People still listen to the ones that still hang out there on top of other economists. Implying that r/neoliberal is economically illiterate, atleast more so than any other political sub is just absurd.
Then again, this is r/drama and no one really cares about this stuff.
Economics is not about understanding but rather interpretation, which means ideological umbrella of a person or organization doing the study holds the key to perception of a phenomena studied.
There was a study done in UK by BoE where data clearly showed correlation and negative impact of lower wages and increased percentage of immigrant workers.
The percentages they mentioned are 1.68% for skilled production workers and 1.88% for semi-unskilled services.
They went on further to explain that the reason is so called compositional effect (i.e. immigrants typically earn up to 10% less than their native counterpart) pretending that's ok (i.e. they make it sounds as if it's ok for an immigrant to earn less as long as native worker earns same as before).
However, the true measure is how far up the wages should have gone for two factors (1) trend of increase to keep up with inflation and (2) trend of general increase as a raise. So, if we put inflation at 2.5% and general expected wage increase at 0.5% that gives as total of 4%.
Now, when you combine the two measures (1) the study itself that is on average at 1.5% and (2) trend number which is 3% then the gap between what the wages should have been is almost 5%.
A five percent difference where wages should have been and where they are today in UK.
You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
Immigration is good for the US. This survey is a meta-analysis of the entire literature on the economic effects of immigration. Their findings indicate that the consensus among economists is that the total effect of immigrants on public finance is net positive. In fact, if we legalized current illegal immigrants they would pay more in payroll taxes. This is specifically key to maintaining the solvency of our failing social security system by increasing the inflow of funds to the social security trust fund. Second of all, they commit crime at lower rates than citizens do. Third, most studies indicate that illegal immigrants have little to no impact on wages. Immigrants don't just supply jobs, they also demand jobs. They consume goods and services just like any citizen would do, thus the net effect on wages would be neutral. Finally, immigrants and natives do not directly compete for the same work. In other words, they are imperfect substitutes, as they have different skills, not least in language, and seek different jobs - generally immigrants seek jobs that natives don't want to do or where there is a skills shortage. This is evidenced by Ottiovani and Peri who show in the long run, even low skilled immigrants have a positive effect on low skilled natives’ incomes.
Terrorism caused by immigrants is overblown. First of all, the impact of terrorism is dramatically overblown. Between the years 1970 and 2007, Mueller and Stewart indicate that only 3,292 American civilians died from terrorist attacks. That's about 89 civilians per year. Compare that to the 1,146 civilians who were killed by police officers in 2015. That's right, you are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. Moreover, Alex Nowrasteh indicates that the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year.
What is the point of a map? Maps don't show you the real world.
The real world is 3D, maps are 2D.
The real world is endlessly complex, while maps are so simple, just lines on pages.
The real world is changing, while maps are static.
Maps don't take into account human behaviour or irrationality. Yet map makers continue to make them, and hold great sway over politicians! Maps are not scientific, but they pretend to be.
23 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-11-05
You're oversimplifying a complex situation to the point of adding nothing to the discussion.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 newcomer_ts 2018-11-05
Ironically, the amount of wrong assumptions in an average theoretical work by an economist and random T_D thread is the same.
1 aX10mAt1CaL1Y 2018-11-05
Don't worry, no one on r/neoliberal is actually an economist.
1 Skyright 2018-11-05
It started as a spin off of r/badeconomics, many users frequent both subs and have PHDs in Economics.
1 lionmoose 2018-11-05
Most of the be users have gone back to be in fairness
1 Skyright 2018-11-05
People still listen to the ones that still hang out there on top of other economists. Implying that r/neoliberal is economically illiterate, atleast more so than any other political sub is just absurd.
Then again, this is r/drama and no one really cares about this stuff.
1 lionmoose 2018-11-05
Sure, and the original claim about economics is obviously bollocks anyway
1 Anus_of_Aeneas 2018-11-05
That claim is retarded. Just because you don't understand economics doesn't mean its bullshit.
1 newcomer_ts 2018-11-05
Economics is not about understanding but rather interpretation, which means ideological umbrella of a person or organization doing the study holds the key to perception of a phenomena studied.
There was a study done in UK by BoE where data clearly showed correlation and negative impact of lower wages and increased percentage of immigrant workers.
The percentages they mentioned are 1.68% for skilled production workers and 1.88% for semi-unskilled services.
