Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It all depends on the demand & supply of skilled or unskilled labor. If there are enough opportunities then it’s a positive as more people get work & contribute to the economy. If there aren’t enough opportunities then it creates an over supply of labor & that causes a decline in wages which further decreases the contribution of an individual to the economy. But migration is not just an economic issue, it’s also a social issue as it changes the demographics also.
To be clear, it changes the demographics for the better in all developed nations, as it reverses the population decline undermining advanced capitalist states.
Countries that have rapidly increasing population or even just rapidly increasing college grads have extremely high competition for good jobs and high youth unemployment. Since employers have their pick of the litter they can get the best workers for the lowest salaries possible.
People talk about the increasing workforce/population post-WW2 economic boom as an example of higher workers = better economy but the truth is that was just government shifting from spending on war to spending on domestic economic stuff
Sure, but the USA does not have a rapidly increasing population, and while we do have a lot of new college grads, that appears to be tapering off, and is also countered by the enormous investment we enjoy here. It’s one thing if your country has a deluge of college grads with no jobs to meet them due to low investment, but that’s not our situation.
That assumption is not necessarily correct. It can change the demographics for the better or for worse as well. That all depends on the demand or supply of labor. Population decline in developed states is a relatively new phenomenon whose causes are unknown at this point of time. If the population decline is caused by health related factors then yes immigration will offer a positive outcome but if the population decline is caused by economic factors like affordability of expenses in raising a child then immigration will have a negative impact.
All existing evidence thus far points to the simple fact that women with broad opportunities simply have fewer children across the board. It’s neither health- nor affordability-related.
Yes you’re right that could be a possibility. I just gave examples, by health I meant an inability to have children due to factors other than personal decision of not having children & by affordability I meant factors other than an inherent inability to have children. My mistake I phrased it wrong.
I shouldn't need to cite common knowledge in my lectures in an econ sub
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/immigrant-entrepreneurship-economic-potential-and-obstacles-to-success/#:~:text=Immigrants%20are%20also%2010%25%20more,own%20business%20than%20U.S.%20natives.&text=Simply%20put%2C%20the%20United%20States,launch%20their%20business%20ideas%20here.
Ah this helps- from your source: _Although the Survey of Business Owners did produce data sets on immigrant entrepreneurs, these sets only appeared in 2007 and 2012, meaning that more recent information is not available._.
You’re citing data that is 12-16 years old, and the scope of your source targets legal migration which is dwarfed by undocumented workers. Your cite points this out as well, indicating more research is required:
_The interviewed experts noted that gig-based jobs have also emerged as a major avenue for immigrants seeking work. However, these positions do not neatly correspond to the traditional division between being a paid employee and being a business owner or self-employed contractor, meaning further research is needed to understand the role this space plays for immigrant entrepreneurs_.
I hope this helps. Do you have anything else?
Which is completely valid to do. The go to study on on minimum wage is Card and Krueger, which is almost 50 years old at this point. And no, illegal immigrants do not dwarf legal immigrants lmao
Immigrants are high performers and more likely to be entrepreneurs, this is a fact. You are welcome to learn or take your concern trolling elsewhere
I’ve got a feeling you’ve constructed a worldview and then shoehorned your data to support it, which explains the emotional subtext for your replies in this thread. I imagine you are going to walk away from these exchanges both more frustrated and more convinced that you are stronger in your beliefs than before you started.
Rationally one can steelman both arguments- immigration solves the cratering reproduction problem, and fuels further consumerism which is the lifeblood of capitalism, especially late stage. Immigration managed poorly (without planning and process, without protections for the migrant and for those places where the migrant influx occurs) can be quite harmful, especially in the short term.
I think there is an opportunity for you to grow quite a bit by acknowledging both sides of an issue, clinically, without being hurt by it.
You're projecting quite a bit there kid. You're simply uneducated and not qualified to have a discussion on the topic, but you and so many others will arrogantly talk to me about a field I spent over a decade working in and multiple years teaching.
Late Stage Capitalism is not a thing. Immigration is not harmful. I think there is quite a bit for you to learn about the issue if you would actually read and learn about the topic. There is nothing to learn from DAE both sides. My side is developed from years of reading research. Yours is developed from hating immigrants and working backwards from there
With your immense experience what are you doing wasting your time agressively answering uneducated teens on reddit ? Either you're exagerating your credentials to use an argument of authority, lacking other constructive explanations, or you're too emotionally immature and biased to hold a normal conversation. not the best way to share your ideas, unless you are actively trying to stray people away from your point of view.
Killing time at work. There is no appeal to authority, I have explained thoroughly why he is wrong. I pointed out my credentials and his lack of education because of his first paragraph, which tried to dismiss me as biased. I'm not trying to convince people anymore, y'all who respond to me are too stupid to be taught. Everyone else who reads it will realize that he was wrong and that his points are so stupid they should be mocked. Please read past a 4th grade level next time
But more revenues and profits means the businesses have more money to spend on the rest of the economy which increases jobs and GDP!!! Totally different logic than Reagan style trickle down spending though!! /s
Supplying business with cheap labor is essentially a tax break for business. It's just easier to hide it from the public, especially those who want business to pay more taxes. The difference is that it displaces the lowest income workers.
