>The Luddites tried futilely to stop progress that benefited society
Luddites were not anti-technology nor were they anti progress. They destroyed technology as a tactic to raise the price of the more automated competition. Their competition made cheaper, crappier equivalents of their artisanal work made with de-skilled McJob equivalent workers whose wages were pressured to abhorrent levels (via other means like the enclosure movement/Napoleonic wars).
Similarly, people who strike are not "futilely trying to stop the existence of work". It's another tactic.
In a way, the Luddites are pretty similar to the anti-H1B crowd of hacker news.
>Before these technological advancements, workers enjoyed mini-monopolies.
This is a hacky way of looking at it but the conclusion sort of works. It makes much more sense to look at relative market power of employees vs. employers rather than use the all-or-nothing terminology of monopoly vs. perfect competition.
If Amazon workers attempt to sabotage Amazon's stock picking machinery, I expect it will result in an increase in wages, much like it did for the Luddites. They will be called Luddites, but similar to the original Luddites, they kind of only really have a problem with technology that is used to control them.
> Their competition made cheaper, crappier equivalents of their artisanal work made with de-skilled McJob equivalent workers whose wages were pressured to abhorrent levels
... which enabled working-class people to own fairly large amounts of clothing for the first time, and even have fashionable clothing, which had once been the exclusive preserve of the rich.
Don't try to paint this as all rich-vs-poor. The poor got a lot out of mechanization, even at the time, and reforming that system worked out a lot better than trying to work with people who were so threatened by change they would destroy other peoples' method of earning a living.
>which enabled working-class people to own fairly large amounts of clothing for the first time
Actually...
"English peasants didn’t want to give up their rural communal lifestyle, leave their land and go work for below-subsistence wages in shitty, dangerous factories being set up by a new, rich class of landowning capitalists. And for good reason, too. Using Adam Smith’s own estimates of factory wages being paid at the time in Scotland, a factory-peasant would have to toil for more than three days to buy a pair of commercially produced shoes. Or they could make their own traditional brogues using their own leather in a matter of hours, and spend the rest of the time getting wasted on ale. It’s really not much of a choice, is it?
Faced with a peasantry that didn’t feel like playing the role of slave, philosophers, economists, politicians, moralists and leading business figures began advocating for government action. Over time, they enacted a series of laws and measures designed to push peasants out of the old and into the new by destroying their traditional means of self-support."
In today's world, austerity serves the same function as the enclosure laws. Reduce public sector demand for labor so as to push down wages across the board.
Did every single English peasant really have access to leather and the skills to make their own shoes? Did the shoes they managed to procure really cost so little compared to the manufactured ones? Did they really cost so little taking quality, durability, and procurement of materials into account?
If the economic decision was really so simple and the desire for a rural communal lifestyle was really so strong, urbanization never would have happened.
Wikipedia is also your friend. Using it as a resource, I was able to draw these connections: Shoemaking ==> Cottage Industry ==> Urbanization. It seems reasonable to believe that at least some farmers would know something of shoemaking and even actually making shoes.
Also, the reasons for Urbanization are complex; not all reasons that drove some people to the cities were good ones.
From http://www.bahs.org.uk/AGHR/ARTICLES/53n2a3.pdf: In 1851 the term ‘farm’ was used [by the Census Office] to mean an agricultural holding from which the occupier derived their primary employment and the term ‘farmer’ was restricted to those whose primary occupation was farming. ... Every householder was issued with a household schedule to complete together with an accompanying set of instructions. Under the heading ‘INSTRUCTIONS for filling up the Column headed “RANK PROFESSION, or OCCUPATION”’, there were a number of notes pertaining to specific occupational groups. ... In other words only those who described themselves as ‘farmers’ were requested to return the acreage of their holding and the numbers of in and out-door labourers. There was no request for other occupiers of agricultural land to supply this information. ... But which occupiers of land were and were not supposed to describe themselves as farmers? In particular how were those who mixed farming with another occupation supposed to have described themselves? The instructions for those with multiple occupations were admirably clear and succinct: ‘A person following MORE THAN ONE DISTINCT TRADE may insert his occupations in the order of their importance’.27 In other words only those whose primary occupation was farming should have recorded their occupation simply as ‘farmer’. Those for whom it was a secondary occupation should have listed their primary occupation first.
Wiki snippets:
Urbanization is not merely a modern phenomenon, but a rapid and historic transformation of human social roots on a global scale, whereby predominantly rural culture is being rapidly replaced by predominantly urban culture. The first major change in settlement patterns was the accumulation of hunter-gatherers into villages many thousand years ago. Village culture is characterized by common bloodlines, intimate relationships, and communal behavior whereas urban culture is characterized by distant bloodlines, unfamiliar relations, and competitive behavior. This unprecedented movement of people is forecast to continue and intensify in the next few decades, mushrooming cities to sizes unthinkable only a century ago. ... From the development of the earliest cities in Mesopotamia and Egypt until the 18th century, an equilibrium existed between the vast majority of the population who engaged in subsistence agriculture in a rural context, and small centres of populations in the towns where economic activity consisted primarily of trade at markets and manufactures on a small scale. Due to the primitive and relatively stagnant state of agriculture throughout this period the ratio of rural to urban population remained at a fixed equilibrium. With the onset of the agricultural and industrial revolution in the late 18th century this relationship was finally broken and an unprecedented growth in urban population took place over the course of the 19th century, both through continued migration from the countryside and due to the tremendous demographic expansion that occurred at that time. As labourers were freed up from working the land due to higher agricultural productivity they converged on the new industrial cities like Manchester and Birmingham which were experiencing a boom in commerce, trade and industry.
