undefined | Better HN

0 pointsyummyfajitas13y ago0 comments

Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark.

That's because you are viewing it through the lens of status rather than economics. I'm not proposing to raise anyone's status, I'm simply proposing to give them the opportunity to earn for themselves 24/7 running water and electricity, decent housing, schools for their children (where the teachers actually show up), etc.

I'm also not proposing fixing the rest of the world. I'm proposing helping millions of people at a net benefit to ourselves.

Are you seriously arguing that making a few wealthy Appalachians even wealthier is a bigger issue than making millions of poor people wealthy and the rest of us even wealthier?

0 comments

angersock13y ago

We've got hundreds of thousands--if not millions--here in the United States that need the same sort of help, and that they ought be prioritized before we reach out to help others.

On a related note, are you familiar with Lifeboat Ethics ( http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_et... )? It's an interesting issue I'd run across in a ethics course a few years ago--seems relevant here.

tptacek13y ago

Chris is telling you that compared to the lives of a huge number of South/Southeast Asians, even those living "below poverty" in the US are wealthy; by and large, the American poor can expect electricity, running water, shelter, some form of nourishment, and even school for their children. The poorest people in India have none of this.

From another vantage point, as a health economist recently said: vis a vis access to health care, you're better off as a homeless person in the United States in 2012 than President Dwight Eisenhower was during his term of office. Meanwhile, the rural poor of Asia are probably still nowhere nearly as well off as Ike was. They still die of polio.

angersock13y ago

Right, that part I parsed without issue.

I'd rather see no homeless people on the street (a decently-sized problem in my part of the US) than more homeless people who are still better off than they would be in their old nation.

I'm unconvinced that there exists some sort of moral imperative that we need to seek the suggested path instead of working towards only temporary frictional unemployment and better care for everyone currently in our nation.

1 more reply

yummyfajitasOP13y ago

The only "help" I'm proposing is that we allow people to live and work in the US for willing employers.

I don't favor prioritizing the millions of people in the US who already suffer the problem of not being allowed to live and work here - illegal immigrants have already demonstrated a willingness to break our laws.

angersock13y ago

Wait wait wait... you don't favor helping out the illegal immigrants who are already here with not being allowed to live and work? Because they immigrated without dealing with the broken system?

But we need to bring in still more people who by definition are a worse fit to our country? What?

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm rather baffled by your stance. Illegals are often victims of arbitrary laws, much like recreational drug users.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion in email further if you'd like.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsyummyfajitas13y ago0 comments

Also, if I haven't misread your post, you seem to imply that we should be bringing in these folks as cheap labor to "elevate" them...there's something vaguely off-putting about that remark.

I'm also not proposing fixing the rest of the world. I'm proposing helping millions of people at a net benefit to ourselves.

Are you seriously arguing that making a few wealthy Appalachians even wealthier is a bigger issue than making millions of poor people wealthy and the rest of us even wealthier?

0 comments

angersock13y ago

We've got hundreds of thousands--if not millions--here in the United States that need the same sort of help, and that they ought be prioritized before we reach out to help others.

tptacek13y ago

angersock13y ago

Right, that part I parsed without issue.

I'd rather see no homeless people on the street (a decently-sized problem in my part of the US) than more homeless people who are still better off than they would be in their old nation.

1 more reply

yummyfajitasOP13y ago

The only "help" I'm proposing is that we allow people to live and work in the US for willing employers.

angersock13y ago

Wait wait wait... you don't favor helping out the illegal immigrants who are already here with not being allowed to live and work? Because they immigrated without dealing with the broken system?

But we need to bring in still more people who by definition are a worse fit to our country? What?

I'm sorry, sir, but I'm rather baffled by your stance. Illegals are often victims of arbitrary laws, much like recreational drug users.

I'd be happy to continue this discussion in email further if you'd like.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse