8 ms·

"The hollowing out of the middle class in the US isn't because of immigrants, it's because of a sustained campaign by capital to reduce the power of labor over

"The hollowing out of the middle class in the US isn't because of immigrants, it's because of a sustained campaign by capital to reduce the power of labor over the last 50-odd years and to concentrate wealth as best they can." Creating low cost alternatives and taking advance of lax laws is part of that. If you can import 100k skilled workers per year under a scheme that gives you more power over them. Then you also offshore 300k jobs per year to countries with weaker protections. It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections.

sahila 1y ago
> It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections. Why's that? The jobs and lives of individuals in those countries are better than the alternatives present otherwise to them. Globalization may hurt certain America jobs but certainly countries like India is grateful for all of the engineering roles. High consumerism is harmful to the environment but I don't think the link between offshoring jobs is direct to environmental harms and certainly it's helpful to giving more job opportunites.
- sokoloff 1y ago
  I'm very much free trade and pro-globalization, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a candidate for political office in country X should be most concerned about the overall welfare of the citizens of country X, then next for the non-citizen residents of country X, then non-citizen/non-residents last. We can argue how steep the dropoff should be, but I think most people would believe that the ordering is that one, with some possible ties.
  - TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
    Good news! Native USian developers will no longer be made unemployed by cheap immigrants. Instead they'll be made unemployed by AI and a crashing tech economy. But that isn't the point of this. It's leverage - much like the tariffs. Big companies making significant donations to the Donald Trump Presidential Aggrandisement Fund will receive carve-outs and exclusions. It's a grift, like everything else done by this benighted administration.
    - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
      I hope you are right. If this is just grift...well...I guess the bar is still low but at least it isn't at the bottom.
    - itake 1y ago
      its a common tactic for companies to force high paying employees to relocate to other offices, or leave... This could be a tactic to force lower end to go home and accept a lower salary at the same company for their same role. up or out. or in this cause, over or out...
    - cantor_S_drug 1y ago
      In the recent podcast Balaji said, both Red and Blue America will start hating Tech for distinct reasons. Red America will hate for H1Bs. Blue will hate for AI displacing high paying white collar jobs.
  - simonh 1y ago
    Overall welfare is about more than just income though. It’s about national security, the cost of living, and the benefits of things like innovation, technology, culture. Let’s look at US imports from China. Last year that was $462bn worth of goods. Suppose the development of China never happened and all those goods were manufactured in the USA instead. That’s impossible, the US doesn’t have tens of millions of industrial workers lying around spare to do those mostly low end, low value jobs and if it did they would cost more and the goods would all be much more expensive. So the cost of living would go up, the economy would less efficient because many workers would be doing lower value add jobs than they are now. The country would be much worse off overall. It would basically amount to enormous government subsidies and protections for vast swathes of lower value assembly work than what many people are doing now. I support global trade because I think it’s best for the west. Not hyper-liberal ultra free market trade. Negotiated, rules based, moderately regulated trade and investment that is balanced to meet domestic and international needs.
- franktankbank 1y ago
  Its arbitrage. You think the low rung indians are happy suresh is making top dollar programming a web app?
  - sokoloff 1y ago
    They may not care about Suresh specifically, but they're probably happier than if no one in their country had a well-paying tech job. Suresh and his tech worker colleagues don't sit on Scrooge McDuck piles of gold coins; instead they spend the money in their country and community. I'm pretty sure my local pizza shop, waitstaff, and other small businesses are happy to have my money spent on their products and services. They don't care that I have a tech job, but they do care that I spend money with them, and spending money with them is only one degree of separation from having a job.
- roenxi 1y ago
