CreateDebate



Welcome to CreateDebate!

CreateDebate is a social tool that democratizes the decision-making process through online debate. Join Now!
  • Find a debate you care about.
  • Read arguments and vote the best up and the worst down.
  • Earn points and become a thought leader!

To learn more, check out the FAQ or Tour.



Be Yourself

Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.

Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.


Twitter
Twitter addict? Follow us and be the first to find out when debates become popular!


pic
Report This User
Permanent Delete

Allies
View All
pic


Enemies
View All
pic


Hostiles
View All
pic
pic
pic
pic


RSS Myclob

Reward Points:437
Efficiency: Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive).

Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high.
94%
Arguments:438
Debates:45
meter
Efficiency Monitor
Online:


Joined:
10 most recent arguments.
1 point

re: "No, the simple math is that the Chinese government does not have every single citizen's money."

That is not GDP. Gross domestic product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the market value of all the final goods and services produced in a specific time period by countries. I never said the Chinese government has the money.

re: "For example, you are not accounting for the many people who have money deposited in banks outside of China. Another example is the people who have investments in other countries. Did you take into account the value of those investments? What about the fact that some people have money buried in their backyards? There are many ways to hide money, and the Chinese government would have a very difficult time trying to track it all down. What about the people who have bought bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies? The list goes on and on. You are going to need a better equation than 1/3 x 3 = 1"

If the money is controlled by Americans it is part of American GDP. If the money is controlled by Chinese, it is part of Chinese GDP. You really shouldn't pretend you can talk about this stuff, if you don't even know what GDP is.

1 point

re: "It is not straightforward. Stop assuming every equation attributed to this idea is simple. They are not."

It is straightforward. To increase our GDP, we either have to 1) increase our productivity or 2) population. We have already tried to be productive, so the apparent policy change that will result in American GDP growth is skilled-worker population growth.

re: "You are assuming that every single person living in China is working. Do you see how that sounds? Laughable."

I have no idea what you are talking about. When did I say "every single person living in China is working"? Every "single?" I have no idea what point you are trying to make when you said: "every single person living in China is working." Every country is made of people, and we all typically live the same amount of time. It is generally assumed that, except for baby booms after wars, or one-child policies, you continually have new kids born, educated, work, and then retire and die. You are just strawmaning my argument. I never said anything close to that.

Are you trying to say that we should be worried about what type of immigrant we bring here? I agree. It is a strawman argument that those who support immigration only want to bring low-skilled immigrants who don't speak English, don't like the West, wouldn't integrate into our culture, or get along with our existing citizens.

I think it is incredibly foolish of the USA to squander the chance to recruit as many intelligent, skilled immigrants to our shores as we possibly can. Because we are a desirable place to live, there are enough people that want to move here that we could get to 1 billion citizens without having to accept immigrants who don't want to learn English, share our values (democracy, freedom, the rule of law, anti-corruption) and have the skills that we need.

Suppose China and Russia keep threatening their neighbors (Ukraine, George, Syria, Taiwan, Tibet, Uyghurs, South Korea) and abusing their citizens. In that case, we shouldn't have any shortage of hard-working, freedom-loving immigrants seeking our shelter.

The single greatest advantage the USA has over China is that high-skilled immigrants (in STEM and AI) would much rather move here. We are very stupid to prohibit anyone with an American dream. We are competing against ruthless, heartless, authoritarian countries that won't care that we once "ruled the world" once other economies eclipse ours.

re: "The second you start to factor in all the other issues, such as working conditions, hours, benefits, you start to see that it's not that simple."

Again, I don't want to talk to you anymore. I'm going to ban you if you don't start making any sense because you stopped sounding like a rational human a while ago. Talking to you is just a waste of my time. You don't even know how stupid you sound. It has nothing to do with anything. If you want America to be more powerful in a world with productivity levels that are all getting closer to each other, we will need more citizens. You don't have to factor in the price of tea in China.

"Working conditions, hours, and benefits" are just distractions, because you don't want to stay on the topic that you don't have any arguments for: American Power. But because you bring them up, if Chinese citizens work more hours than us, and they keep getting more productive and educated, we may need more citizens than them just to have the same GDP as theirs?

re: "You think just because China can pay their workers less that they produce more goods?"

That is not what I said. You are changing what I said. You added the word "just". No. I don't think that it is "just" because they pay their workers why they "produce more goods." That would be stupid to believe. That is why I DID not say that. Stop miss quoting me. Just google "why did manufacturing move to china" and you will know everything that I said. The first article says: "Given the abundance of Chinese products in the marketplace, it's understandable consumers might wonder why so many goods are made in China. One of the reasons companies manufacture their products in China is because of the abundance of lower-wage workers available in the country."

re: "I never said they couldn't beat our economy."

