CreateDebate


Debate Info

63
20
1B+ <1B
Debate Score:83
Arguments:81
Total Votes:88
More Stats

Argument Ratio

side graph
 
 1B+ (63)
 
 <1B (18)

Debate Creator

myclob(437) pic



America should try to have 1 billion citizens as a way to compete with China

One Billion Americans is a Book by Matthew Yglesias. I try to put some of his arguments in my own words for your debate!

1) Initial Cost: 
Zero dollars. Get the quantity that liberals want, but let conservatives run it. We can tax immigrants higher. They won't mind. If they are making 5 times their salary they could make in the other country, then we will tax them more. If they don't want to, they don't have to. Lets do all the low hanging fruit first. The English speakers, the people with skills that we need. 

2) Timeline:
We would grow between 2.5% over the next 50 year, or 5% over the next 25 years. 

3) The zones to be designated for the influx of some 600 million people: 
We would try to move them as much as possible to the dying towns and cities all across America. 

4) From where would you draw your immigrants?
Liberals chose the quantity, conservatives chose the qualifications in order to get a real compromise. The goals is American power, not charity. We can also do charity, but that is not the prime goal. We can debate what will result in the most benefit to America, but we would like to brain drain evil places. The goal would be to rally freedom loving and democracy loving people from all over the planet to be prepared for when Chinese citizens are on average just as wealthy as European and American citizens, so they don't get to dictate the future of the planet from an authoritarian repressive society that doesn't value freedom or democracy. The goal would be to draw the citizens that would integrate into American society the best. We can debate what qualities get what points, but we would prefer English speaking. However, we don't need to be afraid of freedom, and markets that draw people who are poor. It is better to employ them within our country, than to send jobs over seas. 

5) A melting pot? 
Less politics of grievances resentment and us vs them. Unity. Integration not separation. All believers of democracy, freedom, and well regulated capitalism are welcome. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one.  (the motto of the US). Liberals need to show that they are proud of democracy, freedom, the progress we have made, and our common hopes and dreams. We are not so different, and should not exaggerate our differences. If they emphasize our shared destiny, our common humanity, we will be less concerned about fragmentation, isolation, and internal hatred. 

6) Will the 600 million immigrants have sufficient teachers, medical personnel.

We get to choose who we let in. We could only let in teachers or medical personnel. If we only accept teacher or medical workers it will help, not hurt, our access.

1B+

Side Score: 63
VS.

<1B

Side Score: 20
1 point

Friendly competition (not fear): America will be more willing to cheer on China and India's ascent to prosperity if we know that we will still be stronger at the end of it. The only way we can be stronger than China in the long run, is if we have as many people as them.

Side: 1B+
1 point

A declining would power with a chip on its shoulder: Americans will be less easy to manipulate with rage and resentment if China becomes more prosperous, but we remain more powerful. The only way to remain more powerful is if our population increases.

Side: 1B+
1 point

America could increase its population to 1 billion citizens.

Side: 1B+
1 point

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.

Side: 1B+
1 point

The only way we can only compete with China long term is by 1) staying a desirable place to live, 2) being open to outsiders, and 3) letting people move to our free and prosperous country. We won't have a chance until our population is as large as theirs. It won't even be a fair competition between different approaches to human rights or economic philosophies. They will just bury us because they are so much bigger.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Using violence to take over unwilling free countries requires unsustainable levels of control, builds hatred, creates short-lived, violently opposed governments.

Side: 1B+
1 point

China was evil when they took over Tibet. They are also wrong not to respect promises made to Hong Kong. They are also evil to threaten violence to take over Taiwan.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Like Hitler, Russia was evil to invade and conquer Georgia and try to take over Ukraine.

Side: 1B+
1 point

We care about powerful countries, and national power is proportional to the country's population.

Side: 1B+
1 point

China can throw its weight around on the world stage because it has many people.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Russia is less powerful because its remarkable population decline.

Side: 1B+
1 point

By growing, Democracies can keep themselves relevant in ways that authoritarian countries cannot. People worldwide want to move to Democracies, not China or Russia.

