Ah but that will collapse home values, which is why we aren't doing that now. Capitalism is full of contradictions, we need more people to keep it going, but creating much, much more supply will reduce the value of most people's most valuable commodity.
Because every round of technological change has resulted in higher demand for workers, not lower. You sound like the Luddites, declaring that automatic machinery would kill jobs. Did it? Nope, there was more demand for labor as people demanded more products and services than ever before. Here is a recent article that empirically examined the issue, finding that automation in manufacturing led to more, not less employment. What are the Labor and Product Market Effects of Automation? New Evidence from France by Philippe Aghion, Celine Antonin, Simon Bunel, Xavier Jaravel :: SSRN
Controlled immigration, yes. Mass crashing of the border by who knows who isn’t a good alternative. I have a niece, an aunt, and a friend, all of which are now permanent residents of New Zealand and had to demonstrate their ability to provide needed talent/training to stay there. If we know what skills we need to sustain our economy and spent our resources ensuring those are the folks we have join us, that makes sense. The argument that we need immigrants to sustain us doesn’t seem to fit the bill the way we get the vast majority of immigrants today. Apparently the uncontrolled masses are having immediate and acute adverse affects on many of the budgets of recipient providers. That is the opposite of what we need.
I made the assumption because you said immigration is a net positive for our economy. I presume that you hold that opinion because you believe (rightly) that we need population growth. The point I and others are trying to make is: Is this a sustainable model? If global population becomes static or shrinks, how do we continue to grow? This has been a thoeretical question for some time and is becoming more and more of a realistic question in need of a solution. It's worked great for a couple centuries now, but it doesn't seem like it's going to work for a couple of centuries more. Global economic systems have always changed - there's no reason to believe ours won't or can't change in the future.
Blood and soil nationalism and capitalism arent compatible in the long run, we might actually need those mythical "open borders" to make it work. But my guess is captive labor forces are the wave of the future for those unable to reconcile their commitments to strident nationalism/racism and capitalist growth and accumulation. See the Gulf States. Some kind of ecofascism maybe as scarcity of natural resources becomes more of political football.
You're assuming a lot of competency in the government's ability to predict the future. Immigration is a net positive for our economy, but that point is partially divorced from the point about birth rates. I hold that opinion because embracing immigration has led to incredible amounts of innovation and success here. It also ensures that jobs we need done that are hard to fill get done.
Same people argue that 18 year old kids should be able to correctly predict what to major in to be able to pay back student loans or get a job in 4-5 years. Besides I'm pretty certain this country is in greater need of fruit pickers and construction workers than most so-called "skilled" labor.
I fully agree on the cultural / societal impacts of immigration. This has likely benefited the US more than most nation-states due to our historic "melting pot" lure. On the filling jobs front: I see this as being directly on point with the impacts of declining birth rates and the need for immigration. We need labor to sustain our systems and if we can't provide it natively, it needs to be imported.
If you’re arguing that my tack does a poor job of persuading, I won’t deny it, but nor is this my aim. However, if this is instead your honest feelings on the situation, color me surprised. This argument essentially treats immigrants as fuel for the economic engine, which I see as the tail wagging the dog. If the nation’s fertility were over 2, would you really support closing the borders?
Why do you suppose the government is the entity that can most efficiently and accurately assess need instead of the private sector? Isn't this the opposite of the entire premise of free markets?
Having a potential immigrant demonstrate a valid reason to come here that is beneficial to our country that BTW does not have legitimate means to support them (we are so far beyond broke that is no longer reasonable to continue borrowing/printing dollars) is my contention. The feds control that function; but the private sector can have an important role in determining what skills we need.
The issue is that we don't let people that want to work actually engage in work because we are so concerned with the government deciding issues like this rather than the private sector. Who do you think is better at figuring out the skills that would be beneficial to moving furniture: a furniture moving company or the government? The notion that somebody has to prove to the government that they can move furniture and that is to the benefit of all people who need (or sell) furniture is the problem. Currently, inflation is being driven very heavily by industries reliant on low-income and low-skilled labor, especially in service industries. That is why people are showing up on the border wanting to work and prices are going up as we tell them that they can't due to the government having to make these decisions (based on artificially set criteria and quotas) instead of the private sector.
I’m not advocating that the feds determine our needs without private sector input. “Comrades” have proven time and again that central planning doesn’t work. The feds do, however, allegedly control immigration so they have to be involved. I agree that immigration is a net benefit, however, as it currently is allowed it’s benefit is reduced by the problems that uncontrolled entry causes to communities’ budgets and crime rates. Not saying that immigrants are all (or even a majority) troublemakers but there certainly is a contingent that is.
How about we not involve the feds except as basic checks on security or as facilitators in matching labor providers and labor consumers? The notion that we should just accept the central planning because it currently exists is part of the problem here.
You arent living in reality if you say the current issues with immigration are "uncontrolled entry" ... you are looking at the results of pouring billions of dollars into the opposite, as well as political failure to address the barriers to legal immigration.
