3 ms·

>I'm an Australian who recently became a Canadian Permanent Resident using a "sponsorship" process [...] Make no mistake about it, bringing in foreigners lowers

• grecy 13y ago
  > Beyond the hypocritical aspects of your argument ("this ladder I used is too easy to climb, take it away now"), Absolutely, no doubt. I'm very aware that's what I am saying, but yes, that is what I am saying. (hence the don't bite the hand that feeds me comment) > 1. Increased profits help shareholders. So the rich people get richer. Not what the world needs. > 2. Profits are subject to tax, and increased tax receipts fund more public programs. Not for the big companies that get around it with off-shore stuff (apple, google, walmart, etc. etc.) > 3. Lower costs are at least partially passed to customers. Do we need more cheap stuff (Walmart) or higher paying jobs for everyone? > Also maybe it's just me, but saying things like "those foreigners live 20 to a house" sounds rather xenophobic. I agree it does, but the fact is it's true. Being an immigrant here myself, I go to the weekly immigrant social night, and tons of my friends are those '20 to a house' people I speak of. The cost of living up here is so high it's impossible to live on $10/hr., which is why no Canadian will do the job and where this mess comes from. The truth hurts sometimes.
  • bqe 13y ago
    Who are you to decide what the world does and does not need? This is a very complicated issue and it's not useful to speak in such sweeping generalizations.
    • dragonwriter 13y ago
      > Who are you to decide what the world does and does not need? Presumably a citizen of a democratic state, with the responsibility to oversee and manage its government, including, inter alia, deciding which ends it should serve.
• GhotiFish 13y ago
  I worry that our quality of living is unsustainable. Maybe 20 to a house is really the only rational way to live in the coming years. Maybe we can only sustain the life we have now, because we do so at the expense of other nations. That said: 2. Profits are subject to tax, and increased tax receipts fund more public programs. So are wages, and... well... everything. 3. Lower costs are at least partially passed to customers. I really don't see that happening. Consumers don't look at a company's overall costs and conclude "your profit margin are way too high, give me a better deal."
• vacri 13y ago
  1. Increased profits help shareholders. There are fewer shareholders in a company than employees, and trickle-down economics is a sham. 2. Profits are subject to tax, and increased tax receipts fund more public programs. Wages are also subject to tax, and the poor and middle-classes have fewer tax-avoidance options available. 3. Lower costs are at least partially passed to customers. This is a giant leap of faith. How many times has McDonald's reduced the price of it's menu, despite all the advances in efficiency it develops?
  • the_watcher 13y ago
    McDonald's prices go up in response to increased costs for things like beef and regulatory compliance (insurance for when someone sues them for hot coffee), not to mention simple inflation. McDonald's would happily sell burgers for $1 if the economics remained the same as they were back when they did.
    • grecy 13y ago
      Exactly. They choose to increase prices rather than decrease profits even a fraction.
      • the_watcher 13y ago
        That's unrelated to the statement I addressed. If McDonald's could pass savings on to their customers and keep the same profit margin, thus selling more burgers, and generating a higher total profit, they would.
• Tiktaalik 13y ago
  It's not the same system. Fast food companies are using temporary foreign workers and they wouldn't be able to transition to becoming permanent residents.