Immigration can be good for the economy

[Sinti]

If we had a production, rather than a consumption-based economy, immigrants would be doing what they'd like to do - enhance our ability to produce. I think this may be what we need to look at, how to develop a production-based economy where we make what we need and pay people well for their efforts, and so on.

Thoughts anyone?

[DJ13]

1. Say you have 10 people out of 100 looking for work

Now add another 5 people to the total number, also looking for work.

How does adding those additional 5 people needing work help those 10 already looking for work?

[Sinti]

3. I'm not referring to the way it is now

I said "if we had a production-based economy."

Right now if you don't add more paper to the obsessed paper collectors' collection you might as well die. I was thinking about it removed from the paper-collection obsession. If there was no paper or coin involved, the more people working to create the things we need the better, right?

I'm sorry if I wasn't clear :)

[DJ13]

4. My mistake!

:toast:

[Sinti]

6. Happens to us all now and again :) n/t

[treestar]

17. It doesn't, assuming every job is identical

And every persons qualifications are identical.

[1]

2. and the h1-b was a godsend...

[The2ndWheel]

5. How many people, and for how long do people, need to be paid well to make what we need?

[Sinti]

9. First, I think we need to make what we need

I personally think the system itself is a failed/failing system, so we need to repair it, or get a new one. I'm not considering anything that involves primacy of the state as a viable alternative, I think we've seen that fails clearly.

We can produce, we've done it before. That part is not difficult - it's hard to do so when all productivity must greatly enrich a few with money that is meaningless to them at this point. It can be done, obviously, even cave men did it. Division of labor is a great advantage human beings have - lion prides would also die off without division of labor.

We can pay enough to enable people who work to participate fully in the economy if what they're creating has value. if not, then they should create something else. It's not hard, we used to do it. I knew mailmen and butchers, auto mechanics, etc., when I was a kid who made a good living wage, wife didn't work, 2 (used) cars, little vacation every summer, sent their kids to college, and retired without worry at 65 or younger. Of course, I was a child before Reagan took office - class of '84.

Maybe we need to start thinking outside the box. I was hoping for some input on the general idea. :)

[Spider Jerusalem]

7. Even so immigrants contribute to the economy...

by consuming services, paying rent, buying food, etc etc (and in the case of legal immigrants paying taxes as well).

[amandabeech]

10. There is considerable debate here in the U.S. as to whether unskilled low paid immigrants

cost everyone else money or whether they pay their own way.

The immigration debate here also does not follow strict party lines.

You'll see the same pro and con arguments here as you will on the very conservative site "Free Republic."

[Spider Jerusalem]

13. I know...

(I'm an American, living in the UK, the immigration debate here is similar although it's more likely to be over Africans, Indians, Pakistanis, etc than Mexicans).

[Sinti]

11. Personally, I have absolutely no problem with economic refugees n/t

[amandabeech]

8. I remember the production-based economy that we had prior to Reagan.

We had much less unemployment among the African American community, especially among men. We had fewer unemployed 16-24 than we do now, too.

If we manufacture most of what we need, we will have to soak up a huge pool of people who are only marginally attached to the workforce now, as well as soak up all the laid off folks.

Then we'll have to soak up all the folks that are engaged in extra-long supply lines from the west coast ports and who work at the west coast ports now.

Maybe then we could consider immigration.

[pampango]

12. Any person entering the workforce can be good for the economy or bad for it.

That applies to immigrants, teenagers, new college graduates, women entering the workforce since the 1970's, Blacks since the 1960's civil rights legislation started to open employment doors, and many others.

The number of workers in the economy is not an indication of its health. The key is how productive the workers are and whether that productivity is fairly shared with workers. For the 25 to 30 years after WWII, we had more and more workers in the economy than we ever had before, but living standards steadily improved. An increasing number of workers does not cause living standards to decline.

Naturally, immigrants, recent graduates, teenagers and others entering the workforce are competition for existing workers. If the new workers are very productive (and the benefits are that productivity is fairly shared through progressive income taxation, corporate taxation, unionization, etc.), they will help the economy grow as it did after WWII and living standards will rise, even though they were extra competition when they entered the workforce.

Our problem today is that the benefits of our productivity are not fairly shared with workers. Corporate tax rates are low, the income tax system is regressive rather than progressive, union labor is a steadily falling percentage of the workforce. If large numbers of very productive graduates, teenagers, immigrants, or stay-at-home moms or dads deciding to work outside the home, enter the workforce AND their productivity is fairly distributed, living standards would improve for everyone.

Of course, if we don't correct how our productivity is shared with workers in this country, it really won't matter how much we restrict the flow on new workers into the economy. Our living standard will not improve unless we are successful at restoring progressive taxation, an effective social safety net, real regulation of markets and corporate behavior, and achieving effective national health care.

[Sinti]

15. Thanks, that was really well thought out

I like to think that more people, especially skilled people, should only really add value to the life of your community.

When I think of economics, I tend to think in tribal terms, because the Chicago School theory/philosophy everyone currently seems to subscribe to is far too complicated, and appears to be invalid on its face to my mind. So I think, "well, what's good for the tribe, how would that work."

This puts it in real, and modern terms with potential action items to get the ball rolling properly for everyone. :toast:

We need a safety net for the less-able, unable, and temporarily unemployed, I'm in favor of work over unemployment checks, long-term welfare and so on. A check in the mail is no substitute for a meaningful occupation, if an individual is left idle too long. I think it's disempowering. In my quasi-economic view, human beings are too valuable to be left to rot, for all intents and purposes.

[Hippo_Tron]

14. There's no such thing as a consumption-based economy vs a production-based economy

We both consume and produce things in the United States. Presently we consume more than we produce which is why we have a trade deficit. That cannot continue forever on the scale that it has because eventually the people who have lent us money will want tangible goods and services in exchange for the pieces of paper we have given them.

[Sinti]

16. My wording was bad

and I didn't get across what I was intending to say. I apologize for that :)

It strikes me as a systemic failure when have both widespread unemployment and under-employment while consuming more than we produce. How it has been allowed to get to this point is beyond me. I've been trying to see this through the eyes of others for a long time via talking about it, and listening to both regular folks and experts. I still don't understand the full virtue of the current design, apparently.

I think we must either repair the system, or replace the system with something that doesn't have this built-in fail mechanism - if it gets 'fixed' I suspect it will be a combination of the two. We create things designed to be thrown away, as a human race, which is insane IMO - and we leave some people to do nothing, while others are consuming vast amounts.

The secondary problem in my mind is this idea that the highest value of money is to attract more money. Money is merely a tool we use to facilitate trade. As you point out, it has no value until you actually exchange it for real goods, or services rendered.

[DainBramaged]

18. When you have 100% employment, get back to me........

:eyes: