Why Trump voters need the immigrants they want to turn away
The irony in President Donald Trump's hostility to immigration, expressed again in reports of his vulgar comments about Africa and Haiti last week, is that in appealing to the racial and cultural resentments of his political base he is directly threatening their economic interests.
The equation is unmistakable: as America ages, the older and blue-collar whites at the core of Trump's electoral coalition in 2016 need more working-age immigrants to pay the taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.
Without robust immigration, each American worker will need to support substantially more retirees in the future than workers do today. And that will greatly increase the pressure for either unsustainable tax increases or biting benefit reductions in the federal retirement programs that the older and blue-collar whites central to Trump's support rely upon so heavily.Trump's hostility to immigration ignores one of the central dynamics of 21st century American life: an increasingly non-white workforce will pay the taxes that support Social Security and Medicare for a rapidly growing and preponderantly white senior population.
"As every baby boomer retires over the next 15 years, we are going to need many more of these (diverse) young people to take their place," says William Frey, a demographer at the center-left Brookings Institution.
Because the US largely shut off immigration between 1924 and 1965, today's senior population is preponderantly white. Frey has calculated that three-fourths of all Americans 55 and older are white. Those older whites were the cornerstone of Trump's coalition in the 2016 election: whites over 45 gave Trump over three-fifths of their votes, and provided a majority of all the votes he received, according to exit polls.
Frey and other demographers project the white share of the senior population will decline very slowly over the coming decades-even as the total number of seniors explodes. The Social Security Trustees have forecast that the number of seniors receiving Social Security and Medicare will grow from about 48 million today to 86 million by 2050. That's an increase of nearly 40 million.
Though many Americans incorrectly think of the programs as a kind of massive 401(k) where their earlier taxes pay for their own later benefits, Social Security and Medicare are funded by what amounts to a generational compact. Each generation of workers, through their payroll taxes, funds the benefits for retirees at the same time. As the number of seniors increases, that means the US needs to increase the number of workers if it is to keep a sustainable balance between those receiving benefits from the programs and those paying the taxes that support them.
Because of the underlying child bearing and aging trends among native-born Americans, that won't be possible without immigration.Frey has calculated that from 2000 through 2016 the absolute number of whites younger than 15 -- and not just the share -- declined in 45 of the 50 states. (The only states that increased their population of whites under 15 over that period were Utah, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Carolina and Idaho.) Over those years, the total number of whites younger than 15 fell by nearly 6 million, Frey found, while the number of Hispanic, Asian and mixed race kids increased by about seven million. (The number of young African-Americans slightly declined too.)
Like other demographers, Frey projects that the 2020 Census will find that non-white kids represent a majority of all Americans younger than 18; kids of color are already a majority of all K-12 public school students.
What these numbers make clear is that, whatever Trump does to restrict immigration, there is no cavalry of white kids coming to fill the jobs that the mostly white baby boom is vacating.
Non-white young people-reinforced by future immigrants-will drive almost all of the workforce's future growth, according to widely respected projections by the non-partisan Pew Research Center.
In a detailed forecast last year, Pew examined the trajectory of the prime working-age population -- that is, ages 25 to 64 -- over the next two decades. Strikingly, it found that over that period the number of prime working-age adults whose parents were both born in the US will actually decline by over eight million. But Pew projects that loss will be offset by increases in the number of both prime-working age adults who are either the children of immigrants (13.5 million), or future immigrants themselves (17.6 million).
Looking further ahead, Pew has calculated that under current levels of immigration, the workforce will increase by about 30 million people through 2065-virtually equal to the increase in the senior population over coming decades. Almost all of that workforce growth will come from immigrants and their children, which Pew projects to account for fully 88% of the nation's total population increase over that period.
A growing workforce would ease the fiscal pressure that the expanding senior population will impose on Social Security and Medicare. But Trump's efforts to reduce legal immigration would consign the U.S. to virtually no growth in the workforce, Pew projects. Trump has endorsed legislation from Republican Sens. Tom Cotton of Arkansas and David Perdue of Georgia, two attendees at last Thursday's explosive White House meeting, that would cut the total level of legal immigration in half. Pew projects that under that level of future legal immigration, the size of the workforce will remain virtually stagnant over the next half century.
If the workforce remains essentially unchanged while the senior population grows by 40 million, each worker will be required to fund 80% more seniors than they do now. That demographic imbalance represents a political tourniquet that will inexorably increase pressure for cuts in Social Security and Medicare -- a prospect that polls show are anathema to the older and working-class whites Trump relies on.
"We shouldn't be shutting the door on this (immigration)," Frey says. "Trump ... is really putting us in a very difficult situation demographically and also economically in the future."
Yet Trump, like many congressional Republicans and conservative commentators, almost always portrays immigrants as economic, cultural and security threats. From the outset, Trump's coalition has been centered on the voters -- primarily older, blue-collar, evangelical and rural whites -- most uneasy about the growing number of immigrants and demographic change more broadly.
Voters who supported deporting all undocumented immigrants represented a minority in almost all the Republican primaries in 2016 -- yet provided a majority of Trump's votes in almost all of those contests.
