Mass immigration & economic problems in USA and Europe

[Greg Boyles]

Considering they claim that 2 million illegals are getting in every year (3 million cross, 1/3 are caught), and half stay (1 million), but the numbers have only doubled to 11 million since 1994, something doesn't add up. A 5.5 million increase in 16 years is about 300k per year. And that's assuming all illegals are from Mexico.

 

So I don't necessarily trust their numbers. Especially since many are un- or dubiously-sourced.

 

But while 11 million illegals earning $60 billion may sound like a lot, that's not even $5500 per capita. Given that the US us per capita income is about $27k, just which jobs are the illegals taking that are so sought after by others?

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

 

Environment author Mark O'Connor argues infrastructure costs are between $200,000 and $400,000 for every person that comes to Australia to work. While each overseas worker can contribute to the Australian economy the benefit is more likely to go to the company hiring them (and in this case it is the mining giants like BHP Billiton). For each person that comes to Australia to work it may save the employers training an apprentice or it may drive down wages.

 

According to O'Connor this may save the employer $10 000 in not having to train an apprentice, but the infrastructure costs borne by government is more than likely double that. Therefore, there is also an argument that there is an economic downside of importing overseas labour.

 

These arguments are known by government, however the Minister for Immigration maintains an immigration program driven by productivity, population, and participation regardless of the short or long-term costs.

 

http://www.fairus.org/site/PageServer?pagename=iic_immigrationissuecenters87d3

 

http://eye-on-immigration.blogspot.com/2009/02/immigration-policy-and-health-care.html

 

http://immigration.procon.org/view.answers.php?questionID=000788

 

 

[CharonY]

FAIR is a known anti-immigration partisan group that repeatedly purports made-up numbers. Even the conservative CATO institute has demonstrated that they are wrong http://politicalcorr...ck/201107200006.

 

However, considering that the core of this discussion has shifted several times it appears to me that there is only one consistent theme:

I said that economic problems and national debt are caused by over large populations and population growth' date=' to which immigration is a major contributor in Australia, Britain and the USA.[/size']

 

So the premise is that that economic problems are caused by large populations. The source is apparently secondary. If that is the case, one should just need e.g. to correlate economic success (or lack thereof) with population size to test his hypothesis.

 

So let's take public debt as an example http://en.wikipedia...._by_public_debt. Apparently huge countries like Saint Kitts and Navis or the Lebanon should cut down on their population growth. Top of the pack is Japan, however even including immigration they appear to have a population decline over the last few years. So the aging population should put the right back on track, right?

Edited August 10, 2011 by CharonY

[swansont]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_illegal_immigrants_in_the_United_States

 

Any specific part you wanted me to see, like the section where it says

 

"[W]hen the wages of lower-skilled workers go down, the rest of America benefits by paying lower prices for things like restaurant meals, agricultural produce and construction. The economic impact of illegal immigration is far smaller than other trends in the economy, such as the increasing use of automation in manufacturing or the growth in global trade. Those two factors have a much bigger impact on wages, prices and the health of the U.S. economy. But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration."

 

Not sure how that supports your thesis. And the Mark O'Connor quote you provided is about Australia, so I don't see how it fits in this particular exchange. Not sure where it came from, either.

 

As far as taking jobs of citizens, the state of Georgia recently passed a law cracking down on illegals. Despite the high unemployment rate, even before the law took effect they were leaving the state and there were a bunch of unfilled farm positions. Nobody but the illegals want to do many of these jobs, especially at the wages being offered.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0611/57551.html

[Greg Boyles]

FAIR is a known anti-immigration partisan group that repeatedly purports made-up numbers. Even the conservative CATO institute has demonstrated that they are wrong http://politicalcorr...ck/201107200006.

 

However, considering that the core of this discussion has shifted several times it appears to me that there is only one consistent theme:

 

 

So the premise is that that economic problems are caused by large populations. The source is apparently secondary. If that is the case, one should just need e.g. to correlate economic success (or lack thereof) with population size to test his hypothesis.

 

So let's take public debt as an example http://en.wikipedia...._by_public_debt. Apparently huge countries like Saint Kitts and Navis or the Lebanon should cut down on their population growth. Top of the pack is Japan, however even including immigration they appear to have a population decline over the last few years. So the aging population should put the right back on track, right?

