> it's equally easy to point to income inequality for this

Have you ever considered what causes income inequality? Maybe policy that favors globalist, ownership class over salaried workers? H1B in it's current form favors owners/managers over workers! We are saying the same thing. We have to analyze the causes of income inequality in order to solve it.

I will leave you with one last thought: the states with the lowest gini co-efficient are the ones that have been more conservative over time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...

policy matters!

I am writing you from one of the two red Southern ones that is a glaring counterexample.

"the states with the lowest gini co-efficient are the ones that are the least diverse" seems a better fit.

Diversity is just a statistic, it's neither good or bad in either direction.

Not all forms of diversity is strength.

Mixing a wolf with a bunch of sheep isn't diversity, it's dinner time.

Racial purity ain't all it's heil'd up to be either: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-38571-1 https://www.newscientist.com/article/2342731-neanderthal-fam...

Have a barbie, find some middle ground: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGdj1TwBU1w

Inbreeding in small populations (your first two links) is not relevant, and your third link is a false equivalence.

One extreme counters another extreme, the point is that neither are relevant, the third link is there for fans of The Bell Curve.

At least you'll admit that your ideas are extreme. That false equivalence does nothing to rebut the bell curve.

The Southern states that I'm aware of which have "strong economies" got that way by slashing worker and environmental protections. I don't think that's actually a compelling counterexample.

"it's equally easy to point to income inequality for this."

Of course - they're connected. Taking advantage of labor is a big part of income inequality, including the way H1B is used/abused.

It's not the only reason, but it's one of the likely causes. Like most complex issues, it's multi-casual. You can't import 100k+ workers per year into a country and have no effect on wages! I understand the net economic impact is potentially positive, but I am speaking to the direct economic impact of the workers being displaced.

Just to add, we are also offshoring 300k jobs every year. This makes the impact even larger.

> But you have your story you believe, I'm resigned that the die are already cast.

But that is your story you believe, consider that the parent commenter has the exact same (mirrored) mindset.

A useful segue to avoid you or them "being resigned": given that you say you're "skeptical", what would be the minimal proof you'd consider valid for you to change your mind?

The discussion is already dead, there's no point trying to convince anyone because the discussion is politicized and the current admin doesn't care about petty things like reality. Whoever is right won't matter in this stage, it matters who's saying it.

I might be wrong, fully willing to cede the point, but this whole thing going on is more than _just this point_.