This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
And i don't buy it. Especially when one of the core arguments in favor of importing foriegn labor is that it's cheaper/more cost effective than hiring Americans. I have yet to encounter a compelling argument for why the rules of supply and demand shouldn't apply to labor.
The rules apply to specific sectors! But they don't apply to the economy as a whole because, in a sense, every action everyone takes is labor. So adding more labor doesn't reduce the real "price of labor", because the whole thing we're doing is exchanging our labor for the labor of others. Adding more labor reduces the price of labor in dollars (assuming the amount of money in circulation isn't actively adjusted based on the amount of labor, which it does, but whatever), but that doesn't matter because you don't have a fixed amount of dollars, you have a fixed amount of time to spend doing labor! So reducing the price of labor in dollars reduces the amount of money you have, but you can buy more with it - nominal vs real wages. And then what matters from importing new immigrants is whether they make the economy overall more efficient, and in general specialization and comparative advantage means it does.
In general, all economic arguments against immigration in general, without respect to immigrant characteristics, such as the one you're making, are also arguments against pronatalist population growth. And population growth doesn't seem to have been bad for America's economy historically. Arguments that take into account immigrant characteristics work better!
Just to be clear.
You are asking me to believe that it is impossible for changes in the supply of labor to the effect the price of labor.
It would seem to me that history is rife with counter-examples.
... I am arguing that, absent changes in the money supply, it reduces the nominal price of labor, but not the real price of labor?
Like, the population of the United States 3xed in the last 100 years. This was a huge increase in the supply of labor. But it did not reduce the 'real' price of labor, or the value of the goods and services that we consume, because labor creates those goods and we exchange our labor for the consumption of those goods, which balance out. And then the second-order effect on the nominal price is specialization, but that's the main effect for the real price. Again, absent concerns specific to characteristics of immigrants, like culture or genetic ones, which are reasonable. But your argument applies equally well to population growth via new births reducing wages ... and it ... doesn't do that.
I kind of want to say that a lot of people here have a blindspot in their reasoning for anti-immigration arguments, in the same way that people on the left have a blindspot in their reasoning for anti-racism arguments?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
They do, that's the "lowers local wages in specific specific sectors where there's a concentration of foreign labor" effect. If you want an intuition pump for how that doesn't lower (real) wages overall, consider that money isn't real, it's just an account of value. Some total amount of goods and services are produced in the economy, and the more goods and services are produced per person, the richer the average person is.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link