Republicans are at it again

See above.

 

To me, a merit-based system is wholly logical.

 

Here in the US, my wife moved here when she was 8. She lived with her grandparents and was on student visas for a little over 20 years. When we were engaged, she was a post-doc cancer researcher. She wanted to get her green card on her own merits, but that would require her not only proving that she was pulling her weight, but that she was at the absolute top of her field. She was still going for it when her sponsor decided he "just might" stop supporting the visas of his entire research team if they didn't better comply with his demands.

We were already engaged, so we just decided to move our wedding date up. Been together 11 years since. The US immigration system is absolutely insane. None of the people complaining about legal immigration actually be here today if their ancestors had to go through the same process that they are demanding now. Hell, the same goes for the ones complaining about illegal immigration.

 

Too bad it wasn't logical for the man you are now defending.

 

For yet further evasion? Okay. Guess that "works."

 

Canadians charge a lot of tuition to foreign students, many of whom want to stay in Canada when they graduate.

We could pick from the best in the world and here we are fighting over immigration. Even those we extend a hand in kindness often aren't the most deserving, just those who manage to crash our southern border, mostly because they live nearby. Geezuz, are we out of our minds?

 

It certainly illustrates the folly in your position, but I am not surprised that you are trying to set up yet another strawman, because you seem to be so fond of that particular topic.

Do you have a link embedded in the word "yet"? Should I click on every word, or are we good?

 

My quote was that these sources disagreed with his tactic. I linked to them doing so. When you didn't see the links, I tried to help you find them. When you still couldn't find them, I got more specific. When you claimed to read them, but clearly didn't, I corrected your elementary mistakes regarding them. Let me know what you still don't understand and I will try to provide further information.

 

Should I click on every word to check for links, or are we good?

 

Your failure to address evidence is not a "folly of my position." Nor is it a "strawman." But thank you for confirming that evidence does not matter to you.

 

You shouldn't need to. If there were a link there that you had missed, I'd just remind you that there is actually a link there. And when you still couldn't find it, I could tell you how to find it. And then you could confirm that, after learning where the links are, you still hadn't read them. You know, second verse, same as the first.

 

What I have confirmed is that I am done with this conversation. I seek people in search of a productive exchange of ideas rather than mindless bickering. You do not fit that bill, and everyone surely must be tired of this incessant back and forth that goes nowhere. At some point, an adult must emerge and walk away.

I suspect you will probably try to throw out one more dig to draw me back in, but to no avail.

 

The education system can't be fixed. None the less it seems to produce all the STEM graduates that industry needs, however they don't want them at American wages.

 

Since you are not "drawn in" by evidence, and refuse to address it once the evidence you've requested is provided to you, then there is nothing left to "throw out." If I throw out a reasoned argument, you run and hide. If I throw out a link to a source, you run and hide. You can't actually address any of the facts I've provided, which collectively disprove your own position. So run away again if you must. But if you do come back, please come ready to discuss the links you've requested.

 

Heh as I said, explaining supply and demand to you would be pointless. But I'm sure you can curl up with a CATO study.

 

Psych majors are not that important to the economy; STEM majors are.

 

Most of the STEM graduates you are talking about are not the ones we are talking about here. A psych major who finds better pay in another field, for example, doesn't prove your point. The engineering jobs we're talking about are very high paying, so your "it doesn't pay enough" excuse doesn't work there either.

I'm sure in your imagination that these STEM majors have all decided to retreat to Galt's Gulch.

 

Psych majors are part of that "75% of STEM majors" you cited earlier, bud. By the why, I know lots of psych majors making 6 figures. I can even tell you how to meet some.

 

We could have quarantined them for two weeks, a small cost for someone we would want here for decades.

 

Well, since the CATO folks have far more econ education than you do . . . as does anyone who knows to chuckle about your purported ability to explain how elasticity doesn't exist . . . I'll sleep easy.

 

We could use more than a few to help deal with the mentally ill we have wandering our streets.

 

Probably, but they've found a lot of high-paying jobs in the private sector. Particularly in UX. The ones helping people on the streets are making a personal sacrifice and not doing it for the money.

 

Bud? Wow you are really rolling up your sleeves!

Psychology is a social science, not a STEM science. If you don't know that no wonder you don't understand this topic.

 

Right, because you'll think that saying "Cato Study" actually wins an argument and proves a point.

Although on the other hand, it does provide me with a slight degree of entertainment!

 

The "S" in STEM stands for "science." And, yes, in that "75%" you keep quoting, that includes soft sciences like psychology. Still trying to convince yourself that all of those STEM majors just ran off to Galt's Gulch, aren't you?