A cottage industry is one where the creation of products and services is home-based, rather than factory-based. While products and services created by cottage industry are often unique and distinctive, given the fact that they are usually not mass-produced, producers in this sector often face numerous disadvantages when trying to compete with much larger factory-based companies. ... [W]orking from their homes, typically part time, home workers [were] engaged in tasks such as sewing, lace-making, wall hangings, or household manufacturing. Some industries which are usually operated from large, centralized factories were cottage industries before the Industrial Revolution. Business operators would travel around, buying raw materials, delivering them to people who would work on them, and then collecting the finished goods to sell, or typically to ship to another market. One of the factors which allowed the Industrial Revolution to take place in Western Europe was the presence of these business people who had the ability to expand the scale of their operations. Cottage industries were very common in the time when a large proportion of the population was engaged in agriculture, because the farmers (and their families) often had both the time and the desire to earn additional income during the part of the year (winter) when there was little work to do farming or selling produce by the farm's roadside.
For most of history, shoemaking has been a handicraft, limited to time consuming manufacture by hand. ... By the 1600s, leather shoes came in two main types. 'Turn shoes' consisted of one thin flexible sole, which was sewed to the upper while outside in and turned over when completed. This type was used for making slippers and similar shoes. The second type united the upper with an insole, which was subsequently attached to an out-sole with a raised heel. This was the main variety, and was used for most footwear, including standard shoes and riding boots. ... Shoemaking became more commercialized in the mid-18th century, as it expanded as a cottage industry. Large warehouses began to stock footwear in warehouses, made by many small manufacturers from the area. ... Until the 19th century, shoemaking was a traditional handicraft, but by the century's end, the process had been almost completely mechanized, with production occurring in large factories. Despite the obvious economic gains of mass-production, the factory system produced shoes without the individual differentiation that the traditional shoemaker was able to provide.
Read the last part of my post: It was possible to reform the mechanized labor system into something better. It wouldn't have been possible to reform the system based around change-phobic craft workers into any system where the average person could have more than one pair of shoes.
And, quite beyond clothing, mechanization makes all of the other advances we take for granted possible, leading to relatively cheap antibiotics and people not dying of simple wounds which get infected. We think MRSA is terrible, and it is, but it's mostly just a partial return to the old days, except we do have drugs which can kill MRSA. We didn't have anything in the old days.
>It was possible to reform the mechanized labor system into something better.
Too bad it didn't happen for many decades and only then against strong (and often violent) resistance from the employers themselves.
I'm not denying the benefits of mechanization in general across the centuries. I'm denying that the Luddites and the working classes at the time saw any benefit from it.
>which enabled working-class people to own fairly large amounts of clothing for the first time, and even have fashionable clothing, which had once been the exclusive preserve of the rich.
No, that was due to social reform as a result of the threat of anarchist/socialist/communist uprisings against the established order.
Average living standards went down during most of the industrial revolution.
>reforming that system worked out a lot better than trying to work with people who were so threatened by change they would destroy other peoples' method of earning a living.
Except the capitalists attempted (mostly successfully) to destroy alternate ways of earning a living other than industrial work.
America was flooded with immigrants because it was a chance for peasants to have land of their own.
Anyone modestly familiar with labor and economic history would know that the actual poor / working class got screwed by the industrial revolution. It took a very long time (on the order of perhaps a century) for them to see improvements in standard of living; instead, they lived in squalor and suffered a significant increase in disease. Which doesn't even get into the use of force by government to drive them into cities. In sum, the claim that the "poor got a lot out of mechanization, even at the time" couldn't be more wrong.
Very true. Consumers are often ignored in all of this but it is large scale automation and industrialization that is allowing for the mass consumer culture. A visit to other places which aren't as industrialized or have a lot of protectionism and you fill find very few consumer goods available and often for very high prices.
In a way, the Luddites are pretty similar to the anti-H1B crowd of hacker news.
I'd describe it a bit differently. The anti-H1B crowd here is typically (not exclusively [1]) like the old Jim Crow/New Deal/Chinese Exclusion crowd - wanting to pass laws to reduce competition by people who have had a different accident of birth.
I'm curious to see if anyone can cook up an argument why protectionism against orange, white and green is morally justified, but protectionism against black is not.
[1] Some people, (including myself), have non-protectionist opposition (or at least reservations about) to immigration. I'm very unsettled that my reservations could also justify anti-black protectionism if the same empirical criteria were satisfied.
>I'm curious to see if anyone can cook up an argument why protectionism against orange, white and green is morally justified, but protectionism against black is not.
Four aspects of the debate that the, uh... 'curious' tend to misrepresent or outright ignore:
* Race-baiting doesn't change the fact that at its heart it is about wages vs. profits.
* H1Bs are not just about bringing in workers. They are also about giving employers the power to fuck those they bring over by linking their immigration status to their job. This isn't just bad for them.
* The effects of brain drain on 3rd world countries where the brightest people flee to richer countries.
