Immigration Simplified

[NED funded]

There will be no areas however that produce a net surplus of people to justify moving. You move primarily because there is not enough housing or jobs in an area, which is also a problem but not if the population everywhere is in decline.

As for individuals, its there cost, constantly having to uproot and chase ever shrinking numbers of jobs. Plus the bigger your family the harder it is to move.

Maybe that is why economists are such sperglords, they don't seem to realize humans form groups.

- - - Updated - - -



Well I am going to pop one out in a couple of months.

And you are an irrational 2 dimensional liberal, so much so that I often doubt you are sincere in any of your posts.

That's not a social cost. A social cost is a cost that others bear from an activity. See pollution.
Or people would move looking for economic reasons. Say a plant moving to Mexico.

[Theodarzna]

That's not a social cost. A social cost is a cost that others bear from an activity. See pollution.
Or people would move looking for economic reasons. Say a plant moving to Mexico.

..... So I have a kid and husband, I want to uproot to follow some ever migrating job. I suppose I leave them behind? Bring them? Its of no cost to them?

[Elegiac]

..... So I have a kid and husband, I want to uproot to follow some ever migrating job. I suppose I leave them behind? Bring them? Its of no cost to them?

People in the US do it literally all the time.

[Theodarzna]

People in the US do it literally all the time.

It comes at great cost, and actually we don't. For example people owning homes often prevent that sort of ceaseless migration.

But even if we all were just renters living on a month to month lease, rarely do people move a whole family. My point is overall this sort of lifestyle discourages family formation and leads partly to the crisis of graying populations.

[Elegiac]

It comes at great cost, and actually we don't. For example people owning homes often prevent that sort of ceaseless migration.

Moving cities or even interstate for employment (among other things) is fairly common in the United States. This is one of the reasons why self-sorting has become such a big thing.

But even if we all were just renters living on a month to month lease, rarely do people move a whole family. My point is overall this sort of lifestyle discourages family formation and leads partly to the crisis of graying populations.

It couldn't possibly be the more widespread access to family planning or children being a financial burden rather than an aid. No, it's 'family formation'.

[NED funded]

..... So I have a kid and husband, I want to uproot to follow some ever migrating job. I suppose I leave them behind? Bring them? Its of no cost to them?

That's a household. A household can have different sizes but it still counts as a unit. So no your husband/wife loosing her/his job and friends it still is part of "individual costs".

[Cthulhu 2020]

There will be no areas however that produce a net surplus of people to justify moving. You move primarily because there is not enough housing or jobs in an area, which is also a problem but not if the population everywhere is in decline.

As for individuals, its there cost, constantly having to uproot and chase ever shrinking numbers of jobs. Plus the bigger your family the harder it is to move.

Maybe that is why economists are such sperglords, they don't seem to realize humans form groups.

- - - Updated - - -



Well I am going to pop one out in a couple of months.

And you are an irrational 2 dimensional liberal, so much so that I often doubt you are sincere in any of your posts.

Well at least you're honest about your lack of willingness to discuss a topic with any kind of honesty.

[Venant]

It's funny because this supposed "brain drain" effect is actually supported by Trump and conservatives. The H1-B visa program, which takes trained, skilled workers and uses them to displace Americans for 1/3 the pay is not only heavily supported by Republicans, Donald Dump is actually moving to increase and expand the H1-B visa program so that we have more skilled and trained workers than ever. People say "OH MAN WE WANT THE SKILLED ONES NOT THE UNSKILLED ONES." The skilled ones are the ones who are taking your middle class jobs and turning them into lower class jobs, because it's more pay than they'd ever dream of in their home country.

Meanwhile the ones they're trying to keep out, the unskilled labor, are the ones who pick the fields and clean hotel rooms. Alabama tried extremely harsh anti-immigration laws and they totally failed. Their local economies collapsed when they couldn't find white laborers who even wanted to do the jobs that the immigrants did. The jobs were were "too hard" and "not worth it". So guess what Alabama did? THEY REPEALED THEIR OWN ANTI-IMMIGRATION LAW.

You make a good point, we need to get rid of the H1-B program. I remember that the woman who sold coffee in a cart at the gate of my University had a masters in biology and had immigrated from Mexico. We should only import people with masters degrees or above and have them start at the bottom by not recognizing their degrees, such a system would be fair to native Americans.

Oh and if you are concerned with giving any rights to non-citizens, perhaps we should start with revoking the presidential right to murder anyone who isn't physically in this country, because if you don't focus on that you are just a massive hypocrite, because the official foreign policy in this country for the last 8 years is that people in other countries have no rights.

[kail]

I do agree with the video where the millions coming into our country does not make a difference to world poverty, but I doubt anyone ever though that in the first place. If Nanook is trying to sell the idea that immigration is bad for our country, he/she failed to do so with that clip.

[The Stormbringer]

I'm unconvinced that foreign aid is an effective means of improving other nations. The results of these policies are a mixed bag and it's trivially easy to find local economies that are crippled by well intentioned foreign intervention. The one policy that seems to actually consistently improve living standards in impoverished nations is opening up free trade with them.

I would say things like helping them get access to clean water, to immunizations for common diseases in their areas, to basic medical care, to cellphones with the ability to download educational and engineering information has actually been a huge help for many, many people, and that doing more can only continue to do so. That isn't to say we should blindly throw aid around without communicating with the locals and having them help us determine what we can best help them with, but trade will only help those who are able to trade, i.e. those who are already in decent standing in their area.

[procne]

The video in the OP is all nice, but for some reason instead of "let's help them there" I can only hear "let's get rid of them". Will any follower of this movie actually do anything to "help them there" or will they just wave this movie as an argument to build walls?

[Deleted]

The video in the OP is all nice, but for some reason instead of "let's help them there" I can only hear "let's get rid of them". Will any follower of this movie actually do anything to "help them there" or will they just wave this movie as an argument to build walls?

If you want to help them, the number one solution?
Give them birth control, and then more birth control.

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe that is why economists are such sperglords, they don't seem to realize humans form groups.

Human's and their irrational behavior is what keeps economy as a descriptive science instead of a proscriptive science - Just like marxism, they need a new 'better' human to work with.