Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
And I'd say in response that we live in a capitalist society, and we will deal with globalization one way or another. best to take your lumps now and get it over with.
I fully realize this would by extension drive my taxes up and drive my wages down, but globalization has to happen.
Protectionism is a fool's solution. By design, its just deferring an adverse economic event. You're arguing to protect people now at greater cost to future generations. Kinda contrary to your views on global warming and fiscal responsibility isn't it? Are you on the left always the ones screaming "what about the children?" Well guess what pal... You push off the pain in the labor market with some dipshit democratic short term salve now and your kids will feel some serious motherfucking pain later.
|
Three points:
(1) You're changing the subject. Or just babbling. I'm not talking about protectionism, or globalization. I'm talking about the interplay between immigration and low-end wages. Letting in more immigrants depresses low-end wages.
(2) I'm asking whether the country's laws should be set to benefit humanity, or to benefit Americans. I'm not sure what the answer is (which is why I prefaced my comment above, "If I were poor"), but it's a fair question.
(3) If immigration benefits society as a whole, but worsens the lot of a large category of people, I think it's fair to propose that as part of a change to open up the borders, we also do x, y and z to ensure that no one is left worse off. In other words, use government to redistribute some of the gains that are created to those who would be harmed.
