DOOM, or The Official 2016 US Election Thread

[sadmanbarty]

For the working class lot, immigration means more competition for their already shrunken resources (jobs, housing, public transport etc)

Again, though these thoughts are intuitive (I thought along these lines before I saw the research), the available evidence suggests they're not true.

 

[sadmanbarty]

A lot of the problems attributed (whether correctly or not) to immigration stem in larger part from policies such as reduced unionisation, technological displacement and spending cuts. In other words, governments could easily remedy the problems that occur from immigration while maintaining the benefits that immigrants bring.

 

[Slothrop]

For the working class lot, immigration means more competition for their already shrunken resources (jobs, housing, public transport etc)

I like bits of this thing from Phil McDuff:
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...e-working-class-brexiters-politicians-bigotry

...our other “genuine concerns” – such as school and hospital funding, benefits and disability payments, the crushing of industries that formed the backbones of our local economies – are ignored or dismissed out of hand. They are cast as luxuries, an irresponsible “tax and spend” approach, or they are turned back on us as evidence of our own fecklessness and lack of ambition.

When we say “we need benefits to live because you hollowed out our towns in pursuit of a flawed economic doctrine,” we are castigated for being workshy, and told we only have ourselves to blame. If we alter our complaints to blame foreign people it’s a different story. “I can’t get a council house because they’ve all been sold to private landlords,” gets nothing. “I can’t get a council house because they’ve all gone to bloody Muslims,” gets on the front page of the tabloids.

 

[Mr. Tea]

Immigrants increase demand in the economy and they're crucial in sustaining industries such as agriculture, construction and manufacturing. So you can see how other factors can compensate for them increasing the supply of labour (which taken in isolation would depress wages and 'take jobs').

I'm not sure I follow you. Most people are not farm labourers, builders or plumbers, for example, so an influx of people looking specifically to do those sorts of jobs will increase the supply of that kind of labour far more than it will increase the demand for it. The supply:demand ratio is increased - in other words, that sort of labour becomes less scarce. And the less scarce people who are qualified and willing to do a certain kind of job become, the lower the wages they can demand.

 

[vimothy]

I already do recoil at the idea of McDonalds et al exporting American culture.

EDIT: AND YET I obviously enjoy living in London where all the big chains are as well as the cosmopolitan cuisine...

The big chains and the cosmopolitanism are two sides of the same coin -- global capital. Like you say, it doesn't really make sense to object to the erosion of native cultures in the third world but consider the same thing to be coequal to the good in the UK. But at least you are not alone in your inconsistency.

 

[Leo]

https://trumpgrets.tumblr.com

"their failed schadenfreude is now my schadenfreude"

 

[vimothy]

And the less scarce people who are qualified and willing to do a certain kind of job become, the lower the wages they can demand.

That's true. However there's a general equilibrium argument that the efficiency gains from immigration on output will raise wages such that the ceteris paribus effects on a particular occupation are offset.

 

[vimothy]

Another argument is that if the skill mix of the immigrants is the same as the native population, the effect will be the same as population growth. If there are economies of scale, this will also raise per capita output.

 

[sadmanbarty]

I'm not sure I follow you. Most people are not farm labourers, builders or plumbers, for example, so an influx of people looking specifically to do those sorts of jobs will increase the supply of that kind of labour far more than it will increase the demand for it. The supply:demand ratio is increased - in other words, that sort of labour becomes less scarce. And the less scarce people who are qualified and willing to do a certain kind of job become, the lower the wages they can demand.

We can go back and forth theorising, but reviews of the empirical evidence suggest that the impact of immigration on wages and employment is small.

 

[Mr. Tea]

We can go back and forth theorising, but reviews of the empirical evidence suggest that the impact of immigration on wages and employment is small.

I appreciate that (although I notice you've changed your position since the last page from "no effect" to "a small impact"). Part of the problem is that you're painting in very broad brushstrokes, such as when you say "free movement [...] has been beneficial to the British people". So if you already don't earn very much, even a small reduction in your earnings could be the difference between just about supporting yourself and being better off going on the dole.

I just don't think it's really acceptable to say "Immigration on the whole is beneficial, so those who don't benefit from it should suck it up for the greater good."

