This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Popping filter bubbles and picking up the Tuna Cans.
None of these stories on their own really warrant a top level post but taken together I feel like they both illustrate a trend and serve as a coda to my January post on "Tuna Cans" and how the Trump administration might be able to more effectively deliver on it's campaign promise to combat Immigration.
Last week the Trump administration announced that it would be rescinding a 2022 rule that prohibited US Customs and Immigration Services from considering an immigrant's use of Medicaid and other public benefits when deciding whether or not to renew their visa or grant them legal resident status. The usual suspects at NBC, CNN, the New York Times, Et Al are trotting out their usual tripe about "women and minorities hardest hit" but to me the most galling thing is that this rule existed in the first place, and that it wasn't quashed a year and a half ago. That said, while the best time to plant a tree (or repeal a bad law) is 20 years ago, doing it now is still something worthy of praise.
In the wake of Nick Shirley's expeditions to Minneapolis and LA, the Department of Health and Human Services has that announced that 199 million dollars a year allocated to the state of Minnesota and 860 million dollars a year allocated to the state of California has been frozen pending those states provide positive evidence that individuals and business originally slated to receive those funds actually exist and are not just a PO-box in a strip mall somewhere.
At the same time Vice President JD Vance and Interim Labor Secretary Keith Sonderling announced a "crack-down" on H1B visa fraud four days after Microsoft announced that it would be laying off 4,800 employees while simultaneously applying for permission to import over 2,000 foreign workers.
Meanwhile Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy continues to quietly do his job, announcing that the audit started back in January has resulted in the revocation of 28,000 commercial drivers licences and that nearly 200,000 drivers more could be effected by the reinstitution of English language proficiency requirements that had been relaxed by Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx under Obama back in 2016. The American Trucking Association is naturally angry about this complaining that the constricting workforce coupled with proposed crack-downs on "chameleon carriers" and rulings like Montgomery v. Caribe Transport is driving up costs for brokers and bulk carriers, but I think I speak for a lot of voters when I say "maybe that's a good thing".
Again I reiterate my position that more often than not it isn't the big headline grabbing stories that have the greatest impact but rather the things that happen quietly behind the scenes and that is why I feel obliged to signal-boost these sorts of stories.
Yes, because we don't need immigrants to work our jobs. We have no shortage of Americans willing to work. What we do have a shortage of are Americans who are willing to be underpaid, which is why companies love foreign labor so much. They are willing to be treated like slaves.
One wonders how one could advocate for workers' rights and treating employees fairly, and yet also support the importation of a workforce to be exploited by employers for the sole purpose of reducing costs.
Then where exactly is this mass of currently non working American citizens with no employment prospects who are perfectly happy and able to start any work again, yet alone backbreaking labor like dealing with farms in the south, and how are they currently living without any pay? The main groups out of the work force are either old, in college (and thus entering soon!), disabled, or in between employment because layover/hiring cycles means there's always some left just like how housing vacancies will (and should) always exist.
Even if we want to discuss the relatively few working age NEETs or mentally ill homeless addicts or whatever, I don't think they're gonna start picking up a hoe because you pay them a little more.
Prime age male employment rate is only 86% now. It use to be 95% or higher doing economic expansions. So we have millions of men not working right now in America.
There are a lot of ways to live without pay today. Military disability (which is mostly fraud now), food stamps, housing vouchers etc. If you quit subsidizing unemployment you would get more workers.
Same as 1990s levels. You've got to really far back to post war economic booms to get the higher levels you're citing.
Sure, we could count all those but those aren't really "people who are looking for a job and can't get one", they're people who don't want a job and won't be happy if you cut them off from what they currently got. The military man with a 3k a month disability check is happy where he is, even if he is a parasite.
These are not examples of the supposed hordes of men wanting work that can't get any because the jobs are stolen.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LREM25MAUSA156S
The data doesn’t agree.
Oh yeah sorry, I was thinking of the general prime age labor rate which is at 90s levels, males have gone down a little.
However, we know the reasons why and we know that they don't want jobs and their problems are not because jobs are lacking
https://www.mercatus.org/research/research-papers/whats-behind-declining-male-labor-force-participation
Again there is not a horde of American citizens who want jobs but can not find them. These inactive men do not want jobs, because they're disabled or caretaking or whatever.
