6 ms·

I'm all for good wages, but why was it OK for your mom to trade worse conditions for a salary that was on the higher end of what she could get in the 80s but it

by vasco 5y ago

I'm all for good wages, but why was it OK for your mom to trade worse conditions for a salary that was on the higher end of what she could get in the 80s but it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now? Yes the pay is lower, but presumably these people are getting attracted by those signs at the border and make the decision to put up with these conditions to better their lot in life, the same way your mom did. I wish everyone could get a great salary and mostly that work conditions provide a safe environment for all workers, but I don't understand your argument unless I see it under the light of "foreigners = bad"

tolbish 5y ago
I read it as "Lying that you can't afford to pay local workers a decent living wage = bad"
rsj_hn 5y ago
> "but it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now" No one is arguing that Mexicans and Somalians don't have a right to leave their current employer and find a better employer. Oh, but you are talking about illegally entering another country they have no legal right to enter, which is a very different situation. Forcing yourself on a country where the citizens have decided to not allow you to enter is not the same thing as just looking for a higher paying employer. If you want open borders and believe that borders are immoral and citizens of a nation do not have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to be a fellow citizen, then argue for open borders and a one world government in which no nation has the ability to control who crosses their border and who can participate in their legal, production, electoral, and social insurance system. That is an intellectual position that a small minority holds, but make the case for denying citizens of a nation this right of self-determination and autonomy clearly and directly, don't couch it in the language of someone looking to switch employers. And then don't wring your hands that a nation has deteriorating solidarity and social insurance when you simultaneously advocate for citizenship having no meaning.
- vasco 5y ago
  I'm not arguing about anything related to borders. If someone is working a non-remote job, I assume they are a local worker. What the comment I replied to based their argument on is that certain people should have the freedom choose to trade work conditions for higher wages to improve their lives, but other people shouldn't. The classification that was given for that distinction was on the basis of nationality or refugee status, read Mexicans and Somalians.
  - pessimizer 5y ago
    > should have the freedom ...is doing a lot of work here. No argument was being made about what Somalis and Mexicans should be allowed to do, arguments are being made about what US employers should be allowed to do. It's a common anti-slavery argument - the exploitation of people in a precarious position to do the same work that free people do demeans the value of work. If you want to see a real market in wages, and you have a real belief in the goodness of that, remove the legal situation that makes the immigrant workforce's situation precarious.
- pas 5y ago
  Open Borders means increasing the immigration quota to 10x (or more times). No need for one gov, and hyperbole. Despite all the money spent on ICE and border patrol, deportations, etc. there are still a lot of undocumented workers, who are in turn exploited, which in turn pushes wages down. It would be much much much easier to let people go in the legal route. It would also help a bit with the war against cartels. Obviously the self-determination of the US population is at least as important as the humanitarian/altruistic principle of allowing people to seek a better future for themselves by moving to a better place. That said - as far as I know - economists are very much in consensus that legal immigration does not suppress wages.
  - rsj_hn 5y ago
