Immigration won't hurt jobs, but we need government spending to create more jobs?? - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

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

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15164541
Something I could never understand, those on the Left insist that bringing in lots more people from other countries will not negatively impact the job market and economy, but at the same time those on the Left support more government spending to create jobs, as the solution to economic problems.

Don't both of these positions seem a little inconsistent and at odds with each other?

Could someone please try to explain to me how you can logically hold both positions?

If you believe "government spending is needed to create more jobs", aren't you admitting there are not enough jobs?? How does it make sense to be spending more government money to create jobs, while at the same time adding more people?
#15168138
Logically? You cannot hold these two positions. Government spending which creates jobs only looks appealing if you ignore the fact that the private sector would have created its own jobs had it retained its money rather than pay taxes.
#15168139
Puffer Fish wrote:
Don't both of these positions seem a little inconsistent and at odds with each other?



Nope.

Immigrants add a lot to an economy. Just look at where American Nobel winners were born. For a lot of them, it wasn't Poughkeepsie...

I've written this about a hundred times. Government investment enabling the economy has been an essential part of capitalism since the development of economic competition between capitalist economies.

England was investing in R&D, infrastructure, health and other stuff in the 1800s.

The competition is even fiercer now.
#15168144
libertasbella wrote:Logically? You cannot hold these two positions. Government spending which creates jobs only looks appealing if you ignore the fact that the private sector would have created its own jobs had it retained its money rather than pay taxes.


Not exactly. If the government invests that money in creating jobs in a space that is meant as path clearing for private industry, it can help plant the seeds for massive job creation through the private sector. This is exactly what happened with fracking (Government spend money to develop fracking methods when private industry was scared to try), GPS (government spend money to develop the space program when private industry was scared to try), internet (government again), nuclear power generation (government), solar energy (government).

In other words the government has a strong history of laying the foundations for which private enterprise moves in to create jobs. IN other words, the private sector needs to the government to pave the way for them.
#15168199
Puffer Fish wrote:Something I could never understand, those on the Left insist that bringing in lots more people from other countries will not negatively impact the job market and economy, but at the same time those on the Left support more government spending to create jobs, as the solution to economic problems.

Don't both of these positions seem a little inconsistent and at odds with each other?

Could someone please try to explain to me how you can logically hold both positions?

If you believe "government spending is needed to create more jobs", aren't you admitting there are not enough jobs?? How does it make sense to be spending more government money to create jobs, while at the same time adding more people?


In my neck of the woods the majority of blu collar work is done by Hispanics. That was not the case 30 years ago. This is even affecting construction contractors as I now see many Hispanic firms that compete quite well with Anglo contractors for remodeling jobs. I actually like it as it is capitalism, however, at the same time the workers mostly displace other minorities.

Nevertheless, people of European extraction do not reproduce very well and immigration will always be needed.
#15168202
late wrote:Nope.

Immigrants add a lot to an economy. Just look at where American Nobel winners were born. For a lot of them, it wasn't Poughkeepsie...

I've written this about a hundred times. Government investment enabling the economy has been an essential part of capitalism since the development of economic competition between capitalist economies.

England was investing in R&D, infrastructure, health and other stuff in the 1800s.

The competition is even fiercer now.


People in the UK will hire a Romanian plumber over a British plumber any day of the week because the Romanian charges less.

However, I believe you are correct. I do not disagree with R&D which mostly creates work for citizens.
#15168203
Immigration will not hurt the job market. Employers realize that they can find foreign talent and it is like adding spice to a boring dish. You need the spice or who wants to eat the dish?

The left wants to stimulate the economy because it has been hit hard due to pandemic conditions. Record numbers of women have quit their jobs in the US to take care of loved ones. I forget the number but I was shocked and appalled. It has not been like this since the 1950s or 1960s. It is like women are taking several steps back and putting their careers on hold. Darn pandemic! :*(

So fewer people can actually pay taxes. Recovery will be slow and ongoing.
#15168248
libertasbella wrote:Logically? You cannot hold these two positions. Government spending which creates jobs only looks appealing if you ignore the fact that the private sector would have created its own jobs had it retained its money rather than pay taxes.

This was true in the EU & EZ, because there the national Gov. could only deficit spend up to the 60% limit in the debt/GDP ratio. Now they are ignoring the debt rules, but are threatening to start enforcing them soon. Strangly, they didn't realize that the main way to increase the GDP is with deficit spending. Or, by exportig more than you import. But, by definition, it is not possible for all nations or even over half of nations to export more than they import. Also, in the EZ, German baanks need to lend their profits to people of the emporting nations so they cn buy more German made stuff.
. . This is fine until it stops. When the lending stops, suddenly, incomes in the borrowing nation drop, they reduces its GDP; this triggers the debt limit rules which cause the Gov. to tax more and spend less; this cuts incomes more. This is a trap that the US was in in 1929, the only way out fot FDR ws massive deficit spending. BUT, in the EU& EZ massive deficit spending it against the rules (especially, when they were already cutting sppending to reduuce the debt/GDP ratio). Strangly, only MMTers saw his result in the 1990s. They warned Europeanss that this would happen and it did after 2008. This whole series of events proves the essential truth of MMT. I.e., that reasonable deficit spending is absolutely necessary for almost all nations to have a growing GDP. With a constant (let alone falling) money supply, the *only* way the GDP to grow, is for the velocoty of money in the economy to increse; and obviously there is a limit to how fast money can circulate in an economy. No matter what tech is created to let money circulate faster, very soon the speed of circulation stabalizes until new tech is created. Obviously, new tech has not and will not be creaed fast enough forever. It is a good thing that fiat currencies have removed the only cap on Gov. deficit spending,i.e. the need to have gold to back all the cash in the naation.
. . Note, now there is no cap on the so-called "national debt", that is just the money fed over the centuries or decades into the economy to let GDP grow. It can grow without limit as long as it doesn't cause inflation. This why deficit spending must be kept to 'reasonble' levels. Generally, this is the total of leakages (savings & trade deficit) and a little more to let the GDP grow. Just replacing the leakages is not enough to allow GDP growth.

