I REALLY wish you’d stop conflating tax returns with Social Security payments. Both ARE the results of tax policies, but they are NOT the same thing–or even equivalent. An illegal can come here, contribute to social security for 5 years, then go back to live in Mexico and draw SS payments for the rest of his/her life after age 65 (or is it 67 now?) assuming that he/she hasn’t qualified for SSI due to a “disability” in which case he/she can draw it no matter HOW old. You can live like royalty on SS payments in much of Mexico…even the minimum. If you think this isn’t going on, you’re delusional.
You did this. I’m bringing it up, because you did it.
You were talking about Tax credit refunds as if they were SS withdrawals, when they were not.
No, they can only do that with a valid SS number that someone else isn’t using.
ITINs won’t do it, nor will a fake SS number do it.
Dave, I know the details better here, you’re talking about tax returns.
Everything you can find about them taking Federal dollars, is about them taking tax credit refunds.
But that’s just you shifting the goal posts. You said an ITIN can only be used to add tax money, not receive money. Which is untrue. Plenty of people with ITIN pay a net negative tax.
Why do you suppose poor countries are poor? If just adding more bodies, makes a country better off, why are countries with explosive birth rates falling apart? Is their poverty independent of their labor force? Why is it that you believe people who couldn’t cut it in their home countries, become vastly more productive once they set foot on US soil?
So they are incapable of creating value or wealth where they come from, but here where the bar for useful work is higher - they just do better. Because… what AS? Providence?
The context was their effect on Social Security, and I equally mentioned EITC being barred, which is also true.
Dude, I don’t need the rabbit hole, we already know you’re off the mark.
During the height of our past immigration waves, economic activity flourished, and our standard of living increased. We did not see America, even temporarily, halt its progress. Rather, immigration spured our progress on.
Even accusing the Irish and the Italians of being low quality, doesn’t change that reality.
High immigration + free markets = economic success. Every time. There is no example you can give me of the opposite.
That’s why the economists are not with you; we have evidence that freer economies work better, and more authoritarian ones work worse.
Playing social engineer gets you no where, you’re just disrupting systems you don’t see.
You simply CANNOT equate the turn-of-the-century immigration influx with what’s happening on our southern border or the 40% of illegals simply overstaying tourism or school visas. They are NOT the same thing and not the same national economic situation. CWolf is right. People who cannot cut the mustard in Mexico, Guatemala, El Salvador, China, Somalia or Bangladesh simply do NOT suddenly become highly productive upon setting foot in the U.S.
People hire them. When they aren’t there, the jobs go unfilled.
That’s economic need, by definition. Employers fight for them because they know they need them.
If the immigration system is too blind to let those people in legally, the economy works to give employers & immigrants an alternative; outside the law.
It’s cause and effect. None of this would exist, if the need wasn’t there. That’s why Milton Friedman called illegals the closest thing we have to pre-1914 immigration.
People HIRE illegals because they can get them to work for much lower wages than they’d have to pay an American citizen or LEGAL immigrant, plus they don’t have to provide them ANY of the benefits expected by the latter. If we made it UNeconomic for employers to hire illegals, all that would change in a heartbeat. How? By FINING them out of business every time they are caught doing that!
You call that the bottom rungs of the economic ladder.
People rail against the minimum wage for the same reason.
It has a purpose Dave.
When the government gets the idea that it can dictate a “minimum wage” without objection, how long do you think it’ll be before they start dictating a “maximum wage?” Wages should be based SOLELY on the value the worker produces to his employer. When you run in millions who are willing to work BELOW the value they produce, you hurt CITIZENS. I’ve been in houses occupied by illegals that rent to CITIZENS for $750/month, making that house almost unaffordable for a CITIZEN whose wages are suppressed BY illegals. Illegals get around that by moving 20 people into a single-family dwelling so each only has to pay $35 to $40 per month each.
You grow wages by spurring on labor demand.
You grow the number of jobs by making businesses more efficient, and better able to expand.
When you match low-skill work, to low skill people, you make the economy better off, you reduce bottlenecks to growth, and you give those people the bottom rungs of the ladder. This works far better than foreign aid ever has at making those people better off.
And hell yeah, I’d like Mexico to be as good as Canada when it comes to trade.
Housing has problems because of land-use restrictions, and because the industry hasn’t found/adopted better, more efficient ways to build houses in 40 years. There is no “gigafactory” for houses yet.
Seattle, one of the foremost examples, has massive housing shortages, because the population was growing doubled the growth of housing. And no, it wasn’t illegals who did that, it was because local rules demanded use of single-floor homes, instead of letting developers build apartments.
Germany right now.
If labor isn’t free, if you just keep the people in tents and old warehouses, immigration won’t do what it’s supposed to.
That said, Germany is the envy of the EU. Middlestand generally works, and prevented over-shoring in the German economy when China joined the WTO (unlike italy), because they were focused on being value-added.
Oh hey, look at that, you just proved how worthless your economic freedom index is
In the past 10 years, not once have they cracked 2% growth and have dipped into negative growth numerous times with an average well below 1% growth.
So yeah, as I said about Canada, I agree with you. As we enhance “labor freedom” by dumping migrants from the 3rd world in a country, they can anticipate 1% GDP growth for as long as their native population can stay above 75%.
We don’t have any data yet for how economically enriched they’ll become once that native number drops below 50% but I imagine Zimbabwe and South Africa are good directional indicators.
No… It’s making me question yet again how literate you are with economic metrics. Same thing here as Canada.
There’s also context to consider; Germany is stuck in the middle of the EU, and is victim to its faults (read here: not free). Still, it does better than the other West-Euro nations, especially better than France or Italy, who are far more protectionist, and have lower immigration rates.
You keep claiming this, and yet… still no evidence.
Japan has one of the lowest immigration rates in the world, and highly protectionist measures, and yet their economy not only sucks, it’s falling behind. Been so for 30 years.
They experience the very things you attribute to immigration. Seems there’s a problem with your theory.
But we knew that just by looking back at American history, which showed no negative impact by Italian immigration.
Also Cwolf… this:
This is why your argument won’t hold. Once we found these trends, any other argument became untenable. With increased freedom, trade, and immigration, countries prosper.
You haven’t found an exception, but even if you did, the trend still clearly exists. Trend lines, not headlines dude.
You’re the one quoting “real gdp growth” with constant rate price set points in 1980.