Side: 1B+
1 point

American Power: If America wants to continue to be the world's global superpower and compete with China, India, and Russia, we will need more citizens.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Action Now: If America doesn't increase its population now, we will regret it. It will be better for us to integrate many people into our society now, while we have a head start over our rivals. Once China is more powerful than us, it will be riskier for us to do the difficult work of integrating immigrants into our society.

Side: 1B+
1 point

One Billion Citizens is practical: America can support a billion citizens.

Side: 1B+
1 point

If the USA grew by 5 percent each year, it would only take 23 years to have a billion people. We could do many things that would allow us to grow by 5% per year. If we grew by 5 percent each year, it would only take 23 years to have a billion people. We currently have 330 million. After 1 year we would have 347, then, 364, 382, 401, 421, 442, 464, 488, 512, 538, 564, 593, 622, 653, 686, 720, 756, 794, 834, 876, 919, 965, then 1,014 (or 1 billion people).

Side: 1B+
1 point

If we helped Americans have the number of kids they say they want, with pro-family culture and legislation, and allowed more immigration and refugees, we could have a 5% increase per year.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Deregulation of the housing industry would increase freedom, unleash the market, and help Americans house a Billion citizens.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Removing height limits for condos and new apartment buildings would allow Americans to support more people with the same amount of land.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Reducing parking requirements for new apartment buildings would allow Americans to support more people with the same amount of land.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Not everyone wants to live in seven-story apartments. Still, an acceptable trade-off for many people is a seven-story apartment with an elevator and amenities. This choice is because a denser community allows for shorter commutes to work, school, walking distance to things to do, and more people. You might not want to live in a dense environment, but still, let people vote with their feet.

Side: 1B+
1 point

We could do many things to gain the support of those who currently oppose immigration.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Those who worry about immigration feel that it is another example of liberal hypocrisy. Liberals claim to care about the immigrants, but it feels like they just let people move to this country to compete with blue-collar Americans that liberals claim to love but never listen to or care about. And so liberals elite can commit to starting immigration not to drive down low-skilled wages so they can have more nannies and home cleaners. They can import skilled workers that compete with them.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Rich actors who support more immigration should support more legal immigrants from other rich actors who could compete with them. Not just low-skilled immigrants that can compete with the working class they claim to love but secretly despise.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Those who currently worry about immigration often worry about the fragmentation of society into endless factions, with confirmation bias and other natural tendencies that result in ever-growing lists of grievances and hatred if left unchecked or encouraging. They worry that immigrants might not be dedicated to democracy and the long-term success of the American people our traditions. Instead of just calling these people racist, we can address their concerns, and gain their support.

Side: 1B+
1 point

Unchecked Grievances grow and resentment never rests. We need America to be a melting pot. We need to re-emphasize E pluribus unum, the motto of the USA, that translates as: "Out of many, one."

Side: 1B+
Pench(841) Banned
1 point

Submit your comprehensive master-plan detailing how you consider such a scheme would be implemented.

Your blueprint for this radical proposal should include specific particulars such as;-

the initial cost,

the zones to be designated for the influx of some 600 million people,

the projected duration of your project,

from where would you draw your immigrants?, and other vital considerations which would require pre-planning on a mammoth scale.

When you refer to China's population of some 1.4 billion it is important to be mindful that the inhabitants of this Country are almost exclusively Chinese and are singing from the same song sheet, as is the case with India's population which is similar to that of China's.

Also, remember, it's not quantity that counts, it's quality.

The British Empire at its peak covered 25% of the world's land mass which had a population of over 400 million at that time.

DURING THE SAME PERIOD THE POPULATION OF BRITAIN WAS AROUND 40 MILLION.

Side: <1B
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "Submit your comprehensive master-plan detailing how you consider such a scheme would be implemented."

1) Initial Cost:

Our country is sufficiently desirable to live in that we could obtain either 2.5% growth for 50 years or 5% growth for 25 years with no up-front cost.

We could make everyone, except for refugees, pay their way. Fees and taxes can offset even their costs from other immigrants, depending on how the system is structured. We should advocate structuring it, so the upfront American cost is $0.

