3 ms·

He may be right that the overall affect of immigrants is positive, but the benefits go to people who are already doing well and the costs are paid by the people

by tsotha 12y ago

He may be right that the overall affect of immigrants is positive, but the benefits go to people who are already doing well and the costs are paid by the people at the bottom. I don't see how anyone can complain about about income inequality on the one hand and advocate unrestricted immigration on the other. The US should adopt Australia's point system based approach with a preference for the young and well educated.

mlinksva 12y ago
Unrestricted immigration would reduce global income inequality. I don't judge the worth of individuals by their nationality, so it is global inequality that I must be concerned about, if income inequality is my concern.
- tsotha 12y ago
  I'm not interested in global income inequality. It's more important to me that my country functions well.
  - waps 12y ago
    According to the ILO (UN labour organisation) [1], in PPP dollars global average wage is 1480$ per month. So for the US equality would mean that 50% of working age people earn less than that. This is only counting wage-earners. No freelancers, children, elderly or anything like that are collected. In the US, average wage for employed individuals is about 42000 [2]. Since there are 300 million Americans and 6.7 billion non-Americans, America should shift almost entirely to the average to get income equality. This will mean the equivalent of a 55% across-the-board pay cut for every American, provided prices do not go down. Your rent will stay the same, but your income should go down 55%. (This is in fact happening, but is manifesting as uneven inflation without corresponding wage rises, so you'd experience an 81% rise in average prices, rent, food, restaurants, ..., while seeing your wage stay the same) Also note that average worldwide unemployment is at least a factor of 3 higher than in the US. So it would not just take a massive pay cut, but also firing close to 20% of all workers, to bring the US into the worldwide average. This is why socialists are (or should be) against immigration, and should be pro-isolationist. I think that if you want to improve the conditions of the American working class, that would be the correct attitude to have. In reality the period of 1950-today has been a very exceptional period in history where not only incomes were higher, by most measures, than ever before, but income inequality was far lower than the vast majority of economic history. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 [2] http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml
- bruceb 12y ago
  Which country educated you? The world didn't, the gov't in your country most likely helped.
- wsc981 12y ago
  I think unrestricted immigration can really disrupt the social cohesion in a country, I think this is what we're currently experiencing in Europe. Immigration also seems to put huge economic pressure on the welfare state. I think it's better to try to help people in their own country, so their local economy is improved instead of allowing just anyone to emigrate to your own country.
  - fennecfoxen 12y ago
    > Immigration also seems to put huge economic pressure on the welfare state. One of the ironies of income-redistribution schemes. People are happy to soak the 1% to pay for benefits for our lower/middle-classes, but if poorer people come along it's a strain, never mind that they almost certainly need it more. As for helping people in their own country -- it is unfortunate but (barring conquest) there's only so much you can do in places ruled by kleptocrats, rife with corruption, and with only weak protections of the rule of law.

by tsotha 12y ago

mlinksva 12y ago

Unrestricted immigration would reduce global income inequality. I don't judge the worth of individuals by their nationality, so it is global inequality that I must be concerned about, if income inequality is my concern.

tsotha 12y ago
I'm not interested in global income inequality. It's more important to me that my country functions well.
- waps 12y ago
  According to the ILO (UN labour organisation) [1], in PPP dollars global average wage is 1480$ per month. So for the US equality would mean that 50% of working age people earn less than that. This is only counting wage-earners. No freelancers, children, elderly or anything like that are collected. In the US, average wage for employed individuals is about 42000 [2]. Since there are 300 million Americans and 6.7 billion non-Americans, America should shift almost entirely to the average to get income equality. This will mean the equivalent of a 55% across-the-board pay cut for every American, provided prices do not go down. Your rent will stay the same, but your income should go down 55%. (This is in fact happening, but is manifesting as uneven inflation without corresponding wage rises, so you'd experience an 81% rise in average prices, rent, food, restaurants, ..., while seeing your wage stay the same) Also note that average worldwide unemployment is at least a factor of 3 higher than in the US. So it would not just take a massive pay cut, but also firing close to 20% of all workers, to bring the US into the worldwide average. This is why socialists are (or should be) against immigration, and should be pro-isolationist. I think that if you want to improve the conditions of the American working class, that would be the correct attitude to have. In reality the period of 1950-today has been a very exceptional period in history where not only incomes were higher, by most measures, than ever before, but income inequality was far lower than the vast majority of economic history. [1] http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-17512040 [2] http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml http://www.worldsalaries.org/usa.shtml
bruceb 12y ago
Which country educated you? The world didn't, the gov't in your country most likely helped.
wsc981 12y ago
I think unrestricted immigration can really disrupt the social cohesion in a country, I think this is what we're currently experiencing in Europe. Immigration also seems to put huge economic pressure on the welfare state. I think it's better to try to help people in their own country, so their local economy is improved instead of allowing just anyone to emigrate to your own country.
- fennecfoxen 12y ago
  > Immigration also seems to put huge economic pressure on the welfare state. One of the ironies of income-redistribution schemes. People are happy to soak the 1% to pay for benefits for our lower/middle-classes, but if poorer people come along it's a strain, never mind that they almost certainly need it more. As for helping people in their own country -- it is unfortunate but (barring conquest) there's only so much you can do in places ruled by kleptocrats, rife with corruption, and with only weak protections of the rule of law.