• PugJesus@lemmy.worldOPM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    22 days ago

    I think you misinterpreted my below birth rate part, I think we do need immigration to help address that.

    We just also need to help make it more viable to raise a family here.

    But how will restricting immigration make it more viable to raise a family? How is restricting immigration, then, anything but self-defeating by your own identification of the ongoing problems?

    I don’t know the right answer here, but right now we need to address our critical issues and we aren’t ready for more immigration at the moment. If we got back to say 30% of spending being on housing on average the situation suddenly makes a lot more sense to take in immigrants.

    But again, this is all operating under the presumption that immigration worsens or somehow prevents the resolution of these issues, which is contrary to the actual causes of the situation by any serious analysis. Immigrants are not going to increase or decrease average spending on housing; the issue of housing and rent prices is almost completely divorced from supply-relative-to-population; this is an ongoing issue in Western societies that has been widely recognized in economics academia since the 1990s.

    Marxist, Keynesian, Chicago School, and Austrian Cult economics are all in agreement on the issue of immigration wrt prices and wages. Your proposal that immigration needs to be restricted in order to restore economic equilibrium and provide a decent standard of living is just not an idea that is taken seriously by any economics analysis; it’s a purely knee-jerk reaction that belongs solely in the political realm of preying on prejudices and preconceptions to call for easy-but-actually-counterproductive ‘solutions’, like tariffs ‘restoring jobs’ to a country.