Does immigration Hurt the third world?

Polarc said:
@isekai I'm not watching your videos. Respond to my argument.

Mass immigration allows companies to lower wages, and immigrants have a very high welfare use on average.

Are you fine with lower wages and higher welfare use?

isekai said:


the cartoon video of crash course economics explained this in detail that the lower wages is just short term or temporary, more immigration means more demand creating more jobs and economic activity in the long run so relax the welfare state is not gonna happen if you factor in that automation is decades away from being full automation and even if automation is a problem that means taxing the robots and the rich more is the solution to give universal basic income

Polarc said:


No it doesn't. Your video doesn't prove that at all. You yourself can try to make an argument for that if you want. I see no evidence that the type of immigration the West is primarily getting results in better economic outcomes on average for people of any given Western nation. You can say the GDP is overall higher, but why does that matter more than the financial state of the average Western person? The immigrants don't tend to create jobs, and the natives just end up paying more for the welfare state.

Automation is maybe the strongest argument for zero immigration. We're already going to have too many idle hands once that takes over, and particularly among low wage workers of the kind that are largely immigrating to the West.

Polarc said:
@isekai I'm not watching any amount of your video. In the future, don't make claims that you can't argue for.

isekai said:


lol you force me to watch the video of the other user and now you cannot watch a 2-3 minute part of a fucking video

Polarc said:


I recommended the video but not as a part of my argument, and certainly not as a substitute for an argument as you're doing now.

isekai said:


we are talking about facts here of course no better way to show that by citing sources that have facts

im out of here since you prove nothing anyway

Polarc said:


I'm making axiomatic arguments. A higher supply of labor = lower wages. Higher immigrant welfare use rate = an economic burden to the average taxpayer. Neither point is arguable.

The burden of proof is on you to somehow prove that there is some other economic benefit to mass immigration that outweighs these negatives.

isekai said:


your axiom arguments are wrong base on historical facts that the immigration surplus says (more immigrants means more demand so that means more jobs created and wages will rise in the long term, lower wages is only on short term, plus the natives who are the capitalist most of the time will see their profit increase)

there is no burden of proof in me when the immigration surplus is historically factual

Polarc said:


More immigrants means more demand for what?

Saying "immigration was good in the past" is not an argument for it now. The immigrants now are different from then, and there was no welfare state in say, early 20th century America.

isekai said:


demand for goods and services duh, in other words more immigrants means more customers for the natives that are capitalists so in return they open up jobs to hire more people

the 1980 Mariel Boatlift is the example historical data

Polarc said:


Okay, but why is an endless increase in demand a good thing? Immigrants take up jobs at the same time, so that point is neutralized.

Also, you yourself admitted that we should have a merit based system rather than the current one, so you know that immigration in and of itself is not a good thing.

Polarc said:
@isekai Profit for who though? The top 1%, while the worker gets fucked and the middle class collapses.

isekai said:


this are not the top 1% but simply the middle class small businessmen

a growing middle class is better for the economy

Polarc said:


Then why was the middle class so much stronger from say, the 50's through the 80's?

isekai said:


i do not know but i know that at the end of the 1980s is when trickle down economics or Raeganomics started and the whole neoliberalism (less government regulations) also becomes mainstream

Polarc said:


Now hold on. You're for capitalism but also big government? Don't you know big gov't infringes on pure GDP growth and movement toward the singularity??

Seriously though, the reason the middle class is fucked is because of mass immigration undermining wages and taking up jobs, while simultaneously jobs have been going overseas. This is the main reason Trump won.

Fun fact: Reagan also gave amnesty to millions of illegals, turning California blue forever.

Polarc said:


Now hold on. You're for capitalism but also big government? Don't you know big gov't infringes on pure GDP growth and movement toward the singularity??

Seriously though, the reason the middle class is fucked is because of mass immigration undermining wages and taking up jobs, while simultaneously jobs have been going overseas. This is the main reason Trump won.

Fun fact: Reagan also gave amnesty to millions of illegals, turning California blue forever.

