Upward Pressure On Wages

[Zardnaar]

Can immigrant workers suppress wages? It depends. Does the economic benefit of immigration outweigh its costs? It depends. There's no universal and eternal answer to these questions.

But you know what is true? Business will exploit labour and suppress wages if labour has no protection and no bargaining power.

Well duh. Unfortunately the neo libs win power around 50% of the time.

Used to be more like 75%. Progress.

 

[innonimatu]

Immigration can cause issues, but the fastest way to put upward pressure on wages is to have labour protections and bargaining power for both native and immigrant workers. Trying to bar immigrants from coming in without actual left-wing reforms is like putting the cart before the horse and then shooting the horse just because.

I think you don't fully grasp how politics work. At least how they work in "the west" that has to really go through all the motions of some kind of parliamentary democracy. Singapore of course is a dictatorship with lipstick, political rules are somewhat different. And in a communist country rules would also be somewhat different. etc.

For the "west", which is the situation most people here live in and are coming from with their viewpoints, we have indeed 40 years of experience with erosion of labour rights. It's done through a variety of means but the open borders thing was the main definitely tool in Europe. The ECJ rewrote labour law for the whole EU based on that doctrine, to dismantle what the unions had won on the national political arena. I've offered specific examples in one of the brexit threads, or perhaps the EU one. There is no doubt that capitalists decided to import labour from the countries to pay them lower wages, and that having achieved that they undermined the unions. The relation cause-effect is clear, it's in the jurisprudence itself.

There is a current within the EU, personified by that former greek finance minister, Varoufakis, who claims that the EU is reformable from within, that things such as labour rights can be restored by campaigning politically through the EU institutions. They went nowhere. Their representation in the European Parliament, itself a Potemkin village of "democracy", failed to elect a single representative. Why, if the issues they talked about worried many Europeans?
Because the political arena remains national. That is the horizon of the community people fell part of, act as part of, live in. The few who want to be "citizens of nowhere" (meaning: have no obligations towards any community) don't care about labour issues, they're out only for themselves thinking that moving around rather than improving a community they're part of is the way to live. So an appeal to the "european citizens" for left-wing politics went nowhere and cannot ever go anywhere.

If the fight is national, then the fight is about changing the power relations in the fight between owners of capital and workers. That oh-so-old-fashioned class war thing. Who can relative power change in this arena?
There's revolution as an option, but let's be honest history shows that people only embark on that whet they're suddenly oppressed, or oppressed to a point where their living conditions become unbearable.
There's democracy and state capture towards a different institutional setup, but in the EU democracy on the national level is constrained (as the Greeks confirmed and Varoufakis should know) except in the big countries. The barriers are very great, the oligarchies have the media well under control, etc. Wealth begets political power...
And there's material conditions. Which capitalists can't really change because they're a constraint on their use of capital. Lack of resources means they'll have to expend more to get what they want. Lack of available labour means they'll have to pay more for it. Immigration policy is a lever they've used to expand their wealth, they political power through it.

A democratic strategy to cut down the power of the oligarchs within a country requires attacking their wealth and their political influence by any mean available. Immigration policy is a tool that they've used to their immense benefit: undermine the political power of unions and accumulate more wealth. It's an obvious place to hit them. The left is in terrible shape. It took beating after beating. often because of stupid strategic mistakes people there did, often because leaders outright sold out.

We can't afford to assume universal brotherhood here and now. Thea's a goal, it's not the present reality. The strategy to change the present must start from the present to get anywhere. Can you understand that?
Assuming the future instead of fighting in the present is one of the categories of mistakes that led the left in Europe after the 80s from defeat to defeat.

These same observations are valid for the US, where the left was kindle with the trade agreements, NAFTA, the WHO... And for a number of other countries with similar makeup and also within this institutional web weaved out of the Washington Consensus in the 1990s to "globalize". The anti-globalization movement got things right. They lost the battle then but it must go on. The "thin ways" were political suicide for the left. And where the left won't deliver some "populist" will finally deliver. Something.

 

[Farm Boy]

it's quite right and proper

I always preferred the phrasing "it is altogether fitting and proper," but maybe that's a bit on the nose for the ghost of Lincoln.