 

Perhaps.....as long as politicians re prevented from continuing their agenda of population growth through immigration. And as long as previous immigration driven poplation growth does not push countries over the edge from which it will be difficult for them to recover fully.........as what may be happening in the USA and Britain.

 

There is also another issue that complicates all this - social cohesion.

 

Those populations that are highly multicultural tend to be poltically and socially unstable when economic conditions are poor with disparate ethnic, tribal and religious groups fighting over limited resources and wealth - Somalia, Rwanda, Britain, France, USA,.......

 

Populations that are ethnically uniform tend to be more resilient to such shocks due to their higher level of social cohesion - Japan.

 

Xenophobia is like a coin. On one side is the fear, mistrust or resentment of outsiders but on the other is strong affiliation with your own ethnic, tribal or family group. Without some level of xenophobia I postulate that cohesive societies would be impossible.

 

'Outsiders' can and do earn the trust of the local community and are integrated into it over time to form a cohesive hybrid community. The Italian and Greek communities are a demonstration of that in Australia. But the crucual issue here is time. It takes time for this to happen.

 

Which brings us back to the issue of bringing in too many immigrants too fast.

 

Any specific part you wanted me to see, like the section where it says

 

"[W]hen the wages of lower-skilled workers go down, the rest of America benefits by paying lower prices for things like restaurant meals, agricultural produce and construction. The economic impact of illegal immigration is far smaller than other trends in the economy, such as the increasing use of automation in manufacturing or the growth in global trade. Those two factors have a much bigger impact on wages, prices and the health of the U.S. economy. But economists generally believe that when averaged over the whole economy, the effect is a small net positive. Harvard's George Borjas says the average American's wealth is increased by less than 1 percent because of illegal immigration."

 

Not sure how that supports your thesis. And the Mark O'Connor quote you provided is about Australia, so I don't see how it fits in this particular exchange. Not sure where it came from, either.

 

As far as taking jobs of citizens, the state of Georgia recently passed a law cracking down on illegals. Despite the high unemployment rate, even before the law took effect they were leaving the state and there were a bunch of unfilled farm positions. Nobody but the illegals want to do many of these jobs, especially at the wages being offered.

 

http://www.politico....0611/57551.html

 

I am not only interested in the USA, or only Britain or only Australia.

 

I am interested in the effect of high immigration on economic conditions and debt across the board.

 

You asked me to provide supporting data that immigrants incur net economic costs and Mark O'Connor is one of them.

[Ringer]

Well you could always look at population density vs external debt or public debt. Either way you look at it you hypothesis doesn't hold up. Say you look at

Population Density Public Debt External Debt

Australia; ranked 235(2011), 107th (~2010), and 14th (2010).

Netherlands; 30th (2011) 27th (2010) 5th (2009)

United States 179 (2011) 37 (2010) 1st (2011)

UK 53rd (2010) 23 (2010) 2nd (2010)

Canada 230 (2010) 14th (2010) 15th (2010)

 

It goes on, but the point I'm trying to make is that it the population density doesn't directly correlate in debt in any way. I use population density because it seems to be a fair comparison because immigration increases population density.

 

 

 

 

[edit] I had the table set up all nicely but it formats it differently when it posts so I apologize for the messiness [/edit]

Edited August 11, 2011 by Ringer

[Greg Boyles]

Well you could always look at population density vs external debt or public debt. Either way you look at it you hypothesis doesn't hold up. Say you look at

Population Density Public Debt External Debt

Australia; ranked 235(2011), 107th (~2010), and 14th (2010).

Netherlands; 30th (2011) 27th (2010) 5th (2009)

United States 179 (2011) 37 (2010) 1st (2011)

UK 53rd (2010) 23 (2010) 2nd (2010)

Canada 230 (2010) 14th (2010) 15th (2010)

 

It goes on, but the point I'm trying to make is that it the population density doesn't directly correlate in debt in any way. I use population density because it seems to be a fair comparison because immigration increases population density.

 

 

 

 

[edit] I had the table set up all nicely but it formats it differently when it posts so I apologize for the messiness [/edit]

 

OK fair enough. But a few more points.

 

1) Population density is really little better than per capita immigration as it assumes that the ecology and resource base of the two nations you are comparing are identical.

 

2) Populations are never evenly spread across all of a nation's land area and often concentrated in major urban centres which creates problems with cost of living pressures and reliance on government handouts etc. When you get land prices spiralling up it becomes very expensive to provide additional infrastructure since land buy outs are inevitably necessary. It very expensive to adequately police large urban centres compared to smaller ones. Crime in large urban centres tend to be much larger than in smaller ones.

