Comment by llamaimperative

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.

Reply View 5 replies

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.”

Reply View | 4 replies
- starspangled 2 days ago
  
  > What
  You're replying to basically a strawman I wrote. I didn't say that is what's happening, I said that's what would be happening if investment was all going into capital and not labor intensive industry as OP said.
  
  Reply View | 3 replies
  
  llamaimperative 2 days ago
  
  Good lord you are confused. Nobody anywhere said “all” capital is flowing into capital. You’re trapped in your own straw maze! ;)
  
  Reply View | 2 replies