Ann Coulter's response to Zimmerman verdict "Hallelujah"

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,838
Reppin
the ether
Then NYC must be the exception then, bc we're steady building. There are cranes all over the city. Rn in Harlem, they're buying churches and turning them into residential bldgs. You know how many churches there are in Harlem?! At least two on every city block. All being negotiated on, purchased, and developed. Right now.

There's plenty of work, but only if you're not locked out. Don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there was a lull after 2008, but it picked right back up.
Yes, there's lots of construction work right now, but you don't get the point. If you want a stable income, if you raising a family, they you can't just go without work for 3-4 years at a time.

MW-BS811_Starts_MG_20140117100945.jpg


Look at that lull. There were damn near 2 million new homes a year for four years followed by an two-year collapse and then just 500k new homes for three years, and then it was 3-4 more years where the "recovery" didn't breach 1 million homes. That means for whoever was working in new home construction from 2003-2007, a full 3/4 of them had to find some other work from 2008-2014. What kind of career is that?

My uncle was in construction and he was older so he'd done well in his career and piled up a nest egg, but he still went WAY into debt during the lull. And he can do all sorts of shyt, he can work on any job but he was scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find work. He was talking about guys he knew leaving the field and he said he would have left himself if he was younger. This ain't the 90s anymore.

That's why you see so much migrant labor in construction. When the workload fluctuates by a factor of 400% depending on the year, you're not going to be able to fill permanent jobs for most of your crew.



Sources? I won't be accepting as legitimate any sources from globalists or their neoliberal minions, both groups having expressed 'no borders' sentiments in the recent past. Obviously, they'd have as much of an agenda as the right wingers. We need completely impartial sources, right?
There's no such thing as "impartial" sources. What you can do, at least, is remove sources which have giant, determinative biases that have nothing to do with the issue at hand. I don't believe racist organizations when they present information on race. Full stop. It's over before it's started.

So far as neoliberals, I hate their agenda. That's well demonstrated.

Neo-Liberalism Is Dying
Is "globalist" the most meaningless term of all time?
The Democrats continue to ally with Neocons
Spike Lee gives Bernie Sanders yet another endorsement from the Black community
Ta-Nehisi Coates Deletes Twitter Account After Feud with Cornel West :snoop:
Hillary Clinton calls on Europe to curb migration to halt populists
Argentina Bailout: $50 Billion Loan, Biggest in IMF History
Trump's full history of racism
https://www.thecoli.com/threads/pol...furiate-the-party.569447/page-2#post-26273231

But it's ridiculous to equate immigration with neoliberalism. Large-scale human migration has been a given for the entirety of human history and especially the entirety of American history. The ONLY periods of American history that didn't have large-scale immigration have been when openly racist White people specifically worked to block immigrants. The rest of the time it's been the norm. Neoliberals have only been around for a few decades and the primary tenants of their platform have nothing to do with whether people immigrate or not - immigration could slow to absolutely 0 and the neoliberal agenda would still hum along smoothly.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,838
Reppin
the ether
Sources? I won't be accepting as legitimate any sources from globalists or their neoliberal minions, both groups having expressed 'no borders' sentiments in the recent past. Obviously, they'd have as much of an agenda as the right wingers. We need completely impartial sources, right?

And so far as studies go, the general consensus among economists is that low-skilled immigrants improve the economy and state of the average native worker (see some studies here and here and here and here and here and here). But since those gains possibly could all be among middle-class and mostly white people, I linked studies that specifically look at the effect of immigration on people in poverty and those with the lowest wages:


This study finds that immigration does not effect poverty overall and might only have a small local effect in only the most extreme circumstances.

The Impact of Immigration on Native Poverty through Labor Market Competition
Considering the inflow of immigrants by age, schooling and location I evaluate their impact in local markets (cities and states) assuming no mobility of natives and on the US market as a whole allowing for native internal mobility. Our findings show that for all plausible parameter values there is essentially no effect of immigration on native poverty at the national level. At the local level, only considering the most extreme estimates and only in some localities, we find non-trivial effects of immigration on poverty. In general, however, even the local effects of immigration bear very little correlation with the observed changes in poverty rates and they explain a negligible fraction of them.



