Developed countries have market economies in which your livelihood is dependent on how others value and compensate you for the goods or services you provide. You're a slave to others. Wages in the west have been stagnant while cost of living has increased. More women entering the workforce has decreased/stagnanted wages. Alternatively, most people in developing countries live in subsistence economies (the west before industrialization as well) where your livelihood is dependent on whatever that person can cultivate, hunt/gather, or raise in terms of pastoralism.
What is your guys opinions on why birthrate is so low in countries which are more developed?
- Thread starter jemappelle
- Start date
The argument about more women in the work place can also be used by white nationalists arguing more foreigners coming into the country and therefore making wages stagnant.
Cadaans need massive immigration to absorb the massive impending labour slack once all the boomers retire unless they want the economy to collapse and no one to pay those pensions once they're in diapers.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
That would also mean they’d need women to work. Labour is labour, male or female. You can’t use the argument that more women have/will create even further stagnation, if Western nations do indeed need more people in the workforce.
Your argument is a non-sequitur...who argued otherwise? I personally believe all people should work in every type of economy. The economic and demographic dynamics in the west already are what they are. The immigration to cadaan countries thing you brought up is needed to bridge the imminent demographic hole. It's also a fact that women entering the workforce negatively effected wages given supply and demand. Nevertheless, no one argued for women to give up their right to economic independence in order to: exit the workplace market, get married and have children as a STAHM; although their demographics would be better off if they did.
Last edited:
I simply asked you that because White working class Englishmen have been using that argument against the Polish and other groups. Supposedly, their arrival has caused lower wages and stagnation in certain industries. My point is, nationalist argue that immigrants do indeed negatively effect wages, because of supply and demand.
If the argument is indeed a cases of supply and demand, immigrants have obviously contributed to that from the perspective of natives. Women and minorities go hand in hand with regards to this discussion.
Last edited:
Do have evidence immigrants are keeping wages lower than whatever it would be if cadaans were at reproducing replacement rate?
Lol, I don’t believe this, but it’s a huge talking point in the UK. A whole nation voted brexit just to stupidly avoid immigrants because they strongly believe that immigrations impacts the economy and services like the NHS. It’s a massive talking point in the UK at the moment.
It's stupid logic on their part. They believe employers would automatically pay them more just because what? It's not like they're gonna forgo work all together. Furthermore, if they were reproducing at replacement rate, it's not like all those additional natives of the country would work high paying class of STEM jobs. It's likely the additional people they would've produced fall into the present bell curve in intellect and income, therefore not raising wages.
@Reformed J I think it’s stupid as well. But with regards to the working class, it makes sense because immigrant are indeed willing to work for less. That is their point.
Their argument which is line with your supply and demand point:
1. Potential negative impact on real wages. It is argued that low-skilled immigrants put downward pressure on wages. The argument is that an increase in the supply of unskilled labour enables firms to fill vacancies with lower wages than previously.
(This is the argument used against the Polish and Eastern Europeans. This argument is the one that inspired the working class to vote Brexit by parties such as UKIP)
2.Pressure on public services. Immigration and a rise in local populations put higher pressure on social services, such as schools, hospitals, roads and public transport.
3. Real GDP per capita could fall. Often supporters of immigration point to how it increases real GDP, and this is true. A rise in the population will ceteris paribus, increase national output. But a more useful measure is GDP per head. If immigration is of low-skilled and/or those not in labour markets, it will lead to a fall in real GDP per head.
4. Structural unemployment. Immigration could lead to some displacement of native-born workers who then experience structural unemployment. For example, if migrants gain unskilled labour because they are willing to work for lower wages. Those native-born low-skilled workers may find it harder to gain new employment in higher-skilled occupations.
Their argument which is line with your supply and demand point:
1. Potential negative impact on real wages. It is argued that low-skilled immigrants put downward pressure on wages. The argument is that an increase in the supply of unskilled labour enables firms to fill vacancies with lower wages than previously.
(This is the argument used against the Polish and Eastern Europeans. This argument is the one that inspired the working class to vote Brexit by parties such as UKIP)
2.Pressure on public services. Immigration and a rise in local populations put higher pressure on social services, such as schools, hospitals, roads and public transport.
3. Real GDP per capita could fall. Often supporters of immigration point to how it increases real GDP, and this is true. A rise in the population will ceteris paribus, increase national output. But a more useful measure is GDP per head. If immigration is of low-skilled and/or those not in labour markets, it will lead to a fall in real GDP per head.
4. Structural unemployment. Immigration could lead to some displacement of native-born workers who then experience structural unemployment. For example, if migrants gain unskilled labour because they are willing to work for lower wages. Those native-born low-skilled workers may find it harder to gain new employment in higher-skilled occupations.
Well, employers were though, until they were able to get cheap labour from Eastern Europe. Their argument is that has lowered their wages. This is with regards to the working classes who are builders laborers ect.
That is precisely the argument people use against women.
From when did this happen? You've also gotta analyze from the perspective of the labour supply staying constant. I'm not familiar with the UK-EU dynamics. Is this about real wages post-boomer prime physical labour years when there'd be a downward trend of natives in the workforce?
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Last edited:
I would add if you're also confident and can communicate as well.
You don't have permission to view the spoiler content.
Log in or register now.
Trending
-
Donald Trump remarks: "Do they [Somalia] have a President?"
- Started by Itsnotthateasy
- Replies: 54
-
-
Trump on Ilhan Omar; “it’s people from her area of the world”- Started by hayran
- Replies: 105