* Brain drain is not just about losing the brightest people but also about losing the (often large) investment in their education paid for by the 3rd world, that the 1st world gets the whole benefit of.
H1Bs are the only option for several potential immigrants around the world, I'm all for breaking this link but only if a better option existed.
> The effects of brain drain on 3rd world countries where the brightest people flee to richer countries.
> Brain drain is not just about losing the brightest people but also about losing the (often large) investment in their education paid for by the 3rd world, that the 1st world gets the whole benefit of.
Apart from the nationalistic idea that anyone owes the State that controls the land they're born in by default, most of these H1B immigrants in these 3rd world countries get very little government support, at least compared to what you'd see in Europe or America and you wouldn't prevent any of "their" citizens from leaving would you?
>Apart from the nationalistic idea that anyone owes the State that controls the land they're born in by default, most of these H1B immigrants in these 3rd world countries get very little government support
Many get a lot, actually. Especially in ex-soviet countries. Many have excellent free education systems.
>you wouldn't prevent any of "their" citizens from leaving would you?
Of course not. Nonetheless, the idea that freedom of immigration is an unparalleled good for the country providing the immigrants simply because individually they are better off, should die already.
> Many get a lot, actually. Especially in ex-soviet countries. Many have excellent free education systems.
Would you be ok with immigrants from countries where they don't? India provides very little in comparison and also has the highest percentage of H1B applicants. [1]
> Of course not. Nonetheless, the idea that freedom of immigration is an unparalleled good for the country providing the immigrants simply because individually they are better off, should die already.
Shouldn't the State make it more attractive for these citizens to stay there? Especially since they're so valuable? Why is it only the citizens who have this responsibility.
>> Apart from the nationalistic idea that anyone owes the State that controls the land they're born in by default, most of these H1B immigrants in these 3rd world countries get very little government support
> Many get a lot, actually. Especially in ex-soviet > countries. Many have excellent free education systems.
As the son of a poor indian who became a Fulbright scholar and came to the US for his Masters' degree & made a life here, i can say that at least in the case of India this isn't quite true. In India at least you had to fight the system tooth & nail to succeed.
Jim Crow laws were also about wages vs profits. White people wanted to not have their wages lowered via competition with blacks. The racist components of the New Deal were almost entirely economic.
If you want to alter the H1B program, I'm all for auctioning off work permits. That's not an argument to eliminate H1B, that's merely an argument to replace it. I'm arguing against eliminating/reducing it and comparing many of those who favor it to Jim Crow types.
As for "brain drain", the same can happen with the black community. A black person may get a good job in white America and then leave his predominantly black neighborhood. He might then marry a white woman and never look back. Oh noes!
Similarly, a black person who attends Howard University and then works as a plastic surgeon for rich white women has also had his investment paid for by the black community, but the first world is getting the whole benefit. (Yeah, isn't it a bit disconcerting when I describe the black community the way you describe a nation?)
And again, like I said, these are all empirical criteria. Even if you have exact thresholds in each criteria which India currently satisfies but "Black America" does not, one could easily imagine a future where Black America does cross those thresholds. Should we bring back segregation at that time, and require black Americans to get a B1B visa to live and work in white America? If you oppose this, then your stated criteria are not your real ones.
>If you want to alter the H1B program, I'm all for auctioning off work permits.
Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market.
>Similarly, a black person who attends Howard University and then works as a plastic surgeon for rich white women has also had his investment paid for by the black community, but the first world is getting the whole benefit.
* Black Americans (whom I assume you are referring to) live in the first world, which reaps the benefit of their education it paid for.
* Education for black Americans is largely paid for by the state and indirectly paid for and supported by citizens of the United States.
I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective.
Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not.
Let me again point out - you've brought up a bunch of empirical criteria. Suppose the situation changes and black Americans suddenly satisfy those empirical criteria. Do you favor imposing the same restrictions on them that we impose on Indians? For example, if the educational funding situation changes, and most black people are educated via black people-funded community organizations, would requiring visas before we allow them to work be acceptable?
If not, why is it acceptable to do this to Indians and Haitians?
Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle?
I think regarding racism you should probably be a bit more introspective.
Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist.
I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?
>Choosing "first world" rather than "white America" is a completely arbitrary division of humanity. I'm asking why a nationalistic division is legitimate but a racial one is not.
Government. A nation is served by an institution that delivers (more or less) consistent policy that can be shaped to benefit (or harm) those under it.
It makes sense to have opinions about how institutions should operate. It does not make sense to have opinions about how the government of the non-existent nation of American white (or black) people should operate because it does not exist.
>Are you merely taking the legitimacy of the nation state as some moral first principle?
I'm not trying to wish it away like you are. Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens.
>Ah yes - dislike what someone has to say, so hint that they are racist.
...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion.
>I'm currently interpreting your comment as being intended in a somewhat hostile manner. Am I correct in doing so?
Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens.
We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America.
...is exactly what you were doing by bringing race into this discussion.
I did nothing of the sort. I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism. I didn't say it was racism.
I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question of whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.
>We aren't discussing giving welfare or medicaid to Americans but not Nigerians. We are discussing threatening the Nigerian with violence if he works for an American in America.
Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian.
>I did nothing of the sort.
Bringing race into a discussion where it was clearly not warranted and using it to imply racism is something of the sort, actually.
>I said directly that nationalism is just as bad (morally) as racism.