-Placeholder- said:


People will always complain about foreigners whether they're here or overseas, but jobs go overseas because of competition, if people didn't want jobs to go overseas, then they should content themselves with inferior and overpriced goods, because that's the reality of protectionism. Free trade makes everyone richer, so rather than resenting the opportunity of some Asian or Indian the ability to make $3/h and develop their economy, rather than starve, you should actually work on your own skills and make the world a better place by creating something of high quality that can beat out competitors all over the world. Entitled workers and unions should be more honest and ask for state handouts, because that's pretty much the same as having a job that can only be maintained by protectionism; profiting at the expense of everyone else.

Polarc said:
I'm fine with some amount of free trade, just not totally unrestrained. The main problem is mass immigration.

Polarc said:

I'm fine with some amount of free trade, just not totally unrestrained. The main problem is mass immigration.

isekai said:


so like Japan currently they are doing free trade but with less immigrants

but you got to hear impending problems of Japan like their economy might collapse sooner or later because of an aging population and low birthrate of the natives, other rich countries have those problems too because empowering women leads to them having more options economically than just being a baby making machine and the answer of other rich countries with similar problems is more immigration to boost the economy in the future

-Placeholder- said:


Immigrants aren't a fix to the aging population, immigrants age too. And then you need to keep importing immigrants non stop if you want to keep your age demographic the same. It's really a bad solution and isn't a good excuse for mass immigration. People just need to suck it up and bear the consequences of the lowered birthrates until the age demographic stabilises naturally, either that or get busy in the bedroom. As for Japan, pretty sure there economy and debt problem is due to bad economic policy, e.g. spending more money to "stimulate" the economy, i.e. the opposite of what you should do when you're in debt.

-Placeholder- said:


Immigrants aren't a fix to the aging population, immigrants age too. And then you need to keep importing immigrants non stop if you want to keep your age demographic the same. It's really a bad solution and isn't a good excuse for mass immigration. People just need to suck it up and bear the consequences of the lowered birthrates until the age demographic stabilises naturally, either that or get busy in the bedroom. As for Japan, pretty sure there economy and debt problem is due to bad economic policy, e.g. spending more money to "stimulate" the economy, i.e. the opposite of what you should do when you're in debt.

Energetic-Nova said:
Depends if you give the money to rich people or if you give the money to poor people. Poor people spend money. Rich people save money. It is more economically sensible to water the bottom.

-Placeholder- said:


An economic fallacy there. Both rich and and poor people spend money. Poor people spend money on lower end consumer goods, rich people spend on more luxury goods and they also invest more. Redistributing money from rich people to poor people is simply diverts production from one good to another.

Tapertrain said:
I’ve always supported immigration. I want a future where the entire world is collaborating and at peace.

Something has been on my mind lately though. Some conservatives argue that allowing immigration is like buying off the most educated people from a poor country and puting them in a rich country. This could stunt the progress of the third world.

What do you think?

isekai said:
ye this brain drain argument is nothing new but its not the reality

for example look at here in the philippines a lot of our workers are working overseas and it helps our economy through tax remittances, heck one of our long time senator here says this 'Our biggest export is OFWs. That's why I'm against RH bill' (RH Law is a population control measure here) https://www.rappler.com/nation/16987-enrile-our-biggest-export-is-ofws-that-s-why-im-against-rh-bill
although a lot of filipinos even the overseas workers criticize him for that lol

actual numbers of economic impact in 2011 we got at least 21 billion US dollars from overseas workers remittances and when converted to peso (our money) then thats 1 trillion pesos and compared that to the yearly national budget of 2-3 trillion pesos you can see its a great source of money for the government here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_Filipinos#Economic_impact
P3 trillion: PH's biggest nat'l budget submitted to Congress https://www.rappler.com/nation/100779-philippines-national-budget-2016

i say capitalism is not really a total zero sum game so even if there is a brain drain the disadvantage country still get benefit from tax remittances and then the government can pay for more better education to create the next brain power here and also create more local jobs

DrGeroCreation said:
I came across this on the BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/business-43316737

According to this article remittances can in some cases be even more than financial aid. The article here also talks about how Salvadorans living in America send back money to buy new school uniforms for Salvadoran kids in schools there and also basketball hoops, volleyball nets and pay for scholarships. So you are right remittances can be a major source of income for poor countries. If all Salvadorans were deported from America and sent back to El Salvador that would have a negative effect on El Salvador's economy.