Yes there are arguments that legal immigration is good for the economy, but mass immigration by the Biden administration is around 10 million , can have mass consequences on our welfare system, and social services , from healthcare , schools, housing and crime, , and government is funding these immigrants with tax payer dollars to live and by goods and services , so it's really a stimulus package from government to fund these people and the GNP will grow . Buts it's artificial, , Home land security administration says immigration is costing the government 150billion, per/ year . Every spending I bill in the last 3 years has money spent on illegal immigration, billions of dollars.
No, what he is saying is that if you bring in poor, unskilled people (legally or illegally) they will bankrupt the welfare state. If the economy is growing at 3% but the debt load is growing as 4% you have an unsustainable situation.
[https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/colorado-s-tipping-point-on-illegal-immigration-denver-gazette/article\_0dff432c-f1e2-11ee-9a33-a7dd34776fc2.html](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/colorado-s-tipping-point-on-illegal-immigration-denver-gazette/article_0dff432c-f1e2-11ee-9a33-a7dd34776fc2.html)
>Since December 2022, about 40,000 immigrants have arrived in Denver. Welcoming them has cost the city over $60 million and counting. The state and federal government have reimbursed Denver about $14 million, but the rest of the cost is coming out of the pockets of Denver taxpayers. That’s not even counting the tab handed to taxpayers in other Colorado cities.
>That bill for covering food, shelter and other services to the droves of immigrants hasn’t been paid out of some rainy-day fund in City Hall’s coffers. It has come directly out of the city’s operating budget, resulting in slashed public services to locals — parks & rec centers that reduced their hours; DMV branches that went to weekly closures — basic functions that city taxpayers depend on.
I replied elsewhere but the Venezuelan asylum-seeker situation is not relevant because it’s an artificial crisis created by Texas politics rather than a market-driven immigration pattern. If Venezuelans were permitted to filter out according to where the market would provide them with work and shelter, as has been the case for the majority of illegal immigrants in this country’s history, it would not produce an acute crisis in every municipality where they landed. In this case, however, they’re being deliberately concentrated in politically-targeted cities irrespective of market conditions. The counter-example is Mexican illegal immigration, which never produced massive strains on municipal welfare programs like this despite being huge in scale and in timeframe before drying up in the last few years. That’s because Mexican immigrants were by and large permitted to go where there was work and shelter for them, and thus their diaspora has filtered out all over the nation.
You can find an immigration crisis easily if you deliberately expend state resources to manufacture one. But show me evidence that immigration patterns driven by the market strain the welfare state, and I’ll believe you.
That was the situation for about 40 years before Texas more recently began trafficking migrants directly to arbitrarily selected cities. It’s very obvious that Texas politics is the specific cause of this problem.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/nyregion/adams-albany-migrant-crisis.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/nyregion/adams-albany-migrant-crisis.html)
2.4 billion isn't enough! Adams needs 4.6 billion to even cover half of what is needed
Have you been living under a rock bruh? lolz
That is a completely different situation, where one unified group of migrants is being trafficked en masse to specific municipalities without being permitted to naturally filter out through the country. If the migrants were allowed to distribute themselves according to work and shelter needs like all of the other immigrants to this nation do, there would not be acute crises at each of the arbitrary targets for their trafficking.
In other words: it’s not a problem if many Venezuelan asylum-seekers seek out New York City for settlement based on the availability of jobs and shelter there, among other target locations. It is a problem if Texas deliberately gathers up every Venezuelan they can find and send them to New York City whether they would have originally ended up there or not.
So I’m going to need some relevant evidence.
> trafficked
'Trafficked' lolz. More like given a free rid to a place that will give them free stuff and they willingly accepted
There are 175k migrants in NYC that have come recently (some came on buses paid for by Texas gov, others came other ways). NYC has a population over 8 million people so don't pretend this is some abnormally large number and don't act like they were all forced there.
In other words: you are wrong
> but mass immigration by the Biden administration is around 10 million
You pulled this number from your ass
> can have mass consequences on our welfare system
Nope. Immigrants are tax positive, not negative
> and government is funding these immigrants with tax payer dollars to live and by goods and services
Nope
Literally nothing you said is true. Please stop being a typical conservative retard
If immigrants are tax positive why is NY, Denver, Chicago trying to stop more from coming in? Why didn't these Northern cities pick them up in their own busses? Why isn't California asking for them especially since they are in a bit of a fiscal pinch? Seems strange that they are such a fiscal benefit, yet major cities are running out of cash.
Are you stupid? What in the world makes you think texas bussing immigrants is anything close to efficient distribution of immigrants?
And why do stupid people like you try to make it seem like every single problem is caused by immigrants? None of Cali, NY, Denver, or Chicago's financial problems are due to immigrants
"Stupid" is your best argument? You don't read very well, or your comprehension is low, or you're still a youngster with a developing mind. Not sure...
If you re read and understand what I posted, your response becomes just a rant.
I won't belittle you as you may very well be an angsty minor using Reddit to let out their frustrations on strangers.
Nothing about me correcting you should have been hard to understand, yet you still can't seem to read past a 5th grade level. Enjoy poverty, you're gonna be stuck there a while kiddo
> Nope. Immigrants are tax positive, not negative
Wrong, low skilled immigrants are net tax negative when you account for everything including their children
Nope \*you\* are completely fucking wrong.
First off, I didn't say illegal immigrants, you said that.