  Insofar as a "pro-labour" position exists in practice it has to be anti-globalist. If pro-labour is going to mean something it has to mean trying to get labour a better deal than a free market would offer, otherwise it isn't really taking a position on labour at all. A key part of globalism is it makes it impossible for labour in any given country to avoid being paid the market price for their labour. Environmentalism is similar. Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets. You seem to be arguing that globalism makes the world better off. I agree, but that is because pro-labour and pro-environmentalist ideologies are pretty explicit that they aren't trying to maximise the general welfare. A situation where one soul works very hard and happily for little pay making things for everyone else could be a good outcome for everyone (see also: economic comparative advantage). The pro-labour position would resist that outcome on the basis that the labourer is not making very much money. And the environmentalist would probably be unhappy with the amount of pollution that the hard work generates. The globalist would call it a win.
  - palmfacehn 1y ago
    Globalism as an ideology is distinct from globalization of trade. Globalists would argue for expansive supranational regulatory controls. Migration and alleged environmental concerns are typical rationalizations for their expanding powers. The distinction is better understood as between a set of liberal, laissez-faire trade policies and an emerging illiberal supranational regulatory state. Specifically when you say: >Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets. We can observe that the Globalist organizations regard not just pollution, but carbon consumption to be something which markets cannot be trusted to manage. Instead they propose top-down regulatory management on a supranational level. https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-approves-netzero-regulations.aspx https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-...
    - roenxi 1y ago
      Hmm, yes. I am forced to agree. Sorry, please interpret my comment as talking about globalisation (the effect), not globalism (the ideology).
- harimau777 1y ago
  I could see that being the case in a scenario where all countries had strong labor protections. However, in practice globalism tends to result in jobs being exported from countries with strong protections to countries with weak protections. In that sense it is anti-labor. In the case of bringing in workers; those workers are less likely to join unions or demand good working conditions since they are effectively indentured servants. That also is bad for labor.
  - MiguelX413 1y ago
    Nothing stopping a country for regulating the offshore labor of companies based in it
scrubs 1y ago
I like your focus on middle class. That is if we're viewing h1b as an input we ought to eval based on what's good for the middle class. I don't quite agree that much with causes: high housing, Healthcare & med bankruptcy, and high education costs (correlating with high housing) are bigger factors. However non tech/lawyer/doctors have been adversely effected by the fact they've seen no real income gains in 25 years overall. Now, the top 5% and corps need to be made to pay more taxes... thats another subject. A couple elderly people i know are quite concerned Trump will take their snap benefits, or decrease medicaid/care etc while the tax reductions were given on the bb bill. Thats not acceptable.
- lumost 1y ago
  > However non tech/lawyer/doctors have been adversely effected by the fact they've seen no real income gains in 25 years overall. We may be reaching the breaking point where Americans view any solution to this problem as worth trying. We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans. When your grandparents are the last generation to remember rising living standards, it’s hard to buy that the system is working for you at all.
  - SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
    > We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans. No, we aren't! We have statistics on this (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). Median real income is up substantially since 40-50 years ago, depending on what you count as a generation. And we have stories and records of what life was like in the 1970s, when 80% of households had to hand wash dishes and 50% had to line-dry clothes. The reason people believe living standards haven't risen since their grandparents' day is that they get false nostalgia bait depictions of how a typical person lived in their grandparents' day. (What is true, and what I'm sure contributes to the power of the nostalgia bait, is that real income stagnated with the dot-com bubble and didn't hit a sustained rise again until the mid-late 2010s.)
    - lumost 1y ago
quasarsunnix 1y ago
Wholeheartedly agreed. I used to work very closely with economists in asset management. What looks like efficiency on a spreadsheet can look very different on the ground.
Yeul 1y ago
Keeping the middle class distracted with racism is what the elite does very well.
geye1234 1y ago
> It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections. Propaganda is very effective, and Americans are the most skillful propagandists in the world. Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it.
- catlikesshrimp 1y ago
