Has the right gone completely insane about immigration?

[fskimospy]

Simple thinking logically, the average American, whether born to citizens or not, does not pay enough in taxes over their lifetime to balance out the services they use. If they did, we wouldn't have an $18T and growing debt. Given that, the faster our population grows, the faster our deficit spending grows.

If our spending was under control, I'd agree with you. But it's not. So every new American is a burden rather than a benefit.

If every new American is a burden then logic says the optimal outcome is a shrinking population. I can't say I know of many economists that would agree.

Remember also that our debt is overwhelmingly owed to ourselves. More importantly, the question is if a person raises or lowers our debt/GDP ratio, not whether they increase our debt in the absolute. For example if someone adds 1% to our GDP and 0.5% of GDP to our debt, they have made America's debt situation better, not worse.

 

[BoberFett]

If every new American is a burden then logic says the optimal outcome is a shrinking population. I can't say I know of many economists that would agree.

Remember also that our debt is overwhelmingly owed to ourselves. More importantly, the question is if a person raises or lowers our debt/GDP ratio, not whether they increase our debt in the absolute. For example if someone adds 1% to our GDP and 0.5% of GDP to our debt, they have made America's debt situation better, not worse.

Most economists would disagree about a shrinking population because we've set ourselves up as an economic ponzi scheme. We always need more workers to replace the exiting workers. Unless you can imagine a way to support an infinite number of people using only the resources available on this planet, we're going to have to break that model at some point.

As to your second point, that only works for high producing segments of the population. Would you say the average American produces more than they consume, or consumes more than they produce?

 

[fskimospy]

Most economists would disagree about a shrinking population because we've set ourselves up as an economic ponzi scheme. We always need more workers to replace the exiting workers. Unless you can imagine a way to support an infinite number of people using only the resources available on this planet, we're going to have to break that model at some point.

I don't think we're anywhere close to that point though, particularly not in the US.

As to your second point, that only works for high producing segments of the population. Would you say the average American produces more than they consume, or consumes more than they produce?

That's a very complex question to answer, but I think overall the average American probably produces significantly more than they consume in their lifetimes. Our system isn't doing a very good job of ensuring that each person is compensated commensurate to their contribution right now though so that can be hard to measure.

I guess you would need some sort of productivity measure that would feed into GDP per capita or something. Maybe someone else has looked into it?

 

[realibrad]

If every new American is a burden then logic says the optimal outcome is a shrinking population. I can't say I know of many economists that would agree.

Remember also that our debt is overwhelmingly owed to ourselves. More importantly, the question is if a person raises or lowers our debt/GDP ratio, not whether they increase our debt in the absolute. For example if someone adds 1% to our GDP and 0.5% of GDP to our debt, they have made America's debt situation better, not worse.

A few things. There are economists that say that we had the most wealth when GDP growth outpaced population growth. I makes some sense though. If wealth is the individual capture of the market in a given time. So if those being born are a net positive, unless they are very productive, the average wealth capture is going to be pushed down.

As for your idea that adding 1% to the gdp is a net positive if you add .5% to the debt, that is not inherently true. The cost of debt is not its nominal value. If that .5% could have been invested to grow the economy by 1.000001% then your situation would be less optimal. You would be forgoing .000001 more growth. It is supported by the underlying idea behind investment.

It could be true that the .5% added to the debt is a better option, but its not inherently true that it would be the better option. You just fell into the same trap that Doc did yesterday.

 

[fskimospy]

A few things. There are economists that say that we had the most wealth when GDP growth outpaced population growth. I makes some sense though. If wealth is the individual capture of the market in a given time. So if those being born are a net positive, unless they are very productive, the average wealth capture is going to be pushed down.

As for your idea that adding 1% to the gdp is a net positive if you add .5% to the debt, that is not inherently true. The cost of debt is not its nominal value. If that .5% could have been invested to grow the economy by 1.000001% then your situation would be less optimal. You would be forgoing .000001 more growth. It is supported by the underlying idea behind investment.

It could be true that the .5% added to the debt is a better option, but its not inherently true that it would be the better option. You just fell into the same trap that Doc did yesterday.

Definitely not.

You aren't addressing the question: Boberfett said that because our debt keeps increasing that additional people are a net negative from a debt perspective. ("Every new American is a burden, not a benefit") My response was only to evaluate if that were true or not.

My example showed that even if a person increases the debt, if they cause more GDP creation than the debt they created they have in fact improved the debt situation despite an aggregate debt level increase. Therefore a benefit, not a burden as compared to the current situation.

Showing how something he said isn't right doesn't mean that I believe the opposite is correct in all cases, and I don't find a comparison to a theoretical and unknowable optimal situation to be very useful here. I'm sure some people's lives aren't the optimal allocation of economic resources, but unless 100% of new people aren't my point stands. (which would of course mean that the economically optimal number of people on the planet after those currently living would be zero)

 

[nixium]

That isnt at all what I said. I actually do think we need to control out border and stop the influx I just think we have bigger fish to fry first. Most of all, I want us to stop acting like our problems are because of immigrants. Man up America, you need to be responsible for your own life, not blame others for your inability to get by. - Personal responsibility.

There's some truth to what you say - the immigrants aren't the one that are supposed to be demonized here. Instead, corporatism is the true culprit. No demand = no illegals.

However, I don't think you can wave the problem away with "personal responsibility". Taking my previous example, it means that we can find someone in the third world that will do your job for 50% of your pay, import him on a visa, and fire you. Then we can also say - hey man up, personal responsibility, don't blame us. Repeat this over and over again and you have to ask at what part is a system actively pushing you down.

 

[retrospooty]

I don't think you can wave the problem away with "personal responsibility". Taking my previous example, it means that we can find someone in the third world that will do your job for 50% of your pay, import him on a visa, and fire you.

Honestly, if I were replaceable by someone=, anyone willing to do the same job at 1/2 my pay then so be it. I will go gain some new skills because it is my responsibility to take care of my family, period. I am not going to sit around and whine "illegals took my job" I will go get a better one because this is America and you have to work hard to succeed.

 

[boomerang]

Honestly, if I were replaceable by someone=, anyone willing to do the same job at 1/2 my pay then so be it. I will go gain some new skills because it is my responsibility to take care of my family, period. I am not going to sit around and whine "illegals took my job" I will go get a better one because this is America and you have to work hard to succeed.

Just curious what other forms of illegal activity you have no issues with. A short list would be fine.

Would you be happy with having your car stolen? This is America and you can just go buy a better one.

Oh, and if you're happy with some or all illegal activities that negatively affect you, are you OK if I don't feel the same way?

 

[retrospooty]

Just curious what other forms of illegal activity you have no issues with.

Pretty much several traffic laws, that is about it. Unrelated and irrelevant, but that is that.

The point is, its about personal responsibility. Stop blaming others for your own lacks. Be an adult, go after a good life and take it.