 

[Zardnaar]

Unemployment down to 4%

https://i.stuff.co.nz/business/1259...-by-yearend-after-record-drop-in-unemployment

 

[aelf]

I think you don't fully grasp how politics work. At least how they work in "the west" that has to really go through all the motions of some kind of parliamentary democracy. Singapore of course is a dictatorship with lipstick, political rules are somewhat different. And in a communist country rules would also be somewhat different. etc.

For the "west", which is the situation most people here live in and are coming from with their viewpoints, we have indeed 40 years of experience with erosion of labour rights. It's done through a variety of means but the open borders thing was the main definitely tool in Europe. The ECJ rewrote labour law for the whole EU based on that doctrine, to dismantle what the unions had won on the national political arena. I've offered specific examples in one of the brexit threads, or perhaps the EU one. There is no doubt that capitalists decided to import labour from the countries to pay them lower wages, and that having achieved that they undermined the unions. The relation cause-effect is clear, it's in the jurisprudence itself.

There is a current within the EU, personified by that former greek finance minister, Varoufakis, who claims that the EU is reformable from within, that things such as labour rights can be restored by campaigning politically through the EU institutions. They went nowhere. Their representation in the European Parliament, itself a Potemkin village of "democracy", failed to elect a single representative. Why, if the issues they talked about worried many Europeans?
Because the political arena remains national. That is the horizon of the community people fell part of, act as part of, live in. The few who want to be "citizens of nowhere" (meaning: have no obligations towards any community) don't care about labour issues, they're out only for themselves thinking that moving around rather than improving a community they're part of is the way to live. So an appeal to the "european citizens" for left-wing politics went nowhere and cannot ever go anywhere.

If the fight is national, then the fight is about changing the power relations in the fight between owners of capital and workers. That oh-so-old-fashioned class war thing. Who can relative power change in this arena?
There's revolution as an option, but let's be honest history shows that people only embark on that whet they're suddenly oppressed, or oppressed to a point where their living conditions become unbearable.
There's democracy and state capture towards a different institutional setup, but in the EU democracy on the national level is constrained (as the Greeks confirmed and Varoufakis should know) except in the big countries. The barriers are very great, the oligarchies have the media well under control, etc. Wealth begets political power...
And there's material conditions. Which capitalists can't really change because they're a constraint on their use of capital. Lack of resources means they'll have to expend more to get what they want. Lack of available labour means they'll have to pay more for it. Immigration policy is a lever they've used to expand their wealth, they political power through it.

A democratic strategy to cut down the power of the oligarchs within a country requires attacking their wealth and their political influence by any mean available. Immigration policy is a tool that they've used to their immense benefit: undermine the political power of unions and accumulate more wealth. It's an obvious place to hit them. The left is in terrible shape. It took beating after beating. often because of stupid strategic mistakes people there did, often because leaders outright sold out.

We can't afford to assume universal brotherhood here and now. Thea's a goal, it's not the present reality. The strategy to change the present must start from the present to get anywhere. Can you understand that?
Assuming the future instead of fighting in the present is one of the categories of mistakes that led the left in Europe after the 80s from defeat to defeat.

These same observations are valid for the US, where the left was kindle with the trade agreements, NAFTA, the WHO... And for a number of other countries with similar makeup and also within this institutional web weaved out of the Washington Consensus in the 1990s to "globalize". The anti-globalization movement got things right. They lost the battle then but it must go on. The "thin ways" were political suicide for the left. And where the left won't deliver some "populist" will finally deliver. Something.

Wait, so all this sophistry is justifying xenophobic policies in lieu of real reforms in the name of "attacking [oligarchs'] wealth and their political influence"? And that's supposed to be your insight into politics? Surprising how a wall of text can convey such a thin pseudo-Strasserist argument.

I would describe this in two ways: 'silly' and 'intellectually bankrupt'.

 

[innonimatu]

@aelf, I'll be more direct wth you: you're ignorant of both context and history, playing at politics for feeling virtuous. But unable to reason even with the little you do know.
Keep believing what you wish, probably you have a comfortable enough life for the present time that you can afford to live without change. But change will come even if you don't move, and if it keeps going like the past 40 years your change will most likely be downwards.

 

[Gorbles]

Calling other people on their apparent "feeling" of being virtuous is, in of itself, the same thing. It's just the things you see as virtuous, inno, are different. And thus you condemn those who don't align with you regarding those virtues. It's good to see you being direct for a change, but all this does is expose signalling that you apparently oppose in others.

