Television and newspapers in Japan and the United States say that illegal immigrants are necessary for America

Is there a reasonable argument for why America needs more low skill labor? Our labor market is already one of the least skilled in the western world.

I actually don't mind this.

> If they're so concerned about the exploitation of immigrants, then they should support relaxing restrictions against immigration so they can obtain visas.

Immigration instantly becomes way less lucrative here when you have to pay the immigrants same wages as Germans expect.

Low skilled labor complements high-skilled labor. If immigrant labor and native-born labor are complements in production, immigration actually INCREASES wages for native-born labor.

This is the dumbest post I've read on Jow Forums today but tbf it's only 6:52 where I am.

not the guy you're replying to, but I think that only makes sense if you have a wage floor on par with the cost of living in your country.

People in the USA who earn the actual minimum wage need subsidies to pay for their necessities so if you're increasing fungible labor volumes then you're increasing competition for menial jobs. The price will go down until it hits that minimum wage level. If at that point you would see the use of benefits of new immigrants on par with the gross population of bottom wage earners at 60%, then naturalizing unskilled labor is actually a public charge.

Yes, we must have constant population growth forever goy

It's a widely accepted concept within labor economics, retard. You probably feel threatened by immigrants because you're a loser with no skill.

>This paper asks the following question: what was the effect of surging immigration on average and individual wages of U.S.-born workers during the period 1990-2004? We emphasize the need for a general equilibrium approach to analyze this problem. The impact of immigrants on wages of U.S.-born workers can be evaluated only by accounting carefully for labor market and capital market interactions in production. Using such a general equilibrium approach we estimate that immigrants are imperfect substitutes for U.S.- born workers within the same education-experience-gender group (because they choose different occupations and have different skills). Moreover, accounting for a reasonable speed of adjustment of physical capital we show that most of the wage effects of immigration accrue to native workers within a decade. These two facts imply a positive and significant effect of the 1990-2004 immigration on the average wage of U.S.-born workers overall, both in the short run and in the long run. This positive effect results from averaging a positive effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with at least a high school degree and a small negative effect on wages of U.S.-born workers with no high school degree.

nber.org/papers/w12497

Next, you're gonna claim you understand economics better than PhD economists.

>ou probably feel threatened by immigrants because you're a loser with no skill.
you're kind of sabotaging your own argument and also posted no sources, let alone credible ones

1/5 of all workers here need gov subsidies to meet their needs for basic survivl tho.

They are also obviously mostly immigrants.

That whole immigration thing is just state subsidiesed slavery. In the end it's just tax cash that runs into companies for them to be alive.

Actual wages haven't increased in decades here. Meanwhile cost of life and wealth gap between the mass and elite steadily climb.

>immigrants have flooded in and unskilled americans' wages have gone down a lot, but if we apply this jew magic you can see that it's actually all very positive
t. PhD economists

You responded exactly as expected. How predictable.

You mean I actually looked at the paper? Yes, you are right about that. And as I expected, you have never read a single line of the actual paper.

>only minutes have passed since the link was posted
>claims to have read the paper

>he doesn't regularly check NBER for new publications

>claims to read NBER when he disregards economics as "Jew magic"

>he doesn't enjoy jew magic show

>Television and newspapers in Japan and the United States say that illegal immigrants are necessary for America.
>If illegal immigrants really need America, why does not the US government relax immigration standards?

I think you meant "If america really needs illegal immigrants".

anyway the reason why you have the media and certain side of US government telling you they need migrants is because the people telling you that are globalists. Those people control the media and the left part of US government.

The republicans, don't believe those lies and are preventing USA from fully opening its borders.
If Democrats were in power the borders would be opened by now.
who knows, maybe next election?

>republicans are not globalist
Hey pal globalist = global capitalism

Attached: image.png (1000x432, 165K)

economists can twist numbers to get any conclusion they want.

Sorry too dumb to understand your superior intellect, what does "Hey pal globalist = global capitalism" mean exactly?

what are you trying to convey?

fff.org/2016/05/19/open-borders-libertarian-position-immigration/

asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Abenomics-under-pressure-as-Japan-s-data-scandal-spreads
Why does Japan need to cook the books if everything is going well?

Singapore should be annexed by Malaysia, its rightful owner.

This thread is funny. First, user declares that anybody who thinks we should accept more immigrants doesn't understand economics. Then we they're shown that actual consensus among economists, they dismiss economics as Jew magic and globalist propaganda.