They went on further to explain that the reason is so called compositional effect (i.e. immigrants typically earn up to 10% less than their native counterpart) pretending that's ok (i.e. they make it sounds as if it's ok for an immigrant to earn less as long as native worker earns same as before).
However, the true measure is how far up the wages should have gone for two factors (1) trend of increase to keep up with inflation and (2) trend of general increase as a raise. So, if we put inflation at 2.5% and general expected wage increase at 0.5% that gives as total of 4%.
Now, when you combine the two measures (1) the study itself that is on average at 1.5% and (2) trend number which is 3% then the gap between what the wages should have been is almost 5%.
A five percent difference where wages should have been and where they are today in UK.
Now, whose interpretation will you believe?
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
Mommy is soooo proud of you, sweaty. Let's put this sperg out up on the fridge with all your other failures.
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 newcomer_ts 2018-11-05
Damn lol
I'll delete that shit
1 BainCapitalist 2018-11-05
You have no idea what you're talking about do you?
Immigration is good for the US. This survey is a meta-analysis of the entire literature on the economic effects of immigration. Their findings indicate that the consensus among economists is that the total effect of immigrants on public finance is net positive. In fact, if we legalized current illegal immigrants they would pay more in payroll taxes. This is specifically key to maintaining the solvency of our failing social security system by increasing the inflow of funds to the social security trust fund. Second of all, they commit crime at lower rates than citizens do. Third, most studies indicate that illegal immigrants have little to no impact on wages. Immigrants don't just supply jobs, they also demand jobs. They consume goods and services just like any citizen would do, thus the net effect on wages would be neutral. Finally, immigrants and natives do not directly compete for the same work. In other words, they are imperfect substitutes, as they have different skills, not least in language, and seek different jobs - generally immigrants seek jobs that natives don't want to do or where there is a skills shortage. This is evidenced by Ottiovani and Peri who show in the long run, even low skilled immigrants have a positive effect on low skilled natives’ incomes.
Terrorism caused by immigrants is overblown. First of all, the impact of terrorism is dramatically overblown. Between the years 1970 and 2007, Mueller and Stewart indicate that only 3,292 American civilians died from terrorist attacks. That's about 89 civilians per year. Compare that to the 1,146 civilians who were killed by police officers in 2015. That's right, you are more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. Moreover, Alex Nowrasteh indicates that the chance of an American being murdered in a terrorist attack caused by a refugee is 1 in 3.64 billion per year while the chance of being murdered in an attack committed by an illegal immigrant is an astronomical 1 in 10.9 billion per year.
New housing construction is well below the historical average. Decreases in the expected level of immigration is having an impact on the construction market because the construction workforce relies heavily on immigrant labor.
The wall wont work. Around 50% of all undocumented immigrants come here legally and out stay their visas. What will the wall do about that? Also, the rate of growth of undocumented immigrants coming from Mexico has dramatically declined over recent years. From the period between 2003 and 2007 to the period of 2008 to 2012, immigration from Mexico decreased 57%. Additionally, illegal immigration from Asia is growing at a much faster rate than illegal immigration from Mexico. Furthermore, the total number of undocumented immigrants in the United States has been declining in recent years. Finally, more Mexican immigrants are actually leaving the US than the total number of Mexicans immigrating into the US (both legal and illegal). All of these facts mitigate the efficacy of the wall.
1 LongPostBot 2018-11-05
That degree finally paying off
I am a bot. Contact for questions
1 BainCapitalist 2018-11-05
No u
1 BainCapitalist 2018-11-05
What is the point of a map? Maps don't show you the real world.
The real world is 3D, maps are 2D.
The real world is endlessly complex, while maps are so simple, just lines on pages.
The real world is changing, while maps are static.
Maps don't take into account human behaviour or irrationality. Yet map makers continue to make them, and hold great sway over politicians! Maps are not scientific, but they pretend to be.
1 Hazachu 2018-11-05
lol
1 [deleted] 2018-11-05
[removed]
1 orangetato 2018-11-05
Wow they pissed off both td and Chapo, nice
1 Zozbot 2018-11-05
zoz
1 Zozbot 2018-11-05
zle
1 Zozbot 2018-11-05
zozzle
1 Watermark03 2018-11-05
<3 immigration
1 myshl0ng 2018-11-05
Cheaper and cheaper workforce is good.