Comments by "" (@timogul) on "Bloomberg Originals" channel.

  1. I'm less concerned about when the robots don't need us anymore, and more concerned with when the billionaires that operate the robots don't need us anymore, because that will happen much sooner.
    90
  2.  @joeblow229  That's what people said about the Italians and Irish.
    10
  3. The pandemic was the match that lit the gasoline puddle though.
    9
  4.  @undercoveragent9889  Which candidate was bought by Elon Musk?
    8
  5.  @carolflann2927  If you knew your history, I wouldn't have to explain how wrong you are.
    5
  6. People who exist here legally do take precedent. This is doing what's in their best interests.
    5
  7.  @geovanialvarez7744  No, bringing production back to the US would not in any way allow small businesses to compete with the big guys. You need significant government regulations to do that, because without it, the big guys will always crush the small ones. US production would only raise prices, there is no world in which it would lower prices. The best case scenario is that the prices only raise a little for made in America products relative to how much they raise for foreign products, but realistically they would both raise by the same amount.
    4
  8.  @jerometruitt2731  That is not an argument that would be relevant to the billionaires. So long as they can live the lifestyles they are accustomed to, the masses are irrelevant to them, or, best case scenario, a hobby.
    4
  9.  @rogerbritus9378  And yet the problem will continue to exist, complaining about it solves nothing. We either need to be allowing more people in, or we need to figure out how to make them more comfortable in their home countries by solving some of the problems there. IT won't get better any other way. Also, just to be clear, the US economy currently requires more immigrants than we've getting.
    4
  10.  @darkwing3713  Well, VC stuff will grow back again, it's just a temporary pull-back, but it does seem likely that companies will have far less "in office" work in future, and a lot more remote workers.
    4
  11. Those things only happen because the legal path to entry is not sufficient to meet demand. Solve the supply issue, and those problems go away.
    3
  12.  @ArturoGarzaID  Because the legal path to entry only allows in a certain number of people, and that number is far less than both the demand from aspiring Americans, AND industries in the US that rely on immigrant labor. There are plenty of jobs out there that need workers, and American workers do not want those jobs (they do not even show up). I'm not sure if there is technically a cap on the number that can apply for citizenship, but there ARE caps on how many can gain legal entry, and since that is a requirement to get on the path to citizenship, it would be a distinction without a difference.
    3
  13.  @jwiki1 If you're going to pick up your life and move, why wouldn't you move to the best possible place you can?
    3
  14. No, decades of Republican inaction on immigration reform is what led to this issue. It is a supply and demand problem, the demand for visas is too much higher than the supply of them for that to be sustainable.
    3
  15.  @dawsonpurkett6246  It would never lead to lower production costs than they have overseas, or to lower retail prices, which is what most people would be concerned with. Boxing China out of the equation, whether you agree with it or not, has nothing to do with lowering prices in America. It would only go up. The American producers would raise their own prices to whatever the Chinese products would now costs. I agree that China does not play fair, and that there are political reasons to have very specific, targeted sanctions for that, but it's not going to ever lead to lower prices for American consumers.
    2
  16. I assume they are using an electric heat pump for the heating and cooling, and electric stoves. So they shouldn't need any "burning stuff."
    2
  17.  @browncow8422  The only time in which the last President had low entries was during a massive pandemic. That had nothing to do with who the President was at the time. In the previous year, it was higher than any previous time in US history. The core issue is the supply and demand factor though. You can constrain supply in the short term, but it's like putting a dam in front of a river and expecting that river to stop flowing. If the amount of water coming down that river is way higher than the amount you let through the dam, the dam will overflow catastrophically.
    2
  18. It's been Republicans that have been blocking legal immigration for decades now, creating this bottleneck in the system. If millions show up and you're only willing to allow thousands to enter legally, then the rest will spill across in their own way.
    1
  19.  @DS-lk3tx That would only make things worse. We need more visas, not less.
    1
  20. That's not how anything works.
    1
  21. Trump never closed the border, and it would be illegal to do so.
    1
  22.  @undercoveragent9889  Worked out for Skynet, why not for billionaires? And if anyone in the electorate is robots, it would be Republicans. Look what they voted for.
    1
  23.  @undercoveragent9889  Worked out for Skynet, why not for billionaires? And if anyone in the electorate is robots, it would be maga. Look what they voted for.