Sounds like the populist right worldwide

We were shown one working paper by two students that said actual wages went down across the board but with some tinkering it's possible that wages for high school graduates went up due to immigration although wages for no-skill labor and college graduates and up went down. If that sounds like "actual consensus among economists" then you are either a moron or dishonest.

>On the other hand, the real wage of uneducated U.S.-born workers has performed very poorly: it even declined in real terms during recent decades (see, for example, Autor, Katz and Kearney, 2005).
t. actual consensus among economists

I don't know why you felt the need to lie. It's not hard to look up the author's information.

> Gianmarco Ottaviano: Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science

How about you answer my question first: Why did you feel the need to lie that one paper is consensus among economists?

Look at

So 50% agreeing with a position means consensus? I guess there's consensus in the US that Trump is the god emperor and the right man for the job.

You have only 10% disagreeing with the proposition, retard.

Do you even understand what consensus means?

>con·sen·sus
>a general agreement.

Yes, I do. Do you?

They couldn't even if they wanted. Have you seen their air force? It's a joke.

>50% agreeing on a position is a general agreement
Holy shit you are the retard from earlier, aren't you.

They'll just send migrants until Malay are the majority.

>1 out of 2 people agree on a position, therefore there is a general consensus on that position
t. retard

Funny, you still haven't answered why you outright lied about the author being a student.

Now that we know you are a retard, there's no point in "debating." Only thing left is to make fun of you.

Illegal immigrants aren’t “necessary” in the sense that we need more of them, but a lot of them have been here for years at this point and screeching about “DEPORT ALL THE SPICS” just isn’t practical. The most rational thing to do would be to give them a pathway to citizenship that includes mandatory classes to teach them things such as English, American culture, government, etc. so they are better integrated and assimilated into society. Once they are legal, they can start paying taxes btw.

>52% agrees with a proposition (63% when weight by confidence)
>28% is uncertain
>Only 10% disagree

What is the best way to characterize the general opinion among this group?

The Malaysian government gives Malays gibs. They won't come even if there's open borders.

>mandatory classes to teach them things such as English, American culture, government, etc. so they are better integrated and assimilated into society.
Can you imagine the shit show?
>English - "America is multicultural! Why don't _you_ learn Spanish?"
>American culture - "There's no such thing as American culture!!!!"
>Government - "You are indoctrinating immigrants to vote for you!"

Looks like there's no consensus retard. How many times do you need it spelled out?

>general opinion
How many times does it need to be spelled out?

Oh no, looks like the retard is trying to wiggle out of his earlier statement and claim he meant general opinion all along. Should've thought about that earlier and made your assertions ambiguous so you can freely move goalposts. Sad!

Consensus means general opinion, retard. You are illiterate.

Consensus is general agreement, which is very different and far more specific than the vague and meaningless "general opinion." Fucking retard.

>claim the a LSE professor is a "student"
>derail the thread with pointless semantics debate because you got caught lying

Calling out your lies isn't semantics despite how much you want it to be.

Let me try once again to help you understand.
Paul and Mary are at the amusement park. Paul wants to go to the shooting gallery. Mary doesn't. Therefore there is a consensus among Paul and Mary to go to the shooting gallery.
This is literally you.

Explain why you lied about the authors of the paper.

>Gianmarco I.P. Ottaviano is Professor of Economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science and at the University of Bologna, Director of the Globalization Programme at the Centre for Economic Performance London, research fellow of the Centre for Economic Policy Research London, research fellow of the Center for Financial Studies Frankfurt and non-resident senior fellow of Bruegel Brussels.

>Giovanni Peri is an Italian-born American economist who is Professor and Chair of the Department of Economics at the University of California, Davis, where he directs the Temporary Migration Cluster

To get you to look at the paper, there I answered why I included that red herring. Now answer my question which I posed first: why did you lie and continue to lie about consensus if not for retardation?

>"I wanted you to look at the paper even though I dismiss it as Jew magic

You're retarded.

>I never looked at the paper I posted until over an hour later to check the authors' credentials, then did not read anything more than that
Just as I suspected.

>Copy and pasting the author credentials means that you ahven't read the paper

Still derailing the thread because you were caught lying as I expected.

>1 out of 2 means 2

Immigration is a taboo subject among economics researchers, so it makes sense no one would "strongly disagree"

>consensus means unanimous
>63% weighted agreement is 1 out of 2

>weighted by confidence

Attached: 9693955.png (500x500, 228K)