 

Is everyone familiar with the inverse square law of light intensity (I -> 1/r x r)?

 

I put it to you that the total cost of 'managing' (policing, roads, water, electrcity,......) and the size of the urban centre has something like the following relationship C -> r x r)

 

3) We also need to consider the ecological nature of the nation, its resource base and average consumption of goods and government services. As I have said before, but not necessarily in here yet..........an over populated nation is not necessarily densely populated and a densely populated nation is not necessarily over populated.

 

Perhaps we simply don't have an appropriate metric to apply to this in order to discern precisely the contribution high immigration makes to debt and economic problems.

 

We certainly do not have a metric that accurately describes the economic prospects of the majority of citizens hence the criticism of politicians when they come out with comments like "Australian's have never been better off" by John Howard.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

What ever. But my criticism of using per capita immigration still stands. You need more information than simply per capita immigration to properly examine my hypothesis.

 

As I've already pointed out, you have made your hypothesis complicated enough that no comparison can really be made, but per capita is far closer to a fair comparison than using the total.

 

Consider this: the state of Arizona has some serious issues with immigration, so much so that the state government felt it necessary to pass some controversial legislation. But their total immigration is necessarily smaller than the immigration in the whole of the US. By your logic, it should be less of a problem.

[CaptainPanic]

Greg, I would like to talk for 1 post about the "per capita" alone - not about the immigration. We'll get back to that.

 

Greg, according to you, is the "per capita" value always misleading, also when it concerns for example the economic state of a country or region, the birth rates, the consumer behavior, or health related things?

 

Would you perhaps even go as far as saying that statistics is a misleading branch of maths?

 

Or is it just this particular case / thread where it is misleading?

[Greg Boyles]

Greg, I would like to talk for 1 post about the "per capita" alone - not about the immigration. We'll get back to that.

 

Greg, according to you, is the "per capita" value always misleading, also when it concerns for example the economic state of a country or region, the birth rates, the consumer behavior, or health related things?

 

Would you perhaps even go as far as saying that statistics is a misleading branch of maths?

 

Or is it just this particular case / thread where it is misleading?

 

Per capita immigration is only misleading in so far as the way you are trying to use it as evidence against my hypothesis. In and of itself it proves nothing either way and must be viewed in context with other relevant data.

 

What's that saying........Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

Statistics in general is a very useful mathematical tool.

 

But it can be, and often is, used decptively to push an agenda or argue against policy that is contrary to the interests or biases of the deceiver.

 

As I've already pointed out, you have made your hypothesis complicated enough that no comparison can really be made, but per capita is far closer to a fair comparison than using the total.

 

Consider this: the state of Arizona has some serious issues with immigration, so much so that the state government felt it necessary to pass some controversial legislation. But their total immigration is necessarily smaller than the immigration in the whole of the US. By your logic, it should be less of a problem.

 

Arizona's resource base, that can generate local economic activity, and ecolgical productive capacity etc is not necessarily the same size as other states and hence its capacity to absorb immigrants, without causing economic side effects, may be smaller.

 

Similar to the difference between the USA and Australia. Australia has overwhelmingly poor soils and very sporadic rainfall and hence our ecological productive capacity (for food and wood production) is far lower than the USA overall. But we do have rather a lot of iron ore and coal etc. But water availability is the clincher and restricts all forms of economic activity. Therefore our capacity to absorb immigrants is lower than the USA despite our large unoccupied land area (which is mostly desert or semi arid)

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

Per capita immigration is only misleading in so far as the way you are trying to use it as evidence against my hypothesis. In and of itself it proves nothing either way and must be viewed in context with other relevant data.

Your hypothesis is dependent on a premise that an immigration level of X is sustainable or not completely independent of the population of the country, which is absurd. You are, in effect, saying that whatever is a sustainable level for the US would be sustainable for any country. Iceland, for example, with a population of 320,000, should be able to sustain an immigration level of 100,000 per year, because that would be OK for the US. Or pick any of the dozens of countries whose population is less than 100,000.

[Greg Boyles]

Greg, I would like to talk for 1 post about the "per capita" alone - not about the immigration. We'll get back to that.

 

Greg, according to you, is the "per capita" value always misleading, also when it concerns for example the economic state of a country or region, the birth rates, the consumer behavior, or health related things?

