How do immigrants create jobs and prosperity?

[nnmartin]

I am not talking about any specific country - more the idea in general.

Let's use an imaginary country - The Northern Lands. (TNL)

TNL has 1 million unemployed but even so the wages are getting too high for the comfort zone of the business owners.

Solution: Ship in 1.5 million unskilled immigrants from poorer countries around the world to keep the wages down. (they can only stay if they work)

Result : 2 million unemployed
2 million new-employees (immigrants + 0.5 million locals through job creation)

Analysis: The country has has a net gain of 2 million productive workers but at the expense of an extra 1 million local people unemployed. The wages are kept low, the business owners and banks are happy. The new arrivals are happy because at least they have food to eat which they didn't before. The 2 million unemployed are unhappy but at least they can survive on government welfare which they should be grateful for.

So who gains from this scenario?

 

[nnmartin]

I just noticed you are listed as being in South East Asia. I am curious are you an immigrant there? You are discussing immigration for a country you seem not to live in, why?

Location
South East Asia

Yes, I am a temporary immigrant in a foreign country but this thread is not about 'bashing' immigrants - it's more against the system that believes it's for the good of the host nation people at large. This I disagree with.

I propose that it is only good for the rich of the host nation through exploiting the immigrants and working class local people. This corrupt system operates behind a smoke-screen of bourgeoisie lies and deception.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I am not talking about any specific country - more the idea in general.

Let's use an imaginary country - The Northern Lands. (TNL)

TNL has 1 million unemployed but even so the wages are getting too high for the comfort zone of the business owners.

Solution: Ship in 1.5 million unskilled immigrants from poorer countries around the world to keep the wages down. (they can only stay if they work)

Result : 2 million unemployed
2 million new-employees (immigrants + 0.5 million locals through job creation)

Analysis: The country has has a net gain of 2 million productive workers but at the expense of an extra 1 million local people unemployed. The wages are kept low, the business owners and banks are happy. The new arrivals are happy because at least they have food to eat which they didn't before. The 2 million unemployed are unhappy but at least they can survive on government welfare which they should be grateful for.

So who gains from this scenario?

That's not a realistic scenario.

 

[Tamar]

Yes, I am a temporary immigrant in a foreign country but this thread is not about 'bashing' immigrants - it's more against the system that believes it's for the good of the host nation people at large. This I disagree with.

I propose that it is only good for the rich of the host nation through exploiting the immigrants and working class local people. This corrupt system operates behind a smoke-screen of bourgeoisie lies and deception.

Well my country the US is a country made up of immigration and has a long history of immigration so I don't agree with your opinion.

Immigrants come and become a part of the fabric by settling and putting down roots. Their families become educated and give back to the country.

My ancestors are German, English, Dutch and I am a product of immigrants.

 

[JamesMarttin]

i completely agree with you the unemployment benefits must be reduced

 

[JamesMarttin]

i completely agree with you the unemployment benefits must be reduced

 

[nnmartin]

Analysis: The country has has a net gain of x million productive workers but at the expense of an extra x million local people unemployed. The wages are kept low, the business owners and banks are happy. The new arrivals are happy because at least they have food to eat which they didn't before.

But now x number of local workers are jobless and have to survive on welfare and the total number of unemployed has gone up.

That's not a realistic scenario.

It is the situation in most of the affluent countries of Europe.

 

[-Peacemaker-]

Many legal immigrants come here with exceptional skills and capital. Look at all the old buildings that where built by true craftsmen in the past.

Modern immigrants like doctors comes to mind. They build buildings and create jobs and provide needed services.

Given how hard it is for Americans to get jobs I think we should limit the skilled labor coming into the country.

 

[Majikthise]

My wife works in a medical billing office. She has been in this field for more than 20 years and is a college graduate. There is a new girl in her early 20s ,fresh out of college, that they just hired. She was asked to do some filing and protested that she was a college graduate and did not do filing.
My wife told her,"Honey, I started out at this job doing filing, and guess what? I still have to file to this day.".
It's an "I'm too good for this" attitude that, in my opinion, is causing alot of the problems with jobs these days.
I've been a deli clerk, a jet engine mechanic,a factory worker,a firefighter, a janitor, a marine technician and a few other things. You do what you have to and remain flexible and you can always find a job. The general American work ethic is in the dumper right now.
Legal immigration is in no way a cause of any of our problems. Telling some one they can't come into the country because they have too high a skill level would be insanity and impossible to regulate. What would you even begin to use as a standard?

 

[nnmartin]

. Telling some one they can't come into the country because they have too high a skill level would be insanity and impossible to regulate. What would you even begin to use as a standard?

