5 ms·

The income of low-income workers is spent back into the economy, allowing more people to be employed providing the goods that were purchased. This means it at l

The income of low-income workers is spent back into the economy, allowing more people to be employed providing the goods that were purchased. This means it at least breaks even. Since it stands to reason that the individual immigrant will benefit from immigrating with a higher income, it is also stands to reason that this income being spent would be greater than if they had stayed where they were.

ergothus 11y ago
That's a net effect - more workers == more work getting done, but doesn't address the general fears of "taking OUR jobs" that I've seen debunked but never really understood. If I'm a minimum wage worker and you increase the pool of minimum wage workers - sure, more jobs will be filled, more money in the economy, but if _I_ can't get a job due to market saturation, my situation is worse regardless. Again, I'm FOR liberal immigration policies, in general, but I've been told the above fear doesn't play out (overall), and I don't understand why.
tenpies 11y ago
> The income of low-income workers is spent back into the economy I think this statement vastly underestimates how much money is remitted back home by foreign workers - even low-income workers. In Canada, we lose about 24 billion USD every year this way [1]. --- [1] http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sending-remittances-low-dollar-1.3404145 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/sending-remittances-low-doll...