 

Would you perhaps even go as far as saying that statistics is a misleading branch of maths?

 

Or is it just this particular case / thread where it is misleading?

 

Nor is it as simple as number of units of 1,000 head of population determining how many immigrants the country can successfully absorb.

 

By this definition a population of billion can easily absorb hundreds of millions of immigrants (or births) with no detrimental economic, political or social consequences. Hell a population of a trillion can successfully absorb even more immigrants. When taken to its logical conclusions Captain, your argument is ludicrous. If you argument is valid then India and China would not have major problems with poverty.

[CaptainPanic]

Nor is it as simple as number of units of 1,000 head of population determining how many immigrants the country can successfully absorb.

 

By this definition a population of billion can easily absorb hundreds of millions of immigrants (or births) with no detrimental economic, political or social consequences. Hell a population of a trillion can successfully absorb even more immigrants. When taken to its logical conclusions Captain, your argument is ludicrous. If you argument is valid then India and China would not have major problems with poverty.

You write "hundreds of millions of immigrants" on a population of a billion. You exaggerate by numbers what a statistical average would indeed suggest. And then you ridicule it. And because the ridiculous claims which you by now have fabricated are silly, you claim that the core of the argument is wrong.

That's just another fallacy...

[Greg Boyles]

You write "hundreds of millions of immigrants" on a population of a billion. You exaggerate by numbers what a statistical average would indeed suggest. And then you ridicule it. And because the ridiculous claims which you by now have fabricated are silly, you claim that the core of the argument is wrong.

That's just another fallacy...

 

 

OK Captain, let's get scientific about then.

 

Population of USA: 320 million or there abouts

Humanitarian intake: 1 million or there abouts (so I have heard quoted)

Per capita intake: 1/320 *1000= 3.125 immigrants per 1000 head.

 

Let's double the USA's population

 

Population of USA: 640 million or there abouts

Humanitarian intake: 2 million

Per capita intake: 2/640 *1000= 3.125 immigrants per 1000 head.

 

Let's multiply it by 10

 

Population of USA: 3,200 million

Humanitarian intake: 10 million

Per capita intake: 10/320 *1000= 3.125 immigrants per 1000 head.

 

 

So according to your logic Captain the capacity of the USA to absorb immigrants has no limit as long as there are enough 1000 heads of population to support them.

 

Now if you can't see that this 'logic' is absurd then you need to go back to school matey

 

I REPEAT.........

 

In and of itself, per capita immigration does not determine the sustainability or wisdom (environmentally or economically speaking) of a country's immigration intake.

 

What about Naru with a population of about 10,000.

 

Let's see.....if they had an immigration intake of 30 per year their per capita immigration would be 3.

 

Ignoring births, in 30 years their population would grow to almost 11,000. Then they could take 33-24 immigrants per year and their per capita immigration would remain at about 3, lower than that of the USA.

 

Is their enough economic activity on Naru to provide the additional 900 people with jobs? Is there enough land on which they can build a house? Is there enough funds to import the additional food they will eat or enough fertile land to grow it?

 

Again, in and of itself per capita immigration is not deterministic of the sustainability of immigration.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[imatfaal]

What is "scientific" about proposing a ten-fold increase in the USA's population? It is not surprising that the Capt's argument struggles when presented with clearly ridiculous hypothetical scenarios.

 

Using per capita figures is essential to avoid simply constructed logical paradoxes. If there is a - for arguments sake only - a max absolute number of immigrants that an entity can welcome into its borders at a profit; call that number C. That number is established for the USA - ok so now each state of the union does their sums; each is expecting a number well below C and thus can predict that no negative results will accrue! This is clearly nonsense - the nonsense springs from using absolute figures when relative terms are required.

 

Personally I do not believe a number C that is within the realms of possible scenarios exist - but even if one was calculated for the USA, the way a state would use that information would be to divide C by the total population of the USA and multiply by the state population (all other variables being equal).

 

Your example of Nauru is a little contrived but shows the danger of any universal law or statistic - the main argument against Nauru as a valid counter example is that countries with net positive immigration are those with the resources to sustain them. in general people do not tend to emigrate from rich countries to poor. If Nauru was very wealthy then it could easily support another 1000 people - but it is not, so people will not go there. It is quite clear that a small country can sustain many multiples of the population of Nauru; if it has resources, special tax regimes, or anything the rest of the world doesn't have - Monaco is a tenth of the size of Nauru and has a population well over 30k.

