Homelessness was on the rise even before the pandemic

Coincidentally that's also the time when immigration was shut off and drastically curtailed.

 

Note: In Australia, the exact opposite was the case; post-war European immigration numbered in the hundreds of thousands in Australia 1946-1970 (when Keynesian economics worked well) and were employed in government-funded national infrastructure projects like the Snowy River hydro scheme. Unemployment was less than 2% for the entire period.

And in the US, unemployment rates were consistently less in 1946 to 1970, than in the post stagflation era of the 70's when Friedman's supply-side theories post Reagan became mainstream economic orthodoxy.

As for the US under Trump, immigration was reduced (if you are correct), but that was not the cause of unemployment rates going down to 3.7%. The cause was an 'unfunded' deficit increase of $1.5 trillion in tax cuts.....while interest rates and inflation remained low.

 

??

[link]

U.S. Immigration Before 1965 - HISTORY

"Immigration plummeted during the global depression of the 1930s and World War II (1939-1945). Between 1930 and 1950, America’s foreign-born population decreased from 14.2 to 10.3 million, or from 11.6 to 6.9 percent of the total population, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. After the war, Congress passed special legislation enabling refugees from Europe and the Soviet Union to enter the United States. Following the communist revolution in Cuba in 1959, hundreds of thousands of refugees from that island nation also gained admittance to the United States".

 

Well, that's very interesting. But it should be pointed out that the Australian economy only suffered at that time due to a drop in demand (from other wealthy parts of the world) for Australian exports.
So that is a little bit of a different situation, I think.

You will also see that there was a fairly significant slump in immigration to Australia during the Great Depression. It was about 40 percent less than the immigration levels now (and that is on a percentage of population basis, not absolute numbers).

 

Your claim that post war immigration to the US (1950-1970) was "drastically reduced" is wrong: see my previous post.

As for Australia, it maintained a full employment policy 1946 -1970's (via Keynesian economics) while accepting a huge refugee intake from post war Europe. The Australian economy (manufacturing) at that time was protected by high-tarriffs, so living standards in Australia were good, due to real full above-poverty employment (with no youth unemployment).

[I'm not sure why you are mentioning immigration in the GD....whether in the US or Australia...
The GD was the ultimate manifestation of the disasters that follow periods of unregulated capitalism].

 

I have no idea what you are talking about. Have you seen a graph of immigration to the US by decade?


IBK6wK2igJXgNXurG2k7HKtBO_H8Pl1l1urMlmhFZ3OXWGhqgou4_o1g0u2IgLhHuGHwvUuNPxFvWcc_mxWbd7410oOcy5vrdrRARAw (512×325) (googleusercontent.com)
Immigration 1921-1930 - 5,107,209 ; 1931-1940 - 528,431 ; 1941-1950 - 1,025,039

Sometimes I wonder why I even waste my time here, or whether it's worth it.

 

Apparently you draw the wrong conclusions from the stats, not unexpected from someone who thinks balanced government budgets will engender real full employment (and you can't work out how to solve homelessness ...duh, a tax on inner city vacancies, building government-subsidized high-rise rentals, etc. But your free-market ideology prevents you from seeing the obvious solutions).

1. The US, like Australia, has ALWAYS been a nation built on immigration.
2. After the GD and WW2, immigration started to pick up again, back up to the levels seen in 1850-1880, and 1890 1900; and then surpassing those levels 1980-2000.
3. You said: "that's also the time (ie 1946 to 1970) when immigration was shut off and drastically curtailed" .

Can't you read a chart? From 1950 on, immigration has been doubling every 20 years.

 

Let me guess .... all I have to do to qualify for this subsidised housing is live irresponsibly for a few years until my money is depleted?

So much justice :/

 

Right.

No, because food workers also have other employment opportunities, while demand for food is fairly inelastic: i.e., people will base their food choices in part on cost, but at least in wealthy countries, they don't decide to buy more or less food overall based on its average cost.