Yes you did. You said a command economy could never beat a free market.

re: "If you want to keep living in denial and think that China's economy is only going to continue to grow because they have more people, go ahead."

I never said that you. I said that there are two factors that affect GDP 1) The productivity of your citizens and 2) the number of citizens.

re: "it wouldn't because size isn't the only factor that determines power or importance on the global stage. Again, you're comparing apples to oranges."

I never said that. I said that there are two factors that affect GDP 1) The productivity of your citizens and 2) the number of citizens. Size is one of the factors.

re: "There is no evidence to suggest that increasing our population would help solve the problems you mentioned."

Having more workers, by simple math, increases the GDP. Every dollar produced in America increases the GDP.

re: "In fact, it would likely make them worse. overcrowding, for example, would make it harder to provide everyone with basic needs like food and water, and would increase competition for jobs, leading to higher unemployment rates."

Like I said many times before, we could triple our population to 1 billion citizens and still have lower population density than German, the most powerful country in Europe. They are doing fine. I can't talk to you anymore. You are gone.

1 point

It is just abundantly clear that I am not talking to someone who knows anything about economics and global trade. Just saying that we should manufacture things in different countries than China isn't going to solve the problem of China's economy passing ours.

If we move our manufacturing to countries with higher labor wages than China, will our products still sell when they cost more than products made in China?

How are you going to get companies to move manufacturing away from China? Wish they would? Want them to?

It is just abundantly clear that they will keep the factory, and keep making whatever they were making before.

I don't think I can keep talking to you. You pretend that you know economics and trade policy, but don't. Its like you don't even know that you don't know how trade works, and you just think wishing we could trade with other companies is going to save our economy from being passed by China. It's just kind of sad.

1 point

re: "I stated that if they wanted to come to the US, nobody was stopping them."

That's not true. People can come here with student visas. However, once they get their master's degree or Ph.D., we make them leave.

re: "This looks a lot like you are trying to frame me as someone who opposes immigration. I don't oppose immigration and it doesn't help your argument to frame me as one. I am perfectly okay with people coming into our country"

You shouldn't expect people on the internet to try and understand what you believe or judge you as a person. I have never met you and don't know anything about you. I am not trying to frame you as believing anything. I am trying to respond to arguments you made, or I think other people have made, or that people could make in the future. When we respond to each other, I will try to limit my response to the words I see.

re: "Companies are moving jobs overseas because factors such as inflation, the minimum wage drive, and other things are increasing costs for producers."

I agree. The minimum wage does cause higher wages in the USA. That is why manufacturing went overseas. However, the movement of manufacturing overseas did not happen during higher inflation in the USA.

re: "Increasing the number of working men and women will not solve the problem. Business people will not move jobs back overseas because inflation and specific production costs will drive the cost of production up."

When we bring more low-wage workers here, we can move manufacturing here.

re: "The increased wage drive resulting from inflation and politically motivated actions in government will drive wages for workers up."

Suppose you believe in the markets and free markets' ability to compete against command economies. In that case, you must understand that prices and wages respond to supply and demand. Suppose we want to decrease computer programmer wages. All things being equal, in that case, we need more computer programmers to keep the supply up and the demand down. Or you could have the government subsidize or counter the market forces.

re: "It's not about the people; it's about the economic state of the US."

This sounds like a generic slogan preventing you from going into the details. What are you talking about? What is the economic state of the USA? Specifically?

re: "These issues can only be fixed from within the US, not by importing more people."

What issues? Are you trying to change the topic? I am talking about the USA competing with China. Why are you trying to change the topic?

re: "We need to fix the economic policies within the US before we can really consider if we need to import 1B+ people into the US."

I didn't say we should import 1B+ people. We already have 330 million. The proposal is to grow by 2.5% over the next 50 years (through increasing our birth rate or importing more people) or by 5% over the next 25 years.

Sure. We need to fix all our problems and be as efficient as possible. We need to decrease crime, improve education, build better roads, and invest in things like R&D and other stuff. But, if the problem is that China is much bigger than us, why would we allow ourselves to ignore the problem of them being much bigger than us?

1 point

re: "I don't think it's as simple as more people = more per capita wealth."

It is straightforward. Your GDP equals [the average production per citizen] multiplied by the [number of citizens]. Their productivity per citizen has increased much faster than ours because they are starting from further behind. They only have to copy us to reach our level of productivity per citizen. Their productivity per citizen will keep growing faster than ours. They are currently 1/3 as productive as our population. If they get to 1/2 as productive, they will have a larger GDP because they have three times the population.

re: " but because of the massive amount of goods the US imports from China."

They produce lots of goods because they can pay their workers less. That is why all our manufacturing went overseas. We wouldn't have to ship our manufacturing overseas if we increased our low-skilled, low-salary workers. So if you want to bring back manufacturing, you will have to allow lower-paid workers.

re: "Command economies will never beat market economies."