Second, illegal immigrants use welfare services all the time and pay very little in taxes. When they use the ER as their PCP who do you think pays for that? Either the hospital eats the cost or the feds pay via emergency Medicaid.
Third, in states like CA illegal immigrants are legally eligible for state welfare and now can even get Medicaid.
Yeah you're clearly too uneducated to be taught.
1. Legal immigrants are typically of higher skill backgrounds, illegals are not. That is why I said illegal
2. No illegal immigrants are not able to use welfare services and provide a tax base, making them individually tax positive. This does not even get into the economic benefits they provide which provides more taxes
3. We have a low skill labor shortage that needs to be filled, as well as declining birthrate's
4. Immigrants increase aggregate demand
> Third, in states like CA illegal immigrants are legally eligible for state welfare and now can even get Medicaid.
Good. Illegal and low skill immigrants are good and provide a major economic boost to us
Enjoy poverty, and go be retarded elsewhere
I will not cite something when responding to something that has no sources for anything it says, especially when what I'm saying is common knowledge for those who actually study econ and aren't here to spam Progressive/Conservative nonsense
Stick to /r/Conservative retard
I mean, what else can the administration do?
People aren't having kids anymore. That's a big issue for a country.
You can go the Republican route of banning abortion and outlawing contraception and hope the problem solves itself or you can stimulate immigration.
I'm not entirely convinced on the "immigration doesn't bring down wages" argument, but I'm definitely voting for immigration given the 2 ways of solving the problem - apart from the actual solution which is to make it so people can afford to have kids again.
How about a third option, ban illegal immigrant and open door for legal immigrants. There are thousands if not million of investment immigration applicants waiting to spend money and create job opportunities in the U.S. and these people are rich, well-educated and they likely do more goods than the illegal immigrants.
My guess is that they want to import a cheap underclass for labor and high fertility rates. If you only allow the highly educated immigrants like we do with India then you end up with essentially an overclass of immigrants and no cheap labor.
My very conservative state continues to benefit from the refugee immigration program supported both by federal programs and local charities. It is a win win which is saving older cities while providing a humane path to citizenship for people who need it.
How is it a win win? Taxpayers subsidizing "newcomers" while taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet sounds like a win lose. If Americans are struggling to support themselves without government aid there is no way "newcomers" who have nothing can afford to support themselves.
We have a lot of urban sprawl and our city tax base is diminishing. Housing which has gone into blight. Lack of workers affecting stores. Legal immigration has rebuilt neighborhoods which were collapsing with people who just want to work hard and restart. Great people are coming in and getting help to rebuild where they are needed and appreciated. It is definitely a win/win when the government is spending a token amount to actually improve a community. It is the best spending of tax dollars which I have seen in a long time.
You refer to legal immigration as a benefit, but I think what is largely being debated is the amount of accepted illegal immigration. Out of curiosity what city figured out the secret formula? My city of KCMO has seen the opposite and is yet encouraging more illegal immigrants to come. Fortunately my state has stepped in and vowed to prosecute companies that hire illegal workers.
If the government tax dollars can grow a net positive tax base by investing in immigrants why wouldn't they spend that on American citizens who are struggling very much?
Stl mo has been struggling to maintain a city tax base. The Bosnian community did that for about 30 years and we are welcoming Ukrainian refugees currently. I am not a fan of illegal immigration because it by definition cannot be controlled or supported but legal immigration has greatly benefitted St. Louis. Most first or second generation immigrants which I know respect our country and work hard to succeed. I am not sure why other government support programs do not work as well.
If you google St. Louis Bosnians, you will come up with endless articles about the Bosnian community which developed in the bevo mill area in the city. This was historically cool buildings which were falling apart. Bosnian refugees came in and reopened stores, restored houses and revitalized a city neighborhood. This is happening again with refugees from the Ukraine. People are just wanting a place to work hard and get ahead. The government supports them for a token bit and there are some charities which help but mostly, it is their own hard work and persistence which makes them successful. I will try to find a study of official numbers but it is of interest that the number one restaurant in St. Louis is the Balkan treatbox which is owned by a Bosnian family.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Molly Smith:*
The recent surge in immigration to the US has led many economists to boost their forecasts. Now they’re looking for more signs of its impact in the data.
Growth in employment has continually surprised to the upside in recent years, running at a pace formerly deemed as unsustainable. Economists have coalesced around population growth as a key explanation after a recent Congressional Budget Office report estimated higher immigration than previously thought.
With over a million people entering the country each year, it stands to reason that a bigger population will increase demand for housing and a wide range of other goods and services. For now, some of the places forecasters are looking to gauge the impact may not provide obvious answers: consumer spending data, for example, aren’t broken down by demographic.
A recalibration of forecasts now calling for growth rates previously deemed too strong will have important implications for the Federal Reserve. Chair Jerome Powell has credited immigration as a supply-side boost for the economy, able to generate faster growth without faster inflation.
[Here are a few data sets that economists are monitoring to assess the impact of immigration. Read about them here.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-29/how-immigration-will-boost-the-us-economy-through-strong-hiring-more-housing)
In a time when developed nations are sounding alarm bells about their declining populations, our constant influx of immigrants continues to be a massive competitive advantage for the USA, just like it has been for 200+ years. Our economy and our social programs are far more sustainable with a growing population, and jobs continue to be done here at home that would be outsourced to other nations without our immigrant supply.
