Hello!
The comments on this profile are unclaimed and thus are unverified.
Do they belong to you? Claim these comments.
ziel
Is this you? Claim Profile »
1 year ago
in More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind! on Will Wilkinson
We observe a great disparity of wages between 'rich' and 'poor' countries. It's basically this(and, of course, the fall of transportation costs).that motivates immigration from one country to another. Until the wages for the same job are equalized, there will be this movements.
Yes, of course. That is why it is necessary for a people and a duty of their government to restrict this movement into their lands by force, through whatever physical or legal or punitive barriers prove necessary.
When wages 'equalize' between the U.S. and Mexico, there will still be well over 5 billion people in the world determined to equalize them further. There is no end. This is fine if wage parity across the globe is your primary goal. But for those of us with other goals - such as the continuation (at least thru our grandchildrens' lives) of the United States as a bastion of freedom and rule of law in an otherwise corrupt and lawless world, this is a most unsatisfactory outcome.
Yes, of course. That is why it is necessary for a people and a duty of their government to restrict this movement into their lands by force, through whatever physical or legal or punitive barriers prove necessary.
When wages 'equalize' between the U.S. and Mexico, there will still be well over 5 billion people in the world determined to equalize them further. There is no end. This is fine if wage parity across the globe is your primary goal. But for those of us with other goals - such as the continuation (at least thru our grandchildrens' lives) of the United States as a bastion of freedom and rule of law in an otherwise corrupt and lawless world, this is a most unsatisfactory outcome.
1 reply
1 year ago
in More Tiny Humans for the Glory of Our Kind! on Will Wilkinson
Putnam elaborates on his celebrated work on social capital—defined most simply as social networks upon which people depend. He analyzes material from a large, nationwide study of ethnic diversity carried out in the United States in 2000. Putnam finds that trust in others is high and social capital correspondingly well-developed in homogeneous communities, such as largely white suburbs. Both are low in more diverse neighborhoods, such as ethnically mixed inner-city areas.
Such a correlation is probably to be expected. After all, we feel most at home with people who are like ourselves. However, Putnam also finds something he didn’t anticipate: In more diverse communities, Americans distrust not only people who aren’t like them but also people who are. Diversity seems to encourage social isolation, not enrichment. In diverse neighborhoods, all citizens display lower levels of confidence in local government and media; are less likely to be involved in local voluntary groups; are less likely to vote; and have lower levels of expressed happiness.
Source.
Do you have evidence to support the likelihood of "the other way around"? Evidence, that is, not dependent on a 4-decade moratorium on immigration between 1924 and 1965?
Such a correlation is probably to be expected. After all, we feel most at home with people who are like ourselves. However, Putnam also finds something he didn’t anticipate: In more diverse communities, Americans distrust not only people who aren’t like them but also people who are. Diversity seems to encourage social isolation, not enrichment. In diverse neighborhoods, all citizens display lower levels of confidence in local government and media; are less likely to be involved in local voluntary groups; are less likely to vote; and have lower levels of expressed happiness.
Source.
Do you have evidence to support the likelihood of "the other way around"? Evidence, that is, not dependent on a 4-decade moratorium on immigration between 1924 and 1965?
1 reply
mghertner
Even taking Putnam as a given for the sake of argument, I'm not sure those findings necessarily speak to the issue of liberalism vs. illiberalism, at least as Chris is defining it, as a foreign culture threatening the very existence of American culture. Trust in others, social capital, confidence in local government and media, involvement in local voluntary groups, voting rates, and levels of expressed happiness may or may not have some connection to liberalism, but they are not identical with it, at least not identical to what Chris and I are using it to mean.
Suppose that we found Putnam's same results when it came to the issue of racial integration in the U.S. The entry of middle-class black families into white neighborhoods may have encouraged social isolation, distrust, lower levels of confidence in local government and media, less involvement in local voluntary groups, lower voting rates, and lower levels of expressed happiness. Would any of that be a reason to maintain laws supporting continued segregation?
Suppose that we found Putnam's same results when it came to the issue of racial integration in the U.S. The entry of middle-class black families into white neighborhoods may have encouraged social isolation, distrust, lower levels of confidence in local government and media, less involvement in local voluntary groups, lower voting rates, and lower levels of expressed happiness. Would any of that be a reason to maintain laws supporting continued segregation?
That is why it is necessary for a people and a duty of their government to restrict this movement into their lands by force, through whatever physical or legal or punitive barriers prove necessary.
Followed by this:
But for those of us with other goals - such as the continuation (at least thru our grandchildrens' lives) of the United States as a bastion of freedom and rule of law in an otherwise corrupt and lawless world.
Freedom through unfreedom. The disconnect is delicious. What kind of bastion of freedom is a country that punishes people for wanting to take part in that very same freedom? Not a country worth preserving.