Immigration and multiculturalism news

[SoliFortissimi]

If the companies of the world's greatest economy cannot afford to hire native workers, they deserve to go bankrupt.

But they can afford it. And the ones who cannot do go bankrupt. So I wonder what your problem even is?

BTW, do you support a Minimum Wage?

Yes, and he's not had the GOP hold his feet to the fire over it because they've been acting retarded about the Ukraine and Israel aid.

True enough. The GOP are idiots.

No, not when those workers are often in the nation illegally, and not when imported labor bring import problem not already existent in the native worker base.

As well, imported labor cannot be trusted to certain jobs in the military industrial complex or strategic industries, like shipyards that died when Reagan cut their subsidies and offshored so much US ship production to South Korea, Japan, and the CCP.

The USN doesn't have the skilled worker base it needs to keep the fleet numbers up because the civie shipyard subsidies disappeared under Reagan and Friedmans watch, same with many other industries in teh US where the skilled worker base evaporated because the work was shipped overseas and illegals cannot build CVNs or Boomers or even logistical ships.

Cool, so hire qualified workers for both. Or are you trying to set up a strawman where unqualified immigrant workers are going to get preference over qualified native workers because.....I dunno, corporations hate profit?

That sounds like the same logic radfems use to support the wage gap myth.

Teddy Roosevelt is on Mount Rushmore, not Reagan, and you may hate the Roosevelt's but there is another brand of Right besides what Reagan and Friedman have offered.

Roosevelt's have also not lost the respect of the middle and parts of the liberals, unlike Reagan, and offer a better type of conservatism, a conservatism of the environment, of economic prosperity under fair (not free) trade, and not just cloaked Prosperity Gospel Evangelism like Reagan and Friedman offer.

Reagan's legacy also gave us the Bush family, lest you forget, and that means Reagan gets partial credit for all of Bush Sr and Bush Jr's fuck's ups too.

Really reaching here, because Bush Sr didn't get along with Reagan and hated his economic model. He's the one who was attacking it as "Voodoo economics". And Roosevelt has nothing to do with anything here.

Now I come to think of it, maybe Reagan should be put on Mt Rushmore. He damn well deserved it. That man was far more of a national hero than Teddy Roosevelt ever was, and thrice as much as FDR.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

But they can afford it. And the ones who cannot do go bankrupt. So I wonder what your problem even is?

Evidently they cannot, as they almost universally exploit either quasi-slave-labor in the form of immigrants, or literal slaves in China/India/etc.

 

[Bacle]

Cool, so hire qualified workers for both. Or are you trying to set up a strawman where unqualified immigrant workers are going to get preference over qualified native workers because.....I dunno, corporations hate profit?

That sounds like the same logic radfems use to support the wage gap myth.

No, it's because this problem has been there for so long no one is going into those trades in the US in numbers needed, so the technical education base for it, and the more important lived work experience, has steadily vanished with each retirement or death from old age, without the native replacements for it in the pipeline, and in some cases the whole damn technical education pipeline for said jobs is almost non-existent because demand for the education disappeared in the US because people like you kept importing H1Bs from places without OSHA or the EPA to make their labor 'expensive' in the views of people like Friedman.

The workers needed now needed to be in the pipeline years ago, maybe decades ago for some professions, and when barely any work for those positions is going to people from the US, the technical education system for them in the US vanished too.

Warship capable welders and worker do not grow out of the ether of economic charts, nor do shipyards capable of building warship usually stay in business 'for a rainy day/Pearl Harbor' if the government isn't paying them to keep their highly trained and qualified staff on payroll when private work is scare.

The Friedman model of economics treats workers like universally interchangable lego pieces with nudges via wages and benefit, not living beings that need years, maybe decades of costly and sometimes tedious or hazardous education and training before they can 'slot' into their 'ideal' position in Friedman's economic model.

