5 ms·
They won't pay them more because they're losing their jobs and leaving the country. They're going to earn less in Mexico. Just because they're outside the count
by Hondor 10y ago
They won't pay them more because they're losing their jobs and leaving the country. They're going to earn less in Mexico. Just because they're outside the country doesn't mean they're not human beings anymore.
By the same token, you could say "let's fire all curly haired people". Then we'll see wages rise for the remaining workers as demand meets supply and straight haired people get a good high wage. Sure, that'll happen, but that doesn't make it right or good.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoIt's good for those in the US obtaining those jobs and right for the country from a nationalist perspective. As a humanist you may not like that. As an American, I believe that's right. Stop dragging the wage base down because it's "humanitarian" for immigrants. It's not. It's just enabling abusive labor practices. Mexico's wages will rise just the same as China's as they industrialize.
- Hondor 10y agoWhat makes Americans more deserving than Mexicans? Do Americans contribute something during their childhood which is repayed as wages in adulthood? Or is it the same factor that makes whites more deserving than blacks - i.e. membership of the same in-group?
- toomuchtodo 10y agoCitizenship is membership. If you don't like it, start your own country. But that's how the current system works. I don't care the color of your skin, I expect you to follow the same rules everyone does to apply for citizenship.
- icebraining 10y agoThe question is which rules should those be.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoThe rules created by a democratic process of course. As voted on by the citizens of a country. That's how sovereignty works. Or are you advocating for removal of sovereignty for the economic benefit of citizens of other countries because "that's more moral"? Hardly.
- icebraining 10y agoYes. And as citizens (of various countries), that's what we're arguing. Just because citizens set the rules doesn't mean whatever they decide is necessarily just. EDIT: In reply to your edit, I have no idea why you'd bring up "removal of sovereignty". I don't see anyone here even hinting at that.
- jessaustin 10y agoI don't know precisely what "removal of sovereignty" means, but I suspect it means that undocumented immigrants undermine USA laws, by routinely breaking them. Even from the outside that seems different than debating (and voting) what the laws should be... One suspects you'd be more sensitive to this difference if the laws in question were those that you strongly support.
- icebraining 10y agoThe questioning of my support of sovereignty came in reply to my post saying the question is what the laws/rules should be. If the sovereignty worry is about illegal immigration, then the reply makes no sense in the context of my post.
- yummyfajitas 10y agoCitizens in the US voted for Jim Crow and it was only overturned via non-democratic means. Were these laws moral at the time? To take a modern example, will Maharashtra's proposed law against Biharis driving autos be moral if it has popular support? (Background: Marathi nationalists have - this year - proposed Jim Crow type laws against non Marathis driving taxis/auto rickshaws.)
- WaxProlix 10y agoWhich rules did you follow in order to attain membership?
- toomuchtodo 10y agoLife is not fair, nor a meritocracy. I'd love U.K. Or Canadian citizenship. Even as a US citizen, I need to get in line like everyone else.
- icebraining 10y agoMexico's wages will rise just the same as China's as they industrialize. Mexico is already industrialized. Also, the same nationalist position that opposes immigration also supports erecting trade barriers that prevent goods manufactured abroad from being competitive.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- toomuchtodo 10y agoI support erecting trade barriers to prioritize local industry over consumer excess. Lower prices don't help if you have large swaths of the rust belt in poverty. Edit: you industrialize with domestic demand. That's not a sham. That's economic stability.
- icebraining 10y agoTherefore your argument that they'll just industrialize like China is revealed to be a sham, because that was reliant on a fairly open market.
- phkahler 10y agoThe goods manufactured abroad are extremely competitive because the rules are different in other countries. Lax environmental standards, lower wages, inferior working conditions and benefits. So people fought for better conditions in the US and business simply decide it's cheaper to move outside the country than comply. When all other conditions are essentially equal then we can talk about "free trade" until then there is no such thing and trade barriers are not a bad thing. Taking care of others is a noble thing, but a nation needs to take care of its own first.
- icebraining 10y agoYou should have posted that reply to toomuchtodo, who was the one saying that Mexico should be emulating China, who's dependent on the lack of those trade barriers.
- zuminator 10y ago"As they industrialize"? Mexico's already a major industrial economy. It's not in the top tier of nations but at about US$16500 its per capital GDP is still above China's, although probably not for much longer. Unfortunately its growth rate has been sluggish like a mature economy which is part of the reason Mexicans keep looking northward for better employment. There's nothing on the horizon that would make them suddenly enter a rapid growth rate. To the contrary, returning expats will no longer be sending remittances from the US, hurting Mexico's national income, and may flood the labor market, sending wages spiraling. Plus, some of the Americans who take over Mexican jobs may not have them for long. If businesses can no longer obtain low cost labor within the country, then where possible, producers will relocate south of the border, or elsewhere, or increase mechanization efforts to decrease their costs. And where not possible, they may be priced out of the international market as the production cost of their goods shoots up.
- witty_username 10y agoDragging the wages down benefits everybody who doesn't work at that company.
- SixSigma 10y agoAnd by paying US workers the wages won't be leaving the US either.
- icebraining 10y agoThe same argument could be made to refuse hiring people from other states, cities, or even neighborhoods.
- SixSigma 10y agoIt could, yes, and has been. See Walmart vs local economies.