Of the few who do have trouble finding it, well they're mostly just shit and that's why they can't. If you've ever done hiring for any lower level position you might have seen a few of them yourself, the people who you will simply never hire. Lazy addicted losers who won't show up on time or pay attention to their work no matter what you do, the type of person who gets themselves fired from fast food or door dashing. The dregs of society are the bottomfeeders not because of the 1% wealthy or immigrants or whatever other scapegoats, but because they're shit and can't even tear themselves away from drugs long enough to hold an interview.
Am I taking crazy pills - “7% of men saying they aren’t in the labor market is because they can’t find a job”. That’s a huge amount of men.
The job market sucks. I’ve worked for prop trading firms and they can pay extremely well. And I went thru a period of burn out or perhaps something like YIPs in baseball. I couldn’t hit a fastball anymore and make money and needed a break. So I looked for opportunities. Even with solid degrees (Ivy engineering + M-7 MBA and prior top performer) no one would even interview me.
Now I’ve rebuilt a solid 3 year track record and it seems like I can hit a fastball again. So I guess that’s better than taking a job, but I would still consider the right opportunity at a reasonable salary for economic security. In my experience the anecdotes are true and I have zero idea how I could add more valuable traits. The traits I have are elite. The anecdotes of a lot of people saying the job market sucks appears to be true.
Not 7% of all men. 7% of those not in the labor force. Almost all men who want to work can get jobs, of those without jobs they don't want to work to begin with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
In the case that you are actually asking this question seriously, and not as a half-assed attempt at a rhetorical dunk, they're in the Appalachians. I have some family and old acquaintances in ${UNDISCLOSED}. One of the largest employers in the area has historically been a prepared food facility, which recently came under new management. This new executive team has been doing rolling waves of layoffs, and regularly furloughing workers who they retain an attempt to force them to quit. For the last year, both a relative and a friend have repeatedly noted that despite the rolling layoffs, the overall workforce at the plant has not decreased. It has, however, started to feature an increasingly large number of five foot tall Guatemalan men in their 20s who don't speak English, but present work papers claiming that they're John Billings from Madison, Wisconsin. It's agonizingly obvious that they're hiring people with stolen identities.
My cousin got laid off recently, and he's looking at trying to file some sort of suit against the company. I doubt it will go anywhere. He has placed upwards of thirty job applications in the fields of construction, municipal maintenance work, security, and HVAC. He hasn't heard a damned thing back from any of them. In the interest of full disclosure, I will admit that he has a felony drug charge on his record from 20 years ago, but in that area, that's not really uncommon.
You're welcome to pretend this is all about "jobs nobody wants to do", but believe me when I tell you it's climbing up the food chain.
As another commentator pointed out, unemployment rates don't match and if you go back historically they've never really matched, unemployment has never been all that high except for temporary disruptions with obvious causes like Covid or the recession. Maybe your family and old acquaintances are unlucky anecdotes, but they are absolutely not representative of the general economy in any way.
This ain't a conversation to be had with individual anecdotes but with data and statistics, and what those suggest is that there isn't some massive amount of capable American job seekers who are unable to find employment.
Maybe it is the drug charges, maybe it's more than just the drug charges. Sometimes terrible employees do exist and they will obviously lose out to better alternatives. It's what happens.
I will not hire a bad employee in my department simply because I feel bad for them, and no one else will either. Businesses want efficient and lean workplaces so we can compete for customers, we are not charities.
It’s impossible to get a job now. I had some business failings a few years ago. Tried to find a reasonable pivot to survive and not blow my savings. With 2 Ivy equivalent degrees I did the apply to anything on LinkedIn and think I submitted 5k applications. Maybe 3 interviews. Luckily business is now going well but it’s basically impossible to get a job.
It’s why there is a huge increase in left the labor market that isn’t showing up in the official statistics. I have no idea how to get a job in this environment especially if you need to do any kind of career pivot. It actually scares me a lot if business goes bad again that I would be able to find something to survive on. I guess I could work at McDonalds.
