8 ms·

The Jim Crow laws were a government favoring some of its citizens over other citizens, whereas these laws favor citizens over foreigners. In my opinion, it is a

The Jim Crow laws were a government favoring some of its citizens over other citizens, whereas these laws favor citizens over foreigners. In my opinion, it is a country's duty to place its own people first, but in the end it's up to the electorate.

icebraining 10y ago
This is favoring some of its citizens (certain classes of workers) over other citizens (buyers in general, workers affected by reciprocal changes by other countries, etc).
- DarkKomunalec 10y ago
  Those are secondary effects, and it is very much debatable who they favour. I would argue reducing the labour pool gives workers a stronger bargaining position, and thus better wages, reducing the rising income inequality.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    That would only be true if it gave better wages to people below the median. If you give better wages to people above the median, you increase inequality.
    - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
      Median? Why not average? Is it because the vast majority of wealth is held by the absurdly rich, and using the median allows you to largerly ignore that?
      - yummyfajitas 10y ago
        It doesn't really matter - median household income is $72k while median is $56k. According to pretty much any commonly used definition of inequality, giving more money to >$100k/year software engineers will increase inequality.
        exo128 10y ago
        "giving more money to ... will increase inequality." You're defining "income inequality" as only in relation to the median or average income. That is too simple to make any sense. By that model, I could have 1000 people making $1/hr, 10 people making $10/hr, and 1 person making $2000/hr. This puts the average at $3/hr. And so you say protecting the $10/hr people's salaries from being artificially suppressed increases income inequality because you've arbitrarily defined the line at the average income. Also, you're ignoring where the money is coming from, so any math in your mental model is flawed. I would hope this discussion isn't about creating money and giving it to >$100k/year engineers, but rather the business owners with capital paying market rates instead of having a way to suppress skilled labor salaries by exploiting weaker economies and tethering foreign employees for upwards of 9 years before they can finally correct their salary and working conditions (hint: I've worked with a few people who have been exploited like this). This whole us-vs-them scam of pitting everyone in the middle and lower class against themselves that the media/business/etc. has been doing (probably for longer than I've been alive) is amazingly effective... Most people want and value many of the same things and greatly outnumber our overlords, but somehow we're always pointing the finger at each other ("you're just lazy", "you're just racist", "a true <blank> would/wouldn't <blank>", "check your privilege", etc.). And all the while, the powers that be siphon away money and power and continue to set the stage in their favor.
yummyfajitas 10y ago
In my opinion, it's a race's duty to place it's own people first. (Not actually my opinion, but for the sake of argument...) What principle makes your favored accident of birth ok to discriminate on, but not mine?
- 1019280121 10y ago
  So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well? What is your principle? Anarchism, world government, no borders? I honestly do not understand your point.
  - pm90 10y ago
    > So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well? No, but you should be given a fair chance to arrive legally and legally buy land and legally search for oil. Not just take something that belongs to others, which is a violation of property rights. He is basically trying to bring out the point that an accident of birth should not be the basis for discrimination. He is doing that by making analogies that are uncomfortable rather than stating it outright. That is his point :).
    - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
      Why should a people be forced to put up their ancestral lands on the international market for exploitation by others? Because otherwise the West will bomb them?
      - pm90 10y ago
        No, because they in turn, should be given access to purchase your ancestral lands, if they are on their market. You are unfortunately re-framing the question as some sort of property grab like the parent. Let me repeat: I do NOT condone anyone usurping property by force. My point is to illustrate the principle of making it available on a global market in a reciprocal way.
- 10y ago

icebraining 10y ago

This is favoring some of its citizens (certain classes of workers) over other citizens (buyers in general, workers affected by reciprocal changes by other countries, etc).

DarkKomunalec 10y ago
Those are secondary effects, and it is very much debatable who they favour. I would argue reducing the labour pool gives workers a stronger bargaining position, and thus better wages, reducing the rising income inequality.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  That would only be true if it gave better wages to people below the median. If you give better wages to people above the median, you increase inequality.
  - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
    Median? Why not average? Is it because the vast majority of wealth is held by the absurdly rich, and using the median allows you to largerly ignore that?
    - yummyfajitas 10y ago
      It doesn't really matter - median household income is $72k while median is $56k. According to pretty much any commonly used definition of inequality, giving more money to >$100k/year software engineers will increase inequality.
      - exo128 10y ago
        "giving more money to ... will increase inequality." You're defining "income inequality" as only in relation to the median or average income. That is too simple to make any sense. By that model, I could have 1000 people making $1/hr, 10 people making $10/hr, and 1 person making $2000/hr. This puts the average at $3/hr. And so you say protecting the $10/hr people's salaries from being artificially suppressed increases income inequality because you've arbitrarily defined the line at the average income. Also, you're ignoring where the money is coming from, so any math in your mental model is flawed. I would hope this discussion isn't about creating money and giving it to >$100k/year engineers, but rather the business owners with capital paying market rates instead of having a way to suppress skilled labor salaries by exploiting weaker economies and tethering foreign employees for upwards of 9 years before they can finally correct their salary and working conditions (hint: I've worked with a few people who have been exploited like this). This whole us-vs-them scam of pitting everyone in the middle and lower class against themselves that the media/business/etc. has been doing (probably for longer than I've been alive) is amazingly effective... Most people want and value many of the same things and greatly outnumber our overlords, but somehow we're always pointing the finger at each other ("you're just lazy", "you're just racist", "a true <blank> would/wouldn't <blank>", "check your privilege", etc.). And all the while, the powers that be siphon away money and power and continue to set the stage in their favor.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

In my opinion, it's a race's duty to place it's own people first. (Not actually my opinion, but for the sake of argument...) What principle makes your favored accident of birth ok to discriminate on, but not mine?

1019280121 10y ago
So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well? What is your principle? Anarchism, world government, no borders? I honestly do not understand your point.
- pm90 10y ago
  > So, according to your philosophy, I could go to Saudi Arabia and claim an oil well? No, but you should be given a fair chance to arrive legally and legally buy land and legally search for oil. Not just take something that belongs to others, which is a violation of property rights. He is basically trying to bring out the point that an accident of birth should not be the basis for discrimination. He is doing that by making analogies that are uncomfortable rather than stating it outright. That is his point :).
  - DarkKomunalec 10y ago
    Why should a people be forced to put up their ancestral lands on the international market for exploitation by others? Because otherwise the West will bomb them?
    - pm90 10y ago
      No, because they in turn, should be given access to purchase your ancestral lands, if they are on their market. You are unfortunately re-framing the question as some sort of property grab like the parent. Let me repeat: I do NOT condone anyone usurping property by force. My point is to illustrate the principle of making it available on a global market in a reciprocal way.
10y ago