4 ms·
Finally, a nice uncontroversial subject amenable to logic and data. You either believe: 1. That a person is good for the country because they work, earn, spen
by projectramo 9y ago
Finally, a nice uncontroversial subject amenable to logic and data.
You either believe:
1. That a person is good for the country because they work, earn, spend and contribute to productivity.
2. They are taking a job that would have otherwise gone to an American, and are transferring money from laborers to the corporation.
It seems to be a matter for economic theory. What do studies show? Does a worker produce as many high paying jobs as they displace?
It seems odd that we aren't pulling out references, debating over statistics and methodology and so on. There is an actual answer to the question: does immigration add to productivity or reduce consumption. (Both you say? Great, show me a study!)
- dragonwriter 9y ago> It seems to be a matter for economic theory No, it's mostly a matter of disagreement on fundamental values, not about whether the factual effects of the policy are in line with or opposed to an agreed set of values.
- projectramo 9y agoThat’s just false. That would be true only if the “factual effects” were agreed upon. Let me give you an example: Pro immigration advocates claim immigration will increase US jobs. So do anti immigration activists.
- dragonwriter 9y ago> That would be true only if the “factual effects” were agreed upon. No, he fact that there is a conflict of values which includes a fundamental disagreement on which facts are relevant and how the same facts would weigh in desirability is true independent of whether there is agreement on the facts of the economic effects of immigration (there isn't, but the fact remains that the dispute on policy is largely not about facts, but goals.)