Reiterates the fact that the strength of America is its diversity and openness to attract and retain the brightest from around the world.
Nothing is gained by opening the floodgates to average and below average intelligence people, who we have already have a native surplus of.
I'd like to see you prove that claim while defining exactly what you mean by a surplus.
The part of Appalachia I grew up in for example, in Maryland, had among the best public schools in the state, and had among the highest testing outcomes in the state. That's still true to this day.
I'd like to see you prove your claim and define what a surplus of below average intelligence people means.
Given the small population base of Appalachia, you're not providing meaningful evidence of anything by referring to that location. The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, Italy, Russia, China, Latin America, and so on.
> The median standard of living in Appalachia is higher than that of Spain, Portugal, Greece, and Italy.
Fuck, that's bad news for Europe, I suppose. I knew people that had dirt floors and no indoor plumbing.
That isn't a very strong data point. The median household income in Appalachia - which also includes eg Pittsburgh - is above all but a dozen or so major nations, and is above that of the EU and Eurozone. The unemployment rate there is also lower than the EU and Eurozone (in fact, it's about ~45% lower).
Unemployment numbers are mostly bullshit, to boot. Depending on which set of them you are using, that can have huge discrepancies with the actual labor force numbers percentages, since after so many months of a hopeless situation, people drop off the unemployment rolls and into the masses of the long-term unemployed.
For the record, my Appalachia town also had good schools, though we had more than our fair share of meth and poverty as well.
Good on you. We had the poverty, although weed was the favorite cash crop, rather than meth. Growing some plants out in the woods is easier to hide than a lab that might blow up and catch the double-wide on fire...
Care to give a reference?
To a certain extent, this principle is applied today. But I imagine it could be scaled up to something akin to highly selective university admissions process (e.g. interviews, standardized testing, resume critique, references). If a country starts with sufficient desirability, this could result in a positive feedback loop -- an increasingly competent and productive society.
That is simply not true. Most countries do not have the demand, willpower or money to sustain, say, a world-class research institution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage
Of course, the modern welfare state cuts against that, as do the harmful externalities imposed by (eventual) voting. But the humane solution here - which might be politically impossible - is to allow immigration while eliminating the welfare state and making the newcomers into a permanent non-voting underclass.
If the political climate allows a separate class of citizens, then there is no need to eliminate the welfare state.
Beneficial to who? Factory owners - yes, factory workers - no ...
But factory workers are consumers too and gain (less visible) benefits from immigrants. I.e. if you work at factory X but consume goods produced at factory Y, you benefit from cheaper labor at factory Y. If you work at factory X but consume medicine, you benefit from having an Indian doctor and a Filipina nurse.
Assuming the savings are passed on to the consumer.
I think it's more important that the owners vastly benefit, and may manage to push down wages across more than just one industry by leveraging economic differences between nations that only they can take advantage of.
Would be interesting to note if they were US born/raised (i.e. educated under the US educational system), or recent immigrants (i.e. primarily educated in those countries).
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/03/the-math...
English really isn't that hard to learn.
As for errors, I've noticed that spending time in the US and using colloquial English a lot, has wreaked havoc on my English grammar. Or maybe it's the distance from schooling that did it.
"At least 5000 people bought my books..."
Don't ask me why, but to me it should read instead:
"at least 5000 people have bought my books,"
or even:
"over 5000 people have bought my books."
Indeed they did, until very recently[0]. I had no idea.
[0] http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/more-than...
Also, what you're describing goes beyond native level English and reaches the level of professional writer/teacher/linguist/editor/etc level English. I would expect many HN readers to have English proficiency beyond native level.
I learned a foreign language to fluency at age 17, and math is one of the easiest things to read in the second language because the grammar is never very creative and the vocabulary is much more restricted than a novel or even a typical newspaper.
(Tangentially, a lot of people born in raised in India speak English at near-native levels. Especially the well-educated classes that would be likely to move to the US and participate in something like this.)
The state hands rights, exemptions and benefits only in so far as not doing so would result in violence.
If you are tame there's no reason to give you anything.
When White people do well at something, people update their prior that White people experience White privilege that makes it easier for them to achieve these things.
When non-White people achieve something, or White people do poorly, people update their prior that diversity is important to achieving good results.