To gain a work permit to Denmark, you need to be experienced in a trade undergoing a workforce shortage, or offered a job with a sufficiently high salary. In Denmark the job will need to be in a highly sought-after profession such as science, healthcare, agriculture and many building-related trades in order to obtain a permit. We could do that in the USA.

2) Timeline:

Timing (Start Now!): If America doesn't increase its population now, we will regret it. It will be better for us to integrate many people into our society now, while we have a head start over our rivals. Once China is more powerful than us, it will be riskier for us to do the difficult work of integrating immigrants into our society.

We would grow between 2.5% over the next 50 year, or 5% over the next 25 years.

It takes a while for immigrants to become integrated into a new society. We should get that over now, while we still have a comfortable lead over China and India. Every new immigrant wave to America has struggled. Irish, Polish, and Italians lived through high crime, disfunction, and discrimination when they first immigrated to America.

3) The zones to be designated for the influx of some 600 million people:

We would try to move them as much as possible to the dying towns and cities all across America.

Once China is more powerful and wealthier than us, and can dictate the their own terms for everything, we can't be sure people will still want to immigrate to America.

4) From where would you draw your immigrants?

Liberals chose the quantity, conservatives chose the qualifications in order to get a real compromise. The goals is American power, not charity. We can also do charity, but that is not the prime goal. We can debate what will result in the most benefit to America, but we would like to brain drain evil places. The goal would be to rally freedom loving and democracy loving people from all over the planet to be prepared for when Chinese citizens are on average just as wealthy as European and American citizens, so they don't get to dictate the future of the planet from an authoritarian repressive society that doesn't value freedom or democracy. The goal would be to draw the citizens that would integrate into American society the best. We can debate what qualities get what points, but we would prefer English speaking. However, we don't need to be afraid of freedom, and markets that draw people who are poor. It is better to employ them within our country, than to send jobs over seas.

5) A melting pot?

Less politics of grievances resentment and us vs them. Unity. Integration not separation. All believers of democracy, freedom, and well regulated capitalism are welcome. E pluribus unum. Out of many, one. (the motto of the US). Liberals need to show that they are proud of democracy, freedom, the progress we have made, and our common hopes and dreams. We are not so different, and should not exaggerate our differences. If they emphasize our shared destiny, our common humanity, we will be less concerned about fragmentation, isolation, and internal hatred.

6) Will the 600 million immigrants have sufficient teachers, medical personnel?

We get to choose who we let in. We could only let in teachers or medical personnel. If we only accept teacher or medical workers it will help, not hurt, our access to these professions. We get to chose. We don't have to be stuck between liberals calling us racist, and us worrying about the debt and our future cohesion, unity, strength.

Side: 1B+
1 point

1) Initial costs

COST: We can significantly increase the financial (tax) benefit to America per immigrant and still attract enough people to keep us the number one financial power.

Those who currently worry about immigration are concerned with COSTS because of how the debate has been framed. However, we can control the rate of immigration by making it theoretically open to people worldwide but less attractive financially, so the quantity is self-regulated, and American get a greater tax benefit per immigrant.

Side: 1B+
Pench(841) Disputed Banned
0 points

Well, you don't sound as though you're mad, you are clearly a raving lunatic who should be certified and locked away from the rest of society.

You ask if I have any specific questions.

I've asked a number of pertinent questions such as, what is the duration of your madcap scheme.

Will the 600 million immigrants have sufficient teachers, medical personnel

along with all the necessary trades and professions among their numbers necessary to support their orderly settlement into this country?

Or, are you a big enough fool to expect the existing executive classes to be able to cope with a tripling of our population?

Try answering the questions I've already asked you brainless fuck and maybe I'll ask a few more.

YOU AND WHOEVER WROTE THE BOOK TO WHICH YOU REFER ARE FUCKING IDIOTS.

Side: <1B
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "When you refer to China's population of some 1.4 billion it is important to be mindful that the inhabitants of this Country are almost exclusively Chinese and are singing from the same song sheet."

