Economics Thread

thethe said:
ok bud - We will see how much the US thrives as deporations and immigration policy continues.

I have a feeling we will be just fine.....
Click to expand...
The economy will have its ups and downs with and without restrictive immigration policies. But the existing body of research that focuses on the effects of immigration finds that immigrants are mostly complements to native-born workers. In other words, increases in immigration increase demand for native-born workers. And decreases in immigration decrease demand for native-born workers. It is therefore not surprising that the restrictions we've seen in the past year have coincided with an increase in the native-born unemployment rate. There have been other factors at work as well, such as tariffs, that also work to increase unemployment over the past year.
 
Last edited:
if you don't believe me ask grok:

what does the research show on whether on balance immigrant workers are complements or substitutes for native-born workers.

On balance, the large body of economic research concludes that immigrant workers are more complements than perfect substitutes for native-born workers. This means immigrants typically do not compete one-for-one for the same jobs; instead, they often fill different roles, fill labor shortages, enable natives to specialize in higher-value tasks, and boost overall productivity and demand—which tends to protect or even slightly raise native wages and employment in the long run.
 
on a slightly different note:

job growth in 2023: 2.5 million

job growth in 2024: 1.5 million

job growth in 2025: 181 thousand
 
Last edited:
nsacpi said:
The economy will have its ups and downs with and without restrictive immigration policies. But the existing body of research that focuses on the effects of immigration finds that immigrants are mostly complements to native-born workers. In other words, increases in immigration increase demand for native-born workers. And decreases in immigration decrease demand for native-born workers. It is therefore not surprising that the restrictions we've seen in the past year have coincided with an increase in the native-born unemployment rate. There have been other factors at work as well, such as tariffs, that also work to increase unemployment over the past year.
Click to expand...
Yes - The top 1000 provide TONS of value.

We should keep those.
 
God bless the top 1000. They do great thangs. But it is the remaining 50 million of us collectively who carry greater weight when it comes to boosting the economy and increasing the number of jobs for native-born workers.
 
thethe said:
Remittances? You mean when money stays in the US and actually improves the US economy?
Click to expand...
I was responding to a post about Puerto Rico.

But would be glad to engage in a discussion of remittances to places like El Salvador. In my view those remittances are the private choices of private individuals. I would never think for a second to lecture my neighbor than he should not be spending his money on his extended family. Or even his immediate family if they lived in another country.

The remittances to a place like El Salvador also help to stabilize that country. We do have an interest in that. It is a form of foreign aid. But it comes from the pockets of private individuals rather than the taxpayer.

It is kind of weird to me to think we should judge what other people do with their money. Especially if the money is going to help needy people.
 
Last edited:
thethe said:
And the question about PR was about remittances.
Click to expand...
Sure. And we have a formal system of transfers where money goes from California and NY to places like Mississippi, Alabama and West Virginia. It is something I support. We make that decision as a polity.

And I support the rights of people as individuals to decide where to direct their income. People come here not to commit crimes but to put food on the table for their families. That's a noble thang. Wherever their families happen to be located.
 
nsacpi said:
I was responding to a post about Puerto Rico.

But would be glad to engage in a discussion of remittances to places like El Salvador. In my view those remittances are the private choices of private individuals. I would never think for a second to lecture my neighbor than he should not be spending his money on his extended family. Or even his immediate family if they lived in another country.

The remittances to a place like El Salvador also help to stabilize that country. We do have an interest in that. It is a form of foreign aid. But it comes from the pockets of private individuals rather than the taxpayer.

It is kind of weird to me to think we should judge what other people do with their money. Especially if the money is going to help needy people.
Click to expand...
It comes out of the pockets of Americans that should have those jobs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top