And 'buy local, hire local' may not be great for mega-corps, but that's why we need more Roosevelt style trust-busting, so the economic power of the entire US is no longer centered on and decided in corporate boardrooms, but by small businesses being the norm instead of the exception, outside of specialized niches.

Fair-trade, not 'free-trade' as defined by Friedman's poorly cloaked Prosperity Gospel, is what the US needs.

Really reaching here, because Bush Sr didn't get along with Reagan and hated his economic model. He's the one who was attacking it as "Voodoo economics". And Roosevelt has nothing to do with anything here.

Now I come to think of it, maybe Reagan should be put on Mt Rushmore. He damn well deserved it. That man was far more of a national hero than Teddy Roosevelt ever was, and thrice as much as FDR.

No, just not worshipping the golden calf of the Boomer GOP, and calling Reagan's legacy for what it is/was.

Bush Sr. came out of Reagan's CIA and his cadre of foreign affairs people.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Evidently they cannot, as they almost universally exploit either quasi-slave-labor in the form of immigrants, or literal slaves in China/India/etc.

They can. But the lower wage workers are cheaper.

snip

Look, man, I don't even understand what your argument is now. How can imported workers be driving the natives out of an industry they aren't qualified to join?

The reason they aren't joining those trades isn't because of immigrants, it's because they have better jobs to apply to. Shipbuilding just isn't a great profession anymore, thanks to Unions and government regulators ganging up to cut their nose (ie drive down profits) to spite their face (hurt businesses).

And Bush Sr was CIA director before Reagan was President. Don't you try and foist the blame for that treacherous idiot on the greatest President the US has had since Lincoln.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

The tragedy of American ship building (same as Britain) is that the Neoliberals try to run everything like a corporation: maximise profit, efficiency cuts, etc.

Trouble is, there are some things where that approach is inappropriate, especially in regards to strategic assets or the armed forces. Efficiency cuts look good on a spreadsheet, not on the battlefield. And as is the case with industry you have the knock on effects of wiping out entire communities who built their livelihood on that industry, ultimately impoverishing them. This can often prove far more costly in the long run, but “long term investment” is not a thing that exists in the Neoliberal vocabulary.

Adherence to ideology above all is the death of good legislation.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

“long term investment” is not a thing that exists in the Neoliberal vocabulary.

Buzzword. All investments are for the future. Companies often run at a loss for a decade or more before they start making profits.

What we don't want to do is to plan for a fictitious future. That's at the level of those Rapture Cults which tell their members to give away all their possessions because the Rapture's due anytime now.

 

[Cherico]

Only because Biden was a coward.

If the workers of the world's greatest economy can't compete with imported workers from third world countries, they deserve to lose their jobs.

And don't be ungrateful. Conservatism would be dead in America if not for Reagan, and in fact it started a steep decline after his death. Reagan was the last time a Republican President won the popular vote, won nearly all the states, won reelection, without needing to start a ruinous war for it.

Without Reagan, the Republican Party is as good as dead.

You know there was a country that thought that way, about imported workers.

It was called Mexico and the man who led it was named Profio Diaz, that ended in the single worse revolution in mexican history....

 

[SoliFortissimi]

Profio Diaz

Brought about a golden era of economics, but went down to electoral fraud.

This is why democracy is integral for neoliberal economics.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I’d like to add that no one actually thinks themselves “above” dirty jobs, it’s just that living in the Western World is bloody expensive and these jobs simply don’t pay enough. People would clean toilets if it paid the bills.

That's kinda funny b/c many 'dirty jobs' actually do pay a living wage.
Now if you're referring to 'unskilled' labor that a lot of illegals are doing...yes, those don't pay well.

 

[Poe]

Because Elon Musk is totally applicable to the millions of completely uneducated glorified slave labor workers who will not assimilate and will just lower the standard of living for the nations they invade?
Also pretty certain commies prefer immigration, not trying to prevent it lmao.

