Aside from racism. I mean economically/socially, what issues does too much immigration cause?

68 points

Immigration only really causes economic issues with bullshit employee specific visas like H1Bs - those visas trap immigrants in powerless positions where they’re unable to advocate for fair compensation and drive down overall wages.

Everything else is fucking bullshit xenophobia.

permalink
report
reply
18 points

Would more supply of workers (even naturalized ones) not drive down wages too?

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

An increase in supply would reduce wages, unless it also increases demand. If you think about wages in cities vs rural areas, you’ll see that most of the time more people = more economic activity = higher wages.

Where this breaks down, is if there’s barriers of entry that prevent immigrants from participating in the economy fully. If immigrants aren’t allowed to legally work or start business (as happens with some asylum seekers or ‘illegal’ immigrants) then they are forced to compete over a small pool of off-book / cash-in-hand jobs, which could see a reduction in wages without a significant increase in overall economic activity.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Sounds like an argument for amnesty for illegals honestly. And more relaxed legal immigration pathways.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Eh, it doesn’t really seem like that tends to happen… economies are weird and if you keep adding people you tend to just get more and more service jobs.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Doesn’t sound that weird. More people means more people to serve, so more service jobs are needed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
50 points

Mostly to avoid having infrastructure and social safety networks overwhelmed. Yes, you will also see wages be depressed by large-scale immigration, but that’s something that could–in theory–be controlled by strengthening unions and labor regulations. That’s not where we are though; right now, unions and labor regulations are fairly weak, and are being gutted by courts even as the NLRB tries to strengthen them.

Housing takes time to build, and good city planning is necessary to ensure that cities are sustainable rather than being sprawls. (Not many cities do that, BTW; it’s usually, “oh, we’ll just add another lane to the existing 20 lane interstate”). Given that we’re currently in a situation where there’s insufficient low- and middle-income high density housing, and few companies are willing to build any more, competition for most of the immigrants that we’re seeing–people that are trying to get away from deep economic woes–would be fierce for housing.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

and few companies are willing to build any more

I don’t think this is actually true. At least in my area, developers would LOVE to build condos and apartments all over the place, but local laws are holding them back.

I suppose even in a perfectly willing area that upgrades its infrastructure to support more people, you don’t want to move people in too quickly, before that infrastructure is available. But it’s easy to see that become a self fulfilling prophecy: we don’t take immigrants because we don’t have the infrastructure, and we don’t build the infrastructure because there’s no demand for it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

I don’t think anyone wants to make a brand new condo and try to full it full of fresh immigrants that other businesses are exploiting to pay less.

They want to develop 1 set of condos they can sell for $300k+ rather than 3 sets for $100k

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

Yeah this is the biggest issue.

The way most housing gets built where I live it works like this: A company handles the project management, buying the land, getting the permits, hiring the builders, doing the marketing/sales etc. This costs a HUGE amount of money, which they don’t have. So these projects get designed on paper and then sold to investors. These put in a big amount of money, with the expectation of the project making money in the sales of the housing in the end. This means they can often double their entry in a couple of years, which is really good in terms of investments. As the investors want to make as much money as possible, the company designing the housing have incentives to not only make the houses as dense as possible, but also as expensive as possible. Their margins in percent are about the same no matter the house, so a more expensive house makes them more money. This leads to really big expensive homes crammed together in either high rises or plots. It’s really dumb as well since detached homes are worth more, they build homes with like 2 meter between them. The biggest issue is, only rich people can afford these homes. Even though more homes are built, the majority of people looking to buy a home can’t afford these. Homes also get sold to investors again, to rent out as the house itself appreciates in value. These expensive homes also have the effect of driving up property prices in the area, which leads to more expensive houses and higher taxes.

In the end, it’s only the rich that profit. They get the good investment projects, making them even more rich. They get to buy the expensive new homes to live in. They get to buy the homes to rent out and use as an investment vehicle.

Some places have made them build cheaper homes as well, if they want to get the permit. But it’s not enough. We need to be building practical affordable homes, but we don’t cause the people putting up the money to build stuff don’t want to.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Yeah, immigrants would be better served by apartments

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

AFAIK, the issue around me is largely profitability. You can buy up acres if land, chop it up into 1/2ac parcels, quickly build cheap “luxury houses”, and sell them for 2-3x your costs, easily earning $200k+ per house sold (“Coming soon, from the low $400s…!”). And it’s all with fairly minimal regulation, compared to building high-density housing in existing cities. Compare and contrast that with building low- and middle-income high-density housing, where you’re going to end up managing it as apartments (probably not condos; that’s uncommon in my area); that means that you’re in the red for a larger number of years before you pay back the initial costs of construction, since the profitability comes through rents.

Maybe I’m wrong; all I can comment on is the kind of building that I’m seeing in my area, and the way that the closest city–which was originally about 90 minutes away–is now alarmingly close.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Sprawl sucks. Density is what we should be promoting.

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

There’s also the carrying capacity of the area they’re emigrating to. Housing in particular is one aspect of it that’s already very very tight in most of the Western world. Even without immigration per se, this problem plays out every time a major company moves headquarters to a new city/state. Lots of new people, and a very slow to respond housing stock means surging prices. Schools and other social services also get stretched - but they’re much quicker to respond to the demand.

permalink
report
reply
24 points

This might be me projecting, but I think lack of housing stock is driven by NIMBY policies intentionally restricting stock, and not by some unchangeable market force. It doesn’t have to be a limiting factor, at least not as much as at present.

permalink
report
parent
reply
12 points

When i was a kid even poor people had a 3 bedroom house on a quarter acre block. I know someone who rents the balcony of a 2 bedroom flat and shares with 7 other people., all of them are migrants or international students. Oddly enough, i live in a house that was built in a backyard. A cheap, crappy new investment property made to capitalise on the housing crisis. We’ve had more than two dozen tradesmen visit in a couple of years so i wonder how that investment’s working out. This is not progress.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points
*

In the long-term yes, but in the short-term and even medium-term, housing takes time to build, so there’s going to be a lag. During that lag, it can cause problems even without NIMBY policies.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Good point.

permalink
report
parent
reply
35 points
*

It can suppress wages.

Immigrants often are expected to work for less money. After all, they usually immigrate from an economically worse country, so they don’t expect to land top tier wages.

You keep filling in minimum wage jobs with an endless supply of immigrants, then there is never a worker shortage and never any incentive to raise the bar. No company needs to compete with higher wages to attract talent. In fact, it can make things worse and cause a race to the bottom… Reducing wages on existing positions until workers quit and just filling it with less skilled workers.

permalink
report
reply
4 points

If the company makes products the workers can’t buy, then who buys the products?

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

wealthier people in other countries buy the products, is what happens now.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

This is dubious. Immigration can have massive positive benefits to the target economy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Yeah, it pumps GDP numbers up. By having more people to do work.

Not by increasing GDP per capita.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Yeah, but later that higher gdp total can be used to better serve the people.

Hahaha, or it just gets pocketed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
33 points

Immigrants are often effectively scabs. They work for less, take more abuse, that sort of thing. And It’s a lot harder to form a union when half the workers don’t even speak the same language.

permalink
report
reply
5 points

They definitely need strong worker protections and a force to represent them.

permalink
report
parent
reply

No Stupid Questions

!nostupidquestions@lemmy.world

Create post

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others’ questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That’s it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it’s in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.

Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.

Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

Community stats

  • 9.4K

    Monthly active users

  • 3.3K

    Posts

  • 129K

    Comments