Lou, you perfectly balance a friend telling you a cool story and an authoritive figure explaining a complicated topic. Also the video editing brilliantly matches your style of talking.
its not that they help the economy either. it depends on the situation. Thats why the US and every other country changes their policies over the years...There was times the US didnt allow anyone in. During a recession or depression having a flood of new immigrants would almost certainly hurt the economy. In the arguments of this video hes talking about any immigrant, not looking at specific times and effects in history up until now in the US and other countries or empires. or looking at specific waves of immigrants. The migrant caravans a few years ago were all young men and low skilled workers thats not the same as nobel prize winners. His argument at the end made zero sense at all. Basically "Who cares if immigrants effect the country badly at first, it will all work out at the end" Like you really think all the people who are poor in the United States NOW want to here that...
And what is your IQ? 80? :D What they depend is "studies" from some profesor from university, that put ten of thousands of students in debt for rest of their lives. And spends his time to prove that legal immigration is not 100% bad, what at the end is presented as a prove that illegal immigration is also not bad... It is like saying that since there are study that buying stuff is good for economy, stilling stuff should also be as good. I have to tell you US is so strange. You have a such a crazy crap propaganda, identity politics etc. no wander that propaganda from this channel sims to you sth "normal" for low IQ people like you ...
The economic impact you didn't mention was housing costs. Not only do wages go down, through supply increase, the increased demand for housing, especially affordable housing, then increases. So the poorest people, including the migrants themselves, end up worse off from both decreased wages, and increased costs of living.
That encourages immigrants to find newer areas on outskirts of cities and towns or choose rural areas to reside in. This rejuvenates the rural economy or brings new jobs within the outskirts of the city where immigrants live. Newer areas to reside in brings more jobs and benefits to the city's economy. The US per-capita income has been on the rise by 2.25% yearly with GDP growth of 2.30% since 2014. Accounting for inflation of 2-2.9% the income of a normal US citizen has steadily increased over the years even with stricter immigration laws. In the years of early 90s till late 2000 and the GDP of US grew at a more than 3% during which it saw huge intake of immigrant and naturalization of immigrant population as US citizen. The per-capita income rose by a massive 3.30% as compared to today's 2.25% with stricter immigration laws.
Housing is definitely an issue same with other existing Infrastructure as well as finite assets like out north sea oil (UK) , farm land , woodland , mines ect there benefit spreads more thinly when talking about citizenship. Also slow to change resources like housing. On wages when theres new people taking one kind of job wages go down in that area and areas like it and up in others from higher demand. Higher income professions bring in more tax money lower spread it more thinly but most legal Immigrants are working age so you miss paying for many years of schooling you would for someone that spent there whole life hear. We also have falling populations as in rich countries having children is expensive and in poor ones its an asset / extra labor. Thats good for the planet but bad for the national pension system and immigration can help balance the numbers.
What you describe has been felt in the UK. Some cities thrive as Brexit gave the power back to the people, driving migrants out. Can't remember where exactly it was, but the Economist reported lower crime, higher wages, better opportunities, lower housing prices, less drain on local budgets. win win win win win oh and Karan, that obv makes no sense. Growth has been slowing down in all of the most developed countries, with the EU's growth basically getting killed by their core value of promotion of immigration.
My example was US specific where legal immigration is encouraged over refugees intake. The refugee crisis of Europe and illegal immigration, which I agree is more of a curse to the economy for short periods of time. UK was already dealing with huge swathes of uncontrolled immigration from the 2000s which went unchecked that has led to brexit and stronger protectionist sentiments. During this protectionist tenure the wages might increase along with lowered housing prices, but over the years it won't be sustainable for the employers to maintain employees with higher wages (for common jobs) which would lead to outsourcing of jobs. With that being said there should be tenures of governments with protectionist policies followed by governments encouraging legal immigration. In the end legal immigration is essential.
At 8:23 I really want to highlight the fact that Europe gives immigrants benefits, which explains the reason why they want to avoid a rapid increase in mass immigration, as setting up everything that allows the immigrant to work is a lengthy process and takes even longer when there's a flood instead of a consistent stream causing the state to pay even more for the welfare the immigrants receive. This is why many European countries have wanted to limit migration rates (while others - especially the less wealthy and therefore likely more vulnerable countries - tried stopping it via setting up barbed wire fences). With that said, I want to mention that I'm not against immigrants whatsoever - I just understand the reason why countries like Austria want to limit migration.
Daniel Sadjadi It depends on the economy of the country. What is considered a flood of migrants in a wealthy countries in the EU doesn't necessarily means the same for poorer countries in the EU. Some countries can afford it but some can't. So saying a blanket statement like there is no flood of immigrants in the EU can be right and wrong at the same time. Not only that, a lot of the western European countries just say they wanted to help each other but they really just want to push all the migrant problems to the border countries. This is also why Italy closed their border. Italy asked EU to help them but got ignored. Allowing migrants to enter will only increase their national debt by that point.
remilia scarlet well yeah, Italians have a hard time getting ahead working in Italy. I think a big problem is that people worldwide expect to “get ahead” financially. They think it’s a right.
While I agree with you that migration isn't too intense in Europe overall, I would like to highlight that most migrants/refugees end up living in the city, causing most of the people living in the city to feel a noticeable increase in migrants/refugees living in Austria. In my daily commute using public transport, about 10-15% of people are ethnically middle eastern or African, with most of them fortunately either speaking English or German well enough to communicate if needed. Now, on to the "flood" that you claimed doesn't exist (Statistics from the Austrian Ministry of the Interior (www.bmi.gv.at/301/Statistiken/start.aspx#jahr)): Between January and October of 2014 Austria (where I'm from) received 70000 Asylum Applications, only 20000 of which were actually from countries like Syria where there is currently a war going on. Between 1999 and 2013 the mean of yearly asylum applicants was about 20000 (in 2013 there were 17500 applicants). In 2014 this number this number increased by 60% to 28000, with there being a +~140% increase in applicants on average starting from September 2014. In 2015 this number increased again (by +215%) to 88000, with the increases being especially noticeable towards the end of the year. In 2016 the number decreased to 42000, which is still more than double compared to what the rate was like in 2013. In 2017 it decreased again, down to 28000, which again is still more than they were set up for. As most of the Asylum Seekers receive financial payments and aren't allowed to work initially, they're costing the state a lot of money and in most cases, the sheer amount of money asylum seekers consume is a financial burden on the economy. The problem often is that the amount of these recent migrants has been overwhelming the system because they haven't been evenly distributed in the European Union (Statistics from Eurostat for 2017 as a reference - *Data is for first-time asylum applicants in 2017* (ec.europa.eu/eurostat/news/themes-in-the-spotlight/asylum2017)): European Total: 649000 Applications, equaled 1270 applicants per million inhabitants on average. Austria: 22000 Applicants, *2500 per Million* (3.4% of total) Germany: 198000 Applicants, *2400 per Million* (30.5% of total) Sweden: 22000 Applicants, *2220 per Million* (3.4% of total) Italy: 126000 Applicants, *2100 per Million* (19.5% of total) France: 91000 Applicants, *1360 per Million* (14% of total) Denmark: 3125 Applicants, *544 per Million* (0.5% of total) UK: 33310 Applicants, *506 per Million* (5.1% of total) Hungary: 3115 Applicants, *318 per Million* (0.5% of total) Estonia: 180 Applicants, *138 per Million* (0.03% of total) Czech Republic: 1140 Applicants, *108 per Million* (0.2% of total) Slovakia: 150 Applicants, *27 per Million* (0.02% of total) There is also a really noticeable gender imbalance: 2013: 71% male 2014: 75% male 2015: 72% male 2016: 67% male 2017: 60% male The crime argument also doesn't invalidate my original argument, as in the context of the refugee crisis, a disproportionate amount of these new migrants commit sexual crimes, mainly perpetrated by violent illegal migrants from countries like Afghanistan or Morocco that abused the already overwhelmed system and tried mixing in with the other refugees to illegally get into Europe, which is why at least in my opinion *most of the perpetrators not being real refugees*. To finish off, I'll just say that I'm all for refugees temporarily or permanently (if they can improve our society) living in European countries, but I find it a bit ridiculous that people looking in from the outside say that Austria is somehow acting immorally for wanting to limit the rate of new migrants entering its borders and checking the GPS timeline of people claiming to be syrian refugees. I hope this has cleared up the reason as to why I have this opinion. Have a nice day :) (PS: I've spent far too much time on writing this ^^)
Daniel Sadjadi Those are blatant lies and you know it. In about the last 3 years alone Germany has gotten about 2 million refugees, that alone would make more than 2% of the population. Dresden, the city where the unrests were after a father got stabbed by an afghani after he tried to protect a girl from being molested, has seen an increase from 3.9% in 2005 to an estimated 20% migrants today. There is very solid reason for concern when in Frankfurt 75% of children below are African/Arabic, with low chances of ever attaining proficiency in the German language as they're not compelled to learn, but almost guaranteed to stay. Crime has been going up across the board, especially vicious ones like rape, armed robbery and murder. Just ask some German about "Colognes Silvester", new years eve a few years ago, where there were *dozens* of rapes in public spaces, exclusively perpetrated by refugees. What do they get here you may ask? Housing, clothing, food, healthcare and a few education options for free plus at least 125€ pocket money. It is estimated that this will cost the country about 400 billions euros in the next years, as many are projected to live on public money till the day they die. Meanwhile the budget for our elderly is drained, making senile people, who payed their whole lives into a government mandated system, fishing in garbage bins for plastic bottles they can return for 25 cents, a common sight.