So if they had ten times our population, you don't think they could beat our economy? They have already beaten Canada, England, Australia, and other free markets. So you are just plain wrong. Suppose they are a lot bigger than us. In that case, their economy will eventually be bigger than ours as the global disparity between educated countries evens out. You are deluding yourself and living in denial if you try to pretend that this will magically change.

re: "Yeah, because of the government's strict control on their people. Wouldn't want to live in a place like that."

I agree 100%. That is why we should leverage our ability to attract and keep those who want to live here. It's really about freedom. How can you support freedom without freedom of movement?

re: "I hate where this country is going. Increasing the population is not going to solve that problem either."

It would solve the problem of them being bigger than us.

re: "In fact, increasing the population would likely make these problems harder to solve."

How? Why? Doesn't this depend on who we bring and what we do? Couldn't we tax external workers at a higher rate so that it helps them and us?

re: "Again, it's not about being large enough, it's about not relying so much on China's goods to fuel our economy."

It is just not true. No matter what we do, they will pass us in the next 25 to 50 years, if they continue to have three times our population

1 point

Re: “See, when the level of living goes down, the population goes up.”

America is built on immigration. If you live in America, are you a Native American?

Didn’t the living standard of Americans go up even though we allowed millions of immigrants?

We took poor people from all over the world. The Irish were extremely poor when they moved here. But they were able to work hard and get ahead.

1 point

“Make housing more dense in large cities”

I agree 100%

“ and attempt to increase food production to a level I dont even think America can accomplish.”

We already export 30% of the food we grow. We can grow much more.

” Must also make factories for those workers to work with barely enough income to pay for food hand housing.”

I’m not sure I understand. Most jobs in America are not factory workers. Are you saying immigrants won’t have enough money? They come here because they are able to make more money here. Elon Musk moved here, and has made a lot of money for America. Do you wish he would have immigrated somewhere else?

“To get to 1bil you will have to lower the standard of living that honestly modern Americans won't be comfortable with.”

What if the average immigrant made more money than the average American. Wouldn’t they pay more taxes, and increase the standard of living for Americans?

” You think gay rights and trans acceptance is a thing in China? Hella naw.”

I don’t know what you are talking about. I think you are arguing against an imaginary person with Imaginary beliefs. You think I want to bring a lot of people to America that don’t believe in Gay rights?

1 point

I agree with quality over quantity. Immigration doesn’t have to be charity. We should let in whoever we can agree to allow in.

Trump supported a points based immigration plan. It gave points for: “youth, having a valuable skill, having an offer of employment

having an advanced degree, planning to create jobs, earning higher wages.”

Supporting Evidence: Trump’s Points Based System (www.migrationpolicy.org)
1 point

We can’t just ignore the fact that China will soon pass ours. What we are doing is not working. We have to have a real plan, not just hopes and dreams that somehow things will change and they won’t pass our wealth…

1 point

Re: “You want to know what matters more than quantity? Quality. If the best and the brightest want to participate in our free country, then let them. We don’t need 1B+ other people as well.

So, instead of focussing on what we disagree, lets identify common ground. It sounds like you agree we should try to compete to attracts the wealthy, highly educated people to our country? This should drive down the wages for the jobs that have lots of need. But instead of what is best for our country, many people are trying to wage a cultural war. The rich try to import lower wage workers, so they can get low cost house cleaners, and child care. The working class people don’t want highly educated immigrants, because they don’t LIKE highly educated people.

But immigration shouldn’t be about what type of people you like, our about telling your citizens they are better than outsiders, and outsiders suck, and outsiders will destroy your country. Anti-immigration shouldn’t be viewed as a way of telling your citizens they are the best, and should feel threatened by outsiders. Immigration should be about importing the type of people, rich and poor, that will help us keep manufacturing, agricultural jobs here in America and that will also help us compete in high tech fields against China. Even if you don’t have high tech skills, you shouldn’t have such pride as saying our country doesn’t NEED high tech workers…

Displaying 10 most recent debates.

Tied Positions: Leave things how they are vs. Give arguments their own page
Tied Positions: WTH (what the heck) R U talkin vs. Yes. We are moneyball.
Winning Position: The media is not liberal

About Me


"Electrical Engineer. R2A&D;= Reasons to agree and disagree"

Biographical Information
Name: Mike La
Gender: Male
Marital Status: Married
Political Party: Other
Country: United States
Postal Code: 60440
Religion: Agnostic
Education: College Grad
Websites: My Google Code Page
My LDS pro-con page
Me on Global Idea Ba
R2A&D;with MitRomney
A Blog of Mine
Via IM: im[email protected]

Want an easy way to create new debates about cool web pages? Click Here