Scratchin Mamba

4y

Businesses have to make accurate economic a***yses, that's why financial and business papers are actually very informative

Scratchin Mamba

4y

Is it a hard sell to workers living in the country they're migrating to? Maybe to some, but then the question should be to what extent such a should or could be sacrificed for pragmatic purposes without giving up on principles.

And as goon said, there's ways to minimize those problems as well.

krishna bound

4y

I don't really think the issue is with workers at all (the ones in the current country or abroad), my point about it being a lose-lose was because of it aligning with capitalist motives and that being unavoidable. i already said in another post if it's done alongside other consistent policy that's one thing, but that's usually not the case. I think this is inversely true with rightoid policy, which I also mentioned - being anti-immigration only makes sense if you're doing it in a non-contradictory way, which rightoids aren't either, so it's not as if they pose a better alternative.
With that said, what goon said about the FWP policy is a good example, but we know that's not happening in the US, US immigration policy is designed in a manner to benefit capitalist growth, so it's not being paired with those policies (nor should it be expected to in the future lol), so it creates a harder contradictory situation. This is where I'm saying the issue is of discussing the policy in a vacuum

SEGA GOON

4y

And why bourgeois economics (the science) doesn't get used by any real-life business

Because the former denies LTV while the latter uses LTV applications all the time...

Scratchin Mamba

4y

i already said in another post if it's done alongside other consistent policy that's one thing, but that's usually not the case

Of course, but I'm talking about a leftist pov on immigration, that obviously wouldn't include other policies that cause competition between immigrants and natives etc

krishna bound

4y

No I get that but my original post was more about how it's different in an ideological vacuum from talking about individual policy as it pertains to actual current political paradigms.
Like it's one thing to discuss immigration as a concept itself but what i was more saying was that there's a huge gap between the conceptual political ideal of immigration and how immigration fits into the reality of current geopolitics especially within the US specifically

Scratchin Mamba

4y

For sure but then the stance should be to include other policies that don't make immigration just another thing capitalists can use against the working class instead of being against immigration altogether

SEGA GOON

4y

And why bourgeois economics (the science) doesn't get used by any real-life business

Because the former denies LTV while the latter uses LTV applications all the time...

krishna bound

4y

you would be surprised how many of the powers that be don't necessarily deny LTV as much as they view it as something to be transmuted.
schizo moment but i'd argue in a way the modern bourgeois class views LTV->Austrian as the evolution of the philosopher's stone conversion of base metals to gold

krishna bound

4y

without getting too much into the economics of it specifically or into any type of faux-conspiracy, it's not really a secret big financial institutions like mass immigration because among other things it raises GDP and simultaneously drives down labor cost (on a short term) - these are things they basically outright admit if you look at lobbying firms. immigration is generally seen as a net market positive (at least in mercantile states like the US); obviously more immigrants = more workers + more consumers. most big companies like immigration because most immigrants fill jobs not taken by nationals, especially ones in the lower chain of pay or unskilled labor. It's obviously deeper than this as well when you get to other more sinister things like more immigration = (unfortunately) harder unionization or easier finding of scab labor. None of this should be taken in isolation as a critique of immigration itself, but this stuff also isn't really secret or anything; big bank CEOs will say this stuff openly and big lobbying firms will also openly state this stuff. With that said, it's also very much weaponized because it's hard to argue against because of the fact the kneejerk reaction to immigration discussion is to go to the rightoid cope arguments, which these people are fully aware of (and the fact so many rightoids say this is drowns out actual discussion). Like most lobbying firms will straight up provide talking points for politicians and those talking points are often like "if questioned on immigration accuse of racism"

Womanpuncher69

4y

so u telling me alchemy was real along

Lein

4y

I don't think there's anything wrong with an increase in the workforce/consumers or GDP, but the issue of wage depression or union disruption is a problem of immigrant rights and labor organizing. It is harder to organize with immigrants because of things like language barrier and the fact that they have a more precarious situation making them easier to exploit, but they can be overcome and often time there isn't even an attempt made. When it comes to immigrant rights, being anti-immigration almost guarantees that they will be used against native born workers because the immigrants that do show up will do so illegalIy and have none of the protevtionsb afforded to other workers. In the 90s you had americans labor organizers hate criming mexicans before ever speaking to one. And imo these are not differences in the workforce that are so much harder to overcome than organizing across ethnic/cultural/gender lines within the native born work force. I'm not saying it's not difficult but it's not nearly as impossible as portray it to be, you see some wild coalitions coming together in the US these past few years.

The problem is these workers are seen almost like they're in cahoots with capital instead of fellow workers. It reminds of the thinking much of the american white working class had about black workers, that the only outcome possible from integration is wages falling because surely we can't organize with them. They didn't see them as workers so they could rationalize betraying their fellow workers and upholding repressive structures which destroyed black labor organizing to protect whatever concessions they won from losses which hadn't even happened yet.

At the end of the day its inevitable that a chunk of workers will choose nativism when presented with harder organizing or potentially losing concessions. But it's an opportunity to reinforce instincts of solidarity and internarionalism that should build a new society instead of the kind divisive and reactionary tendencies that seem to only offer temporary concessions for a few and the iron boot for others.

krishna bound

4y

I agree with you partially but this is mostly what I was talking to @Scratchin_Bandit about over the past few pages; I don't have any issues with immigration in a vacuum or ideologically. and I agree with most of what you say, but the reality of current political paradigms is that immigration policy is very much not reflective of ideal ideological outcome, so that needs to be taken into account when it comes discussing it.

Lein

4y

Sure but that's true with basically everything, and the consequences for moderating are especially barbaric here.

krishna bound

4y

Of course, but I do feel like there's a kneejerk reaction with immigration and other social topics to think of it in a vacuum because of where the opposition's critique usually originates

krishna bound

4y

current hot topic of the week on right wing esoteric racial genetics twitter: somalis & ethiopians are not actually black

Scratchin Mamba

4y

Link

krishna bound

4y

theres a few other people you can probably find by searching in the proximity of this guy

krishna bound

4y

current hot topic of the week on right wing esoteric racial genetics twitter: somalis & ethiopians are not actually black