As a Socialist, should I oppose immigration or not?
- This topic has 58 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 11 years, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
jondwhite wrote:Why wouldn't you seek to overthrow the capitalist system if this is the cause? Because its easier to blame immigrants? Because its easier to blame particular employers? Or if you want to divide workers, why stop at nations? Why not the north-south divide? Why not town and country? Why not capital cities from the rest?
Nations are needed to support the innate human need for an in-group.People that think, look and act in the same way are more likely to build unity – too much diversification causes distrust and a breakdown of solidarity.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Yes, if wages fall, then certain production models that require lots of labour become options, and labour can be priced into the market, but there are limits to this. Lets look at this from the other angle, if the rate of investment rises, i.e. profits are high, then labour becomes scarce, and employers will offer higher wages to encourage workers to work for them. Both scenarios happen independent of population numbers.How do you figure this one?If profits are high, why should that make labour scarce?No reason for that to be the case, but most certainly if operational costs become LOWER (ie: reduced wages due to oversupply of workers) then investment can easily RISE.Here we can see how the big capitialist can happily increase his profit due to the enlargened workforce.Good for him, but bad for the worker, who now is forced to accept a fraction of the wage or starve.So tell me again, how is this actually good for the working class of the host nation?
FYI:The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s 2013 International Migration Outlook takes an in depth look at the fiscal impact of immigration on the 34 OECD member countries, finding “an overall fiscal impact in terms of GDP that is positive but small”http://tinyurl.com/nkb939t
Wiscalculatus,First off, this host nation stuff is nonsense. I don't know about you, but the only country I've ever lived in seems to be called Tresspassers Will Be Prosecuted. I don't own a square inch of any country, I just live here. I am economic migrant myself.Now, you didn't bold the key phrase "when rates of investment are high", that is, when lots of capital is being thrown onto the market. When lots of capital is competing against other capitals to attract labour, wages rise, so wages will rise even with a growing population. i note, for the third time of asking, you have not provided any refutation to my zero wage example.Some other factors to consider. A lot of migrant labour actually arises out of currency differentials, in that the migrants work in one country to support a family in another, where the high value of the currency in the country where they work can mean a significant increase in the use values their wage can buy.Also, there is a demographc factor. Many migrant workers are young men without families, the most mobile type of labour. These qualitative aspects of economic migrancy are also more important than raw numbers.
wiscalatus wrote:Nations are needed to support the innate human need for an in-group.People that think, look and act in the same way are more likely to build unity – too much diversification causes distrust and a breakdown of solidarity.Sorry but the stuff about nations when you look into it is extremely dubious to say the least.Imagined Communities by Benedict Anderson is described;
Quote:What makes people love and die for nations, as well as hate and kill in their name? While many studies have been written on nationalist political movements, the sense of nationality – the personal and cultural feeling of belonging to a nation – has not received proportionate attention. In this widely acclaimed work, Benedict Anderson examines the creation and function of the "imagined communities" of nationality and the way these communities were in part created by the growth of the nation-state, the interaction between capitalism and printing and the birth of vernacular languages in early modern Europe.Also The Invention of Tradition by E J Hobsbawm is described;
Quote:Many of the traditions which we think of as very ancient in their origins were not in fact sanctioned by long usage over the centuries, but were invented comparatively recently. This book explores examples of this process of invention – the creation of Welsh and Scottish 'national culture'; the elaboration of British royal rituals in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries; the origins of imperial rituals in British India and Africa; and the attempts by radical movements to develop counter-traditions of their own. It addresses the complex interaction of past and present, bringing together historians and anthropologists in a fascinating study of ritual and symbolism which poses new questions for the understanding of our history.The UK is only a few centuries old. Britain a bit older.
Young Master Smeet wrote:i note, for the third time of asking, you have not provided any refutation to my zero wage example.It's nonsense basically, because if there is a vast army of people working for nothing (ie: slavery), then these workers will not be able to pay others to do the jobs they don't want to do (cleaning, cooking, etc..) – thus there will always be some people redundant.