[Phi for All]

Per capita immigration is only misleading in so far as the way you are trying to use it as evidence against my hypothesis. In and of itself it proves nothing either way and must be viewed in context with other relevant data.

 

What's that saying........Lies, damned lies and statistics.

 

Statistics in general is a very useful mathematical tool.

 

But it can be, and often is, used decptively to push an agenda or argue against policy that is contrary to the interests or biases of the deceiver.

!

Moderator Note

This argument cuts both ways, and is why your arguments seem to push an agenda of your own. You fail to explain why the reader should ignore all the other statistics presented in favor of your own, some of which have been culled from questionable sources.

 

It's not easy to press a strong argument without strong support. You are not being specially persecuted; science-minded people pounce quickly when asked to ignore weak foundations so they can see past them to the real merits of an idea. It's a methodology that ensures productive thinking.

 

This thread had degenerated to arguing about rules, so I'm recommending it's closure unless something puts it back on track. Further argument about our rules will hasten closure.

[Greg Boyles]

What is "scientific" about proposing a ten-fold increase in the USA's population? It is not surprising that the Capt's argument struggles when presented with clearly ridiculous hypothetical scenarios.

It is entirely plausible given that the central doctrine of economic theory is that population growth is required to maintain a stable economy!

 

Using per capita figures is essential to avoid simply constructed logical paradoxes. If there is a - for arguments sake only - a max absolute number of immigrants that an entity can welcome into its borders at a profit; call that number C. That number is established for the USA - ok so now each state of the union does their sums; each is expecting a number well below C and thus can predict that no negative results will accrue! This is clearly nonsense - the nonsense springs from using absolute figures when relative terms are required.

Oh brother! Once again I don't have a problem with per capita immigration per se. But I do have a problem with the way it is being used in this debate, about population growth/immigration, to determine the sustainability of population growth/immigration.

 

The reasoning has been that because the USA's population is larger, and therefore a relatively low per capita immigration, that 1 million immigrants plus per year is more sustainable than Australia's smaller immigration intake but larger per capita immigration duw to our smaller population.

 

And once again the size of the existing population is not the only determinant of the size of the immigration intake that a country can sustain indefinitely. Water availability, rainfall, soil ferility and resource base etc are not considered in per capita immigration.

 

Your example of Nauru is a little contrived but shows the danger of any universal law or statistic - the main argument against Nauru as a valid counter example is that countries with net positive immigration are those with the resources to sustain them. in general people do not tend to emigrate from rich countries to poor. If Nauru was very wealthy then it could easily support another 1000 people - but it is not, so people will not go there. It is quite clear that a small country can sustain many multiples of the population of Nauru; if it has resources, special tax regimes, or anything the rest of the world doesn't have - Monaco is a tenth of the size of Nauru and has a population well over 30k.

 

"If it was wealthy".....per capita immigration gives no indication of the wealth of Naru. Therefore, as I have repeated time and time again, in and of itself per capita immigration is not a determinant of whether a nations immigration intake is sustainable.

 

"net positive immigration are those with the resources to sustain them"

People do not necessarily immigrate to a country based on the reality of its economic status or the reality of its ability to sustain them in the life style they are expecting.

 

They are just as likely to immigrate based upon their perception of its economic status or their perception of its ability to sustain them in the lifestyle they are expecting. Perceptions and reality can be quite far apart.

 

And like economists, immigrants also do not consider the ecological status of the country, and the long term effect for their decendants in their chosen country, of their immigration to that country along with a million or so others with similar misconcpetions.

 

It is a common refrain from recent immigrants to Australia that we should let their extended families in to the country and allow our population to grow to 100 million because the centre of our continent is largely unoccupied. But many, but not all, aus citizens know better.

 

Water availability is the major limiting factor. You can't sustain large regional population and urban centres without a reliable water source. And most of central Australia simply does not have a reliable water source.

 

If Australia did attain a population of 100 million then we would be much like the many dysfuncational or failed states in Africa.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[DJBruce]

Greg, one thing to note is that immigration itself can boost the level of economic activity in an area since an influx of people requires an increase in production to sustain them. So in your Naru example, the migration of those 900 people could very well mean that the demand for food and housing would cause an economic boom in those sectors where more people would be needed meet the demand for those products.