Look I can be offensive as hell and I share many views that simply would not be tolerated on this website, but even I wouldn't say that we should go out of our way to actively harm other nations, as shit-hole as they may be. I'd rather they all get better, not worse.

I wouldn't bother, these peoples economics is meme-tier and they unironically believe economic nationalism is the real communism and not, you know, globalist commies.

 

[Abhorsen]

Because Elon Musk is totally applicable to the millions of completely uneducated glorified slave labor workers who will not assimilate and will just lower the standard of living for the nations they invade?
Also pretty certain commies prefer immigration, not trying to prevent it lmao.

Again, your conclusion was correct. The issue is with how you got there. That 'glorified slave labor'? That will help the economy a lot. It's free labor practically, how could it not help the economy?

Also, commies have traditionally opposed immigration on the basis of losing power of the working class. Now stuff is flipped though.

The issue isn't the economy, it's the other things they bring with them (culture, crime, etc).

Look I can be offensive as hell and I share many views that simply would not be tolerated on this website, but even I wouldn't say that we should go out of our way to actively harm other nations, as shit-hole as they may be. I'd rather they all get better, not worse.

No. I don't care about those countries, I want the US to be the best. I have no obligation to them to be good or bad. Elon Musk stuck in South Africa would be no where near as great.

It's not Reagan's face on Mount Rushmore.

... Because it was built before he was alive. Reagan defeated the USSR, he'd be on there if there was any justice.

The tragedy of American ship building (same as Britain) is that the Neoliberals try to run everything like a corporation: maximise profit, efficiency cuts, etc.

The tragedy of American Shipping is the Jones Act.




People here are making the worst arguments, btw. Immigration makes GDP go up, because cheap labor is less expensive than machines. But the issue isn't jobs: jobs that an H1B apply to can (usually) be outsourced if immigration doesn't happen. Illegal immigrants take jobs because the law makes it advantageous to hire them (all of the regulations aren't there, no payroll tax, etc).

The issue with immigration is culture and crime and welfare.

I wouldn't bother, these peoples economics is meme-tier and they unironically believe economic nationalism is the real communism and not, you know, globalist commies.

Economic nationalism is semi-dumb. Trade is US policy for a reason, it's enormously beneficial to the US and its citizens. It also expands our power. All of our full free trade agreements are beneficial to both sides. The one time it's not dumb is when you are trading with an enemy, as they benefit too. Which is why we should trade freely with most countries, but not China.

 

[Poe]

Economic nationalism is semi-dumb. Trade is US policy for a reason, it's enormously beneficial to the US and its citizens. It also expands our power. All of our full free trade agreements are beneficial to both sides. The one time it's not dumb is when you are trading with an enemy, as they benefit too. Which is why we should trade freely with most countries, but not China.

Yet the US built up its position on the world via economic nationalism. High tariffs on foreign goods were the norm from the birth of the nation until the 1960s. If you haven't noticed, removing them has hollowed out the US economy and left large swathes of its people desperate and turning to truly fringe economic (and political) ideologies.

Yes some immigrants have created lots of wealth, but those skew the numbers when the truth is that most do not do this. It's possible to take in the Musks of the world without letting in millions of dirt poor and unskilled people a year, actually.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

People here are making the worst arguments, btw. Immigration makes GDP go up, because cheap labor is less expensive than machines. But the issue isn't jobs: jobs that an H1B apply to can (usually) be outsourced if immigration doesn't happen. Illegal immigrants take jobs because the law makes it advantageous to hire them (all of the regulations aren't there, no payroll tax, etc).

The issue with immigration is culture and crime and welfare.

“Mass influx of semi-slave labour doesn’t fuck over the unskilled jobs market you silly statist.”

Lolberts gonna lolbert I suppose. Is it any surprise your epoch has lead to utter disaster…

 

[Abhorsen]

Yet the US built up its position on the world via economic nationalism. High tariffs on foreign goods were the norm from the birth of the nation until the 1960s. If you haven't noticed, removing them has hollowed out the US economy and left large swathes of its people desperate and turning to truly fringe economic (and political) ideologies.

