How many people should be alllowed to Immigrate to America?

How many per year?

  • 1 Million

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • 2 Million

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • 3 Million

    Votes: 1 5.3%
  • 4 Million

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 5+ Million

    Votes: 11 57.9%

  • Total voters
    19

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Apr 19, 2005
7,461
500
126
It's a really dumb issue but how many?



Moved from OT.
admin allisolm
 
Last edited by a moderator:

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
62,887
11,283
136
two...individuals, not millions...and they should have excellent qualifications...be doctors, engineers, scientists...and know how to post stuff like this in the P&N forum where it belongs.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,706
9,567
136
It's a really dumb issue but how many?

It's a really dumb question. Jobs need doing. In a decent economy, it would take a miracle for all the jobs to be filled by the natives, and immigrants are often the ones to pick up the slack. In a poorly-performing economy, it would take a miracle for there to be enough jobs for all the natives, so people move elsewhere thereby removing the slack. Also, people move elsewhere for better opportunities. Have you ever moved house for a job?

Would you like it if there was a numerically-based hard limit on the general number of immigrants that come in, only to find that you can't buy fruit in the supermarket or there isn't a doctor available to perform a vital surgical procedure on you?
 
  • Like
Reactions: dainthomas

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,494
2,120
126
Jobs need doing is both an oversimplification and also mostly wrong. Do you really think the nobody would collect garbage if there were no immigrants? There's no such thing as "jobs people won't do" but rather jobs people won't do at the advertised wage. Unskilled workers simply destroy the workforce market and make the rich richer.

Ironically more migrants means less native bluecollars being able to afford to put kids through college... and thus less doctors. And more people the doctors have to work on.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,706
9,567
136
Jobs need doing is both an oversimplification and also mostly wrong. Do you really think the nobody would collect garbage if there were no immigrants? There's no such thing as "jobs people won't do" but rather jobs people won't do at the advertised wage. Unskilled workers simply destroy the workforce market and make the rich richer.

Ironically more migrants means less native bluecollars being able to afford to put kids through college... and thus less doctors. And more people the doctors have to work on.

"That's an oversimplification! Hold my beer..."
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,494
2,120
126
You know what, you are a lifer, you deserve some respect, im gonna throw you a bone:

Economy 102

Q: a relative of mine owns a transport company. Often he runs jobs at a net loss.

Explain why this is a successful industry tactic.
 

mikeymikec

Lifer
May 19, 2011
17,706
9,567
136
Dude its ok if you dont understand. You can still post here.

Yeah, I've already wasted enough time recently with people who can't even concede a basic point of logic and yet still act in a condescending manner. I agree that my first response was a simplification of the topic, your criticism was approximately just as faulty and frankly if the topic was so simple that it could be completely accurately described in a few short paragraphs, the human race would be a sorry bunch of idiots for not solving it elegantly by now.
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,494
2,120
126
Here, ill answer this one for you but this is the last time i can help you, ok?

Transport is a very much standardized business. Operating costs tend to be identical across various brands.
When excessive competition drives down profits, certain operators will run at a loss to
1. maintain their operation (pay wages, maintenance they would otherwise pay regardless of business) and
2. avoid downsizing and increasing the number of clients dependant on their services

Thus working towards an over-time elimination of the excessive competition and the chance to bully dependant businesses into earning them a profit, i.e. raising prices.

Simply raising prices in a saturated market would instead only leads to a loss of market-share.

For your next question:

Q: explain loss-makers in retail and the attached regulations.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,047
7,976
136
Jobs need doing is both an oversimplification and also mostly wrong. Do you really think the nobody would collect garbage if there were no immigrants? There's no such thing as "jobs people won't do" but rather jobs people won't do at the advertised wage. Unskilled workers simply destroy the workforce market and make the rich richer.

Ironically more migrants means less native bluecollars being able to afford to put kids through college... and thus less doctors. And more people the doctors have to work on.

You are kind-of arguing a different issue from the previous poster's point, though. There's truth in what you say, but it still doesn't mean an absolute number limit makes any sense. Plus of course those workers are also probably making the very poorest (who aren't US citizens or residents) richer as well, via remittances.
 

pmv

Lifer
May 30, 2008
13,047
7,976
136
It's a really dumb question. Jobs need doing. In a decent economy, it would take a miracle for all the jobs to be filled by the natives, and immigrants are often the ones to pick up the slack. In a poorly-performing economy, it would take a miracle for there to be enough jobs for all the natives, so people move elsewhere thereby removing the slack. Also, people move elsewhere for better opportunities. Have you ever moved house for a job?

