They Are Taking Our Jobs

Post Reply New Topic

They Are Taking Our Jobs
A friend, (whose name I shall not mention) had a conversation about jobs. She was talking about there not enough jobs available, mainly because of immigration. I often hear this allot. I tried to explain that each job taken is one created. Even in an overcrowded job market

I tried to explain, selling books create business for the PostOffice, For the gas station, repricing & scanning software, for packaging and business is created my improved spending power.

Obviously if loads of Eastern Europeans decided be booksellser, that might be a problem for me it would over saturate the book selling market, but them as consumers they would create a demand else ware, maybe the migrants like gourmet food. This wouldn’t be a problem for the economy.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLni3wbndls[/youtube]

A job is not something that is owned by the employed person. It is a relationship between an employer and an employee. A has a job given to him B. The job is not an exchanged possession so it isn't A's job. It is a job that A is employed at by B.

ruveyn

Without immigrants, we might have more jobs and higher wages but we'd have to pay a dollar for every strawberry. Not worth the trade-off, imnsho.

Immigration, even illegal immigration, is a net win for the receiving country.

Every person is a consumer, and every consumer's needs must be met by creating new supply. While some of Keynes' work has been revised and improved upon, the general rejection of Say's Law, and the demonstration that it is failure of aggregate demand that leads to economic downturns still holds.

I am not to impressed with those Tamils, being let in as the only people to benefit are the
Snakeheads who are making thousands of dollars per head for smuggling people into Canada.

Tamillions of dollars topic

The Tamils should have been allowed to apply for refugee status in their own country, and maybe pay the government the same amount of money they paid the smugglers. Is the government corrupt? This is a different matter and could be investigated by the UN.

I hope those smugglers were arrested, fingerprinted, photoed and sent packing. They are to blame, not the asylum seekers. And if any seekers are terrorists (and I hope they are not) then send them back asap to face justice.

oh defiantly, if they apply for refuge status to come here legally, human smuggling
has to stop, there needs to be a zero tolerance attitude from the government on this.
As it is, these people are going to get in and are going to receive full medical and
education all paid for by the Canadian government, while our own poor are left to rot
in poverty, it would be cheaper to put them onto a plane back sri lanka, letting them
stay is setting a bad example by allowing them in.

As soon as I saw the thread title, I knew someone would post that clip.
And it was no surprise to see who did.
Skafather is one of these people who will tell you he doesn't let the media tell him how to think.

Ah, but you must consider Article 1 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (the "1951 Convention.")



People who are still inside their country of nationality (or their country of habitual residence) are not, by definition, refugees. Since the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act incorporates the definition from the 1951 Convention, there is no basis upon which the person can make such an application.

So what's a person to do? He can't walk up to the Canadian High Commission and ask for an immigrant visa because he doesn't qualify in any of the selection categories. He can't qualify for a temporary resident visa because he does not intend to return to his country of residence.



The vessel will be confiscated. But it's not worth anything, so it's no loss to the smugglers who bought it. (Rustbuckets are cheap). The crew will likely face charges for carrying undocumented passengers, and will face penalties and deportation. But that's just the cost of doing business. If you are a poor person from the countryside and someone offers you thousands of dollars to be a crew member, you will probably jump at the opportunity. For the cost of a sea voyage, a few months in jail, a deportation from Canada and a flight home, your family will have more money than you could otherwise earn in a lifetime.

The government can trot out all of the law-and-order agenda that it likes, but once these vessels are at sea, there is no legal way to stop them achieving their goal.

Turn them around on the high seas? Where is the government's authority act extraterritorially? Do you really want to face off against the Chinese for committing an act of piracy against a Chinese registered vessel in international waters?

Intercept them and remove the passengers? Again, piracy. With the added cost of refoulement of the passengers. Plus, the moment that a Canadian official acts, the Charter potentially kicks in.

Prevent the vessel from landing/entering Canadian waters? That's what fog and lifeboats are for. Or you just discharge your potable water and declare an emergency, triggering an obligation to rescue.