Young Master Smeet wrote:Now, you didn't bold the key phrase "when rates of investment are high", that is, when lots of capital is being thrown onto the market. When lots of capital is competing against other capitals to attract labour, wages rise, so wages will rise even with a growing population.More nonsense here, because we can clearly see that over the last decade or 2, wages for the lower classes have actually gone DOWN, and unemployment has gone up, mainly due to the increase in workers.
wiscalatus, It is a valid scientific method, zeroing out one variable to isolate the effects of others. Yes, if wages were zero, the workers would be unable to pay for any goods and services (indeed, it simply could not happen, because those workers would starve:zero means zero, not even slave rations). As a thought experiment, though, it does illustrate the limiting factor of capital: to have employment at all requires some capital expenditure.If it helps to clarify, the world I am discussing contains a handful of humans, who own all the wealth, and some magickal pixies who will work, but never need to eat, sleep or rest. Being magickal, they cannot use someone else's property without permission. That is why wages are zero. Even in this impossible land, there would be unemployment, because the limit of the use of pixie labour would be the consumable resources. Even cleaners need mops, cleaning agents, clothes, etc. There are capital costs for cleaning.
wiscalatus wrote:More nonsense here, because we can clearly see that over the last decade or 2, wages for the lower classes have actually gone DOWN, and unemployment has gone up, mainly due to the increase in workers.Actually in the UK real wages grew until quite recently, but not as fast as productivity. However, it is true that real wages were static for the last thirty years in the US. However, that is largely down to the low profitability of capital due to unbalanced investment.Evidence:
Quote:In the seven years to 2009, UK employees’ median hourly earnings grew by 3.7% a year on average in nominal (current price) terms. With relatively low inflation, median real earnings (in 2012 constant prices) grew by 1.6% a year on average.Let the pixies make mops from the trees and sew their own clothes.Then, any other pixies out of work, can be made to do non-jobs such as holding doors open for the masters and ladies – this is what happens in the real world.The masters will always empower themselves by forcing subservience on their underlings whether for a valid function or not.This is why a vast army of suplus labour is so glorious for the elite and their lackeys!Why are you so keen to feed the master?
Young Master Smeet wrote:Evidence:Quote:In the seven years to 2009, UK employees’ median hourly earnings grew by 3.7% a year on average in nominal (current price) terms. With relatively low inflation, median real earnings (in 2012 constant prices) grew by 1.6% a year on average.ok, and how about the wages for those at the bottom of the chain? They support those higher up – the poor pay for it!
wiscalatus wrote:Let the pixies make mops from the trees and sew their own clothes.Then, any other pixies out of work, can be made to do non-jobs such as holding doors open for the masters and ladies – this is what happens in the real world.The masters will always empower themselves by forcing subservience on their underlings whether for a valid function or not.This is why a vast army of suplus labour is so glorious for the elite and their lackeys!Why are you so keen to feed the master?A concierge to hold open doors costs capital (uniforms, discipline, administration), so even such non-jobs are subject to the limit of capital.The pixies do not own the trees, they belong to the humans.And, whoever heard of a pixie wearing clothes. Such nonsense.Now, as to wage growth:http://www.tuc.org.uk/extras/unfairtomiddling.pdfThis shows wages growing, even for the poorest decile, but not as fast as other segments of the workforce, and as part of a declining share of national income as wages fall from 65% (see page 11).
Young Master Smeet wrote:This shows wages growing, even for the poorest decile, but not as fast as other segments of the workforce, and as part of a declining share of national income as wages fall from 65% (see page 11).So you can see from this then that inequality is RISING and those right at the bottom are being progressively disempowerd due to their relative decrease in wages, thanks to the oversupply of workers, amongst other things.And you still think that mass immigration is a great thing for the working class? WTF
I think that migration can aid workers, in looking for work. in some cases emigration aids the ruling class as much as immigration. The point is neither are the cause of our enslavement, and the enemy is the wages system, not migratory workers.What you are essentially calling for is organised scabbing. The answer is for workers to organise themselves, not to enforce their masters' borders.I note for the fourth time of asking that you have not refuted my model.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.