It is impossible to ratify class stratification without also understanding its intersection with race, gender, and so on. Maybe it was possible in the past. Maybe we simply didn't understand these intersections in the past, or we believed that rectifying problems with labour rights would trickle . . . up? Down? Sidewards? To other axes of marginalisation. But whatever the reason, it simply doesn't hold true anymore. Even if class is as the root of all these other problems in society, you cannot tackle it without allying yourself with other rights movements.

If you want to advocate worker protections and labour rights, but spit on social justice and the like, you simply aren't going to have the allies you need to enact the change you apparently so badly want to see. Neither will you if you keep threatening people with vaguaries of 40 years from now. It's an (indirect, it took you two sentences but you immediately reverted back to being indirect) "or else" implication.

It's funny. We keep seeing "big tent" mentality not just with the asinine politics of large-scale political parties, but also in screeds like yours, for the alleged benefit of the working classes / working poor. But we never see it in the reverse. It's never "we have to work with the progressive leftists", or "we have to work alongside social justice advocates". You see yourself, and presumably people like you, as the group that really matters. Which is funny, because that's exactly the criticism you make of other groups. That they're all about themselves.

 

[Senethro]

Never mind that Inno's "Why"s are stupid, his "Hows" are worse.

You can't control immigration without an expansion of the surveillance/police/incarceration state. Its self-defeating.

 

[aelf]

@aelf, I'll be more direct wth you: you're ignorant of both context and history, playing at politics for feeling virtuous. But unable to reason even with the little you do know.
Keep believing what you wish, probably you have a comfortable enough life for the present time that you can afford to live without change. But change will come even if you don't move, and if it keeps going like the past 40 years your change will most likely be downwards.

"ignorant", "unable to reason", "change will come" sound like words that apply perfectly to you.

 

[Lexicus]

These same observations are valid for the US, where the left was kindle with the trade agreements, NAFTA, the WHO... And for a number of other countries with similar makeup and also within this institutional web weaved out of the Washington Consensus in the 1990s to "globalize". The anti-globalization movement got things right. They lost the battle then but it must go on. The "thin ways" were political suicide for the left. And where the left won't deliver some "populist" will finally deliver. Something.

I completely disagree that the same analysis applies to the United States. Also, the "anti-globalization movement," incidentally, never made the mistake of scapegoating immigrants for problems caused by capitalism and capitalists. Its anger was rightly directed at the high-level institutions, at the seats of power.

 

[Joij21]

Infrequently, but yes.

More like constantly.

 

[Joij21]

Wait, so all this sophistry is justifying xenophobic policies in lieu of real reforms in the name of "attacking [oligarchs'] wealth and their political influence"? And that's supposed to be your insight into politics? Surprising how a wall of text can convey such a thin pseudo-Strasserist argument.

I would describe this in two ways: 'silly' and 'intellectually bankrupt'.

Because reform is nigh impossible these days but convincing a certain subset of the population, or rather politicians, who hold some rather unsavory viewpoints is much easier.

And don't get me started on a full militaristic revolt to overthrow the system, because you know well all our infrastructure and food supplies would be destroyed in the aftermath of such a civil war regardless of who wins.

 

[Zardnaar]

Never mind that Inno's "Why"s are stupid, his "Hows" are worse.

You can't control immigration without an expansion of the surveillance/police/incarceration state. Its self-defeating.

One can it's not even that hard.

You could overhaul the employment laws with jail time and asset seizure if employers caught breaking the law or exploiting migrants.

If people won't emplo them without papers it removes the pull factor.

Overhauling visa laws is another way. Work out what skills one needs fast track the migration process for them.

 

[Zardnaar]

Because reform is nigh impossible these days but convincing a certain subset of the population, or rather politicians, who hold some rather unsavory viewpoints is much easier.

And don't get me started on a full militaristic revolt to overthrow the system, because you know well all our infrastructure and food supplies would be destroyed in the aftermath of such a civil war regardless of who wins.

Civil war in USA the liberals likely lose hard and fast. It would be short imho.

 

[Zardnaar]

Calling other people on their apparent "feeling" of being virtuous is, in of itself, the same thing. It's just the things you see as virtuous, inno, are different. And thus you condemn those who don't align with you regarding those virtues. It's good to see you being direct for a change, but all this does is expose signalling that you apparently oppose in others.

