Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Chicago is so unpleasant migrants are fleeing BACK to Venezuela after being dumped in shelters


WVK

Recommended Posts

I grew up in chicago , lived there a long time , i don't think its directly related to Democrats , Chicago is Chicago no matter how you dice it up , depends on where you live , but a lot of gangbangers . People there do what they do no matter who runs the city.

Edited by razman
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those migrants were never sent there to succeed.  They were deliberately sent to a high cost of living and densely populated area to suffer and fail.  That was the whole point of the migrant buses.  If they sent them here to Iowa where there were jobs waiting and cheap empty rural homes, it wouldn't fit the narrative or inflict the cruelty that is desired.  If Republicans sent them someplace and everyone got a happy ending, it would ruin their message of fear and ruination.  How would they win votes? 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Lower income has always had more kids than higher income.

But both lower and higher income people have less kid now than in the past.

If you survey people alot will tell you it's because of money. It's also multifactorial of course though. Greater access to brith control and abortion certainly helps. And less religious pressure. 

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Gromdor said:

Those migrants were never sent there to succeed.  They were deliberately sent to a high cost of living and densely populated area to suffer and fail.  That was the whole point of the migrant buses.  If they sent them here to Iowa where there were jobs waiting and cheap empty rural homes, it wouldn't fit the narrative or inflict the cruelty that is desired.  If Republicans sent them someplace and everyone got a happy ending, it would ruin their message of fear and ruination.  How would they win votes? 

So it's republicans that are sending them around the country and not the federal government currently run by a democratic administration? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maduro's term is up next year.  There has been so much protest against him that some folks are thinking he will step down rather than try to steal another election.

 

Venezuela had some problems with incompetent leaders.  Chavez put a price ceiling on flour, cooking oil and toiletries to try to help the poor, but he set it so low businesses (Venezuela is a capitalist democracy, temporarily being ruled by a dictator.) couldn't make enough to cover costs, so they shut down.  He improved the foreign exchange a little bit, but if people didn't have access to other currencies, it did them no good.

Then Chavez died and Maduro finished out his term, was elected to his own term and then rigged the election to steal the 2018 vote (Sound like Trump?).  In an effort to topple Maduro, the US slapped draconian sanctions on Venezuelan oil, virtually the country's only still-operating business.  5.6 million refugees fled to other countries, some to the US.

So why are we surprised when our own sanctions were a major part of the problem?  If we want the refugees to go away, we need to lift those sanctions.

 

Trying to encourage refugees to go somewhere else will not work long-term.  Most are fleeing horrible conditions and would rather take their chances at the border than be killed back home.

Doug

 

PS:  there are more socialists in the US Congress than in the Venezuelan government.

Doug

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Lower income has always had more kids than higher income.

But both lower and higher income people have less kid now than in the past.

If you survey people alot will tell you it's because of money. It's also multifactorial of course though. Greater access to brith control and abortion certainly helps. Less religious pressure 

Actually there are many fewer poor in the US than in the past.  The last century when people were having a lot of children started at about 70% in poverty but lets move the numbers to post birth control, in 1980 the number was about 15% living in poverty and now it about 11.5%. And that with about 100 million more people in the US now as compared to 1980.  The reason wealthier people are having less children is because they are putting it off until they are ready.  Poor people don't tend to shy away from having kids the way wealthier people do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Occupational Hubris said:

It's a conservatives wet dream to imagine democratically run cities as literal hell on earth.

Don't have to imagine.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Actually there are many fewer poor in the US than in the past.  The last century when people were having a lot of children started at about 70% in poverty but lets move the numbers to post birth control, in 1980 the number was about 15% living in poverty and now it about 11.5%. And that with about 100 million more people in the US now as compared to 1980.  The reason wealthier people are having less children is because they are putting it off until they are ready.  Poor people don't tend to shy away from having kids the way wealthier people do.

I don't see anything you said that is contrary to my point.