[swansont]

And once again the size of the existing population is not the only determinant of the size of the immigration intake that a country can sustain indefinitely. Water availability, rainfall, soil ferility and resource base etc are not considered in per capita immigration.

Water availability, rainfall, soil ferility and resource base etc. were not part of your original hypothesis. You didn't mention rainfall before today, for instance. You can't keep moving the goalposts to avoid acknowledging the weakness of your original position.

 

A country with ample resources could sustain a much larger population, immigrant or otherwise, based on that criterion. That assumes all other things are equal, but then, that's the implication of any discussion — that unnamed variables are assumed held constant or can otherwise be ignored. So when you based your original thesis on the economic drain, it's simply not true that number of immigrants is the proper variable. You have to scale it with the size of the economy. A small economy cannot economically withstand the same drain (if there is a drain) as a larger one.

[Greg Boyles]

Greg, one thing to note is that immigration itself can boost the level of economic activity in an area since an influx of people requires an increase in production to sustain them.

 

I absolutely do not dispute this!

 

But I do dispute, as do many economists these days, the blanket assumption of economic theory that this increased economic activity ALWAYS brings net financial gain to the host population!

 

Because those immigrants also incur costs to tax payers - welfare payments, increased public infrastructure, increased capacity at public hospitals and more public hospitals, increased electcity generation capacity, increased water supply,.........

 

And my argument is that beyond a certain threshhold, related to the carrying capacity of the country, the total costs to the host society exceed any revenue that the increased economic activity generates.

 

Immigrants are certainly increasing economic activity in Australia within the housing market. But that is not bringing any benefit to the majority of Australians. Wages may be increased but so have property prices and mortgage repayments, so have electrcity bills due to the need to upgrade the distribution network, so have water bills to pay for the Wonthaggi and many other desalination plant.

 

Apart from the minority of owners of local capital, the vast majority of Melbournians are no better off or wrose off as a result of that increased economic activity in the property market.

 

 

Let's go back to Naru. It is a finite and all of you can obviously see that. Finite land area for crops and housing (competing interests), finite fresh water yield, finite fertile land for growing crops, finite natural resources.

 

No amount of increased economic activity will increase the available land.

 

No amount of increased economic activity will increase the available natural resources.

 

No amount of increased economic activity will increase the amount of fresh water that can be harvested from the land area.

 

Therefore, over a certain threshhold, population growth and economic growth will not bring net gains to Naru.

 

Scale that up susbstantially, and you have the situation in Australia and the USA.

 

Note to moderator.....

 

I have provided detailed reasoning why I do not believe that increased economic activity due to high immigration, in Australia in particular is not bringing net financial gain to the majority of Australians.

 

I have provided some facts and figures from various authors to back this up the idea that this blanket assumption of economic theory is false.

 

I would now like to see my detractors provide me with some evidence (other than per capita immigration figures) to back up their claim that increased economic activity due to immigration ALWAYS brings net economic gain to the host population.

Edited August 11, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[iNow]

But I do dispute, as do many economists these days, the blanket assumption of economic theory that this increased economic activity ALWAYS brings net financial gain to the host population!

Please share specifically who makes that assumption. It should be easy to provide 2 or 3 examples since (according to you) they ALWAYS assume this. I think this might just possibly be one of those logical fallacies people have been telling you about lately. I'll give you a hint: It's a strawman.

 

 

Because those immigrants also incur costs to tax payers - welfare payments, increased public infrastructure, increased capacity at public hospitals and more public hospitals, increased electcity generation capacity, increased water supply,.........

Except, they also provide revenues, and this demonstrated to you on several occasions with evidence.

 

 

And my argument is that beyond a certain threshhold, related to the carrying capacity of the country, the total costs to the host society exceed any revenue that the increased economic activity generates.

Ok. So what? What's that threshold, then? Shit, man... Even water is toxic "beyond a certain threshold."

 

 

Immigrants are certainly increasing economic activity in Australia within the housing market. But that is not bringing any benefit to the majority of Australians.

Why not? I bet there are a lot of people who benefit from this, and I could even provide examples. Why do you say that it does not "bring any benefit?"

 

I'm starting to see a pattern here. Part of the problem you're having is that you are sloppy with your language, and you say things which are easily shown false. You'd do better perhaps is you could articulate your thoughts more precisely. You clearly did not mean to imply that there is zero benefit from such activities, did you?

