8 ms·

Automation like this is why I call BS on the "we need more immigrants to keep the economy going!" folks. We will be struggling to keep our existing population

Automation like this is why I call BS on the "we need more immigrants to keep the economy going!" folks. We will be struggling to keep our existing population employed. The last thing we want to do is import even more low-skilled labor who will soon be made redundant. Increasing automation means a declining population is a godsend rather than a problem. Policy makers must be aware of this. I suspect the call for increased immigration are politically motivated (replacing the existing population with a more reliable voting block) rather than sincere economic concerns. This recent article is a great example. The author gleefully explains how replacing the existing white population with immigrants will reduce the NRA's base. https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/the-nra-will-fall-its-inevitable/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/...

oldmanjay 11y ago
The calls for restricted immigration are certainly politically motivated (mainly variations on "I don't want them getting mine") so what's the difference? National borders mean less and less all the time. Clinging to them to weather this upcoming economic storm is like using an anchor as a liferaft.
- mason240 11y ago
  Almost no one in the US is calling for restrictions on immigration.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    Really now? No one? [edit: You added almost, I can almost agree now ;)] Tougher border control is restrictions on immigration. Why do you think various billionaire nutjobs want to build a great wall of mexico?
    - mason240 11y ago
      No, it's not. It's enforcing current immigration policies. Moving towards an open borders would be changing restrictions on immigration.
      - BuckRogers 11y ago
        That's not true. The border has always been open for people to pass freely for centuries. Restricting border crossings would be a change in immigration policy. I don't think it's necessary.
        mason240 11y ago
        And then we decided that having government, taxes, social programs, ect were necessary. You are free to feel otherwise, but the issue of society vs anarchy has been firmly resolved.
        BuckRogers 11y ago
        We already had gov't, taxes and social programs. It may not be apparent to you, but homesteading on indigenous lands was a social program. I'd love to see if you could make 4X the salary and 2X the quality of life by migrating to another country if you'd change your tune. I hope your rigid rules of society always apply to you and your descendants. But I'm guessing you're ok with the folks who migrated to North America. Just not ok when those same people move around their own continent.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
  - hchenji 11y ago
    https://www.numbersusa.com/ https://www.numbersusa.com/
- compostor42 11y ago
  So why not let the entire population of Africa move to the United States? Borders are an antiquated concept according to you.
  - drdeca 11y ago
    Why not let the entire population of California move to Rhode island? Wait, who is preventing the entire population of California from moving to Rhode island? I'm not aware of any regulations that forbid anyone from moving to Rhode island from California, except for things like house arrest or other things requiring someone to stay in one place.
    - compostor42 11y ago
      What argument are you trying to make? It is not clear.
      - hchenji 11y ago
        Just because borders are open does not mean that people will immediately move. That said, CA and RI have similar quality of life, but Africa and North American probably do not. So CA/RI is not a good example.
BuckRogers 11y ago
You had me agreeing until the part about the NRA base going down with increased immigration. Now I'm all for it.
- compostor42 11y ago
  Purposeful demographic replacement of white people to achieve political ends. Lovely.
  - BuckRogers 11y ago
    > Purposeful demographic replacement of white people to achieve political ends. Lovely. Why is being white so important? What's the difference? If the difference is no NRA, sounds like a decent trade to me.
    - compostor42 11y ago
      >Why is being white so important? What's the difference? Replace "white" with "jewish" and you'd fit right in with holocaust deniers/apologist. So just to be clear, you have no problem with ethnically cleansing a nation to change its political disposition?
      - BuckRogers 11y ago
        >Replace "white" with "jewish" and you'd fit right in with holocaust deniers/apologist. So just to be clear, you have no problem with ethnically cleansing a nation to change its political disposition? What? You're insinuating we're going through a White Holocaust and I'm apologizing for it. You gotta be out of your mind. "Ethnic cleansing"??? Take a breath and realize you're comparing concentration camps to people migrating for a job. What a sick way to trivialize one of the worst crimes of the 20th century.
        compostor42 11y ago
        You didn't answer the question: You think it is okay to purposefully and systematically replace one ethnic group with another to achieve your political ends? Your desire meets the UN's definition of genocide, congrats: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
scrollaway 11y ago
> Automation like this is why I call BS on the "we need more immigrants to keep the economy going!" folks. This is a bit of a shortcut (and most don't realize it) to "more people doesn't necessarily mean less jobs to go around, as available work is not a finite product because of the amount of artificial demand an increased population can create". We don't need more human drones; when properly funneled, increased immigration can mean a better economy.
- compostor42 11y ago
  > We don't need more human drones; when properly funneled, increased immigration can mean a better economy. Agreed. Importing millions of unskilled laborers is insane as automation picks up. Those jobs will be made redundant in short order. (They probably already would have been, but a massive pool of cheap labor meant little incentive for automation. Similar to the first steam-engines being unused by the ancient Greek ruling class http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeroAndLoon.htm http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeroAndLoon.htm) Bringing in the select best and brightest from other countries is certainly wise though.
  - scrollaway 11y ago
    Or bringing in more, and training people better. But this applies to the entire population through a better education system of course...
    - compostor42 11y ago
      But as I stated regarding my point about automation, we don't need more people, we need less. We already spend more than any other country per pupil. Many of the "broken" school systems have received massive influxes of cash (billions) and seen no improvement what so ever. Schools can only go so far it seems. 2 Billion spent in Kansas City to fix the schools. No appreciable result. I'm not convinced in the panacea of education. Something else is at work. The by country PISA scores are quite interesting.
JoeAltmaier 11y ago
I think those numbers don't add up. Decreasing population does nothing for the per capita need for working-class people. Unless you think laborers are dying off at a greater rate than the rest of us.
- compostor42 11y ago
  I don't understand, can you explain? Increased automation definitely decreases the per capita need for working-class people. We would probably have a lot more automation already (especially in low-end agriculture/service-industry) if not for a seemingly inexhaustible supply of cheap labor from south of the border.
  - JoeAltmaier 11y ago
    Just noting it doesn't matter how our 'native' population grows or shrinks - we'll have about the same available labor supply per capita. In fact as we push education, our labor supply shrinks as the next generation aspires to more than lawn maintenance.
dalacv 11y ago
Import? We are not importing them. They migrate here because there is work. If there is no work, they won't come over here. It is basic supply and demand that is controlling this.
- compostor42 11y ago
  From the perspective of the elites who encourage unchecked mass immigration to drive down labor costs and secure reliable voting blocks "import" is quite accurate.
acchow 11y ago
What about the immigrants in high-skilled labor? The recent calls for increased immigration are mostly about STEM-trained immigrants, are they not?
- compostor42 11y ago
  Vast majority of immigrants are unskilled. Letting in a few of the best and brightest from other countries makes sense. Importing millions of central/south American peasants is idiocy.
cheald 11y ago
> The last thing we want to do is import even more low-skilled labor who will soon be made redundant. This is the lump-of-labor fallacy. More immigrants means greater demand for labor (and other goods and services), not just greater supply and results in net job creation and wage increases for native workers. Automation isn't likely to change that, because the demand for labor is not fixed.
hchenji 11y ago
Yes I agree...instead of importing low skilled labor, we should import highly skilled immigrants. Increasing the H1B and employment based greencard quotas is absolutely necessary.

