5 ms·

Silicon Valley tech billionaires who will be un-impacted personally by migration, complain when they no longer have a cheap source of labour. The Valley isn't

Silicon Valley tech billionaires who will be un-impacted personally by migration, complain when they no longer have a cheap source of labour. The Valley isn't going to be hosting migrants and they aren't going to be competing against unskilled migrant labour. Why is it walls are just fine around LAs mansion estates and in closed gated communities, but as soon as the general populace wants them they become bad?

serge2k 10y ago
Google said this impacts ~180 employees total. is that really enough to impact salaries? Maybe, just maybe, these sons and daughters of immigrants and refugees are just as disgusted by the actions of Trump (and Bannon) as the millions of others.
a_j_c 10y ago
I'm so tired of seeing all the blog posts and comments that think our problems are due to Trump and Republicans instead of taking a look at our own "progressive" party. Sure, Trump and the GOP are fucked up, but so are the Dems and the tech community seemed perfectly fine fawning over our "tech president" when he was bailing out the billionaires, expanding state surveillance powers, and ordering the murder of thousands with drones. Whenever I mention how the corporate Dems have been selling us out for years and we need to light a fire under their ass to work for our interests, I'm immediately ostracized from my fellow "progressives."
- grzm 10y ago
  I can see what you're against. What are you for? What do you support? In particular now? For example, are you happy with the Executive Order regarding immigration?
- mc32 10y ago
  The biggest thing against Hillary, geopolitically, was her hawkishness and the posture against a nuclear Russia. Obama-Putin was very rocky. Hillary-Putin would have been an abysmal and possibly dangerous relationship. Avoiding a hot war in Eastern Europe is worth the people affected by the new immigration bans.
  - JPLeRouzic 10y ago
    In the past there was also people willing to deal with Germany when it tried to invade parts of Czechoslovakia. We can see how it was successful.[0] I am in favor of peace as it is the best state for humanity to strive. But to maintain peace, we must have a good strategy, not a call to people like Putin such as "Please do anything you like". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
    - mc32 10y ago
      It's about striking a balance and it looks like some of Putin's actions were due to his thinking he was "provoked" by Nato expansion into his backyard and his being an authoritarian could not allow himself to look like a supplicant or submissive to Us action in the area so he goes about and dusts things up a bit. I think Obama and his advisers sorely missed someone like a Condoleezza or a Cohen, etc. people who would give him some good insight into Putin's thinking and why he acts the way he does. I mean, at the end of the Obama presidency US-Russia relations were hotting up beyond my comfort.
derenrich 10y ago
I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things. Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but that's where the similarity ends. Example 1: Mansion walls are unlikely to create diplomatic tensions with one of the US's major trading partners whereas a wall with Mexico would likely do that. Example 2: The Mexican wall will likely require lots of eminent domain seizures of private land. Mansions walls require none. Example 3: The mexican wall will impact net flows of illegal migrants between the US and Mexico. Private walls do not. Sane arguments for or against this wall are inapplicable to private walls. This equivalency is pointless. Your argument is spurious.
- legostormtroopr 10y ago
  My biggest concern is a group of people who will be unimpacted are dictating terms to the rest of us. I feel there is a strong comparison between private gated communities and strong borders (not necessarily walls).
  - derenrich 10y ago
    Gated communities mean they are unimpacted? What is it you think the impact of the wall is? Most of it the justification for the wall I'm hearing is based on economic ("they're taking our jobs") or fairness ("they are stressing our social safety net") arguments. Gated communities don't shield you from those things. Basically gated communities shield you from some kinds of crime. If you think Mexican immigrants are causing lots of crime then you should also think people in Maine or Michigan shouldn't have much say because of the lower concentrations of immigrants there.

serge2k 10y ago

Google said this impacts ~180 employees total. is that really enough to impact salaries? Maybe, just maybe, these sons and daughters of immigrants and refugees are just as disgusted by the actions of Trump (and Bannon) as the millions of others.

a_j_c 10y ago

I'm so tired of seeing all the blog posts and comments that think our problems are due to Trump and Republicans instead of taking a look at our own "progressive" party. Sure, Trump and the GOP are fucked up, but so are the Dems and the tech community seemed perfectly fine fawning over our "tech president" when he was bailing out the billionaires, expanding state surveillance powers, and ordering the murder of thousands with drones. Whenever I mention how the corporate Dems have been selling us out for years and we need to light a fire under their ass to work for our interests, I'm immediately ostracized from my fellow "progressives."

grzm 10y ago
I can see what you're against. What are you for? What do you support? In particular now? For example, are you happy with the Executive Order regarding immigration?
mc32 10y ago
The biggest thing against Hillary, geopolitically, was her hawkishness and the posture against a nuclear Russia. Obama-Putin was very rocky. Hillary-Putin would have been an abysmal and possibly dangerous relationship. Avoiding a hot war in Eastern Europe is worth the people affected by the new immigration bans.
- JPLeRouzic 10y ago
  In the past there was also people willing to deal with Germany when it tried to invade parts of Czechoslovakia. We can see how it was successful.[0] I am in favor of peace as it is the best state for humanity to strive. But to maintain peace, we must have a good strategy, not a call to people like Putin such as "Please do anything you like". [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
  - mc32 10y ago
    It's about striking a balance and it looks like some of Putin's actions were due to his thinking he was "provoked" by Nato expansion into his backyard and his being an authoritarian could not allow himself to look like a supplicant or submissive to Us action in the area so he goes about and dusts things up a bit. I think Obama and his advisers sorely missed someone like a Condoleezza or a Cohen, etc. people who would give him some good insight into Putin's thinking and why he acts the way he does. I mean, at the end of the Obama presidency US-Russia relations were hotting up beyond my comfort.

derenrich 10y ago

I almost never post here but this "mansion walls" to "Mexico wall" false equivalence bothers me. They are totally different things. Mansions have walls/hedges for lots of reasons: privacy, sound isolation, blocking unsightly views and sure perhaps some security. None of that has anything to do with whether we should build the world's longest modern wall to help enforce immigration policy. Sure they are both walls but that's where the similarity ends. Example 1: Mansion walls are unlikely to create diplomatic tensions with one of the US's major trading partners whereas a wall with Mexico would likely do that. Example 2: The Mexican wall will likely require lots of eminent domain seizures of private land. Mansions walls require none. Example 3: The mexican wall will impact net flows of illegal migrants between the US and Mexico. Private walls do not. Sane arguments for or against this wall are inapplicable to private walls. This equivalency is pointless. Your argument is spurious.

legostormtroopr 10y ago
My biggest concern is a group of people who will be unimpacted are dictating terms to the rest of us. I feel there is a strong comparison between private gated communities and strong borders (not necessarily walls).
- derenrich 10y ago
  Gated communities mean they are unimpacted? What is it you think the impact of the wall is? Most of it the justification for the wall I'm hearing is based on economic ("they're taking our jobs") or fairness ("they are stressing our social safety net") arguments. Gated communities don't shield you from those things. Basically gated communities shield you from some kinds of crime. If you think Mexican immigrants are causing lots of crime then you should also think people in Maine or Michigan shouldn't have much say because of the lower concentrations of immigrants there.