Search Results
6/25/2025, 1:13:51 AM
>>508632209
I was wondering what the responses were going to be but I'll admit I never considered "Immigrants do not purchase goods and services," that's an impressive level of delusion
>>508632327
"Mass immigration" didn't happen in the 50s, you're thinking of the McCarran-Walter Act, which had little impact BECAUSE it was so restrictive. The Hart-Cellar Act was in 65, and urban economies like NY, Chicago, and LA continued to grow long past the postwar economic boom.
>>508632359
>They make less than minimum wage right?
Not legal migrants, no, that would be illegal.
>That means they have less to spend into the economy.
On its face this is true but it's more complicated than that. Poor people spend more of their money per dollar due to the Marginal Propensity to Consume, MPC. Businesses rely on patronage by low-to-middle income people (think restaurants, wal-mart, etc.)
Rich people contribute more to long-term growth and investment, but poor people are better for short-term economic stimulus.
Furthermore, consider that immigrants come to the country at working age, which means the gov't doesn't have to foot the bill for 18 years of education, healthcare, etc. and if they retire to their home country, even better for us.
>Which means less jobs unless people are willing to work for less... no?
Nope. Unemployment in the US was at a record low before COVID (3.5%) and is almost back down to pre-COVID levels (4.2%). Immigration appears to have little effect on real wage growth compared to factors like deindustrialization, declining unions, global competition, minimum wage, and corporate consolidation.
>>508632505
What the hell are you talking about? picrel
>>508632574
Again, this is only true in areas with fixed supply, like LA. If you have elastic supply the effects are negligible. Restrictive zoning laws and NIMBYism are choking this country out and gatekeeping zoomzooms from owning homes.
I was wondering what the responses were going to be but I'll admit I never considered "Immigrants do not purchase goods and services," that's an impressive level of delusion
>>508632327
"Mass immigration" didn't happen in the 50s, you're thinking of the McCarran-Walter Act, which had little impact BECAUSE it was so restrictive. The Hart-Cellar Act was in 65, and urban economies like NY, Chicago, and LA continued to grow long past the postwar economic boom.
>>508632359
>They make less than minimum wage right?
Not legal migrants, no, that would be illegal.
>That means they have less to spend into the economy.
On its face this is true but it's more complicated than that. Poor people spend more of their money per dollar due to the Marginal Propensity to Consume, MPC. Businesses rely on patronage by low-to-middle income people (think restaurants, wal-mart, etc.)
Rich people contribute more to long-term growth and investment, but poor people are better for short-term economic stimulus.
Furthermore, consider that immigrants come to the country at working age, which means the gov't doesn't have to foot the bill for 18 years of education, healthcare, etc. and if they retire to their home country, even better for us.
>Which means less jobs unless people are willing to work for less... no?
Nope. Unemployment in the US was at a record low before COVID (3.5%) and is almost back down to pre-COVID levels (4.2%). Immigration appears to have little effect on real wage growth compared to factors like deindustrialization, declining unions, global competition, minimum wage, and corporate consolidation.
>>508632505
What the hell are you talking about? picrel
>>508632574
Again, this is only true in areas with fixed supply, like LA. If you have elastic supply the effects are negligible. Restrictive zoning laws and NIMBYism are choking this country out and gatekeeping zoomzooms from owning homes.
Page 1