> But no, you want more Don't you? And since you also do doesn't it make the rest of your point not only moot but also hypocritical? Isn't this the exact reaso

> But no, you want more Don't you? And since you also do doesn't it make the rest of your point not only moot but also hypocritical? Isn't this the exact reason someone would move from a poorer country to a richer one? Not because they can't live in one but because they want a better life in the other. You can easily live without a lot of things. But sometimes it's not only about living but about how you live. > Letting poor people compete with you on fair terms does not increase inequality. You're being very libertine with the suggestion that everyone else in this conversation hates "poor people" and must be racists. "Fair terms" would imply all equal. Are you competing on quality or price? Because winning solely on price is a sure way to lower everyone's wages over time but also lower the quality. Doesn't this push better qualified people to places where "fairness" implies more than accepting the lowest possible salary? > Are Indians and Chinese somehow second rate people? They do not deserve to even compete with the White Elite of Western Europe? This makes you sound incredibly racist.