This study finds that immigration can very slightly increase the poverty rate (about 1% increase) among households headed by someone without a high school education, and has no increase in poverty for households headed by someone with a high school education or better. It found that looking at race/ethnicity doesn't change those numbers.

Immigration and poverty in the United States - PDF
The simulation results by race and ethnicity suggest that immigration over this time period has had negligible effects on poverty overall. By level of educational attainment, we found the largest potential effects on the poverty rates of households headed by someone with less than a high school degree. The simulations suggest a hypothetical 2005 poverty rate (if the immigrant population had remained at 1970 levels) between 0.5 and 1.9 percentage points lower than the actual poverty rate. Again, this is a relatively small impact. For households headed by a native-born person with a high school degree or greater (the overwhelming majority of U.S. households), the effects of immigration on poverty are essentially equal to zero.



Also looking at race and lack of educational achievement together, it found that in the most extreme versions of the model, there might be at most a 2% difference in the poverty rate among Black households headed by someone with no high school diploma, and no effect for all other Black households

Immigration and poverty in the United States - PDF
Poverty simulation results for households defined by both the race and educational attainment level of the household head, shown in Figure 5, lead to very similar conclusions.8 Again, the lowest simulated poverty rates imply only modest impacts of labor market competition with immigrants on native poverty rates for households headed by someone with less than a high school degree and virtually no effects for all other groups. For the lowest-skilled households, the largest poverty effects occur for African Americans and Hispanics. For example, the lowest simulated poverty rate (again, if the immigrant population had been held to 1970 levels) for black households headed by someone with less than a high school degree is 43 percent, 2 percentage points lower than the actual poverty rate for this group in 2005 (45 percent). The comparable figures for lowskilled Hispanic households are 34 percent and 37 percent.



The paper later notes that this effect is negligible because the number of households that have no one with a high school diploma is quite small.

Immigration and poverty in the United States - PDF
We find little evidence of an effect of immigration on native poverty through immigrant-native labor market competition. Despite adverse wage effects on high school dropouts and relatively small effects on the poverty rates of members of this group, the effects on native poverty rates are negligible, primarily because most native-born poor households have at least one working adult with at least a high school education.

I would suggest a much more practical response, if we actually care about such households, would be to work to ensure that all Black Americans can get a high-school education and thus no longer are in competition with illegal immigrants rather than trying to fight immigration when it barely helps such families and half of them will remain in poverty regardless of the immigration rate.



This one looked at a large range of studies but primarily focused on Europe, found either negligible effects (effectively zero) or sometimes small (about 1%) on wages.

https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication Files/09-013_15702a45-fbc3-44d7-be52-477123ee58d0.pdf
The documented wage elasticities are small and clustered near zero. Dustmann et al. (2008) likewise found very little evidence for wage effects in their review of the UK experience. This parallels an earlier conclusion by Friedberg and Hunt (1995) that immigration had little impact on native wages; overall, their survey of the earlier literature found that a 10% increase in the immigrant share of the labor force reduced native wages by about 1%. Recent meta-surveys by Longhi et al. (2005, 2008) and Okkerse (2008) found comparable, small effects across many studies. This consistent finding of small effects has led to many additional efforts to understand its origin. Several studies assess whether endogenous location decisions by immigrants weaken displacement. One strand uses natural experiments of major, exogenous immigration waves to a region: the Card (1990) study of the 1980 Mariel boatlift from Cuba to Miami, the Hunt (1992) study of the 1962 repatriation of European-origin Algerians to France upon Algeriaís independence, and the Friedberg (2001) study of Russian Jewish immigration to Israel in 1990- 2004. These studies found very weak effects after these events despite increases of up to 10% of the local labor force. These types of studies are generally credible, especially if they can demonstrate external validity of results. A second strand uses an interaction of past immigrant stocks and migration trends to instrument for observed local changes.13 These estimations again Önd comparable results.



