Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (268079)	1/11/2006 5:32:46 PM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575556

"In fact, economists did not believe that unemployment could get much below 5%." That was before the 1980's. The population was more mobile, and people in non-manufacturing jobs tended to change jobs frequently and without necessarily having something lined up. 5% was considered the limit because that was close to the number who were voluntarily unemployed. But, after stagflation and downsizing, that has changed.

To: tejek who wrote (268079)	1/11/2006 5:58:21 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1575556

Ted, There is a huge hidden cost to the illegal population. They live in the inner city, jacking up density rates and overtaxing apt. buildings and the city's infrastructure. Plus, illegals pay few taxes and spend most of their money in their home country. Oh yes, most definitely there is a huge hidden cost. However, few want to deport them (except either the racists or those who don't mind being branded as one), yet few want to increase the legal immigration limits. I think we should do the latter, but then many of them will still live in the inner city and exacerbate the overcrowding problems you've stated. And they'll still end up paying few taxes and sending most of their money across the border. Seems like the real debate should be "No Vacancy" vs. "Give me your tired, your poor." Tenchusatsu