DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate - View Single Post - Non partisan free for all: Illegal Immigration

**Ganoshenko** · 11-05-2005, 12:49 PM

It would be interesting to look comparatively at the US and Canada's annual legal immigration figures.

Canada's level equals approximately 1% of our population (300,000 per year quota) at the present time. The USA would have to have 3,000,000 per year legal to equal this same 1% figure. I don't know off-hand what the US figure is, but I suspect that it is about half or less of this figure. The rest is needed to be made up with the illegal variety to achieve the economic goal.

MM, when a country sends it's manufacturing abroad, what happens to economic growth? Obviously, the capitalists are still lining there pockets with every container that hits our ports.

Yes, this is an interesting phenomena. What happens is that GDP and the gross economic numbers continues to rise so everyone things things are going along just fine.

But the bottom line is that you've lost a bunch of working-class wages domestically. Sure, the profits that would have been derived from that labour is still accrued (and measured in GDP) but you do have unemployed workers standing around - and potentially defaulting on their mortgages and bank payments and whatnot.

And the general theory of outsourcing does seem to contain a logical flaw that is becoming apparently visible in the USA...

For example, let us assume that one-super corporation is able to outsource 100% of all production outside the USA. On paper, the GDP would still theoretically rise so everyone will agree that the US economy is doing fine because it is rising.

But in reality, your employment level would be very, very low (only that one super-corporation's head office and all that labour needed to handle the shipping containers and retailers to distribute it). So you'd have lots and lots of employable people (theoretically) standing around with nothing to do - and just going broke (since the wages in retail or as longshoremen is much lower than the wages for skilled manufacturing labour). Their poverty is the gain of the super-corporaton (figuratively, I'm not suggesting a pure zero-sum game).

The key question here, does the profit derived by the super-corporation and dispursed through dividends to the shareholders make up for all the lost wages? Does every small town in America have a chance to taste some of the drip-down from the lavish spending that is available to the super-corporation and its shareholders?

Essentially, the gross numbers stay the same (GDP), but 'real' wages fall. And a 'real' fall in wages hurts America in the small towns and wipes out the backbone of society - which is the family wage-earner, not the rich shareholders.

11-05-2005, 12:49 PM	#12
Ganoshenko Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 431 Senior Member	It would be interesting to look comparatively at the US and Canada's annual legal immigration figures. Canada's level equals approximately 1% of our population (300,000 per year quota) at the present time. The USA would have to have 3,000,000 per year legal to equal this same 1% figure. I don't know off-hand what the US figure is, but I suspect that it is about half or less of this figure. The rest is needed to be made up with the illegal variety to achieve the economic goal. MM, when a country sends it's manufacturing abroad, what happens to economic growth? Obviously, the capitalists are still lining there pockets with every container that hits our ports. Yes, this is an interesting phenomena. What happens is that GDP and the gross economic numbers continues to rise so everyone things things are going along just fine. But the bottom line is that you've lost a bunch of working-class wages domestically. Sure, the profits that would have been derived from that labour is still accrued (and measured in GDP) but you do have unemployed workers standing around - and potentially defaulting on their mortgages and bank payments and whatnot. And the general theory of outsourcing does seem to contain a logical flaw that is becoming apparently visible in the USA... For example, let us assume that one-super corporation is able to outsource 100% of all production outside the USA. On paper, the GDP would still theoretically rise so everyone will agree that the US economy is doing fine because it is rising. But in reality, your employment level would be very, very low (only that one super-corporation's head office and all that labour needed to handle the shipping containers and retailers to distribute it). So you'd have lots and lots of employable people (theoretically) standing around with nothing to do - and just going broke (since the wages in retail or as longshoremen is much lower than the wages for skilled manufacturing labour). Their poverty is the gain of the super-corporaton (figuratively, I'm not suggesting a pure zero-sum game). The key question here, does the profit derived by the super-corporation and dispursed through dividends to the shareholders make up for all the lost wages? Does every small town in America have a chance to taste some of the drip-down from the lavish spending that is available to the super-corporation and its shareholders? Essentially, the gross numbers stay the same (GDP), but 'real' wages fall. And a 'real' fall in wages hurts America in the small towns and wipes out the backbone of society - which is the family wage-earner, not the rich shareholders.
	Quote