity is consumed by the recipients themselves. However, they would have to consume less than the average American for there to be any surplus at all, and perhaps significantly less if the CATO rather than the CAP study is correct. Then there is the issue of how the surplus is distributed, and whether there are winners and losers in the system. And all of this is assuming that economics is the only measure here.

In short, the benefits of allowing DACA recipients to stay are greatly exaggerated and may not exist at all. Don't let economists use half-calculated figures and incomplete statistics to trick you.

That is all.

Sunday, September 03, 2017

Friday, July 28, 2017

A Thought on How to Deal with Pre-Existing Conditions in the Individual Markets

It occurred to me, if the big issue with health care is how to deal with people with pre-existing conditions, would it not make more sense to develop a subsidy system for insurance and to let insurers do more actuarial pricing?

Note: This is about how to deal with the biggest Obamacare problem, the individual markets that are encountering a huge rise in prices, and is not an attempt to solve other issues that have arisen.
Essentially, what we have now is partial community rating. In real terms, that's like putting a head tax on insurance for healthy people. If we are going to subsidize health insurance for people who are too expensive to insure on the market, would it not make more sense to do it out of income tax revenue?

Put another way, why not subsidize insurance prices at varying rates as percentage of income? For example, you have to pay your premiums up to the first 12% of your income (I choose that figure because it amounts to 1% of annual income a month, the actual numbers could be different), then get, say, a 50% subsidy for the next 12%, an 80% subsidy for the next 12%, 90% for the next 12%, 99% for the next 12%, and 99.9% beyond that?

For someone making an adjusted gross income of $50,000 a year, this is what they would pay out for various monthly premiums:

$ 500.00.......$500.00
$1000.00.......$750.00
$1500.00.......$850.00
$2000.00.......$900.00
$2500.00.......$905.00
$5000.00.......$907.50
$10000.00......$912.50

For someone making an adjusted gross income of $100,000 a year, this is what they would pay out for various monthly premiums:

$ 500.00........$500.00
$1000.00.......$1000.00
$1500.00.......$1250.00
$2000.00.......$1500.00
$2500.00.......$1600.00
$5000.00.......$1810.00
$10000.00......$1815.00

We could avoid the issue of mandated coverage raising prices by allowing insurance companies to set rates actuarially, because then if you truly did not need coverage you would pay very little for it; i.e. a 55-year-old childless woman would still have to get pediatric dental, but due to the fact that very few 55-year-old women would need it, it would only add 25 cents a month to her bill. Without community rating, much of the "coverage I don't need" issue would become moot.

We could also avoid the issue of companies trying to make money off of the subsidies by overcharging (hey, the customer will pay $1000 more a month if he gets $999 back) by giving the full subsidy only to the cheapest plan (if you get a more expensive plan you have to pay, e.g., the greater of your basic subsidy, or your basic subsidy for the cheapest plan plus 20% of the difference between plans. This would encourage price competition.

This could be paid for in a variety or ways, either using existing tax revenue, raising income taxes, or putting on a special income tax (like we have for Medicare).

The advantages are that we would not be taxing health, and the subsidies would be less for those who could most afford not to have them, as opposed to the current system where a person making, say, 5 times the poverty level (i.e. not eligible for official subsidies) could easily be subsidizing a sicker person who is making 10 or 20 times the poverty level. We would get better risk pools if we were able to charge healthy people less.

That is all.

Thursday, June 29, 2017

Why Feminists Insist Rape is not About Sex

From a comment at the Anonymous Conservative Blog:

Have you ever wondered why feminists insist that “rape is an act of violence, not sex”, when it most definitely and obviously is an act of sex?

Because feminism is sexual Marxism, the belief that women need, and are therefore entitled to, surplus resources produced by men. The inverse implication, that men need, and are therefore entitled to, sex with women, is avoided by insisting that sex is actually not sex, but violence.


That is all.

Friday, June 09, 2017

Do You Think Jews are White? I Will Guess Your Answer After You Answer These Questions.

(1) Do you generally sympathize with Jews as a group or not?

