Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since 1990, the US has admitted 1 million ppl on average. They primarily settle in our large cities and have been responsible for pushing out the native populations to profit handsomely by selling if they are property owners or younger/poorer/no equity ppl pushed out because they can no longer afford to buy. In So California, whole cities have been purchased from Chinese/Vietnamese (San Marino, Arcadia, Irvine, Garden Grove, Westminster, San Gabriel Valley, etc). This in turn has led to equity-rich Californians buying up properties in poorer states (Ariz, Wash, Oregon, Nevada, Colorado, Montana, Idaho & Texas) where they have raised the housing costs substantially for those native populations by paying cash for their new homes and decreasing housing inventory stock. It is a domino that repeats itself over and over again in every desirable community across the country.
Absolutely not. You can blame the NIMBY property owners for that one beyond a reasonable doubt, and Americans' appetite for single family housing in places where it makes no sense at all like all of California; when that wasn't the norm for most of this country's history.
No it hasn't. Illegal immigration has hurt us. We do need to raise the bar on what is an acceptable immigrant. 65% of legals end up on government subsidies. That is something we can and need to fix.
A lack of building low cost housing is a contributing factor. A million people per year over thirty years (OP assertion) certainly justifies an increase in supply, but it hasn't come to fruition. I don't know about elsewhere, but the low income housing in my community has a 2 year waiting list.
No it hasn't. Illegal immigration has hurt us. We do need to raise the bar on what is an acceptable immigrant. 65% of legals end up on government subsidies. That is something we can and need to fix.
The thing that I don't understand is -
in one breath a liberal will talk of automation within a couple decades killing millions of jobs and the need for more socialism to offset this...
in the next breath a liberal will attack anyone who suggests that our immigration policy shouldn't allow in low skill workers in such numbers due to the economic drain on the social safety net.
Unless immigrants are very well educated, or come in with a secure financial portfolio they can usually be observed in the secondary markets, buying used cars and older houses. This supports the primary markets as people sell off and buy up. It has always been this way.
Businesses in underserved neighborhoods are often run by immigrants, whom are generally more willing to take on the risk.
Economic expansion is driven by consumer population growth. In many modern industrial countries (such as Japan, or the USA) the birth rate has plummeted and the percentage rate of new family starts has declined. Immigrants tend to bolster the rate of economic growth proportionate to their numbers. Countries with lower average birth rates which do not accept immigrants often struggle with stagnating economies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