oldmanjay 11y ago

The calls for restricted immigration are certainly politically motivated (mainly variations on "I don't want them getting mine") so what's the difference? National borders mean less and less all the time. Clinging to them to weather this upcoming economic storm is like using an anchor as a liferaft.

mason240 11y ago
Almost no one in the US is calling for restrictions on immigration.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Really now? No one? [edit: You added almost, I can almost agree now ;)] Tougher border control is restrictions on immigration. Why do you think various billionaire nutjobs want to build a great wall of mexico?
  - mason240 11y ago
    No, it's not. It's enforcing current immigration policies. Moving towards an open borders would be changing restrictions on immigration.
    - BuckRogers 11y ago
      That's not true. The border has always been open for people to pass freely for centuries. Restricting border crossings would be a change in immigration policy. I don't think it's necessary.
      - mason240 11y ago
        And then we decided that having government, taxes, social programs, ect were necessary. You are free to feel otherwise, but the issue of society vs anarchy has been firmly resolved.
        BuckRogers 11y ago
        We already had gov't, taxes and social programs. It may not be apparent to you, but homesteading on indigenous lands was a social program. I'd love to see if you could make 4X the salary and 2X the quality of life by migrating to another country if you'd change your tune. I hope your rigid rules of society always apply to you and your descendants. But I'm guessing you're ok with the folks who migrated to North America. Just not ok when those same people move around their own continent.
        deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
- hchenji 11y ago
  https://www.numbersusa.com/ https://www.numbersusa.com/
compostor42 11y ago
So why not let the entire population of Africa move to the United States? Borders are an antiquated concept according to you.
- drdeca 11y ago
  Why not let the entire population of California move to Rhode island? Wait, who is preventing the entire population of California from moving to Rhode island? I'm not aware of any regulations that forbid anyone from moving to Rhode island from California, except for things like house arrest or other things requiring someone to stay in one place.
  - compostor42 11y ago
    What argument are you trying to make? It is not clear.
    - hchenji 11y ago
      Just because borders are open does not mean that people will immediately move. That said, CA and RI have similar quality of life, but Africa and North American probably do not. So CA/RI is not a good example.