And I said that I am not nationalistic. I'm not even American. Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all.
>I'll note that you've yet again ducked the question
I haven't ducked any questions at all.
>whether it's morally correct to treat black Americans as badly as we treat Kenyans under any particular circumstance.
I'm happy to answer but your question lacks precision. In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'?
Nah, threaten the profit-seeking employer with imprisonment, not the Nigerian.
How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck?
Again I fail to see why you needed to raise the issue of race at all.
Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't. I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases, so the dichotomy is unjustified.
In what sense are we using the term 'treat as badly'? Who do you mean by 'we'
I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).
>How do you distinguish this from threatening those who might choose to employ black Americans in order to make a buck?
Quite easily. Nobody needs a visa to employ black Americans.
I'm sure black Americans would feel somewhat relieved that they were not forced to compete with Nigerians.
>Because in the case of racial bias, people are shocked and horrified. Yet in the case of national bias, people aren't.
I fail to see why this horrifies you so much. White skin didn't pay for my education. The nation I was born and grew up in did.
It's no use pretending that employers are pro-immigration thanks to their worldliness and desire to help non-Americans, either. Nigel Farage in the UK represents the epitome of national bias yet guess what he did when he wanted to hire somebody for cheap? Yup, that's right. Immigrants.
>I'm attempting to point out that there are few good distinguishing principles between the two cases
Failing I would say.
>I've repeatedly said that "treat badly" means "threaten with violence for engaging in mutually agreeable trade" and "we" means "organizations that purport to act on our behalf" (US Govt, white supremicist groups, etc).
Ok, so I agreed - no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation, that's all (it's happened to me before due to a visa mixup and it didn't leave any bruises).
All laws/regulations (even the good ones) are ultimately enforced by the implicit threat of violence. You only get a "mild deportation" if you cooperate in the process.
If you would prefer instead to live under the explicit and constant threat of violence there are societies on this planet without laws and regulations.
You are not disputing anything I wrote. You seem to be replying as if I were arguing against this, when I was actually pointing out a fact that you failed to acknowledge when you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians who come to the US looking for work. Perhaps a mild deportation".
Note that while you wrote "no violence towards Nigerians", in the post you replied to yummyfajitas wrote ""threaten with violence" which is not quite the same.
The question is: Why is it acceptable for a group of people defined by "nationality" to form a collective (government) that creates and enforces economic protection for itself against non-members, but not acceptable for a group defined by "race" to do the same?
The closest you came to answering this was when you wrote "Given that it does exist, it should operate for the benefit of its citizens." (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8886112) which to me reads as "it is acceptable because that's the way it is today" or possibly "it is not acceptable but that's just the way it is".
Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market.
I don't understand your condescending attitude or why it's preferred by voters over a regular argument.
Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education.
You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution. This is the least problem here.
yummyfajitas' neoliberal market-first, capital-first views are fairly predictable. The idea that markets will always solve social issues better than any other means is such a deeply held, religious belief that he doesn't even think to try and justify his opinion. He feels that merely voicing it is sufficient to convince.
So I tease him about it.
>Especially when you believe that the issue is the cost of education. Auctioning off work permits would allow the country receiving immigrants to pay off the government which paid for their education.
I don't see that happening, ever. Auctions, sure. America giving India enough money to cover the education of the citizens who emigrate to the US? Not a chance.
>You talk about social issues and then pick the one easiest to address with a market solution.
I don't see how auctioning off work permits solves any social issues.
Frankly it sounds eerily similar to Dubai/Qatar-style indentured servitude where the construction workers take out loans to get a job paying a few dollars a day and have to work for months effectively for free to pay back that debt.
Well, I guess if the social issue was "we want more dubai style indentured servitude"...
Auctioning off work visas is pretty easy. The worker applies for a visa to the US government, which accepts a $30k bid. The worker shifts to the US and works for anyone they like. The US Govt takes $10k extra from their paycheck in taxes every year for 3 years. Solving your Dubai problems is pretty easy.
If India is really worried about people leaving after getting educated, they can restrict emigration like the GDR, Soviet Union and North Korea.
Of course, there are bigger problems we should worry about. I was educated in NJ but then immigrated to NY. Maybe NY also needs to restrict immigration from the B&T crowd, solely for the benefit of NJ, of course?
>The US Govt takes $10k extra from their paycheck in taxes every year for 3 years. Solving your Dubai problems is pretty easy.
The Dubai problem is that the workers are forced to take a loan in order to work. Your idea does not solve it, it creates it.
>If India is really worried about people leaving after getting educated, they can restrict emigration like the GDR, Soviet Union and North Korea.
That worked out wonderfully for those countries, didn't it?
>Of course, there are bigger problems we should worry about. I was educated in NJ but then immigrated to NY. Maybe NY also needs to restrict immigration from the B&T crowd, solely for the benefit of NJ, of course?
Depends if NY decides to secede from the union. Do you think that's likely? Or do you think that citizens of both states will continue to pay taxes to the same IRS and be governed by the same federal legislature?
Hey, maybe the US should merge and become an Indian state to allow for unbridled immigration. How would you feel about following their laws and paying taxes to Delhi?
Govt could have companies bid salary offers on H1-Bs. There's a concept of prevailing wage currently - use it as a base, have companies raise it, until they either pay something close to real market, or are not getting the worker. Thoughts?
