• FreedomAdvocate
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    If you believe that you’re way too far gone.

    The entire reason that they say that is because there will be “less workers to build houses” lol. It’s based on the ridiculous and false idea that all these immigrants we’re bringing in are building houses, which they aren’t because we’ve brought them in in record numbers yet houses aren’t being built at record numbers, are they?

    Also you ignored all this from the article didn’t you? Why is that?

    On the other hand, a smaller labour force means employers have to compete harder to attract workers.

    That means wages would be 7.5% higher after 10 years of no migration, and the unemployment rate would be 0.2 percentage points lower than the base case.

      • FreedomAdvocate
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        can you point out the part of the article

        Sure, right here:

        That’s because, Rynne says, the lower demand for housing is overwhelmed by the drop in the number of workers available to build homes.

        I honestly dont understand how anyone can deny that increasing demand without accordingly increasing supply, which we factually are not, hurts availability and affordability. Like, this is supply and demand 101. It’s one of the most basic concepts in business, and the entire world.

        Keep throwing around insults because you can’t actually have a good discussion, it definitely makes you look smart.