6 ms·

> 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

by 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.
- NotSammyHagar 5y ago
  Small towns not connected to big cities are shrinking unceasingly, unless there is some special local thing to save them, like a special factory or a tourist attraction. In my part of the south almost every town had their downtown destroyed first by walmart, and then later by the ecosystem of small businesses all withered away and now the downtowns of places with a few thousand people have almost nothing but a grocery store and gas station. On top of the young people move out of all of these towns looking for work. It's got to be incredibly sad for older people to see their world just disappearing, which is think is part of the appeal of certain nationalist politicians.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  Postwar sprawl is a huge problem, but it'd be good if prewar towns were saved. You're going to get pushback if you try to say "everyone needs to live in the Big City". They don't. There are other options. Because streetcar suburbs are fine. Villages are fine. Actual towns are fine. What's bad is strip-mall sprawl. Highways, burbclaves, and office parks. None of that is worth saving. And some of the new "denser" development misses the point. Rows of townhomes set up in a farm off the highway with no commercial center? That's dense but bad. New condo complexes -- private compounds with pools and such -- that take up whole city blocks? Also dense, but bad. These represent the "enclosure" (with everything that entails) of urban space. But "small towns"? Fine -- if they're actually towns, and not just strip-mall wastelands.
- FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
  Your point about high-skill vs. low-skill immigration is interesting, but allow me to invert it: If developed countries can benefit by causing (only) high-skilled people to immigrate, can they also benefit by somehow causing (only) low-skilled people to emigrate?
- spothedog1 5y ago
  You're wrong that low-skilled immigration is a net loss for the USA. Low skilled immigrants contribute more than they take out by a good amount. They increase demand and grow the economy. Additionally their kids grow up and out earn them drastically being huge net-positives.

by js2 5y ago

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.

NotSammyHagar 5y ago
Small towns not connected to big cities are shrinking unceasingly, unless there is some special local thing to save them, like a special factory or a tourist attraction. In my part of the south almost every town had their downtown destroyed first by walmart, and then later by the ecosystem of small businesses all withered away and now the downtowns of places with a few thousand people have almost nothing but a grocery store and gas station. On top of the young people move out of all of these towns looking for work. It's got to be incredibly sad for older people to see their world just disappearing, which is think is part of the appeal of certain nationalist politicians.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Postwar sprawl is a huge problem, but it'd be good if prewar towns were saved. You're going to get pushback if you try to say "everyone needs to live in the Big City". They don't. There are other options. Because streetcar suburbs are fine. Villages are fine. Actual towns are fine. What's bad is strip-mall sprawl. Highways, burbclaves, and office parks. None of that is worth saving. And some of the new "denser" development misses the point. Rows of townhomes set up in a farm off the highway with no commercial center? That's dense but bad. New condo complexes -- private compounds with pools and such -- that take up whole city blocks? Also dense, but bad. These represent the "enclosure" (with everything that entails) of urban space. But "small towns"? Fine -- if they're actually towns, and not just strip-mall wastelands.
FooBarBizBazz 5y ago
Your point about high-skill vs. low-skill immigration is interesting, but allow me to invert it: If developed countries can benefit by causing (only) high-skilled people to immigrate, can they also benefit by somehow causing (only) low-skilled people to emigrate?
spothedog1 5y ago
You're wrong that low-skilled immigration is a net loss for the USA. Low skilled immigrants contribute more than they take out by a good amount. They increase demand and grow the economy. Additionally their kids grow up and out earn them drastically being huge net-positives.