immmigrant haters: do you really want to be like Japan?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your concern is to replenish the tax base, then it seems that welcoming masses of minimum-wage people who are likely to require substantial - and costly - public benefits. A much better solution would be to increase the number of educated, well-paid immigrants whose incomes, spending and attendant tax contributions will inject much more fuel into the economy.

Bingo.

[Anonymous]

Japan is a civilization. They will be around as an intact people and nation long after a time when the US is a distant memory.

[Anonymous]

Robotics and automation in the long run will plug the gap.

Some immigrants will be needed in the short and medium term but not in the long run

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Japan is a civilization. They will be around as an intact people and nation long after a time when the US is a distant memory.

I agree. And the reason is because they are fiercely protective of their civilization.

[Anonymous]

Japan is an incredible county with very little crime . Also we dot restrict legal immigration

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your concern is to replenish the tax base, then it seems that welcoming masses of minimum-wage people who are likely to require substantial - and costly - public benefits. A much better solution would be to increase the number of educated, well-paid immigrants whose incomes, spending and attendant tax contributions will inject much more fuel into the economy.

Bingo.

This

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If your concern is to replenish the tax base, then it seems that welcoming masses of minimum-wage people who are likely to require substantial - and costly - public benefits. A much better solution would be to increase the number of educated, well-paid immigrants whose incomes, spending and attendant tax contributions will inject much more fuel into the economy.

The research indicates that while first-gen immigrants use more benefits, that is mainly attributable to their native born children, who later go on to contribute at higher levels.

Once again, the issue here is that we don't have enough low-skill workers based on our demographics.

Let me post this again:

"As controversy continued to rage on Thursday about the Trump Administration’s policy of separating migrant families at the southern border, the Census Bureau published new data that show why the United States will need more immigrants, not fewer, in the coming decades...

From a public-finance perspective, there are several possible ways to tackle the looming challenge. One is to reduce the level of retirement benefits significantly—but that would be very unpopular and difficult to achieve politically. A second option is to increase the proportion of people who are working, among both working-age people and senior citizens. That, too, would be a mighty challenge, because the trend is going in the opposite direction. Since the start of 2000, the employment-to-population ratio among adults sixteen or older has fallen, from 64.6 per cent to 60.4 per cent, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. To be sure, the Great Recession and its aftermath were partly responsible for this decline. But so was the aging population: employment rates tend to decline in older-age cohorts.

The final option is to welcome more immigrants, particularly younger immigrants, so that, in the coming decades, they and their descendants will find work and contribute to the tax base. Almost all economists agree that immigration raises G.D.P. and stimulates business development by increasing the supply of workers and entrepreneurs. There is some disagreement about the net fiscal impact of first-generation migrants. The argument is that they tend to be less educated and therefore earn lower wages than the native population, and that they tend to contribute less in taxes. But this is disputed. There is no doubt about the contribution that immigrant families make over the longer term, however.

“Second-generation adults—the children of immigrants—had, on average, a more favorable net fiscal impact for all government levels combined than either first-generation immigrants or the rest of the native-born population,” a study of the period from 1994–2013 by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, published in 2016, pointed out. “Reflecting their slightly higher educational achievement, as well as their higher wages and salaries, the second generation contributed more in taxes on a per capita basis during working ages than did their parents or other native-born Americans.”

In the long run, welcoming immigrants is a good investment for the United States. The entire history of the country demonstrates this fact."

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-united-states-needs-more-immigrants

"Let’s just say it plainly: The United States needs more low-skilled immigrants."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/business/economy/immigrants-skills-economy-jobs.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If your concern is to replenish the tax base, then it seems that welcoming masses of minimum-wage people who are likely to require substantial - and costly - public benefits. A much better solution would be to increase the number of educated, well-paid immigrants whose incomes, spending and attendant tax contributions will inject much more fuel into the economy.

Bingo.

This

Please, you're going to have to do better than "bingo" and "this." Actual research, please.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Japan is a civilization. They will be around as an intact people and nation long after a time when the US is a distant memory.

I agree. And the reason is because they are fiercely protective of their civilization.

Right, and they are also facing a demographic collapse due to falling birth rates and historically restricted immigration.

So that's my question -- is that what you envision for the U.S.? An insular "civilization" at the price of our economic wellbeing?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Japan

[Anonymous]

PP, why don’t you post that page long thing three or four more times, just to make sure people notice. You seem to be fond of it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, why don’t you post that page long thing three or four more times, just to make sure people notice. You seem to be fond of it.

I'll keep on posting it as long as people aren't engaging with it.

[Anonymous]

Nothing you posted says we need more unskilled immigrants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

On Japan:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/21/679103541/japans-population-is-in-rapid-decline

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2018-08-03/japan-becoming-country-immigration

we get enough legal immigrants annually don't you think? Illegal is a no go. Breaking Federal law. Stop with your nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Nothing you posted says we need more unskilled immigrants.

Read the New York times piece.

Here you go:

"Let’s just say it plainly: The United States needs more low-skilled immigrants.

You might consider, for starters, the enormous demand for low-skilled workers, which could well go unmet as the baby boom generation ages out of the labor force, eroding the labor supply. Eight of the 15 occupations expected to experience the fastest growth between 2014 and 2024 — personal care and home health aides, food preparation workers, janitors and the like — require no schooling at all.

“Ten years from now, there are going to be lots of older people with relatively few low-skilled workers to change their bedpans,” said David Card, a professor of economics at the University of California, Berkeley. “That is going to be a huge problem.”...

But the argument for low-skilled immigration is not just about filling an employment hole. The millions of immigrants of little skill who swept into the work force in the 25 years up to the onset of the Great Recession — the men washing dishes in the back of the restaurant, the women emptying the trash bins in office buildings — have largely improved the lives of Americans."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/08/business/economy/immigrants-skills-economy-jobs.html

What is critical to understand, in light of the current political debate, is that contrary to conventional wisdom, less-skilled immigration does not just knock less-educated Americans out of their jobs. It often leads to the creation of new jobs — at better wages — for natives, too. Notably, it can help many Americans to move up the income ladder. And by stimulating investment and reallocating work, it increases productivity."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For all those who rail against "illegals" -- do you really want us to end up like Japan, with a super-aging population, and not enough workers to support the economy? And now that Japan is trying to get immigrants, the immigrants don't want to stay because of xenophobia.

Where exactly do you picture the US ending up if we don't maintain our level of immigration? What's your plan here? Do you want to be cared for by robots in your old age?

If you say "well, we should create a path for legal immigration at the level needed for the workforce, not illegal" ... that is basically the Democratic party platform.

On Japan:

https://www.npr.org/2018/12/21/679103541/japans-population-is-in-rapid-decline

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/japan/2018-08-03/japan-becoming-country-immigration

we get enough legal immigrants annually don't you think? Illegal is a no go. Breaking Federal law. Stop with your nonsense.

Stunning level of policy analysis. So shrewd, so thorough! Thanks.