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.

[–] agamemnonymous@sh.itjust.works 1 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago)

But then you're being reductive

Yes, I explicitly said so. Almost as reductive as "basic supply and demand" arguments. Almost.

Because as you say, it's not just as simple as that. The person above you has a point.

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.