|
|
| Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad (1173647) | |||
 |
|||
| Home > OTChat | |||
|
[ Read Responses | Post a New Response | Return to the Index ] |
|
||
|
Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad |
|
|
Posted by Nilet on Sun Apr 13 22:42:44 2014, in response to Re: Conservative Jeb Bush Notices Racism Is Bad, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Sun Apr 13 22:23:07 2014. If you want firms to pay more, you need to have some degree of restrictions in the labour market in order to boost wages. Cutting off the flow of immigrants is one way to do this.Actually, it does the exact opposite. "Restricting" the labour market by suspending the right to travel and forcing people to remain in the country where they were born creates artificially depressed labour markets— if the going rate for a particular job is $10/hour in the US which has strong worker protections and $0.25/hour in Bangladesh which has no worker protections, workers would naturally move from Bangladesh to the US for the higher wage and better conditions. The exodus of workers from Bangladesh will decrease the supply of labour and boost wages and/or compel Bangladesh to institute worker protections to keep their population from fleeing abroad. If the population of Bangladesh is forced to remain in Bangladesh by government fiat, then Bangladesh represents an artificially depressed market where labour costs $0.25/hour because workers are barred from seeking a higher wage elsewhere. Because capitalists are never restricted by immigration laws in the same way workers are, American companies will outsource jobs to Bangladesh to take advantage of the low wages there, which reduces the demand for labour in America and decreases wages accordingly. No matter how much Olog likes to say the word "communist," I firmly believe that this is something the market would sort out on its own if we stopped getting in the way. If you get rid of the people who aren't supposed to be here, it's makes this fairer for the people who are already here and those who actually followed the correct process to come in the first place. That presumes that anybody is not "supposed" to be here. On what basis can we meaningfully declare that one person is "meant" to be here and another isn't? When I moved to my current apartment, no one claimed I had to leave because I hadn't followed the correct "process" to come here. If I wanted, I could move thousands of miles away and live in Hawaii without anyone claiming I didn't belong there and had to go back. If I can move 5,000 miles without anybody claiming I'm "illegally" present in my new home town, then why should someone who only moved 500 miles be told that? |
|
|
|