Let me repeat myself here
Sorry you can't find something, but the problem is probably with you. Often what I see from people who "can't find a job" is what they actually mean is "I can't find a high paying office email job", which if that's the case it means you probably need to accept reality and lower your standards for what you apply to.
Yes. If you aren't good enough to compete and win the high paying email jobs, then you work at McDonald's or whatever else. If ego and actual ability don't match, you either lower your ego or raise your ability. The former is way easier.
Dude I’ve been paid 7 figures multiple times. It’s not a skills issue. They don’t even interview or phone call white men.
And the statistics agree with me. Labor market participation rate is crashing.
And as Bezos says when the anecdotes and the data disagrees trust the anecdotes. But the data also agrees with me.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Are you claiming that @birb_cromble's cousin is (or would be) a terrible employee, apropos of nothing besides the fact that he's sent out thirty job applications with no success?
A person who gets fired and then can't find another job of any sort within a few months typically has something going on with them. Maybe he's too picky and trying to get a job he's not qualified for, or maybe he's just really bad at doing interviews, or whatever. I don't know.
But basically everyone else manages to get employment. Long term unemployment doesn't really happen unless you either choose it or have something going on with you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I know it's not the point of your post, but I just want to say that I've always found the whole "jobs nobody wants to do" argument infuriatingly obtuse and borderline offensive.
While nobody (that I am aware of) literally follows the argument up with "...and that's why the abolition of slavery was a bad thing" that is kind of what they are implying. What they are saying in effect is that people who do {dirty job} do not deserve to be compensated in such a way that someone would work {dirty job} voluntarily because {dirty job} is sub-human.
I don't think this is is quite a fair summary; the implication is that it is impossible to compensate someone enough that they will work {dirty job} - either literally impossible, or at the very least economically infeasible to do at scale.
A reasonable point, but at the same time my reply to you would closely mirror your reply to @SophisticatedHillbilly about socially necessary jobs.
Some jobs are just naturally undesirable, and by extension "low status". There are a lot of people who will object to a "low status" (undesirable) job paying more than a "high status" (desirable) job on basic principle because in their minds money is a proxy for status. That in turn feeds into the question of whether you can hire a sufficient number of sanitation workers in a world you are neither willing to pay them a middle class salary nor are you willing to shoot and/or starve them.
Yeah no doubt people will object to that, I just think the market will override their objections barring infinite cheap foreign labor. People will pay out before they’ll go without running water.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
That doesn’t really make sense though. There is always a wage people will take to do dirty jobs (I would do them instead of my profession if the dirty jobs paid better) so leaving that aside is the economy argument. Your argument is basically an argument against paying any job a high wage. Trucking simply must be done. The economy must bear whatever labor (or automation when that becomes fully viable) cost is required to make the trucks move. If that is $100/hour for entry level truckers, then goods will become more expensive and that cost will be distributed across the economy accordingly. This will make all other people in the economy poorer, and it will make truckers or whatever other dirty-job-doers richer. It would also increase the quality of talent in those positions, resulting in efficiency gains (but probably somewhat lower gains than the cost increase). I think the reality is people just don’t want to see meatpackers and truckers making significantly more than they make with an email job and a degree .
That’s how any high paid job works. Doctor is a difficult-to-fill position, and so is paid highly, which makes all other people in the economy marginally poorer by increasing their expenses. If doctors were willing to work for 20$/hour, everyone else would be better off. They don’t do that, but maybe they would if we imported 1,000,000 foreign doctors and put them to work.
What is infeasible is any one company paying high wages for dirty jobs when there is a pool of cheap labor available due to competition.
For the record it's not my argument, just my interpretation - not even much of a steelman - of those people's argument. Overall I'm very much with you on biting the bullet that all sorts of manual jobs should just be paid better, and that there is a degree of snobbery to rejecting that class of solutions to labor shortages.