How many languages are there in China? Officially, there are 302 living languages in China. Depending on your definition of "language" and "dialect," this number can vary somewhat.

They are literally genociding their own people right now. I'm not sure they are all singing the same song. They just shoot anyone who is out of tune. If the liberals who run our media and our culture would stand for democracy and acknowledge all our progress, we would see that we are the only functional multi-cultural country in the world. They need to acknowledge the dangers of disintegration and separation and return to promoting our common cause in defending democracy and freedom.

re: "as is the case with India's population which is similar to that of China"

India has 121 languages. They do not even speak the same language, let alone sing the same song.

So how many Indian languages are there? While India has 22 separate official languages, it is home to 121 languages and 270 mother tongues. It's also home to the world's oldest language, Hindi.

We could make it a requirement only to take those who speak English. We could also come to the negation table with liberals and insist that they remove teaching people in their native tongs and only use English immersion in our public schools. We don't negotiate because liberals like calling us racist, and we like threatening old white people that immigrants will replace them. Both sides love the status quo that doesn't fix anything because they can both demonize the other side and scare their supporters into giving them money so that they can get re-elected. We have been in this stale-mate for 30 years. We need to start fixing our long-standing problems, turn down the heat, stop calling each other names, and start bargaining with a goal of America's long-term strength compared to authoritarian, repressive anti-democratic countries that hate freedom.

Supporting Evidence: Languages of China on Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org)
Side: 1B+
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "Also, remember, it's not quantity that counts, it's quality. The British Empire at its peak covered 25% of the world's land mass which had a population of over 400 million at that time. DURING THE SAME PERIOD THE POPULATION OF BRITAIN WAS AROUND 40 MILLION."

The British empire might be the anti-immigration argument you think it is. They were able to take over the world when they had a technology advantage over the rest of the world. However, when the rest of the world got technology they lost their power. They were sidelined from us, a formal colony, even though they had a head start. We passed them because we are much larger than them, and we copied their advances during the industrial and technological revolutions. Does that sound familiar? That is exactly what China is doing to us! We don't like their stealing our patents. However, we did the same thing to England. We actively promoted our citizens disregarding English patents. So in a world in which technology is spreading, and countries are catching up, then size goes back to mattering, just like it did with the once great British Empire. How did we get bigger than England? Immigration. What is our only chance of staying stronger than China? Immigration, if done right. Lets do it right. Lets come to the bargaining table with more facts, and less fear. For instance, lets start with fear. What is the very worst fear? We will be over-ran. If every single person from CANADA, mexico, and central America came here that would only be 220 million people. We would still have less than 1/4 the population density of Germany today. So lets start the negotiation with all the facts, and less fear.

Side: 1B+
Pench(841) Banned
1 point

Would the proposed 600 million new immigrants be required to gain entry by way of the existing immigration procedures?

Would this multitude include a proportionate number of, teachers, medical personnel, law enforcement professionals and all those with the necessary skills, trades and professions to ensure their smooth settlement and well being?

This country has a National Debt of some $28 TRILLION, how do you propose to finance the massive initial capital outlay this project would incur?

Side: <1B
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "Would the proposed 600 million new immigrants be required to gain entry by way of the existing immigration procedures?"

We would keep our boarders, and prohibit people we don't want to let into our country. The liberals would make concessions and compromises that would make the conservatives happy. It would be political compromise, and if liberals only want English speakers, then liberals do whatever to get the compromise. We would stop ignoring the issue, and come up with a real plan.

We would keep our borders and prohibit people we don't want to let into our country. The liberals would make concessions and compromises that would make the conservatives willing to support the plan, instead of just calling them racist and ignoring the issue and hoping it goes away.

It would be a political compromise, and if conservatives only want English speakers, then liberals do whatever to get the compromise. We would stop ignoring the issue and develop a real plan.

Our current fertility rate barely keeps up with deaths. We had a completed fertility rate of 1.86 in 2006. And so we would need to adjust immigration so America could grow at 5% for 24 years and get to a billion. We could grow also grow at 2.5% for 48 years. The goal would be to have 1 billion in the next 24 to 50 years.

