3 ms·

Take this for what you will, but my parents (deceased) and I are immigrants to the US. I sympathize greatly--not exclusively--with the problems facing most of

Take this for what you will, but my parents (deceased) and I are immigrants to the US. I sympathize greatly--not exclusively--with the problems facing most of the non-coastal US but you're not doing any favors by not adding any nuance or thought.

rayiner 3y ago
I’m also an immigrant. Average Americans outside the coasts (and even many of the people on the coasts, like black people[1]) are not benefiting from immigration. Immigration is generating benefits for the top 10-15% in the form of profits, jobs in knowledge work industries, and cheaper products. It’s not a comment about individual immigrants, it’s a comment about economics and political economy. [1] https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a-devastating-cost-to-black-americans/article_00850999-e7aa-5e2e-9132-2b85d61821aa.html https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a...
- danny_codes 3y ago
  From the article, it seems the issue isn't immigration per-say but a lack of social services (education, housing guarantees, family benefits, healthcare, childcare, vocational training programs, transit accessibility) amongst the poorer strata of Americans. That is, we could minimize immigration to perhaps produce a constrained labor market (though that would induce negative population growth, which comes with a host of economic issues), or we could simply redirect capitol to turn unskilled workers into skilled workers. IMO improving economic (and de-facto social) mobility is a much more sensible policy than inducing negative population growth. An added side benefit would be an overall increase in worker productivity and commensurate economic growth.
  - rayiner 3y ago
    You can’t have an economy with only knowledge workers. (Unskilled isn’t a correct term since many of these jobs, like construction, are skilled work.) Your choices are to have an economy with a large class of foreign workers with little political leverage, or an economy with a smaller class of native born workers with more leverage. Social services don’t fix the underlying economic problems. For example, you can invest in schools, but at the end of the day those kids would have been better off being raised in a two-person family where the parents have access to well-paying jobs that don’t require a college education, than being raised by a single parent receiving a welfare check. Social services can’t replace everything you get from a functioning community where people have meaningful work. The Great Society programs caused social welfare spending to dramatically increase starting around the same time as the 1965 INS dramatically increased immigration. But during that time, the upward mobility of black Americans in deindustrializing cities (look at Baltimore, Philly, etc.) decreased from what was happening a generation before.

rayiner 3y ago

I’m also an immigrant. Average Americans outside the coasts (and even many of the people on the coasts, like black people[1]) are not benefiting from immigration. Immigration is generating benefits for the top 10-15% in the form of profits, jobs in knowledge work industries, and cheaper products. It’s not a comment about individual immigrants, it’s a comment about economics and political economy. [1] https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a-devastating-cost-to-black-americans/article_00850999-e7aa-5e2e-9132-2b85d61821aa.html https://www.phillytrib.com/commentary/immigration-comes-at-a...

danny_codes 3y ago
From the article, it seems the issue isn't immigration per-say but a lack of social services (education, housing guarantees, family benefits, healthcare, childcare, vocational training programs, transit accessibility) amongst the poorer strata of Americans. That is, we could minimize immigration to perhaps produce a constrained labor market (though that would induce negative population growth, which comes with a host of economic issues), or we could simply redirect capitol to turn unskilled workers into skilled workers. IMO improving economic (and de-facto social) mobility is a much more sensible policy than inducing negative population growth. An added side benefit would be an overall increase in worker productivity and commensurate economic growth.
- rayiner 3y ago
  You can’t have an economy with only knowledge workers. (Unskilled isn’t a correct term since many of these jobs, like construction, are skilled work.) Your choices are to have an economy with a large class of foreign workers with little political leverage, or an economy with a smaller class of native born workers with more leverage. Social services don’t fix the underlying economic problems. For example, you can invest in schools, but at the end of the day those kids would have been better off being raised in a two-person family where the parents have access to well-paying jobs that don’t require a college education, than being raised by a single parent receiving a welfare check. Social services can’t replace everything you get from a functioning community where people have meaningful work. The Great Society programs caused social welfare spending to dramatically increase starting around the same time as the 1965 INS dramatically increased immigration. But during that time, the upward mobility of black Americans in deindustrializing cities (look at Baltimore, Philly, etc.) decreased from what was happening a generation before.