A lot. Billions of dollars are spent to combat it and research on food and agriculture to solve hunger has been going for years.
>The vast majority of hungry people live in developing regions, which saw a 42 percent reduction in the prevalence of undernourished people between 1990–92 and 2012–14.
> 9 million already due of hunger every year, what is the world doing about that presently?
Most of it is because of conflicts. Poverty is decreasing fast across the globe and there were relatively a lot more people dying from hunger in the 80s.
Speaking as someone twice your age who has felt similarly I'd say the best advice on this thread is to time schedule everything and have a clear output for anything. Force yourself only to think a couple of weeks ahead for the next 6 months and nail that habit, then your tendency to project everything forward ad infinitum may become a useful tool rather than persistent curse.
Sure it does. His statements about his motivations are consistent with his actions. It's remarkable, actually, just how consistent it all is, and that's part of the reason people admire him.
The current system is imperfect, but it's not outright fraudulent. In general, if a company claims "Drug X gives 10% more pain relief than aspirin", they have to support that claim with evidence, which can be reviewed (and contested, if the methodology, outcome, or other factors don't support the claim).
That's not to say there aren't improvements that can be made: All Trials [1][2] is one campaign to improve the system.
Scarcity of building contractors will push up contract values until supply meets demand - and people actually get paid more. This is how the market is supposed to work.
The market isn't "supposed" to work like anything. It just works some way, just as gravity does. It doesn't have feelings, it doesn't have preferences, it just is.
You may support some nativist policies since they are advantageous for the group you are part of, but why try to make it sound like it's some kind of universally just way to do things?
This is a ludicrous argument because the process you describe will nearly always happen. If you banned women from working, supply would meet demand, if you banned people from working unless they wore a dunce cap, supply would meet demand. The fact is that you are okay with import controls on labor, which, in any other good, you would say artificially hikes the price for domestic consumers.
The article isn't lamenting the lack of Mexicans, it's lamenting the lack of Mexicans who immigrated illegally.
The article is cheerleading illegal immigration because these construction companies and restaurants most likely got away with paying these people below-minimum-wage and were able to violate other labor laws with impunity simply because they were here illegally.
The article with rife with claims that US-born workers don't want these jobs. Well, I live in an area with very low rates of illegal immigration, and magically, all these jobs are filled with native-born inhabitants working minimum wage or sometimes (especially in the case of construction, though there's booms and busts) quite a bit better. Construction was one of the first jobs for a lot of family and friends. I worked at a restaurant for six years, every person who worked there in that time was native-born and paid minimum wage.
I find this excuse highly suspect. I think it has a lot more to do with the reasons discussed above. And I have no sympathy for employers flagrantly exploiting workers.
Its frustrating that all the heat has been focused on the illegal immigrants and not the small business owners that hire them.
Small business owners that hire illegal immigrants are able to out-compete business owners who chose to follow the law because they have access to a larger labor pool at lower prices. In most cases the small business owners will be paying in cash and off the books so they will be evading taxes to some extent as well. As these business expand and after above-the-board business owners see their profits erode and market share crumble a larger segment of the market is operating outside the law.
Long term having large segments of your economy routinely breaking tax and labor laws creates a breeding ground for organized crime. I could argue that all these businesses are organized crime but I'm talking about the break-your-knee type of organized crime.
Since the workers are illegal and don't have the protection of the law they are vulnerable to intimidation and it is fairly easy to find your business with a new "partner" when your labor stops showing up one day. What are you going to do? Go to the cops because the mafia won't let your illegal immigrants work for you?
At that point hiring above-the-board labor isn't an option at the prices you charge.
The market is also supposed to work by shifting labor from low productivity to high productivity uses. Price factor equalization is part of the market.
One could (and did) make the same argument you are making in favor of all sorts of bad laws - Jim Crow, Davis Bacon, etc. That suggests your argument is probably invalid.
Imagine that you are concerned by anti-competitive legislation motivated by ethnocentrism. In a democracy such as the U.S., one must consider, when discussing whether or not to allow immigration that improves efficiency while also depressing wages, not just the direct economic effects, but also the political externalities caused by enfranchising those who may have rather distinct voting patterns. We must consider the likelihood that Mexicans will themselves pursue policies nativist from their perspective, when the shoe is on the other foot, so to speak. To do otherwise would be myopic.
I'm concerned about anti competitive policies, whether ethnic or not. I attach no moral weight to ethnic groups.
I am concerneded about the harmful effects of democracy that you bring up, but I prefer disenfranchisment as a solution. Preventing people from working is far more harmful than preventing them from voting.
Artificially banning a class of workers isn't really the free market. They're not leaving to make more efficient use of their labor. Just as banning black workers would up the wages for white workers according to the free market.
The ban is only 'artificial' if you believe free and open borders should be the default state of the world. This hasn't been true globally since World War I.
Surely you are not arguing that national borders are non-artificial? We can argue all day about their pros and cons, but they are certainly an artificial construct.
We're talking about in the context of economic relations, which are entirely human-created constructs. Under that definition, everything is artificial.
Fact of the matter is that every nation in the world has labor and passport controls. It would be exceptional and unusual for the US to abandon them unilaterally.
They could open the border with Mexico, just as the UK opened the "border" with Poland. If that happened, it would be undeniably a freeing of the labor market. That means the participants are individually deciding where to go, rather than other people who aren't directly involved in their trading. It might be unlikely but just because a situation is the status quo, doesn't make it natural or free.
The Soviet Union lasted a long time without a free market. Yet nobody would say allowing sellers to choose their own prices is artificial because they've been dictated by the government for decades and that's the normal and natural state of things.
Yes, the free market is supposed to work by shifting labor from low wave places (e.g. Mexico) to high wage places (e.g. USA) and causing wages to equalize between those places.
Similarly the market should shift oil and iron from low value places (in the ground) to high value places (e.g. in a steel beam or gas station).
Economies that attracts and integrates (domestic or foreign, the difference will blur) individuals which work or study hard will prevail. Countries that falls under the hands of extremism will collapse or be forced back into open societies.
Artificial protection of economies are a fraudulent propositions from demagogues and doomed to further digging the economy down into extremism.
The government should support citizens through change friction, but by enabling rather than addictive entitlements.
But which politician can sell foot work, instead of sugar? Find a common external enemy, blame them rather than the rigged markets and systems.
In a global economy, the supply includes people from Mexico too. Your argument is right under the assumption that we do not artificially decreased the number of laborers from Mexico.
Are you saying that makes it okay, or that you are not surprised, or ... I guess, what is the point of saying that Trump is a continuation of existing trends? Is there anything that we could do differently because of that to not move towards fascism?