I think what bothers me the most about this, is that it assumes that the majority of low-skill workers have the means to survive being forced out of the market or forced to look elsewhere. Not everyone is going to be promoted to Foreman or Coordinator. It's one thing to sit in the Ivory Towers and discuss how it is a net-gain for the economy overall, but that means nothing for the poor or working-class individuals who watch as their world and futures shrink around them.
If you can buy goods and services for increasingly lower prices thanks to immigration as a lower class person, that's not exactly nothing. The loss of easy jobs for lower-class people is partly counter-balanced by having a wider range of job opportunities they didn't have on top of it. In the end it isn't much more than 'dey tuk ur jerbz', and if they have grievances with systematic issues, they should take a look at monetary policy and other interventionist policies of the past century that has slowly eroded the Western middle class.
Welfare needs to be easier to get. Universal Basic Income needs to be proposed and passed by voters so that everyone feels safe to have a place to live and food at the very least.
Not everyone is going to be promoted, you are correct in saying this. It is also absolutely misguided to say that 100% are going to be forced out and thus compete for these jobs higher up in the ranking.
No but even if 2 construction workers were to become foreman they create ten more construction workers then maybe 3 of those grow and add 15 instead of ten workers, so on and so forth. The main point is you cant determine who brings jobs and who doesnt because regardless of title it is the individual who decides to either work for a business or create a business. Essentially, either way one looks for jobs and one looks for a way to create jobs. The only difference is one works for one and the other creates for more than one.
me too. I dont think the only place I didnt agree was when he rebutted the inequality increase from immigrants a little too easy. Also little details like in 9.07 when he forgot to mention the rest of the sentence may not have been bad intended but... still it did help him close the whole thing by saying "the math in its totality works" which is a little arrogant but still the most sober view I have seen in a while on this subject.
It really depends on what type of immigrant and the amount of low skill workers a place possess. Keep in mind, the reason why United States became so powerful is mainly due to the brain drain from the rest of the world through their various ethnic cleansing. Of course, we must not forget our founding fathers that refused to pay taxes to the British. Oh the irony being that United States is a country that taxes you based on citizenship and not work place. Uncle Sam, why must you be worse than the Brits you replaced?
Well here in the Netherlands refugees come, get free housing, welfare, then they tell the rest of their family how easily they got free money and housing. Then the rest of the family is coming over doing the same thing. The job market is pretty good here. But the housing market is very bad! This is also because the government subsidizes the housing market which brings up rent. Most new build appartments and houses are bought by investors which rent it out for double the cost of the mortgage!!
Problem with immigrants is sometimes they come to live and make a better life and sometimes they come to make enough money just to send home. The latter does very little for America and it keeps wages low. Nobody thinks about the motivation of immigrants, not all immigrants want to live in America forever and it's not feasible or smart. A dollar in most countries is good money, so how hard would a immigrant work to make a dollar so he can send it home to help his family and how much pain would he endure from starving and living in bad conditions so he could change the life of his family. Those are noble goals but America is a consumer run economy, by sending money to Mexico he doesn't invest into America, he doesn't buy the basic things that make living comfortable like nice furniture, cars, clothes and he doesn't use his extra money to go to nice restaurants. Basically he doesn't consume like a regular person and that causes problems
Also maybe in the US you cant complain about demographic replacement but in Europe we can legitimately complain that we dont want our ethnicity to be replaced by large scale immigration. We want to continue to exist.
I think one important caveat to add here is that it is a common practice of immigrants to America from various countries to send back much of their earnings to their nation of origin. In this case, the American “pie” isn’t increasing in size as much as an immigrant is taking out of it. If we are to advocate for further legal immigration in the US (which, I agree, has an overall positive benefit to our economy), we need to be aware of situations like these that may harm our economy and legislate accordingly.
We need immigrants in Minneapolis, so many essential jobs like school bus drivers and other service jobs are unfilled and are needed. We have the economy to take in people who need it.
Asians and Eastern Europeans manage to find jobs here quite easily. North-African and Middle-Eastern immigrants are a massive burden on the social welfare state, justice system and sociocultural structures. They don't work, they import their families who don't work, they get a lot of social security money (Netherlands: More than half of welfare goes to non-Western immigrants and with 30% they also have a serious over-representation in criminality). It's not legal limitations keeping them from jobs here, otherwise it should be a problem for all immigrants but it isn't. We've been trying since the 60s to make it work with those 2 last groups of people by the way, but it's getting worse. At some point you need to accept reality and make a change.
The Dutch are very bad at accepting reality, if they consider exclusively economically left wing policies (high minimum wages, subsidies to all aspects of immigrant public life and a flat-out ridiculous welfare state in general) as "trying since the 60s". The only change they're going to make now is go even further left economically, as economically left-wing parties will soon enough adopt anti-immigration rhetoric, just like the socialist PVV has always done, and Scandinavian main-stream parties have started to do recently also. The US immigration situation is incomparable to immigration in welfare-state Western Europe. Signed, a Dutch-born "allochtoon" (their name for lower class immigrants).
Gucci LightYear Mexican? What year is it that you are living in? The masses are coming from central and South America. Oh, your just a racist, carry on.
alexanderje your countries Middle-Easterners and North Africans are quite a different species from those here in the USA. Here they work their asses off as drivers, store clerks, janitors, care givers, restaurant backs. And never complaining a bit. Funny that the difference between here and there is so great. How is this so?
@@elsagrace3893 it's because people with your kind of ideas have dominated politics over here, and see the result: working class neighbourhoods in cities turned into immigrant ghetto's dependent on government. Please don't give us more of the same leftist bullcrap.
