this post was submitted on 22 Oct 2026
621 points (98.4% liked)
pics
30175 readers
774 users here now
Rules:
1.. Please mark original photos with [OC] in the title if you're the photographer
2..Pictures containing a politician from any country or planet are prohibited, this is a community voted on rule.
3.. Image must be a photograph, no AI or digital art.
4.. No NSFW/Cosplay/Spam/Trolling images.
5.. Be civil. No racism or bigotry.
Photo of the Week Rule(s):
1.. On Fridays, the most upvoted original, marked [OC], photo posted between Friday and Thursday will be the next week's banner and featured photo.
2.. The weekly photos will be saved for an end of the year run off.
Instance-wide rules always apply. https://mastodon.world/about
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
And? I'm talking broadly about the economy, not one particular business.
That's just deflecting from the fact that more people job seeking means lower wages, without even considering that people moving from poorer countries will typically work for less
How is that a deflection? It's a direct refutation of your central point.
When a person moves in and takes a job at a grocery store, they aren't just a customer for the grocery store. They are a customer for clothing stores, movie theaters, appliance stores, barbers, restaurants, mechanics, etc.
To simplify things to "basic supply and demand" levels: if you have 20 businesses in town which each staff at a 1:20 ratio, 20 migrants moving into town and shopping at those businesses, increases supply exactly in proportion to the increase in demand.
It's reductive, but then "basic supply and demand" is itself extremely reductive. It's a drastic simplification to illustrate basic concepts, like frictionless surfaces and spherical cows in Physics 101. "Basic supply and demand" is not how economies actually work, it's a simplified model for Econ 101.
But then you're being reductive, because that person could very well just be taking their money back home with them. Because as you say, it's not just as simple as that. The person above you has a point.
Yes, I explicitly said so. Almost as reductive as "basic supply and demand" arguments. Almost.
On the contrary, that only proves my overarching point that actual economics is more complicated than "basic supply and demand".
What you're describing is relatively common among seasonal workers, but that's an entirely different can of worms than normal migrants. Seasonal migrant workers are not competing against locals for jobs, because locals aren't applying for those jobs, which is why there's a market for seasonal migrant workers in the first place.
If they're taking their money back home with them, they aren't really the immigrants we're talking about. Immigrants are people who have made this their new home.
And again, those people are doing jobs locals don't want. They aren't seeking citizenship and applying for normal jobs, they're moving here for a season to pick fruit under the table. Locals are not competing for those jobs.
But again, it's a complicated system. "Basic supply and demand" is basically irrelevant outside the classroom. Sure it's one of many factors, but it's not the ultimate truth in a rational understanding of actual economics. It's a spherical cow.