>Of course you are. I'm sure you don't believe there are any social issues that cannot be solved with the healing power of the holy market.
I find libertarians obnoxious too, but he's actually parroting our meme on this one. "Auctioning" work visas is usually taken to mean auctioning them by salary, turning the visa-application process into a competition to push up wages.
"* H1Bs are not just about bringing in workers. They are also about giving employers the power to fuck those they bring over by linking their immigration status to their job. This isn't just bad for them."
Just call a spade a spade. Management likes H1B because they can and do treat them like slaves, like owned property of the corporation, less than human. Nobody wants to compete with or become slaves, and its morally and ethically disgusting to support or encourage a system of slavery.
Like most, I like immigrants and individual H1B holders, its the destructive system of slavery that's horrific. Simply getting rid of the whole H1B system and transferring that quota over to the "skilled trades" real-immigration quota would be a fine idea. Heck, double the number while they're at it or even remove the limit.
The civil war ended in the 1860s. Its the 2010s. Isn't it time to remove slavery from the system? Must we wait longer while our brothers sit in chains?
Also, immigration and free trade are different things. You can be anti-H1B but still favor free trade, allowing those H1B'ers to sell their software in direct competition with US firms online if they so wish.
They are two sides of the same coin. Free trade allows companies to find places where labour is cheapest and free immigration allows workers to find places where salaries are highest. IMHO, it's a bit hypocritical or at least naive to have contrasting opinions of them.
The world does not end at trade. There's a huge difference between a company from my country setting up a division somewhere else and people from another country moving into my neighbourhood.
You may be fine with either one, both, neither, and even some combination depending on the particular good or person. Conflating them is disingenuous.
Both of those things actually have very serious consequences, but in case of a company setting up a division somewhere else, you're not the one being directly affected.
I didn't mean to say these are simple issues, I meant to say it's hypocritical to support one and not support another, ideologically speaking.
Socially they are different, but labor has an equal claim to "free trade" as capital for economic reasons. If you grant it only capital, labor can rightly feel screwed over.
Imagine the EU, but without free movement of labor. So Western companies come into the East, buy up anything worth buying (including farmland and mineral rights) and out compete anything that's not (putting people out of work), but then a citizen in the East who wants to get a good job in the West and will do it for less than a Westerner is told to GTFO.
One of the ostensible goals of a state is to protect the interests of its citizens. Less politely: a state is an in-group that knows it's an in-group, and excludes the out-group, in accordance with all in-groups ever, everywhere.
I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my family, over someone else's family. I extend the same to my countrymen, over some other country's citizens.
I'm doing so quite deliberately. Wasn't it obvious?
One of the ostensible goals of a white supremicist group is to protect the interests of white people. I feel perfectly justified valuing the interests of, say, my race, over some other race.
As a moral matter, I don't see why my white supremicist group is somehow less legitimate than your state.
(Note that I don't actually hold the views I espouse above, I'm just writing in parallel language. Most of the people I care about are not of the same race or nationality as me, so both nationalism and racism are quite silly for me.)
However, that does not automatically mean that institutions (i.e. governments) that are set up to help a specific group of people should refrain from helping them because other people might need the help more.
The US government would help the outside world a lot more if it stopped trying to "help" the world (e.g. by bombing it) and focused exclusively on helping its ownc citizens.
There is nothing wrong with the KKK giving money to white people only. There is something wrong with the KKK threatening black people with violence for taking a job that a white person might have wanted.
The US government and the KKK are both organizations that help people (by, e.g., funding scholarships) and also threaten people with violence for engaging in peaceful behavior, particularly economic competition.
I'm asking for a moral argument justifying the latter behavior.
>The US government and the KKK are both organizations that help people (by, e.g., funding scholarships)
Ok.
>and also threaten people with violence for engaging in peaceful behavior, particularly economic competition.
Absolutely. However, only one of them has a democratic mandate, habeas corpus and a guarantee of a fair legal trial by one's peers when engaging in said violence.
>I'm asking for a moral argument justifying the latter behavior.
- The Jim Crow/Chinese Exclusion comparison is not in rhetorical good faith. Both are associated with violent mobs. Anti h1-b folk may have comparable legal goals, but they are not beating up Indian sysadmins at gas stations.
- Of all the injustices of birth to remedy, why pick the one for which the remedy hurts those suffering another accident of birth---being born without sufficient financial means to be capitalists? If this is about foreign aid within our borders, why do workers have to pay for it, while capitalists get cheap labor?
If I raised the spectre of violent mobs, it was unintentional. I merely meant to raise the spectre of police/DHS/etc using violence to prevent people from engaging in trade. My apologies.
I'm also not attempting to "remedy" any injustice of birth, I'm merely opposed to using violence to make it worse.
I am unapogetically in favor of using violence to prevent some trades. Another word for this is "regulation."
When others can't engage in trade but you can, you have a monopoly, which could be (and by many, is) seen as a second-order form of wealth. It's disingenuous to posit that we are "merely treating people equally" when one group gets a net gain and another a net loss from a policy.
So white Americans had a second order form of wealth in the New Deal/Jim Crow era? And it was disingenous to posit that we were "merely treating people equally" when we allowed blacks to compete economically with whites?
