The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration.
The Native Americans had an economy too.
> The growth the US economy throughout its history was driven heavily by immigration.
Yes, because of the increase in demand for goods by those immigrants who brought their money/gold/silver if they had it but very little in terms of goods, and if they didn't have anything they immediately went to work in order to make ends meet.
Immigration is good for the economy, which is exactly the conclusion I want you to reach but from the increased demand point of view rather than from the myth that the majority of immigrants in the past were skilled labor (they were rather, on the whole immigrating because of a bleak outlook on their situation in their home countries due to religious persecution or outright poverty, the skilled craftsmen were making good money back where they lived and were much more free in their choices to emigrate or not and contributed only a very small number to the total stream of immigrants).
The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration. That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.
Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part. From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.
If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
We're going to have to differ on that.
> The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration.
But native Americans did not necessarily benefit from that larger economy, in fact, in a very measurable way did the opposite. Mostly because the immigrants were exactly that which the current ones are unjustly accused of (being murderous bastards).
The one thing the Native Americans weren't saying was 'these Europeans are here because of our jobs'.
> That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.
But for a different reason than the one you keep harping on.
It grew because of their capital and consumption.
> Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part.
Less than you think or wish to believe, but since you're somewhat stuck on this I'll just let it go.
If you feel open minded I encourage you to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_...
And not to just cherry pick the bits that fit your narrative.
> From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.
That they did. But - again - they are not the predominant factor. In fact the employers needed the immigrants (so immigrants needing other immigrants) mostly for 'dumb' labor (hence also the import of many slaves from Africa and indentured people from Europe).
> If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
No, the US would look more like England, which in fact it does.
Side note, but every time I see someone online accusing someone else of being "intentionally obtuse" I stop reading immediately. You know nothing of the intentions of a stranger who's obviously willing to openly discuss an issue with you.
Though, I agree obtuse is probably a poor choice of wording, perhaps I should have said persnickety.
Or maybe just debate in a way such that the strength of your argument is not dependent on your choice of insult?
Intention can be inferred; when the stranger is being intentionally obtuse, they aren't being "open".
*Obtuse - Synonyms: stupid, slow-witted, slow, dull-witted, unintelligent, ignorant, simpleminded, witless;
Needless to say, I have no patience for those kinds of insults.
> Intention can be inferred
Sure. And when you're talking to strangers, your inferences of intention will be wrong more often than not.
"You're intentionally avoiding my question" - objective statement, not an insult and can be discussed further.
"You're intentionally being a dumbass" - subjective statement, an insult and a non-sequitur
Hopefully you can see the difference.
I think that's right, but without using the insult "stupid", it says the same thing. But an insult has no content, where as this does i.e "you are misunderstanding on purpose"
A constructive criticism can be 'insulting', but this isn't the same as a pure insult.
> "You're intentionally avoiding my question" - objective statement, not an insult and can be discussed further.
Is this not the same as "you're being intentionally obtuse"?
> "You're intentionally being a dumbass" - subjective statement, an insult and a non-sequitur
Because it uses the word "dumbass", which is an insulting label rather than a description of behaviour. But " intentionally obtuse" is a description of behaviour also, and is also as objective as "avoiding my question" in context.
It's only a non-sequitur if you misunderstand what it means in context. I think "you're being intentionally obtuse" would be fairly clear in context?
Those synonyms are from a dictionary, and they are all insults.
So I have to conclude that either:
- You have a radically different definition of "obtuse" which you somehow consider a non-insult and which is non-standard usage
- You're intentionally beating around the bush in order to avoid admitting to understand the difference between an insult and a constructive criticism :)
These are just my two hypothesis, but if you have others, I'd love to hear them.
The definition:
1. annoyingly insensitive or slow to understand.
"he wondered if the doctor was being deliberately obtuse"
> So I have to conclude..
hypothesis three: your argument wrt synonyms is incorrect. People may dislike being called "obtuse" but it is not, by standard, an insult.
The people that needed the skilled laborers were immigrants themselves.
By the way, the very best way to stop immigration is to make other countries wealthy.