So, if we don't start having more kids, we would need to adjust immigration to allow between 2.5% or 5% immigration per year.

As we look out at the world, and the complete and utter brutality larger countries have towards smaller countries, we must declare that the Absolut necessity is that by the time Chinese are about as Rich as Americans are on average, we need to have as many citizens as they do.

Side: 1B+
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "Would this multitude include a proportionate number of, teachers, medical personnel, law enforcement professionals and all those with the necessary skills, trades and professions to ensure their smooth settlement and well being?"

We get to choose who we let in. We could only let in teachers, medical personnel, cops, or people with trade skills. If we only accept teacher or medical workers it will help, not hurt, our access.

Liberals chose the quantity, conservatives chose the qualifications in order to get a real compromise. The goals is American power, not charity. We can also do charity, but that is not the prime goal. We can debate what will result in the most benefit to America, but we would like to brain drain evil places. The goal would be to rally freedom loving and democracy loving people from all over the planet to be prepared for when Chinese citizens are on average just as wealthy as European and American citizens, so they don't get to dictate the future of the planet from an authoritarian repressive society that doesn't value freedom or democracy. The goal would be to draw the citizens that would integrate into American society the best. We can debate what qualities get what points, but we would prefer English speaking. However, we don't need to be afraid of freedom, and markets that draw people who are poor. It is better to employ them within our country, than to send jobs over seas.

We don't have to be stuck between liberals calling us racist, and us worrying about the debt and our future cohesion, unity, strength.

Side: 1B+
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

7) This country has a National Debt of some $28 TRILLION. How would we pay for an increase in immigration.

I support the balanced budget amendment. We can't pass laws that result in increased debt. We would have to craft immigration policy so that objective, independent analysis shows that increased immigration is deficit-neutral or positive over a ten and 50-year duration.

Side: 1B+
excon(17403) Disputed
0 points

how do you propose to finance the massive initial capital outlay this project would incur?

Hello P:

If Biden asked, I'd contribute my entire sea shell collection, which has been appraised at over $14 trillion..

excon

Side: 1B+
Developing(493) Disputed
2 points

Excon, you area troll. Your comment was a trolling comment.

Side: <1B
Pench(841) Disputed Banned
0 points

Well, that's a coincidence.

I have the largest seashell collection in the world.

I keep them on beaches all over the world where they can be viewed by anyone walking at, or close to the water's edge.

Side: <1B
1 point

Interesting idea, but 25-50 years is a long time. Something significant could happen before then. If you're worried about China passing us up in the near future, then that will probably happen sooner than even 25 years. I know this idea will be a gradual process, but it's too late at this point. Even if you were correct about this whole immigration thing, China already has the people, they just need to get their economy together. In regards to the wealth problem you presented, don't think China's command economy is going to get them very far, so the US has nothing to worry about in that regard. If China somehow transitions to a market economy in the near future, then maybe we have something to worry about. You'll find that every time, the people who have the most wealth are those who live in a country with a market economy.

Again, it's an interesting idea, but these are extreme measures. Extreme circumstances call for extreme measures. We're not in an extreme circumstance.

Side: <1B
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "FUTURE: We can't be sure China will pass us in the future. Additionally, even if we tried to grow to a billion people over the next 25 years, China would probably already pass us."

I tried to put your argument in my words. Please tell me if it is a straw man or whatever, or I misunderstood, or whatever.

We can't be 100% sure that China's economy will pass the USA's in the future, but we can be reasonably confident that it will. Bad leaders ignore problems and hope they go away. Hope is a good motto, but not a great plan. Good leaders must put forward various options that will avoid likely problems. We need plans to avoid catastrophes. For example, when civil engineers tell us the levies will break, we probably deserve to get flooded if we are corrupt and ignore their warnings.

Extrapolation of current trends indicates that China's economy will likely pass the USA's soon. Past performance is not guaranteed to continue, but it is the most likely indicator of what will happen in the future when combined with reason and data.