It's way more asymmetric than that. The US government is in a better position to work for Americans' interests than those of foreigners; the Mexican government has a comparative advantage in working for Mexican citizen interests, etc. Just like how you are better at spending money for yourself than for others (and the Soviet Union collapsed largely because it tried to ignore this law of nature).
All existing proposals by the open borders crowd for the US with political traction are severely negative-sum for this reason. (I've seen a few ideas from them which are not, but they have essentially zero chance of being implemented.) If one wants to devote themselves to helping foreigners today, there are far, far better ways, like training/employing them in their home countries, or working toward constructive political change there.
I understand your morals could be different from mine but heres how I see it.
A Chinese or Indian citizen is an individual, like any other, just like you even. Through no fault of their own they've been born in a country that doesn't provide the same quality of life for them and their family that an American/EU resident enjoys. Don't they have the right to the pursuit of happiness just like you?
>A Chinese or Indian citizen is an individual, like any other, just like you even. Through no fault of their own they've been born in a country that doesn't provide the same quality of life for them and their family that an American/EU resident enjoys. Don't they have the right to the pursuit of happiness just like you?
"Just an individual" sweeps an immense bunch of important facts under the rug. Countries do not acquire their standard of living merely by luck: their economies grow through systematic planning and coordination.
At the margins, moving one individual between countries does not appear to have a large systemic impact. However, moving entire classes of individuals between countries usually results in one country dumping its externalities on another, thus misaligning the entire economic mechanism and resulting in deadweight losses as various ways to grow and improve get ignored.
A simple example: why should taxpayers in Germany, say, subsidize the training and education costs necessary to produce labor for American companies? The American firms are capturing a positive public-good externality from the Germans while dumping a negative externality (deskilling) on their fellow Americans. Since the externality producers in both countries are failing to capture the costs and benefits of their own productive activities, this is systematically unfair by definition (in the sense that "capitalist unfairness" consists of paying the costs and reaping the benefits of one's own activities).
1) Is the German education contract implicit? In India if you attend an army subsidised school [1] you are liable to serve in the army which is an explicit part of the contract. Do you believe that some/all subsidised/free education a state provides has a similar implicit contract? If not, should it be made explicit?
2) How are the Germans deskilling Americans? Isn't having a more skilled workforce (possible future citizens) positive? If you're arguing for labour protection because of wage competition there are arguably better ways to go about it than preventing competition from better skilled talent. Unless you believe that existing citizens should have protection from this competition, this seems a net loss for Germany and a net gain for the US.
3) And if Germany needs these people more than the US, aren't there better (more moral) ways to go about this than preventing them from leaving by force? Perhaps by making it more appealing for them to stay.
It's quite explicit, in the sense that Germans vote for a government which funds university education with taxes.
>2) How are the Germans deskilling Americans?
No, it's the American firms deskilling American workers (by lobbying for and winning lower public American investment in education and training in order to get lower taxes).
>Unless you believe that existing citizens should have protection from this competition, this seems a net loss for Germany and a net gain for the US.
That's my point: the Germans voted responsibly to invest in their countrymen and have their investment consumed by Americans who are staunchly refusing to produce what they need themselves.
>3) And if Germany needs these people more than the US, aren't there better (more moral) ways to go about this than preventing them from leaving by force?
The German government doesn't use force to prevent Germans from leaving: they're in the Schengen Zone. Not issuing work visas to America puts a gun to nobody.
> It's quite explicit, in the sense that Germans vote for a government which funds university education with taxes.
I'm not sure you saw my related example, German education may be subsidised/free but I don't think it comes with any strings attached. If being restricted to work in Germany after studying there is expected that should be made explicit. I have never heard something similar mentioned in any discussion on subsidised education, to me this is quite insidious.
> No, it's the American firms deskilling American workers (by lobbying for and winning lower public American investment in education and training in order to get lower taxes).
> That's my point: the Germans voted responsibly to invest in their countrymen and have their investment consumed by Americans who are staunchly refusing to produce what they need themselves.
If America can spend less on education and still end up with better skilled people (and better products) this still feels like a net win. Why is this bad?
> Not issuing work visas to America puts a gun to nobody.
I'm quite sure i'm missing the moral point. I'll try to summarise what I've got so far.
In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race.
You're argument (?)is that this immigration of skilled workers is negative for both countries, the country that subsidised their education and the country that receives the new workers.
I don't see how this is the case, it seems like a net positive for the country receiving the immigrants and the subsidised education responsibility should be an explicit part of the contract otherwise its a hidden, unadvertised cost.
This is an argument I find semi-convincing, and not solely because the economics is wrong ("deskilling" isn't an externality and education is not a public good).
Suppose that integration of black Americans also allows them to produce negative externalities and consume positive ones produced by white Americans. For example, suppose black Americans are disproportionate consumers of welfare and producers of crime.
If externalities are your true justification (rather than a post-hoc rationalization), then we should segregate black Americans as well. Do you favor this, contingent on circumstances?
Your example of Germany is interesting, given that the GDR did in fact prevent emigration in order to make sure the state didn't lose it's investment in human capital. So if the US opens it's borders, the Germans can just rebuild their wall.
This has nothing to do with exit, and suggesting otherwise implies bad faith on your part. (The exception is if you've literally never read anything like the remainder of this paragraph. In that case, you can demonstrate good faith by admitting here that your argument was faulty, and countering similar faulty "exit" arguments from open borders advocates in the future.) You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you, and it's blindingly obvious that changing this state of affairs would destroy some of the best companies. Right of exit, which I support, is protected by refugee treaties and free world military power. A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach.
