"In any case, suggesting that people are advocating for 'unlimited' immigration is a bit disingenuous as it implies a practically infinite supply of new immigrants."
You might find this article of interest , since it counters both these points. Here are a few quotes, first advocating for unlimited immigration, and second suggesting that there is a practically infinite supply of immigrants.
1. "The gains to eliminating migration barriers amount to large fractions of world GDP—one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gains from dropping all remaining restrictions on international flows of goods and capital... For the elimination of trade policy barriers and capital flow barriers, the estimated gains amount to less than a few percent of world GDP. For labor mobility barriers, the estimated gains are often in the range of 50–150 percent of world GDP."
2. "The Gallup World Poll finds that more than 40 percent of adults in the poorest quartile of countries “would like to move permanently to another country” if they had the opportunity, including 60 percent or more of in Guyana and Sierra Leone... The size of these constraints is apparent in the annual U.S. Diversity Visa Lottery, which allocates permanent emigration slots mainly to developing countries. In fiscal year 2010, this lottery had 13.6 million applications for 50,000 visas (U.S. Department of State, 2011)—272 applicants per slot."
Here is a back-of-the-envelope calculation from the paper:
"We can check these calculations on the back of the metaphorical envelope. Divide the world into a “rich” region, where one billion people earn $30,000 per year, and a “poor” region, where six billion earn $5,000 per year. Suppose emigrants from the poor region have lower productivity, so each gains just 60 percent of the simple earnings gap upon emigrating—that is, $15,000 per year. This marginal gain shrinks as emigration proceeds, so suppose that the average gain is just $7,500 per year. If half the population of the poor region emigrates, migrants would gain $23 trillion—which is 38 percent of global GDP."
On the other hand, some of their correct images have questionable captions as well. For example, they labeled the geyser picture correctly, but their top labels also included "sandbar", "breakwater" and "leatherback turtle". A better scoring function, perhaps including hierarchies to account for the very vague "restaurant" photos and very specific dog breed photos, might be helpful. Otherwise, it seems like we might be overfitting to the peculiarities of this dataset.
The problem is even prescribed penalties against authority figures are rarely enforced. There are a few low-level people in jail for torture of prisoners, but not one administrator. Bush and Cheney should have been hauled before The Hague, much as they would have demanded of any leader of any other country that had unilaterally broken the Geneva Convention, but Obama wanted to "look forward," not backward.
There is/was almost zero prosecution of individuals involved in the global financial collapse of 2008. Occupy Wall Street protestors, on the other hand, were beaten, arrested, maced, and so on.
Rules against authority figures in this country are for show at best. Didn't used to be that way, but here we are.
Further, the IRS is a great example how they are being "punished".
The only thing you can take from them is funding. So did Congress -- took away money from IRS and brought their operational budget to those levels from 2008.
And now - pick one that is correct:
A) The director of IRS cut off $80MM bonuses promised to all those hard working ants that scrutinized non-profit applicants and further lost backup tapes that have been miraculously found years later; OR,
B) The director of IRS cut off funds for customer support telephone line, forcing people to wait minimum 30 minutes on the line before a real person answers, admitting on the record that majority of taxpayers won't be able to reach out for help in this tax period.
Any solutions to this clear abuse of power and disrespect to fellow citizens??
"The third finding from recent pricing studies is
that people need not have paid for something to
value it. Households are as likely to use their
bednet when they get it for free as when they
have to pay for it (4, 7–9). People are as likely to
use their water filter if they paid a lower price
for it (2). This is surprising for two reasons. First,
standard economic theory suggests that charging
nontrivial user fees should help target products to
those who need them the most—and thus those
most likely to put them to appropriate use. But
this reasoning breaks down when people face
credit constraints and their ability to pay is lower
than their willingness to pay. When those who
could use a product the most are too poor to pay
cash for it, higher prices screen out the poor, not
just those with lower health returns from using
the product (9). Second, it is often thought that
the act of paying itself makes people value a
product or service more; the feeling of “guilt”
from having spent money on something that is
left unused would make people more diligent
users. However, experimental studies designed
to test the importance of this psychological
phenomenon suggest that this consideration
is not important when it comes to essential
health (2, 7, 10). The cost of poor health seems
a good enough incentive to put products to
"It is often argued that cost-sharing—charging a subsidized, positive price—for a health product is necessary to avoid wasting resources on those who will not use or do not need the product. We explore this argument through a field experiment in Kenya, in which we randomized the price at which prenatal clinics could sell long-lasting antimalarial insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) to pregnant women. We find no evidence that cost-sharing reduces wastage on those who will not use the product: women who received free ITNs are not less likely to use them than those who paid subsidized positive prices. We also find no evidence that costsharing induces selection of women who need the net more: those who pay higher prices appear no sicker than the average prenatal client in the area in terms of measured anemia (an important indicator of malaria). Cost-sharing does, however, considerably dampen demand. We find that uptake drops by sixty percentage points when the price of ITNs increases from zero to $0.60 (i.e., from 100% to 90% subsidy), a price still $0.15 below the price at which ITNs are currently sold to pregnant women in Kenya. We combine our estimates in a cost-effectiveness analysis of the impact of ITN prices on child mortality that incorporates both private and social returns to ITN usage. Overall, our results suggest that free distribution of ITNs could save many more lives than cost-sharing programs have achieved so far, and, given the large positive externality associated with widespread usage of ITNs, would likely do so at a lesser cost per life saved."
The New Yorker had a story on Lexicon in 2011, too.
'On a Mind Map, someone wrote “strawberry.” Then someone wrote beside it, “Strawberry is too slow.” Placek pronounced the word—“Str-a-a-a-w-w-berry”—drawing it out. “This technology is instantaneous,” he said. On the map, someone else wrote “blackberry.”'
Honestly, though, most of these stories are fairly similar.
Usually you find these kinds of figures in articles about 3D printing aircraft parts. For example, "By reducing an airplane’s weight by just one kilogram, an airline can save $1,300 in fuel costs per year, according to the  IBISWorld report."  The 2014 report can be purchased here . Of course, these numbers will depend on the kind of plane and its utilization, as well as fuel costs.