| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago |
| Wouldn’t the deportations increase the demand for low-paying jobs resulting in increasing salaries? |
|
| ▲ | fzeroracer 3 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| No, for two reasons. The first is that Americans often refuse to work those jobs (and for good reason, they pay incredibly poorly, have no benefits etc. It is generally a financial loss to do said jobs). We've tried multiple times to try and get Americans to work in the fields: it never works [1]. The second is that a large amount of our economy is heavily subsidized by said cheap immigrant labor and if you just straight up remove that labor, then the costs of everything goes up as many farms go out of business and die. That's just assuming that you somehow got Americans to go out and replace said jobs; suddenly removing 1+ million people from any labor pool would have drastic effects on the rest of the economy. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/07/31/634442195/wh... |
| |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > The first is that Americans often refuse to work those jobs (and for good reason, they pay incredibly poorly, have no benefits etc. It is generally a financial loss to do said jobs). Would Americans work those jobs if those jobs paid well? | | |
| ▲ | fzeroracer 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | You should define what 'paid well' means if you're going to ask that question, and then compare it to the current cost of labor. | |
| ▲ | PicassoCTs 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Those jobs can not pay well, because the basic living goods have to be artificially price dumped to remain affordable for the working poor. Otherwise all prices would have to be raised to include this, which will never happen. | | |
| ▲ | AnthonyMouse 3 days ago | parent [-] | | That seems to be inconsistent with the continued negligence with respect to housing prices. Maybe it would be fine if food cost more because agricultural workers got paid better but housing cost less because we stopped artificially constraining supply. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | hvb2 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Which would mean food gets more expensive, right? Regardless of the fact that a lot of poor people don't live in the areas where most of those jobs are but they do get their produce from there.. The top 4 counties in the US for agriculture production are all in the central valley in California. |
| |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Which would mean food gets more expensive, right? Which in turn will create more pressure to increase the salaries until it reaches the equilibrium that satisfies everyone. The alternative is to use de-facto slave labor just for the sake of cheap food? | | |
| ▲ | hvb2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | You're missing an important piece here. The lower your income is, the bigger the % you spend on necessities like food. So when those go up, the lower incomes are again hit the hardest as they spend a higher percentage of their total income on it. And these are necessities not nice to haves | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > You're missing an important piece here. I am not. You are confusing transient effects with the equilibrium state. Btw, for low wage employees everything is a significant % of their wage. The only meaningful way to increase their wages is to decrease the supply of cheap labor. This is exactly what happened during Covid where no one was willing to work for $8/hr and the wages went up. When people realize that their wage doesn’t guarantee good living they will look for a better job or demand a raise. | | |
| ▲ | hvb2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Supply and demand aren't always in the same place... If a lot of the farm workers in California are gone how does that help the people in Nevada or Michigan that are unemployed... You think they're going to fill those positions? > When people realize that their wage doesn’t guarantee good living they will look for a better job or demand a raise Wow... When your job requires no education or training? I guess everyone who works 2 or more jobs in the us needs to talk to you. They're all missing this obvious point. |
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | guywithahat 3 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes, countries that go through population declines without new immigration have often seen strong wage growth. Famously after the Irish great famine agricultural wages rose ~30%, and lower-skill jobs saw strong wage growth |
| |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Serfs got slightly more after the Brits killed most of them? Sounds great. | | |
| ▲ | guywithahat 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Technically most of the Irish population emigrated Ireland, and I'm not sure I'd blame the brits for a famine but ok. Really what I'm looking at is the economic effect of decreasing population when it's not replaced by immigrants | | |
| ▲ | Hikikomori 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Still killed a million. It is clearly the fault of Britain as Ireland produced much more food than it needed itself but peasants mostly only got to eat potatoes as most of all good food was exported because Brits owned most of the land so peasants didn't own what they produced. When they didn't have acces to potatoes anymore they had no food, and free market advocates in Britain argued that they shouldn't even try to help them. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | monero-xmr 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Uhhh yes precisely. That helps the poor and hurts Wall Street |
| |
| ▲ | hvb2 3 days ago | parent [-] | | I genuinely wonder what you've done over the last few years. Rising salaries will lead to inflation. Expecting anything else is fantasy | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Rising salaries will lead to inflation. Expecting anything else is fantasy No. Riding salaries do not lead to inflation by themselves. What leads to inflation is the increase in money circulating on the market. In other words: printing money leads to inflation. | | |
| ▲ | hvb2 3 days ago | parent | next [-] | | > Riding salaries do not lead to inflation by themselves. What leads to inflation is the increase in money circulating on the market Not necessarily, if price of product A goes up and I have to buy that it means I have less money to spend on product B. Meaning demand on product B goes down so its price goes down. If we go back to the point that we're talking about, being how it affects the lowest incomes, then you can see how an ever increasing % of their income is locked up in food/housing etc. By your logic
"What leads to inflation is the increase in money circulating on the market."
Why is the rate of inflation even a value that isn't known beforehand? Surely we control our own printers, no? | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Riding salaries do not lead to inflation by themselves. What leads to inflation is the increase in money circulating on the market This is nonsense. If an economy doubles and the money supply grows 10%, you get deflation. If the money supply is stable and half the country gets bombed, you get inflation. Price levels are a function of both money demand and money supply. Ignoring the demand side of the equation doesn’t work. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > This is nonsense. Nope. This is one of the reasons we had insane inflation after Covid: we printed too much. For example, here: https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/042015/how-does-mon... | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | Nobody said printing money can’t cause inflation. Just that it’s not the only factor at play. You can have an economy with zero money printing that experiences inflation or deflation. | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > Nobody said printing money can’t cause inflation. You said in the comment above. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > You said in the comment above How do you read “price levels are a function of both money demand and money supply” and get that? Going back to the top, you claimed “riding [sic] salaries do not lead to inflation.” That is nonsense. Even if we ignore that rising salaries cause the money supply to increase through increased velocity, wealth effect and credit creation. (This is why when the economy is strong central banks raise rates to keep price levels stable. You have to destroy money to make up for the money being created by the private sector.) | | |
| ▲ | reliabilityguy 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > You have to destroy money to make up for the money being created by the private sector. In other words, to keep inflation at bay, one of the things you do, you restrict money supply. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 3 days ago | parent [-] | | > to keep inflation at bay, one of the things you do, you restrict money supply Again, nobody said money supply doesn’t affect price levels. But in this example, rising wages caused the inflationary impetus without any money printing. To correct for that, the money supply must be reduced. If you’re piloting a plane, deflecting the control surfaces will move the plane. But so will winds. If winds buffet your plane you have to deflect control surfaces to get back to where you were. That doesn’t mean the wind doesn’t exist. Rising salaries can cause inflation all on their own. Even in an economy with a fixed money supply. (So can printing money, but nobody was debating that.) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