That being said, I don't think we can dismiss out of hand the idea that there may be some socially-necessary jobs so unpleasant that even high salaries would not be sufficient to fill the vacancies. Historically, the question didn't really arise; some degree of coercion (whether by force, or simply by threat of starvation) was always on the table. Whether you can in fact hire sufficient quantities of sewage workers etc. in a humane, liberal, affluent society where even if you choose to remain unemployed rather than take the job, you'll get enough to eke out a living - that is not a trivial question. I'm not saying the answer is definitely no - I don't think it's no for truckers, certainly - but it's worth thinking about seriously.
I agree it’s not a trivial question, but I do think the answer is a clear yes. There’s a pretty large portion of the population that isn’t built for knowledge work and loves money. It does have to beat out the living-on-benefits life which is pretty good.
The snobbery is one part, but I suppose there is a degree of understandable anxiety around what a world might look like where the salaries of sanitation workers and knowledge workers get reversed or even reach parity. It is deeply contrary to blue-tribe values I think.
More options
Context Copy link
For the record I do not think that "even high salaries would not be sufficient to fill the vacancies" so much as I suspect that there are a lot of people here who would object on principle to the idea of sanitation workers being well-paid.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Slavery was economically inefficient, as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, Bastiat, and many other early capitalist/capitalist aligned thinkers would point out. And therefore anyone who tried to argue "the economy is why the abolition of slavery is a bad thing" would be incorrect from the very start.
A free market of goods and labor however is economically efficient, and therefore any protectionist argument against that has to showcase why any claimed moral gains are worth the economic tradeoffs. There might be some things where that's true, but they aren't the same.
More options
Context Copy link
They are doing it voluntarily. It's just that they are voluntarily doing it for wages that some people believe are too low. It's basically "the myth of consensual employment".
But when a lot of these immigrant subsidies programs come with implied PR or citizenship pathways the work is massively overpaid not underpaid.
If I get a UK care worker from Nigeria at 10k GBP a year below prevailing rate for 5 years, but the government allows them ILR and a potential passport after that 5 years the latter is worth millions of pounds in benefits. Especially if there's any sort of family reunification at play. If anything the majority of foreign low skilled workers in the West are being massively overpaid due to their potential to get citizenship
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You know what drives me apeshit? I've worked on a dairy farm, and an orchard. Sure, it's hot, dirty, and uncomfortable work, but it wasn't really any worse than a dinner rush in a commercial kitchen on a Friday night. I really get the impression that a lot of people assume manual labor is worse than the ninth circle of hell.
More options
Context Copy link
I don't think that's what they are implying, they mostly see it as a way to imply white people are too lazy, and since those mean right wingers won't let them import hundreds of millions of better, hardworking brown people permanently and legally then they have to settle for bringing them illegally or temporarily. The lack of legal protections afforded to legal residents is only a feature in so far as it enables them to enlist the help of capital for this venture, they don't like it either.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Unemployment in the US is currently at a historic low, but there doesn't need to be a mass of currently unemployed American citizens out there for immigration to depress wages.
As I argued in the comments of the linked post back in January, companies like Amazon and Tyson foods can easily weather things like Tariffs by simply passing the cost on to the consumer, but forcing them to pay American-level wages and provide American-level working conditions is much harder them to shrug off as it provides opportunities for other operators to start competing on cost and/or pick up market share.
It would seem to me that rule of supply and demand is the closest thing that economics has to a natural law. If the supply of labor is constrained relative to the demand, it stands to reason that the market price of labor (IE wages) will go up and vice versa.
Then historically there is a shortage of Americans who are willing to work but currently don't. Which is the claim being made here.
Of course it's classic supply and demand, more supply of labor (whether through automation or immigration or whatever) means cheaper labor costs. This also of course can mean products are cheaper and more available to buy as products become easier and cheaper to create. Immigration isn't as strong as automation since immigrants also consume (contribute to demand), but for very specific sectors where they cluster labor prices get driven down.
It's the inverse logic of why unions drive prices up and make stuff less affordable and less accessible to the average American. It's great for the union workers who get to hold the country hostage, it's bad for everyone else. Regulatorally enforced high labor costs benefits those who do labor by taking from those who need the labor done, like with elevators. Maybe it's a tradeoff we want to make, disabled people like the author, apartment dwellers, etc get less elevators in exchange for the elevator union having higher pay, but it is a tradeoff.
