4 ms·

That was almost entirely due to America rebuilding Europe and every other major industrial power knocked off their perch for a couple of decades. It had nothing

That was almost entirely due to America rebuilding Europe and every other major industrial power knocked off their perch for a couple of decades. It had nothing to do with immigration. Additionally Americans were still having lots of kids at that point so the population was growing without immigratiom.

jeffreyrogers 5y ago
Those European countries also developed fast without much immigration (including Switzerland and the Nordics, which were not affected much by the war). It may have nothing to do with immigration, but you certainly haven't proved that. Edit: Currently the poorest parts of the US population are stagnating at best, at a time when rates of both legal and illegal immigration are quite high. It is hard to make the argument that immigration is preventing things from getting worse.
- stevula 5y ago
  > Those European countries also developed fast without much immigration That doesn’t seem correct, at least not universally. Germany invited a large number of immigrant workers to deal with its labor shortage after WW2. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter
  - dtech 5y ago
    Similar for the Netherlands and Belgium
- spothedog1 5y ago
  Yea they were mostly rebuilding the physical world and not having to completely rebuild society from the ground. Small countries like the Nordics aren’t great examples because they’re so small and a massive part of their wealth came from selling oil to the wider world. The amount of oil revenue generated per person in those countries allowed them develop such a high standard of living along with really smart and egalitarian government policy and investment. That’s not really repeatable for a country as large as the US although money could certainly be used better. France invited large amounts of immigrants from Africa to help rebuild so it’s not like they didn’t see immigration. I think there are two main reasons that the poorest parts of the population are stagnating. One is poverty traps, and especially multi generational poverty traps are very hard to escape. Another is geographic location. Americans dont move as much as they used to, all around the world poorer people move to areas with more jobs and opportunity but today mostly richer people move and poorer people stay put in areas that are impoverished. Immigrants largely don’t come with a set geography or generational poverty weighing them down which is why their kids do so well.
  - haakonhr 5y ago
    That's inaccurate at best about the Nordics. Norway, yes, and Denmark to some degree. Neither Finland or Sweden have or had any significant oil and gas reserves, but built their economies on industry (and mining to some extent).
    - pastage 5y ago
      Agreed, but mining has historically been a big in Sweden (part of the reason why so many minerals were named by Swedish scientists). While we now have focus on other areas it has always been an important part of the economy.
  - ardit33 5y ago
    This is pretty wrong. Most immigrants come from much poorer countries, and they themselves have to restart everything from scratch, with little saving and no home ownership. People coming from the Philipines, or India, or Eastern Europe, post communism from the 90s had to restart everything from scratch, including learning the language, yet over time they end up doing well. You have this weird mentality, that all immigrants are coming rich, and from rich countries, which is the opposite from the truth. I guarantee, that Someone in Bangladesh coming here, has had a much harder life, than the average minority living in Brooklyn or Queens. Yet, even the obstacles, they end up doing better than the locals. So, initial conditions are not the major hamperer of success.
    - spothedog1 5y ago
      Not sure where you got that idea but I definitely don't think all immigrants coming here are rich, I'm a huge advocate for more poorer/low skilled immigration. I've outlined in a bunch of other comments why exactly but for them if their life struggling in the US is better than where they left and they are voluntarily here to give themselves and their children a better life it's good with me and a huge benefit to the USA.
- js2 5y ago
  > Currently the poorest parts of the US population are stagnating at best, at a time when rates of both legal and illegal immigration are quite high. It is hard to make the argument that immigration is preventing things from getting worse. An argument that immigration is a net positive for the economy: https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-economy-4125413 https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-econo... Some anecdotes of small towns being saved by immigration: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/How-immigrants-are-reviving-small-towns-9205983.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/... https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/08/15/hmong-immigrants-helped-save-this-prairie-town-but-now-their-children-are-leaving https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/08/15/hmong-immigrants-he...
  - adventured 5y ago
    > Some anecdotes of small towns being saved by immigration Why would saving small towns in general be a value? The US has desperately needed vast consolidation of small population centers and increased population density toward greater urbanization, for many decades. One of the worst attributes of the US is its over-sprawl and weak development of public transportation. The ideal would be to eliminate thousands upon thousands of small towns, with those populations moving to far superior situations in or near cities, and for the US to stop being lazy and stupid about building out public transportation. Saving small towns is certainly not a good argument for huge volumes of low-skill immigration at exactly the wrong time in history for that type of immigration. The US should be copying Canada and Australia, focusing primarily on high-skill immigration and dramatically reducing low-skill immigration. What the highly developed welfare states all grasp that the US still doesn't (apparently), is that the immense value in high-skill immigration, beyond the obvious, is that it brings a huge immediate net tax positive that pays for your existing population's social welfare costs, whereas low-skill labor does something closer to the exact opposite. Most low-skill labor would struggle to covers its own real social security cost over time, much less everything else. The US has a very progressive taxation system, high-skill labor foots the tax bills. High-skill labor is also vastly superior as it pertains to net healthcare costs and system subsidization. Every functional welfare state in Europe knows all of this, meanwhile the US is wandering around like an idiot in the dark bumping into walls. Far less low-skill labor, more automation, far more high-skill labor, increased social safety net from the net tax boost of inverting the labor focus, build public transportation, greater consolidation of population centers, all linked by regional high-speed rail. We already know this model works exceptionally well and we know exactly why it works.