Another study looking at the entire range of methods of calculating the impact of immigrants found that the consensus is clear that immigrants create more new jobs than they take:

http://www.vwl.tuwien.ac.at/hanappi/ageso/rp/okkerse_2008.pdf
The probability that immigrants increase unemployment is low in the short run and zero in the long run. Most area analyses and time-series analyses fail to find a significant influence of immigration on (un)employment probabilities. See for instance the findings of Gang et al. (1999) and Shan et al. (1999) for the EU and of Simon et al. (1993) and Marr and Siklos (1994) for the USA and Canada. Nevertheless, some studies do find an increase in unemployment rate (Winegarden and Khor, 1991), unemployment frequency (Winkelmann and Zimmermann, 1993) and unemployment duration (Winter-Ebmer and Zweim¨uller, 2000). Both area analysis and time-series analysis produce reasons to believe that if there is an employment effect it will especially hit the unemployed (Winter-Ebmer and Zweim¨uller, 2000; Gross, 2004). In the long run, immigrants create more jobs than they occupy and unemployment lowers permanently (Gross, 2002).



There's a lot more that could be said of other economic effects of immigration, the wiki page gives a brief summary with links to 70+ studies:

Economic results of migration - Wikipedia


The big dissenter in the field is George Borjas, who is a legit researcher but who also is quite conservative politically and publishes for CIS, he believes that immigration has a larger effect on native workers, that a 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of immigrants in the labor supply could depress wages 3-4%. Note that even that effect is relatively small - you're talking about someone going from earning $9.50/hour to earning $9.22 an hour. While that isn't their preference, that's also not driving anyone into poverty as it would only cost a full-time worker about $45/month and that would be at least partially offset by lower tax hit and higher Earned Income Tax Credit. So in the extreme case, the anti-income researchers are talking about the net income of poor native workers getting depressed by $20-25 a month. And most researchers show no such drop at all.

However, a meta-study of 344 economic impact studies by some pro-Borjas researchers who adopt his methodology found that he had likely over estimated the impact, and that the same 10 percentage point increase in the proportion of immigrants in the labor supply would in fact only depress wages by 1.2%. In other words, that hypothetical $9.50/hour worker would now only drop to $9.39 even if the proportion of immigrants in his field jumped all the way up from, say, 10% up to 20%. That same meta-study also found that negative effects in the USA are smaller than negative effects in Europe, likely because we have a larger, more elastic economy with more natural room for growth.
 
Last edited:

Apollo Creed

Look at your face
Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
55,818
Reputation
13,323
Daps
210,059
Reppin
Handsome Boyz Ent
You mean like Crispy Sotomayor running around in a MAGA hat telling cacs to shoot black children or David Clarke shytting on victims of police brutality on Fox news?:laff:
These guys have thousands of people watching them but y’all are pressed about some hypothetical African on Twitter? :laff:

Lmfao all of their evidence of this “war” against them is posting random twitter posts of nobodies yet nobody is tossing in them in the bushes when their own people like sheriff clarke is on white media belittling his own ethnic group.
 

Kenny West

Veteran
Joined
May 29, 2012
Messages
25,011
Reputation
5,982
Daps
92,019
Reppin
NULL
Then NYC must be the exception then, bc we're steady building. There are cranes all over the city. Rn in Harlem, they're buying churches and turning them into residential bldgs. You know how many churches there are in Harlem?! At least two on every city block. All being negotiated on, purchased, and developed. Right now.

There's plenty of work, but only if you're not locked out. Don't know what you're talking about. Yes, there was a lull after 2008, but it picked right back up.