Why does no one differentiate between immigrants and illegal immigrants? I am an immigrant, but I came to the U.S. legally with my parents. We have contributed economically and in education, but what do illegal immigrants contribute? Mostly cheap labor that lines the pockets of business owners. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigrants. Talk about that!
It didn’t seam like a neutral study both sides weren’t adequately represented. The problems brought up in the beginning of the video weren’t addressed in the video.
He did. You just weren't listening or aren't versed with economic literature. 1st, immigrants can't steal jobs. The labor market is dynamic not fixed and a new equilibrium is always being formed. This is evident by the whole immigrants create demand for goods and services and supply reacts. In the short-term, immigrants may impact native born lower educated workers but in the longer term, those individuals will invest in human capital and move up the ladder to jobs. The ones then hurt are previous low-skill immigrants. That is to say, that in the longer term, immigrants are competing against each other.
You make fair points in this video but if a country is already overpopulated immigration can have a negative effect. Luckily the U.S has massive amount of land and enough place for people to live.
Great vid! Maybe something to add to the discussion would be crime rate differences between foreign and local populations. I know in welfare states such as those in northern Europe is quite a hot topic.
Great video as usual. Lou, may I suggest making a video on degrowth aka décroissance? Seems right up the Beme alley and there isn't much English language info about it on mainstream sites.
Louis Foglia Sweet! Basically, it's reducing economic growth to a truly sustainable level. Reducing everything from consumption, to work hours, to travel distance for goods, to programmed obsolescence. It's in a way in opposition to sustainable development, which tries to continue growth through sustainable means, often creating a cycle the degrowth movement claims that wherein things become for energy efficient, we end up using more energy because more goods are created. That being said, it's not looking for people to abandon all modern conveniences and live off the land in some sort of anarchist utopia. Either way, it's the tenth anniversary of their first conference this year. Might be worth checking out 👍
While I appreciate the point of the video, I disagree that natives in first world countries regard themselves above menial work like janitorial or agricultural work. Nobody (even immigrants) wants these jobs, but many immigrants take them because they are desperate. This isn’t a good thing. Maybe if nobody took these jobs, maybe employers would be forced to pay a fair wage. The idea that allowing immigrants in to be exploited is a good idea is short sighted in my opinion.
The only reason why it wouldn't be socially beneficial is if natives are xenophobic and make immigrants outcasts and fearmonger the nation to be afraid of immigrants.
Immigration is the scapegoat for the failure of neo-liberal economics. Globalized trade could have been shared more equitably with everyone. But since the 1980s, with Reagan and Thatcher ushered in neo-Liberal (trickle down) economics, the lions share of gains have gone to the 1%. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s it was entirely possible for a single working parent to earn enough to buy a house and raise 4-5 kids and pay for their college. Today its common for dual-income households to barely scrape by. Labour was devalued with attacks on unions. Massive tax cuts went to capital owners. When worsening conditions became obvious the elites manufacture the immigrant crisis. Post-WW2 migration was orders of magnitude larger than today's Syrian refugee crisis yet the response couldn't be more different. Automation will disrupt the economy far worse than immigration. It's like millions of compliant slaves suddenly showing up on the labour market. Owners will use automation as an excuse to force wages into the basement. It doesn't need to be like this. China shows how gains from globalization and automation can be reinvested into infrastructure. In 30 years they've lifted 700 million out of anject poverty. 25,000km of high speed railway build in under a decade, 60% of the world's total, with an eye to build a total of 120,000km. The Chinese economy is in danger of being too efficient giving them the option of enacting a Marshall Plan on Central Asia and Africa. So while Europe and America actively pillage the Middle East and Africa, China builds up future trading partners. Some would cry "debt trap" as though Chinese investment in foreign infrastructure is worse than the IMF's economic colonialism. The proof will be in Africa, the global poor man, where centuries of European colonialism brought nothing but suffering where Chinese investment will deliver Africa to European living standards in 10-15 years.
Let’s keep in mind he’s talking about legal immigration. Not illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are bad which why immigration is such a big problem
Enjoyed the video as always Lou!! This video probably should be 2 parts... Economics of Immigration = fine and dandy, Economics of Illegal Immigration/Mass Migration = Trump is our president. Cheers Lou...
The only issue is that those immigrants that are coming in and helping the economy takes time. Those immigrants have to find homes, jobs, save up, and start businesses and that takes time. While those who can take up low skill jobs for minimum wage can take jobs extremely quickly.
Or they just go create a freak'n economy in their own countries. Won't have to deal with all the shit in the short turn and in the long turn you get a better trading partner...
If only people look at the math. This is really a 3-way fight where 2 can only win. Immigrant vs. Native vs. Employer. Guess who's always on the winning side?
Isn't this "partial equilibrium"?. It's easy to limit your scope and come up with a conclusion. But think about this: What happens when the Employer wins? I assume you mean he earns a higher profit. Where do these profits go? They go right back into the economy. He hires more workers (helps natives), spends more (helps local businesses), or saves up at a local bank which makes it easier for others to get a loan. Like in chess, when you think about the economy in one or two steps, you will inevitably lose. Think of the broader consequences, always think a few moves ahead.
That's the "math" I meant, in the long run everyone will benefit. But in the short term of things, as the news said it's probably going to be the low level native that's gonna be affected the most. Long term solutions such as "well get them new jobs' or "promote them" isn't that "Yipee! everyone wins!" thing. For one let's say in construction, 10 lowest position natives get displaced by 10 immigrants. Solution "then promote them". Well the employer says "we only have 2 vacancies for higher level jobs". What happens to the 8? How sure are we that they'll be able to find another job? "But what about newer businesses sprouting or local businesses expanding?" Well sure, but how long? 1 month? 2 months? 8 months? By that time then, do you think these displaced natives have money to put food in their table for 1 month? What about the loans they already took? "Giving back to the economy". You seriously think employer spending will directly help the low end workers? I mean sure on paper it'll look good. But we do have a saying "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer". "Easier loans". This is the low end workers of the spectrum. I doubt they'll easily be able to find loans thanks to the "credit score" system. It's nice to think of the broader consequences. But make sure in your first two steps, you don't slip off a banana peel. The biggest problem when looking at things like these is that the "social aspect" can never be accurately measured. And going for the "big picture" while not caring about the here and now, just comes off as greedy and merciless. Helping local businesses to what degree? Is it enough to warrant expansion and create news jobs? Does the new jobs match with the skills of the displaced natives? This really is just a wealth redistribution program. Natives lose salaries. Immigrants are underpaid. The employers? Sure they'll buy a new Lamborghini, probably a new iPhone, etc. I hope the construction of the Lamborghini and iPhones creates jobs for the displaced natives. Oh wait, they're made overseas.
I like his insight on the money factor. However, its more than just money that matters. Not against immigration but noone should be for illigal immigration. Its not a one sided issue.
Okay, stop right there. If an American construction worker is getting paid minimum wage for their job, and then they get replaced by an illegal immigrant who is forced to work overtime for half of minimum wage, the American worker does not suddenly get promoted to a highly paid foreman. That's a ridiculous strawman. In this scenario, the American loses his job entirely, the illegal immigrant gets exploited by a greedy boss who can use "reporting him to the authorities" as a threat to force him to work underpaid, and the construction company owner's wallet gets significantly fatter.
Can you guys do a video about what is happening in the Philippines and its current political scene please. The news here is doubtful at best and a lot of messy shit is goin on and i want people to know about it.