And your "Chinese or Indian citizen" example actually counters your own argument. Both countries have far too many people for the US to absorb, and both have also succeeded for the last three decades at raising living standards for their native people by more than would be possible via any achievable amount of brute-force migration to the US (though they have a lot more to do). Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time.
And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me.
With all that said, I do support loosening restrictions on migration when doing so is actually positive-sum, and I think Chinese and Indian student immigration to the US frequently qualifies. But right now there's no way to push for that without simultaneously pushing for far-more-negative-sum policies.
> You can leave your job at any time, but when you do so you can't require another company to hire you
Thats a fair argument, however I don't think "freedom to leave" would mean much if you couldn't leave a company because no other company would hire you and your only other option would be to starve. Its why food stamps and unemployment make sense.
On the other hand, what would exit from a country without another country to go to mean?
> A huge wave of unskilled immigration is practically certain to weaken the US enough to increase, not reduce, the number of places like North Korea that are outside the US's military reach.
> Chinese and Indian "right to pursue happiness" has very little to do with US mass immigration policy; trade policy, technology transfer, Pax Americana, and the like have been far more relevant for a long time.
We're debating morality here, which is subjective, but I'm not stupidly deontological. If open borders leads to a world which I rank lower morally than a world without then restrictive borders it is.
In general, I feel valuing a person differently depending on which state they're born in is immoral, similar to judging them by race.
i.e. 2 similar individuals who are both skilled, both want to work and are both being hired should not be treated differently depending on which state controls their passport. On the other hand geographical distance, cultural ties etc are obviously valid points of difference.
-----
> And even your "extreme example" fails spectacularly. I am Chinese, I voluntarily work for a Chinese-owned company, I've spent most of the last four years in and next to Shenzhen, and these years have been very good to me.
An uncharitable interpretation, I'm quite happy where I'm working too but I'd still rather be unemployed in the US than in India.
Edit:
temujin is right, restating
I'd rather be unemployed in the US than employed as a low level Foxconn employee in China
> On the other hand, what would exit from a country without another country to go to mean?
Ordinary self-interest and the existence of >200 independent countries make it very likely that someone who just wants to be a contributor to any country that'll take him/her will find somewhere to go, even if it's not his/her first choice. Refugee treaties cover the corner case.
> We're debating morality here, which is subjective, but I'm not stupidly deontological. If open borders leads to a world which I rank lower morally than a world without then restrictive borders it is.
Then the argument is over, at least for the next decade or two. Sweden's experience provides the last bit of evidence necessary to demonstrate that open borders policy, as currently understood, leads to worse outcomes in Western countries than more moderate immigration policy.
I support research into better implementations of open borders, and if people like you act quickly, it might not be too late to correct e.g. Sweden's worst mistakes and arrive at something simultaneously more open and more functional there than current US policy. But this cannot be morally done without citizen consent, and you have no chance of getting that in the US in the foreseeable future.
Meanwhile, I'll do what I can to help Chinese live better lives back in their home country, and I encourage others to do the same for India and other poor countries. And I'll vote for free trade and related policies. Because those courses of action, unlike open borders, are actually effective at reducing global poverty today.
> An uncharitable interpretation, I'm quite happy where I'm working too but I'd still rather be unemployed in the US than in India.
You wrote employed in China vs. unemployed in the US, not unemployed in [China/India] vs. unemployed in the US. You're now backtracking, as you should.
As for your restatement, it no longer has anything to do with immigration policy, since there are plenty of "high level" Chinese native employees at Chinese companies. I'd also choose unemployment over a low-level job at a place like Walmart.
Ah but unemployment where is the question, I'd (probably) want to be a low level Foxconn employee than unemployed in China. I certainly would rather be a low level Indian labourer than unemployed in India.
And its about the morality of allowing open immigration.
For example, I morally support the unification of Korea, even though it would be quite bad for South Korea but at the moment its horrific for the people of North Korea.
I'm an immigrant (Europe) and I don't have issues with US not making it easier for me to immigrate. Neither I nor my ancestors built this country, paid taxes (well, until I came here), etc., so it's hard to blame the country for anything that it didn't do for me.
I don't understand what you mean by blame the country, this is pretty much a discussion about morals and is therefore subjective.
I believe that individuals separate from their ancestors? Saying its their fault for being born in a different country seems quite uncharitable, similar to blaming people for being born into poverty or a particular race.
These potential immigrants want to be productive members of a new society, they can't even get a chance to immigrate if they aren't able to work, they're willing to leave behind their culture and families and take on fairly exploitative contracts just for the chance of giving themselves and their families a better life.
I think, there's nothing wrong with the country to put their citizen before foreigners. Citizen pay taxes and work for overall good of the country, so it's logical at the very least.
I'm saying this as an immigrant myself. I wish the path to citizenship would be faster and easier (and I've seen people stuck for 10+ years on H1, while having kids and buying houses), but I have to respect decisions, the country the gave me a chance, made.
I'm not sure about "their fault for being born in a different country" - I've never made this statement.
From the age of 18 to 25 I was registered for the Selective Service. I have been paying taxes my entire life. Don't I deserve to reap the benefits of the society I maintain more than someone who hasn't done so?
