Left wing politicians who support immigration are acting against the people they supposedly represent.

This is elementary common sense really, and is a pretty crushing example of the 'puppet on the left, puppet on the right' reality.

Lets look at this:
Firstly – Immigration directly increases the supply of labour. When there is more of something, it's worth less. Therefore lower wages.
There's an argument “lol but more demand” or “but it helps the economy”, but it simply doesn't measure up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exogenous_growth_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_growth_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth#The_neo-classical_growth_model

The problems with models like swan solow aren't relevant to this argument, please don't bother because you'll be talking through your ass. Things like non-convergence between countries have little to do with the actual immigration policies of western nations.

The long run grow path for an economy is simply the growth in population, except where there is technological advancement or increases in the level of human capital.

This means that except for this per capita real income is STAGNANT regardless of population growth.

While it's arguable that 'networking' or 'economy of scale' effects may occur through substantive population growth it's pretty spurious at best given the present size of the population in western countries. It's hardly populate or perish these days and it could also be argued that past some point there could be negative scale effects dues to the costs of overpopulation (transportation congestion, urban sprawl, ect).

So: bringing in low skilled immigrants dilutes the existing human capital stock. This means that per capita income FALLS.
Of course, we don't live in a perfectly equitable society – those who benefit from cheaper labour are almost certainly better off(if you're fortunate enough to be an employer) while SOME people HAVE to be worse off -most likely the immigrants but quite possibly others as well, such as those who compete for jobs with them.

Let me say it again – as far as neoclassical economies is concerned bringing low skilled immigrants into a country REDUCES its per capita productive capacity. The economy as a whole will grow but output per person will be LESS.
It may well benefit some segments of society but it isn't 'good for the economy' as a whole if per capita income is any guide

Now as I said before more of something means it's worth less, therefore lower wages through competition.
But there are other negative effects – for one thing costs of assimilation.
In some cases these are going to be worse (paki's in the UK) than others (Chinese/Koreans/ect pretty much anywhere), but there are social costs. Where there is crime, the costs of dealing with it are borne by the tax system and its consequences borne by those who happen to live in areas where immigrants settle – generally not the rich.

This isn't an attack on immigrants but the fact is there are costs of assimilation – it happened with European immigrants in the US as well for Christs sake.

The fact that left wing organizations and political parties howl down opposition to immigration as racist is clear evidence that they are at best useful idiots and at worse 'class traitors' or whatever similar term you want to use. The rise of anti immigration political parties, regardless of whether they are overtly racist is quite possibly a result of at least some primitive recognition by 'working class' westerners that they're being screwed. One Nation in Australia, the BNP in the UK, fuck knows how many in Europe. It shouldn't be a surprise, yet somehow it's the left that's the most vicious in attacking these groups – even though in in any other case people being poor, uneducated and generally disadvantaged would make people worthy of sympathy.
These groups don't materialize and win so much a council seat in a vacuum for goodness sake.

This isn't an attempt to attack immigrants who are already here, however it needs to be recognized that open door immigration polices HURT the working class of a nation and that it's fucking ridiculous for 'left wing' parties that supposedly represent the working class to support immigration and howl down debate on the issue, because make no mistake that's what happens.

In b4 hail hitler.

I know where you're coming from, but I don't like your chances of being listened to and receiving a logical response, especially not here in Australia.

I know where you're coming from, but I don't like your chances of being listened to and receiving a logical response, especially not here in Australia.

Lol. IRL? of course not.

Totse? hopefully :P

Lol. IRL? of course not.

Totse? hopefully :P

Awesome.

Actually, I was reading a paper a while back talking about how in some countries there exists a problem, and I can't quite remember the term, something along the lines of mismanagement or waste of human capital. Something along those lines. Anyways, it basically states that in some countries, the people are too educated, in the sense that there are more high end degrees (Medicine, etc..) than is actually in demand.

In effect, there's too many people with the education required for some jobs. Therefore, some, not all, of your argument is moot. The effects you describe happening do indeed happen by themselves.

Actually, I was reading a paper a while back talking about how in some countries there exists a problem, and I can't quite remember the term, something along the lines of mismanagement or waste of human capital. Something along those lines. Anyways, it basically states that in some countries, the people are too educated, in the sense that there are more high end degrees (Medicine, etc..) than is actually in demand.

In effect, there's too many people with the education required for some jobs. Therefore, some, not all, of your argument is moot. The effects you describe happening do indeed happen by themselves.

That depends on which countries.
There are definitely mis-allocations in human capital - I seriously doubt that's the case for medicine(at least not where I'm from, where we poach doctors from the third world), but almost certainly for law, not to mention the fact that so many people do fucking arts degrees.

But human capital is more then just degrees - besides trades and 'blue collar' qualifications, simple experience on the job is also human capital. Hell, even the simplest levels of education is. The ability to speak english (or another language) would also count. It most certainly effects somebody's ability to perform many jobs.

There's actually a school of thought which is quite interesting though, that holds that university education is largely simply 'signaling' and doesn't serve any purpose in itself. Probably more true for some degree's than others, but it's certainly interesting.