It absolutely hasn't. This is simply a wrong take. US median real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income rose a huge amount since the 60s. Taxes were also drastically reduced, so that more people get more of their money. The 60s was actually a time of drastically unfucking our economy from the semi-socialism of FDR.

More, the middle class hasn't been hollowed out. In fact, most of the much talked about 'decline' of the middle class is actually the middle class improving to the upper class.

“Mass influx of semi-slave labour doesn’t fuck over the unskilled jobs market you silly statist.”

Lolberts gonna lolbert I suppose. Is it any surprise your epoch has lead to utter disaster…

I didn't say it didn't fuck over the unskilled job market. Just that screwing that up doesn't affect the US economy at large. The unskilled job market getting fucked does great things for the GDP, for example. But that's irrelevant when that much crime comes over.

 

[Poe]

It absolutely hasn't. This is simply a wrong take. US median real (i.e. inflation adjusted) income rose a huge amount since the 60s. Taxes were also drastically reduced, so that more people get more of their money. The 60s was actually a time of drastically unfucking our economy from the semi-socialism of FDR.

It has. It's literally insane to argue otherwise when its evident to every person who lives in this country. "Income" may have kept of with inflation but relative to the cost of living you have to be acting in bad faith to argue otherwise. Entire generations are now waiting until middle age before they can afford a house, it requires huge levels of debt for the average person to get an education, etc.

Also this doesn't change the fact that large swathes of the country have lost out economically forcing their children to flee to cities.

More, the middle class hasn't been hollowed out. In fact, most of the much talked about 'decline' of the middle class is actually the middle class improving to the upper class.

This is also a lie. This stat goes off counting people making 100k a year as "upper class" which isn't the case outside of small towns that have, as I stated, lost most of their economy to de-industrialization. Anyway, this is all an aside to the point that the US built itself up via the very things free trade tards argue is the worst way to run an economy. It's a running joke in economic circles that the nations that do the opposite of what is commonly accepted as "most efficient" are the ones who build economic powerhouses while nations who try to go fully free trade are impoverished and exploited shitholes.

I didn't say it didn't fuck over the unskilled job market. Just that screwing that up doesn't affect the US economy at large. The unskilled job market getting fucked does great things for the GDP, for example. But that's irrelevant when that much crime comes over.

Yes it does. Crime and political instability are negative externalities

 

[Abhorsen]

It has. It's literally insane to argue otherwise when its evident to every person who lives in this country. "Income" may have kept of with inflation but relative to the cost of living you have to be acting in bad faith to argue otherwise.

... Inflation is literally how the cost of living is tracked. That's literally how inflation is calculated. Do you not know what inflation is?

They literally come up with a basket of goods based on what people buy (including housing), then track the price of that basket of goods. And I mean everything people buy. This is called the CPI. Then you track the price of the CPI, and it tells how inflation is going in aggregate.

Also this doesn't change the fact that large swathes of the country have lost out economically forcing their children to flee to cities.

... This is only reversing now. For decades beforehand, leaving for the city was much more normal. This was happening in the 40s. This happened in the 50s. It happened in the 1800s for that matter.

This is also a lie. This stat goes off counting people making 100k a year as "upper class" which isn't the case outside of small towns that have, as I stated, lost most of their economy to de-industrialization.

Yes, it absolutely is the case that people earning 100k/year are upper class. How out of touch are you? If you don't feel upperclass and you earn $100k/year, you are the problem. You can save so much money on 100k/year it's not even funny. I saved significant money/year off of $60k per year living alone. If you can't do that at $100k, you can't do that at $200k.

Also, again you are wrong. The small towns lost their economies because of industrialization. Industrialization is an urbanizing force. It creates factories in cities that people will move to for jobs. It lowers the number of people needed to run a farm per acre, and lowers the number of people needed to operate a mine.

