[compostor42]

Automation like this is why I call BS on the "we need more immigrants to keep the economy going!" folks.

We will be struggling to keep our existing population employed. The last thing we want to do is import even more low-skilled labor who will soon be made redundant.

Increasing automation means a declining population is a godsend rather than a problem.

Policy makers must be aware of this. I suspect the call for increased immigration are politically motivated (replacing the existing population with a more reliable voting block) rather than sincere economic concerns.

This recent article is a great example. The author gleefully explains how replacing the existing white population with immigrants will reduce the NRA's base.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/10/19/...

[cheald]

> The last thing we want to do is import even more low-skilled labor who will soon be made redundant.

This is the lump-of-labor fallacy. More immigrants means greater demand for labor (and other goods and services), not just greater supply and results in net job creation and wage increases for native workers. Automation isn't likely to change that, because the demand for labor is not fixed.

[dalacv]

Import? We are not importing them. They migrate here because there is work. If there is no work, they won't come over here. It is basic supply and demand that is controlling this.

[compostor42]

From the perspective of the elites who encourage unchecked mass immigration to drive down labor costs and secure reliable voting blocks "import" is quite accurate.

[BuckRogers]

You had me agreeing until the part about the NRA base going down with increased immigration. Now I'm all for it.

[13thLetter]

The government should dissolve the people and elect a new one, then? Even as a joke that's in very poor taste.

[compostor42]

So if black people in your state were being replaced, and that helped your pet political issue, you would cheer on their replacement?

Somehow I doubt you'd say that in polite company. Funny how blatantly racist rhetoric is okay... if the recipients are those mean old whites!

[compostor42]

Purposeful demographic replacement of white people to achieve political ends. Lovely.

[BuckRogers]

> Purposeful demographic replacement of white people to achieve political ends. Lovely.

Why is being white so important? What's the difference? If the difference is no NRA, sounds like a decent trade to me.

[compostor42]

>Why is being white so important? What's the difference?

Replace "white" with "jewish" and you'd fit right in with holocaust deniers/apologist.

So just to be clear, you have no problem with ethnically cleansing a nation to change its political disposition?

[BuckRogers]

>Replace "white" with "jewish" and you'd fit right in with holocaust deniers/apologist. So just to be clear, you have no problem with ethnically cleansing a nation to change its political disposition?

What? You're insinuating we're going through a White Holocaust and I'm apologizing for it. You gotta be out of your mind. "Ethnic cleansing"??? Take a breath and realize you're comparing concentration camps to people migrating for a job. What a sick way to trivialize one of the worst crimes of the 20th century.

[sheepmullet]

> Replace "white" with "jewish" and you'd fit right in with holocaust deniers/apologist.

Exactly, or "white" with "American Indian" or "aboriginal" and you can see exactly how people in the past supported such atrocious policies.

It's scary how far some people will go to achieve political goals.

[drdeca]

I'm a bit confused about why you (seem to) think that is a good analogy?

One wrinkle that might be part of your idea is that instead of comparing the act of promoting immigration to the act of genocide, you are instead comparing the defense of promoting immigration to a denial or approval of genocide. Perhaps this is what the analogy is based on?

However, I expect that you are aware that many people distinguish between killing members of a group or preventing them from reproducing, against just outnumbering the group? Some people tend to distinguish between those.

Another thing, you use the term "ethnically cleanse". The association's people generally have for that term usually include an active eradication. Not just ending up being in the minority of the population. Similarly, due to the word "racial" in the phrase, people often interpret it as referring to an act of effecting in a targeted manner those of some specific "race".

most People would generally not describe the act of dropping fat man and little boy as being acts of "racial cleansing", though they did result in the drastic decrease of a population of a particular ethnicity in a region. People are more interested in the number of deaths that occurred, and other damage done, than they are on the impacts on the population of a particular ethnicity.

For most people to consider something to be intended as "racial cleansing", they generally have to consider the the intent behind the action to be motivated by "racial" things, not just the action to happen to have an effect on "racial" things.

[13thLetter]

Let's put aside the admittedly inflammatory rhetoric. Are you arguing that if the government decided to peacefully change the population's demographics in order to make a currently unpopular political goal more achievable in the future, that would be okay?

Because that's about the most anti-democratic thing imaginable. In a democratic society it is absolutely, unconditionally wrong for the government to do such a thing. The government serves at the pleasure of the people, not the other way around!

[compostor42]

So if the OP had said that he was glad the black people in his city were being replaced so that he could get better support for his pet political issue, you would have no problem with that?

Somehow I doubt you would say that in polite company.

[kmicklas]

Are you totally unaware of how blatantly racist this is?