    1
  24.  @undercoveragent9889  Worked out for Skynet, why not for billionaires? And if anyone in the electorate is robots, it would be maga. Look what they just did.
    1
  25.  @jerometruitt2731  They might have human servants if they like, but they wouldn't need any if they didn't. Robots could do all that.
    1
  26.  @bryonpav  Most new problems are just old problems with a fresh coat of paint.
    1
  27. This is why Dems keep trying to add in rules to prevent taking on too much risk, and Cons keep repealing those rules.
    1
  28. The problems you list are ONLY problems because the system forces people into those more risky attempts to enter the country. If we had better clean and legal paths of entry, then none of that would be happening.
    1
  29.  @willmiadykes7748  America's safety has nothing to do with the amount of immigrants we have. Immigrants are less likely to harm you than other Americans are. If you worry about safety, then work on better gun regulation. If you've given up on helping America, then I guess you'd have to move to Japan.
    1
  30.  @browncow8422 I've made my point quite clearly, and it is far more rational and serious than those put forth by the other side.
    1
  31.  @ISpitHotFiyaa  That assumes that there are other states that are better than the one they were leaving. Sometimes that distinction is irrelevant.
    1
  32.  @MalikaBourne  Maybe, but the fact remains that many spend months traveling harsh terrain to reach the US. The least we can do is offer them a home for coming so far.
    1
  33.  @Nash0303  For now. That's a symptom of decades of Republican laziness on the border issue, underfunding border judges. The bipartisan plan would have fixed that, but it got killed in the House. If you care about the border, make sure to vote out Republicans.
    1
  34.  @marygraceviramontez4669  The money they are giving away on migrants is a drop in the bucket compared to the amount that they give away to Americans.
    1
  35.  @lindanorris2455  They aren't allowed to. That is a non-issue.
    1
  36. Another thing companies should be working on is "casual productivity." Figuring out how to build a factory or something that is actually practically useful, but that can turn on and off almost instantly, and only needs to operate when power is available. In that way, when there is excess power in the system, this facility could make something that takes a lot of energy. When power is low, everything would completely shut down. Obviously this would not be as productive as a 24/7 operation, but it wouldn't necessarily need to be, since it would be more efficient (using only "excess" energy), and would also need to be relatively low human-resource, just people checking in from time to time to make sure everything is running, rather than having a bunch of humans wandering around that would have nothing to do when the power is not available. If they can manage this sort of project well, then it would be a much more efficient use of variable resources than any form of storage.
    1
  37. If Biden were the governor of Texas,. there would be no problem.
    1
  38. ​ @browncow8422 You've been told to believe that is the case, but that is not the reality. Biden had enforced the laws we have, this is the result of that. The increased numbers of migrants are due to decades of attempts to suppress the natural demand, combined with increased pressures in their local countries forcing them out. It was higher under the last administration than the one before it, and will likely be higher still under the next. Also, there is nothing remotely illegal about releasing migrants before their hearing. It is the standard practice, actually. Who told you otherwise, and why? and of course the solution is simply, raise the supply of visas to meet demand. Problems solved.
    1
  39.  @browncow8422 1. You've been told to believe that is the case, but that is not the reality. Biden had enforced the laws we have, this is the result of that.
    1
  40.  @browncow8422  2. The increased numbers of migrants are due to decades of attempts to suppress the natural demand, combined with increased pressures in their local countries forcing them out. It was higher under the last administration than the one before it, and will likely be higher still under the next.
    1
  41.  @browncow8422  3. Also, there is nothing remotely illegal about releasing migrants before their hearing. It is the standard practice, actually. Who told you otherwise, and why?
    1
  42.  @browncow8422  4. and of course the solution is simple, raise the supply of visas to meet demand. Problems solved.
    1
  43.  @browncow8422  2. The increased numbers of people showing up are due to decades of attempts to suppress the natural demand, combined with increased pressures in their local countries forcing them out. It was higher under the last administration than the one before it, and will likely be higher still under the next.
    1
  44.  @browncow8422  4. and of course the solution is simple, raise the supply of legal entries to meet demand. Problems solved.
    1
  45.  @browncow8422  2. The increased numbers are due to decades of attempts to suppress the natural demand, combined with increased pressures in their home countries forcing them out. It was higher under the last White House under than the one before it, and will likely be higher still under the next.
    1
  46.  @browncow8422  4. and of course the answer is simple. Increase the supply of visas to meet demand. Problems resolved.