In Portugal 25% of the immigrants are unemployed living on social security benefits and 20% of the prison population are immigrants. This figures do not include immigrants that have been in Portugal for 5 years because they are entitled and get Portuguese nationality . In this studies they never take into account that immigrants and their families benefit from education , health services and for all the existing infrastructure that they never payed for. Their grand children will still be paying for what they have used , how can someone say that they are paying for the locals ? On the taxes payed by the natives , the all system and infrastructure took tens of generations to be built but immigrants come and the taxes that their offspring pay are already enough to pay for them and the natives ? A farmer grows the wheat , mills the flour , milks the cow , gets his own eggs and apples , bakes a pie , someone comes and seats at his table , gets half of the pie and shares it with his relatives . The great beneficiary it his the farmer because he gets half of his own pie all for himself ? I am a 53 years old Portuguese emigrant , I was never good at maths and ageing is not helping me at all !
Skilled or wealthy immigration is good, low skilled immigration and refugees are bad in western societies. Wherever free movement of people without net migration is possible it is good. The problem with low skilled immigration is that despite overall economic effects, they put downward pressure on the value of low skilled labor - the economic floor of out society. This is a problem in societies with welfare states and ideas about social justice.
Software engineering is one of the jobs with the highest number of immigrants. I've yet to meet a software engineer who is against immigration. The benefits are obvious to those who are actually affected by immigration.
Millions of software engineers are against it. They've been laid off and shut out of many Tech companies, after being made to train their replacements. Stand outside of Cisco, Walmart, IBM, Microsoft, Disney, etc. when work gets out.
The economic cost of illegal immigrants yearly is $135 billion. The 11 million illegals=$135 billion. For example, Texas has had to close 15 rural hospitals due to influx of IllegAls getting free medical.
It's ironic that the group of people that like to denigrate others for wanting instant gratification are consistently the ones that want policies that provide short term gratification but long term detriments.
What about the money that is funneled out by migrants and sent back to their countries? There are countries like Phillipines or Pakistan which a big part of gdp comes from money sent back by people who migrated
The biggest problem is how many benefits the US gives to non citizens. It attracts people who can't live off their own wealth and puts the cost on the taxpayer.
He didn't cover that. Nor those citizens who end up on unemployment when replaced. Nor the proliferation of ESL classes at the schools. Nor the discriminatory shut out of citizenry from so much as applying for open positions at H1B shops. There's a whole lot this video didn't disclose.
the ppl who avoid taxes or the super-rich who have the money to pay ppl to avoid paying the taxes. While most immigrants make enough money to pay taxes but not enough to have the know how to avoid paying taxes. It why you can be paying more taxes each year then the Trump family. They would jump through every loophole and try to hide their taxes to the best of their ability and pay accountants who job is to save his employee money. While you just want to make sure you have everything on your tax form.
Please, rich people pay at least 35 percent of their earned income in taxes. Also, it is racist to assume that illegals don't have the knowledge about tax credits, something that should be provided if they prepare their taxes with a professional.
You can never figure out the overall benefits of immigration in this way. You have to stand back and look at the big picture. When doing this remember the following basic facts: (1) immigrants are not only workers but also consumers. They create new vacancies as fast as they fill existing ones. (2) Immigrants or their descendants integrate after which they behave just like non-immigrants, including having just as few children and getting just as old. (3) Just because certain types of essential jobs are done mainly by immigrants does not mean those jobs would not get done if there were no immigrants. Changes in pay and conditions in combination with technical and organisational innovation would make sure that more essential work got done at the expense of less essential work. Overall and in the long run the effect of bringing in immigrants is to increase the population and GDP over and above what they would have been without them. Any temporary gains in GDP per capita (and therefore the financial well being of the existing population) will be eroded as immigrants integrate. That's fine if you have plenty of land (US, Canada) and just want to increase the size of your economy and therefore your clout in the world (and also help immigrants). If you have one of the highest population densities in the world (England, the Netherlands) it isn't fine, especially when your government fails to make the necessary infrastructure investments in advance (try selling that to voters). In the UK the Socialists, who are ideologically addicted to diversity, decided to lie and said: have vacancies/need immigrants. The Conservatives decided to remain silent (immigrants = cheap labour). Needless to say millions of immigrants have not reduced the number of vacancies which is, to a large extent, caused by people changing jobs (churn) something which you always have. Unfortunately a large majority of the population of London still believes the Socialists. Every time I go there I hear them saying "We have lots of vacancies and need immigrants to fill them". One day when they're drowning in their own sewage they may realise how they were conned.
Is it moral for the rich countries to hoover the brightest minds from poorer countries? Who will lead the change in the developing countries when all their Inteligencia moves to Europe or the US?
You fail to reference the cost of illegal AND legal immigrants. Yes they might have an economic contribution, but that comes with additional cost for each one. They use resources that would otherwise be directed to Americans. Additionally, immigrants throw off the supply and demand ratios that would otherwise force wages up for native born. Very one sided video, I’ll give you credit though...made it appear as though you were balanced.
Lou, you perfectly balance a friend telling you a cool story and an authoritive figure explaining a complicated topic.
Also the video editing brilliantly matches your style of talking.
Thanks. That's the tone we go for. When I started this show, Casey said it should feel like a conversation with a well-read friend at a bar.
That's 100% the feel. Keep up the great work!
its not that they help the economy either. it depends on the situation. Thats why the US and every other country changes their policies over the years...There was times the US didnt allow anyone in. During a recession or depression having a flood of new immigrants would almost certainly hurt the economy. In the arguments of this video hes talking about any immigrant, not looking at specific times and effects in history up until now in the US and other countries or empires. or looking at specific waves of immigrants. The migrant caravans a few years ago were all young men and low skilled workers thats not the same as nobel prize winners. His argument at the end made zero sense at all. Basically "Who cares if immigrants effect the country badly at first, it will all work out at the end" Like you really think all the people who are poor in the United States NOW want to here that...
Lou I really appreciate that you guys come up with interesting story topics and don't depend on cotton candy celebrity drama to fuel your channel.
Thanks man. Always appreciate your support.
And what is your IQ? 80? :D What they depend is "studies" from some profesor from university, that put ten of thousands of students in debt for rest of their lives. And spends his time to prove that legal immigration is not 100% bad, what at the end is presented as a prove that illegal immigration is also not bad... It is like saying that since there are study that buying stuff is good for economy, stilling stuff should also be as good. I have to tell you US is so strange. You have a such a crazy crap propaganda, identity politics etc. no wander that propaganda from this channel sims to you sth "normal" for low IQ people like you ...
Lou does a lot of air quotes. There's a drinking game in there somewhere.
On a serious note: thanks for the insights!
What are air quotes ?
The economic impact you didn't mention was housing costs. Not only do wages go down, through supply increase, the increased demand for housing, especially affordable housing, then increases. So the poorest people, including the migrants themselves, end up worse off from both decreased wages, and increased costs of living.
That encourages immigrants to find newer areas on outskirts of cities and towns or choose rural areas to reside in. This rejuvenates the rural economy or brings new jobs within the outskirts of the city where immigrants live. Newer areas to reside in brings more jobs and benefits to the city's economy. The US per-capita income has been on the rise by 2.25% yearly with GDP growth of 2.30% since 2014. Accounting for inflation of 2-2.9% the income of a normal US citizen has steadily increased over the years even with stricter immigration laws. In the years of early 90s till late 2000 and the GDP of US grew at a more than 3% during which it saw huge intake of immigrant and naturalization of immigrant population as US citizen. The per-capita income rose by a massive 3.30% as compared to today's 2.25% with stricter immigration laws.
Housing is definitely an issue same with other existing Infrastructure as well as finite assets like out north sea oil (UK) , farm land , woodland , mines ect there benefit spreads more thinly when talking about citizenship. Also slow to change resources like housing.
