One million poor people enter your society tomorrow! Do you think this is generally good, bad or neutral for your society?

[Anonymous]

It is a simple question.

It is generally good for your society for one million poor people to enter it.

It is generally bad for your society for one million poor people to enter it.

It is neutral. It will have no significant impact either way.

See results.

[OneViewpoint]

ROFL, it's not a simple question unless you're simple minded and can't envision the range of potential societies that exist or could exist. If everything is black or white binary choice you'll likely fuck up the analysis and get it wrong. For instance...

Toss a million new poor immigrants into a small society like South Sudan where the economy is agrarian and not growing and the average person is already poor and you'll likely cause a humanitarian disaster.

Toss a million new poor immigrants into a large, diverse, but stagnating western society and you may fuel economic growth by providing new labor to work low wage jobs that the existing population no longer sees as attractive because they are climbing the ladder to a middle class life. Fueling growth from the bottom with immigration is a time tested method of building economic wealth in the USA for 250 years.

[Orion84]

I couldn't say whether that's good or bad, because it doesn't give me enough information.

Are they willing to work, and contribute to society in a positive way? If so, then by all means, let's find jobs for them, get some of their wages into circulation, and have them start paying taxes.

[Asker]

Well, economically even if you are paying taxes, but it's not very much, you are an economic drain on society, especially if you have kids that go to school. I mean, if I am paying 1k a year in taxes, but consuming the same amount of government services, I am not good for society economically.

[Orion84]

I will concede that point, but at the same time, if they're working, then their job may offset that, by providing a useful service that benefits society.

If they're a net neutral, by your example, but their job is something productive like, say, sewer work, construction, or even garbage collection, they'd still have a positive impact on society. I'm fine with someone consuming government services if the work they're doing is beneficial.

If they're a greeter at Walmart, or something, then I would say you have a point, at which point they aren't really contributing, but that's kind of why it's something I tend to look at on an individual basis.

I know people that have lived here all their lives, who live almost exclusively off of government handouts, and contribute nothing in return, so it's not necessarily a situation that's unique to someone that's not native to the area.

[Chazmatazz269]

That’s a perfectly pragmatic statement. There’s not enough information to determine if it’s good or bad. Are they poor because they can’t or won’t work? Or are they hardworking people who just haven’t had the opportunities to make the most of their work ethic?
That’s two completely different kinds of people. We have too many of the former already, and not nearly enough of the latter.

[NaultD]

It would be bad. Even 100,000 would be spooky.

With how global warming is going on its going to be 1,000,000,000 finding a home.

[exitseven]

it is bad. They will all expect welfare and if they do not get it they will just commit B&Es and armed robberies. They bring nothing positive.

[SotiCoto]

It is a bad thing, but I've got nothing against them personally... as almost certainly some rich arsehole put them there. The rich are the enemy.

[Godihateyou]

With AI amd the rapid development of science poor people are obsolete amd completely unnecessary. It's time to cull the heard. Depopulation now!