4 ms·

> promising their citizens that they will bring back the "good old times" Are they wrong? Low-skilled immigration seems like the worst possible idea at a time

> promising their citizens that they will bring back the "good old times" Are they wrong? Low-skilled immigration seems like the worst possible idea at a time when millions of low skilled locals are going to be out of work. With no net immigration most western countries are slowly shrinking which would help a fair bit as well.

Clubber 9y ago
There are many facets to this debate that aren't discussed in the news. One is that without immigration, the population of the US would decrease based on birth / death rates. If the population of the US decreases, social security and other social programs become insolvent. In other words, our social programs are based off the current working generation paying for the current retired generation, and has since their inception. It's a complex issue, and benefits vary from region to region. The powers (with big microphones) that are trying to sway you one way or the other only focus on a few simple things.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  > and benefits vary from region to region. Like rich techies in SV get to enjoy cheap house cleaning and exotic food while poor people in other parts of the country drug out on opioids because the future is so bleak.
- AnthonyMouse 9y ago
  > One is that without immigration, the population of the US would decrease based on birth / death rates. If the population of the US decreases, social security and other social programs become insolvent. In other words, our social programs are based off the current working generation paying for the current retired generation, and has since their inception. Which is a fine argument for granting citizenship to skilled workers in industries with low unemployment, but a counterargument to taking large numbers of unskilled workers during a glut of unskilled workers. To make the system solvent, you need to increase the number of gainfully employed middle class people, not increase the number of unemployed and underpaid people who need net social assistance because there are more unskilled workers but only the same number of unskilled jobs.
  - JBlue42 9y ago
    Won't those unskilled workers return if there is no work, just like we've had seasonal migration of farm workers in the past? Farm automation will probably take care of a lot of those jobs.
    - sheepmullet 9y ago
      > Won't those unskilled workers return if there is no work It depends - if there is no work in the US then there is probably no work where they have come from.
    - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
      > Won't those unskilled workers return if there is no work, just like we've had seasonal migration of farm workers in the past? It isn't that there are zero jobs, it's that there are more workers than jobs. Add even more workers and some of the new workers will get some of the jobs. And they could get a disproportionate share of the jobs by being willing to work for less money. Which compounds the problem, by both reducing wages for the entire class (increasing the consumption of need-based services) and reducing the government's tax receipts from each lower-paid worker's social security and other taxes.
adventured 9y ago
Flooding the US with vast quantities of low skilled labor for four decades, is also why wages for the bottom 50% do not climb like they should. It's simple, and obvious, supply & demand. It's bizarre that so many tech workers easily spot this concept in effect when big companies try to undercut their salaries in exactly the same manner by importing cheaper tech talent from other nations, yet they're oblivious to the exact same being done to lower income Americans. It's also why the Koch brothers are aggressive supporters of unlimited low skill labor immigration. It's good for certain types of businesses involving traditional labor. The Kochs use it to suppress wages for their blue collar workers. There's a reason why Canada - and most prosperous, developed nations - have strict immigration policies against flooding their nations with large amounts of low skill labor. Scandinavia flirted with it briefly, and now they've almost entirely shut down the immigration spigot. Most of Europe has turned back against the same thing, because it's harmful to the weakest working classes. The primary argument is whether the US should match eg Canada and switch to a merit system. At a time when low skill labor is going to be automated away, it's extremely obvious which way the US will have to move. And if the US does not move that way, the cost will drown the fiscal budget and continue to hammer the poorest workers.
- sheepmullet 9y ago
  Exactly. In a capitalist country like the US supply and demand is king. Ignoring this and slowly trying to turn the US into a socialist democracy (against the will of a large fraction of our citizens) has caused immense suffering and hardship for the poor already.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  >It's also why the Koch brothers are aggressive supporters of unlimited low skill labor immigration. It's good for certain types of businesses involving traditional labor. The Kochs use it to suppress wages for their blue collar workers. This is something that benefits both sides of party lines. I've definitely overheard conversations in cafes of people talking about how their "gardeners have families" and in the back of my head I wonder if they're paying that gardener enough to take care of those families. Yes, the laws need reforming (I think the last time was in the sixties and everything has been piecemeal since then?) but I think both parties have ulterior motives unskilled labor, Dems just are dicks about it and recognize they are humans as well. But useful humans.

