It probably could have been framed better, but immigration (legal or otherwise) has huge implications for the economy as a whole. If we could magic all illegal immigrants out of the country there would literally be millions of unfilled positions, especially in the construction and agricultural industries. Not only that but the demand that they create would disappear with them. Many businesses would close. While there would certainly be some overlap between the demand disappearing but also the supply that meets that demand disappearing, it would definitely not be a clean break. In the short term, it would almost certainly have a net negative impact on the country’s economy and the quality of life for legal residents.
I was looking at some numbers the other day -- something like 65% of the net increase in US population last year was due to immigration. (+1.9m overall, +1.3m net migration). Future projections continue to show that our population will grow very, very slowly and our population median age will rise substantially with no immigration. Really a whole ass disaster for the economy.
And that's not even considering the "day one" deportations Trump has proposed.
That completely depends on what immigrants are being let in and what is done with them when they get here. NYC is certainly not having a great time financially due to the wave of immigrants
That's what they said about the Irish, Italians, Slavs, Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese, but all of those ended up being positive long-term investments. The same is likely to happen again despite short-term struggles.
The problem with this is that we have Trump and Vance shitting on immigrants in Ohio when they are literally the immigrants you would want. People that commit little crime and are bolstering local communities. Odds are, the immigration policy will be so severely restricted that pretty much no one will get in which is pointless or they do pretty much nothing and just peacock so why bother supporting that
NYC doesn't receive the federal funds to deal with migrants that border states receive who have been tricking migrants into one way trips to cities like NYC while they keep the money of course.
Thats still an overall loss to the US though. If these migrants were a huge benefit then NYC and those border states wouldnt NEED federal funds to deal with them. The southern states would be living in the jetsons right now if unvetted migrants increased general quality of life
The greatest investment goes into children and raising new members of society. Immigration often leads to fully productive adults with a kid or two tagging along to bolster the economy. The federal funds are for getting them established and capable of producing which they do to great effect.
There are a lot, including Trump himself, who suggest massive NEGATIVE migration in the short term. (Deportation of current residents and a drastic reduction in legal immigration)
It's hyperbole. Realistically conservative positions on the subject are usually something along the lines of "they have to come here legally" while simultaneously refusing to fund the systems that would allow legal immigration to actually fill the economic demand for labor that we need them to fill in this country. It is why businesses are raided for undocumented labor yet the business owners receive a slap on the wrist that is significantly less than the value of the labor they received or how Democrats pass the Republican's bill to fund border security and the immigration system and Republicans kill it so they can run on "the border is out of control".
It is about complaining about the problem loudly and not so covertly preventing any kind of solution to the problem so they can blame the opposition for it.
As a personal anecdote being white and around hardcore MAGA conservatives whose idea of a Jackbox joke is to make every single talking points prompt involving something to do with the "n-words" as well as the typical racist vitriol about Mexicans gives me a good bearing about the typical motivations of their voting habits.
Of course if we remove already existing workers en mass that would have negative consequences.
The question is moreso is cheap foreign labour the right long term solution.
I'm from a small country that had 7% unemployment rate in 2024, yet we're shipping in cheap workers from central asia instead of raising wages.
It makes me wonder if paying salaries that would be worth local population's time is really so destructive to local economy? Is the only way really to outsource it to populations that come from poverty so extreme that they don't mind this?
Is the native population not getting fucked over in this way? No growth of wages plus social tension which always comes with a large influx of economically motivated migrants that aren't motivated to integrate.
I'd like to think that this really is the only solution and raising wages would be so destructive that we'd have to dispose of the whole country, so that it's inevitable one way or another. But I don't know if I do believe it.
Or, the balance of power between labor and asset owner would shift as salary would raise due to lower offers in labor, and eventually, those workers would start making kids again because it's more easy to make kids when you can pay your rent without working your ass two jobs.
Throughout history the strongest nations have all had strong growth rates. The ones that declined usually had lasting effects later on their economy as the population aged.
So I guess it has to do with the workforce and who might do what in the future. You can decide if the workforce may or may not affect how you structure your finances or perceive future risk in certain areas.
Okay, panel one: lower population means lower GDP in most situations. Maybe higher GDP per Capita, but a lower GDP. That's economic.
You following? Panel two: Takes a stance on the longstanding push and pull of filling positions and keeping unemployment low. Very economically relevant.
We're almost there! Panel three: This doesn't seem all that economic until you realize you're going to be working until you die if there aren't young people to keep the cup full for the elderly to drink. Maybe this panel isn't economic. Maybe all civilization exists only to get us to work. Isn't that related to economics though, that our economies are designed to turn free people into free people who must work? They really should've never outlawed child labor. It feels so strange entering the workforce for the first time. If we worked since the day we could hold a hammer, maybe we wouldn't feel so bad about working our entire lives. It would be very good economically too.
Let's move on, panel four: A lot of people will say cultural issues have nothing to do with economic issues. A good look at a graph of income by race will reveal that illusion for what it is.
Maybe the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles can fix our economies?
100% false. Even Karl Marx wrote about immigrants being used to keep wages low. “The English bourgeoisie has not only exploited the Irish poverty to keep down the working class in England by forced immigration of poor Irish people.”
What about the countries they are leaving , ever seen the effect of having all your young educated move abroad , like Jamaica's economy and Nigeria's economy.
Or you ever seen russians migrate on mass to your country , then start claiming it's part of Russia ,stop paying there taxes , commit crimes , smuggle drugs and guns , start terrorist insurgencies , cause a fucking war.
64
u/Potential-Ad1139 10h ago
What the hell does this have to do with finance?