...to bail out broke "real American" retirees. https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/why-the-united-states-needs-more-immigrants
Yeah, we "need" immigrants because Social Security is a Ponzi scheme and we "need" to pass its burden on to the unsuspecting and desperate. The least we can do is add a taxation and SS content area on the citizenship exam, so that immigrants will have to study how badly they will be taken advantage of before having to live through it.
Fine, abolish Social Security. Find out if your compatriots want it in any significant numbers. Dependency rate is cold hard math. Working population would need to support the elderly somehow. You can have them working longer, but that has the same effect on jobs as letting immigrants in; plus, you know, folks would have to work longer. Also, in general, good luck fulfilling Trump's promise of 3% GDP growth every year with declining number of workers. Anti-immigrant sentiment does not have a convincing economic case for it. It's mostly scapegoating of the "other".
Stanislav, social security should have never been created. It's a socialistic ponzi scheme that is designed to fail, just like all other socialistic ideas eventually fail. Most social security recipients receive more money than they put in. That's voodoo math and it's implosion is coming, albeit not in our lifetime. Thanks to President Trump, the national deficit will be decimated, which will prop up the social security ponzi scheme. Legalized infantacide (abortion) has also murdered an entire generation of people who could be gainfully employed in today's robust economy. That is also hurting social security. When the communists talk about "pulling the children away from their mothers at immigration centers," they should, instead, be talking about "pulling the children away from their mothers at abortion centers." That's where the real crime is being facilitated.
The population is declining, so pushing up labor participation rate mathematically will stop working at some point. Also, no one really knows how to do that consistently. Since the population is also aging, bringing up the participation rate will entail forcing people to work longer... just as I said. There's no quality research saying that immigration is bad for economy. None. There's plenty of research that shows it's good. Including the results of public policy here in Canada, that is propped up by consistently high immigration levels (about twice as high as in US, per capita), even despite consistently lower productivity. Come visit sometimes. Try talking with locals about socialized medicine, and if they want to get rid of it.
No evidence of anything you just said. Especially Trump shrinking the deficit, lol. Except to make it into economic driver, you'd have to abolish contraceptives and basically mandate procreation (proof: abortion rates are actually down, but birth rates are down even more), remaking society into Handmaid's Tale. It's arguments like this that turn people away from the modern "pro-life" movement.
Not in the US. But population is declining dramatically in the Ukraine so they should welcome those clean-cut young Russian men crossing the border.
Do you mean the tax cuts that hiked the deficit to its highest level ever? Or his growth predictions that didn't come true? And just wait until we really start feeling the effects of his economically illiterate trade war....
I've read a series of LA Times articles that have been covering the farm worker shortage in California. People don't understand how supply and demand works out in the real world. Most of the illegal immigrant agriculture workers make well above minimum wage. Since they produce fraudulent documents to obtain employment (farmers know this and don't care), they end up paying taxes. Since California has been seeing less illegal labor, some crop-picking jobs pay almost $20 per hour. Yet, most farm workers in those jobs are still not American-born. Most Americans quit these jobs in less than a month. This is where supply and demand doesn't work the way people expect it to. Farmers do not want to pay $25 per hour, so they're looking for other solutions. Some are planning to switch to less labor-intensive crops. We'll end up buying more labor-intensive crops from other countries. Some big farmers plan to move their operations to countries where labor is cheaper, so we lose those tax dollars. Other farmers are setting up their farms for mechanized harvesting. This means that we lose those tax dollars from farm workers, and no one will get the jobs.
I am not sure if the USA needs a bigger population, but Canada does. This country is huge and sparse. Germany was able to handle a million people in one year. Canada should be able to double its population with not too much stress.
When immigrants are removed from the population equation, the U.S. has a negative growth rate, just like Europe because natives are not having enough children to replace the existing population. However, when immigrants are introduced into the equation, then the U.S. population is growing slightly. Here is an unrelated but interesting article: http://www.newgeography.com/content/005345-america-without-immigration-2015-50
Ugh, US is also huge and sparse. I'm not sure it could double its population, but then again I'm not sure about Canada either - where most growth is in Toronto and Vancouver metro areas which are not sparser than many comparable US cities. Much of Canada's territory is frozen nothing. Yet it can and does handle population growth and could probably use some more.