 

 

Wages may be increased but so have property prices and mortgage repayments, so have electrcity bills due to the need to upgrade the distribution network, so have water bills to pay for the Wonthaggi and many other desalination plant.

This seems like an unfounded claim, but I'm interested to learn more. Can you please provide the evidence which supports this contention you've made that immigration is the cause of rises in property costs, mortgage repayments, electricity bills, and water bills? That seems like it may not be true, but I want to give you the benefit of the doubt and have you give some evidence that it's not an unfounded assumption.

 

 

Apart from the minority of owners of local capital, the vast majority of Melbournians are no better off or wrose off as a result of that increased economic activity in the property market.

This looks another one of those personal opinions which you've presented as if it were a fact. Haven't people been telling you that this isn't helpful to your presentation? Opinion [math]\ne[/math] Fact

 

 

 

No amount of increased economic activity will increase the available land.

I'm being a bit of an ass here, but technically, it can. Just look at Dubai. They had tons of money and built a bunch of peninsulas and islands with that money.

 

 

Therefore, over a certain threshhold, population growth and economic growth will not bring net gains to Naru.

And? You seem to think we're already past that threshold, but you've hardly established that case. This could be something which doesn't happen for a thousand years, or it could happen tomorrow. If you don't have any evidence, it's little more than an unfounded claim and personal opinion. You can hold any opinion you want, but that doesn't make it true.

 

 

I do not believe that increased economic activity <...> is not bringing net financial gain to the majority of Australians.

I am pretty sure you got your words twisted there with a double negative. Did you mean that you do not think increased economic activity brings a net financial gain to Australians? If so, that sounds... well... wrong.

 

 

I have provided some facts and figures from various authors to back this up the idea that this blanket assumption of economic theory is false.

Where did you do that, exactly?

 

 

I would now like to see my detractors provide me with some evidence (other than per capita immigration figures) to back up their claim that increased economic activity due to immigration ALWAYS brings net economic gain to the host population.

Who said always? Remember that strawman I mentioned at the start of this post? It seems you've bookend-ed it with one at the conclusion, too. The continuity is nice, but the flawed arguments are somewhat bothersome.

[Realitycheck]

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org

 

113 billion dollars a year, half of which is spent on educating their kids, most of which is absorbed by the states. Obviously, it's been a problem in California (is that considered a blue state, as in illegal immigrant friendly?) and presumably Arizona. In Texas, there are no income taxes, only sales taxes and corporate. I guess you could conclude that consumption taxes are a way to make sure you tax everybody (it's only 7 or 8%), though costs have started escalating recently.

 

Interesting how they state that immigration has slowed to a crawl, due to changes made in Mexico (and perhaps a partially built fence?).

Edited August 12, 2011 by Realitycheck

[JohnB]

Because those immigrants also incur costs to tax payers - welfare payments, increased public infrastructure, increased capacity at public hospitals and more public hospitals, increased electcity generation capacity, increased water supply,.........

 

And my argument is that beyond a certain threshhold, related to the carrying capacity of the country, the total costs to the host society exceed any revenue that the increased economic activity generates.

 

Immigrants are certainly increasing economic activity in Australia within the housing market. But that is not bringing any benefit to the majority of Australians. Wages may be increased but so have property prices and mortgage repayments,

 

Hang on. If the immigrants are incurring costs to taxpayers due to welfare payments, then they obviously don't have any money. Property prices are based on what people are able to pay. (You can put any price you want to on a property, but if nobody is willing or able to pay that price, you just won't sell.) So people with money drive up prices.

 

Just how the hell do immigrants on welfare (the lowest socio-econmomic group) drive up the prices of houses that they can't afford to buy?

Edited August 12, 2011 by JohnB

[Ophiolite]

Just how the hell do immigrants on welfare (the lowest socio-econmomic group) drive up the prices of houses that they can't afford to buy?

You have to admit John that it is a nice twist on the complaint that immigrants drive down the price of houses in a neighbourhood. Perhaps Greg is saving that one up ofr later in the thread.

 

Note: from this point on sarcasm is the only proper response to Greg's posts on this topic, since he is clearly immune to reason.

[Greg Boyles]

RE: Effect of high immigration on property prices in Australia

 

Come on iNow!

 

Are you seriously going to start denying one of the central tennents of economic theory that pretty much everyone DOES agree with?

 

If you increase the demand on a finite resource then you increase the price.