I didn't say we had more poor people I said that lower income people have always had children at a higher rate than wealthier families. The birthrate is still down across the board among all social classes compared to previous generations. 

Affordability is a significant factor. My parents had 3 kids and my wife's parents had 4. I don't know anymore who wants a similar amount.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Affordability is a significant factor. My parents had 3 kids and my wife's parents had 4. I don't know anymore who wants a similar amount.

I think it's because of new dynamics between men and women.  You're early thirties right?  How many of your friends are married?  When I was your age it was the majority of mine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

I think it's because of new dynamics between men and women.  You're early thirties right?  How many of your friends are married?  When I was your age it was the majority of mine.

It's multifactorial. But it just seems silly that you want to ignore that affordability is a factor. A decent amounts married but not all of them. 

Older generation could have one parent working at the factory and support a 3 or 4 child family while having a nice suburban house and schools. It's just not the same anymore.

Edited by spartan max2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

It's multifactorial. But it just seems silly that you want to ignore that affordability is a factor. A decent amounts married but not all of them. 

Older generation could have one parent working at the factory and support a 3 or 4 child family while having a nice suburban house and schools. It's just not the same anymore.

Affordability is a factor but poor people still have children at a higher rate.  I think it has more to do with education.  More people now have higher educations and higher educated women focus more on careers.  Families and marriage interfere with career paths.  This is a relatively new dynamic.

 

EDIT:  I'll put this out there just for the hate I'll get :D 

If women decided not to work and have children one income could still support a family because with half as many workers jobs would have to pay more to attract men to work them.

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, OverSword said:

EDIT:  I'll put this out there just for the hate I'll get :D 

If women decided not to work and have children one income could still support a family because with half as many workers jobs would have to pay more to attract men to work them.

So you're saying you blame men for not being stay at home husbands :innocent:

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Affordability is a factor but poor people still have children at a higher rate.  I think it has more to do with education.  More people now have higher educations and higher educated women focus more on careers.  Families and marriage interfere with career paths.  This is a relatively new dynamic.

 

EDIT:  I'll put this out there just for the hate I'll get :D 

If women decided not to work and have children one income could still support a family because with half as many workers jobs would have to pay more to attract men to work them.

This is an unintended consequence of feminism pushing women into workforce....    no, I am not arguing should stay home and be barefoot and preggers.  However, we literally doubled the workforce and thus basic economics would dictate that wages would stagnate as a result.

The other problem with the "modern feminist" women is that many still want children but delay it until their mid 30s chasing careers.  A lot of these women wind up miserable because they find it difficult to have children, not too mention the dating issues resulting from women's natural hypergamy (looking for spouses who make more).  The entire relationship of men and women, careers, family rearing, etc has been upset imho.

One of the reasons it is unaffordable is childcare.  In big cities, it can cost $2000/mo or more for a decent daycare.  Of course, this wouldn't really be needed if a spouse stayed home, but that is difficult to do unless the other spouse is making decent coin.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

One of the reasons it is unaffordable is childcare.  In big cities, it can cost $2000/mo or more for a decent daycare.  Of course, this wouldn't really be needed if a spouse stayed home, but that is difficult to do unless the other spouse is making decent coin

The economics of childcare is actually not what you think. 

Government regulation requires a certain ratio of staff to kid. Which pushes prices up. But childcare facilities are also stuck under a ceiling where they can't raise to a certain point because at a certain point families would just pay for a nanny or a individual sitter. (I lisened to a whole podcast on this once).

Because natural capitalism would imply that with the childcare demand being so high that someone would fill that demand. But they are limited because of the ceiling of individual nanny's. 

So you can't make it cost cheap because of how many staff you need who also demand to be paid. But you can't raise prices much to pay staff more because once you raise too high families won't use you facility when they could pay an at home nanny for the same cost.