    1
  47.  @browncow8422  2) The increased numbers are due to decades of attempts to ignore the natural demand, combined with increased pressures in their homes, forcing them out. It was higher under the last decade than the one before it, and will likely be higher still under the next.
    1
  48.  @browncow8422  4) and of course there is a simple answer, increase the supply of visas to meet demand.
    1
  49.  @browncow8422 4) And the only way to fix the immigration issue is to meet demand with supply. Period.
    1
  50.  @browncow8422  Yes, I spent numerous attempts trying to get my own post to stick, and could never figure out how to get one of my points to go through. It's just the nature of the beast. What I would like to see done is some combination of A. greatly increasing the convenience of legal entry points so that every person showing up on our southern border can enter at a reasonable pace and have their case heard and processed fully within a month or less, and B. working to improve countries to our South to the point that they are viable alternatives to moving here, to reduce the demand for incoming migrants. And no, it is NOT ilłegal to release people claiming asyłum, they’re NOT required to be detained and kept in custody. I don't know who told you that or why you believed them. Also, it is against federal and international law for BP to stop illegal crossings. They have no jurisdiction until people actually cross the border. Once they do cross the border, they are required due process under the law, so they cannot be deported until they have their day in court, and due to backlogs, that can take months, or even years. Nothing has changed about that under the current administration, except that the previous one was putting these people into camps. Deportations under the current administration are consistent with the previous one, there are just more people arriving, because the reasons why people would want to move have increased. Țrump had the highest, UNTIL there was a pandemic, which was the ONE time during his administration that it actually dropped. It had nothing to do with him or his policies.
    1
  51.  @browncow8422  The previous admin's remain in MX policy was struck down by federal courts, it would be illegal for the current administration, or future administrations, to use it. It only lasted as long as it did due to the pandemic, which was again, outside of any president's control. Biden's policy is no different than Obama's. And I think you misunderstood what I was saying. Obviously we have the ability to guard the legal ports of entry. If you show up at the port of entry, they can deny you entry, and they currently already do that. My point was that if we are talking about outside of that port of entry, if we are in the middle of a desert somewhere and a BP officer sees someone approaching from the south, they can't just legally push them back. If they are on the southern side of the border, they have no legal right to touch them, and if they are on the northern side of the border, then they have a legal obligation to detain and process them, which involves giving them due process. They have no capability to "stop" them, and never did. And no, there is no federal law which says the president may prohibit the entry of any people for any reason for any time period. There never was. Those are laws that are outside of a president's control. Do we have an obligation to let everyone in? No. But we do have an obligation to due process, which takes time, during which time they are a burden, so it is in our best interests to speed up that processing time and that is what the administration is trying to do. Long term, there is no solution to just ignoring the issue and hoping they go away, they will keep coming, and we need to figure out actual alternatives that work for them, or they will never stop. You can tell them that you don't want them, that is not their problem. But is it harmful to America that they come? No, not really. It is currently a problem, because most of them get stuck into a legal limbo in which they are not legal residents, but if we can resolve that backlog, get them fully incorporated into the country in an efficient way, then they will only benefit America's future, just as previous waves of immigration have.
    1
  52.  @browncow8422  Well, that certainly is a simple minded solution to a complex problem that would never actually work in the real world, but at least we have a currently smarter president than that.
    1
  53.  @browncow8422  But none of the previous presidents strategies actually worked, they were just a bandaid. The current president is using the SAME strategy, in the short term, at least, and people don't seem satisfied with the results. It never will work, people will continue to come, in larger and larger numbers, and yelling at them to go home won't slow them down any. That's just a toddler tantrum attempt at an answer, "I'm not happy, so WHAAAAA!" We need better answers, ones that actually treat them as human beings with their own goals in this process, and figuring out a way to make life better for them, while improving America in the process.
    1
  54.  @lindaschipansky4429  Presidents for the past few decades have been trying to solve the immigration issues, at least through Bush, but congressional Republicans always blocked efforts to do so, because they held positions of "let fewer immigrants in," rather than "how do we efficiently handle the immigrants we need and are getting?" This is the result of their deliberate inaction.
    1
  55. It's not a competition. We can be doing both. If you are seeing a problem that has nothing to do with immigration, then push to solve that problem. The solution has nothing to do with immigration.
    1
  56.  VegieT-be9su Where'd that list come from? Who gets that?
    1