No other viable option at this time: It doesn't seem like the USA has any other alternative other than growing to approximately the same size as China if we want our economy to compete with theirs long term. China has three times our population. It seems highly unlikely for the USA to maintain three times its per capita wealth.

They have problems that we don't have, but they are doing better than us in many ways. They will likely keep closing the gap between their average productivity per citizen.

China has problems that the USA doesn't share, but they are doing better than us in many ways. They will likely keep closing the gap between their average productivity per citizen. We can use the competition as a reason to get our acts together. It is much better than ignoring the problem and pretending it will magically disappear. But it won't be fair competition if they have three times the population.

We are dismantling our advanced learning programs and our merit-based approaches to society that we will need to compete with China. China makes long-term plans while our politicians are stuck in endless loops of pointless revenge, obstructionism, echo-chamber construction, and demonization. China does not allow its cities to be run by homeless drug addicts or significant portions of their cities to be ruled by violent gangs and unsafe police. Chinese students do better than ours. They encourage their students to compete, and we give everyone participation trophies.

It would be OK if China's economy passed ours, but because they run an authoritarian hell-scape, people kept moving here, and our economy eventually passed theirs again. The goal is to move towards being large enough to have the possibility of competing with them in a fair competition.

Side: 1B+
DisputedByMe(103) Disputed Banned
1 point

I tried to put your argument in my words. Please tell me if it is a straw man or whatever, or I misunderstood, or whatever.

You don't have to paraphrase my argument. Many times that will take the argument out of context. Just directly quote me next time.

No other viable option at this time: It doesn't seem like the USA has any other alternative other than growing to approximately the same size as China if we want our economy to compete with theirs long term. China has three times our population. It seems highly unlikely for the USA to maintain three times its per capita wealth.

I don't think it's as simple as more people = more per capita wealth. Remember that China has leverage on the US not because of population, but because of the massive amount of goods the US imports from China. The US is practically throwing money to China. If anything, this is why they might pass us up soon. There is no way that China's command economy is the reason they are passing us. Command economies will absolutely never beat market economies.

China does not allow its cities to be run by homeless drug addicts or significant portions of their cities to be ruled by violent gangs and unsafe police.

Yeah, because of the strict control the government puts on their people. Wouldn't want to live in a place like that. Also, police are the people who enforce the law. Unless you are a police officer, both you and I don't know the half of what they have to deal with on a daily basis. The micromanagement they have to put themselves under to not mess up a single thing they do while society watches them under a microscope is sickening to me when anyone says something like unsafe police.

China is only safer than the US because the government micromanages their people and watches their every move while threatening them by taking away everything they own if they mess up. I wonder what that sounds like? How about the George Floyd case where Derek Chavin got imprisoned basically for life despite the fact that he didn't even kill George Floyd!?!? I hate where this country is going. Increasing the population is not going to solve that problem either.

Chinese students do better than ours. They encourage their students to compete, and we give everyone participation trophies.

All of this including the quote before this one sound like things we could solve without increasing the population. In fact, increasing the population would likely make these problems harder to solve.

The goal is to move towards being large enough to have the possibility of competing with them in a fair competition.

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

Side: <1B
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

re: "China's command economy will not allow them to overtake America's market economy."

[I tried to put your argument in my own words. Please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.]

If China has three times our population, they don't have to be very competitive with the USA per capita. They will only have to be 1/3 as efficient as the USA. Every indication tells us they will achieve this soon. It isn't a fair competition, with our tiny population. But we don't need to be tiny. Size does matter. Quantity has a quality all of its own. The best and the brightest from worldwide want to participate in our free country, with lots of opportunities.

Side: 1B+
DisputedByMe(103) Disputed Banned
1 point

I tried to put your argument in my own words. Please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.

Don't summarize my argument, just directly quote it. You might take it out of context.

If China has three times our population, they don't have to be very competitive with the USA per capita. They will only have to be 1/3 as efficient as the USA.

This would only be true if China had a market economy. China does not. This is like comparing apples to oranges. It's not as simple as population.

But we don't need to be tiny. Size does matter. Quantity has a quality all of its own. The best and the brightest from worldwide want to participate in our free country, with lots of opportunities.