Sources? I won't be accepting as legitimate any sources from globalists or their neoliberal minions, both groups having expressed 'no borders' sentiments in the recent past. Obviously, they'd have as much of an agenda as the right wingers. We need completely impartial sources, right?
Crazy the things people allow when it suits their agenda. nikkas was ready to clutch pearls and get fake offended at "nuffin" but are making posts like this that look they were peeled straight from the razor thin lips of some maga cac :laff: if I didnt know any better I'd swear this post was an impression.
 

Tribal Outkast

Veteran
Joined
Nov 22, 2016
Messages
30,768
Reputation
3,653
Daps
93,708
People still care about Ann Coulter in 2019?:mjlol:


Man that’s like black folks still caring about Armstrong Williams :russ:
 

EndGame

Superstar
Joined
Mar 6, 2014
Messages
9,035
Reputation
591
Daps
47,884
Funny how nikkas from a Black African country that lynches Black immigrants and Biafra seperatists got their panties in a bunch over ados movement.
 

Professor Emeritus

Veteran
Poster of the Year
Supporter
Joined
Jan 5, 2015
Messages
51,330
Reputation
19,656
Daps
203,838
Reppin
the ether
Hitler didn’t meet Owens...wtf

"HITLER DIDN’T SNUB ME; IT WAS [FDR] WHO SNUBBED ME. THE PRESIDENT DIDN’T EVEN SEND ME A TELEGRAM."
Which Leader Snubbed Jesse Owens? Hint: It Wasn't Hitler
Straight from his auto-biography.

Jesse Owens never said he met Hitler. :mjlol:

Some German reporter in the 1990s claimed that Jesse Owens had met Hitler, even though that goes against all reports at the time. His own family states clearly that Owens never met Hitler and NO ONE at the scene saw it happen even though Hitler's every move was watched. It is clear historic record that they never met.
 

HarlemHottie

Uptown Thoroughbred
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
17,753
Reputation
10,761
Daps
74,256
Reppin
#ADOS
Yes, there's lots of construction work right now, but you don't get the point. If you want a stable income, if you raising a family, they you can't just go without work for 3-4 years at a time.

MW-BS811_Starts_MG_20140117100945.jpg


Look at that lull. There were damn near 2 million new homes a year for four years followed by an two-year collapse and then just 500k new homes for three years, and then it was 3-4 more years where the "recovery" didn't breach 1 million homes. That means for whoever was working in new home construction from 2003-2007, a full 3/4 of them had to find some other work from 2008-2014. What kind of career is that?

My uncle was in construction and he was older so he'd done well in his career and piled up a nest egg, but he still went WAY into debt during the lull. And he can do all sorts of shyt, he can work on any job but he was scraping the bottom of the barrel trying to find work. He was talking about guys he knew leaving the field and he said he would have left himself if he was younger. This ain't the 90s anymore.

That's why you see so much migrant labor in construction. When the workload fluctuates by a factor of 400% depending on the year, you're not going to be able to fill permanent jobs for most of your crew.

The New York City Department of Buildings' report on construction in the city during 2018, recently released by Buildings Commissioner Rick D. Chandler, P.E., shows that construction activity leveled off after a historic real estate and development boom. DOB issued a total of 165,988 construction permits in 2018, down from 168,243 in 2017 -- a drop of about 1 percent. This was the first decline in total permits issued year-over-year since 2009. However, there is still an extraordinarily high level of construction activity in neighborhoods around the city, and 2018's permit totals are the second highest on record.

NYC Construction Activity Down Slightly in 2018 -- Occupational Health & Safety
As I said, construction in NYC had a slight lull and was right back on. You can't tell me what's going on in my own city, same way you told somebody upthread they can't tell you about Cali.

So far as neoliberals, I hate their agenda. That's well demonstrated.
I find that both of the 'neos' like to bomb and force people from their homes. As of late, they also seem to want those people to immigrate to 1st world nations bc they both require cheap labor, and many immigrants are complicit in this agenda.

Nice to know you're not a neo liberal. I'm not pro- Trump, so we were both mistaken.

Where you at? From? That might explain why I'm so willing to accede to certain Republican talking points.
 
Top