Not until all Americans who can work have jobs

ElProlactin a day ago | parent | next [-]

And what do you do about the people who only want to work in jobs that they're not qualified for, and who have unrealistic expectations about pay, benefits, work demands, etc.?

Is every natural-born American entitled to a job that pays what they want, for the hours they want, in the location they want, regardless of their qualifications for the job?

▲

RAMJAC 13 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I was homeless for 6 months, and wanted nothing else except for a job that can pay for basics. I still don't have dental, can't save any money, but I have a room with a lock. I worked from 5pm till 4:30 in the morning from covid until a year ago with zero benefits!

Will I ever be able to retire, doubtful. Have a family, probably not. Are these personal failings I need to take responsibility for, absolutely. Still my expectations are very low and my earnings and lifestyle reflect this.

Where do you want me to move? What job do you want me to take? What more do you want to take from me? Do I deserve less, more, just enough? Why do I have to listen to you about that?

You have _no_ clue what you are talking about.

▲

sandmn a day ago | parent | prev [-]

But isn't that how market supposed to work? Company offers to pay x for the job, can't find anyone for x, so it raises salary to x+y.

I would understand logic of bringing people from other countries when there is a shortage of workers but with current market it doesn't seem to be the case.

▲

ElProlactin a day ago | parent | next [-]

> Company offers to pay x for the job, can't find anyone for x, so it raises salary to x+y.

In the world you're imagining, is x+y potentially infinite?

	▲	g3f32r 21 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Is there a job you wouldn't do for potentially infinite dollars? Can you assert that to be true for hundreds of millions of Americans?

▲

SmirkingRevenge a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Migrants don't really depress wages, except by a very marginal amount at the lowest skilled rung.

That's because adding people to the economy creates more demand

In times of recession, things might be different - but immigration tends to take care of itself in that regard. When a country has unfilled labor demand, immigration goes up. When it has no labor demand, immigration goes down.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

totetsu a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Do you propose to restrict the international flow of capital too while you're at it? Until every spare US dollar is invested in the US? or you just want to restrict the market for the 99% of people whose biggest asset is their labor.

▲

MisterMower a day ago | parent [-]

Dollars and people are not the same thing. I’m not sure how you can even make the claim that they could be or even should be.

▲

totetsu a day ago | parent [-]

Thats the amazing part of a diverse society, there is a variety of opinions and world views that you can come across that that might even be completely outside your current understanding. As by being curious and trying to understand something surprising you might just gain a new and deeper understanding of the world.

	▲	MisterMower a day ago \| parent [-]
		Most folks don’t want their minds opened to new and surprising views and opinions. They want a good job in the town they grew up in so they can take care of their family and raise their kids in the culture they were raised in. Globalism has ruined that entirely, and there’s no amount of implying these people are closed minded or incurious that will make them change their mind on this issue.

▲

krapp a day ago | parent | prev | next [-]

But America is a capitalist system. The market has determined that not all Americans deserve jobs. Are Americans willing to work a 996 schedule for 2.00/hr to compete with labor overseas?

▲

vachina a day ago | parent | next [-]

If your business cannot survive paying more than slave labor rate, then a capitalist system dictates that your business should cease to exist or your resources allocated to more productive work.

	▲	krapp a day ago \| parent [-]
		Capitalism is what capitalists do. No capitalist system dictates that, because that no capitalist system practices that. Wages don't increase with productivity anymore, the gap between the two has only increased since the 1970s. Capitalists come out of the woodwork to denounce things like the minimum wage or unions that distort the fair market value of labor because they want to pay as little as possible and not a cent more. Why do you think automation and outsourcing exist to begin with? Why are we putting Manhattan Project scale effort into AI? Wages are an inefficiency in the market that capitalism has always sought to ruthlessly optimize away.

▲

stale2002 a day ago | parent | prev [-]

Nothing in capitalism prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens.

And it is uncontroversial in most countries that a country should do this.

So this isn't a contradiction. Indeed america is capitalist. And it is also prioritizing its own citizens. There is nothing weird about that.

▲

krapp a day ago | parent [-]

Most capitalist countries have 100% employment for their citizens and little to no immigration? No. "Every citizen who can work having a job" is not something capitalist countries do. They all take ample advantage of foreign labor, they all have corporations that prioritize their own profits and outsource.

▲

stale2002 a day ago | parent [-]

> Most capitalist countries have 100% employment for their citizens and little to no immigration

You must have responded to the wrong post as it has nothing to do with my statement.

That statement is that there is nothing about capitalism that prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens. That is a perfectly normal and rational thing to do.

Additionally, the exact percentages of unemployement rates also has little to do with capitalism, nor does the uncommonness of fully achieving a lofty but possibly valuable goal also has nothing to do with what capitalism is, nor does it say very much about how valuable that goal is or the value in attempting to aspirationally achieve it.

▲

krapp a day ago | parent [-]

>You must have responded to the wrong post as it has nothing to do with my statement.

OK. You can't handle context, noted.

>That statement is that there is nothing about capitalism that prevents a country from prioritizing its own citizens.

The free market is what prevents it. The purpose of capitalism is the creation of capital and its transfer to the capitalist class, and the purpose of corporations is to maximize profits to facilitate that process as quickly and efficiently as possible. Neither capitalism as a system nor corporations have an obligation to improve quality of life for their employees beyond their market value, or to "prioritize" the social welfare over profit, or to hire more people than they need.

It's simple supply and demand and there isn't a demand for American labor.

>Additionally, the exact percentages of unemployement rates also has little to do with capitalism

which is weird because you're arguing that capitalist companies need to prioritize "citizen" labor in order to reduce unemployment, or that governments need to force them to.

▲

stale2002 19 hours ago | parent [-]

> Neither capitalism as a system nor corporations have an obligation to improve quality of life for their employees beyond their market value

If by capitalism as a system, we are refering to countries that are capitalists, it seems fairly uncontroversial to say that such countries can prioritize their own citizens.

It is not weird or controversial to say that countries, even capitalist ones, prioritize their citizens in certain cases, nor is it weird to suggest that they aught do so.

> which is weird because you're arguing that capitalist companies need to prioritize "citizen" labor in order to reduce unemployment, or that governments need to force them to.

I am suggesting that it is compatible with being a capitalist country, and is not weird, unusually, or bad to do such a common thing as prioritizing your own citizens.

I wouldn't say that they need to. Merely that it is a normal and compatible, and in many cases desirable goal for said citizens.

▲

Synthetic7346 11 hours ago | parent [-]

Capitalism is at odds with protectionism. Putting citizens above profits doesn't seem like a very capitalist thing to do. Not arguing against it, I'm all for socialism

	▲	stale2002 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Putting citizens above profits doesn't seem like a very capitalist thing to do Do you... think that people who are pro capitalism believe that their own ideology is harmful? Obviously proponents of a belief think that their ideas and philosophy help their own citizens. > I'm all for socialism Thats only because you have definitionally defined socialism as "When you do things that are good", not realizing that other people think that their ideas are also good. The reason why people support capitalism is specifically because they think it is a good idea and benefits a country, and its citizens.

▲

a day ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]