On wages when theres new people taking one kind of job wages go down in that area and areas like it and up in others from higher demand.
Higher income professions bring in more tax money lower spread it more thinly but most legal Immigrants are working age so you miss paying for many years of schooling you would for someone that spent there whole life hear.
We also have falling populations as in rich countries having children is expensive and in poor ones its an asset / extra labor. Thats good for the planet but bad for the national pension system and immigration can help balance the numbers.
What you describe has been felt in the UK. Some cities thrive as Brexit gave the power back to the people, driving migrants out.
Can't remember where exactly it was, but the Economist reported lower crime, higher wages, better opportunities, lower housing prices, less drain on local budgets. win win win win win
oh and Karan, that obv makes no sense. Growth has been slowing down in all of the most developed countries, with the EU's growth basically getting killed by their core value of promotion of immigration.
My example was US specific where legal immigration is encouraged over refugees intake. The refugee crisis of Europe and illegal immigration, which I agree is more of a curse to the economy for short periods of time. UK was already dealing with huge swathes of uncontrolled immigration from the 2000s which went unchecked that has led to brexit and stronger protectionist sentiments. During this protectionist tenure the wages might increase along with lowered housing prices, but over the years it won't be sustainable for the employers to maintain employees with higher wages (for common jobs) which would lead to outsourcing of jobs.
With that being said there should be tenures of governments with protectionist policies followed by governments encouraging legal immigration. In the end legal immigration is essential.
If only cities handled their crappy zoning laws.
At 8:23 I really want to highlight the fact that Europe gives immigrants benefits, which explains the reason why they want to avoid a rapid increase in mass immigration, as setting up everything that allows the immigrant to work is a lengthy process and takes even longer when there's a flood instead of a consistent stream causing the state to pay even more for the welfare the immigrants receive. This is why many European countries have wanted to limit migration rates (while others - especially the less wealthy and therefore likely more vulnerable countries - tried stopping it via setting up barbed wire fences).
With that said, I want to mention that I'm not against immigrants whatsoever - I just understand the reason why countries like Austria want to limit migration.
The problem isn't the immigrants, but the shitty left-wing economic institutions of Europe.
Daniel Sadjadi It depends on the economy of the country.
What is considered a flood of migrants in a wealthy countries in the EU doesn't necessarily means the same for poorer countries in the EU.
Some countries can afford it but some can't.
So saying a blanket statement like there is no flood of immigrants in the EU can be right and wrong at the same time.
Not only that, a lot of the western European countries just say they wanted to help each other but they really just want to push all the migrant problems to the border countries.
This is also why Italy closed their border.
Italy asked EU to help them but got ignored.
Allowing migrants to enter will only increase their national debt by that point.
remilia scarlet well yeah, Italians have a hard time getting ahead working in Italy. I think a big problem is that people worldwide expect to “get ahead” financially. They think it’s a right.
While I agree with you that migration isn't too intense in Europe overall, I would like to highlight that most migrants/refugees end up living in the city, causing most of the people living in the city to feel a noticeable increase in migrants/refugees living in Austria. In my daily commute using public transport, about 10-15% of people are ethnically middle eastern or African, with most of them fortunately either speaking English or German well enough to communicate if needed.
Now, on to the "flood" that you claimed doesn't exist (Statistics from the Austrian Ministry of the Interior (www.bmi.gv.at/301/Statistiken/start.aspx#jahr)):
Between January and October of 2014 Austria (where I'm from) received 70000 Asylum Applications, only 20000 of which were actually from countries like Syria where there is currently a war going on.
Between 1999 and 2013 the mean of yearly asylum applicants was about 20000 (in 2013 there were 17500 applicants).
In 2014 this number this number increased by 60% to 28000, with there being a +~140% increase in applicants on average starting from September 2014.
In 2015 this number increased again (by +215%) to 88000, with the increases being especially noticeable towards the end of the year.
In 2016 the number decreased to 42000, which is still more than double compared to what the rate was like in 2013.
In 2017 it decreased again, down to 28000, which again is still more than they were set up for.
As most of the Asylum Seekers receive financial payments and aren't allowed to work initially, they're costing the state a lot of money and in most cases, the sheer amount of money asylum seekers consume is a financial burden on the economy.
The problem often is that the amount of these recent migrants has been overwhelming the system because they haven't been evenly distributed in the European Union (Statistics from Eurostat for 2017 as a reference - *Data is for first-time asylum applicants in 2017* (ec.europa.eu/eurostat/news/themes-in-the-spotlight/asylum2017)):
European Total: 649000 Applications, equaled 1270 applicants per million inhabitants on average.
Austria: 22000 Applicants, *2500 per Million* (3.4% of total)
Germany: 198000 Applicants, *2400 per Million* (30.5% of total)
Sweden: 22000 Applicants, *2220 per Million* (3.4% of total)
Italy: 126000 Applicants, *2100 per Million* (19.5% of total)
France: 91000 Applicants, *1360 per Million* (14% of total)
Denmark: 3125 Applicants, *544 per Million* (0.5% of total)
UK: 33310 Applicants, *506 per Million* (5.1% of total)
Hungary: 3115 Applicants, *318 per Million* (0.5% of total)
Estonia: 180 Applicants, *138 per Million* (0.03% of total)
Czech Republic: 1140 Applicants, *108 per Million* (0.2% of total)
Slovakia: 150 Applicants, *27 per Million* (0.02% of total)
There is also a really noticeable gender imbalance:
2013: 71% male
2014: 75% male
2015: 72% male
2016: 67% male
2017: 60% male
The crime argument also doesn't invalidate my original argument, as in the context of the refugee crisis, a disproportionate amount of these new migrants commit sexual crimes, mainly perpetrated by violent illegal migrants from countries like Afghanistan or Morocco that abused the already overwhelmed system and tried mixing in with the other refugees to illegally get into Europe, which is why at least in my opinion *most of the perpetrators not being real refugees*.
To finish off, I'll just say that I'm all for refugees temporarily or permanently (if they can improve our society) living in European countries, but I find it a bit ridiculous that people looking in from the outside say that Austria is somehow acting immorally for wanting to limit the rate of new migrants entering its borders and checking the GPS timeline of people claiming to be syrian refugees.
I hope this has cleared up the reason as to why I have this opinion.
Have a nice day :)
(PS: I've spent far too much time on writing this ^^)
Daniel Sadjadi
Those are blatant lies and you know it.
In about the last 3 years alone Germany has gotten about 2 million refugees, that alone would make more than 2% of the population. Dresden, the city where the unrests were after a father got stabbed by an afghani after he tried to protect a girl from being molested, has seen an increase from 3.9% in 2005 to an estimated 20% migrants today. There is very solid reason for concern when in Frankfurt 75% of children below are African/Arabic, with low chances of ever attaining proficiency in the German language as they're not compelled to learn, but almost guaranteed to stay. Crime has been going up across the board, especially vicious ones like rape, armed robbery and murder. Just ask some German about "Colognes Silvester", new years eve a few years ago, where there were *dozens* of rapes in public spaces, exclusively perpetrated by refugees.
What do they get here you may ask? Housing, clothing, food, healthcare and a few education options for free plus at least 125€ pocket money. It is estimated that this will cost the country about 400 billions euros in the next years, as many are projected to live on public money till the day they die.
Meanwhile the budget for our elderly is drained, making senile people, who payed their whole lives into a government mandated system, fishing in garbage bins for plastic bottles they can return for 25 cents, a common sight.