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

So you're saying you blame men for not being stay at home husbands :innocent:

Many men would be stay home dads.  The issue though is hypergamy.  Just because women are career oriented, doesn't mean they dive up their desire find a man who pays the bills.  This is a huge disconnect and why a lot of professional women remain single.  

For example, let's say a woman becomes a surgeon.  She is making $500k/yr.  In her mind, she often won't settle for a guy making less than her.  This means she will only date guys who make similar or more.  The problem is there aren't many guys to choose from who make $500k+/yr.   A lot of those guys generally would be "dating down", meaning they don't care if the woman is making say $50k/yr as long as she is pleasing to the eye and would make a good wife.  On the other hand, a woman making $500k is not likely to date a guy making $50k.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

The economics of childcare is actually not what you think. 

Government regulation requires a certain ratio of staff to kid. Which pushes prices up. But childcare facilities are also stuck under a ceiling where they can't raise to a certain point because at a certain point families would just pay for a nanny or a individual sitter. (I lisened to a whole podcast on this once).

Because natural capitalism would imply that with the childcare demand being so high that someone would fill that demand. But they are limited because of the ceiling of individual nanny's. 

Govt regulations screwing up the market again...

You have to do the math on it to see if it makes sense.  I don't recall what it was exactly, but generally, if the working spouse isn't making more than about $60-$70k/yr, it made no sense for them to work and pay for day care provided the other spouse's income can cover the living expenses of the familiy.

Here in Chicago, we were paying about $40k/yr for two kids in day care.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Many men would be stay home dads.  The issue though is hypergamy.  Just because women are career oriented, doesn't mean they dive up their desire find a man who pays the bills.  This is a huge disconnect and why a lot of professional women remain single.  

For example, let's say a woman becomes a surgeon.  She is making $500k/yr.  In her mind, she often won't settle for a guy making less than her.  This means she will only date guys who make similar or more.  The problem is there aren't many guys to choose from who make $500k+/yr.   A lot of those guys generally would be "dating down", meaning they don't care if the woman is making say $50k/yr as long as she is pleasing to the eye and would make a good wife.  On the other hand, a woman making $500k is not likely to date a guy making $50k.  

If a guy is going after girls who only wants them for their money then that's their own fault.

Myself and a lot of my friends make less than our spouse or girlfriend. Girls who meet their own financial needs don't care how much the guy makes.

This is a myth IMO. Guys complain about girls wanting money while they only go after girls that want money.

I never paid for a first date (split the bill), it seemed to filter out the problem pretty easily for me 

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Edumakated said:

Govt regulations screwing up the market again...

Damn government caring about child welfare. 

Can't have 1 adult per 30 children all day lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

If a guy is going after girls who only wants them for their money then that's their own fault.

Myself and a lot of my friends make less than our spouse or girlfriend. Girls who meet their own financial needs don't care how much the guy makes.

This is a myth IMO. Guys complain about girls wanting money while they only go after girls that want money.

I never paid for a first date (split the bill), it seemed to filter out the problem pretty easily for me 

There are exceptions to the rule, but generally women do not date down.  On the other hand, men generally don't really care and have no issue dating down income wise.  

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, spartan max2 said:

Damn government caring about child welfare. 

Can't have 1 adult per 30 children all day lol

Your average classroom. no? :whistle:

Edited by OverSword
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Your average classroom. no? :whistle:

Schools have ratios too but you can't really like end school if the ratio isn't able to be met by the school district. And arguably schools always have other staff that can come assist when needed. 

Thats a whole other problem that would take it's own thread though. 

Edited by spartan max2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

So it's republicans that are sending them around the country and not the federal government currently run by a democratic administration? 

Yes- more specifically Governor Abbot of Texas.   The article is specifically about those 20,700 that Abott shipped.

"Since August last year, 20,700 migrants have arrived in Chicago from Texas. The Lone Star State's Governor Greg Abbott sent migrants to Chicago and other Democrat-run cities because of their proud status as 'sanctuary cities."- from the article the OP linked.

Edited by Gromdor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.