    No, the parent claimed that anyone had a right to force themselves on any country whenever they thought they could make more money. This idea that you have a "right" to cross whatever border you want is very different from changing laws to increase immigration. No matter what laws you pass, there will be people excluded, so if your position is that you have a right to live in any nation where your income is expected to be higher, then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires some supra-national authority that can override the will of the population. And this must be a universal right otherwise the right-based logic does not apply. Thus it applies also to Mexico and most other nations where there are some countries somewhere in which wages are lower. Especially in Mexico, that would be a problem given they have a constitutional ban on immigration changing the demographics of Mexico, and even a border "barrier" at the south. Somalia, while mostly in anarchy, also would not allow uncontrolled migration to it if it ever obtains a functional government. Ethiopia, a rising star in Africa, has strict border controls in place. As does basically every nation on earth. The common consensus is that no one has a right to force themselves on a nation just because it would benefit them financially. That truth is not incompatible with immigration as a policy. The debate is about who gets to set the policy -- the people whose nation is being entered or those who want to enter. So while my arguments are extreme in force, they are not hyperbole, as the comment I was replying to was staking out some very radical and anti-democratic positions, but couching them in the mild language of changing employers. I was merely pointing out the extreme nature of these claims, and was not engaging in hyperbole. Claiming you have a right to violate a nation's border controls is a very big deal, and has nothing to do with wanting to increase or decrease immmigration policies, just as claiming a buyer (rather than the seller) has right to decide how much a product should cost is a radical claim, even if it's couched in the mild language of affordability and seeking discounts.
throw737858 5y ago
Companies who exploit illegal workers usually do not maintain basic safety. At peak of corona lockdown last year my friends had their passports confiscated by employer, had to pay overpriced accommodation and could not leave for lockdown. They lived in dorms, 12 people per room, there was covid outbreak. Job was nothing like advertised. You are arguing for slavery.
sneak 5y ago
Due to the inability of undocumented people to easily switch jobs, they can pay them a lot less. It's not equal pay for equal work.
- briandear 5y ago
  So clearly we should enforce the laws against hiring illegal alien labor. It harms legal residents and citizens.
  - sneak 5y ago
    I don't think that's clear at all, no. Then you condemn people to starve instead of just being enslaved. Enforcing labor laws equally for all people (even in cases of undocumented workers) would be a better solution. Just because someone is undocumented is not a license for the employer to break additional laws. Equal application of the law should apply to all people, even if you consider them criminals. We give murderers fair trials and presumption of innocence, for example.
NegativeLatency 5y ago
Sounds like the pay is no longer on the higher end from the poster
pessimizer 5y ago
> it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now? If the Mexicans and Somalians are given safe US citizenship with the rights and leverage that entails, it's great for them to do the same now. They wouldn't, because the reason companies want to employ them is their weakness, and the stability of citizenship would entitle them to make demands about pay and conditions. Employing precarious immigrants isn't charity work.
- Ericson2314 5y ago
  If the moral imperative is to let people in, the moral imperative is also to give them the rights of citizenship. Open borders without equal rights is woke apartheid :P
prestigious 5y ago
Because they are breaking the market. Ideally we have continually improving life but if we keep bringing in people willing to work for less we will never progress
- lokar 5y ago
  You should consider why "we" are absolutely entitled to continually improving life while people born abroad are not. There is no moral justification for that position.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]