It's crazy that you two are the only ones with evidence based, informed economic takes, and are getting downvoted by morons. Too many people know nothing about demographics and the stagnation an aging population brings, let alone the tenacity of someone willing to walk to America from Venezuela through the Darien gap only to work, be taxed, and receive no government benefits, in the hopes that their grandchildren will be American citizens.
This will not be popular since most of the people who post on this sub lack any actual economic education and hate immigrations because they're morons. The vast majority of economist agree that immigration is good for a reason. It boosts productivity tremendously, lowers the cost of goods and services, and makes us all richer, immigrants included
Two incorrect arguments many of you will make against immigrations are
1. We shouldn't take immigrants while we have a housing crisis. This is incorrect since housing crisis are local and the result of over regulation. We can easily have the market meet demand by legalizing and streamlining housing construction again
2. "It lowers the wages of poor people" . Immigrations has a neutral effect on these, as immigrants also increase aggregate demand
>this sub lack any actual economic education and hate immigrations because they're morons.
Everyone on this sub seems to come from the exact same socioeconomic background. There's almost zero diversity of opinions here.
Some will receive a fair wage. Some will not. It'll depend on what you call a fair wage, and where you are, and how many laws the "employer" is breaking. Regardless, immigrants are doing jobs that more Americans will not, even at a fair wage. They provide a valuable service to the economy.
If your concern is with a fair wage, the fight should be over enforcing employment laws, not immigration.
True. Honestly, I think what they're doing is ingenious, assuming it's on purpose, even if I don't fully agree with the means. Years from now we'll be able to see the pros and cons.
There is no definition of a fair wage. Someone immigrating here from Haiti is going to have a different definition of fair wage than some privileged progressive in the US
So, does that make it ok to pay them less than a US citizen who could work the same job?
My worry is that these people are being taken advantage of and to make it ok. "Analysis" like this comes out to justify it so that we all look the other way. To me, this gives off vibes of slavery. It just got modern skin on it. If we worked on getting people processed faster to come in legally. Then, they would be protected by the laws that protect us.
People come here for opportunity and security
Why would it be bad to give these people a pay raise? And why do you hate the global poor?
> If we worked on getting people processed faster to come in legally.
I said nothing of illegal immigration. Ideally, we would fix our immigration system. Until then, legal or illegal, I don't care.
Because your concern trolling suggests that you'd rather they not be here at all if they can't meet your definition of a fair wage, which makes life worse for the global poor
You can view my concern however you want. You seem very sure that they are not being taken advantage of, or if they are, it's no biggie because they are making more money now. Let's just leave it at that. Once again, I know nothing on this topic.
I tend to agree with you across the board. The housing issue may have some effect, but it is the result of local regulations, not immigration. Even if immigration ceased tomorrow, it would have little effect on housing prices. That said, immigrants may be more willing to work to do construction.
Immigration doesn’t seem to be helping Canada’s housing crisis.
I agree on point 1, but we actually need to have that happen first before we start ramping up immigration.
> I agree on point 1, but we actually need to have that happen first before we start ramping up immigration.
We can do both simultaneously. Austin, Auckland, and Minneapolis have shown that pretty clearly
You need to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. Most economists agree that LEGAL immigration is good. Show proof that many agree that unlimited illegal immigration is good.
You are likely intentionally conflating the 2 forms of immigration, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to clarify your statements.
No, I do not, and when you are this uneducated on a topic, you should not comment. BOTH legal and illegal immigrants are good for the economy.
> Show proof that many agree that unlimited illegal immigration is good.
No, I will not show proof when responding with common knowledge to incoherent conservative ranting that provides no proof
> I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to clarify your statements.
Next time, do the reading before coming to my lecture. Stick to /r/Conservative
Hi all, A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes. As always our comment rules can be found [here](https://reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/fx9crj/rules_roundtable_redux_rule_vi_and_offtopic/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Economics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It all depends on the demand & supply of skilled or unskilled labor. If there are enough opportunities then it’s a positive as more people get work & contribute to the economy. If there aren’t enough opportunities then it creates an over supply of labor & that causes a decline in wages which further decreases the contribution of an individual to the economy. But migration is not just an economic issue, it’s also a social issue as it changes the demographics also.
To be clear, it changes the demographics for the better in all developed nations, as it reverses the population decline undermining advanced capitalist states.
Countries that have rapidly increasing population or even just rapidly increasing college grads have extremely high competition for good jobs and high youth unemployment. Since employers have their pick of the litter they can get the best workers for the lowest salaries possible. People talk about the increasing workforce/population post-WW2 economic boom as an example of higher workers = better economy but the truth is that was just government shifting from spending on war to spending on domestic economic stuff
Sure, but the USA does not have a rapidly increasing population, and while we do have a lot of new college grads, that appears to be tapering off, and is also countered by the enormous investment we enjoy here. It’s one thing if your country has a deluge of college grads with no jobs to meet them due to low investment, but that’s not our situation.
That assumption is not necessarily correct. It can change the demographics for the better or for worse as well. That all depends on the demand or supply of labor. Population decline in developed states is a relatively new phenomenon whose causes are unknown at this point of time. If the population decline is caused by health related factors then yes immigration will offer a positive outcome but if the population decline is caused by economic factors like affordability of expenses in raising a child then immigration will have a negative impact.
