Elon Musk often pretends to be racially conscious and on the side of White people, but he is also a very strong proponent of legal immigration, along with virtually every CEO of major corporations. Cheap labour is a big incentive, but it goes much deeper.

As with most of the elite these days, Elon’s wealth comes from his stock portfolio. But Elon has an advantage over the run of the mill shareholder: he can sell shares of Tesla on the open market and buy them back at a discount through his stock-based compensation package. His pay comes from options to buy his stock at a certain price, and if the market price is higher than the price at which he’s allowed to buy, he can sell his existing shares, buy the discounted shares, and it’s free money.

For example, in the years leading up to 2020, Tesla mostly traded between fifteen and twenty-five dollars. He received a huge compensation package in 2018 and, though the details are not easy to find with a quick search (they are likely buried in their public filings), they do not matter. He would have been granted options to buy stock at prices like $25, $30, possibly even $50. In the month leading up to Trump’s inauguration, Tesla was testing all time highs above $450, meaning Elon would have the right buy shares for between twenty-five and fifty dollars that are worth four hundred and fifty or so dollars. It’s free money Tesla creates out of thin air (though it dilutes the rest of the shares).

According to the latest headlines, Elon’s 2018 package is worth around one hundred and one billion dollars. Courts are not approving it, but that does not matter, as Elon is not the only person who benefits in this way. Many corporate executives receive this sort of compensation, and therefore have the incentive to continuously drive the share price higher.

The best way to keep a company’s valuation at a high level is by running it well; increasing revenue, decreasing expenses, improving earnings. But the easiest conditions in which to improve is in a “strong” economy, or at least one that is always increasing in size.

Our economy is measured in GDP, and no other factors seem to be given serious consideration. As GDP increases, so does the available revenue for a corporation to absorb. So as long as GDP increases, even moderately well managed companies will improve their earnings, and their stock price typically follows.

The easiest way to assure growth is by increasing the population, leading to a powerful lobby for immigration, as each new “Westerner” brings another set of hands for money to pass through, providing yet more opportunities to add a few dollars to bottom lines of corporate ledgers.

But shouldn’t these profits benefit employees, thus increasing everyone’s standard of living? Employees are nothing but an expense to a corporation, and expenses are to be minimized in order to maximize earnings. The needs of the shareholders out-weight the needs of the employee, and profits are funneled to the top through dividends and share buybacks, not better pay-cheques.

While many companies offer top executives options to buy in at a discount, successful companies buyback those shares- money that does not go to employees- increasing their value and net worth of their owners, making squeezing their employees an obligation in their pledge to benefit shareholders, making corporations unideal places to work.

Sending home millions of ungrateful guests would be akin to sending home GDP units, and that would create an environment in which corporate profits would shrink, and stock markets would price this new reality in quite quickly, which could cause a crash not seen since the 1930s (though our improved understanding of monetary theory should ease the impact on the average person, but that is another article). Such events would impact us all, but the most affected would be those dependent on the value of their stock portfolios. Average people who put portions of their pay into managed accounts (self-directed or otherwise) hoping for long-term increases to help them retire would see their savings shrink, but adjustments to the economy may benefit them. The biggest losers would be those who live off their wealth, accumulated through hard work or inheritance, but always dependent on ever increasing share prices.

The likes of Elon Musk may be reduced to net-worths of tens of billions in a remigration induced financial crash, and some financial empires may disappear completely. But the average person would see millions of homes come on the market, making them affordable again. And they wouldn’t be undercut by people from the third world who will work for a fraction of their pay. But the most powerful people in the world depend on an endless flow of GDP producing units, so the rich get richer and the poor get Indians, Africans, and many other sorts who are difficult to communicate with.