  Are "Americans the most skillful propagandists"? Not Russians, not communist, not new age populist dictatorships? That doesn't mean the teflon president isn't just now blatantly silencing the voices of the opposition (Kimmel and then a general warning) so he definitely wants a place in the competition.
  - viridian 1y ago
    Oh we absolutely are, and it's not even close. I'd almost take pride in it were it not so ruinous for everyone. We've gone from philosophers like DeBord and Baudrillard painting a somewhat manic vision of the future, to actually living in this hyper-real mirror of some actual society that no longer exists, mostly courtesy of a global American cultural hegemony. People are willing to risk being fatally shot, to engage in anti-social behavior, or to martyr themselves all in the name of some form of second order "engagement". The current state of propaganda is such that even the more modern concepts taught in a polisci class on ideology & propaganda, such as banal nationalism, are completely outdated, and are about as quaint as a lot of soviet era concepts. Propaganda is now able to be delivered in the form of hyper-personalized content, where the content itself not even need be propaganda, control of the recommendation engine selecting what a person sees and doesn't see is more than enough.
- shakes_mcjunkie 1y ago
  > Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it. "Immigration" as such is a made up concept. The legal and physical barriers created by immigration policy are pro-capital and anti-labor. If people could freely move around the world, you can bet there'd be much more focus on pro-labor policies.
anonbuddy 1y ago
it shocks me seeing how people are blind to the whole offshoring thing - I'm dev from 'third' world country (in Europe) and when joined my team had 9 people out of 13 from USA. In 4 years, we are down to ONE person, and this one is on H1B visa.
- pandaman 1y ago
  Not completely blind, there is a bill to put a 25% excise tax on offshored labor: https://www.moreno.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-HIRE-Act.pdf https://www.moreno.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The...
  - giantg2 1y ago
    In general, I think this would be a great idea. There's little chance of it passing.
    - pandaman 1y ago
      I agree on both points, but my point was that there are people aware of outsourcing and working on curbing it too.
      - fair_enough 1y ago
        Your comment did not deserve to be downvoted, I don't know who did it or why they did it without some kind of comment explaining their bone of contention.
        pandaman 1y ago
        Likely the person who smugly commented how other countries should tax US companies doing business there (implying that they don't do already?).
    - wqaatwt 1y ago
      It would be as great if European and others countries put a 25% tax on all revenue Google, Facebook etc. generate in their countries. Especially tech companies making their money from ads and such provide very little real value and just drain massive amounts of money and transfer it to the US economy. They generally have way more employees in the US relative to how much money they are making domestically.
danny_codes 1y ago
> The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections. A valid critique of how globalism was implemented in the US. However, this concern could be heavily ameliorated by policy. For example, making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. Perhaps a reason you’re baffled is because you are thinking only of domestic labor instead of global labor. Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis.
- DrewADesign 1y ago
  > making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. There are already rules in place but no real enforcement. Large software companies save a fortune making workers compete with workers from countries that have dramatically lower cost of living, entirely circumventing the market constraints that favor workers. In hiring the people the H1B was designed for, 100k is nothing. > Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis. This is a disingenuous argument. Allowing companies to pocket a huge amount of money that would have gone to the people they laid off to hire H1Bs with common skill sets is not pro labor by any measure.
  - chipsrafferty 1y ago
    > making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. This includes enforcement of the law.
    - DrewADesign 1y ago
      Yeah that would be great, but the legal and logistical barriers stopped that from happening for the past few decades won't likely change any time soon.
- heyjamesknight 1y ago
  > Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis. This is an insanely modern take on "pro-labor" movements, especially in the US. Traditionally, pro-labor has been 100% focused on local labor. If you told your average union member that being "pro-labor" meant closing their factories and offshoring their jobs they'd laugh (or more likely, spit) in your face.
MiguelX413 1y ago
The argument is hard to buy when the same people are weakening the power of unions.

