Creating low cost alternatives and taking advance of lax laws is part of that. If you can import 100k skilled workers per year under a scheme that gives you more power over them. Then you also offshore 300k jobs per year to countries with weaker protections.
It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections.
A valid critique of how globalism was implemented in the US. However, this concern could be heavily ameliorated by policy. For example, making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically.
Perhaps a reason you’re baffled is because you are thinking only of domestic labor instead of global labor. Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis.
This is an insanely modern take on "pro-labor" movements, especially in the US. Traditionally, pro-labor has been 100% focused on local labor. If you told your average union member that being "pro-labor" meant closing their factories and offshoring their jobs they'd laugh (or more likely, spit) in your face.
There are already rules in place but no real enforcement. Large software companies save a fortune making workers compete with workers from countries that have dramatically lower cost of living, entirely circumventing the market constraints that favor workers.
In hiring the people the H1B was designed for, 100k is nothing.
> Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis.
This is a disingenuous argument. Allowing companies to pocket a huge amount of money that would have gone to the people they laid off to hire H1Bs with common skill sets is not pro labor by any measure.
This includes enforcement of the law.
I don't quite agree that much with causes: high housing, Healthcare & med bankruptcy, and high education costs (correlating with high housing) are bigger factors. However non tech/lawyer/doctors have been adversely effected by the fact they've seen no real income gains in 25 years overall.
Now, the top 5% and corps need to be made to pay more taxes... thats another subject.
A couple elderly people i know are quite concerned Trump will take their snap benefits, or decrease medicaid/care etc while the tax reductions were given on the bb bill. Thats not acceptable.
We may be reaching the breaking point where Americans view any solution to this problem as worth trying. We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans. When your grandparents are the last generation to remember rising living standards, it’s hard to buy that the system is working for you at all.
No, we aren't! We have statistics on this (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). Median real income is up substantially since 40-50 years ago, depending on what you count as a generation. And we have stories and records of what life was like in the 1970s, when 80% of households had to hand wash dishes and 50% had to line-dry clothes. The reason people believe living standards haven't risen since their grandparents' day is that they get false nostalgia bait depictions of how a typical person lived in their grandparents' day.
(What is true, and what I'm sure contributes to the power of the nostalgia bait, is that real income stagnated with the dot-com bubble and didn't hit a sustained rise again until the mid-late 2010s.)
Propaganda is very effective, and Americans are the most skillful propagandists in the world. Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it.
"Immigration" as such is a made up concept. The legal and physical barriers created by immigration policy are pro-capital and anti-labor. If people could freely move around the world, you can bet there'd be much more focus on pro-labor policies.
That doesn't mean the teflon president isn't just now blatantly silencing the voices of the opposition (Kimmel and then a general warning) so he definitely wants a place in the competition.
We've gone from philosophers like DeBord and Baudrillard painting a somewhat manic vision of the future, to actually living in this hyper-real mirror of some actual society that no longer exists, mostly courtesy of a global American cultural hegemony. People are willing to risk being fatally shot, to engage in anti-social behavior, or to martyr themselves all in the name of some form of second order "engagement".
The current state of propaganda is such that even the more modern concepts taught in a polisci class on ideology & propaganda, such as banal nationalism, are completely outdated, and are about as quaint as a lot of soviet era concepts. Propaganda is now able to be delivered in the form of hyper-personalized content, where the content itself not even need be propaganda, control of the recommendation engine selecting what a person sees and doesn't see is more than enough.
Why's that? The jobs and lives of individuals in those countries are better than the alternatives present otherwise to them. Globalization may hurt certain America jobs but certainly countries like India is grateful for all of the engineering roles.
High consumerism is harmful to the environment but I don't think the link between offshoring jobs is direct to environmental harms and certainly it's helpful to giving more job opportunites.
Environmentalism is similar. Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets.
You seem to be arguing that globalism makes the world better off. I agree, but that is because pro-labour and pro-environmentalist ideologies are pretty explicit that they aren't trying to maximise the general welfare. A situation where one soul works very hard and happily for little pay making things for everyone else could be a good outcome for everyone (see also: economic comparative advantage). The pro-labour position would resist that outcome on the basis that the labourer is not making very much money. And the environmentalist would probably be unhappy with the amount of pollution that the hard work generates. The globalist would call it a win.
Specifically when you say:
>Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets.
We can observe that the Globalist organizations regard not just pollution, but carbon consumption to be something which markets cannot be trusted to manage. Instead they propose top-down regulatory management on a supranational level.
https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-...
I think you're assuming here that 'a better deal' means 'more money than someone else', whereas lots of people would define it as 'everyone has more rights/security'.
Let’s look at US imports from China. Last year that was $462bn worth of goods. Suppose the development of China never happened and all those goods were manufactured in the USA instead. That’s impossible, the US doesn’t have tens of millions of industrial workers lying around spare to do those mostly low end, low value jobs and if it did they would cost more and the goods would all be much more expensive. So the cost of living would go up, the economy would less efficient because many workers would be doing lower value add jobs than they are now. The country would be much worse off overall. It would basically amount to enormous government subsidies and protections for vast swathes of lower value assembly work than what many people are doing now.
I support global trade because I think it’s best for the west. Not hyper-liberal ultra free market trade. Negotiated, rules based, moderately regulated trade and investment that is balanced to meet domestic and international needs.
Instead they'll be made unemployed by AI and a crashing tech economy.
But that isn't the point of this. It's leverage - much like the tariffs.
Big companies making significant donations to the Donald Trump Presidential Aggrandisement Fund will receive carve-outs and exclusions.
It's a grift, like everything else done by this benighted administration.
I'm pretty sure my local pizza shop, waitstaff, and other small businesses are happy to have my money spent on their products and services. They don't care that I have a tech job, but they do care that I spend money with them, and spending money with them is only one degree of separation from having a job.
In the case of bringing in workers; those workers are less likely to join unions or demand good working conditions since they are effectively indentured servants. That also is bad for labor.
