3 ms·

No, it's not, this is called the lump of labor fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallac

No, it's not, this is called the lump of labor fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

olivermarks 4y ago
Tragedy of the commons (or in this case mass immigration to the 'commons') https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impact-on-sustainability-issues https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impa... example 5
- closeparen 4y ago
  Wages do not work like groundwater. There is no fixed exogenous workload or pool of national income such that fewer people get bigger shares. This was cutting edge thinking at the time of the Industrial Revolution but it turned out to be totally wrong. Obviously, or standards of living in Western countries today would be much worse than in Malthusianism's heyday, given our now much higher populations.
  - olivermarks 4y ago
    Disagree. UK socialists last century when the country was still a manufacturing powerhouse were clear about the concept of a nation state with nationalized health, energy, travel etc, union membership and fair taxation for A FINITE NUMBER OF CITIZENS. Fraternal relationships with similar nation states (all singing the nationale together) was arguably one of the reasons for the creation of the common market (which of course mushroomed over time into the huge undemocratic bureaucratic monster it now is). Naturally those benefits (literally in some cases) were very attractive to people like Mo Farah's family from afar decades ago and the UK and Europe were empathetic to allowing some immigration. The tragedy of the commons is epitomized by globalization, the vast offshore empire that now controls the planet. The globalists want compliant, overpopulated workforces with no negotiating skills in all countries and thus encouraging borderless society. The result is mediocre wages, large amounts of trafficking of in some cases literally slave labour and few opportunities for what used to be termed the working classes. These are huge global problems that are currently spinning out of control due to the globalists also controlling the central banks which have enabled finacialization of everything and now ferocious inflation
brigandish 4y ago
Quoting from that article: > However, skilled immigrating workers can bring capabilities that are not available in the native workforce, for example in academic research or information technology. Additionally, immigrating workforces also create new jobs by expanding demand, thus creating more jobs, either directly by setting up businesses (therefore requiring local services or workers), or indirectly by raising consumption. As an example, a greater population that eats more groceries will increase demand from shops, which will therefore require additional shop staff. If that's the "fallacy" then it's not much of a rebuttal. The UK has an immigration system that allows in quite easily the kind of people who do academic research and information technology. How that has any relevance to low paid workers in far more precarious professions (or no profession at all) who have to compete with low skilled immigrants who are unlikely to know their rights, thus pressuring conditions downwards, who are likely to find the low pay better than they could get back home (or worse, taking lower pay out of necessity because of their illegal immigration status) which again, pressures downwards the pay levels, you'll have to explain. One of my friends is from a Baltic state and wasn't claiming for money she should've been paid, which suited her employer just fine (this story[1] turned up a week after I learned about this, about her industry and mirrored her situation) - do you think there was a reason my friend said all her colleagues were foreigners? I'll give you the two best reasons I think for that: a) The company wanted to hire foreigners because it would be easier to scam them out of money and rights b) Locals would be less inclined to put up with that kind of nonsense How is any of this helpful to a country, the locals, or the immigrants? [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37350750 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37350750
- closeparen 4y ago
  Yes, the leverage employers can have over immigrants is a big problem. An illegal immigrant who goes to the authorities with a wage theft claim risks being arrested and deported herself. Even a highly educated tech worker at Facebook cannot switch to Google without jeopardizing his family's status in the United States. The harsher the climate towards immigrants in laws and officialdom, the easier they are to exploit. The anti-immigration voters who demand this harshness are shooting themselves in the foot a bit, and should reconsider.

No, it's not, this is called the lump of labor fallacy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lump_of_labour_fallacy

olivermarks 4y ago

Tragedy of the commons (or in this case mass immigration to the 'commons') https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impact-on-sustainability-issues https://online.hbs.edu/blog/post/tragedy-of-the-commons-impa... example 5

closeparen 4y ago
Wages do not work like groundwater. There is no fixed exogenous workload or pool of national income such that fewer people get bigger shares. This was cutting edge thinking at the time of the Industrial Revolution but it turned out to be totally wrong. Obviously, or standards of living in Western countries today would be much worse than in Malthusianism's heyday, given our now much higher populations.
- olivermarks 4y ago
  Disagree. UK socialists last century when the country was still a manufacturing powerhouse were clear about the concept of a nation state with nationalized health, energy, travel etc, union membership and fair taxation for A FINITE NUMBER OF CITIZENS. Fraternal relationships with similar nation states (all singing the nationale together) was arguably one of the reasons for the creation of the common market (which of course mushroomed over time into the huge undemocratic bureaucratic monster it now is). Naturally those benefits (literally in some cases) were very attractive to people like Mo Farah's family from afar decades ago and the UK and Europe were empathetic to allowing some immigration. The tragedy of the commons is epitomized by globalization, the vast offshore empire that now controls the planet. The globalists want compliant, overpopulated workforces with no negotiating skills in all countries and thus encouraging borderless society. The result is mediocre wages, large amounts of trafficking of in some cases literally slave labour and few opportunities for what used to be termed the working classes. These are huge global problems that are currently spinning out of control due to the globalists also controlling the central banks which have enabled finacialization of everything and now ferocious inflation

brigandish 4y ago

Quoting from that article: > However, skilled immigrating workers can bring capabilities that are not available in the native workforce, for example in academic research or information technology. Additionally, immigrating workforces also create new jobs by expanding demand, thus creating more jobs, either directly by setting up businesses (therefore requiring local services or workers), or indirectly by raising consumption. As an example, a greater population that eats more groceries will increase demand from shops, which will therefore require additional shop staff. If that's the "fallacy" then it's not much of a rebuttal. The UK has an immigration system that allows in quite easily the kind of people who do academic research and information technology. How that has any relevance to low paid workers in far more precarious professions (or no profession at all) who have to compete with low skilled immigrants who are unlikely to know their rights, thus pressuring conditions downwards, who are likely to find the low pay better than they could get back home (or worse, taking lower pay out of necessity because of their illegal immigration status) which again, pressures downwards the pay levels, you'll have to explain. One of my friends is from a Baltic state and wasn't claiming for money she should've been paid, which suited her employer just fine (this story[1] turned up a week after I learned about this, about her industry and mirrored her situation) - do you think there was a reason my friend said all her colleagues were foreigners? I'll give you the two best reasons I think for that: a) The company wanted to hire foreigners because it would be easier to scam them out of money and rights b) Locals would be less inclined to put up with that kind of nonsense How is any of this helpful to a country, the locals, or the immigrants? [1] https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37350750 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37350750

closeparen 4y ago
Yes, the leverage employers can have over immigrants is a big problem. An illegal immigrant who goes to the authorities with a wage theft claim risks being arrested and deported herself. Even a highly educated tech worker at Facebook cannot switch to Google without jeopardizing his family's status in the United States. The harsher the climate towards immigrants in laws and officialdom, the easier they are to exploit. The anti-immigration voters who demand this harshness are shooting themselves in the foot a bit, and should reconsider.