 

[Corpsey]

If the reality is that immigration is just the scapegoat for people's economic problems, then the issue of that being the PERCEPTION still remains, and is arguably the biggest block to the left regaining power. It's a conundrum.

 

[Mr. Tea]

If the reality is that immigration is just the scapegoat for people's economic problems...

But I don't think that's true, though. The UK's population is growing, and growing fairly rapidly at that. This is putting a great deal of pressure on land and housing, which is already at a premium, and I don't think it's a satisfactory answer to say "Well it's government's fault for not building enough new houses". The pressure to build new houses wouldn't be there, or would at any rate be much less intense (yes I know people are living alone or in small households more than they used to, and of course old houses in poor condition get condemned and knocked down...) were it not for the population growth.

And even if both the money and political will were there to go a massive house-building boom, neither the government nor private companies can generate more land.

This is before you even start to consider the pressure being exerted on what's left of the country's biodiversity and its soil/air/water quality.

I dunno, perhaps this all falls outside the purview of economics, per se, in which case you're probably right. But there's more to life than economics.

 

[droid]

This was posted before wasnt it?

Golf Courses In England ‘Use Twice As Much Land As Housing’

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/11/11/uk-housing-golf-courses_n_4254512.html

There are all sorts of issues with immigration, some more pertinent than others, but the perennial problem is that there are a bunch of cunts sitting atop an enormous pile of wealth and shitting on everybody below.

 

[Leo]

in the states, there are some are industries where immigrants ARE pretty much the only ones who do a particular job. not many white dudes picking grapes and avocados in california, or doing landscaping in texas. the economy in those regions would be hurt without them.

and the trump voters in the rust belt didn't lose their jobs to immigrants, they lost them to other countries with low-wage workers.

 

[vimothy]

But that's like a reverse lump of labour fallacy. No reason to expect that "white dudes" should want to pick grapes at every wage imaginable, including the (presumably extremely low) ones currently available.

 

[Leo]

No reason to expect that "white dudes" should want to pick grapes at every wage imaginable, including the (presumably extremely low) ones currently available.

is that because they're somehow superior to immigrants and have some sort of birthright to choose not to lower themselves to the indignity of hard work at low pay?

 

[vimothy]

...meaning that not being willing to do "hard work at low pay" is a moral failure on the part of these "white dudes" -- an expression of their racism, perhaps?

 

[sadmanbarty]

I appreciate that (although I notice you've changed your position since the last page from "no effect" to "a small impact").

I didn't say it had "no effect", I even posted a graph which shows the effect.

Part of the problem is that you're painting in very broad brushstrokes, such as when you say "free movement [...] has been beneficial to the British people".

When talking about something as large as the UK economy, it's inevitable that you'll talk about aggregates in broad brush strokes. I did clarify after you pulled my up on it.

if you already don't earn very much, even a small reduction in your earnings could be the difference between just about supporting yourself and being better off going on the dole.

I just don't think it's really acceptable to say "Immigration on the whole is beneficial, so those who don't benefit from it should suck it up for the greater good."

I also said that the government could remedy these problems (and address the more significant root causes), without reducing immigration, thus keeping the benefits.

I'd also like to point out that poor people do in certain respects benefit from immigration.

 

[vimothy]

And what are the benefits?

 

[Mr. Tea]

Golf Courses In England ‘Use Twice As Much Land As Housing’

Right, but until such time as Comrade Corbyn sweeps to power in a glorious People's Revolution, bans golf outright and repurposes all the golf courses to something that benefits ordinary people - and he'd certainly have my blessing, if any such thing ever came to pass - they're going to remain golf courses. And sure, it's easy to attack golf because it's such an elitist passtime, enjoyed by a small number of overwhelmingly white, overwhelmingly male and invariably wealthy people, but there's all sorts of land use that's under threat from ever-sprawling suburbs - SSSIs, AONBs, sports fields, parks and public gardens, as well as farm land, obviously.

The point being, all population growth is unsustainable in the long run, and rapid population growth in an already crowded country is unsustainable in the short-to-medium term. And this is entirely independent of any discussion about culture or even economics.