For an Endangered Animal- a Fire or Hurricane Can Mean the End – By Livia Albeck-Ripka – NYT

“When lighting struck the Pinaleño Mountains in southeast Arizona at around 2:45 p.m. on June 7, igniting a 48,000 acre fire that reduced an ancient forest to blackened poles and stumps, a scurry of rare squirrels — 217 of the 252 left in existence — disappeared.

Some were fitted with radio transmitters that burned to ash; conservationists deduced their fates. They hoped others had managed to escape.But for those 35 survivors — biological remnants from the last ice age — Jeff Humphrey, a spokesman with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, was deeply concerned.“Most of them have lost the cones they’ve stored for their winter nourishment,” Mr. Humphrey said. “How do we get them through this winter?”

Advertisements

Buying Your First Home EV Charger | PluginCars.com

“It may surprise EV newbies to learn that an electric car’s charger is found on board the vehicle. It’s the equipment buried in the guts of the car that takes an AC source of juice from your house, and converts it to DC—so your car’s battery pack can be charged.

This fact doesn’t stop nearly everybody from calling the wall-mounted box that supplies 240 volts of electricity a “charger.” Actually, that box, cord, and plug has a technical name—Electric Vehicle Service Equipment or EVSE—and if you have an EV, you’re going to want to install one at home.

So, it’s slightly misleading to say we’re providing guidance about chargers because we’re really talking about buying an EVSE—which is essentially no more than an electrical device allowing drivers to safely connect an electric car to a 240-volt source of electricity. It’s not rocket science, and you should not overthink the selection and installation of an EVSE.That said, there are important differences between the various home chargers (uh, I mean EVSEs). And there are a few best practices to keep in mind.”

Source: Buying Your First Home EV Charger | PluginCars.com

Dreamers- Liars and Bad Economics – by Paul Krugman

“But in any case, adding “and besides, they’re stealing our jobs” undercuts the whole pretense.

Furthermore, the claim was, as I said, junk economics. The idea that there are a fixed number of jobs, so that if a foreign-born worker takes a job he or she takes it away from a native-born worker, is completely at odds with everything we know about how the economy works. Hearing it from a conservative is especially surreal.

The truth is that letting the Dreamers work legally helps the U.S. economy; pushing them out or into the shadows is bad for everyone except racists.

To understand why, you need to realize that America, like other advanced economies, is facing a double-barreled demographic challenge thanks to declining fertility.

On one side, an aging population means fewer workers paying taxes to support Social Security and Medicare. Demography is the main reason long-run forecasts suggest problems for Social Security, and an important reason for concerns about Medicare. Driving out young workers who will pay into the system for many decades is a way to make these problems worse.

On the other side, declining growth in the working-age population reduces the returns to private investment, increasing the risk of prolonged slumps like the one that followed the 2008 financial crisis.

It’s not an accident that Japan, which has low fertility and is deeply hostile to immigration, began experiencing persistent deflation and stagnation a decade before the rest of the world. Destroying DACA makes America more like Japan. Why would we want to do that?”

I struggle with this issue, but I have enormous respect for Paul Krugman, and I can’t find fault with his arguments or facts. I would like more proof that these people are not taking jobs from Americans, but the prooofs are from macro economics, and not always, but  mostsly. When some of us were laid off in the recession of 2008, it might have been because we were older. We were often replaced by younger workers. It is in the next 50 years that all of Kruman’s arguments make sense. In the next 30 years, we are in danger of copying the deadly deflation of Japan.

Here is a comment I endorse:

Socrates

is a trusted commenter Verona NJ September 8, 2017

Aside from the moral obscenity of deporting 800,000 law-abiding young people from the country they grew up in, what’s often overlooked about Republicans and their policies is how consistently destructive they are economically.

The historical record shows that Republican Presidents and Republican policies consistently have long-term deleterious economic effects: see Bush-Cheney’s 2001 – 2009 Reign of Error for a refresher course on Republican economic catastrophe.

A Moody’s Analytics analysis of Trump’s proposed economic policies last year showed that removing all undocumented immigrants from the labor force would trigger an economic recession within one year.

University of California – Davis economist Giovanni Peri says ending DACA would bring a net loss in productivity, given that the U.S. economy is close to full employment.

The CATO Institute estimated that ending DACA would reduce tax revenue by nearly $280 billion over a decade.

The Immigrant Legal Resource Center estimated that deporting DACA-eligible individuals would reduce Social Security and Medicare tax revenue by $24.6 billion over a decade.

The Center for American Progress estimated that that the loss of all DACA-eligible workers would reduce US GDP by $433 billion over the next 10 years.

The proposed elimination of DACA is great for Making America Hate Again…and horrible for Making America Great Again.

But Greed Over People demands mindless White Spite to drive it over yet another Republican cliff.

Donald Trump’s Cowardice on ‘Dreamers’ – The New York Times

“President Trump didn’t even have the guts to do the job himself. Instead, he hid in the shadows and sent his attorney general, Jeff Sessions, to do the dirty work of telling the country that the administration would no longer shield from deportation 800,000 young undocumented immigrants brought to this country as children.

Mr. Sessions, a longtime anti-immigrant hard-liner, was more than up to the task. In a short, disingenuous speech, he said a program set up by President Barack Obama in 2012 — known as DACA, for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals — was a lawless policy that “yielded terrible humanitarian consequences” and denied jobs to hundreds of thousands of American citizens. (Mr. Trump echoed these claims in a statement released by the White House.) Mr. Sessions called DACA “an unconstitutional exercise of authority” and said “failure to enforce the laws in the past has put our nation at risk of crime, violence and terrorism.”