Clubber 9y ago

There are many facets to this debate that aren't discussed in the news. One is that without immigration, the population of the US would decrease based on birth / death rates. If the population of the US decreases, social security and other social programs become insolvent. In other words, our social programs are based off the current working generation paying for the current retired generation, and has since their inception. It's a complex issue, and benefits vary from region to region. The powers (with big microphones) that are trying to sway you one way or the other only focus on a few simple things.

sheepmullet 9y ago
> and benefits vary from region to region. Like rich techies in SV get to enjoy cheap house cleaning and exotic food while poor people in other parts of the country drug out on opioids because the future is so bleak.
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
> One is that without immigration, the population of the US would decrease based on birth / death rates. If the population of the US decreases, social security and other social programs become insolvent. In other words, our social programs are based off the current working generation paying for the current retired generation, and has since their inception. Which is a fine argument for granting citizenship to skilled workers in industries with low unemployment, but a counterargument to taking large numbers of unskilled workers during a glut of unskilled workers. To make the system solvent, you need to increase the number of gainfully employed middle class people, not increase the number of unemployed and underpaid people who need net social assistance because there are more unskilled workers but only the same number of unskilled jobs.
- JBlue42 9y ago
  Won't those unskilled workers return if there is no work, just like we've had seasonal migration of farm workers in the past? Farm automation will probably take care of a lot of those jobs.
  - sheepmullet 9y ago
    > Won't those unskilled workers return if there is no work It depends - if there is no work in the US then there is probably no work where they have come from.
  - AnthonyMouse 9y ago
    > Won't those unskilled workers return if there is no work, just like we've had seasonal migration of farm workers in the past? It isn't that there are zero jobs, it's that there are more workers than jobs. Add even more workers and some of the new workers will get some of the jobs. And they could get a disproportionate share of the jobs by being willing to work for less money. Which compounds the problem, by both reducing wages for the entire class (increasing the consumption of need-based services) and reducing the government's tax receipts from each lower-paid worker's social security and other taxes.

adventured 9y ago

Flooding the US with vast quantities of low skilled labor for four decades, is also why wages for the bottom 50% do not climb like they should. It's simple, and obvious, supply & demand. It's bizarre that so many tech workers easily spot this concept in effect when big companies try to undercut their salaries in exactly the same manner by importing cheaper tech talent from other nations, yet they're oblivious to the exact same being done to lower income Americans. It's also why the Koch brothers are aggressive supporters of unlimited low skill labor immigration. It's good for certain types of businesses involving traditional labor. The Kochs use it to suppress wages for their blue collar workers. There's a reason why Canada - and most prosperous, developed nations - have strict immigration policies against flooding their nations with large amounts of low skill labor. Scandinavia flirted with it briefly, and now they've almost entirely shut down the immigration spigot. Most of Europe has turned back against the same thing, because it's harmful to the weakest working classes. The primary argument is whether the US should match eg Canada and switch to a merit system. At a time when low skill labor is going to be automated away, it's extremely obvious which way the US will have to move. And if the US does not move that way, the cost will drown the fiscal budget and continue to hammer the poorest workers.

sheepmullet 9y ago
Exactly. In a capitalist country like the US supply and demand is king. Ignoring this and slowly trying to turn the US into a socialist democracy (against the will of a large fraction of our citizens) has caused immense suffering and hardship for the poor already.
JBlue42 9y ago
>It's also why the Koch brothers are aggressive supporters of unlimited low skill labor immigration. It's good for certain types of businesses involving traditional labor. The Kochs use it to suppress wages for their blue collar workers. This is something that benefits both sides of party lines. I've definitely overheard conversations in cafes of people talking about how their "gardeners have families" and in the back of my head I wonder if they're paying that gardener enough to take care of those families. Yes, the laws need reforming (I think the last time was in the sixties and everything has been piecemeal since then?) but I think both parties have ulterior motives unskilled labor, Dems just are dicks about it and recognize they are humans as well. But useful humans.