I am talking about those that have too low a skill level - there should be a limit on the numbers as otherwise it doesn't do the country any good in the long run.

 

[Majikthise]

I was addressing the previous post.
But if a family legaly immigrates to this country with a mentally handicapped child (low skill level) are you going to tell them they can come in but the child can't?
You can't base entry on something so arbitrary as a persons skill sets.

And if the job situation is so bad in a country, why would there be so many immigrants, legal or illegal, beating a path to their door in the first place? If the situation in a country is worse than the one you are leaving why the heck go there in the first place?
Why not head straight to Sweden or Canada or some other wonderful, perfect Utopia? Become a part of the EU's master plan, they've got everything under control allright.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

This thread is only addressing the short term economical aspects of immigration as a baseline for whether immigration is good or bad. But to properly answer that question you have to look at immigration in a much broader sense. Immigrants bring culture and growth to the host country as well as a low paid labor force. They increase the gene pool which might not sound that important now but historically it was paramount to the survival of the human race. Immigration today is nothing but a continuation of the migratory patterns humanity have been following for millenia. To say that we have outgrown it and should actively seek to stop it is not only egotistical but an exercise in futility. Migration will continue as long as humans are humans.

 

[nnmartin]

And if the job situation is so bad in a country, why would there be so many immigrants, legal or illegal, beating a path to their door in the first place?

Because the situation is even worse in their own country.

Why not head straight to Sweden or Canada or some other wonderful, perfect Utopia? Become a part of the EU's master plan, they've got everything under control allright.

I don't know about Canada but Sweden has tough immigration policies - they have built a very good social democratic system that they don't want destroyed. (Sweden has recently relaxed its rules but it is mainly for skilled workers).

 

[GabrielWithoutWings]

Why not head straight to Sweden or Canada or some other wonderful, perfect Utopia? Become a part of the EU's master plan, they've got everything under control allright.

A) Canada isn't in Europe so they don't qualify for the "EU's master plan"

B) Sweden voted to reject the Euro as their currency. They use the sovereign Krona instead.

 

[Majikthise]

Because the situation is even worse in their own country.

I don't know about Canada but Sweden has tough immigration policies - they have built a very good social democratic system that they don't want destroyed. (Sweden has recently relaxed its rules but it is mainly for skilled workers).

These questions were posed rhetorically. I was hoping you would respond to my innitial querry.

 

[Majikthise]

A) Canada isn't in Europe so they don't qualify for the "EU's master plan"

B) Sweden voted to reject the Euro as their currency. They use the sovereign Krona instead.

I'm aware of (A), (B) is irrellevent. Though Canada is considering adopting an EU style of government. I don't know the details but have seen it addressed.

 

[Majikthise]

This thread is only addressing the short term economical aspects of immigration as a baseline for whether immigration is good or bad. But to properly answer that question you have to look at immigration in a much broader sense. Immigrants bring culture and growth to the host country as well as a low paid labor force. They increase the gene pool which might not sound that important now but historically it was paramount to the survival of the human race. Immigration today is nothing but a continuation of the migratory patterns humanity have been following for millenia. To say that we have outgrown it and should actively seek to stop it is not only egotistical but an exercise in futility. Migration will continue as long as humans are humans.

:yes:

 

[Alceste]

I need someone to explain this to me.

I can't really see how immigrants benefit the host nation overall.

To start with a simplistic example - say 100,000 immigrants come to the country to do low-paid unskilled work.

They send a third of their pay back to their own country and spend the rest on general expenses for themselves.

If they had not come then those 100,000 jobs could be done by local people and that one third of the wages would not have left the country.

I don't get it.

replies, thanks

Here are a few facts you need to come to terms with:

First world nations guarantee a certain level of comfort to their citizens, (theoretically) paid for by tax revenue. Old (retired) people draw on more public funds than they provide while young (employed) people supply more public funds than they need.

Birth rates are declining in first world nations. In many countries they have fallen below replacement levels (2.1 offspring per couple).

This leaves developed nations with 4 choices: A) make more babies B) hoover up some young immigrants. C) Abandon growth-based economics D) Abandon the welfare state.

I pick immigrants.

 

[Alceste]

I'm aware of (A), (B) is irrellevent. Though Canada is considering adopting an EU style of government. I don't know the details but have seen it addressed.

What is an "EU style of government"?

~ a Canadian.

 

[Majikthise]

What is an "EU style of government"?

~ a Canadian.

Not sure. Heard Ygmir and somebody else from Canada arguing about it. I wasn't trying to relate the EU to Canada. I was trying to post and get housework done at the same time and it came out looking that way.

Can you forgive me? I am truelly repentent.:sad4: