Explain to me, in terms of economics, why this line of thinking is incorrect

Explain to me, in terms of economics, why this line of thinking is incorrect.

Doesn't this ultimately shit on the current unskilled workers in our country?

Because we don't have an excess of jobs in this country, unemployment is a serious issue. Importing MORE workers for jobs that don't exist doesn't help anyone.

increase in supply of lower wage labor pool via increase in immigrant acceptance without an increase for in demand for lower wage labor = current native low wage labor population getting cucked

yes

All hail the mighty GDP! The sole measure of whether a country is successful or not!

This is exactly what I thought would happen.

Medium-skill workers as well. Skilled visas allow some foreigner with a degree (there are a hundred million in China alone) to come to the US and work for way less than an American trying to raise a family.

It's simple supply and demand. There is an idea that there are jobs Americans won't do. This is a lie, pay is kept artificially low via mass immigration and is not worth Americans' effort at that rate. Otherwise (((they))) would have to pay better wages for physically demanding jobs. Truly anuddah shoah.

Yes, but it also ignores the long time costs incurred from taking in people from cultures different from your own. This includes bringing in sub-human behaviours and mindsets (the UK has imported acid attacks from Pakistan along with the Pakis) as well as a disrespect, or even a subversion of, for the customs and culture of the host country.

Advocates for mass immigration policies mistakenly treat people purely as economic units (much like Marxists).

this shits on all workers, not just unskilled - all wages will go down

sure, the (((GDP))) might go up in the short term but that increase will only go to the top 0.1% and that's only because corporations can cut costs and because banks get new debt slaves to "monetize"

most of the pseudo science called economics is just propaganda, and certainly anyone who's only looking at GDP for measuring success can be dismissed outright

remember, in 2007 the world's most prominent "economists" told us that there was no housing bubble - do you really think they're being honest now?

On top of cultural issues, the 'muh gdp' crowd also claims that immigrants help pay for pensioners' retirements. This is boomer-tier shortsightedness, as we will then have to pay their pensions later on, and thus will need even more immigrants each generation. This system of infinite growth is inherently unsustainable as well as demographically suicidal.

Absolutely right. It's incredible how so many people have been bamboozled by this ponzi scheme.

This was a discussion post made by my macroeconomics professor, I replied to him with some of the points in this thread about the artificial driving down of wages and inflicting harm onto our current labor force as well as compounding our current unemployment problems..all of which is exactly what I suspected.
I probably won't get a reply before this thread dies, but I appreciate the reinforcement on my views.

Yeah, right the US needs more retards aka 'low skilled labourers' after shipping all those low-skill intensive jobs to China and after importing 30 million beaners (who took the noggies' jobs btw)

Nice.

This, then they wonder why Americans won't do plantation work for $7/hr (most manual labor is $15+). Better import another million.

>if we just buckle down and work really hard we could lower both unskilled and skilled worker's wages to absolute poverty levels boosting the profits of huge corporations massively making the plutocrats even more wealthy and powerful
The line of thinking isn't "incorrect," rather the goal is baffling and unwanted by anyone who has even the vaguest sense of self-preservation, love for his countrymen, or pride.
Also, this idea that
>historically immigrants/refugees bring short term costs but long term gains
has no source that I've ever seen, despite having this "point" shoved in my face constantly since the refugee crisis started.

The long term gains of mass migration are:
>muh pensions (See)
>long term growth (who cares, for plutocrats only)
>muh vibrant diversity

Seriously. That's it. There is no huge brain that we haven't looked at that has all these benefits we hadn't heard about and can debunk all of our claims. It's just a big, ugly, Marxist social facade dancing for the public while the plutocrats line their pockets and our cultures are destroyed.

>the first two would increase lower wage labor pool
so increasing the lower wage labor would drive down lower cost wages and cut demand for lower wage workers. it would make it harder for the poor to get jobs when its already hard for the poor to get jobs as it is. there already ISN'T a demand for low wage workers outside of farms who WANT, not need, them because they don't want to pay any sort of benefits to them while paying them generally $13 and less.

i live in phoenix and i know for the fact the many going rates for many of these illegal immigrants that work out here and in yuma. they make a decent wage, near $150 - $200 a day on average, but the wage is all they get. they don't get sick leave, paid time off, any sort of retirement, or benefits for matter. if they get hurt on the job, if they job hurt them, the farmers can fire them without worry of backlash. they are honestly slave labor. and they love them for that because they actually do work hard, hard for nothing but that nothing here in america is more than in mexico. its why they do it.

the whole mass immigrant thing worked in the 1800's and early 1900's but it worked because half the united states had like a population of what CA alone has today. now we have 310 million people in this nation. CA farmers want to bitch but i know for a fact they have buses to buss all the immigrants who work on those farms. if they need workers so badly because of increased immigration enforcement then they can drive those buses up to los angeles or up to oakland and pick up all the piss poor people there who barely have jobs at walmart and have them work on the farms for that $13 - $15 an hour.

but they don't. and it isn't because that walmart employee doesn't want to, its because they don't know they can, and the farmers don't want to. if the farmers did hire them guess what? those people would want benefits. they would want labor protection laws that they DO have since they ARE citizens.

>historically immigrants/refugees bring short term costs but long term gains
Even if this is true, you're forgetting 3 important facts:
past immigrants came here to work and settle not hold their hands out
They also wanted to assimilate and be American
and up until the 60s, most immigrants were white or chinese.

also i love the statement:
>immigrants do the jobs americans won't do
they always leave off the second half of that statement which is:
>for piss poor wages, zero benefits and rights
america has a high standard of living. a standard of living that generations before us struggled to give the next generation a better life than they had. that's what SHOULD happen. we SHOULD have a higher standard of living. what's the point of having technology and civilization if we are never going to progress. i find it so ironic that nearly all democrats, even bernie sanders are fighting along with establishment republicans in allowing modern day slave labor.

many democrats love to mock ronald reagan's idea of trickle down economics. trickle down economics is brilliant and in theory works extraordinarily well. but the problem it faced and why it failed wasn't because it was a poor theory, but rather the implementation of it was poorly executed. it wasn't ENFORCED. not a single employer had to practice it as it was 100% voluntary based. ironically ronald reagans love for absolute deregulation doomed trickle down economics. you can't have it without enforcement of it. i applaud reagan in realizing TO MUCH regulation can hurt, but to little can also hurt as well. and trickle down is a fine example on how total anarchy of regulation is as disastrous as total dictatorship of mass regulation. you need a balance of not to many, and not to little. its why i love trumps for every one new regulation, two have to go. i love it because it causes a check and balance system for regulations which is a good thing.

what i find most ironic is how democrats never wanted regulation with trickle down economics. the party of regulation sure didn't want to regulate trickle down economics. they just wanted to use it as amuniation to attack reagan with and mock. with ironically they already had enough, the fact reagan didn't enforce companies to follow trickle down.

>past immigrants came here to work and settle not hold their hands out
handouts didn't exist then so they had no choice. and that was a good thing because the class we got where a class that actually wanted to work hard and build a better tomorrow.
>and up until the 60s, most immigrants were white or chinese.
color of ones skin has nothing to do with it. many mexicans ironically did some in as well, but where more tightly monitored and controlled with how many could entire. they were not forbidden, but smaller quotas. but point being the ones that did come in worked hard just like the whites and chinese did because at the time, just like for whites and chinese, no handouts. they where forced to not only work, but work hard. be productive and strive for a better tomorrow. if not for them, then their children.

the welfare system we have today thanks to FDR has been expanded to the point where its not that it pays to be "poor" but rather it pays to be the "victim." we see it everywhere. people of "color" (since whites are not a color now) are cheered as the victim and oppressed class. they're promoted and given special treatment. those living on welfare well before there was not only an awful stigma of being on it, but society back then didn't like the idea of being dependent on someone else. they wanted to be dependent on themselves. so if they did go on it, they wanted off. it was considered a stress relief knowing you can make it on YOUR OWN. but now we parade around victims. we praise victims. there really isn't a negative stigma of being on it and taught we can't make it on our own, YOU ARE THE VICTIM.

so why would you want to get off of it when being the victim causes you be to praised, cheered special treatment, and told working together is how you are going to make it? you know, other people working for YOU to make it doing nothing outside of shooting out a kid since you can't make it on your own because you are the victim?