Re:How Immigration Uncertainty Threatens America’s Tech Domi...
by jacquesm on Thursday February 02, 2017 @01:21PM
(#13552981)
> I'm not being hypocritical at all.
We're going to have to differ on that.
> The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration.
But native Americans did not necessarily benefit from that larger economy, in fact, in a very measurable way did the opposite. Mostly because the immigrants were exactly that which the current ones are unjustly accused of (being murderous bastards).
The one thing the Native Americans weren't saying was 'these Europeans are here because of our jobs'.
> That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.
But for a different reason than the one you keep harping on.
It grew because of their capital and consumption.
> Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part.
Less than you think or wish to believe, but since you're somewhat stuck on this I'll just let it go.
If you feel open minded I encourage you to read this:
And not to just cherry pick the bits that fit your narrative.
> From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.
That they did. But - again - they are not the predominant factor. In fact the employers needed the immigrants (so immigrants needing other immigrants) mostly for 'dumb' labor (hence also the import of many slaves from Africa and indentured people from Europe).
> If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
No, the US would look more like England, which in fact it does.
We're going to have to differ on that.
> The Native Americans had an economy, yes. But the economy was much, much bigger after immigration.
But native Americans did not necessarily benefit from that larger economy, in fact, in a very measurable way did the opposite. Mostly because the immigrants were exactly that which the current ones are unjustly accused of (being murderous bastards).
The one thing the Native Americans weren't saying was 'these Europeans are here because of our jobs'.
> That's my entire point: immigration fueled economic growth in America.
But for a different reason than the one you keep harping on.
It grew because of their capital and consumption.
> Skilled labor (and investment capital) played a major part.
Less than you think or wish to believe, but since you're somewhat stuck on this I'll just let it go.
If you feel open minded I encourage you to read this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_immigration_to_the_...
And not to just cherry pick the bits that fit your narrative.
> From horticulturalist to provide plants for early agriculture, to carpenters and ship builders in Boston (and later steel and tools makers), to the physicists and engineers fleeing Europe during the World Wars, to the technology people today. All of these people contributed to the technological growth and dominance of the US.
That they did. But - again - they are not the predominant factor. In fact the employers needed the immigrants (so immigrants needing other immigrants) mostly for 'dumb' labor (hence also the import of many slaves from Africa and indentured people from Europe).
> If none of these immigrants were skilled, the US would look more like China or India than it does.
No, the US would look more like England, which in fact it does.