[compostor42]

You replied to the wrong person. Otherwise explain.

[robotresearcher]

No one said "white". They said "immigrant". Incoming people of all colours are less likely to be pro-NRA than the average multi-generation American.

I can't prove this, but I bet it's true.

[compostor42]

And the vast majority of immigrants are non-white.

[drdeca]

So if the immigrants were required to have proportions roughly the same as current population proportions you wouldn't have a problem with increasing population for the purpose of changing political opinion?

[compostor42]

What makes you think I would agree with that? Doesn't follow.

[scrollaway]

> Automation like this is why I call BS on the "we need more immigrants to keep the economy going!" folks.

This is a bit of a shortcut (and most don't realize it) to "more people doesn't necessarily mean less jobs to go around, as available work is not a finite product because of the amount of artificial demand an increased population can create".

We don't need more human drones; when properly funneled, increased immigration can mean a better economy.

[compostor42]

> We don't need more human drones; when properly funneled, increased immigration can mean a better economy.

Agreed. Importing millions of unskilled laborers is insane as automation picks up. Those jobs will be made redundant in short order. (They probably already would have been, but a massive pool of cheap labor meant little incentive for automation. Similar to the first steam-engines being unused by the ancient Greek ruling class http://www.mlahanas.de/Greeks/HeroAndLoon.htm)

Bringing in the select best and brightest from other countries is certainly wise though.

[scrollaway]

Or bringing in more, and training people better. But this applies to the entire population through a better education system of course...

[compostor42]

But as I stated regarding my point about automation, we don't need more people, we need less.

We already spend more than any other country per pupil. Many of the "broken" school systems have received massive influxes of cash (billions) and seen no improvement what so ever. Schools can only go so far it seems.

2 Billion spent in Kansas City to fix the schools. No appreciable result. I'm not convinced in the panacea of education. Something else is at work. The by country PISA scores are quite interesting.

[acchow]

What about the immigrants in high-skilled labor?

The recent calls for increased immigration are mostly about STEM-trained immigrants, are they not?

[compostor42]

Vast majority of immigrants are unskilled.

Letting in a few of the best and brightest from other countries makes sense. Importing millions of central/south American peasants is idiocy.

[oldmanjay]

The calls for restricted immigration are certainly politically motivated (mainly variations on "I don't want them getting mine") so what's the difference? National borders mean less and less all the time. Clinging to them to weather this upcoming economic storm is like using an anchor as a liferaft.

[mason240]

Almost no one in the US is calling for restrictions on immigration.

[scrollaway]

Really now? No one? [edit: You added almost, I can almost agree now ;)]

Tougher border control is restrictions on immigration. Why do you think various billionaire nutjobs want to build a great wall of mexico?

[mason240]

No, it's not. It's enforcing current immigration policies.

Moving towards an open borders would be changing restrictions on immigration.

[BuckRogers]

That's not true. The border has always been open for people to pass freely for centuries. Restricting border crossings would be a change in immigration policy. I don't think it's necessary.

[mason240]

And then we decided that having government, taxes, social programs, ect were necessary. You are free to feel otherwise, but the issue of society vs anarchy has been firmly resolved.

[hchenji]

https://www.numbersusa.com/

[compostor42]

So why not let the entire population of Africa move to the United States? Borders are an antiquated concept according to you.

[drdeca]

Why not let the entire population of California move to Rhode island?

Wait, who is preventing the entire population of California from moving to Rhode island?

I'm not aware of any regulations that forbid anyone from moving to Rhode island from California, except for things like house arrest or other things requiring someone to stay in one place.

[compostor42]

What argument are you trying to make? It is not clear.

[hchenji]

Just because borders are open does not mean that people will immediately move.

That said, CA and RI have similar quality of life, but Africa and North American probably do not. So CA/RI is not a good example.

[JoeAltmaier]

I think those numbers don't add up. Decreasing population does nothing for the per capita need for working-class people. Unless you think laborers are dying off at a greater rate than the rest of us.

[compostor42]

I don't understand, can you explain?

Increased automation definitely decreases the per capita need for working-class people.

We would probably have a lot more automation already (especially in low-end agriculture/service-industry) if not for a seemingly inexhaustible supply of cheap labor from south of the border.

[JoeAltmaier]

Just noting it doesn't matter how our 'native' population grows or shrinks - we'll have about the same available labor supply per capita. In fact as we push education, our labor supply shrinks as the next generation aspires to more than lawn maintenance.

[hchenji]

Yes I agree...instead of importing low skilled labor, we should import highly skilled immigrants. Increasing the H1B and employment based greencard quotas is absolutely necessary.