Sink the vessel, and abandon the survivors? Effective, but hardly palatable.

The short answer is that the ships have to be stopped at the source--and largely, they are. Canada receives some 20,000 refugee claims a year at ports of entry. Vessels like this represent a tiny fraction of the improperly documented arrivals that wind up on our shores, but because they are big news, and 10 claimants off a flight from Schiphol, Heathrow or Narita are not, we lose sight of the real threat to program integrity.

This is such simplistic propaganda rubbish it's hard to know where to start.
It is an example of the Broken Window fallacy: the idea that increased economic activity is a good in itself.
It also (on a related note) ignores the effects of immigration that can't so easily be measured by economic statistics, such as the detrimental effect immigration can have on the host population's social capital (see the work of [liberal] Harvard professor Robert Putnam) and genetic interests (see the work of Australian academic Frank Salter).
It also (of course) ignores the effect of racial differences in IQ. (If population growth - more mouths to feed - were so key to economic growth, we might expect to see Africa economically outperforming Europe by now.)

But really, your post was just the sort of thing one should expect from someone who also tries to sell the idea of gay marriage by telling us how much it will benefit us "economically".
Perhaps next you can tell us how immigration and gay marriage will help us reduce our carbon emissions. Or perhaps you have already done so and I've missed it?

Not that I am speaking on behalf of Skafather, but agreeing with the media =/= letting them tell you how to think (by which I assume you mean opinions rather than the actual process of thinking). Besides, South Park's MO seems to be more about challenging conventional 'wisdom' rather than enforcing a viewpoint, and I think that Skafather posted that video mainly for comical purposes.

But I digress. I too have encountered people with the "dey turk ar jarr" mindset. Usually I ask them what job they had stolen from them. I have yet to meet anyone who was replaced by an immigrant, nor anyone who was removed from their job for any reason but their own incompetence/misconduct or the downsizing/liquidation of the company they worked for.

Broken Window Fallacy.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG4jhlPLVVs&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

It doesn't feel that simple. I feel that the economy works in cycles when the broken window works and when it doesn't.

People move, they need to find work. I want to move to Mars, anyone mind giving me a few trillion dollars? And not in Zimbabwe currency!

I notice that you never actually get around to starting.



Actually, it is not an example of the Broken Window Fallacy because that fails to examine aggregate demand on a macroeconomic scale. You need to demonstrate that in the absence of the demand created by the additional population that there would be alternative demand to take up the excess production that would exist, and further, that this demand is not being met.

Also, the Broken Window Fallacy does not assume any additional supply. But undocumented residents (or illegal immigrants, if you prefer), produce more than they consume.



I think that Putnam's work is interesting, but there are flaws that need to be corrected before it can serve as a strong public policy guide. First, it is limited to the United States. The political culture of the United States creates pressures on social capital that may exist as externalities to migration in se. If his research were reproducible in Canada and Australia, I would be more convinced. On the other hand, if it is not, then the public policy correction lies not in restricting migration, but in identifying and addressing the externalities.

Take racism, for example. The politics of race in the United States have developed outside of the context of migration. So is distrust of one racial community for another within a geographic area a product of migration, or a product of US political history?

Also, I think his baseline is poorly chosen, falling as it does at the end of the Baby Boom. I would prefer to see a longer view, but the historical data are likely unavailable.

I am not familiar with Salter's work, so I will take some time to find it before offering a reply.



I would be interested to see reliable research on racial differences in IQ. Given the limited probative value of IQ testing in the first place, I am not certain that it would be much more than agitprop.

As for the circumstance of Africa, one cannot ignore the supply side of the equation. Increased demand without increased production is just as damaging as a failure of aggregate demand. The difference is, of course, that undocumented residents produce more than they consume.



Economic arguments are not the only arguments in favour of same-sex marriage. They are, however, the arguments that resonate most strongly with libertarian conservatives. My advocacy for same-sex marriage also includes legal and ethical arguments, too. But you probably missed them, too.

How the whole racial purity thing working out for you?