Same way that maybe we'd rather prefer American citizen construction workers get paid a lot of money over providing cheaper housing to our youth and our poor, we can make that tradeoff, but it is unavoidably one.
The catch here is that the “our youth and our poor” here would also largely be the people working these construction jobs, and all other jobs that now have the depressed wages. Easier to afford a $300,000 house on 40$/hour than a $200,000 house on $20/hour Not to mention that land is generally the largest price factor in housing, so the labor cost increase wouldn’t do that much anyway.
Your numbers are completely fictional though, the change in prices for buyers must be directly equal to the change in price for sellers. If I have a rare trading card and want to sell to a collector, the price is the same for both parties. If I make more, he must spend more. If he spends less, I must make less.
Even subsidizing the buyer just means a third party must take on the burden instead, it doesn't eliminate the problem. The only real world actual fix to have us both win (more than mutual trade already wins) without any losers is increasing productivity efficiency, devising ways to get two out of what previously only made one, like with agricultural science and food, or the economy of scale or ending artificial constraints on efficiency like regulation.
Increasing efficiency is the best way for sure. That’s unlikely to occur when extremely cheap labor is available. Besides, the increase in production would still result in the problem you pointed out: super efficient home building results in lower appreciation for existing homeowners. They lose in your scenario.
The numbers are fictional but the price on any given product would increase by less than the % gain in pay, as pay would not be increasing for the entire buyer-side, but only a portion, benefiting those being paid more at the expense of buyers who did not receive a pay increase. Sellers would win out, as in the made up numbers, but so would the now-better-paid workers.
Regardless yes markets are two sided, but the point here was addressing the “young and the poor.” Both of those groups could afford houses if they were being paid much more. The best houses in the best places? No, but most people don’t live in the 5 trendy metro hubs, and they still wouldn’t.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No, the claim being made here is that the labor shortage and associated rise in wages is a bad thing and I am disagreeing. I find it telling that the all the leisure-class liberals who claim to support labor and be all about "paying people a living wage" immediately change tack when it comes time to actually pay those wages.
Those things are bad and distortionary, any hypocrisy aside doesn't change it. This is a tautological statement: "Higher prices means higher prices". If you want labor to be paid more, then it means people who pay for the labor can afford it less easily.
It is unsolvable, just like the housing market or any other. It is literally impossible for the seller of labor/homes/etc to make more money and have the buyer pay less. You must make a tradeoff when meddling.
In the long run the government is typically subsidizing these industries via providing a settlement pathway to foreign workers at the bottom end. A green card or a Western passport is worth considerably more than any tenure of unpleasant work and that cost will eventually be repatriated from taxpayers
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, and?
Are you arguing that supporting labor is bad, or are you arguing that "paying people a living wage" is bad?
The second one, a "living wage" is a meaningless phrase. Especially in the US, where the only thing that can't be easily accessed even the poorest 10% of Americans, housing, is not because of a lack of pay but because of deliberate political decisions to restrict new supply.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Traditionally, I believe communists were against mass immigration for this very reason. By all means spread the revolution to the rest of the world, but do not import cheap labor as it only benefits the business owners. Supporting immigration is a relatively new thing, and one that is mostly rooted in the belief that rich countries have a duty to help poor people, whereever they may be. It is the drowning child thought experiment brought to its logical conclusion. If someone is suffering and we can do something to help, it becomes a moral duty. If it requires sacrifice then so be it. Especially when people are literally drowning trying to reach our shores.
More like a quarter of the way towards its conclusion. Low-productivity migrants are very expensive: this blog estimates the net lifetime tax contributions of Somalian migrants in Denmark to be around negative $1.4 million USD. Meanwhile, Givewell estimates that preventing a death from malaria costs $3000 to $8000. For the cost of improving the life of a single Somalian by allowing him to migrate, you can outright save the lives of hundreds of other africans who remain in Africa. (Before you object that saving the lives of poor third-worlders just results in more third-worlders who need saving, note that it apparently only costs $36 to a contraception charity per third-world birth prevented.) Poor third-world countries have a lot of low-hanging fruit where small amounts of money go a long way, so it shouldn't be too surprising that helping third-worlders in their own countries is vastly more efficient than letting them migrate.