Would you like it if there was a numerically-based hard limit on the general number of immigrants that come in, only to find that you can't buy fruit in the supermarket or there isn't a doctor available to perform a vital surgical procedure on you?


And my reservation with this is - people moving around for 'better opportunities' without any over-arching government regulating the process is potentially going to lead to a race-to-the-bottom. Moving house for a job _under the same democratic government_ is not the same as people moving from one nation to another. If the labour force is spread across multiple independent regimes, then in effect you have no government regulation of labour competition at all.

Economic integration has raced far, far ahead of political integration, and I have no idea what the answer is, as world government looks a very long way away.

What I do feel as that as a (mostly) white, first-world person, I'm no longer in charge of what happens in this world. I think even the 'left' has traditionally tended to assume the 'west' is at the centre of everything, and that's just not the case any more.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mikeymikec

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
35,325
28,581
136
All of them. Let them all in, give SS# and get them into the system. Then you can find them if they start committing any crime, and you can toss them and block them from re-entry, or toss them in prison like anyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lanyap

brycejones

Lifer
Oct 18, 2005
26,132
24,059
136
As many as want to come as long as they are from very fine countries.

Brown people can fuck right off.

-President Cheeto
 

DigDog

Lifer
Jun 3, 2011
13,494
2,120
126
it still doesn't mean an absolute number limit makes any sense.
Of course not. If the US was still a frontier nation, the more people to chop wood, dig wells, and get murdered by indians, the better. But since you are post-boom, that no longer applies.

Broadly speaking, skilled migrants yay, unskilled nay. This is good even for unskilled natives, if everyone is a doctor, then those last 5 guys picking up the trash will also get paid more. And as a government, you mighy want *some* unskilled migration, to generate some competition within the unskilled. Too much of this, though, and you get trouble. It's not the doctors and lawyers who make revolutions happen.

Again as s government, you want all your jobs populated by taxpayers (natives possibly pay tax more consistently), and you are ok with need, rather than regulations, driving employment. However when you got more workers than jobs, you being to lose profit once more. Ideally again need creates resources but you need to balance it, and i dont have the numbers on development to say "we need X many".

As a native, the less unskilled migrants, the better for you - your unskilled labour becomes more valuable. The Black Plague directly created the Enlightment by making the workforce a commodity, rather than employment being a commodity. In simple words, its the difference between "go dig potatoes, ill pay you enough so you dont die" and "oh god please come work my fields i cant run my business without workers".

Countries like NZ, AU, Japan have a nearly no-immugrants policies, and they are arguably very successful - strong economies and high happiness rating.
Their immigratiob policies are like this:
A: you cant live here.
B: but i have 1m dollah.
A: ok you can live here.

Being a skilled and/or wealthy immigrant broadly means you ain't gonna steal tv sets to live. No 100% guarantees, but not too far from the truth. And every government needs dentists clinics, notaries, wildlife specialists, chess world champions, they all need math prodigies, architects, forensic pathologists, and porn video production company owners.

What they dont need is Gino the pizza delivery guy, because those are the guys that most visibly take jobs that protestors will notice.

Besides, its not like nurse jobs or skydivi g instructor jobs or quantity surveyor jobs are cash in hand. Native or immigrant, you get paid the same.

I do get that if you had a PARTICULARLY VAST influx of migrants all skilled in one specific job, that might upset that particular class of natives ..
 

pete6032

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2010
7,480
3,026
136
Of course not. If the US was still a frontier nation, the more people to chop wood, dig wells, and get murdered by indians, the better. But since you are post-boom, that no longer applies.

Broadly speaking, skilled migrants yay, unskilled nay. This is good even for unskilled natives, if everyone is a doctor, then those last 5 guys picking up the trash will also get paid more. And as a government, you mighy want *some* unskilled migration, to generate some competition within the unskilled. Too much of this, though, and you get trouble. It's not the doctors and lawyers who make revolutions happen.

Again as s government, you want all your jobs populated by taxpayers (natives possibly pay tax more consistently), and you are ok with need, rather than regulations, driving employment. However when you got more workers than jobs, you being to lose profit once more. Ideally again need creates resources but you need to balance it, and i dont have the numbers on development to say "we need X many".
Yes but should it be the goal of the government to use immigration policy as a tool to maximize tax revenue?
 
  • Like
Reactions: DigDog

obidamnkenobi

Golden Member
Sep 16, 2010
1,407
423
136
To know that, first you have to determine how many People are needed for the Economy, Demographics, and other factors.