And if I don't, I may just stop maintaining it. There's an alternative to Voice and Exit: Disengagement.
>I'm also not attempting to "remedy" any injustice of birth, I'm merely opposed to using violence to make it worse.
As such, you're conducting a long, wasteful discussion on the basis of an absolutist, deontological rule you cannot convince the rest of us to adopt.
You are not saying to minimize violence, since you are quite comfortable with both the inherent systemic violence of private property and the resultant levels of systemic and symptomatic violence involved in petty crime, organized crime, and crime by capitalists (ie: corporate crime, in both its white-collar and Pinkerton-esque forms). You're not weighing consequences against each-other in terms of how much violence different policies generate. So it's not that you're even talking about a local minimum of violence while we're talking about other minima: it's that you simply do not care how much violence you create by enforcing minarcho-capitalism, so long as minarcho-capitalism is enforced.
So why are you wasting everyone else's time for the sake of an incoherent, unreasonable ideology?
He's also conflating the individual foreign immigrant with the foreign country. What is good for the immigrant is not necessarily good for the country as a whole.
Similarly, the anti-segregationists don't realize that what's good for a black man is not necessarily good for black America as a whole.
Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened.
Since you seem to want to bring up a variety of empirical criteria, what are the specific empirical criteria that would justify laws which require black Americans to get a visa before living/working in white America? I.e., what has to happen before you favor segregation?
It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to. I can identify pluses and minuses and never much thought about it. Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India?
Whether yes or no, I don't think it justifies treating black Americans the way we treat Nigerians and Indians.
You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way?
As for your ad hominem, I have no idea what I've said here that leads you to believe this. In the lingo of social justice types, one of the largest systemic barriers keeping non-white people out of power is national boundaries. I favor reducing that barrier as much as possible. This makes me "racist as fuck"? Um, ok.
>It's an empirical question that I don't know the answer to.
Your argument appears to be confused as well as mildly racist.
>Can you say with much confidence that allowing grinnbearit to enter the US would harm India?
If he was educated by India I would say that there is a very high likelihood. India would lose its investment in his education.
>You again ducked the question - if black Americans satisfy the same empirical criteria as Indians or Nigerians, should we treat them the same way?
You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians or citizens of some other African country should we restrict the issuance of H1Bs to them...
Um, yes? Sorry, I didn't think that wasn't obvious.
Same deal for Europeans. Obviously. Just in case you again assumed that I give some special consideration to being white (P.S. I'm European and I don't think I'm being done any great favors by having H1B as an option).
>This makes me "racist as fuck"?
Stating outright that black people would be better off shopping in black only shops makes you racist as fuck, yes.
Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism. If I were you I would retract what I just said because it doesn't look at all good either in or out of context.
You mean if black Americans were actually Nigerians...
No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not?
I'm reasonably confident you knew this is what I'm asking.
Hell, even just raising the possibility that it might be true implies racism.
I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist?
>No. I asked if it is morally acceptable under any circumstances to treat a black American the way we treat Nigerians, by threatening them (or their employer) with violence for economic competition. And I'm wondering, if not, why not?
Because they are citizens of the country born under the United States government, and thus should be afforded certain guarantees from that same government. Including a decently paid job. I think that Nigerians deserve the same guarantees from their country too.
I don't believe that Nigeria owes American citizens a job, though. Or vice versa.
Unfortunately to prevent the emergence of poverty, it is necessary for some employers to face an implicit threat of violence that restricts competition among workers. Minimum wage, etc.
>I'm confused. Uncertainty and admission that an empirical question can have multiple answers is racist?
Sure, it's great to allow black people to shop at white stores, but what if they all decide "white man's ice is colder" and the black business community suffers? <- real thing that happened.
And here is the problem. You're still differentiating between white stores and black stores. Only when you view them as stores is racism gone.
It is the same thing as looking a black America versus America as a whole.
de-skilled McJob equivalent workers = Outsourced (often Indian) workers that are paid peanuts and who consequently don't give much of a shit about the quality of their work.
Elance with its screen recording feature = the equivalent of stocking frames
There's nothing wrong with non-high end hamburger restaurants. The problem with McJobs is that they are designed to disenfranchise and maximize the fungibility of the people who work their so that their wages can be driven even below subsistence levels.
Then that would make the people who refuse to train their replacement a 'Luddite' of sorts? Afteral that would entail the replacement worker ramping up on their own.
Luddites were not anti-technology nor were they anti progress. They destroyed technology as a tactic to raise the price of the more automated competition. Their competition made cheaper, crappier equivalents of their artisanal work made with de-skilled McJob equivalent workers whose wages were pressured to abhorrent levels (via other means like the enclosure movement/Napoleonic wars).
Similarly, people who strike are not "futilely trying to stop the existence of work". It's another tactic.
In a way, the Luddites are pretty similar to the anti-H1B crowd of hacker news.
>Before these technological advancements, workers enjoyed mini-monopolies.
This is a hacky way of looking at it but the conclusion sort of works. It makes much more sense to look at relative market power of employees vs. employers rather than use the all-or-nothing terminology of monopoly vs. perfect competition.
If Amazon workers attempt to sabotage Amazon's stock picking machinery, I expect it will result in an increase in wages, much like it did for the Luddites. They will be called Luddites, but similar to the original Luddites, they kind of only really have a problem with technology that is used to control them.