Today, I am an Indian

[Heraclitus]

???

What I said has nothing to do with medians. It has to do with means. The mean real income among native citizens is increased by immigration, just like it's increased by trade or by technological progress. The median can be shifted downward.

Typo/sleepiness. I meant the average (mean) income of the nation's citizens.


BTW Does this account for increases in taxation due to the welfare state?


Edit: Off Topic: Based on this thread I think I shouldn't be allowed to vote. Ignorance of such things is inexcusable if you pretend to have a right to have your opinion taken seriously on most political matters.

[KrazyHorse]

No, this is idealized economics. The key thing to bear in mind is that when the direction of an economic effect is pretty clearly given by basic principles (like the fact that immigration increases native productivity), it's hard for more complex considerations to overcome that effect. When the direction of an effect is ambiguous under standard theory, or there are serious competing theories which give different answers then you should ask for empirical evidence.

[KrazyHorse]

Technical progress seems to be trending towards a more sustainable society but is offset by rapidly growing populations, the biggest problem is the increase of people living on a developed standard

I have no idea what the **** you're on about.

[KrazyHorse]

Stop being such a ****ing dumbass, Hera. People getting richer is not a ****ing problem. Go play with the eco-catastrophists and peak oil dumbasses.

[KrazyHorse]

I don't need to point out that development of underdeveloped countries is preferable.

Why?

[Kuciwalker]

Have you just spent 48 posts imparting a partial impression of a point that takes two or three lines to make?

[SlowwHand]

Why not? It takes him 3-4 posts in a row for each thought.

[KrazyHorse]

Talking to me? I explained it all in one post. Then I explained it a different way. Then a different way. Hera seems on the verge of changing his mind about something. It's worth it to put some effort in if somebody is actually going to think about it, and change his opinion to be more informed.

[Heraclitus]

No, this is idealized economics. The key thing to bear in mind is that when the direction of an economic effect is pretty clearly given by basic principles (like the fact that immigration increases native productivity), it's hard for more complex considerations to overcome that effect. When the direction of an effect is ambiguous under standard theory, or there are serious competing theories which give different answers then you should ask for empirical evidence.

Ok, then I understood you right. In a "Libertarian" system I can see why this follows.

So the decision if it makes economic sense to let immigrants in depends mostly on point 4. you made in the post about the reasons for opposition to immigration? Is there any empirical data on those costs and at under which conditions the improved welfare of extra immigrants offsets them?


Edit: This also I suppose shows that it is not in the US governments interest to eliminate "illegal" immigration, since they can avoid giving them many of the welfare benefits and government services (some costs like crime are unavoidable) citizens are granted while still keeping the slightly larger tax revenue.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, Kuci, you've obviously never put any serious effort into teaching. The fact that something is and there is a compelling, simple argument for it being that way almost never succeeds in convincing somebody. If you want to get through to somebody the only real way to get them is to explain the point over and over again in different ways. Eventually you find the right combination of phrases and concepts that goes through their defences and alters the way they think.

[Kuciwalker]

BTW, Kuci, you've obviously never put any serious effort into teaching.

Happily not.

The fact that something is and there is a compelling, simple argument for it being that way almost never succeeds in convincing somebody.

Thankfully, my classes are all in the field where it does.

[Heraclitus]

Stop being such a ****ing dumbass, Hera. People getting richer is not a ****ing problem. Go play with the eco-catastrophists and peak oil dumbasses.

Wait, wait, wait. I never said "richer", I talked about developed living standards, which consume more resources than developing world living standards.

I don't need to point out that development of underdeveloped countries is preferable.

Why?

Underdeveloped countries tend to have high growth rates. Developing them seems to reduce the growth rates.


And global growth rates need to be low enough so as to not outpace technological progress (driven incidentally by developed countries) by a large margin.


And if you have a continuous massive brain drain of millions of Africans into Europe this I assume tends to slow economic growth there while not doing that much to slow population growth.

Edit: Have to go now, this is interesting will come back to the thread tommorow.

[Ben Kenobi]

And global growth rates need to be low enough so as to not outpace technological progress (driven incidentally by developed countries) by a large margin.

Total worldwide fertility is only 2.4, lowest it's been, probably ever.

That dog won't hunt. It's been proven time and time again that high density areas tend to have greater economic and technological sophistication than low density areas.

[KrazyHorse]

Hera, you have some weird ****ing ideas.

[usa#1]

i dont know why we let all of these indians and muslims in, all they ever do is cause problems and take jobs away from AMERICANS

thanks to obamas spending unemployment is up to 10% if we just got rid of all of the foreigners that would fall to 0