7 ms·

This is one reason why these types of megacorps support mass immigration, it provides a steady stream of desperate people they can exploit. Those from other cou

• throwaway894345 4y ago
  I hadn't really thought before about how left-wing folks typically want higher wages as well as more mass immigration which inherently suppresses wages. In their defense, they want raises waged by law rather than by market (an elevated minimum wage would raise wages irrespective of immigration), but considering how unlikely a minimum federal wage hike is, it seems like they're pursuing two contradictory goals. EDIT: I was really (naively) hoping this would be discussed maturely. Some clarifying points: 1. "mass immigration" is just intended in opposition to highly selective immigration policies (e.g., policies which allow highly educated or wealthy people to immigrate). This isn't a criticism or a value judgment, and indeed there's something noble and egalitarian about this. 2. observing that these two goals are contradictory doesn't imply ignobility or foolishness, but rather difficulty of task. 3. I'm not a "right-winger" nor do I have a political tribe. I'm not slinging anything at left-wing people.
  • reaperducer 4y ago
    I hadn't really thought before about how left-wing folks Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by tribalism?
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      I don't have a political tribe, I'm not a partisan, etc. I was hoping HN would be the one place on the Internet where we could discuss things maturely. Notably, I'm not attacking left-wing people or viewpoints here, but observing that there are two goals that are in apparent conflict (which isn't to say they contradict each other or that they're ignoble or anything else).
      • happytoexplain 4y ago
        >I'm not attacking left-wing people You said "left-wing folks typically want ... more mass immigration", which I disagree with, though not with any real authority or conviction (I wrote a separate comment about it). The rub is - coming from most people on the internet at large, I would assume that statement was purposefully uncharitable, but I think on HN, the chances that a person (you, in this case) is being honest are higher (i.e. that your opinion that left-wing people want more mass immigration is derived honestly and holistically to the best of your ability, regardless of whether there is a reasonable argument against it out there somewhere).
        • throwaway894345 4y ago
          Yes, my honest impression is that left-wing people generally (i.e., it's a very popular position on the left) wanted to lower the barrier for "asylum seekers" which implies admitting lots of people without respect to their educational background or skill (hence "mass immigration"). I didn't realize this was controversial (I thought everyone agreed that this is a popular position on the left). This also isn't a value judgment--a conservative might look at that and see unintended consequences (a burden on social services, wage suppression, etc) but a progressive might look at that and see nobility ("Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses" etc).
          • happytoexplain 4y ago
            Ah, yeah, I agree. But I don't agree that that position is tantamount to "supporting mass immigration", by the normal colloquial meaning of that phrase. I think that wording, unqualified as in your original usage, implies antagonism toward the position you're describing (though, as I mentioned in another reply, "mass immigration" might have a domain-specific definition I'm not aware of? Sort of like how "obese" technically refers to a much lower weight than the way we use the word colloquially, and how "mass shooting" can technically mean a victim count as low as three, depending on other circumstances, again contrary to what the typical colloquial threshold probably is in most cases).
    • alphabettsy 4y ago
      Far too late for that unfortunately, but we can try to be better.
      • scollet 4y ago
        I'm not taking these boxing gloves off.
    • happytoexplain 4y ago
      I don't see that as tribalistic/negative language at all. However, I do see it in the unqualified assertion that left-wing people want "more mass immigration", which seems misleading and tangential to their actual desires (which seem to be more about treating immigrants better and allowing more cases of legitimate asylum seeking, rather than actively seeking "more" and "massive" immigration in the general case). Even just the more innocuous version of that statement - "make immigration easier" - is not even a popular opinion of leftwingers, as far as I can tell. Edit: Where "popular" means a strong majority. However, I'm speaking totally intuitively. I'm not sure what the reality of the numbers are, and there are so many subtly different opinions one can poll for just be tweaking the wording.
      • reaperducer 4y ago
        I don't see that as tribalistic/negative language at all. Left wing is a tribe. Right wing is a tribe. Just like all the sportsball teams are tribes. Politics would work better if politicians, and their followers, worked for people, rather than their tribes.
        • happytoexplain 4y ago
          Eh, labels are useful. I don't believe that saying "left/right wingers tend to X" means "the world is black and white" or "everybody is left/right wing and that's all you need to know about them". It's how you use labels that matters. And yeah, a label can get misused so bad that it loses its usefulness in honest discussion, but I think "left/right-wing" is far from that death. It carries too much useful meaning when thoughtfully applied.
        • throwaway894345 4y ago
          Even accepting that "left wing is a tribe", summarizing the views of a tribe (especially in relatively objective terms) isn't the same as engaging in tribalism.
    • giardini 4y ago
      reaperducer says >"Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by triablism(sic)?"< Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by obvious misspellings?
      • reaperducer 4y ago
        Can't HN be the one place on the internet that isn't sullied by obvious misspellings? Fixed it. Just for you. -kiss-
  • duxup 4y ago
    >as well as more mass immigration I really haven't seen this with "left wing folks". That sounds more like some folks talking points they want you to buy into. I think you might be mistaken. Any immigration /= "more mass immigration".
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      I'm not trying to malign anyone here. I'm pretty sure more mass immigration is a left-wing opinion, and I thought that much was uncontroversial. I don't understand the distinction you're making between "any immigration" and "mass immigration". The US already allows a lot of immigration.
      • duxup 4y ago
        >I don't understand the distinction you're making between "any immigration" and "mass immigration". Because the amount matters? If we talk about the impact of migration the amount certainly plays into what if any impact occurs. It really seems like you're stuck on a sort of rhetorical talking point phrase.
