It's a really dumb issue but how many?
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.
Dude its ok if you dont understand. You can still post here.
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.
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?
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.it still doesn't mean an absolute number limit makes any sense.
Yes but should it be the goal of the government to use immigration policy as a tool to maximize tax revenue?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".
To know that, first you have to determine how many People are needed for the Economy, Demographics, and other factors.
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. 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.
Enough for trump to have many wives.
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.
Perhaps it should be emphasised that if you emigrate to the US there's a non-zero chance you might end up married to Donald Trump?
Might put people off.
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 ..