Pew Research polls last year found that the strongest predictors of warm feelings toward Trump were agreement with the ideas that the growing number of immigrants "threatens traditional American customs and values," that Islam is inherently more violent than other religions and that growing diversity overall was bad for the country.
In the general election against Hillary Clinton, Trump won 26 of the 30 states with the smallest share of foreign-born residents and lost 16 of the 20 with the most. And in a national NBC/Wall Street Journal poll last September, Trump voters from 2016 were nearly five times as likely as Clinton voters to say immigration weakens, rather than strengthens, the nation.
Trump portrays his drive to slash legal immigration as standing up for the economic interests of the American-born working-class. But the National Academy of Sciences, in an exhaustive study, found "little evidence" that immigration had affected employment levels for native-born workers, and a "very small" impact on the wages of lower-skilled Americans that was confined largely to native-born adults who had not finished high school and recent immigrants themselves, two relatively small groups.
Even Trump's call for prioritizing economically based immigration over family reunification obscures the central implication of his proposal -- which is to severely reduce the total number of legal immigrants. By contrast, the comprehensive immigration reform bill that stalled in the House after if passed the Senate with bipartisan support in 2013 tilted the overall balance more toward high-skills immigrants and limited some forms of family reunification without cutting total legal immigration, as Trump, Cotton and Perdue are demanding.
In his repeated appeals to nativist sentiments, and his multiplying efforts to reduce immigration and remove immigrants (such as those from El Salvador), Trump may indeed be reflecting the racial and cultural anxieties of many of his voters. But the principal economic impact of slashing immigration as deeply as Trump is seeking would be to destabilize the federal retirement programs that are indispensable to those same voters. With his systematic offensive against immigration, Trump is feeding the prejudices of some of his supporters -- while threatening their ability to keep food on the table when they retire.http://www.cnn.com/2018/01/16/politics/trump-voters-immigration/index.html
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
386 visitors
The irony in President Donald Trump's hostility to immigration, expressed again in reports of his vulgar comments about Africa and Haiti last week, is that in appealing to the racial and cultural resentments of his political base he is directly threatening their economic interests.
The equation is unmistakable: as America ages, the older and blue-collar whites at the core of Trump's electoral coalition in 2016 need more working-age immigrants to pay the taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare.
Really, and what jobs will they find?
Almost half of all jobs could be automated by computers within two decades and "no government is prepared" for the tsunami of social change that will follow, according to the Economist.
The magazine's 2014 analysis of the impact of technology paints a pretty bleak picture of the future.
In the face of this is continued mass immigration a good idea?
Maybe you should ask Trump....seeing as though he makes it a point to hire more Haitians than any other country to serve him, clean his rooms, and cook his foods every time he comes to his "Winter White House"!
I'm not a Trump supporter, so b/s like this isn't going to work.
Oh! I will work for the simple fact you are feeding into his rhetoric with this so called mass immigration façade, which is just a smoke screen. Regarding jobs and his businesses Trump could care less what color you are as long as you work for pennies but in regards to the demographics of America he very much has a white vision he wants to enact!
Oh! I will work for the simple fact you are feeding into his rhetoric with this so called mass immigration façade, which is just a smoke screen.
I've been arguing this since the old MNS board days, that's 9 years ago.
Try to understand, that I hold different opinions from you doesn't make me a Trump supporter.
Your posts claims are merely a lazy attempt to dismiss my position.
Regarding jobs and his businesses Trump could care less what color you are as long as you work for pennies but in regards to the demographics of America he very much has a white vision he wants to enact!
This isn't about Trump, what part of that can't you grasp?
OK, interesting links, both the original and some of those others on the side.
but the doom and gloom Economist article is from 2014 and bemoans the 'startling high unemployment ' rates.
Last UE rate for the US is 4.1%. I see where the UK's rate had dropped from just over 7% in 2014 to 4.3 in Oct 2017 and appears to trending even lower.
China, if you can believe them, posts UE rates of approximately 4.5% average back to 1992 despite decades of 'automation creep".
Loved the conclusion.
Last UE rate for the US is 4.1%. I see where the UK's rate had dropped from just over 7% in 2014 to 4.3 in Oct 2017 and appears to trending even lower.
2.9%, really, the A.I./Robotic revolution is in it's infancy, you aren't going to see the vast changes for a few years yet.
As for automation creep, we aren't talking about traditional automation, that only really heavily impacted on blue collar jobs.
A.I./Robotics is a different kettle of fish.
This isn't the only warning
Artificial intelligence and increasing automation is going to decimate middle class jobs, worsening inequality and risking significant political upheaval, Stephen Hawking has warned.
Is this a certainty?
No, it is however an issue worth looking at.
I believe it's an issue the argument for immigration ignores.
I've been to a few automated dairies. I'm told that the cows prefer the machines over some people, lol.
It isn't just dairies, eventually all aspects of farming will be transferable to A.I./Robotics.
It all depends on costs, an A.I./Robotic factory producing A.I. controlled Robots should be rather cost effective.