I think what bothers me the most about this, is that it assumes that the majority of low-skill workers have the means to survive being forced out of the market or forced to look elsewhere. Not everyone is going to be promoted to Foreman or Coordinator. It's one thing to sit in the Ivory Towers and discuss how it is a net-gain for the economy overall, but that means nothing for the poor or working-class individuals who watch as their world and futures shrink around them.
Isnt that the free market americans always want and scream for?
If you can buy goods and services for increasingly lower prices thanks to immigration as a lower class person, that's not exactly nothing. The loss of easy jobs for lower-class people is partly counter-balanced by having a wider range of job opportunities they didn't have on top of it. In the end it isn't much more than 'dey tuk ur jerbz', and if they have grievances with systematic issues, they should take a look at monetary policy and other interventionist policies of the past century that has slowly eroded the Western middle class.
Welfare needs to be easier to get. Universal Basic Income needs to be proposed and passed by voters so that everyone feels safe to have a place to live and food at the very least.
Not everyone is going to be promoted, you are correct in saying this. It is also absolutely misguided to say that 100% are going to be forced out and thus compete for these jobs higher up in the ranking.
If you think immigration is bad in terms of causing unemployment, automation is going to hit hard
Giovanni Peri was one of my favorite professor. Go Ags!
Super nice guy
10 construction workers don't turn into 10 foremen.
That scenario was stupid.
If 10 immigrants come, they need a foreman, and most of the time this a local person.
No but even if 2 construction workers were to become foreman they create ten more construction workers then maybe 3 of those grow and add 15 instead of ten workers, so on and so forth.
The main point is you cant determine who brings jobs and who doesnt because regardless of title it is the individual who decides to either work for a business or create a business.
Essentially, either way one looks for jobs and one looks for a way to create jobs. The only difference is one works for one and the other creates for more than one.
Don't agree with everything, but I really liked the video.
me too. I dont think the only place I didnt agree was when he rebutted the inequality increase from immigrants a little too easy. Also little details like in 9.07 when he forgot to mention the rest of the sentence may not have been bad intended but... still it did help him close the whole thing by saying "the math in its totality works" which is a little arrogant but still the most sober view I have seen in a while on this subject.
It really depends on what type of immigrant and the amount of low skill workers a place possess. Keep in mind, the reason why United States became so powerful is mainly due to the brain drain from the rest of the world through their various ethnic cleansing. Of course, we must not forget our founding fathers that refused to pay taxes to the British. Oh the irony being that United States is a country that taxes you based on citizenship and not work place. Uncle Sam, why must you be worse than the Brits you replaced?
Well here in the Netherlands refugees come, get free housing, welfare, then they tell the rest of their family how easily they got free money and housing. Then the rest of the family is coming over doing the same thing. The job market is pretty good here. But the housing market is very bad! This is also because the government subsidizes the housing market which brings up rent. Most new build appartments and houses are bought by investors which rent it out for double the cost of the mortgage!!
Problem with immigrants is sometimes they come to live and make a better life and sometimes they come to make enough money just to send home. The latter does very little for America and it keeps wages low. Nobody thinks about the motivation of immigrants, not all immigrants want to live in America forever and it's not feasible or smart. A dollar in most countries is good money, so how hard would a immigrant work to make a dollar so he can send it home to help his family and how much pain would he endure from starving and living in bad conditions so he could change the life of his family. Those are noble goals but America is a consumer run economy, by sending money to Mexico he doesn't invest into America, he doesn't buy the basic things that make living comfortable like nice furniture, cars, clothes and he doesn't use his extra money to go to nice restaurants. Basically he doesn't consume like a regular person and that causes problems
Also maybe in the US you cant complain about demographic replacement but in Europe we can legitimately complain that we dont want our ethnicity to be replaced by large scale immigration. We want to continue to exist.
I think one important caveat to add here is that it is a common practice of immigrants to America from various countries to send back much of their earnings to their nation of origin. In this case, the American “pie” isn’t increasing in size as much as an immigrant is taking out of it. If we are to advocate for further legal immigration in the US (which, I agree, has an overall positive benefit to our economy), we need to be aware of situations like these that may harm our economy and legislate accordingly.
Numbers in wikipedia, on remittances, monies flowing out of countries.
We need immigrants in Minneapolis, so many essential jobs like school bus drivers and other service jobs are unfilled and are needed. We have the economy to take in people who need it.
It's too cold up there 😂❄
@@marioferreira7605 your using immigration to fix a problem caused by emigration
@@topman8565 "shortage", aka "we refuse to compete for workers".
Thanks Lou for being here for me! You bring joy to my life. :)
This channel is seriously underrated.
Immigration just needs to be fixed and managed correctly, not abolished. H1B and F1 visa abuse is rampant in the tech field.
US gives 2M green cards a year. I'd say that's enough. We need to do away with the "temporary" visa BS.
Asians and Eastern Europeans manage to find jobs here quite easily. North-African and Middle-Eastern immigrants are a massive burden on the social welfare state, justice system and sociocultural structures. They don't work, they import their families who don't work, they get a lot of social security money (Netherlands: More than half of welfare goes to non-Western immigrants and with 30% they also have a serious over-representation in criminality). It's not legal limitations keeping them from jobs here, otherwise it should be a problem for all immigrants but it isn't. We've been trying since the 60s to make it work with those 2 last groups of people by the way, but it's getting worse. At some point you need to accept reality and make a change.
The Dutch are very bad at accepting reality, if they consider exclusively economically left wing policies (high minimum wages, subsidies to all aspects of immigrant public life and a flat-out ridiculous welfare state in general) as "trying since the 60s". The only change they're going to make now is go even further left economically, as economically left-wing parties will soon enough adopt anti-immigration rhetoric, just like the socialist PVV has always done, and Scandinavian main-stream parties have started to do recently also. The US immigration situation is incomparable to immigration in welfare-state Western Europe.
Signed, a Dutch-born "allochtoon" (their name for lower class immigrants).
Gucci LightYear Mexican? What year is it that you are living in? The masses are coming from central and South America. Oh, your just a racist, carry on.
alexanderje your countries Middle-Easterners and North Africans are quite a different species from those here in the USA. Here they work their asses off as drivers, store clerks, janitors, care givers, restaurant backs. And never complaining a bit. Funny that the difference between here and there is so great. How is this so?
alexanderje perhaps it’s that your perception is racist.
@@elsagrace3893 it's because people with your kind of ideas have dominated politics over here, and see the result: working class neighbourhoods in cities turned into immigrant ghetto's dependent on government. Please don't give us more of the same leftist bullcrap.
Why does no one differentiate between immigrants and illegal immigrants? I am an immigrant, but I came to the U.S. legally with my parents. We have contributed economically and in education, but what do illegal immigrants contribute? Mostly cheap labor that lines the pockets of business owners. There is a difference between legal and illegal immigrants. Talk about that!
Trust me, employers will cry they're not making enough even when they have robots. They want slaves. Sit down, shut up, consume, and behave.
It didn’t seam like a neutral study both sides weren’t adequately represented. The problems brought up in the beginning of the video weren’t addressed in the video.
00sevensargent Ah, I got my hopes up in the beginning for more on that point of view.
yeah I know these are basic points that an essay and papers are graded from high school
He did. You just weren't listening or aren't versed with economic literature. 1st, immigrants can't steal jobs. The labor market is dynamic not fixed and a new equilibrium is always being formed. This is evident by the whole immigrants create demand for goods and services and supply reacts.
In the short-term, immigrants may impact native born lower educated workers but in the longer term, those individuals will invest in human capital and move up the ladder to jobs. The ones then hurt are previous low-skill immigrants. That is to say, that in the longer term, immigrants are competing against each other.