sahila 1y ago

> It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections. Why's that? The jobs and lives of individuals in those countries are better than the alternatives present otherwise to them. Globalization may hurt certain America jobs but certainly countries like India is grateful for all of the engineering roles. High consumerism is harmful to the environment but I don't think the link between offshoring jobs is direct to environmental harms and certainly it's helpful to giving more job opportunites.

sokoloff 1y ago
I'm very much free trade and pro-globalization, but it seems perfectly reasonable to me that a candidate for political office in country X should be most concerned about the overall welfare of the citizens of country X, then next for the non-citizen residents of country X, then non-citizen/non-residents last. We can argue how steep the dropoff should be, but I think most people would believe that the ordering is that one, with some possible ties.
- TheOtherHobbes 1y ago
  Good news! Native USian developers will no longer be made unemployed by cheap immigrants. Instead they'll be made unemployed by AI and a crashing tech economy. But that isn't the point of this. It's leverage - much like the tariffs. Big companies making significant donations to the Donald Trump Presidential Aggrandisement Fund will receive carve-outs and exclusions. It's a grift, like everything else done by this benighted administration.
  - seanmcdirmid 1y ago
    I hope you are right. If this is just grift...well...I guess the bar is still low but at least it isn't at the bottom.
  - itake 1y ago
    its a common tactic for companies to force high paying employees to relocate to other offices, or leave... This could be a tactic to force lower end to go home and accept a lower salary at the same company for their same role. up or out. or in this cause, over or out...
  - cantor_S_drug 1y ago
    In the recent podcast Balaji said, both Red and Blue America will start hating Tech for distinct reasons. Red America will hate for H1Bs. Blue will hate for AI displacing high paying white collar jobs.
- simonh 1y ago
  Overall welfare is about more than just income though. It’s about national security, the cost of living, and the benefits of things like innovation, technology, culture. Let’s look at US imports from China. Last year that was $462bn worth of goods. Suppose the development of China never happened and all those goods were manufactured in the USA instead. That’s impossible, the US doesn’t have tens of millions of industrial workers lying around spare to do those mostly low end, low value jobs and if it did they would cost more and the goods would all be much more expensive. So the cost of living would go up, the economy would less efficient because many workers would be doing lower value add jobs than they are now. The country would be much worse off overall. It would basically amount to enormous government subsidies and protections for vast swathes of lower value assembly work than what many people are doing now. I support global trade because I think it’s best for the west. Not hyper-liberal ultra free market trade. Negotiated, rules based, moderately regulated trade and investment that is balanced to meet domestic and international needs.
franktankbank 1y ago
Its arbitrage. You think the low rung indians are happy suresh is making top dollar programming a web app?
- sokoloff 1y ago
  They may not care about Suresh specifically, but they're probably happier than if no one in their country had a well-paying tech job. Suresh and his tech worker colleagues don't sit on Scrooge McDuck piles of gold coins; instead they spend the money in their country and community. I'm pretty sure my local pizza shop, waitstaff, and other small businesses are happy to have my money spent on their products and services. They don't care that I have a tech job, but they do care that I spend money with them, and spending money with them is only one degree of separation from having a job.
roenxi 1y ago
Insofar as a "pro-labour" position exists in practice it has to be anti-globalist. If pro-labour is going to mean something it has to mean trying to get labour a better deal than a free market would offer, otherwise it isn't really taking a position on labour at all. A key part of globalism is it makes it impossible for labour in any given country to avoid being paid the market price for their labour. Environmentalism is similar. Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets. You seem to be arguing that globalism makes the world better off. I agree, but that is because pro-labour and pro-environmentalist ideologies are pretty explicit that they aren't trying to maximise the general welfare. A situation where one soul works very hard and happily for little pay making things for everyone else could be a good outcome for everyone (see also: economic comparative advantage). The pro-labour position would resist that outcome on the basis that the labourer is not making very much money. And the environmentalist would probably be unhappy with the amount of pollution that the hard work generates. The globalist would call it a win.
- palmfacehn 1y ago
  Globalism as an ideology is distinct from globalization of trade. Globalists would argue for expansive supranational regulatory controls. Migration and alleged environmental concerns are typical rationalizations for their expanding powers. The distinction is better understood as between a set of liberal, laissez-faire trade policies and an emerging illiberal supranational regulatory state. Specifically when you say: >Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets. We can observe that the Globalist organizations regard not just pollution, but carbon consumption to be something which markets cannot be trusted to manage. Instead they propose top-down regulatory management on a supranational level. https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-approves-netzero-regulations.aspx https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-...
  - roenxi 1y ago
    Hmm, yes. I am forced to agree. Sorry, please interpret my comment as talking about globalisation (the effect), not globalism (the ideology).
harimau777 1y ago
I could see that being the case in a scenario where all countries had strong labor protections. However, in practice globalism tends to result in jobs being exported from countries with strong protections to countries with weak protections. In that sense it is anti-labor. In the case of bringing in workers; those workers are less likely to join unions or demand good working conditions since they are effectively indentured servants. That also is bad for labor.
- MiguelX413 1y ago
  Nothing stopping a country for regulating the offshore labor of companies based in it

scrubs 1y ago

I like your focus on middle class. That is if we're viewing h1b as an input we ought to eval based on what's good for the middle class. I don't quite agree that much with causes: high housing, Healthcare & med bankruptcy, and high education costs (correlating with high housing) are bigger factors. However non tech/lawyer/doctors have been adversely effected by the fact they've seen no real income gains in 25 years overall. Now, the top 5% and corps need to be made to pay more taxes... thats another subject. A couple elderly people i know are quite concerned Trump will take their snap benefits, or decrease medicaid/care etc while the tax reductions were given on the bb bill. Thats not acceptable.

lumost 1y ago
> However non tech/lawyer/doctors have been adversely effected by the fact they've seen no real income gains in 25 years overall. We may be reaching the breaking point where Americans view any solution to this problem as worth trying. We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans. When your grandparents are the last generation to remember rising living standards, it’s hard to buy that the system is working for you at all.
- SpicyLemonZest 1y ago
  > We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans. No, we aren't! We have statistics on this (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). Median real income is up substantially since 40-50 years ago, depending on what you count as a generation. And we have stories and records of what life was like in the 1970s, when 80% of households had to hand wash dishes and 50% had to line-dry clothes. The reason people believe living standards haven't risen since their grandparents' day is that they get false nostalgia bait depictions of how a typical person lived in their grandparents' day. (What is true, and what I'm sure contributes to the power of the nostalgia bait, is that real income stagnated with the dot-com bubble and didn't hit a sustained rise again until the mid-late 2010s.)
  - lumost 1y ago

quasarsunnix 1y ago

Wholeheartedly agreed. I used to work very closely with economists in asset management. What looks like efficiency on a spreadsheet can look very different on the ground.

