starspangled 2 days ago

Nobody would be investing in labor intensive industry because it doesn't return as well, so there would be a huge oversupply of labor, so prices would already be at their floor.

That doesn't seem to be what's happening though.

  • llamaimperative 2 days ago

    Economic systems aren't typically describable with terms like "nobody." There's an equilibrium in investment levels between capital- and labor-intensive sectors, and that equilibrium is moving. If there was a huge oversupply of labor, then it'd make it more compelling to invest in labor-intensive sectors, which would both shift the equilibrium and eliminate the oversupply (which is what has already happened/is happening every hour of every day, thus there's no massive oversupply).

    • starspangled 2 days ago

      Right, you're replying to my hypothetical which does not describe reality. You contradict the post I first replied to, so it supports my point.

      • llamaimperative 2 days ago

        What

        Let me echo back what I understand to be your argument: “If there were accelerating returns to capital moving the equilibrium of labor/capital-intensiveness mix, then there would be no demand to further reduce the cost of labor”

        My argument is: regardless of where that equilibrium is at any given point in time, it will almost never be 0% labor-intensive, and anyone engaged in labor-intensive production would always have a preference for even lower-cost labor.

        So the answer to the question of, “why do businesses want immigration despite a more capital-intensive mix of production” is “because cheaper labor is better regardless of how much labor you need.”