@@apoc4223 your probably right man its a very difficult subject when talking about ethics and politics there are no single right answers
Immigrants should be allowed in to fill in the job market not replace people.
Loved the thorough and nuanced explanation! Killing it Lou and team!
I love this show, its great. I learn things every episode.
It is half truth. Keep reading.
You make fair points in this video but if a country is already overpopulated immigration can have a negative effect. Luckily the U.S has massive amount of land and enough place for people to live.
I like Lou's part of beme compared to the other videos.
Great vid! Maybe something to add to the discussion would be crime rate differences between foreign and local populations. I know in welfare states such as those in northern Europe is quite a hot topic.
Thanks Lou,This opened my eyes to Immigration and what it is
Great video as usual. Lou, may I suggest making a video on degrowth aka décroissance? Seems right up the Beme alley and there isn't much English language info about it on mainstream sites.
I'm gonna have to look into that - not sure what it is!
Louis Foglia Sweet! Basically, it's reducing economic growth to a truly sustainable level. Reducing everything from consumption, to work hours, to travel distance for goods, to programmed obsolescence. It's in a way in opposition to sustainable development, which tries to continue growth through sustainable means, often creating a cycle the degrowth movement claims that wherein things become for energy efficient, we end up using more energy because more goods are created. That being said, it's not looking for people to abandon all modern conveniences and live off the land in some sort of anarchist utopia. Either way, it's the tenth anniversary of their first conference this year. Might be worth checking out 👍
Hey Beme are you going to update your community section on your channel? Great video I send it around to my friends to get them to watch it.
I like how you put “it’s Lou “ in the thumbnail so more people will see the video
A lot of the benefits pointed at are akin to standing in a pale and trying to lift yourself by the handle.
While I appreciate the point of the video, I disagree that natives in first world countries regard themselves above menial work like janitorial or agricultural work. Nobody (even immigrants) wants these jobs, but many immigrants take them because they are desperate. This isn’t a good thing. Maybe if nobody took these jobs, maybe employers would be forced to pay a fair wage. The idea that allowing immigrants in to be exploited is a good idea is short sighted in my opinion.
Is there a difference in the effect of legal vs illegal immigrants, or is it all the same?
Hey i was your 1k like!!!!!
great job on the insight ur amazing
Great information. You should be president. Love the depth of the research and explanations. Thanks
Please story on Morocco
Economically there are benefits but economics isn't everything when considering immigration
@Daniel Sadjadi no it isn't beneficial socially
The only reason why it wouldn't be socially beneficial is if natives are xenophobic and make immigrants outcasts and fearmonger the nation to be afraid of immigrants.
Immigration is the scapegoat for the failure of neo-liberal economics.
Globalized trade could have been shared more equitably with everyone. But since the 1980s, with Reagan and Thatcher ushered in neo-Liberal (trickle down) economics, the lions share of gains have gone to the 1%. In the 1950s, 60s and 70s it was entirely possible for a single working parent to earn enough to buy a house and raise 4-5 kids and pay for their college. Today its common for dual-income households to barely scrape by.
Labour was devalued with attacks on unions. Massive tax cuts went to capital owners. When worsening conditions became obvious the elites manufacture the immigrant crisis. Post-WW2 migration was orders of magnitude larger than today's Syrian refugee crisis yet the response couldn't be more different.
Automation will disrupt the economy far worse than immigration. It's like millions of compliant slaves suddenly showing up on the labour market. Owners will use automation as an excuse to force wages into the basement.
It doesn't need to be like this. China shows how gains from globalization and automation can be reinvested into infrastructure. In 30 years they've lifted 700 million out of anject poverty. 25,000km of high speed railway build in under a decade, 60% of the world's total, with an eye to build a total of 120,000km. The Chinese economy is in danger of being too efficient giving them the option of enacting a Marshall Plan on Central Asia and Africa.
So while Europe and America actively pillage the Middle East and Africa, China builds up future trading partners. Some would cry "debt trap" as though Chinese investment in foreign infrastructure is worse than the IMF's economic colonialism. The proof will be in Africa, the global poor man, where centuries of European colonialism brought nothing but suffering where Chinese investment will deliver Africa to European living standards in 10-15 years.
Hey Lou good to see you making shit happen and keeping the content intellectual and interesting.
Wow, i want Lou to be my tutor, lecturer and hell even write my Assignments and reports!!!
"I'm going to go live my life"
There's so much juicy editing in here. how do you get these out so fast!
Thanks Lou, I've been looking for an explanation for this.
Top stuff! You guys deserve more viewers
Man I wish this Channel would grow faster
Thanks for the deep dive on this topic. Well done!
Let’s keep in mind he’s talking about legal immigration. Not illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are bad which why immigration is such a big problem
I love it when you wisper sweet nothings into my ears
Enjoyed the video as always Lou!! This video probably should be 2 parts... Economics of Immigration = fine and dandy, Economics of Illegal Immigration/Mass Migration = Trump is our president. Cheers Lou...
i have spent and waste too much time. for finding the news...... ,,thanks so much ,,, provide le lien so lisible, easier to understand
Define low skilled. Even a garbage man has tricks up his sleeve. Either pay good wage or pay more welfare. You'll pay one way or the other.
Well done BEME.
Great and simple explanation!
And incomplete.
Supply and demand in action baby
Lou . Please . Story on Morocco. WE NEED IT
Is there an article you can point me to that sums up the main issues?? Dm on Twitter with any info. @loufoglia
The only issue is that those immigrants that are coming in and helping the economy takes time. Those immigrants have to find homes, jobs, save up, and start businesses and that takes time. While those who can take up low skill jobs for minimum wage can take jobs extremely quickly.
Or they just go create a freak'n economy in their own countries. Won't have to deal with all the shit in the short turn and in the long turn you get a better trading partner...
this channel just reminds me everyone is wrong about everything and theres nothing we can do about it
No videos at the end 😪
If only people look at the math. This is really a 3-way fight where 2 can only win. Immigrant vs. Native vs. Employer. Guess who's always on the winning side?
Isn't this "partial equilibrium"?. It's easy to limit your scope and come up with a conclusion. But think about this: What happens when the Employer wins? I assume you mean he earns a higher profit. Where do these profits go? They go right back into the economy. He hires more workers (helps natives), spends more (helps local businesses), or saves up at a local bank which makes it easier for others to get a loan. Like in chess, when you think about the economy in one or two steps, you will inevitably lose. Think of the broader consequences, always think a few moves ahead.
That's the "math" I meant, in the long run everyone will benefit. But in the short term of things, as the news said it's probably going to be the low level native that's gonna be affected the most. Long term solutions such as "well get them new jobs' or "promote them" isn't that "Yipee! everyone wins!" thing.
For one let's say in construction, 10 lowest position natives get displaced by 10 immigrants. Solution "then promote them". Well the employer says "we only have 2 vacancies for higher level jobs". What happens to the 8? How sure are we that they'll be able to find another job?
"But what about newer businesses sprouting or local businesses expanding?" Well sure, but how long? 1 month? 2 months? 8 months? By that time then, do you think these displaced natives have money to put food in their table for 1 month? What about the loans they already took?
"Giving back to the economy". You seriously think employer spending will directly help the low end workers? I mean sure on paper it'll look good. But we do have a saying "The rich get richer and the poor get poorer".
"Easier loans". This is the low end workers of the spectrum. I doubt they'll easily be able to find loans thanks to the "credit score" system.
