Jonathan’s statement is correct. All things being equal immigrants will choose a location that they speculate will yield the highest amount of success and opportunity. You have to remember that there are choices. It’s not Honduras to America. It’s South Tegucigalpa to Sacramento, or San Pedro Sula to Houston Texas.
There are specific destinations with specific opportunities. Immigrants will naturally migrate to the ones that have the greatest demand for labor.
So the option is not chosen between A and B.
To Stay or to Go
But between A and B through Z.
A to Stay, B through Z are potential destinations. All 25 possibilities might be better then his current location but it would be in his best interest the location where the demand for labor is highest as opposed to lowest.
Exactly. Even though an area may be absolutely overpopulated, it may be relatively underpopulated. And given that higher wage areas tend to be locations where populations control is practiced more rigorously, there will always be pressure for migration from lower wage areas, whether the higher wage population wants it or not.
If overpopulated means high amounts of labor with little need then it wouldn’t follow that large volumes of immigrants would choose that destination as a feasible option for migration. Unless ofcoarse there are heavy incentives involved via welfare.
No. his statement is incorrect. The destination area may be optimally or over populated. But immigrants will want to migrate anyway if they are even more overpopulated. The immigrants will move to the area which yields the highest income for themselves, regardless of what this does to the income of the domestic population.
Why would they choose the overpopulated depressed city where there is no hope for employment when they could just as easily migrate 30 miles down the road where labor is in plenty demand?
Please explain the reasoning behind this.
And yes, Jonathan is entirely correct. In the market economy consumers/producers are attracted to each other. They don’t repel each other. Is it that difficult to understand that if I want to sell something that I would be attracted to a location where there are potential buyers? As opposed to moving to a place where there are no potential buyers for my service?
Here we have a diagram illustrating the Malthusian law of population, a special form of the law of returns. Holding all other factors equal, there exists an optimal level of population which maximizes the productivity per person. This level is Q. If the population level is less than Q, there is underpopulation, since living standards could be increased by the addition of more people. If it is greater than Q, there is overpopulation. Both points, R and S, are points at which there is absolute overpopulation. However, R is relatively under populated with respect to S. If there are two geographic location which are equal in all respects except for population, one having a population level of R and the other of S, then there will be an incentive for part of population S to migrate to the same location as population R. This will raise the living standards of the immigrants. It will also lower the living standards of the host population.
And one of the most effective ways of protecting yourself is by separating yourself from security risks. By not coming into contact with members of the population who tend to be criminals, one reduces one’s risk of being victimized. It works the same intranationally as it does internationally.
I didn’t say that it “immigration is bad.” I said that the welfare state is not solely responsible for the immigration problem. I never implied that immigration in general is a problem, just that it can be.
The Malthusian law is incorrect. You give it more weight then was meant to be used for. In some cases it can be a tool that tells us there is a concentration of labor where there is no current demand. That labor needs be dispatched elsewhere or it’s price adjusted to balance with demand.
If there is an overabundance of labor in an area, which caues overpopulation, people will naturally move away on their own. It is not likely that overpopulated areas are going to experience heavy influx’s of immigration. Typically overpopulated areas experience emigration.
If no option to emigrate exists then market will have a natural demand for entrepreneur to employ their creative innovations by making production more more efficient. The Malthusian law does not take into account that consumption is dynamic and changes and that people can freely move to more suitable locations.
The entire premise and concept of the malthusian law is flawed. If it were true we should have been dead as a species at population 1 billion X hundred years ago. The law fails to take into account human action. In short it fails to account for technology.
Your essentially making the following argument. I am paraphrasing but this is essentially your stance.
On the market sellers tend not to be attracted to consumers. That is essentially what your saying. Despite that this is the opposite of what the market does, your saying that people have incentives to be attracted to overpopulated depressed areas, and repelled to areas where there is signifigant demand for labor and growth.
Your argument is in direct conflict with fundamental mechanics of the market. Also you have yet to answer me these questions. Please answer them.
I am sorry you live in a state of un-justified fear but there are those of us who do not beleive in fairy tails and who stand to gain by trading with our neighbors. Who are you to judge us by those actions? It is very difficult to reason with fear.
I just re read the below statement and it shows that you conceded your point, though not realizing it.
So in other words immigrants won’t move to an overpopulated city where they are likely to be unemployed for half a year or more. But instead would choose a city where they will yield the highest income. This is essentially what I have been saying. Your statement above is a great explanation or why immigrants would not choose the overpopulated destination. They would either be unable to find work or due to the surplus in labor their wages would be very low.
I was never arguing against that immigrants would move to a location where they would be unable to find any opportunity. You just misunderstood the point.
I choose not to live in a ghetto. And I prefer if the ghetto not move to where I live. I think it’s very rational. Most people also act on similar irrational fears. Curious.
I would like to know where the New York Times found their statistics. I can’t find anything reliable or detailed that shows latin crime rates in the U.S. The FBI crime stats only break down into the categories Black, White, and Other. The best I can do is look at crime rates in different countries: here, here, and here. Mexico’s homicide rate is almost double that in the U.S. But luckily I found this VDARE article which contains a link to data on incarceration by race. hispanic incarceration is a little over 3.5 times that of non-hispanic whites.
The majority of immigrants don’t live nor do they form ghetto’s. Many of which work in rural area’s on farms or housing projects.
Try finding statistics not on VDARE, and no you cannot compare apples to oranges. The country comparison is irrelevant in this topic as it’s results are caused by other factors.
Perhaps you didn’t explain yourself verywell. To quote you:
Here Stranger says that areas with decreased productivity would attract immigrants over areas with increased productivity. Makes no sense to me.
Here you agreed.
To which I explained again in response. I dont think you read many of my statements as your ignoring all of my questions.
You never explained this, just conveniently skipped over it.
You continued on posting a nonsensical economic theory.
To which has been refuted not just by Austrian’s but everyone else that uses a little common sense.
So if you agree then you will concede the point that Producers and Consumers attract. Immigrants will flow in the direction of need of labor.
But you have been consistently implying that immigrants are the problem over and over.
So immigrants are all criminals
So immigrants only live in the ghetto, and they bring the ghettos with them
Do you realize that VDARE is often categorized as a white supremacist website? Thats like me pulling stats off the black panthers page, do you realize that it discredits your whole defense?
Still I have no doubts that you can. Statistics is not about finding truths but instead about discovering a series of variables which best suit your argument.