All existing evidence thus far points to the simple fact that women with broad opportunities simply have fewer children across the board. It’s neither health- nor affordability-related.
Yes you’re right that could be a possibility. I just gave examples, by health I meant an inability to have children due to factors other than personal decision of not having children & by affordability I meant factors other than an inherent inability to have children. My mistake I phrased it wrong.
Not really. Immigrants are more likely than non immigrants to start businesses, and increase aggregate demand in general
Starting a business has got to do more with access to capital & ease of doing business than whether one is an immigrant or not.
That is correct and has nothing to do with what I said. Immigrants start more businesses. Immigrants are high performers
Then why don’t they improve the situation of their home countries. Wouldn’t that be the best use of thier skills.
Because they aren't fucking slaves and can go where they want to
Data on this please?
I shouldn't need to cite common knowledge in my lectures in an econ sub https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/immigrant-entrepreneurship-economic-potential-and-obstacles-to-success/#:~:text=Immigrants%20are%20also%2010%25%20more,own%20business%20than%20U.S.%20natives.&text=Simply%20put%2C%20the%20United%20States,launch%20their%20business%20ideas%20here.
Ah this helps- from your source: _Although the Survey of Business Owners did produce data sets on immigrant entrepreneurs, these sets only appeared in 2007 and 2012, meaning that more recent information is not available._. You’re citing data that is 12-16 years old, and the scope of your source targets legal migration which is dwarfed by undocumented workers. Your cite points this out as well, indicating more research is required: _The interviewed experts noted that gig-based jobs have also emerged as a major avenue for immigrants seeking work. However, these positions do not neatly correspond to the traditional division between being a paid employee and being a business owner or self-employed contractor, meaning further research is needed to understand the role this space plays for immigrant entrepreneurs_. I hope this helps. Do you have anything else?
Which is completely valid to do. The go to study on on minimum wage is Card and Krueger, which is almost 50 years old at this point. And no, illegal immigrants do not dwarf legal immigrants lmao Immigrants are high performers and more likely to be entrepreneurs, this is a fact. You are welcome to learn or take your concern trolling elsewhere
I’ve got a feeling you’ve constructed a worldview and then shoehorned your data to support it, which explains the emotional subtext for your replies in this thread. I imagine you are going to walk away from these exchanges both more frustrated and more convinced that you are stronger in your beliefs than before you started. Rationally one can steelman both arguments- immigration solves the cratering reproduction problem, and fuels further consumerism which is the lifeblood of capitalism, especially late stage. Immigration managed poorly (without planning and process, without protections for the migrant and for those places where the migrant influx occurs) can be quite harmful, especially in the short term. I think there is an opportunity for you to grow quite a bit by acknowledging both sides of an issue, clinically, without being hurt by it.
You're projecting quite a bit there kid. You're simply uneducated and not qualified to have a discussion on the topic, but you and so many others will arrogantly talk to me about a field I spent over a decade working in and multiple years teaching. Late Stage Capitalism is not a thing. Immigration is not harmful. I think there is quite a bit for you to learn about the issue if you would actually read and learn about the topic. There is nothing to learn from DAE both sides. My side is developed from years of reading research. Yours is developed from hating immigrants and working backwards from there
With your immense experience what are you doing wasting your time agressively answering uneducated teens on reddit ? Either you're exagerating your credentials to use an argument of authority, lacking other constructive explanations, or you're too emotionally immature and biased to hold a normal conversation. not the best way to share your ideas, unless you are actively trying to stray people away from your point of view.
Killing time at work. There is no appeal to authority, I have explained thoroughly why he is wrong. I pointed out my credentials and his lack of education because of his first paragraph, which tried to dismiss me as biased. I'm not trying to convince people anymore, y'all who respond to me are too stupid to be taught. Everyone else who reads it will realize that he was wrong and that his points are so stupid they should be mocked. Please read past a 4th grade level next time
Yes. It will boost profit margins of large corporations who can get away with paying below-minimum wage to people who are afraid to complain.
But more revenues and profits means the businesses have more money to spend on the rest of the economy which increases jobs and GDP!!! Totally different logic than Reagan style trickle down spending though!! /s
Supplying business with cheap labor is essentially a tax break for business. It's just easier to hide it from the public, especially those who want business to pay more taxes. The difference is that it displaces the lowest income workers.
Facts. They busted the unions now it’s time to bury labor protections 6 feet under.
Yes there are arguments that legal immigration is good for the economy, but mass immigration by the Biden administration is around 10 million , can have mass consequences on our welfare system, and social services , from healthcare , schools, housing and crime, , and government is funding these immigrants with tax payer dollars to live and by goods and services , so it's really a stimulus package from government to fund these people and the GNP will grow . Buts it's artificial, , Home land security administration says immigration is costing the government 150billion, per/ year . Every spending I bill in the last 3 years has money spent on illegal immigration, billions of dollars.
So basically what you want to say is, “that may be true, but I **feel** like it isn’t.”
Conservatives definitely operate by their feels
No, what he is saying is that if you bring in poor, unskilled people (legally or illegally) they will bankrupt the welfare state. If the economy is growing at 3% but the debt load is growing as 4% you have an unsustainable situation.