jeffreyrogers 5y ago

Those European countries also developed fast without much immigration (including Switzerland and the Nordics, which were not affected much by the war). It may have nothing to do with immigration, but you certainly haven't proved that. Edit: Currently the poorest parts of the US population are stagnating at best, at a time when rates of both legal and illegal immigration are quite high. It is hard to make the argument that immigration is preventing things from getting worse.

stevula 5y ago
> Those European countries also developed fast without much immigration That doesn’t seem correct, at least not universally. Germany invited a large number of immigrant workers to deal with its labor shortage after WW2. https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastarbeiter
- dtech 5y ago
  Similar for the Netherlands and Belgium
spothedog1 5y ago
Yea they were mostly rebuilding the physical world and not having to completely rebuild society from the ground. Small countries like the Nordics aren’t great examples because they’re so small and a massive part of their wealth came from selling oil to the wider world. The amount of oil revenue generated per person in those countries allowed them develop such a high standard of living along with really smart and egalitarian government policy and investment. That’s not really repeatable for a country as large as the US although money could certainly be used better. France invited large amounts of immigrants from Africa to help rebuild so it’s not like they didn’t see immigration. I think there are two main reasons that the poorest parts of the population are stagnating. One is poverty traps, and especially multi generational poverty traps are very hard to escape. Another is geographic location. Americans dont move as much as they used to, all around the world poorer people move to areas with more jobs and opportunity but today mostly richer people move and poorer people stay put in areas that are impoverished. Immigrants largely don’t come with a set geography or generational poverty weighing them down which is why their kids do so well.
- haakonhr 5y ago
  That's inaccurate at best about the Nordics. Norway, yes, and Denmark to some degree. Neither Finland or Sweden have or had any significant oil and gas reserves, but built their economies on industry (and mining to some extent).
  - pastage 5y ago
    Agreed, but mining has historically been a big in Sweden (part of the reason why so many minerals were named by Swedish scientists). While we now have focus on other areas it has always been an important part of the economy.
- ardit33 5y ago
  This is pretty wrong. Most immigrants come from much poorer countries, and they themselves have to restart everything from scratch, with little saving and no home ownership. People coming from the Philipines, or India, or Eastern Europe, post communism from the 90s had to restart everything from scratch, including learning the language, yet over time they end up doing well. You have this weird mentality, that all immigrants are coming rich, and from rich countries, which is the opposite from the truth. I guarantee, that Someone in Bangladesh coming here, has had a much harder life, than the average minority living in Brooklyn or Queens. Yet, even the obstacles, they end up doing better than the locals. So, initial conditions are not the major hamperer of success.
  - spothedog1 5y ago
    Not sure where you got that idea but I definitely don't think all immigrants coming here are rich, I'm a huge advocate for more poorer/low skilled immigration. I've outlined in a bunch of other comments why exactly but for them if their life struggling in the US is better than where they left and they are voluntarily here to give themselves and their children a better life it's good with me and a huge benefit to the USA.
js2 5y ago
> Currently the poorest parts of the US population are stagnating at best, at a time when rates of both legal and illegal immigration are quite high. It is hard to make the argument that immigration is preventing things from getting worse. An argument that immigration is a net positive for the economy: https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-economy-4125413 https://www.thebalance.com/how-immigration-impacts-the-econo... Some anecdotes of small towns being saved by immigration: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/How-immigrants-are-reviving-small-towns-9205983.php https://www.houstonchronicle.com/local/gray-matters/article/... https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/08/15/hmong-immigrants-helped-save-this-prairie-town-but-now-their-children-are-leaving https://www.mprnews.org/story/2019/08/15/hmong-immigrants-he...
- adventured 5y ago
  > Some anecdotes of small towns being saved by immigration Why would saving small towns in general be a value? The US has desperately needed vast consolidation of small population centers and increased population density toward greater urbanization, for many decades. One of the worst attributes of the US is its over-sprawl and weak development of public transportation. The ideal would be to eliminate thousands upon thousands of small towns, with those populations moving to far superior situations in or near cities, and for the US to stop being lazy and stupid about building out public transportation. Saving small towns is certainly not a good argument for huge volumes of low-skill immigration at exactly the wrong time in history for that type of immigration. The US should be copying Canada and Australia, focusing primarily on high-skill immigration and dramatically reducing low-skill immigration. What the highly developed welfare states all grasp that the US still doesn't (apparently), is that the immense value in high-skill immigration, beyond the obvious, is that it brings a huge immediate net tax positive that pays for your existing population's social welfare costs, whereas low-skill labor does something closer to the exact opposite. Most low-skill labor would struggle to covers its own real social security cost over time, much less everything else. The US has a very progressive taxation system, high-skill labor foots the tax bills. High-skill labor is also vastly superior as it pertains to net healthcare costs and system subsidization. Every functional welfare state in Europe knows all of this, meanwhile the US is wandering around like an idiot in the dark bumping into walls. Far less low-skill labor, more automation, far more high-skill labor, increased social safety net from the net tax boost of inverting the labor focus, build public transportation, greater consolidation of population centers, all linked by regional high-speed rail. We already know this model works exceptionally well and we know exactly why it works.