A Question on Immigration and Employment - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

#14863707
Virtually all economists acknowledge that immigrants do in fact displace native workers, the pro immigration claim is that native workers find better jobs and that immigration is a net positive for everyone.

Here are the facts -

"19% of workers make less than $12.50 per hour, 32% of workers make between $12.50 and $20 per hour"

"51 percent of U.S. workers in 2014 made less than $2,500 a month before taxes"


My question is simple: Where are all these great new jobs?
#14864810
Doesn't matter what happened to them, it doesn't matter if immigration has nothing to do with it. The fact is most displaced workers didn't find better jobs so the pro immigration claim is just bunk.
#14866503
Sivad wrote:Virtually all economists acknowledge that immigrants do in fact displace native workers, the pro immigration claim is that native workers find better jobs and that immigration is a net positive for everyone.

Here are the facts -

"19% of workers make less than $12.50 per hour, 32% of workers make between $12.50 and $20 per hour"

"51 percent of U.S. workers in 2014 made less than $2,500 a month before taxes"


My question is simple: Where are all these great new jobs?


Probably from assumptions of the model through which they've percolated the data - carefully obscured with mathiness (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathiness).
#14866505
"Presenting a model is like doing a card trick. Everybody knows that there will be some sleight of hand. There is no intent to deceive because no one takes it seriously. Perhaps our norms will soon be like those in professional magic; it will be impolite, perhaps even an ethical breach, to reveal how someone’s trick works."
#14866989
Rugoz wrote:Clearly we should stop having children because they take away the jobs of the grown-ups.

And conversely there is the question if natural population growth has a positive economic impact per capita. Looking at countries with high birth rates I would say this is clearly not necessarily the case. I think if the distribution of skills/qualifications are similar to that which natural population growth would have produced, the impact should by and large be neutral.
#14867174
Kaiserschmarrn wrote:And conversely there is the question if natural population growth has a positive economic impact per capita. Looking at countries with high birth rates I would say this is clearly not necessarily the case.


Theoretically population growth has a negative impact on per capita income since a share of income has to be invested to accumulate capital for the new population. That said, population growth in the industrialized world is generally so small that this is hardly of practical relevance*. Moreover, you could argue more people will create more innovations which should theoretically have a positive effect on growth. Again, of little relevance given billions of people in the developing world will contribute in the future.

*many countries also have an abundance of savings which are being exported instead of invested domestically, such as Germany.

Show me the Money!" We had a saying in N[…]

Potemkin. Um no. NASA has proven there are planet[…]

You won't hear it in MSM https://www.facebook.com[…]

The Deep Thinks of Hong Wu

You left out the part about the laziness to learn[…]