It's nice to think of the broader consequences. But make sure in your first two steps, you don't slip off a banana peel. The biggest problem when looking at things like these is that the "social aspect" can never be accurately measured. And going for the "big picture" while not caring about the here and now, just comes off as greedy and merciless.
Helping local businesses to what degree? Is it enough to warrant expansion and create news jobs? Does the new jobs match with the skills of the displaced natives?
This really is just a wealth redistribution program. Natives lose salaries. Immigrants are underpaid. The employers? Sure they'll buy a new Lamborghini, probably a new iPhone, etc. I hope the construction of the Lamborghini and iPhones creates jobs for the displaced natives. Oh wait, they're made overseas.
@@mystirboy commenting for later.
I like his insight on the money factor. However, its more than just money that matters. Not against immigration but noone should be for illigal immigration. Its not a one sided issue.
Okay, stop right there. If an American construction worker is getting paid minimum wage for their job, and then they get replaced by an illegal immigrant who is forced to work overtime for half of minimum wage, the American worker does not suddenly get promoted to a highly paid foreman. That's a ridiculous strawman. In this scenario, the American loses his job entirely, the illegal immigrant gets exploited by a greedy boss who can use "reporting him to the authorities" as a threat to force him to work underpaid, and the construction company owner's wallet gets significantly fatter.
It's like a naive utilitarianism: what nets the most positive is good, but only when I don't have to sacrifice something.
Can you guys do a video about what is happening in the Philippines and its current political scene please. The news here is doubtful at best and a lot of messy shit is goin on and i want people to know about it.
In Portugal 25% of the immigrants are unemployed living on social security benefits and 20% of the prison population are immigrants.
This figures do not include immigrants that have been in Portugal for 5 years because they are entitled and get Portuguese nationality .
In this studies they never take into account that immigrants and their families benefit from education , health services and for all the existing infrastructure that they never payed for. Their grand children will still be paying for what they have used , how can someone say that they are paying for the locals ?
On the taxes payed by the natives , the all system and infrastructure took tens of generations to be built but immigrants come and the taxes that their offspring pay are already enough to pay for them and the natives ?
A farmer grows the wheat , mills the flour , milks the cow , gets his own eggs and apples , bakes a pie , someone comes and seats at his table , gets half of the pie and shares it with his relatives . The great beneficiary it his the farmer because he gets half of his own pie all for himself ?
I am a 53 years old Portuguese emigrant , I was never good at maths and ageing is not helping me at all !
Thank you for doing this well researched video.
Heyy! It's Lou and here's a thing
You still never addressed the claim that more people competing for low wage jobs drives down the wage they can demand.
Skilled or wealthy immigration is good, low skilled immigration and refugees are bad in western societies. Wherever free movement of people without net migration is possible it is good.
The problem with low skilled immigration is that despite overall economic effects, they put downward pressure on the value of low skilled labor - the economic floor of out society. This is a problem in societies with welfare states and ideas about social justice.
west germany, is this a re-up from pre 1989?
Software engineering is one of the jobs with the highest number of immigrants. I've yet to meet a software engineer who is against immigration. The benefits are obvious to those who are actually affected by immigration.
Millions of software engineers are against it. They've been laid off and shut out of many Tech companies, after being made to train their replacements. Stand outside of Cisco, Walmart, IBM, Microsoft, Disney, etc. when work gets out.
The foreign students shouldn't count as immigrants as they have little effect on the job market, and that is where the issue lies.
The economic cost of illegal immigrants yearly is $135 billion. The 11 million illegals=$135 billion. For example, Texas has had to close
15 rural hospitals due to influx of IllegAls getting free medical.
It's ironic that the group of people that like to denigrate others for wanting instant gratification are consistently the ones that want policies that provide short term gratification but long term detriments.
What about the money that is funneled out by migrants and sent back to their countries? There are countries like Phillipines or Pakistan which a big part of gdp comes from money sent back by people who migrated
Wow very informative.. Thanks Beme for the education
Closed boarders are beneficial for every country
The biggest problem is how many benefits the US gives to non citizens. It attracts people who can't live off their own wealth and puts the cost on the taxpayer.
He didn't cover that. Nor those citizens who end up on unemployment when replaced. Nor the proliferation of ESL classes at the schools. Nor the discriminatory shut out of citizenry from so much as applying for open positions at H1B shops. There's a whole lot this video didn't disclose.
Buuuuut crimes and other culture differences is also a big factor especially here in malmo sweden
Very good video very truthful
Do Americans typically call themselves "native Americans", as Lou does?
great video!
i like the logo, it's like my drawing
It's that a Malaysia flag behind him? 🇲🇾
the ppl who avoid taxes or the super-rich who have the money to pay ppl to avoid paying the taxes. While most immigrants make enough money to pay taxes but not enough to have the know how to avoid paying taxes. It why you can be paying more taxes each year then the Trump family. They would jump through every loophole and try to hide their taxes to the best of their ability and pay accountants who job is to save his employee money. While you just want to make sure you have everything on your tax form.
Please, rich people pay at least 35 percent of their earned income in taxes. Also, it is racist to assume that illegals don't have the knowledge about tax credits, something that should be provided if they prepare their taxes with a professional.
What about the economics of illegal immigration?
So addictive. I'm happy that you guys tossed away that clown Casey Nicetat.
Do you have a Patreon account? I’d like to donate.
Immigrants; we get the job done!
You can never figure out the overall benefits of immigration in this way. You have to stand back and look at the big picture. When doing this remember the following basic facts: (1) immigrants are not only workers but also consumers. They create new vacancies as fast as they fill existing ones. (2) Immigrants or their descendants integrate after which they behave just like non-immigrants, including having just as few children and getting just as old. (3) Just because certain types of essential jobs are done mainly by immigrants does not mean those jobs would not get done if there were no immigrants. Changes in pay and conditions in combination with technical and organisational innovation would make sure that more essential work got done at the expense of less essential work. Overall and in the long run the effect of bringing in immigrants is to increase the population and GDP over and above what they would have been without them. Any temporary gains in GDP per capita (and therefore the financial well being of the existing population) will be eroded as immigrants integrate. That's fine if you have plenty of land (US, Canada) and just want to increase the size of your economy and therefore your clout in the world (and also help immigrants). If you have one of the highest population densities in the world (England, the Netherlands) it isn't fine, especially when your government fails to make the necessary infrastructure investments in advance (try selling that to voters). In the UK the Socialists, who are ideologically addicted to diversity, decided to lie and said: have vacancies/need immigrants. The Conservatives decided to remain silent (immigrants = cheap labour). Needless to say millions of immigrants have not reduced the number of vacancies which is, to a large extent, caused by people changing jobs (churn) something which you always have. Unfortunately a large majority of the population of London still believes the Socialists. Every time I go there I hear them saying "We have lots of vacancies and need immigrants to fill them". One day when they're drowning in their own sewage they may realise how they were conned.
Is it moral for the rich countries to hoover the brightest minds from poorer countries? Who will lead the change in the developing countries when all their Inteligencia moves to Europe or the US?
Great perspective
You fail to reference the cost of illegal AND legal immigrants. Yes they might have an economic contribution, but that comes with additional cost for each one. They use resources that would otherwise be directed to Americans.
Additionally, immigrants throw off the supply and demand ratios that would otherwise force wages up for native born.
Very one sided video, I’ll give you credit though...made it appear as though you were balanced.
4:39, hmmm. sweden. looks like this could be some how biased.
Well researched!
automation and outsourcing are the real job killers.
Keep up the videos great info !
What about crime increase caused by immigration? Especially from the third world countries.
Everyone 100% for or agianst immigrants is wrong. We (europe, US) need them, but......not indiscriminantly.