4 ms·

I think the simpler form of that question is "what's wrong with globalism?", to which there's many answers. One of the foremost would be that an American compa

by alehul 8y ago

I think the simpler form of that question is "what's wrong with globalism?", to which there's many answers. One of the foremost would be that an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people, especially as long as other countries like China wouldn't allow an American to work so easily in the reverse situation. It's just a natural tribal instinct, also, to care more for the welfare of your neighbor than someone across the world. I'm not commenting on the validity of those arguments, though, as I think a core part of America's success is being unusually open to immigration.

fjsolwmv 8y ago
The main problem with globalism is that capital conspires against labor but labor doesn't respond with a unified front.
- chii 8y ago
  Yes! I think that the amount of propaganda and cultural infusion of negativity against unions (often slurring unions with communism) is the real cause of the stagnation in worker rights and wages.
- taurath 8y ago
  Companies and money can cross borders, people cannot (generally).
- Buldak 8y ago
  Why is that a problem principally a problem of globalism rather than capitalism?
fickleycurious 8y ago
True but if the American company has market access to other countries, what's wrong with hiring people from such countries ?
baddox 8y ago
> an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Citizenship is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government. The vast majority of citizens received their citizenship by being born in the country rather than by any effort or merit on their part. So the claim becomes "an American company should support the livelihoods of people born within the borders of America," which I think is pretty clearly an arbitrary claim that needs a lot of explanation before I'll accept it as reasonable. > It's just a natural tribal instinct, also, to care more for the welfare of your neighbor than someone across the world. We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence.
- remarkEon 8y ago
  >And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Since when? I have literally never heard this. This is a patently absurd claim to make. Just because someone lives here does not mean they are "American", unless you think that all of the inputs to national identity are vapid, meaningless attributes that are completely transferable. >We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence. Just because someone has moved in next door does not mean they are now "part of your tribe". This has never been true throughout history, and it will not magically become true today regardless of the outcome of this immigration debate.
  - closeparen 8y ago
    It's true that accepting immigrants into the tribe is historically unusual, but that's why it's a distinctive and important feature of American national identity.
    - remarkEon 8y ago
      I think you should go back and review some of that history. Integration into the "American tribe" has been bumpy at best and downright violent at worst. It's often taken actual war to make it happen. The Draft Riots come to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots
tanilama 8y ago
I think your assessment is correct on certain level. But the problem is, American companies, especially, IT companies, are making money, big money across the GLOBE. They are literally monopolies in many European countries and contribute neither local employment and tax. Make no mistake, they are THE biggest beneficiaries of globalism. Their product, internet service, is dumping to the whole world, probably except China, without any check and balance. It should not happen, let alone last to date. In that way, if globalism is to be fixed, internet companies need to be both held accountable in and outside of US. If they pay fair share to hire local people and pay taxes in the country they operate, I believe US won't have this ridiculously high salary for tech workers. In short, tech salary being so abnormally high and jobs concentrated in US is the symptom of globalism. Once fixed, the tech workers salary will be more evenly distributed across the countries, immigration problem will be fixed as a result of that. As internet industry is plateauing, the technology is becoming ever more commoditized everyday, and the policy makers are finally doing the job to act on it, I am staying optimistic that the redistribution of tech workforce from US to the world will finally happen. The internet has no boundary, that is just a globalist fantasy. It definitely should have boundary, as the tax and economic activities created alike. GDPR is a very welcome move, and it is taking effects, I would expect more systematic approach coming after it.

by alehul 8y ago

fjsolwmv 8y ago

The main problem with globalism is that capital conspires against labor but labor doesn't respond with a unified front.

chii 8y ago
Yes! I think that the amount of propaganda and cultural infusion of negativity against unions (often slurring unions with communism) is the real cause of the stagnation in worker rights and wages.
taurath 8y ago
Companies and money can cross borders, people cannot (generally).
Buldak 8y ago
Why is that a problem principally a problem of globalism rather than capitalism?

fickleycurious 8y ago

True but if the American company has market access to other countries, what's wrong with hiring people from such countries ?

baddox 8y ago

> an American company should support the livelihoods of the American people And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Citizenship is itself an arbitrary legal distinction made by the government. The vast majority of citizens received their citizenship by being born in the country rather than by any effort or merit on their part. So the claim becomes "an American company should support the livelihoods of people born within the borders of America," which I think is pretty clearly an arbitrary claim that needs a lot of explanation before I'll accept it as reasonable. > It's just a natural tribal instinct, also, to care more for the welfare of your neighbor than someone across the world. We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence.

remarkEon 8y ago
>And people who are living and working in America are American, they may just not be citizens. Since when? I have literally never heard this. This is a patently absurd claim to make. Just because someone lives here does not mean they are "American", unless you think that all of the inputs to national identity are vapid, meaningless attributes that are completely transferable. >We're talking about work visas, which means those people move here and thus become your neighbors, so you'd have to extend that "natural tribal instinct" defense beyond place of residence. Just because someone has moved in next door does not mean they are now "part of your tribe". This has never been true throughout history, and it will not magically become true today regardless of the outcome of this immigration debate.
- closeparen 8y ago
  It's true that accepting immigrants into the tribe is historically unusual, but that's why it's a distinctive and important feature of American national identity.
  - remarkEon 8y ago
    I think you should go back and review some of that history. Integration into the "American tribe" has been bumpy at best and downright violent at worst. It's often taken actual war to make it happen. The Draft Riots come to mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_draft_riots

tanilama 8y ago

I think your assessment is correct on certain level. But the problem is, American companies, especially, IT companies, are making money, big money across the GLOBE. They are literally monopolies in many European countries and contribute neither local employment and tax. Make no mistake, they are THE biggest beneficiaries of globalism. Their product, internet service, is dumping to the whole world, probably except China, without any check and balance. It should not happen, let alone last to date. In that way, if globalism is to be fixed, internet companies need to be both held accountable in and outside of US. If they pay fair share to hire local people and pay taxes in the country they operate, I believe US won't have this ridiculously high salary for tech workers. In short, tech salary being so abnormally high and jobs concentrated in US is the symptom of globalism. Once fixed, the tech workers salary will be more evenly distributed across the countries, immigration problem will be fixed as a result of that. As internet industry is plateauing, the technology is becoming ever more commoditized everyday, and the policy makers are finally doing the job to act on it, I am staying optimistic that the redistribution of tech workforce from US to the world will finally happen. The internet has no boundary, that is just a globalist fantasy. It definitely should have boundary, as the tax and economic activities created alike. GDPR is a very welcome move, and it is taking effects, I would expect more systematic approach coming after it.