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

Side: <1B
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

TOO EXTREME: re: "Trying to grow our country between 2.5% and 5% over the next 25 to 50 years is too extreme of a plan to try to grow large enough to compete with China."

[I tried to put your argument in my own words. However, please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.]

Keeping the economy of the USA larger than China's is a benefit to Americans and the world. Therefore, we should do a cost-benefit analysis to identify the plan to preserve relative American economic power with the fewest risks. However, we are already trying to make our workers more efficient, and the only numbers we can modify are quality and quantity. Therefore, if we want to compete with China, we will need more workers.

Side: 1B+
DisputedByMe(103) Disputed Banned
1 point

I tried to put your argument in my own words. However, please tell me if my summary reveals a misunderstanding or a strawman argument.

Don't put my argument in your own words, you might take it out of context.

Keeping the economy of the USA larger than China's is a benefit to Americans and the world. Therefore, we should do a cost-benefit analysis to identify the plan to preserve relative American economic power with the fewest risks. However, we are already trying to make our workers more efficient, and the only numbers we can modify are quality and quantity. Therefore, if we want to compete with China, we will need more workers.

We should most definitely keep the economy of the US larger than China's economy. This does not mean growing the population by 1B+. As long as China stays a command economy, we have an economic advantage over China. We can strengthen our economy without growing our population to 1B+. One of the ways we can do this is by decreasing our reliance on Chinese goods.

Side: <1B
1 point

First quality over quantity. The issue with this argument is your comparing a dictatorship to a republic. First need to get everyone in america on the same page. Make housing more dense in large cities and attempt to increase food production to a level I dont even think America can accomplish. Must also make factories for those workers to work with barely enough income to pay for food hand housing. To get to 1bil you will have to lower the standard of living that honestly modern Americans won't be comfortable with. You think gay rights and trans acceptance is a thing in China? Hella naw.

Side: <1B
BDPershing(11) Clarified
1 point

See, when the level of living goes down. The population goes up. As population goes down you get more levels of living. It's a balance mainly dictated to the prosperity of the population. Only a small percentage have wealth in China. But they have a large population who are just trying to survive and make a living. The modern society of America won't exist because unlike China America doesn't have a large population trying to figure out how to get food on the table. We do need to correct our poverty, but it's a luxury to have our kind of cultural arguments. A luxury China doesn't contend with.

Side: 1B+
myclob(437) Disputed
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.

Side: 1B+
myclob(437) Disputed
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)
Side: 1B+
myclob(437) Disputed
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?

Side: 1B+
1 point

We do not need a big population to compete with China. Either way overpopulation carries serious irreversible problems

Side: <1B
0 points

America was kicking China around like a dog when they had half the population they have now, and China was at over a billion people then. America's problem is they like to include their enemies to feel not racist. Then their enemies go for their throat.

Side: <1B
myclob(437) Disputed
1 point

I agree that we should not have allowed China into the world trade organization, until they allowed democracy and showed that they respected the freedom of their citizens. That was stupid on us, and it was trying to live in a make-believe wishful world, instead of the real world. However, that might be a problem on the "no immigration" side of the fence now. We can't go back. They are passing us in artificial intelligence, and super-fast planes. They are passing our technology in a number of fronts now. What is your plan? Just let them keep catching up and pass us? They will pass us once their citizens are 1/2 as rich as ours. They are close to equal to us now because they have 3 times the population, but their citizens are only 1/3 as rich as ours. However they are growing at a much faster rate than us, because it is easier for poor countries to grow fast. Simple math shows that the only way for us to compete with them long term is to have more people. Right?

Besides, we weren't kicking China around like a dog. We were a peaceful isolated country until WWI. We tried to mind our own business. We tried to have the Monroe doctrine that stayed out of other people's business. If we were the big dog again, we could talk softly but carry a big stick. If we decided to boycott a company, like we are trying to do to Russia, other countries would have to listen because we would be the BIGGEST MARKET, not China. That way we could use our soft power (such as currency) instead of "kicking" other nations around.

Side: 1B+