Just open it up. When it's "full" there will be rock-bottom wages and/or soaring unemployment, and who would want to move to a country like that?? Self-correcting problem.
 

glenn1

Lifer
Sep 6, 2000
25,383
1,013
126
All of them. Let them all in, give SS# and get them into the system. Then you can find them if they start committing any crime, and you can toss them and block them from re-entry, or toss them in prison like anyone else.

"All of them" is probably a bit strong (we still want to screen out criminals, etc.) but otherwise I agree that supply of visas for legal immigration should roughly match demand. Illegal immigration is an issue for varied reasons while immigration via legally prescribed channels is not. There's bound to be some level of anxiety about increasing levels of immigration and it changing the demographics of the country but that can be managed and having controlled vs. uncontrolled immigration would be a big part of relieving that.
 

Thebobo

Lifer
Jun 19, 2006
18,592
7,673
136
Enough for trump to have many wives.

36473999_2103082273264495_5178995505388060672_n.jpg
 

dainthomas

Lifer
Dec 7, 2004
14,591
3,425
136
All of them. Let them all in, give SS# and get them into the system. Then you can find them if they start committing any crime, and you can toss them and block them from re-entry, or toss them in prison like anyone else.

It's like the people who say undocumented shouldn't be able to get drivers licenses. Great.

1. They're driving anyway. Except now without insurance.
2. They run into you and wreck your car.
3. ????
4. Profit!

Happened to me and I got to pay a $500 deductible. Thanks, conservatives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dank69

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
And my reservation with this is - people moving around for 'better opportunities' without any over-arching government regulating the process is potentially going to lead to a race-to-the-bottom. Moving house for a job _under the same democratic government_ is not the same as people moving from one nation to another. If the labour force is spread across multiple independent regimes, then in effect you have no government regulation of labour competition at all.

Economic integration has raced far, far ahead of political integration, and I have no idea what the answer is, as world government looks a very long way away.

What I do feel as that as a (mostly) white, first-world person, I'm no longer in charge of what happens in this world. I think even the 'left' has traditionally tended to assume the 'west' is at the centre of everything, and that's just not the case any more.

What and why do yo imagine it would be a race to the bottom? That is not intuitive to me.
 

realibrad

Lifer
Oct 18, 2013
12,337
898
126
Of course not. If the US was still a frontier nation, the more people to chop wood, dig wells, and get murdered by indians, the better. But since you are post-boom, that no longer applies.

Broadly speaking, skilled migrants yay, unskilled nay. This is good even for unskilled natives, if everyone is a doctor, then those last 5 guys picking up the trash will also get paid more. And as a government, you mighy want *some* unskilled migration, to generate some competition within the unskilled. Too much of this, though, and you get trouble. It's not the doctors and lawyers who make revolutions happen.

Again as s government, you want all your jobs populated by taxpayers (natives possibly pay tax more consistently), and you are ok with need, rather than regulations, driving employment. However when you got more workers than jobs, you being to lose profit once more. Ideally again need creates resources but you need to balance it, and i dont have the numbers on development to say "we need X many".

As a native, the less unskilled migrants, the better for you - your unskilled labour becomes more valuable. The Black Plague directly created the Enlightment by making the workforce a commodity, rather than employment being a commodity. In simple words, its the difference between "go dig potatoes, ill pay you enough so you dont die" and "oh god please come work my fields i cant run my business without workers".

Countries like NZ, AU, Japan have a nearly no-immugrants policies, and they are arguably very successful - strong economies and high happiness rating.
Their immigratiob policies are like this:
A: you cant live here.
B: but i have 1m dollah.
A: ok you can live here.

Being a skilled and/or wealthy immigrant broadly means you ain't gonna steal tv sets to live. No 100% guarantees, but not too far from the truth. And every government needs dentists clinics, notaries, wildlife specialists, chess world champions, they all need math prodigies, architects, forensic pathologists, and porn video production company owners.

What they dont need is Gino the pizza delivery guy, because those are the guys that most visibly take jobs that protestors will notice.

Besides, its not like nurse jobs or skydivi g instructor jobs or quantity surveyor jobs are cash in hand. Native or immigrant, you get paid the same.

I do get that if you had a PARTICULARLY VAST influx of migrants all skilled in one specific job, that might upset that particular class of natives ..

Some flaws here. Japan has a very different society where they often work many more hours and have far fewer things. They take out loans that are longer than their expected life span and pass that loan down if they have kids.

Unskilled workers still add to the net growth of an economy and seem to raise the standard of living for everyone, top to bottom. You could easily justify letting all people in if your goal is to improve the economy.