 

You sound like the bloody Australian property developers who make the same ludicrous argument and attempt to blame it all on the government not realeasing more land because they don't want unsustainable urban sprawl to continue.

 

If it does not push up property prices and increase the profit margins of big developers, then why are they spruking for higher immigration the loudest????

 

If there was no link between property prices and population growth then why would they bother spruking it......just for the hell of it????

 

Evidence.....

 

What about the fact that, several months after the Gillard government slashed the list of skills on which foreign students could gain permanent residency, the property market across Australia has stagnated or fallen and there may soon be major job losses across the building sector.

 

Would a comparison of property prices before Howard ramped up skilled immigration in the 90s and soon after he did so suffice?

 

What level of evidence would meet your rather pedantic requirements.....if any?

 

You have to admit John that it is a nice twist on the complaint that immigrants drive down the price of houses in a neighbourhood. Perhaps Greg is saving that one up ofr later in the thread.

 

Note: from this point on sarcasm is the only proper response to Greg's posts on this topic, since he is clearly immune to reason.

 

Immigrants on welfare rent.

 

There is a chronic shortage of rental properties.

 

That encourages many Australian citizens and permanent residents (particularly soon to be retirees) to invest in a portfolio of rental properties.

 

That contributes to pushing up property prices.

 

I am pretty sure you got your words twisted there with a double negative. Did you mean that you do not think increased economic activity brings a net financial gain to Australians? If so, that sounds... well... wrong.

 

Increased economic activity as a result of high immigration has not brought net financial gain to the majority of Australians.

 

At least that is what Australians seem to have been telling politicians for some time. And it is certainly the message that Howard and his government got after making hios comment "Australians have never been better off".

 

Clearly some one is benefiting from it - property developers and governments

 

You have to admit John that it is a nice twist on the complaint that immigrants drive down the price of houses in a neighbourhood. Perhaps Greg is saving that one up ofr later in the thread.

 

Note: from this point on sarcasm is the only proper response to Greg's posts on this topic, since he is clearly immune to reason.

 

Last time I checked there are no tent cities or slums any where around Melbourne, or the other capital cities, where immigrants are housed.

 

So one way or another they are getting houses to live in, whether it is as an owner occupier or as a renter. More damand for houses and finite land to build them on means increased prices.

 

Your hypothesis is dependent on a premise that an immigration level of X is sustainable or not completely independent of the population of the country, which is absurd. You are, in effect, saying that whatever is a sustainable level for the US would be sustainable for any country. Iceland, for example, with a population of 320,000, should be able to sustain an immigration level of 100,000 per year, because that would be OK for the US. Or pick any of the dozens of countries whose population is less than 100,000.

 

Swansont, I am saying NOTHING of the sort. You are guilty of attacking a strawman yourself.

 

Ecological factors alone ultimately determine the sustainable population limit of each country or region, and that will vary with the differing ecological nature of each.

 

Therefore the number of deaths per year will vary with different sustainable population sizes.

 

 

And that will determine the maximum sustainable immigrtion intake for each country, i.e. such that each country or region is in zero net population growth.

 

That is if we are smart and limit our numbers ourselves.

 

If not then the human race will be in and endless boom bust cycle. Our numbers will build up until all resources are exhausted and then our population will crash. There will be a long period where the global ecosystem repairs itself and biodiversity is restored. The human population will build up again, though perhaps not to the same levels as last time. Will again exhaust all the available resources and our population will crash again..............

 

I would prefer the first scenario where we use that grey matter that we are so proud of......and limit our own numbers voluntarily for the greater good of our civilisation and our species.

 

By the way, the crash part of the cycle is happening locally in Somalia at present!

 

But the aid organisations will go in and save lives until the drought breaks. That will cause more people to be around to have more kids than otherwise would be the case. The Somali population will build up again until the next drought and it will again crash. The aid organisations will go in again and save lives...................

 

Talk about bashing our heads against a brick wall!

Edited August 12, 2011 by Greg Boyles

[swansont]

Swansont, I am saying NOTHING of the sort. You are guilty of attacking a strawman yourself.

 

Ecological factors alone ultimately determine the sustainable population limit of each country or region, and that will vary with the differing ecological nature of each.

 

Please point me to where ecological factors were part of your original post.

 

Your objections to using per-capita numbers apply to using total numbers. More so, it would seem. Maybe it would be best to start over with a hypothesis that actually includes all of factors you deem important.