I was just watching Varny on Fox Business News and he had some guy on who said that immigrants from Venezuela would be good for the USA economy. He claimed that it would help "grow" our economy. That may be true, but its clearly a lie at the same time. Recall that our economic objective should be to raise the "median family income", not just grow the economy or raise the "average" family income. More people could be worse off even if we grew the economy or raised the average. That is the point of this blog to open your eyes to the real facts.
If the 10 riches people in the USA were to double their income, it would raise the "average", but the guy in the middle might actually go down in terms of income. It is the quality of life of that family in the middle that we should be concerned about, not just economic growth. Here are some simple 4th grade facts. It has been reported that 50% of immigrants are now on welfare. That means that they are below the "median". If 50% are below the middle, there is no way that immigrants can help to raise the "median family" income, no matter how much they might earn. Do you follow that? Think about it!
What about the other 50% who are not on welfare? Let's assume that they are just average Americans and 50% are above the median and 50% are below the median. Do you see a problem with that assumption? Using our 4th grade math, it is clear that 75% of immigrants are below the median family income. Any claims for some kind of brain drain from places like Venezuela are over powered by the 75% who do not appear to be in this exclusive group.
The other disappointment with the Varny show was that he just sat there and listened to the BS from his guest and did not question how immigration might affect the "median family income". If this guy was just talking about himself and if more immigrants would allow him to sell more of his widgets, that might be true, but it is clearly not in the best interest of the USA. When people like Varny interview people like this, they should ask if the person talking about their own personal interest or the interests of the USA. You all know that we need to vote on the basis of what is best for the USA and our children in the long term, not just what is best for us for the next 4 years, or do we? That is our problem and we all need to recognize that.
Immigration might be good if we could get the "right" people, but do you know how we would ever do that? Since every system to screen immigrants always ends up letting in more than 50% who would lower the median family income, I do not see any alternative other than to not let in any! Remember that Gray Squirrels can often produce Black Squirrel off springs!
PS--How about this key decision principle. What if by not letting in any immigrants, the median family income stated the "same", would that be bad? No! Because the quality of life would be better if we had a lower population density. Find me someone who believes that the quality of life in Los Angeles is better today than it was in 1960 or any other big city. Is Pheasant hunting better today in California than it was in 1960? How about fly fishing for native trout in the stream in the Sierras? I think that you know the answer. If there were a trade off between my definition of quality of life above and the median family income, how much higher would median family income have to be for things to be just "equal"? The fact is that median family income is not higher. Now what?
If the 10 riches people in the USA were to double their income, it would raise the "average", but the guy in the middle might actually go down in terms of income. It is the quality of life of that family in the middle that we should be concerned about, not just economic growth. Here are some simple 4th grade facts. It has been reported that 50% of immigrants are now on welfare. That means that they are below the "median". If 50% are below the middle, there is no way that immigrants can help to raise the "median family" income, no matter how much they might earn. Do you follow that? Think about it!
What about the other 50% who are not on welfare? Let's assume that they are just average Americans and 50% are above the median and 50% are below the median. Do you see a problem with that assumption? Using our 4th grade math, it is clear that 75% of immigrants are below the median family income. Any claims for some kind of brain drain from places like Venezuela are over powered by the 75% who do not appear to be in this exclusive group.
The other disappointment with the Varny show was that he just sat there and listened to the BS from his guest and did not question how immigration might affect the "median family income". If this guy was just talking about himself and if more immigrants would allow him to sell more of his widgets, that might be true, but it is clearly not in the best interest of the USA. When people like Varny interview people like this, they should ask if the person talking about their own personal interest or the interests of the USA. You all know that we need to vote on the basis of what is best for the USA and our children in the long term, not just what is best for us for the next 4 years, or do we? That is our problem and we all need to recognize that.
Immigration might be good if we could get the "right" people, but do you know how we would ever do that? Since every system to screen immigrants always ends up letting in more than 50% who would lower the median family income, I do not see any alternative other than to not let in any! Remember that Gray Squirrels can often produce Black Squirrel off springs!
PS--How about this key decision principle. What if by not letting in any immigrants, the median family income stated the "same", would that be bad? No! Because the quality of life would be better if we had a lower population density. Find me someone who believes that the quality of life in Los Angeles is better today than it was in 1960 or any other big city. Is Pheasant hunting better today in California than it was in 1960? How about fly fishing for native trout in the stream in the Sierras? I think that you know the answer. If there were a trade off between my definition of quality of life above and the median family income, how much higher would median family income have to be for things to be just "equal"? The fact is that median family income is not higher. Now what?
