3 ms·
both sides push for higher immigration and a globalized market, which have more effect on wage-earners in the US than any policy in "Democratic states". Imo you
by chrisjarvis 6y ago
both sides push for higher immigration and a globalized market, which have more effect on wage-earners in the US than any policy in "Democratic states". Imo you are missing the forest thru the trees, at scale they really are the same.
- Daishiman 6y agoThe evidence is that immigrants generate positive net tax benefits. The amount of immigrants who are founders of successful business would reflect that the impact is net positive. AFAIK the idea of immigrants impact being a net negative isn't supported by the studies I have read. I understand this isn't necessarily in line with the rhetoric du jour.
- laverya 6y ago> The evidence is that immigrants generate positive net tax benefits. Immigrants as a whole being a net positive might be clear, but the demographics most commonly under debate are things like "refugees" or "illegal immigrants" or "people seeking asylum at the US-Mexico border". Now, it's possible that those groups are still a (financial) net positive, but I'd be a lot less confident in that than "doctors" or "people with a degree". This also doesn't really address the issue of "what impact does immigration have on US wage earners". An immigrant doctor or programmer might be clearly beneficial financially and to the country as a whole, but the doctors and programmers they're competing with might not be quite so happy. And while those demographics can "take it" so to speak, unskilled laborers facing the same competition are in a bit tougher of a spot.
- chrisjarvis 6y agoI never said or implied a NET negative. My comment was specifically talking about effects on wage earners in the US.