(2) Do you generally sympathize with whites as a group or not?

If you answered the same to both (1) and (2) then you think Jews are white.

If you answered differently, then you don't.

If your answers are nuanced, the more different your answers to (1) and (2) are, the less you think of Jews as white.

Note: Obviously I am talking about Jews in an ethnic sense here. No one thinks Sammy Davis Jr. is white.

That is all.

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

The Problem with Rod Dreher

I think Rod Dreher's biggest flaw as a commentator is his earnest desire to be the sort of conservative whom the New York Times ought to find respectable. Not that he is deluded that the left MSM would ever consider him such, but he wants to be able to say "if they were intellectually honest, they would consider me to be a fellow journalist in good standing."

That is all.

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

Why Risk Your Life for a No-Win Scenario? Have a Donut Instead!

In response to a comment on Steve Sailer's blog:



Click on image for better resolution.

Note: I am planning on cleaning up the picture in Photoshop later.

That is all.

Friday, March 24, 2017

The WHERE Community

You've heard of LGBTQ.

I have developed a new acronym.

WHERE:
White Nationalist
Human Biodiversity
Eugenicist
Race Realist
Evo Psych

If you are any one of those, welcome to the WHERE community!

That is all.

Thursday, March 16, 2017

I Got a Re-Tweet from Lady Miss Kier

Right here. Yep, it's got the blue checkmark.

Whether that means I have hit the big league, or Deee-Lite's lead singer is slumming it, I'll let you decide.



That is all.

Monday, February 27, 2017

TL; DR of Previous Post

What "Undocumented" is All About

The use of the phrase "undocumented immigrant" vs. "illegal alien" is very revealing. Those using the former phrase believe in (or at least promote a belief in) a universal right to immigrate to the United States, so legal status is merely an issue of whether or not you have filled out the paperwork correctly, hence the term suggesting a minor regulatory violation. Those using the latter term believe that nations have the right to select to whom they wish to give entry, so legal status is much more equivalent to whether or not one has obtained consent before having sex. The debate between the two sides makes much more sense once you understand this fundamental difference in viewpoints.

That is all.

Thursday, February 23, 2017

What "Undocumented" is All About

TL; DR version here.

The use of the term "undocumented immigrants" instead of "illegal aliens" reveals something important about the way the left (I will refer to the more restrictive side as the right and the less restrictive side as the left for this post, as that is a good first-order approximation of how the current political situation is aligned) thinks (or wants us to think it thinks) about the immigration issue.

Specifically, it shows that they think of the issue of illegal migration as fundamentally being about nothing more than proper paperwork. That is why they find deportation to be such an unjust overreaction; it is the equivalent of jailing someone for forgetting to include one of the ancillary forms with their tax return.

The right, on the other hand, views the issue more in terms of consent, specifically in terms of the consent of the receiving country being required for a person to immigrate there properly. In other words, we view it in the same way that most people view sex.

This of course stems from the fundamental difference that in general, in the West the left believes that everyone has a right to immigrate to Western nations (how universal this is for non-Western nations is generally not discussed) and that we cannot deny entry to anyone, with only the most extreme criminals (and South African whites) as exceptions. The right, on the other hand, believes that those who make up a country have a right to prevent the immigration of people whom they believe it would not be in their best interests to allow in.

Hence much of the anger of the left over the unfairness of deportations, and much of the misunderstanding about what legal vs. illegal immigrant(alien) means. When someone says that people should only come legally, they say "not everyone can come the legal way." What they ignore is that if you are not able to come legally, perhaps that means we do not want you to come.

This Twitter thread nicely encapsulates the leftist way of thinking about the issue:

(Text of tweets):

Okay. I've been off and on twitter lately, but I have a rant regarding #daywithoutimmigrants. I'm an immigrant. I am now a US citizen.
I get real pissed when other immigrants say "I came over legally, why can't others?" YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY.
It costs a lot of money. Whether you are getting a visa/green card or applying for citizenship, it costs A LOT of money.
It takes a lot of time. Months and even years worth of time. Time that could mean the difference between living or dying.
Both of which are inaccessible to lower income ppl. U can't hire an immigration lawyer if ur struggling to put food on the table
Stop bitching about how u came legally and they should too - and start trying to make the process EASIER, so they don't have to!
I'm so sick of the "I got mine, you get yours" mentality I see among white, well off, english-speaking immigrants.
You're an immigrant. So are they. Carefully filled out paperwork doesn't make you any better than them. Look out for each other.