Damn SP, you speak cow?? I can't speak a moo of it. I have to get my cat to translate for me.
Define "mass" immigration.
The US loses over 2 million a year to old age/ death by natural causes.
The reproductive rate is slightly less than necessary to sustain our current numbers.
The current Administration wants to toss out a million DACA residents and TPS residents from El Salvador and Haiti.
They are also threatening deportation of millions more people from Central America while beating the 'foreign terrorism' drums.
Legal immigration needs to be tailored by these numbers. Robotics is a valid consideration.
Eligibility for military service is another.
Define "mass" immigration.
Almost unfettered immigration, as we saw in Britain under Labour.
Think of it as a level of immigration that reverses the falling population of a nation.
The US loses over 2 million a year to old age/ death by natural causes.
Which is a good thing, countries with smaller populations will be able to ride out the coming technological revolution with less disruption.
The larger the population the greater likelihood of social disruption, unless you can reskill everyone that is.
The reproductive rate is slightly less than necessary to sustain our current numbers.
Again a good thing, you simply aren't going to need a large population to maintain productivity.
The current Administration wants to toss out a million DACA residents and TPS residents from El Salvador and Haiti.
If they don't have skill sets you need I see no issue with this.
They are also threatening deportation of millions more people from Central America while beating the 'foreign terrorism' drums.
I don't agree with such deceptions, don't they think Americans are intelligent enough to be told the truth?
Legal immigration needs to be tailored by these numbers. Robotics is a valid consideration.
If this means what I think it does yes, tailored, or targeted immigration of those with the skill sets America needs.
Eligibility for military service is another.
Only in the short term, the military is one of the sectors where A.I./Robotics will take over almost completely.
that will suck for China and India.............
The countries that develop these weapon systems first will have a huge advantage.
This is why I don't think America will hold back developing such systems, despite the concerns voiced, it simply can't afford to do so.
Already there. This is a modern day soldier:
And he will be replaced.
What I'm talking about are autonomous weapons systems.
This is the same sort of "logic" that caused Merkel to open the gates to the barbarian hordes to kill and rape her citizens. It hasn't worked out so well for her.
Are we going to allow every illegal one free murder per year just like a jury in San Francisco did?
Let's try to stay on topic.
The article isn't about Merkel, Germany, Muslims or previous illegal American immigration.
It's about the statistics and the economy managing our legal immigration into the USA to keep our population from shrinking.
USA is suffering from overpopulation. The burden on younger generation of supporting their parents will be less than the pain that continued overpopulation would bring them
The whole world is overpopulated.
There is always going to be a threat of conflict.
It's like an arms race, seemingly without end.
Quite correct Charger. The problem seems to be that no one wants to apply the Law of Supply and Demand to labor. If we can keep the population low, and have fewer workers available by strict immigration enforcement (thus reducing the supply of labor), while the available work to be done remains the same or is reduced by automation at a lower rate than the decrease in the available work force; then each of those workers will get a larger piece of the GDP pie. That means that those workers will be paying higher overall amounts of Social Security and Income taxes, even though the rates remain the same or go down. That should take care of any problems with the solvency in the Social Security system, if the Federal Government does not continue to steal the earmarked funds for its own purposes (buying votes) as it has been doing for the last 50 years.
This is basic economics. If the supply of a product (labor) drops in relation to the demand for that product, the price paid for that product will increase.
The whole world is overpopulated.
There is always going to be a threat of conflict.
Neither the people nor the government of the United States are, in any way responsible for taking care of the rest of the world. Their overpopulation is their problem.
Very well stated
"as America ages, the older and blue-collar whites at the core of Trump's electoral coalition in 2016 need more working-age immigrants to pay the taxes that fund Social Security and Medicare."
Funny, how the Left loves to say we need more immigrants, instead of saying we need more Smart U.S. kids/people to get their ASS to work in this country.
Since Liberals say we need Immigrants to fund Americans, is that a round-a-bout way of saying America needs SLAVES again ?
I'm sure you've noticed the continuing trend to monthly record breaking UE rates........what happens when we drop below 3%, which is actually probable.
There aren't enough American kids in the pipeline to replace the aging civilian workers or retiring military members. in fact they are declining due to lower birth rates.
As AFM has stated AI Robots may replace some of them, but when?
Planning is imperative, closing our doors is not the answer, unless you also want a smaller military, which no one seems to favor.
Doubtful, as slaves don't earn wages or pay taxes or FICA....
Sure they do....at least that is what we are told these days.
"There aren't enough American kids in the pipeline to replace the aging civilian workers or retiring military members."
The Sweden Problem ...... To many taking, and not enough contributing ?
We'll need a huge influx of smart immigrants after trumpsters abolish the Dept. of Education and we're left with a bunch of kids that have goober educations from a teavangelical madrasa. Teapublican employers of undocumented workers already pay them slave wages, when they think they can get away with it. Funny, I thought the rightwing would be a lot more adept at grasping the concept of economic forecasts that actually involved moving goalposts.
When does that happen ?
Never.