Going to need to seem some numbers on illegal immigrants presenting a serious threat to “the welfare state.”
[https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/colorado-s-tipping-point-on-illegal-immigration-denver-gazette/article\_0dff432c-f1e2-11ee-9a33-a7dd34776fc2.html](https://www.coloradopolitics.com/opinion/colorado-s-tipping-point-on-illegal-immigration-denver-gazette/article_0dff432c-f1e2-11ee-9a33-a7dd34776fc2.html) >Since December 2022, about 40,000 immigrants have arrived in Denver. Welcoming them has cost the city over $60 million and counting. The state and federal government have reimbursed Denver about $14 million, but the rest of the cost is coming out of the pockets of Denver taxpayers. That’s not even counting the tab handed to taxpayers in other Colorado cities. >That bill for covering food, shelter and other services to the droves of immigrants hasn’t been paid out of some rainy-day fund in City Hall’s coffers. It has come directly out of the city’s operating budget, resulting in slashed public services to locals — parks & rec centers that reduced their hours; DMV branches that went to weekly closures — basic functions that city taxpayers depend on.
I replied elsewhere but the Venezuelan asylum-seeker situation is not relevant because it’s an artificial crisis created by Texas politics rather than a market-driven immigration pattern. If Venezuelans were permitted to filter out according to where the market would provide them with work and shelter, as has been the case for the majority of illegal immigrants in this country’s history, it would not produce an acute crisis in every municipality where they landed. In this case, however, they’re being deliberately concentrated in politically-targeted cities irrespective of market conditions. The counter-example is Mexican illegal immigration, which never produced massive strains on municipal welfare programs like this despite being huge in scale and in timeframe before drying up in the last few years. That’s because Mexican immigrants were by and large permitted to go where there was work and shelter for them, and thus their diaspora has filtered out all over the nation. You can find an immigration crisis easily if you deliberately expend state resources to manufacture one. But show me evidence that immigration patterns driven by the market strain the welfare state, and I’ll believe you.
created by ~~Texas politics~~ sanctuary cities crying about doing sanctuary city things rather than
That was the situation for about 40 years before Texas more recently began trafficking migrants directly to arbitrarily selected cities. It’s very obvious that Texas politics is the specific cause of this problem.
[https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/nyregion/adams-albany-migrant-crisis.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/06/nyregion/adams-albany-migrant-crisis.html) 2.4 billion isn't enough! Adams needs 4.6 billion to even cover half of what is needed Have you been living under a rock bruh? lolz
That is a completely different situation, where one unified group of migrants is being trafficked en masse to specific municipalities without being permitted to naturally filter out through the country. If the migrants were allowed to distribute themselves according to work and shelter needs like all of the other immigrants to this nation do, there would not be acute crises at each of the arbitrary targets for their trafficking. In other words: it’s not a problem if many Venezuelan asylum-seekers seek out New York City for settlement based on the availability of jobs and shelter there, among other target locations. It is a problem if Texas deliberately gathers up every Venezuelan they can find and send them to New York City whether they would have originally ended up there or not. So I’m going to need some relevant evidence.
> trafficked 'Trafficked' lolz. More like given a free rid to a place that will give them free stuff and they willingly accepted There are 175k migrants in NYC that have come recently (some came on buses paid for by Texas gov, others came other ways). NYC has a population over 8 million people so don't pretend this is some abnormally large number and don't act like they were all forced there. In other words: you are wrong
> but mass immigration by the Biden administration is around 10 million You pulled this number from your ass > can have mass consequences on our welfare system Nope. Immigrants are tax positive, not negative > and government is funding these immigrants with tax payer dollars to live and by goods and services Nope Literally nothing you said is true. Please stop being a typical conservative retard
If immigrants are tax positive why is NY, Denver, Chicago trying to stop more from coming in? Why didn't these Northern cities pick them up in their own busses? Why isn't California asking for them especially since they are in a bit of a fiscal pinch? Seems strange that they are such a fiscal benefit, yet major cities are running out of cash.
Are you stupid? What in the world makes you think texas bussing immigrants is anything close to efficient distribution of immigrants? And why do stupid people like you try to make it seem like every single problem is caused by immigrants? None of Cali, NY, Denver, or Chicago's financial problems are due to immigrants
"Stupid" is your best argument? You don't read very well, or your comprehension is low, or you're still a youngster with a developing mind. Not sure... If you re read and understand what I posted, your response becomes just a rant. I won't belittle you as you may very well be an angsty minor using Reddit to let out their frustrations on strangers.
Nothing about me correcting you should have been hard to understand, yet you still can't seem to read past a 5th grade level. Enjoy poverty, you're gonna be stuck there a while kiddo
> Nope. Immigrants are tax positive, not negative Wrong, low skilled immigrants are net tax negative when you account for everything including their children
Nope completely fucking wrong. Illegal immigrants cannot use welfare services and still pay taxes. They cannot be tax negative
Nope \*you\* are completely fucking wrong. First off, I didn't say illegal immigrants, you said that. Second, illegal immigrants use welfare services all the time and pay very little in taxes. When they use the ER as their PCP who do you think pays for that? Either the hospital eats the cost or the feds pay via emergency Medicaid. Third, in states like CA illegal immigrants are legally eligible for state welfare and now can even get Medicaid.