 

Demand for food has increased because you have added more people. (Yes, you've also increased supply of labor, but the number of farms pretty much does not change, or it cannot easily expand in proportion to population increase)

 

Local farms are irrelevant because food supplies easily move internationally.

 

You do realize the US is a net exporter of food?
So your comment does not apply here.

 

How could that be relevant?

It definitely and indisputably does. Food prices are set by global markets, not local labor supply.

 

You know, sometimes I really wonder why I waste my time, when others don't seem to be able to do basic thinking.

Let me ask you a question. Have you been able to follow the conversation and are you aware of the context of what we are talking about?
It's not just you, I see the same problem with lots of others in these causal conversations. You lose track of what we are talking about.

Your statement about "Local farms are irrelevant because food supplies easily move internationally" was the comment that was irrelevant.

Sorry, discussion done. I guess this is "too complicated".

(In a bad mood right now, and really don't feel like wasting my time explaining something that's probably not going to make any difference)

I think the original point was that if you add more people, wages are going to go down more than general prices are.

 

Australians need to learn Mandarin - fast.

 

I don't think Australians would be able to compete with a billion low wage hard-working Chinese.

You look at the situation right now - basically the only thing Australians have to trade to China that China wants are their natural resources - and that's not really going to increase with an increase in Australia's population.

 

To eliminate the Welfare State eliminate the minimum wage for small businesses and individuals to hire unskilled workers and provide subsidies for the unskilled labor - instant real full employment.

 

That is why Australians need to learn Mandarin before if becomes their official language.

 

Maybe this is why discussions on homelessness never really go anywhere, they splinter off into too many different directions.

As a result, real solutions never really are able to be found, or agreed upon. There isn't really enough focus. It's a complicated issue and there are almost endless directions the discussion could go in.

 

Yes.

Nope. The point is that population increase and wages are local, but food prices are not.

Sorry, discussion done. I guess this is "too complicated".

Not necessarily. It has to depend on the relevant elasticities.

Oops, too complicated, sorry.

 

No: you have to learn about macro economics, and learn why Menzies almost lost the 1960 election when unemployment ticked up from 1.9% to 2.0% in 1960 in the Keynesian years that informed government financing (1946-1960), before the Thatcher-Friedman nightmare in the post 1970's era pushed the unemployment norms above 4%.

 

It's not complicated AT ALL.

Calling it complex is an excuse for inaction. The reason things go nowhere is because most of those involved don't actually want to do anything about it, so they find 'reasons' not to.

 

Waiting for you to address my post above (#96)....too "complex" for you?

 

Well exactly... it IS a complicated macro-economic issue (as usual crank living in her micro economic world thinks its simple).

So it won't necessarily resolve according to your own free market ideology, even if you are prepared to look at unorthodox issues - which orthodox economists don't discuss - like the limits of growth (from an environment and population perspective).

Btw, did you now admit immigration to the US has been steadily climbing since 1950?

 

This is about 1/5th of 1% of Americans...how can we know if this is reasonable or not?

The US has 3.8 million square miles of territory...this is 6.7 homeless per square mile.
The US has many areas with favorable weather.
The US has a mostly friendly culture for personal security.
The US has medical clinics and emergency room care.
Some percentage of homeless prefer homelessness.
The US has ~65,000 free food banks.
The US has many charitable organizations.
The US has no legitimate public programs for mental illness and drug addictions.
The US has high cost of living in populated areas where most jobs exist.
The US is a culture of NIMBY's when it comes to providing public facilities for homelessness.

It's no surprise to me why people become homeless and stay homeless. For myriad reasons, when a person becomes homeless, either they don't possess the wherewithal to change course, or, good options are not available to them. I can imagine when becoming homeless that as each day passes, as the person finds themselves deeper in trouble, probably an exponential decline, it becomes a one-way trip to the bottom...
​