The truly lulzy thing is that William the Bloody Ignorant of Macroeconomics is being the biggest sjw here. All invective,
bold type, emotional, conspiracy theorys and everything. It's amazing. He's wringing his little heart out. Apparently, white people who are being outperformed by immigrants who speak little english, have no social connections to their new city, and who often didn't complete 3rd world primary education.... well, those white people are just special and the rules shouldn't apply to them, and if you don't agree, he'll continue to white trash knight this forum for another thousand yeards.
Quote:
Originally Posted by William_the_Bloody
Well you weren’t too kind to me with your comments above, so I will simply say this is the stupidest F’n thing I’ve ever heard someone say, that’s it’s not worthy of a response, considering its importance dwarfs all the other issues discussed above by a mile.
|
Boom.
Anyways, Borjas is certainly not "the" most respected economist in regards to immigration. His opinion is decidedly unpopular within economist circles; he receives an undue amount of attention because his opinion gives creedence to the opinion of hate groups, such as FAIR (whom you referenced) which is considered a hate group by both the ADL & SPLC, and CIS (who is considered a hate group by the SPLC).
Which brings us back to:
Quote:
Originally Posted by djchameleon
Native born unskilled workers don't even want the jobs that immigrant unskilled workers are doing. They think they are above those type of jobs in general.
|
This is a great point. How do we know immigrants exert minimal (if any) downward pressure on wages? Because they go to where they can sell their labor for the most money, meaning they go to places experiencing labor shortages and they work in fields (literal and figurative) experiencing labor shortages. Immigrants, just like you and me, would only live in an Iowa or Tennessee if there was a tremendous economic opportunity - they certainly ain't going there for the cultural experience.
N e ways, I see you didn't comment on the marginal propensity to save. You see, that's the economic fact that because the cost of living is static, the amount of income spent relative to net income decreases the more you make. Please, please, please consider the effect this has on working class cost of living before you comment again.
p.s., you do realize most unions in the USA have endorsed clinton, right?