BuckRogers 11y ago

You had me agreeing until the part about the NRA base going down with increased immigration. Now I'm all for it.

compostor42 11y ago
Purposeful demographic replacement of white people to achieve political ends. Lovely.
- BuckRogers 11y ago
  > Purposeful demographic replacement of white people to achieve political ends. Lovely. Why is being white so important? What's the difference? If the difference is no NRA, sounds like a decent trade to me.
  - compostor42 11y ago
    >Why is being white so important? What's the difference? Replace "white" with "jewish" and you'd fit right in with holocaust deniers/apologist. So just to be clear, you have no problem with ethnically cleansing a nation to change its political disposition?
    - BuckRogers 11y ago
      >Replace "white" with "jewish" and you'd fit right in with holocaust deniers/apologist. So just to be clear, you have no problem with ethnically cleansing a nation to change its political disposition? What? You're insinuating we're going through a White Holocaust and I'm apologizing for it. You gotta be out of your mind. "Ethnic cleansing"??? Take a breath and realize you're comparing concentration camps to people migrating for a job. What a sick way to trivialize one of the worst crimes of the 20th century.
      - compostor42 11y ago
        You didn't answer the question: You think it is okay to purposefully and systematically replace one ethnic group with another to achieve your political ends? Your desire meets the UN's definition of genocide, congrats: (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

scrollaway 11y ago

> Automation like this is why I call BS on the "we need more immigrants to keep the economy going!" folks. This is a bit of a shortcut (and most don't realize it) to "more people doesn't necessarily mean less jobs to go around, as available work is not a finite product because of the amount of artificial demand an increased population can create". We don't need more human drones; when properly funneled, increased immigration can mean a better economy.

compostor42 11y ago
> We don't need more human drones; when properly funneled, increased immigration can mean a better economy. Agreed. Importing millions of unskilled laborers is insane as automation picks up. Those jobs will be made redundant in short order. (They probably already would have been, but a massive pool of cheap labor meant little incentive for automation. Similar to the first steam-engines being unused by the ancient Greek ruling class http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeroAndLoon.htm http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeroAndLoon.htm) Bringing in the select best and brightest from other countries is certainly wise though.
- scrollaway 11y ago
  Or bringing in more, and training people better. But this applies to the entire population through a better education system of course...
  - compostor42 11y ago
    But as I stated regarding my point about automation, we don't need more people, we need less. We already spend more than any other country per pupil. Many of the "broken" school systems have received massive influxes of cash (billions) and seen no improvement what so ever. Schools can only go so far it seems. 2 Billion spent in Kansas City to fix the schools. No appreciable result. I'm not convinced in the panacea of education. Something else is at work. The by country PISA scores are quite interesting.

JoeAltmaier 11y ago

I think those numbers don't add up. Decreasing population does nothing for the per capita need for working-class people. Unless you think laborers are dying off at a greater rate than the rest of us.

compostor42 11y ago
I don't understand, can you explain? Increased automation definitely decreases the per capita need for working-class people. We would probably have a lot more automation already (especially in low-end agriculture/service-industry) if not for a seemingly inexhaustible supply of cheap labor from south of the border.
- JoeAltmaier 11y ago
  Just noting it doesn't matter how our 'native' population grows or shrinks - we'll have about the same available labor supply per capita. In fact as we push education, our labor supply shrinks as the next generation aspires to more than lawn maintenance.

dalacv 11y ago

Import? We are not importing them. They migrate here because there is work. If there is no work, they won't come over here. It is basic supply and demand that is controlling this.

compostor42 11y ago
From the perspective of the elites who encourage unchecked mass immigration to drive down labor costs and secure reliable voting blocks "import" is quite accurate.

acchow 11y ago

What about the immigrants in high-skilled labor? The recent calls for increased immigration are mostly about STEM-trained immigrants, are they not?

compostor42 11y ago
Vast majority of immigrants are unskilled. Letting in a few of the best and brightest from other countries makes sense. Importing millions of central/south American peasants is idiocy.

cheald 11y ago

> The last thing we want to do is import even more low-skilled labor who will soon be made redundant. This is the lump-of-labor fallacy. More immigrants means greater demand for labor (and other goods and services), not just greater supply and results in net job creation and wage increases for native workers. Automation isn't likely to change that, because the demand for labor is not fixed.

hchenji 11y ago

Yes I agree...instead of importing low skilled labor, we should import highly skilled immigrants. Increasing the H1B and employment based greencard quotas is absolutely necessary.