2 ms·

Appreciate the kind words. I respect the disagreement, I simply feel we are out of better options at this point in the timeline and cycle. It is not the best op

Appreciate the kind words. I respect the disagreement, I simply feel we are out of better options at this point in the timeline and cycle. It is not the best option, it is the least worst option when there are few options. > The solution is not to restrict foreign workers, but to protect wages and working conditions by strictly enforcing labor standards and preventing exploitative hiring (across both the foreign and native labor forces), and to use targeted immigration that addresses genuine bottlenecks. Using a single unemployment threshold is not logical because labor markets are segmented and dynamic. I strongly agree. But that is not on offer at the moment, only restricting immigration. It is a suboptimal mechanism, but still a mechanism available. If what you propose becomes possible, certainly, I would have a different policy opinion based on system inputs and probable outcomes. Systems thinking. I am an aggressive supporter of worker rights and labor protections, having seen first hand what corporations will do to workers (with workers having zero recourse), and I am willing to support substantial economic impairment to the US economy or individual corporations if that is required. We do not need an underclass or immigrant labor to do the work you enumerate (healthcare, construction, agriculture, childcare); we need living wages and strong worker protections for domestic workers first. There is no shortage of labor, only companies and a nation unwilling to pay living wages and provide reasonable working conditions, and that should be forced to change by any means necessary. If, in the short term, a component of that is constraining the immigration pipeline (to reduce labor supply), I support that if it is the only mechanism available. Can I be pro worker and pro immigrant? I can be, under the assumption of prioritizing domestic workers first (as a nation state should, that is its job, to protect its citizens), then immigrant workers with the same wage and working condition protections, up to the jobs available in the economy (+- to account for dynamics). Economic growth gains go primarily to the top 10% of the US by wealth, who hold 93% of US equities, so I do not value economic growth as a KPI to optimize for.

enraged_camel 11mo ago
>> I am willing to support substantial economic impairment to the US economy Okay, but people who hold these types of sentiments are usually financially secure and/or have relatively strong job prospects. You do realize, I hope, that the type of economic downturn that would result from a complete cessation of immigrant labor would greatly hurt the very people whose interests you want to protect and improve.
- toomuchtodo 11mo ago
  I realize that nothing will change until something breaks, and that the status quo is unsustainable. I believe this aligns in some amount with populist sentiment in the US. It's an unfortunate game of chicken because capitalists gonna capitalist until they run out of options. No one gives up power willingly, right? You can only put fear in or control people who have something to lose.
  - enraged_camel 11mo ago
    >> It's an unfortunate game of chicken because capitalists gonna capitalist until they run out of options. If your argument is that when immigration is restricted, capitalists will run out of options and will have to raise wages and improve conditions, I'd say that is simply wrong, for which there are several reasons. First, they can off-shore, like they have been doing for decades. Second, if labor becomes tight, companies accelerate automation and workflow restructuring - which destroys jobs rather than improving conditions for remaining workers. Third, when labor is scarce, large firms typically consolidate, which lowers the competitive pressure to raise wages, since monopsonies and oligopolies neutralize the bargaining power gains of a tight labor market. And lastly, capital does not need to keep growing headcount: if labor is too expensive, firms simply grow more slowly, invest less and try to extract more from existing workers - which is the opposite of working condition improvements we all want. Fundamentally, the reality is that capitalists will never run out of options, unless capitalism itself is abolished and wealth and property are confiscated. The reason for this is simple: under capitalism, capital is structurally mobile, whereas labor is structurally immobile. This creates a massive power asymmetry. Capital can always reconfigure itself to avoid rising labor costs. Restricting immigration does not force capital to yield. Only changing the rules of capital-labor power does. And you cannot do that by relying only on one lever (immigration). Not only is that the weakest lever, but also, you need a complete restructuring of society, including the way the economy is organized and how the government works across all levels. I'm generally supportive of the populist sentiment, but the desired outcomes will only be possible with prolonged effort that will likely span decades. Gimmicks like $100k fees for H1-B visas will be massively counterproductive, as they ultimately harm, not help, the people whose interests need to be protected.

enraged_camel 11mo ago

>> I am willing to support substantial economic impairment to the US economy Okay, but people who hold these types of sentiments are usually financially secure and/or have relatively strong job prospects. You do realize, I hope, that the type of economic downturn that would result from a complete cessation of immigrant labor would greatly hurt the very people whose interests you want to protect and improve.

toomuchtodo 11mo ago
I realize that nothing will change until something breaks, and that the status quo is unsustainable. I believe this aligns in some amount with populist sentiment in the US. It's an unfortunate game of chicken because capitalists gonna capitalist until they run out of options. No one gives up power willingly, right? You can only put fear in or control people who have something to lose.
- enraged_camel 11mo ago
  >> It's an unfortunate game of chicken because capitalists gonna capitalist until they run out of options. If your argument is that when immigration is restricted, capitalists will run out of options and will have to raise wages and improve conditions, I'd say that is simply wrong, for which there are several reasons. First, they can off-shore, like they have been doing for decades. Second, if labor becomes tight, companies accelerate automation and workflow restructuring - which destroys jobs rather than improving conditions for remaining workers. Third, when labor is scarce, large firms typically consolidate, which lowers the competitive pressure to raise wages, since monopsonies and oligopolies neutralize the bargaining power gains of a tight labor market. And lastly, capital does not need to keep growing headcount: if labor is too expensive, firms simply grow more slowly, invest less and try to extract more from existing workers - which is the opposite of working condition improvements we all want. Fundamentally, the reality is that capitalists will never run out of options, unless capitalism itself is abolished and wealth and property are confiscated. The reason for this is simple: under capitalism, capital is structurally mobile, whereas labor is structurally immobile. This creates a massive power asymmetry. Capital can always reconfigure itself to avoid rising labor costs. Restricting immigration does not force capital to yield. Only changing the rules of capital-labor power does. And you cannot do that by relying only on one lever (immigration). Not only is that the weakest lever, but also, you need a complete restructuring of society, including the way the economy is organized and how the government works across all levels. I'm generally supportive of the populist sentiment, but the desired outcomes will only be possible with prolonged effort that will likely span decades. Gimmicks like $100k fees for H1-B visas will be massively counterproductive, as they ultimately harm, not help, the people whose interests need to be protected.