Brent, that is an easy one. It is because they have been radicalized by the conservative media to beleive everything they think is a problem in the country is somehow a result of what they call "illegals". A lot of times they are sold something is a problem that isn't even a problem.
All to distract them from the reality of who is causing their problems big corporations and billionaires.
Originally posted by: Brent Kline
I guess if you are a landlord this population surge helps to raise property values and rents, but is often offset in higher property taxes and insurance, and much higher rents for US citizens. If you are a farmer or bussiness that uses cheap or non citizen labor that could help the bottom line but the more mouths to feed and clothe would still drive prices higher because of demand. In the end I guess goverment wins because more spending equals more sales tax revenue , minus the social services cost. If it is such a great deal for everone, why is the country not feeling it.
No, Brent. The question is, why is the country not perceiving/acknowledging it? It IS a great benefit. It always has been.
For a LOT of folks, they don't appreciate the value of something until they lose it. Our grocery prices are still very low, compared to the rest of the industrialized world (which also suffered much worse inflation than us). Drive out all immigrants? Sounds good to the MAGAs, but the economic consequences for us would be devastating.
Your thinking is too simplistic for a number of reasons. First, the current housing shortage is due to the continuing lack of supply, which is due to a near-total cessation of new housing starts in the decade after the 2006-8 Dubya recession. This has been confirmed by several independent as well as government sources. The effect of immigrant demand is small compared to the lack of supply.
Second, and most important, is the inherent bias in your "more mouths to feed and clothe" mantra, as if immigrants were all helpless babes, dependent on the government to care for them. That's not the case. The vast majority of migrants are young people who work and produce.
Lastly, something that helps companies' bottom lines also helps consumers. Savings on labor expenses are passed on to consumers. Greater production helps eliminate supply chain bottlenecks that provoke inflation.
Believe me, your basic argument was old and tired in the late 19th century, when anti-whoever sentiment was even more white-hot than it is now. Immigrant labor made us what we are today. And then as now, many people have refused to acknowledge that.
I was thinking more suppy and demand, nothing more. More people means you have to produce more or prices naturally go up. If you have 11 families fighting to rent 10 homes prices are going to be higher than if you had 9 families and 10 homes. Same with clothes and food supply. More people means that you have to have more of everything . More housing, more food, more teachers , more doctors, more police etc. In the long run it offers a lot of oppertunity, but intially lots of inflation and shortages in many areas, regardless of the increased taxes the government collects.
Originally posted by: Brent Kline
I was thinking more suppy and demand, nothing more. More people means you have to produce more or prices naturally go up. If you have 11 families fighting to rent 10 homes prices are going to be higher than if you had 9 families and 10 homes. Same with clothes and food supply. More people means that you have to have more of everything . More housing, more food, more teachers , more doctors, more police etc. In the long run it offers a lot of oppertunity, but intially lots of inflation and shortages in many areas, regardless of the increased taxes the government collects.
Look at your second sentence. "You"--do you mean all the other folks who are already here, AS IF THE RECENT ARRIVALS DON'T PRODUCE ANYTHING?
More people means you have to have/produce more of everything. Quite true. But more people also means MORE OF EVERYTHING IS PRODUCED. If this basic truth didn't apply, then all population increases would be detrimental (not just immigration).
An influx of migrants doesn't necessarily mean inflation and shortages. That only applies if and when they consume more than they produce. The current migration is primarily of young adults aho already have the ability to work and are usually in their prime years. If you think they are helpless or useless, consider the effort and ambition it took for them to get here. These are the type of people we want--young, able, motivated, and with a fierce desire to live in America.
Brent, as long as you are play-acting the oh so reasonable economics analyst, let's see how the big boys think:
Trump win, GOP sweep would fuel inflation: Moody’s Analytics - the Hill
Goldman Sachs: Trump policies would slow down economy - the Hill
Let me guess, Brent, is it time for a conspiracy theory?
Even if Trump sweeps he would probably not have 60 votes in the senate, or if Harris wins the same thing. The finance guys I talk to see pros and cons to either one winning. It is up to us to find the advantage plays that either administration might give us, just like the casinos. People are going to bitch either way. You can choose to be a glass half full person or a glass half empty.
Originally posted by: Brent Kline
Even if Trump sweeps he would probably not have 60 votes in the senate, or if Harris wins the same thing. The finance guys I talk to see pros and cons to either one winning. It is up to us to find the advantage plays that either administration might give us, just like the casinos. People are going to bitch either way. You can choose to be a glass half full person or a glass half empty.
Unfortunately, we can't choose what kind of economy we will be living in. That choice will be made for us by our beknighted fellow citizens. You know, tyranny of the Electoral College minority, and all that.
I'm sure you're aware that Republicans cooked up a way to pass spending bills in the House with only a simple majority--I believe it's called "reconciliation"--and that only a very few types of bills need a supermajority in the Senate. If there is a Republipig sweep, there will be absolutely nothing standing in the way of Trump's plans to utterly fuck up the economy--so he and Elon can stop paying taxes.
Also unfortunately, there are no "advantage plays" in a death-spiral economy with Weimar Republic-style inflation. There are only safeguards. One approach is to borrow, borrow, borrow, to the utmost extent that you are able, and divest yourself of all cash, equity assets, and debt assets. Put your money in illiquid assets such as real estate. Any interest you pay on your debt will be with heavily inflated dollars.
I doubt very much that anyone except the very rich is going to enjoy the Trump economy. And they'll have legitimate reasons to "bitch," as you put it.
Of course, Harris could still win, and/or the Dems could take control of the House. It looks likely that the Republiholes will seize the Senate legitimately, the Jan. 6 attempt having previously failed.
Originally posted by: Brent Kline
If you are a farmer or bussiness that uses cheap or non citizen labor that could help the bottom line but the more mouths to feed and clothe would still drive prices higher because of demand.
I've been meaning to comment on this, but it's been a busy weekend so I'm a little late. I know you've had a follow-up comment that you were looking at it from a very fundamental supply and demand argument, but as Kevin pointed out, people can contribute much more from work than they consume. If that weren't true capitalism wouldn't work, and it does work.
Originally posted by: MaxFlavor
I've been meaning to comment on this, but it's been a busy weekend so I'm a little late. I know you've had a follow-up comment that you were looking at it from a very fundamental supply and demand argument, but as Kevin pointed out, people can contribute much more from work than they consume. If that weren't true capitalism wouldn't work, and it does work.
I hate the hypocrisy of the right claiming that immigrants are harmful, when what they're really doing is giving their racist followers a "reason" to hate brown people. Racism is deeply rooted in American history, with a recurring theme of gross injustice, such as when we invited thousands of Chinese workers into the country to help build the transcontinental railroad, and then passed laws to kick them out. And of course, the "reason" was that they were dishonest, untrustworthy, criminals, etc. Sound familiar?