Industrialization is one of the major reasons small towns shrank: there was no industry. So instead cities and suburbs replaced them. Only now, with the remote job surge because of covid and the crime in cities do we see some resurgence in small towns.

Yes it does. Crime and political instability are negative externalities

They are externalities, they don't have massive effects. Certainly not to the extent that the negative externalities out do the GDP benefits of slave labor. Just look at how GDP has been doing: number went up. Yet everyone knows the economy sucks.

Why do people think it's a bad economy when the GDP is going up? Because people are having about 3 jobs and don't see the benefits. Only illegal immigrants and the stock market are seeing the benefits right now.

 

[strunkenwhite]

This may be a classic case of the disconnect between "the economy is doing well" and "the people are doing well". Some try to solve the problem by saying that an economy that doesn't help the people is by definition not doing well, but in that case it's probably better to go straight to the actual question without invoking the economy.

 

[ThatZenoGuy]

This may be a classic case of the disconnect between "the economy is doing well" and "the people are doing well". Some try to solve the problem by saying that an economy that doesn't help the people is by definition not doing well, but in that case it's probably better to go straight to the actual question without invoking the economy.

When you're rich (or pretending to be), you want the economy to be doing well.
When you're not rich, you want the people to be doing well.

Its great when people say their country is doing great, as their major cities are glorified third-world shitholes. I like how recently it was revealed a shitload of houses in Britain/London are fake, they're not even real houses with people living in them, they just have stickers on the windows/doors/etc to make them look real.

 

[Abhorsen]

This may be a classic case of the disconnect between "the economy is doing well" and "the people are doing well". Some try to solve the problem by saying that an economy that doesn't help the people is by definition not doing well, but in that case it's probably better to go straight to the actual question without invoking the economy.

That's definitely the case right now. Right now, the GDP is doing great, but people are suffering. One of the main drivers of this, IMO, is inflation.

The people that benefit from inflation are the "middle class", defined as far as this post is concerned as those with a significant mortgage that isn't paid off yet. This also applies somewhat to people with huge student loan debts too. They are (technically) deeply in debt, but this debt is at a low fixed rate. Inflation inflates away the principle of the debt, meaning they actually make money by accident. Note that most of the people benefitting from this just notice that the prices go up, and don't realize how lucky they got. The other thing is that this is a long term benefit, not a short term one, they still experience the short term impact that the lower class does

The lower class is the one most hurt by inflation, with lower class defined here as not owning a house or having a very cheap house that's paid off. In general, these people (I'm one of them) are on a fixed income, like a salary, hourly wage, or welfare checks. The issue is that wages are sticky: they don't change immediately with the market. Your boss doesn't just hand you an inflation raise, for example. Usually, the only way to increase pay is to switch jobs. They bare the full brunt of inflation, as they income is the same, but their costs rise. Moreover, if they have savings, its usually in cash or a bank account, which doesn't move with inflation like a stock does.

As for the wealthy, inflation simply doesn't affect the wealthy (with a few exceptions that I'll get to soon). All of their money is invested, and so when the market adjusts to the inflation, wealthy people's chief source of pay does as well. Sure, there can be some knock on effects as customers are hurt and so can't buy as much, but these are trickle up effects from those that are really bleeding.

The exception? Remember the mortgages I mentioned? Well since some people got a windfall, others took a beating. Specifically small banks that hold the mortgage: suddenly their monthly payment isn't worth as much as it was last month. This can and has driven many small banks in America out of business. The mass inflation during the Carter & Reagan years caused a huge number of small bank failures.

The huge and rapid inflation we had under Biden caused this. It was the single greatest transfer of wealth in history, from the poor to the companies that got paid. The GDP kept going, but people know they got screwed economically.

 

[SoliFortissimi]

I fancy that if the GOP can focus less on abortion (which turns away all young and most older women) and more on economic issues, this one will be a cinch.

....so naturally, that's not what they will do.