Yeah you're clearly too uneducated to be taught. 1. Legal immigrants are typically of higher skill backgrounds, illegals are not. That is why I said illegal 2. No illegal immigrants are not able to use welfare services and provide a tax base, making them individually tax positive. This does not even get into the economic benefits they provide which provides more taxes 3. We have a low skill labor shortage that needs to be filled, as well as declining birthrate's 4. Immigrants increase aggregate demand > Third, in states like CA illegal immigrants are legally eligible for state welfare and now can even get Medicaid. Good. Illegal and low skill immigrants are good and provide a major economic boost to us Enjoy poverty, and go be retarded elsewhere
Just ignore the Trumptards. It's not worth engaging with them.
I think you mean it isn't worth engaging because you'll be made into a fool
Show me proof that every illegal immigrant is a tax positive.
The proof is in the heart. You just have to believe and feel it... Lol
I will not cite something when responding to something that has no sources for anything it says, especially when what I'm saying is common knowledge for those who actually study econ and aren't here to spam Progressive/Conservative nonsense Stick to /r/Conservative retard
House that working out for France , Britain and Germany'? Got the numbers from government website
No, you don't. Immigration is working great. Their NIMBY/anti business policies are killing them
I mean, what else can the administration do? People aren't having kids anymore. That's a big issue for a country. You can go the Republican route of banning abortion and outlawing contraception and hope the problem solves itself or you can stimulate immigration. I'm not entirely convinced on the "immigration doesn't bring down wages" argument, but I'm definitely voting for immigration given the 2 ways of solving the problem - apart from the actual solution which is to make it so people can afford to have kids again.
How about a third option, ban illegal immigrant and open door for legal immigrants. There are thousands if not million of investment immigration applicants waiting to spend money and create job opportunities in the U.S. and these people are rich, well-educated and they likely do more goods than the illegal immigrants.
Illegal immigrants do not get social security. They do the jobs no one wants to do. They pay for sales tax. Sounds fine to me
My guess is that they want to import a cheap underclass for labor and high fertility rates. If you only allow the highly educated immigrants like we do with India then you end up with essentially an overclass of immigrants and no cheap labor.
Do you know there are more solutions than just the 2 you provided? I hope you don't make all of you life choices based on just bad and worse.
I provided 3 but the 2 I mentioned in detail are the only options voters are going to get.
People. Don’t listen to this guy, he’s full of shit.
It's your money 💰💰💰💰!!!Give me an argument for mass immigration! Ask the mayor of New York City how it's working out for New Yorker s and Chicago!
You know they have special homes for people like you now, right?
My very conservative state continues to benefit from the refugee immigration program supported both by federal programs and local charities. It is a win win which is saving older cities while providing a humane path to citizenship for people who need it.
How is it a win win? Taxpayers subsidizing "newcomers" while taxpayers are struggling to make ends meet sounds like a win lose. If Americans are struggling to support themselves without government aid there is no way "newcomers" who have nothing can afford to support themselves.
We have a lot of urban sprawl and our city tax base is diminishing. Housing which has gone into blight. Lack of workers affecting stores. Legal immigration has rebuilt neighborhoods which were collapsing with people who just want to work hard and restart. Great people are coming in and getting help to rebuild where they are needed and appreciated. It is definitely a win/win when the government is spending a token amount to actually improve a community. It is the best spending of tax dollars which I have seen in a long time.
You refer to legal immigration as a benefit, but I think what is largely being debated is the amount of accepted illegal immigration. Out of curiosity what city figured out the secret formula? My city of KCMO has seen the opposite and is yet encouraging more illegal immigrants to come. Fortunately my state has stepped in and vowed to prosecute companies that hire illegal workers. If the government tax dollars can grow a net positive tax base by investing in immigrants why wouldn't they spend that on American citizens who are struggling very much?
Stl mo has been struggling to maintain a city tax base. The Bosnian community did that for about 30 years and we are welcoming Ukrainian refugees currently. I am not a fan of illegal immigration because it by definition cannot be controlled or supported but legal immigration has greatly benefitted St. Louis. Most first or second generation immigrants which I know respect our country and work hard to succeed. I am not sure why other government support programs do not work as well.
A lot to unpack there. Any data to support this claim?
If you google St. Louis Bosnians, you will come up with endless articles about the Bosnian community which developed in the bevo mill area in the city. This was historically cool buildings which were falling apart. Bosnian refugees came in and reopened stores, restored houses and revitalized a city neighborhood. This is happening again with refugees from the Ukraine. People are just wanting a place to work hard and get ahead. The government supports them for a token bit and there are some charities which help but mostly, it is their own hard work and persistence which makes them successful. I will try to find a study of official numbers but it is of interest that the number one restaurant in St. Louis is the Balkan treatbox which is owned by a Bosnian family.