So, MMT has proven that nations like the US, Aust., NZ, Japan, etc. should deficit to replace the money that "leaks" out of the economy. That the 2 main leakages are savings and a foreign trade deficit. The deficit spending gives income to people without reducing anyone's income with taxes. If bonds were sold and remain held by the provate sector, the money is only what would have been saved anyway. If the Fed. buys the bonds, then the money is created out of thin air by the Fed. to buy them. [Like I explained in anoher recent thread, we really should not include money yhr gov. owes the ed. Soc. Sec. Admin., or othe US Gov. agencies because, even corps and people can't owe themselves money. Why should it be possible for the Gov. to do this impossible thing?
.
#15168324
I don't think you can say whether immigration is good or not. There are consequences, some good and some bad. For the migrant it is good because he can live better than at home. It is good for the employer because it is easier to get cheap workers who do not care too much about working conditions. Not so good for the local workforce, because average wages are reduced by cheap migrants. Not good for the migrants' home countries, because talented workers leave for a richer country and miss their jobs in the home labour market. Therefore, the countries of origin are permanently stuck in poverty, causing more people to leave.

The government's efforts to create new jobs are designed to grow the economy and increase tax revenue for the state through more jobs.
#15168332
Puffer Fish wrote:Something I could never understand, those on the Left insist that bringing in lots more people from other countries will not negatively impact the job market and economy, but at the same time those on the Left support more government spending to create jobs, as the solution to economic problems.

Don't both of these positions seem a little inconsistent and at odds with each other?

Could someone please try to explain to me how you can logically hold both positions?

If you believe "government spending is needed to create more jobs", aren't you admitting there are not enough jobs?? How does it make sense to be spending more government money to create jobs, while at the same time adding more people?


Easy. Immigrants do either skilled jobs we do not have enough skilled workforce for and they do jobs that ordinary Brits refuse to do. We once had more vacant jobs in care than people on unemployment. I doubt that is still the case now but it was once before. One argument that I agree with was that people working in care aren't paid enough given the job they do. But another point is people don't like doing it and Immigrants see it as a way to earn money when moving to the UK as that opportunity isn't taken by Brits.

As for the need to create jobs, that is down to stopping stagnation in growth. If people aren't working they aren't spending. You can make the argument that if jobs in care are available people should be forced to do them I suspect, but people do refuse to do them due to their high stress levels and low pay in any case and they would refuse to do them whatever the punishment and it doesn't fix the problem in any case as you have to be a person of trust to work in care. What does fix the problem is Immigrants and job creation to keep everyone happy - you know, the voters.
#15168691
B0ycey wrote:Immigrants do either skilled jobs we do not have enough skilled workforce for and they do jobs that ordinary Brits refuse to do. One argument that I agree with was that people working in care aren't paid enough given the job they do. But another point is people don't like doing it and Immigrants see it as a way to earn money when moving to the UK as that opportunity isn't taken by Brits.

part of that issue is dealt with in this thread:
"Not enough young workers"
viewtopic.php?f=9&t=179149
#15169765
Rancid wrote:Immigration can certainly hurt the job market. It depresses wages. It can depress wages below a livable wage.

I agree!
Seriously, in my neck of the woods 99% of the construction workers are Hispanics. And now there several Hispanic owned home remodeling businesses that will consistently outbid Anglo owned construction firms.
#15169816
Julian658 wrote:I agree!
Seriously, in my neck of the woods 99% of the construction workers are Hispanics. And now there several Hispanic owned home remodeling businesses that will consistently outbid Anglo owned construction firms.


Immigration is kinda complicated. Yes it does depress wages if it is done without check but on the other hand it aliviates problems with manpower shortages and especially this is relevant in very knowledge intensive professions. People simply don't understand that this is the perhaps the foundation of the Western economies. Reality is that Europe and US along with some other places suck out massive amount of manpower from the developing and the underdeveloped world. Yes, it brings low paying workers but also it brings a lot more of the heavily educated. The ones that immigrate first are not very poor people but usually the more richer ones.

Those heavily educated in high paying jobs produce crazy amount of value that goes far beyond just monetary value to the individual, state or businesses. An example of this is the Pfizer vaccine of sorts, you don't need to look far. Not to mention the heavily educated that arrived already were educated by other countries education systems so we don't pay for it nor do we pay for them when they were children.
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]