Left wing politicians who support immigration are acting against the people they supposedly represent.

This is elementary common sense really, and is a pretty crushing example of the 'puppet on the left, puppet on the right' reality.

Lets look at this:
Firstly – Immigration directly increases the supply of labour. When there is more of something, it's worth less. Therefore lower wages.
There's an argument “lol but more demand” or “but it helps the economy”, but it simply doesn't measure up.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exogenous_growth_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_growth_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_capital
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth#The_neo-classical_growth_model

The problems with models like swan solow aren't relevant to this argument, please don't bother because you'll be talking through your ass. Things like non-convergence between countries have little to do with the actual immigration policies of western nations.

The long run grow path for an economy is simply the growth in population, except where there is technological advancement or increases in the level of human capital.

This means that except for this per capita real income is STAGNANT regardless of population growth.

While it's arguable that 'networking' or 'economy of scale' effects may occur through substantive population growth it's pretty spurious at best given the present size of the population in western countries. It's hardly populate or perish these days and it could also be argued that past some point there could be negative scale effects dues to the costs of overpopulation (transportation congestion, urban sprawl, ect).

So: bringing in low skilled immigrants dilutes the existing human capital stock. This means that per capita income FALLS.
Of course, we don't live in a perfectly equitable society – those who benefit from cheaper labour are almost certainly better off(if you're fortunate enough to be an employer) while SOME people HAVE to be worse off -most likely the immigrants but quite possibly others as well, such as those who compete for jobs with them.

Let me say it again – as far as neoclassical economies is concerned bringing low skilled immigrants into a country REDUCES its per capita productive capacity. The economy as a whole will grow but output per person will be LESS.
It may well benefit some segments of society but it isn't 'good for the economy' as a whole if per capita income is any guide

Now as I said before more of something means it's worth less, therefore lower wages through competition.
But there are other negative effects – for one thing costs of assimilation.
In some cases these are going to be worse (paki's in the UK) than others (Chinese/Koreans/ect pretty much anywhere), but there are social costs. Where there is crime, the costs of dealing with it are borne by the tax system and its consequences borne by those who happen to live in areas where immigrants settle – generally not the rich.

This isn't an attack on immigrants but the fact is there are costs of assimilation – it happened with European immigrants in the US as well for Christs sake.

The fact that left wing organizations and political parties howl down opposition to immigration as racist is clear evidence that they are at best useful idiots and at worse 'class traitors' or whatever similar term you want to use. The rise of anti immigration political parties, regardless of whether they are overtly racist is quite possibly a result of at least some primitive recognition by 'working class' westerners that they're being screwed. One Nation in Australia, the BNP in the UK, fuck knows how many in Europe. It shouldn't be a surprise, yet somehow it's the left that's the most vicious in attacking these groups – even though in in any other case people being poor, uneducated and generally disadvantaged would make people worthy of sympathy.
These groups don't materialize and win so much a council seat in a vacuum for goodness sake.

This isn't an attempt to attack immigrants who are already here, however it needs to be recognized that open door immigration polices HURT the working class of a nation and that it's fucking ridiculous for 'left wing' parties that supposedly represent the working class to support immigration and howl down debate on the issue, because make no mistake that's what happens.

In b4 hail hitler.

I am a left-winger, and I agree with you. Let's shake hands.

That depends on which countries.
There are definitely mis-allocations in human capital - I seriously doubt that's the case for medicine(at least not where I'm from, where we poach doctors from the third world), but almost certainly for law, not to mention the fact that so many people do fucking arts degrees.

But human capital is more then just degrees - besides trades and 'blue collar' qualifications, simple experience on the job is also human capital. Hell, even the simplest levels of education is. The ability to speak english (or another language) would also count. It most certainly effects somebody's ability to perform many jobs.

There's actually a school of thought which is quite interesting though, that holds that university education is largely simply 'signaling' and doesn't serve any purpose in itself. Probably more true for some degree's than others, but it's certainly interesting.

Well, in my experience, loss of human capital does indeed occur. For example, I'll use my father:

He was always bright in school, and he got into his native country's top university. He attended courses there for an entire decade, and graduated as a very well trained surgeon. He practiced for several years, earned local praise, and does fine economically. Then, he was taken hostage by communist rebels. He escaped with his life, but left the country with his family (I included) forever.

Here he was, an extremely well-educated 38 year old immigrant with a family. We stayed with family for a couple months, while he looking for work. Apparently, the process for a foreign doctor to practice here was very complicated, so he had to abandon his life's passion; he was reduced to sweeping floors at Walgreen's for a living for 6 months. He told me he walked into an appointment at a hospital to present his resumé to the director of the place, looking for work. The fuck laughed in his face and escorted him out of the building.

Eventually, he took some courses for a job here, and ever since, he's kept on moving up the ladder. Currently, he makes somewhere in the 80k range per annum, my mother also contributing to the family income.

Still, his life story is a testament to the waste of human capital. His income is none to shabby, but it pales in comparison to what M.D.'s with his education, or even less, earn. I suspect his is not the only case.

Left wing politicians never truly support the worker in most cases and as such are worthless.