You're straw manning by trying to put the false words into my mouth that I'm praising an economy for just being large. I am not. I'm calling out your inconsistency with your previous post and falsely representing California's relative income inequality.
But you apparently need your memory jogged as you were CLEARLY citing GDP per capita as your means of criticizing population growth under immigration in your previous post:
America GDP went up less than population went up, so in real terms it went down, plus the distribution was regressive. The difference between America and India is GDP per capita. Is India what America wants to be?
So citing GDP per capita suits your purpose here, yet when I use it to refute your depiction of California I'm somehow abusing GDP? Neat trick. I cite the irony that I'm only "abusing" it insomuch as you are. I fully recognize its limitations as a comprehensive metric. It's only one economic indicator of many.
I was under the impression you had some economics background, but apparently you don't or you'd know wealth Gini coefficients by state aren't compiled because wealth is typically such a bitch to measure. Gini indexes of income distribution are the common currency of measuring inequality available by state where last year California ranked 7th.
Nor was the distinction between legal and illegal immigration relevant to the example you cited that immigration negatively affected GDP per capita. That's because limitations placed by capital volumes responsible for that downward pressure (e.g. fixed limitations on infrastructure growth at a slower pace than population growth) occurs irrespective of the legality of the labor pool utilizing it.
reply
share