NYT story: Study shows Immigrants are great for economy, business growth!!!

Gosh - I guess the GOP was wrong again.
Study shows highly skilled/paid/educated as well as low paid workers helped their regions to prosper-create more demand for goods and services, help small business and increase jobs. Many start their own businesses and employ more people...low paid, lower skilled workers are a great asset to their new home areas.Link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/16/us/16skilled.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&src=ig

Amazing how racial prejudice works against ALL reality.
My own father was an immigrant in 1920, became wealthy, sent 4 kids to college.

mark

even if your family has been here a long time, you are still from elsewhere. Throughout history the immigrants have had a rough time. No one seems to like the newcomers. I cannot fault someone for trying to take care of their family. I will not make them out to be bad people because they came here illegally or not to feed their families. The only time you hear about the illegals is when times are tough and people want to blame someone for their troubles.

You can make anything look good if you ignore the bad and emphasize the good, that is the fundamental act involved in sales.

But if you're one of the people who are displaced by this wonderful phenomenon, it's not so good.

For the elitists at the New York Times, who share none of their daily experiences with normal average people-on-the-street, it's easy to see how they cannot see the bad.

If you're an American worker in one of the industries affected, you probably don't see the hit to your income, job prospects, and job security (if you even have a job left) as a positive economic force.

Unless you were here before the first settlers crossed the Bering Straits, you're also an immigrant.

So stop cursing your own ancestors.

spare me the tired, hackneyed non-arguments.

There was a time when this country did need more people, as it was very sparsely populated. This has not been the case for quite some time now.

What new immigrants do today is reduce the ability of existing American workers to demand a fair wage and fair working conditions.

The bottom line is that if you are arguing for immigration today, you are arguing to enhance the ability of large corporates to grind the average person's standard of living into the dust. Regular people benefit not a whit from the massive waves of labor-pool-diluting new workers.

a new worker is an asset to the economy.

To argue that a smaller number of workers is better for everyone would be to say that we would be better off with 100 million workers rather than 150 million. The extra 50 million is just unfair competition for the first 100 million, right? OTOH, if those extra 50 million are productive and create as much wealth per capita as the first 100 million, they are good for the economy, as would the next immigrant or new American worker. Sure he or she may compete with me in employment, but may also provide me with a better market for the things that I produce for the economy.

Of course new workers (immigrant or American), in addition to being an asset to the country, can be competition for existing workers. They may be good for the economy (and our prosperity on the whole) while being competition for certain people and groups. If Ford is successful and builds new manufacturing plants the new workers (immigrant or American) will be very productive and create a market for all of the things that the rest of us make or the services we provide. The fact that the national work force is larger after Ford hires these new workers is not bad thing for the country. More workers can be a good thing. As long as they are productive, they will create a demand for more goods and services (just like you and I do) that will more than make up for the extra job competition they represent (just as you and I do).

while so many existing workers can't find jobs.

To say that is basically to say that Americans are worthless as workers so we need to bring in someone else to get the work done.

That immigrant isn't a benefit when the costs of bringing in that immigrant include having to pay unemployment and other benefits to the displaced American worker.

Your argument is EXACTLY the arguments that have been made for "free trade" and "offshoring", and what have they gotten us? A hollowed-out economy that can't produce enough to maintain our standard of living.

Perhaps you are content to see this country's standards of living drop to third-world conditions, but me, I will fight it every step of the way.

thing for white men. Actually integrating Blacks and women more fully (though still imperfectly) into the economy over the past few decades has been good for white men (in spite of their fluctuating unemployment levels).

Not only does the relative economic prosperity of Blacks and women (compared to times when Blacks faced more severe employment discrimination and women were encouraged to stay at home or work at "women's jobs") help these new workers themselves. White men benefit in many ways from this increased "competition". Most importantly they benefit from from the higher wages and salaries (though discrimination still exists) that Blacks and women earn now. This increased economic power creates whole new or expanded markets to which white men (and everyone else) can provide goods and services.

I suppose one could make the argument (though hardly a progressive one) that if American laws and culture that kept Blacks and women "in their place" prior to the civil rights and women's liberation eras had survived intact, white men would be better off today. They would have less "competition" for jobs, so their unemployment rate would be much lower and wages much higher. (But our country, and even white men themselves,would in fact be worse off.) I know that is not what you are arguing. But my point is that these "new workers" (Blacks and women who were largely ignored in the economy of the 1950's) have created so much new wealth that our population in general is better off. Even though some white men have undoubtedly lost the competition for a job or a promotion to one of these "new workers", as a whole we are much better off.

"Your argument is EXACTLY the arguments that have been made for "free trade" and "offshoring", and what have they gotten us? A hollowed-out economy that can't produce enough to maintain our standard of living.

Perhaps you are content to see this country's standards of living drop to third-world conditions, but me, I will fight it every step of the way."

Progressive countries trade more than we do. Check out the EU where each European country has free trade and open immigration with 30 other countries. Their economies are not "hollowed-out" and they are maintaining their standard of living much better than we are. Their "secret" (whether it is in Germany, France, Sweden or others) is not in keeping foreigners out (their borders are open to 500 million people from 29 other countries), but in making their countries progressive - effective national health care, a strong social safety net, strong union protections, and progressive taxation.

France does not fixate on keeping out Germans (though historically you couldn't blame them :) ) or Swedes and their products. Sweden doesn't waste its energy worrying about the French or Dutch or Germans who might want to live in their country or sell something to them. They have more important things to worry about - like how to run a country so that it benefits everyone, not just the few.