False, false, false and false.”

BPC-Immigration-Key-Findings-PRINT – BPC-Immigration-Employment-Wages-Key-Findings.pdf

“Over the past several decades, native-born Americans have become increasingly detached from the labor force, with declining levels of employment and labor force participation. Many have attempted to blame these trends on immigration, under the notion that immigrants displace native-born workers and drive down their wages. Although superficially appealing, these arguments are ultimately overly simplistic and misguided, as they ignore several other factors driving these trends.

A new Bipartisan Policy Center report analyzes the wage and employment outcomes of the foreign- and native-born populations. Since 2000, employment has decreased by 6 percentage points among the native-born population but by just 2 percentage points among the foreign-born population. However, the unemployment rate—defined as the percent of the population out of work but actively looking for a job—has remained roughly equal for the two demographics. This is because native-born individuals have increasingly chosen to exit the labor force for other reasons—namely to retire, enroll in school or enter disability (fig. 1). If native-born individuals exhibited the same change in rates of retirement, school enrollment and disability as foreign-born persons over the last 15 years, the native-born employment rate would be almost identical to the foreign-born rate (see ‘Native (Adjusted)’ in fig. 2).”

Source: BPC-Immigration-Key-Findings-PRINT – BPC-Immigration-Employment-Wages-Key-Findings.pdf

This is one of the answers to my recent question, show me the studies that DACA immigrants do not take jobs away from native workers.

The Very Bad Economics of Killing DACA – by Paul Krugman -NYT

“Trump’s decision to kill DACA — never mind the attempt to obscure things with that meaningless delay — is, first and foremost, a moral obscenity: throwing out 800,000 young people who are Americans in every way that matters, who have done nothing wrong, basically for racial reasons. But it’s also worth noting that Jeff Sessions just tried to sell it with junk economics, claiming that the Dreamers are taking American jobs. No, they aren’t, even if we leave aside the question of who’s an American. DACA is very much a boon to the rest of the U.S. population, and killing it will make everyone worse off.To see why, first note that whatever you think about the economics of less-educated immigrants — most of the evidence suggests that they don’t depress wages, but that’s another discussion — none of it applies to DREAMers. Their educational and behavioral profile, as Cato notes, doesn’t resemble the average immigrant, let alone the average undocumented immigrant; they look like H-1B visa holders, that is, skilled immigrants we have specifically allowed in because they help the economy.

Beyond that, DREAMers are young — which means that they help the economy in not one but two big ways, because they mitigate the economic problems caused by an aging population.”

Source: The Very Bad Economics of Killing DACA – The New York Times

Paul Krugman writes, “But it’s also worth noting that Jeff Sessions just tried to sell it with junk economics, claiming that the Dreamers are taking American jobs. No, they aren’t, even if we leave aside the question of who’s an American.”

Where are the hyperlinks. What are the studies that prove this point. If it is a canard, please show us the proofs, and the data.

 

Trump and Pruitt- Making America Polluted Again – by Paul Krugman – NYT

So Trump’s true legacy may well be defined not by the laws he does or more likely doesn’t pass, but by his decision to put Scott Pruitt in charge of the Environmental Protection Agency.As Oklahoma’s attorney general, Pruitt effectively acted as a servant, not of the public, but of polluting industries. That’s not an accusation; it’s confirmed by his own email trail.Now, at a time when much of the Trump administration seems paralyzed by lack of leadership and key personnel, Pruitt is firing on all cylinders — but not because he’s making the E.P.A. more effective. On the contrary, he’s engaged in sabotage from the top, moving quickly to undermine his own agency’s mission — not just its efforts against climate change, but its role in protecting the environment across the board.

Fleeing to the Mountains – by Nicholas Kristof – NYT

“This is our collective patrimony, a tribute to the wisdom of Theodore Roosevelt, Gifford Pinchot and other visionaries who preserved our wild places for the future. Thank God for them. Otherwise, these lands might have been carved up and sold off as ranches for the rich.

Because of the foresight of past generations, the federal government owns one million square miles, an area three times the size of California, Oregon and Washington combined. Much of this is unspoiled, our inheritance and our shared playground.Yet today, President Trump sees this heritage as an opportunity for development. More aggressively than past administrations, Trump’s is systematically handing over America’s public lands for private exploitation in ways that will scar the land forever.”

An Elusive Immigration Compromise – by Ross Douthat – NYT

“The last time Gallup asked Americans if they thought immigration to the United States should increase or decrease, 35 percent chose a decrease, 24 percent an increase, and 38 percent preferred the present rate. Support for increasing immigration has been rising for a decade, but it remains relatively low. To the extent that there is a middle-ground position, it is for something like the status quo.

From polling like this you would imagine that recent immigration reform efforts would have worked in that middle space, trying to tweak the mix of new arrivals without increasing the immigration rate. But instead, most recent attempts at a “comprehensive” bill have sought not only amnesty for illegal immigrants, but an increase in low-skilled immigration, above the already brisk post-1960s pace.

Bipartisan bills dramatically at odds with the shape of public opinion are generally bad for both parties. And sure enough, the attempts at immigration reform under George W. Bush and Barack Obama helped give us both a much-reduced Democratic Party and a G.O.P. helmed by Donald Trump.”