by vasco 5y ago

tolbish 5y ago

I read it as "Lying that you can't afford to pay local workers a decent living wage = bad"

rsj_hn 5y ago

> "but it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now" No one is arguing that Mexicans and Somalians don't have a right to leave their current employer and find a better employer. Oh, but you are talking about illegally entering another country they have no legal right to enter, which is a very different situation. Forcing yourself on a country where the citizens have decided to not allow you to enter is not the same thing as just looking for a higher paying employer. If you want open borders and believe that borders are immoral and citizens of a nation do not have the right to decide who is and is not allowed to be a fellow citizen, then argue for open borders and a one world government in which no nation has the ability to control who crosses their border and who can participate in their legal, production, electoral, and social insurance system. That is an intellectual position that a small minority holds, but make the case for denying citizens of a nation this right of self-determination and autonomy clearly and directly, don't couch it in the language of someone looking to switch employers. And then don't wring your hands that a nation has deteriorating solidarity and social insurance when you simultaneously advocate for citizenship having no meaning.

vasco 5y ago
I'm not arguing about anything related to borders. If someone is working a non-remote job, I assume they are a local worker. What the comment I replied to based their argument on is that certain people should have the freedom choose to trade work conditions for higher wages to improve their lives, but other people shouldn't. The classification that was given for that distinction was on the basis of nationality or refugee status, read Mexicans and Somalians.
- pessimizer 5y ago
  > should have the freedom ...is doing a lot of work here. No argument was being made about what Somalis and Mexicans should be allowed to do, arguments are being made about what US employers should be allowed to do. It's a common anti-slavery argument - the exploitation of people in a precarious position to do the same work that free people do demeans the value of work. If you want to see a real market in wages, and you have a real belief in the goodness of that, remove the legal situation that makes the immigrant workforce's situation precarious.
pas 5y ago
Open Borders means increasing the immigration quota to 10x (or more times). No need for one gov, and hyperbole. Despite all the money spent on ICE and border patrol, deportations, etc. there are still a lot of undocumented workers, who are in turn exploited, which in turn pushes wages down. It would be much much much easier to let people go in the legal route. It would also help a bit with the war against cartels. Obviously the self-determination of the US population is at least as important as the humanitarian/altruistic principle of allowing people to seek a better future for themselves by moving to a better place. That said - as far as I know - economists are very much in consensus that legal immigration does not suppress wages.
- rsj_hn 5y ago
  No, the parent claimed that anyone had a right to force themselves on any country whenever they thought they could make more money. This idea that you have a "right" to cross whatever border you want is very different from changing laws to increase immigration. No matter what laws you pass, there will be people excluded, so if your position is that you have a right to live in any nation where your income is expected to be higher, then this does require outlawing border controls entirely, and doing that against the will of the citizens in those nations requires some supra-national authority that can override the will of the population. And this must be a universal right otherwise the right-based logic does not apply. Thus it applies also to Mexico and most other nations where there are some countries somewhere in which wages are lower. Especially in Mexico, that would be a problem given they have a constitutional ban on immigration changing the demographics of Mexico, and even a border "barrier" at the south. Somalia, while mostly in anarchy, also would not allow uncontrolled migration to it if it ever obtains a functional government. Ethiopia, a rising star in Africa, has strict border controls in place. As does basically every nation on earth. The common consensus is that no one has a right to force themselves on a nation just because it would benefit them financially. That truth is not incompatible with immigration as a policy. The debate is about who gets to set the policy -- the people whose nation is being entered or those who want to enter. So while my arguments are extreme in force, they are not hyperbole, as the comment I was replying to was staking out some very radical and anti-democratic positions, but couching them in the mild language of changing employers. I was merely pointing out the extreme nature of these claims, and was not engaging in hyperbole. Claiming you have a right to violate a nation's border controls is a very big deal, and has nothing to do with wanting to increase or decrease immmigration policies, just as claiming a buyer (rather than the seller) has right to decide how much a product should cost is a radical claim, even if it's couched in the mild language of affordability and seeking discounts.

throw737858 5y ago

Companies who exploit illegal workers usually do not maintain basic safety. At peak of corona lockdown last year my friends had their passports confiscated by employer, had to pay overpriced accommodation and could not leave for lockdown. They lived in dorms, 12 people per room, there was covid outbreak. Job was nothing like advertised. You are arguing for slavery.

sneak 5y ago

Due to the inability of undocumented people to easily switch jobs, they can pay them a lot less. It's not equal pay for equal work.

briandear 5y ago
So clearly we should enforce the laws against hiring illegal alien labor. It harms legal residents and citizens.
- sneak 5y ago
  I don't think that's clear at all, no. Then you condemn people to starve instead of just being enslaved. Enforcing labor laws equally for all people (even in cases of undocumented workers) would be a better solution. Just because someone is undocumented is not a license for the employer to break additional laws. Equal application of the law should apply to all people, even if you consider them criminals. We give murderers fair trials and presumption of innocence, for example.

NegativeLatency 5y ago

Sounds like the pay is no longer on the higher end from the poster

pessimizer 5y ago

> it is not OK for Mexicans or Somalians to do the same now? If the Mexicans and Somalians are given safe US citizenship with the rights and leverage that entails, it's great for them to do the same now. They wouldn't, because the reason companies want to employ them is their weakness, and the stability of citizenship would entitle them to make demands about pay and conditions. Employing precarious immigrants isn't charity work.

Ericson2314 5y ago
If the moral imperative is to let people in, the moral imperative is also to give them the rights of citizenship. Open borders without equal rights is woke apartheid :P

prestigious 5y ago

Because they are breaking the market. Ideally we have continually improving life but if we keep bringing in people willing to work for less we will never progress

lokar 5y ago
You should consider why "we" are absolutely entitled to continually improving life while people born abroad are not. There is no moral justification for that position.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]