> Sure it's overcrowded

The Guardian (a left-leaning newspaper) estimates that leaving the housing crisis unfixed also fuels the far right parties.

https://www.theguardian.com/news/article/2024/may/06/fix-eur...

The issue here is that there is a global developed world housing crisis. There was a global inflation crisis. There's no quick fixes for these problems.

> There's no quick fixes

Sure is. Change zoning rules to allow building a lot more. Let people and corporations build using their own money. No need for government to use any money, just change the rules. Collect property taxes from the new buildings.

Global housing shortage.

Build more houses?

No! Can’t do that, we need the money for forever wars everywhere! But the Raytheon shareholders can use the profits to add solar panels, so it’s all good.

Lloyd Austin - Biden & Harris's Secretary of Defense - serves on the board of Raytheon. So wars are natural.

I don't know about London but imho people would not equate the housing crisis with illegal immigration since those people can only live together in decrepit apartments when not in the streets. It takes a billionaire funded media ecosystem (as I have in my country) to consistently hammer in the fact that those are linked in people's head.

If wages are suppressed and you look at some guy making less than you with a different skin color, I think you're looking at the wrong guy.

I agree with what you say, I regret not having voted in my Italian city and now third places have been closed because not profitable

Supply of cheap labor lowers wages, not sure why you believe otherwise. There are other things that can lower wages, but cheap supply is a factor.

This is the lump of labor fallacy. Adding people increases demand more than supply, meaning it increases wages. Immigrants also have complementary skills to natives, which further reduces risk.

There is no empirical evidence of anyone's wages being lowered by immigration.

https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/repost-why-immigration-doesnt-...

That assumes immigrants are average people, but they are not they mostly work in some sectors. Those sectors will see a wage dump, other sectors might see a wage hike to compensate though.

For example if immigrants are mostly highly paid programmers, you can expect waitresses etc to get a wage hike, but if immigrants are mostly uneducated young women then waitresses will probably see reduces wages.

If you look you can see the groups who compete with the immigrants tend to be more hostile towards immigration, while the groups who doesn't see immigration in their sector aren't as hostile. Most immigrants tend to be men for example, so we would expect men to be more anti immigration since their jobs see more competition from it, and that is also what we see in opinion polling.

The first study brought in example literally has to do with low skilled worker, and as seen it does not affect other workers in a negative way (if I'm getting what the guy is saying in his post)

If you read this study it says they found a big negative effect on male workers:

https://giovanniperi.ucdavis.edu/uploads/5/6/8/2/56826033/ma...

> Using a restricted subsample of high school dropouts and the March-CPS4, he finds a large and long lasting negative di↵erence in wages between Miami and its control in the 1982-1985 period.

The article argues that is flawed since it only considered high school dropout men, but those are the main competitors to low skill immigrant jobs. If you include women and other groups who don't compete for the same low skill jobs then yeah you wont find an effect. Some of those might even see increased wages canceling out the reduced wages low skill men see, but that doesn't really help those low skill men.

It makes sense to say that at least a slice of population gets the small stick, but if I get it right the net benefits as a whole are bigger than the singular disadvantages, or no?

I can't seem to understand that

Studies didn't find benefits either, it was mostly non results. More people means more people, they work and consume services at about the same rate, what matters is just how the new people distort the ratio of different kinds of people not that they are more people.

More people means there is more competition for housing until more supply is built though, so housing prices tend to go up from immigration. That is good if you wanna sell, bad if you wanna buy or rent.

The problem can be that the net whole is “better off” by some minuscule amount but certain subgroups are disastrously worse off.

For example, factory jobs disappearing usually increases the nations GDP “as a whole” but has disastrous effects on the poor communities that provided the labor.

Or another way to put it - if immigration is a net benefit and has little downsides, then a minimum wage for immigrants (legal or otherwise) of $45/hr should be fine.

(Even that might not move the needle much as immigrant labor, both legal and illegal, has “corporate” advantages that can’t be matched by residents. Being able to skirt regulations and laws because you know your employees can’t complain without risking their residency is a powerful tool. See: H1B abuse and OSHA abuse.)

In Europe, most immigrants (from third-world countries) are on welfare and are net welfare recipients.

see graph here

https://www.reddit.com/r/ScienceUncensored/comments/1565sti/...

from article

https://www.economist.com/europe/2021/12/18/why-have-danes-t...

Man that's one of the most surprising thing I could discover, like, ever. I've always thought that an increase in the number of workers dropped wages, and tbh the guilt has always fallen on the one who pays slave wages, not the people being paid peanuts. But that's a complete shift of paradigm, you should tell more people about it (although as he says, he probably won't change people's minds about it)

I'd rather have solidarity with other average Joes than put the guilt on them, just because they're enabling someone to pay lower wages shouldn't put the responsibility on their shoulders