this post was submitted on 23 Jun 2023
218 points (97.8% liked)

Work Reform

10040 readers
979 users here now

A place to discuss positive changes that can make work more equitable, and to vent about current practices. We are NOT against work; we just want the fruits of our labor to be recognized better.

Our Philosophies:

Our Goals

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] TAG@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago (5 children)

If only there were people in this world who would want to come to our country . Heck, we could set up a system where employers can post jobs that they have trouble filling and we could match up people outside country who can fill that need. Then, if those people turn out to be decent and moral, we can let them stay in the country permanently.

It is too bad that everyone outside of the country is a foreigner who wants to steal jobs.

[–] CIWS-30@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Immigrants help out in the short term, but then they and their children realize the same thing that people who already live here do: that wages are too low, and that rent and cost of living is too high to support children.

Plus, corporations can use those immigrants to bust unions and keep wages down and rent prices up. Supply and demand, because we live in an oligrarchic dystopia that doesn't have enough social safety nets to make sure that new workers coming in don't sabotage the ones currently working.

I'm the children of immigrants and hang around with the children of other immigrants, and we're not having children ourselves, or ware waiting until increasingly later ages (minimum 30) because of how expensive it is to live, even without children. It only takes 1 generation to realize that new immigrants will just get stuck in the same rut that non-immigrants are already in.

Adding more people just increases the power of corporations (the real government) to treat workers as disposable objects. It's probably why corporate run governments don't try to stabilize unstable regions, but rather prefer to exploit them until there's a mass migration. More people to use for dangerous labor = more expendables that no one can afford to care about.

[–] hydra@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The very same reason NATO destroyed Libya's infrastructure including water pipelines and plunged all their inhabitants back to the dark ages back in 2011, and now NATO countries are complaining they are getting full of immigrants. Maybe if they hadn't commited war crimes there they would have stayed there. That waterway increased the country's carrying capacity and destroying it could arguably be classified as genocide.

[–] DulyNoted@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

Yeah, globalization is a bit of a trap. The short term gains are enticing but we're just pushing off the inevitable.

Plus, on a global scale, it's just people moving around. In the short term it may benefit one country or another, but it's just shuffling what we already have.

[–] PenguinJuice@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Then you're just committing them to taking low paying jobs. Don't you see what is going on? This is what happened after the black plague that ended feudalism. We need to stick to our guns and make them increase wages. Your argument to have immigration solve the baby crisis is EXACTLY what business owners want. They WANT to keep wages low with an infinite influx of people from poor countries because these immigrants won't know they are getting fucked in the ass with low pay.

[–] pizza_rolls@kbin.social 12 points 1 year ago

Immigrants deserve a living wage too.

[–] FrowingFostek@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)
[–] Notyou@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 year ago

Pretty sure, but you never can tell anymore.

[–] TAG@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I would have suggested eating babies , but it would be counterproductive.

[–] Dexies@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

I mean immigration exists in every western country, I dunno what you’re complaining about.

[–] blueskiesoc@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

"if those people turn out to be decent and moral"

Who decides? Yikes.

[–] SuiXi3D@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

‘Not a rapist, tax cheat, or murderer’ seems like a pretty low bar that most could manage to get over.

[–] teuast@lemmy.world 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Which is itself fine, until you take into account the long and ongoing history of the way that immigrants, marginalized demographics, and particularly immigrants from marginalized groups are treated by our justice system, whether or not they've actually committed a serious crime or any crime at all.

[–] Willer@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Rephrase it to: fit for our justice system

[–] Katana314@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I've started rolling my eyes at "Who decides?" prompts. Whether it's judging people, interpreting laws, etc.

PEOPLE. People process your grocery purchase at checkout, and verify you found everything okay. People determine whether the charge of murder is substantially proven and justified. People evaluate a person's immigration application.

This is not a brand new science. Fallible, sure. Imperfect, sure. Useless, absolutely not.

[–] blueskiesoc@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago

Thank you for responding. My "who decides" comment was an unuseful shortand for what I wanted to express, which is that I don't have much trust in our institutions to carry out the will of the people.