The drowning child thought experiment says it shouldn't matter if the child is in front of you or in another country, which is quite unlike the instinctual morality that says cheap foreign aid programs saving millions of lives is a minor side-issue that only becomes morally urgent when one of them manages to get closer and throws himself into the water. Sometimes literally, with those ocean-rescue NGOs that transport migrants to Europe if they go out onto international waters and in some cases deliberately sink their own boats. Old 2016 article, I haven't kept up with how the situation has changed since then:
Time: Don't Blame Rescue-at-Sea Organizations for Migrants Coming to Europe
This is the opposite of trying to maximize the most good for the greatest number in a location-insensitive way. It's like a thought-experiment someone invented to show how certain implicit moral premises are incoherent and produces counterproductive results, except that people are doing it for real. As for what actually qualifies as "the drowning child thought experiment brought to its logical conclusion", I suspect it's some longtermist thing where you realize that the number of people in the future is potentially large and helping them by keeping society from collapsing and advancing technology is dramatically more efficient than anything else. That has a lot more uncertainty though, so providing Africa with bednets and contraception is still fairly reasonable, unlike helping them by allowing migration.
How much better are the conditions of the sort of mobile, young, typically-male 'asylum seeker' who has the resources and gumption to chain migrate halfway across the world. There's not that many countries left where there's genuine daily mortal peril, even if there's a lot where the local economy is Ennui and meh.
Morocco is currently in the news for the Spanish invasion. I've been to Morocco, I've got Moroccan friends (albeit heavily filtered to upper class/resources to get to Asia) and like I sympathize with the complaints of the average working class Moroccan 20 year old that they feel minimal hope, corruption is rife and it's hard to work within the domestic system. However, they're also not desperately poor (outside of a few marginal outlying areas where the attempted immigrants are decidedly not coming from), they have food and they have a reasonable life expectancy. They might be way behind in terms of GDP per capita but the difference between $12k PPP and $60k PPP is not a 5x life quality improvement.
Aside from the fact that low skilled workers are considerably less well off than the typical Spaniard.
That too. Going from upper middle of the developing world to being a Deliveroo drone might increase your savings rate but could easily be a short term deterioration in living conditions
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If they are literally drowning, that is a risk they took of their own accord and it is entirely their fault. No one's forcing them to do that, and we especially are not forcing them to, so it's not our problem.
Indeed, a self-induced emergency on your (the general “you”) part does not constitute an obligation my my part, especially when saving you from your own emergency means me continuing to payup and get criminalized.
More options
Context Copy link
At the end of the day, a majority believes in Newtonian Ethics. People may mostly be indifferent to people dying somewhere in Africa, but they tend to care if the same people try to reach Europe and bother us by drowning close to our shores.
In the case of Mediterranean boat people, nobody cares about the (relatively small number of) drownings except as a legal weapon. Under normal circumstances, it is a crime to put people who do not have permission to come to Italy on a boat and take them to Italy. But if the reason why you put them on the boat is that you were rescuing someone who was in peril at sea, then it isn't.
My understanding is that a lot of work goes into calibrating the number of Mediterranean migrant drownings to the bare minimum needed to keep the people running the migrant-trafficking NGOs out of prison.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
A modest proposal to unite the country (against me): Ironclad union laws, and scabs are made illegal... unless the scabs are undocumented immigrants, who will be given visas and (by law) permanently replace the striking workers 1-for-1 on payroll at their jobs if brought on to work.
More options
Context Copy link
Because the DSA membership will never, ever, drive a truck, or work construction, or do any blue collar labour at all. They might wait tables, sure. But that's a different social stratum, and one that immigrants aren't super successful in, the way they are in trucking and construction.
More options
Context Copy link
Because the people leading the charge on this are upperclass failsons and failed creatives, perpetual grad students and surplus low-midwit knowledge workers. The immigrants driving UberEats and hanging drywall aren't competing with Mamdami in the rap game, or getting lucrative contracts for shit-tier art that should have gone to his wife.
The common term for such people being "downwardly mobile".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link