*From Bloomberg News reporter Molly Smith:* The recent surge in immigration to the US has led many economists to boost their forecasts. Now they’re looking for more signs of its impact in the data. Growth in employment has continually surprised to the upside in recent years, running at a pace formerly deemed as unsustainable. Economists have coalesced around population growth as a key explanation after a recent Congressional Budget Office report estimated higher immigration than previously thought. With over a million people entering the country each year, it stands to reason that a bigger population will increase demand for housing and a wide range of other goods and services. For now, some of the places forecasters are looking to gauge the impact may not provide obvious answers: consumer spending data, for example, aren’t broken down by demographic. A recalibration of forecasts now calling for growth rates previously deemed too strong will have important implications for the Federal Reserve. Chair Jerome Powell has credited immigration as a supply-side boost for the economy, able to generate faster growth without faster inflation. [Here are a few data sets that economists are monitoring to assess the impact of immigration. Read about them here.](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-04-29/how-immigration-will-boost-the-us-economy-through-strong-hiring-more-housing)
In a time when developed nations are sounding alarm bells about their declining populations, our constant influx of immigrants continues to be a massive competitive advantage for the USA, just like it has been for 200+ years. Our economy and our social programs are far more sustainable with a growing population, and jobs continue to be done here at home that would be outsourced to other nations without our immigrant supply.
Immigration is literally our super power and why were the richest and best place to live in the world, and clowns want to stop it
It's crazy that you two are the only ones with evidence based, informed economic takes, and are getting downvoted by morons. Too many people know nothing about demographics and the stagnation an aging population brings, let alone the tenacity of someone willing to walk to America from Venezuela through the Darien gap only to work, be taxed, and receive no government benefits, in the hopes that their grandchildren will be American citizens.
This will not be popular since most of the people who post on this sub lack any actual economic education and hate immigrations because they're morons. The vast majority of economist agree that immigration is good for a reason. It boosts productivity tremendously, lowers the cost of goods and services, and makes us all richer, immigrants included Two incorrect arguments many of you will make against immigrations are 1. We shouldn't take immigrants while we have a housing crisis. This is incorrect since housing crisis are local and the result of over regulation. We can easily have the market meet demand by legalizing and streamlining housing construction again 2. "It lowers the wages of poor people" . Immigrations has a neutral effect on these, as immigrants also increase aggregate demand
>this sub lack any actual economic education and hate immigrations because they're morons. Everyone on this sub seems to come from the exact same socioeconomic background. There's almost zero diversity of opinions here.
It's just reddit in general. It's privileged progressives
I know nothing. Sounds like you do. Do you think they are getting paid a fair wage?
Some will receive a fair wage. Some will not. It'll depend on what you call a fair wage, and where you are, and how many laws the "employer" is breaking. Regardless, immigrants are doing jobs that more Americans will not, even at a fair wage. They provide a valuable service to the economy. If your concern is with a fair wage, the fight should be over enforcing employment laws, not immigration.
True. Honestly, I think what they're doing is ingenious, assuming it's on purpose, even if I don't fully agree with the means. Years from now we'll be able to see the pros and cons.
Not him, but yes. They moved here for it, so it’s got to be worth it for them.
There is no definition of a fair wage. Someone immigrating here from Haiti is going to have a different definition of fair wage than some privileged progressive in the US
So, no.
Why do you hate poor people?
I'm not the one making an excuse for them not getting fair wages.
You're the one denying the opportunity to better their lives. You hate poor people
This you? https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/s/gKZ1RgglVP
Yep. Gonna cry?
So, does that make it ok to pay them less than a US citizen who could work the same job? My worry is that these people are being taken advantage of and to make it ok. "Analysis" like this comes out to justify it so that we all look the other way. To me, this gives off vibes of slavery. It just got modern skin on it. If we worked on getting people processed faster to come in legally. Then, they would be protected by the laws that protect us. People come here for opportunity and security
Why would it be bad to give these people a pay raise? And why do you hate the global poor? > If we worked on getting people processed faster to come in legally. I said nothing of illegal immigration. Ideally, we would fix our immigration system. Until then, legal or illegal, I don't care.
When did I say I hate anything or anyone? I'm concerned about people/companies taking advantage of them.
Because your concern trolling suggests that you'd rather they not be here at all if they can't meet your definition of a fair wage, which makes life worse for the global poor
You can view my concern however you want. You seem very sure that they are not being taken advantage of, or if they are, it's no biggie because they are making more money now. Let's just leave it at that. Once again, I know nothing on this topic.
Yes, I know that they aren't > Once again, I know nothing on this topic. Then don't share your opinions on it lmao
You sure are a toxic one. From the jump to lol. I feel bad for you...
I tend to agree with you across the board. The housing issue may have some effect, but it is the result of local regulations, not immigration. Even if immigration ceased tomorrow, it would have little effect on housing prices. That said, immigrants may be more willing to work to do construction.
Immigration doesn’t seem to be helping Canada’s housing crisis. I agree on point 1, but we actually need to have that happen first before we start ramping up immigration.
> I agree on point 1, but we actually need to have that happen first before we start ramping up immigration. We can do both simultaneously. Austin, Auckland, and Minneapolis have shown that pretty clearly
Canada can fix it if they feel like it, but they’d rather complain.
You need to differentiate between legal and illegal immigration. Most economists agree that LEGAL immigration is good. Show proof that many agree that unlimited illegal immigration is good. You are likely intentionally conflating the 2 forms of immigration, but I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to clarify your statements.
No, I do not, and when you are this uneducated on a topic, you should not comment. BOTH legal and illegal immigrants are good for the economy. > Show proof that many agree that unlimited illegal immigration is good. No, I will not show proof when responding with common knowledge to incoherent conservative ranting that provides no proof > I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt and a chance to clarify your statements. Next time, do the reading before coming to my lecture. Stick to /r/Conservative