You just said, "You're using a bad argument, so here's an ad hominem." I hope the irony isn't lost on you.
Garbage truck drivers as part of waste desposal systems can make good money. So that argument is false.
The argument is that a wealthy class requires many menial laborers to support them. I expressed it in the vernacular, citing garbage men, but that doesn't mean that the wages of garbage men in particular have any relevance at all. Hopefully, you really did comprehend the point, and you do at least realize that you're offering a red herring.
You don't need to have massive poverty just so you can have people run the waste collecting.
Straw man; nobody is arguing that Mexico needs "massive poverty."
You have offered no proof whatsoever that a significant proportion of Mexico's population is so retarded as to imagine that there's an economic benefit to be had by expelling the least wealthy N% of the population. On what basis do you suppose that Mexico's wealthy are rich and successful, but at the same time so mentally handicapped as to believe such an absurd thing?
Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you imagine that "exporting" the poorest N% of America's residents would accrue benefits to the (100-N)% that remain? Of couse not. If you're not that stupid, why do you suppose that these hypothetical Mexicans are?
...but at least Canada takes care of its poor...
You just said that socialism is a good thing for Canada. Do you also believe it would be a good thing for the US? If not, what magical test distinguishes the countries that benefit from socialism from the countries that don't?
Your arguments do ring shallow.
There is a very big advantage for Mexico getting rid of it's most impoverished. The prospect of massive political unrest is something that Mexico's elite want to avoid at all costs. Either you find a way to deal with them or suffer the consequences. You still don't get it.
You are a like most libertarians, which tend to be little more than inverted Marxists.
You don't need to have massive poverty just so you can have people run the waste collecting. Straw man; nobody is arguing that Mexico needs "massive poverty." You have offered no proof whatsoever that a significant proportion of Mexico's population is so retarded as to imagine that there's an economic benefit to be had by expelling the least wealthy N% of the population. On what basis do you suppose that Mexico's wealthy are rich and successful, but at the same time so mentally handicapped as to believe such an absurd thing? Put the shoe on the other foot. Do you imagine that "exporting" the poorest N% of America's residents would accrue benefits to the (100-N)% that remain? Of couse not. If you're not that stupid, why do you suppose that these hypothetical Mexicans are?
More crap. Again, you have this absolutely myopic understanding of modern economics. A greater and greater volume of people will translate into greater and greater economic output. False.
I've stated before (on previous threads) that even the Libertarians' favorite immigration authority, the late Dr. Julian Simon understood the dubious nature of the open borders argument. This of course put him odds with the Libertarian Party and the WSJ editorial board. Simon grasped that you could not really have kind of open borders policy advocted by the WSJ & L.P. Simon at least understood (unlike you) the fallacy of "...greater aggragate number of individuals translating into greater (or more productive) economic output". He called this principle the "negative human capital externalities". Massive poverty itself one of the underlying causes of the NHCE's. It is a major liability for any economy in the modern age. A economy is on the whole much better off with a lower number of individuals than with twice the population but with half of those living in poverty.Period.
BTW, even Von Mises himself do not agree with the open borders philosophy.