Just wait until we have robots for menial work.

Re: Immigration enforcement:

Thank you, Rich, for saying the most sensible thing that can be said today in American politics.

ObamaCare: Bad deal. Cap and Trade: Bad Deal. Still, I can see how reasonable people can argue about these things. I know that I turned blue in the face many times arguing with very smart friends and colleagues about these issues.

But not enforcing immigration law? At a time of 10% employment? When our entitlement state is already bankrupt but we continue to act as a de facto social net for Mexican citizens who get free medical treatment, subsidized housing, food stamps, education for their kids? When the status quo for enforcement is racist and selective -- after all, the Indian and Chinese and Ukrainian PhDs get kicked out of our country if they don't have a job at graduation. When there are millions of educated people trying to come here legally waiting for years?

80% of Americans want stricter enforcement of immigration law. No issue has this sort of support. It'd be political gold for either party. Yet we continue to devolve into a lawless society, and trust in our institutions continues to erode because of our political class' failure to uphold this primary responsibility.

Hmmm...according to that chart, my wife and I, college dropouts both, should ask for pay cuts.

To be fair and whatnot.

Glad you found that graph. I did a column making the same point in January 2004, when Bush first came out with his immigration amnesty. Since governments are elected to serve their electors and their families, there can be no justification for heavy low-skill immigration.

As a less happy point from a Conservative viewpoint, you will note that almost everybody's income is lower even before the Great Recession than it was in 1973. Either our economic policy has been hopelessly inept, or the Panglossian theory that we're getting richer all the time is rubbish. The latter if true of course has horrid long-term implications for Medicare/social security.

As a wise man named Bill Clinton once proved, you can make a society twice as wealthy, and you can have an economy in which almost everyone enjoys that wealth.

I added these same comments earlier on Rich's "Crisis of the Middle" article, and my arrogance says they're worth reposting:

Born in '81, in my lifetime conservatives have always harped on the institution of marriage as being sacred. But if it is so sacred, why shouldn't it be reserved for the best and the brightest? Why can't it be society's reward for having kept your nose (and credit score) clean?

I see nothing unconservative with entitling the elite to be the gatekeepers of matrimony. They've paid more than their share in taxes for the privilege.

It is not just 19th century Nietzsche, but 21st century uber-Americans who recognize how the spirit of nobility resides in seeking the privilege of the fewest. ("Genealogy of Morals," Essay I, Sec. 16.)

"Either our economic policy has been hopelessly inept, or the Panglossian theory that we're getting richer all the time is rubbish."

Even if income has stagnated or gone down, the cost of necessities like food and clothing has also plunged. Compare the cost of feeding and clothing a family of 4 in 1966 to the cost of feeding and clothing a family of 4 in 2006.

Or, if you like, compare an average family's electronics budget in 2010 (including cell phone and internet access) to what an equivalent family might have spent on comparable luxuries 40 years ago. Compare quality and number of cars, size of house, number of times per month family eats out, etc. Buying power is perhaps a more informative measurement than income.

Also note that average family size has gone down substantially, so fewer people are being supported by these incomes than in the past (although factoring in single parent households might complicate the issue). Any analysis that relies solely on "family" income must address these demographic changes.

Bottom line: considering all the above and also that we don't know how many families are in each category above, and how many people are in each family, I'm not sure how informative this graph really is.

""I know I’d begin with a crack-down on illegal immigration. At a time of high unemployment and wage stagnation for people without college degrees, we don’t need people from other countries flooding into the United States to take low-skill jobs and drive down wages."

Except, that these people who aren't illegal immigrants aren't taking these jobs, Lowry, and one look at the unemployment numbers would have told you so.

You can't have it both ways, Lowry. You can't say our unemployment is high because of uncertainty, and other factors, and then blame people who don't have the skills or the education levels to work those jobs that companies are no longer offering. You also can't blame illegals for Americans taking 99 weeks of unemployment benefits again, and planning on re-upping when the programs comes around again.

Conservatives need to quit with this stupidity, and actually start using their heads for something other than a place to put a hat.

What accounts for unemployment right now, more than any other factor, is the fact that businesses are learning their lessons from the last recession and dot com disaster a decade ago by sitting on large piles of cash to carry them through. They aren't taking on any huge acquisitions, and they are spending for new hires.

Yes, we could blame the attitude businesses have on government uncertainty, and it's valid because the last election is one in which no one won. We still have the same idiots in charge, and we still keep looking for an economic solution from a politician.

If Lowry's type of thinking is the best conservatives can muster, then it's going to be quite a disheartening reality during the next two years.

Fix the immigration services for the benefit of all, but don't blame illegals for idiotic thinking that doesn't even address the main issue: businesses holding large cash balances on their balance sheets.

Further confusing the picture is this item from Phi Beta Cons that 60% of those with college degrees are working at jobs that don't really require a college education.

External Link 

You want fries with that?