First, note that the difference between coming here legally and coming here illegally is reduced to nothing more than having the paperwork filled out properly. Second, note that the interests of the receiving country or the desires of those already here count for absolutely nothing. That the process exists because a country wants to select which immigrants it lets in is completely ignored. To see how blatantly offensive this is, consider putting the same thinking into sex. Imagine mens' rights activists creating #daywithoutsex to protest "affirmative consent" laws:

Okay. I've been off and on twitter lately, but I have a rant regarding #daywithoutsex. I am sexually active. I am now married.
I get real pissed when other sexually active people say "I got consent before having sex, why can't others?" YOU SHOULD KNOW WHY.
It costs a lot of money. Whether you are having a one night stand, going out with someone on a regular basis, or considering marriage, getting her to go all the way costs A LOT of money.
It takes a lot of time. Months and even years worth of time. Time that could mean the difference between being sexually active or remaining a virgin one's whole life [NB: the implication in the original tweet that a significant portion of illegal aliens are in mortal danger if we don't let them come here is overblown, so I am not putting some "I'll die if I don't mate" - like issue in here to make it parallel].
Both of which can be inaccessible to lower income men without attractive personalities. U can't take someone out on a date if ur struggling to put food on the table
Stop bitching about how u got consent and they should too - and start trying to make women consent more easily, so they don't have to!
I'm so sick of the "I got mine, you get yours" mentality I see among attractive, well off, feminism-friendly men.
You're sexually active. So are they. Carefully obtained consent doesn't make you any better than them. Look out for each other.


One last point: I am assuming here that the leftist side is arguing in good faith. Obviously many on the left are not. They actively hate the Western country and see immigration not so much in terms of rights but in terms of a weapon to use against the hated West. Nonetheless, the paradigm for thinking about illegal immigration that they are pushing is that everyone has a right to come here and that legal vs. illegal is merely a procedural issue that only gross pedants really think is important.

And that is the basis of the term "undocumented." It is both based on the assumption of an unlimited right to immigrate and designed to promote thinking in those terms. That is why it is so important to call people out for using that terminology; it is not merely there as a euphemism to make illegal migration sound less bad, it is meant to push an entire worldview.

That is all.

Monday, February 20, 2017

How I Use AdBlock

I generally keep ad blocking (I use Opera, and use the included blocking in preferences, not a special app) turned off, because I am willing to endure advertisements in order to support sites and pages I visit.

However, I do turn on blocking at times, only temporarily and usually only for one or two pages.

I turn on blocking when the ads disrupt my use of the page - i.e. if they prevent the page from loading or make it impossible to move the page (or at least make it incredibly slow).

Usually, I try to watch a page without blocking ads before I watch it with ads blocked, so presumably the people are getting ad revenue from me.

In any case, my general philosophy regarding advertisements is: "as long as they don't stop the page from working." Even then, I try to watch them first.

That is all.

Protectionism Meets Luddism

I can't help but notice that we are constantly being told that protectionism is a bad thing. It won't work, and anyway, manufacturing jobs are not coming back because of automation.

Yet - how do they propose that we deal with the loss of so many jobs? Tax robots to pay for sinecures. Presumably the tax itself will slow the pace of automation because it becomes more expensive.

In other words - protectionism against robots.

So maybe protectionism is not so ridiculous after all?

That is all.

Thursday, February 09, 2017

Please, More Stories of How People are Being Deported!

It occurs to me that if the media decide to take every halfway-sympathetic deportation case and publicize it, it will do a lot to publicize "you can't get away with being here illegally" to illegal aliens. In other words, if the goal is attrition through enforcement, the media are doing half the job for us!

That is all.
There was an error in this gadget