        • throwaway894345 4y ago
          Sure, but what's the argument? "The left wants some immigration, but not a lot"? Because we already have "some" immigration, so presumably they want more immigration, and presumably they oppose constraining that immigration by education level or wealth or etc, hence "mass". In other words, "mass" doesn't refer to an amount, but a lack of filtration/selection/etc. Note also that this isn't even an inherently bad thing--there's something noble about wanting America's doors open to everyone: "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free...".
          • duxup 4y ago
            I don't know what you mean by "what's the argument"? Policies and the impact (something that should hopefully inform a policy) are more nuanced than just "mass migration" "more migration" and so on. Your understanding seems entirely disconnected from actual policy. I can't possibly explain something that is going to be different from person to person or politician to politician, even more so if for you it only ends up being categorized in weird generalities that read like they're someone else's rhetoric skewed talking points / loaded phrases. I don't think you can expect to understand something if you just generalize in that way.
  • Spooky23 4y ago
    Likewise, I’ve always found it amusing that right wing business guys pay lip service to being against illegal immigration, yet they move their meat packing plants to nowhere-ville.
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      "use illegal immigration for meat packing" isn't a broadly-held right-wing position, it's something certain unprincipled business owners do (and I'm not even sure that they're universally right-wing). In contrast, "increasing wages" and "increasing mass immigration" are broadly-held left-wing positions. Again, this doesn't suggest incoherence on the left.
      • happytoexplain 4y ago
        I think your use of the word "mass" is causing a lot of confusion, but I'm not sure who's "fault" it is. According to your edit on your original post, you say you're using it to mean "less selective" immigration, which, to me, is a way different sentence - but it's completely possible this is a domain-specific use of the word "mass" that I am just not familiar with.
        • throwaway894345 4y ago
          Fair enough. The idea was that the left wants to lower the barrier for "asylum seeking" or perhaps just admit more asylum seekers irrespective of their educational value or their ability to support themselves (i.e., minimal selection criteria). This isn't a criticism or value judgment.
      • Spooky23 4y ago
        Please. It’s deeply embedded in GOP power brokering. Principles are for the mass of idiots. The only difference today is that after years of taking the votes of reactionaries and doing little, the populist blocs of reactionary voters are the tail wagging the dog.
        • 4y ago
  • _dqna 4y ago
    [flagged]
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      > The left wants to help people, no matter who they are, and that means supporting both immigration and livable wages I'm not saying otherwise, I'm observing that in this particular case, mass immigration has a wage suppressing effect which contradicts the "livable wages" goal. Noting the challenge doesn't imply ignobility. > the right only cares about the rich and themselves I really don't know what this has to do with the subject.
    • 0daystock 4y ago
      • sophacles 4y ago
        I see you get the entirety of your understanding of history and poltics from an actor with alzheimer's. Maybe you could expand your sources a bit to see that this is a lot less true than you imply.
        • 0daystock 4y ago
          If an ad hominem attack is all you can muster in response, it doesn't show a good faith attempt at discourse.
          • scollet 4y ago
      • the_only_law 4y ago
        Boy they "helped" a lot of people during his time.
    • nxm 4y ago
      Counterpoint: right wants free market so that wages rises organically through businesses competing for workers, while the left wants open borders and endless government spending that leads of inflation and lower standard of living which we are experiencing now.
  • zozbot234 4y ago
    Some parts of the right have advocated for more skilled immigration, which would tend to equalize wages across the board (mitigating a non-trivial cause of inequality) while raising fewer social concerns compared to the unregulated immigration of lower-skill workers. Unfortunately, many left-wing folks tend to oppose such proposals, with the usual 'they tuk er jerbs!!1' arguments. Just look at the reactions here at HN anytime the subject of H1B visas is brought up.
    • throwaway894345 4y ago
      I'm not sure that H1B visas are a particularly politically polarized position. I could easily see people on the right arguing against H1B visas on the basis that we should keep American jobs for Americans. I don't think there's broad agreement on H1Bs on the right?
      • 22SAS 4y ago
        Both the left and the ring wing voters despise work visa programs. There are a few in the US, only H1B's get the hate since it is the most used of all work visa programs, and highly publicized as well.
        • Thetawaves 4y ago
          You should be forthright and acknowledge that H1Bs fill white collar jobs at below market rates. This obviously doesn't apply to agriculture (and other) work visas.
          • 22SAS 4y ago
            They probably do in crappy places. I am an H1B, work in HFT and can say that in big tech and HFT's, H1B's are paid fairly well, probably in the top tier. BTW, the L1 visa is even worse. The people bought in via that visa are also paid below market rates, and they are not even allowed to change companies on that visa. My issue is that people love to shit talk about us, and forget there are other visas, like the L1, that are crappier. Worse is, when some lump all of us "H1B? They are probably low paid", and then I and many of my friends chuckle when we look at we are paid.
  • 22SAS 4y ago
    Left wingers overwhelmingly support immigration of poor people, from poor nations. They think these people would benefit the most out of immigrating to the US. They too, like the right wingers, despise white collar workers immigrating here, since that'd mean more competition for high paying jobs. They know that recent immigrants from poorer countries, do not have the education and English language skills to break into white collar jobs, and will mostly work in low paying jobs for their whole career. The white collar immigrants can break into all these jobs, and that is something that they see as a danger.
  • orwin 4y ago
    I'm just a supporter of equity. If your country have a FTA with another country, people from either country should be able to emigrate/immigrate between the two at will. If your country has a quota trade agreement with another country, you can do quotas as long as those respect a relationship with production quota. I find France, UK and US comportements towards their colonies ('trade partners') unjust.
  • scollet 4y ago
    You are literally a right winger.