4 ms·

Interesting how legitster's reductio ad absurdum argument got missed here. They're using the birth rate comparison not to actually advocate for birth restrictio

Interesting how legitster's reductio ad absurdum argument got missed here. They're using the birth rate comparison not to actually advocate for birth restrictions, but to expose a flaw in the original economic reasoning. Legitser is pointing out that every person you add to the population is not just a supplier, but also a customer. They create demand for goods and services even as they help produce them. This makes job creation/job filling calculations a bit more complicated than straight linear/zero sum behavior. Some quick back of envelope maths suggests job growth might even outpace population growth. I suppose it would have to, else -as legitser points out- the economy would have imploded long ago. And... we haven't even gotten around to the actual figure that matters: Net migration - People Emigrate too!

toomuchtodo 2y ago
Why do you focus on number of jobs vs poor economic outcomes current state across the economy for your median worker? Why do we care if immigration creates jobs from consumption if the jobs created (from said immigration) are going to be low quality, economically unfavorable (to the worker) jobs? “Think of the jobs!” arguments in this thread are optimizing for economic activity. I am arguing for workers to have better lives through better jobs, not more jobs. To understand this is to also better understand the shift to far right populism in the developed world as it relates to economic insecurity.
- Kim_Bruning 2y ago
  I actually completely agree with you that people should have good and interesting jobs. I could use a lot of words, but... I just completely agree on that part. Now how this ends up in an immigration debate has me slightly mystified, I do have to admit. I'm treating the "if immigration creates [...] low quality [...] jobs" as one of a set of hypotheticals. Some others being that immigration creates high quality jobs, or indifferent jobs. So it seems we're in at least partial agreement (hopefully). Where would you like to take your argument from here?
  - toomuchtodo 2y ago
    I think we might just disagree what an immigration system looks like where immigrants compliment vs compete with the domestic workforce. I support immigration when it adds to an economic system, but not when it furthers contention or diminishes the economics of citizens.
    - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
      You know, I just realized. I'm not sure this is the argument you're making, but: Modern immigration systems in Europe and North America seem to aim for opposite ends of the spectrum - either attracting highly skilled professionals, or providing humanitarian support for those in dire need. But for middle class workers, regular movement in and out of these economic zones [1] remains surprisingly limited. That's exactly the group you'd expect to both create and fill good quality jobs. [1] (With the notable exception of movement within the EU internally, which might actually support this point - middle class mobility there seems to work pretty well!)

toomuchtodo 2y ago

Why do you focus on number of jobs vs poor economic outcomes current state across the economy for your median worker? Why do we care if immigration creates jobs from consumption if the jobs created (from said immigration) are going to be low quality, economically unfavorable (to the worker) jobs? “Think of the jobs!” arguments in this thread are optimizing for economic activity. I am arguing for workers to have better lives through better jobs, not more jobs. To understand this is to also better understand the shift to far right populism in the developed world as it relates to economic insecurity.

Kim_Bruning 2y ago
I actually completely agree with you that people should have good and interesting jobs. I could use a lot of words, but... I just completely agree on that part. Now how this ends up in an immigration debate has me slightly mystified, I do have to admit. I'm treating the "if immigration creates [...] low quality [...] jobs" as one of a set of hypotheticals. Some others being that immigration creates high quality jobs, or indifferent jobs. So it seems we're in at least partial agreement (hopefully). Where would you like to take your argument from here?
- toomuchtodo 2y ago
  I think we might just disagree what an immigration system looks like where immigrants compliment vs compete with the domestic workforce. I support immigration when it adds to an economic system, but not when it furthers contention or diminishes the economics of citizens.
  - Kim_Bruning 2y ago
    You know, I just realized. I'm not sure this is the argument you're making, but: Modern immigration systems in Europe and North America seem to aim for opposite ends of the spectrum - either attracting highly skilled professionals, or providing humanitarian support for those in dire need. But for middle class workers, regular movement in and out of these economic zones [1] remains surprisingly limited. That's exactly the group you'd expect to both create and fill good quality jobs. [1] (With the notable exception of movement within the EU internally, which might actually support this point - middle class mobility there seems to work pretty well!)