Why immigration?

[80zephyr]

According to the US debt clock, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time, we had a workforce of 155 million in the year 2000, and today we have a workforce of 152 million.

In over 16 years, we are down 3 million jobs. With driverless cars, drone delivery, employee-less fast food restaurants coming, just why are we inviting more people in? If we are not creating jobs, every person is simply a drain on our society.

We are in a new age, where technology will continue to shrink the number of jobs available.

With the debt we already have, we simply are bankrupting ourselves...

Its insanity.

Mark

 

[TheOldSchool]

Get in Touch with The White House

 

[Onyx]

According to the US debt clock, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time, we had a workforce of 155 million in the year 2000, and today we have a workforce of 152 million.

The US also has more available jobs growing exponentially over the years.

 

[Mousterian]

It's not the immigrants who have stolen our prosperity, or the Chinese, or the Mexicans.
It's the 1%ers, like our President

 

[yiostheoy]

We are still in a Great Recession which started in 2008.

DJT is right about closing borders, taxing imports, and making exports tax free. This will help people working for corporations.

For blue collar workers the only hope is infrastructure improvement jobs.

If you don't keep the Mexicans out then they will get all the infrastructure jobs because they work for cheaper wages.

 

[DrainBamage]

According to the US debt clock, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time, we had a workforce of 155 million in the year 2000, and today we have a workforce of 152 million.

They'd be wrong.

 

[there4eyeM]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

 

[80zephyr]

According to the US debt clock, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time, we had a workforce of 155 million in the year 2000, and today we have a workforce of 152 million.

The US also has more available jobs growing exponentially over the years.

The US Debt clock says otherwise. Since its adjusted for population, it shows that we are currently 3 million jobs short of where we were in 2000. It has been 16 years, and we haven't even created enough jobs to break even, much less expand.

In essence, EVERY immigrant today means we have one more mouth to feed, with no way of employing them.

Mark

 

[80zephyr]

According to the US debt clock, U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time, we had a workforce of 155 million in the year 2000, and today we have a workforce of 152 million.

They'd be wrong.

No, they are not wrong. Their figures are adjusted for population growth. With our population growth, the US should have 155 million non agricultural jobs. We have only 152 million. We are losing ground. While your chart is correct, it doesn't show that our population is growing faster than the amount of jobs available.

Mark

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

Consumers.

 

[80zephyr]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

Consumers.

Consumers only benefit if the welfare state isn't too big. As I have shown, the welfare state will grow with each new immigrant.

Mark

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

Consumers.

Consumers only benefit if the welfare state isn't too big. As I have shown, the welfare state will grow with each new immigrant.

Mark

Separate issue. Low overhead translates to lower costs for consumers. This is why obama energy policy was so disastrous economically.

 

[80zephyr]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

Consumers.

Consumers only benefit if the welfare state isn't too big. As I have shown, the welfare state will grow with each new immigrant.

Mark

Separate issue. Low overhead translates to lower costs for consumers. This is why obama energy policy was so disastrous economically.

I do not care about anything but the big picture. Hence, it is not a separate issue.

Mark

 

[there4eyeM]

It certainly depends upon how much one values life, as with so many 'problems'..

 

[there4eyeM]

Consumers!?!
What or who are 'consumers'?
What are they 'consuming'?
It is so facile to reduce complexity to one noun, thus terminating all thought of a larger view.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

Consumers.

Consumers only benefit if the welfare state isn't too big. As I have shown, the welfare state will grow with each new immigrant.

Mark

I'm talking about marketing in general. Obviously a growing welfare state becomes increased overhead.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

Consumers.

Consumers only benefit if the welfare state isn't too big. As I have shown, the welfare state will grow with each new immigrant.

Mark

Separate issue. Low overhead translates to lower costs for consumers. This is why obama energy policy was so disastrous economically.

I do not care about anything but the big picture. Hence, it is not a separate issue.

Mark

It's a separate issue. If you have a growing welfare state and an increase in production costs you compound consumer costs. Reducing either or both is beneficial to the consumer.

 

[80zephyr]

Labor force size regulates labor cost. Who benefits from low-cost labor?

Consumers.

Consumers only benefit if the welfare state isn't too big. As I have shown, the welfare state will grow with each new immigrant.

Mark

I'm talking about marketing in general. Obviously a growing welfare state becomes increased overhead.

That is my point. It shows that we are losing jobs as a percentage of our population.

So, every person that comes in, until we get to full employment, creates a growing welfare state.

Mark

 

[DrainBamage]

No, they are not wrong. Their figures are adjusted for population growth.

Then you were wrong by not clarifying that and simply stating incorrect figures on size of labor force, there is a big difference between what you said in your first post and what you're saying now.

With our population growth, the US should have 155 million non agricultural jobs. We have only 152 million. We are losing ground. While your chart is correct, it doesn't show that our population is growing faster than the amount of jobs available.

There are still all sort of issues with your scary headline. For one thing demographics plays a role as well, as baby boomers hit retirement age the percentage of population that is of working age changes. Blaming it all on increases in productivity via technology ignores our aging population.

The other is the obvious cherry picking of dates, when a source arbitrarily looks at something over a 17 year timeline like this they are more interested in proving a point than providing a nonbiased commentary. Why not 20 years? Why not 15 years? Because neither provides as scary an answer as looking at it from an employment peak during dotcom era.

 

[DrainBamage]

So, every person that comes in, until we get to full employment, creates a growing welfare state.

Not necessarily. I retired a couple years ago, and am not on welfare nor receiving social security benefits.