Yeul 1y ago

Keeping the middle class distracted with racism is what the elite does very well.

geye1234 1y ago

> It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections. Propaganda is very effective, and Americans are the most skillful propagandists in the world. Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it.

catlikesshrimp 1y ago
Are "Americans the most skillful propagandists"? Not Russians, not communist, not new age populist dictatorships? That doesn't mean the teflon president isn't just now blatantly silencing the voices of the opposition (Kimmel and then a general warning) so he definitely wants a place in the competition.
- viridian 1y ago
  Oh we absolutely are, and it's not even close. I'd almost take pride in it were it not so ruinous for everyone. We've gone from philosophers like DeBord and Baudrillard painting a somewhat manic vision of the future, to actually living in this hyper-real mirror of some actual society that no longer exists, mostly courtesy of a global American cultural hegemony. People are willing to risk being fatally shot, to engage in anti-social behavior, or to martyr themselves all in the name of some form of second order "engagement". The current state of propaganda is such that even the more modern concepts taught in a polisci class on ideology & propaganda, such as banal nationalism, are completely outdated, and are about as quaint as a lot of soviet era concepts. Propaganda is now able to be delivered in the form of hyper-personalized content, where the content itself not even need be propaganda, control of the recommendation engine selecting what a person sees and doesn't see is more than enough.
shakes_mcjunkie 1y ago
> Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it. "Immigration" as such is a made up concept. The legal and physical barriers created by immigration policy are pro-capital and anti-labor. If people could freely move around the world, you can bet there'd be much more focus on pro-labor policies.

anonbuddy 1y ago

it shocks me seeing how people are blind to the whole offshoring thing - I'm dev from 'third' world country (in Europe) and when joined my team had 9 people out of 13 from USA. In 4 years, we are down to ONE person, and this one is on H1B visa.

pandaman 1y ago
Not completely blind, there is a bill to put a 25% excise tax on offshored labor: https://www.moreno.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The-HIRE-Act.pdf https://www.moreno.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/The...
- giantg2 1y ago
  In general, I think this would be a great idea. There's little chance of it passing.
  - pandaman 1y ago
    I agree on both points, but my point was that there are people aware of outsourcing and working on curbing it too.
    - fair_enough 1y ago
      Your comment did not deserve to be downvoted, I don't know who did it or why they did it without some kind of comment explaining their bone of contention.
      - pandaman 1y ago
        Likely the person who smugly commented how other countries should tax US companies doing business there (implying that they don't do already?).
  - wqaatwt 1y ago
    It would be as great if European and others countries put a 25% tax on all revenue Google, Facebook etc. generate in their countries. Especially tech companies making their money from ads and such provide very little real value and just drain massive amounts of money and transfer it to the US economy. They generally have way more employees in the US relative to how much money they are making domestically.

danny_codes 1y ago

> The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections. A valid critique of how globalism was implemented in the US. However, this concern could be heavily ameliorated by policy. For example, making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. Perhaps a reason you’re baffled is because you are thinking only of domestic labor instead of global labor. Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis.

DrewADesign 1y ago
> making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. There are already rules in place but no real enforcement. Large software companies save a fortune making workers compete with workers from countries that have dramatically lower cost of living, entirely circumventing the market constraints that favor workers. In hiring the people the H1B was designed for, 100k is nothing. > Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis. This is a disingenuous argument. Allowing companies to pocket a huge amount of money that would have gone to the people they laid off to hire H1Bs with common skill sets is not pro labor by any measure.
- chipsrafferty 1y ago
  > making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically. This includes enforcement of the law.
  - DrewADesign 1y ago
    Yeah that would be great, but the legal and logistical barriers stopped that from happening for the past few decades won't likely change any time soon.
heyjamesknight 1y ago
> Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis. This is an insanely modern take on "pro-labor" movements, especially in the US. Traditionally, pro-labor has been 100% focused on local labor. If you told your average union member that being "pro-labor" meant closing their factories and offshoring their jobs they'd laugh (or more likely, spit) in your face.

MiguelX413 1y ago

The argument is hard to buy when the same people are weakening the power of unions.