It is impossible to ratify class stratification without also understanding its intersection with race, gender, and so on. Maybe it was possible in the past. Maybe we simply didn't understand these intersections in the past, or we believed that rectifying problems with labour rights would trickle . . . up? Down? Sidewards? To other axes of marginalisation. But whatever the reason, it simply doesn't hold true anymore. Even if class is as the root of all these other problems in society, you cannot tackle it without allying yourself with other rights movements.

If you want to advocate worker protections and labour rights, but spit on social justice and the like, you simply aren't going to have the allies you need to enact the change you apparently so badly want to see. Neither will you if you keep threatening people with vaguaries of 40 years from now. It's an (indirect, it took you two sentences but you immediately reverted back to being indirect) "or else" implication.

It's funny. We keep seeing "big tent" mentality not just with the asinine politics of large-scale political parties, but also in screeds like yours, for the alleged benefit of the working classes / working poor. But we never see it in the reverse. It's never "we have to work with the progressive leftists", or "we have to work alongside social justice advocates". You see yourself, and presumably people like you, as the group that really matters. Which is funny, because that's exactly the criticism you make of other groups. That they're all about themselves.

The counter argument from me is if you fix the economic stuff first the social justice stuff will follow naturally.

NZ passed a lot of progressive economic bstuff decades ago by people with regressive social views.

We're decades ahead of a lit of countries in a lot of social policy having changed things in 80's and 90's.

Social policy can easily be rolled back as well. Economic stuff is a lit harder as people will get pissed if they take an overt financial hit.

Additionally if the economy is stagnating or falling apart etc people gonna gravitate towards extremism which isn't that conductinve to passing social policy anyway. Or it mostly benefits liberal middle and upperclass types and does nothing for the bottom 70%.

 

[Lexicus]

Civil war in USA the liberals likely lose hard and fast. It would be short imho.

The Confederates thought the same thing, and for similar reasons.

 

[Zardnaar]

The Confederates thought the same thing, and for similar reasons.

Back then the majority of the armed forces sided with the government.

Somewhat recent poll revealed 75% of the rank and file support the GoP, 95% officers support GoP.

And throw in defund the police guess what where they swing.

It would depend on who tries to over throw the government. The left couldn't do it, the right probably not either unless things get a lot worse.

Which is what some on the right want. Force the powers of state to side with them.

 

[aelf]

Because reform is nigh impossible these days but convincing a certain subset of the population, or rather politicians, who hold some rather unsavory viewpoints is much easier.

And don't get me started on a full militaristic revolt to overthrow the system, because you know well all our infrastructure and food supplies would be destroyed in the aftermath of such a civil war regardless of who wins.

That argument, unsavoury as it seems, makes much more sense and is more intellectually honest than the pseudo-ideological mumbo-jumbo about "attacking the oligarchs" that Inno posted. Politics may involve compromising on principles, but trying to slather a slimy layer of fake ideological justification over it is so gross.

 

[innonimatu]

@aelf you're simply not worth arguing with. You dismiss arguments ("mumbo-jumbo") instead of answering. Enjoy your chosen echo chambers, much good will they they make you. We're done.

 

[innonimatu]

It is impossible to ratify class stratification without also understanding its intersection with race, gender, and so on. Maybe it was possible in the past. Maybe we simply didn't understand these intersections in the past, or we believed that rectifying problems with labour rights would trickle . . . up? Down? Sidewards? To other axes of marginalisation. But whatever the reason, it simply doesn't hold true anymore.

Oh great, so in the second decade of the 21st century we had a great enlightenment, and everything about politics, power relations, human relations, suddenly changed. I'm supposed to believe that? Is that politics or a religious cult?

Worse, this dogma of "intersectionality" doesn't even try to justify itself with a change in the material or social conditions of humanity. It actually posits that it applies because current conditions that are a continuation, a permanence, of past ones. So this new dogma is saying that everything we knew about politics was wrong, the enlightened ones giving talks about oppression and intersectionality and marginalization and race and whatever have made a great socio-political discovery that we were wrong about everything in the past!

This is ridiculous. This is the stuff of cults, not of a political movement. A sudden flare of rebellion based on some new revelation, that in a few years blows out. What has "intersectionality" achieved so far? Probably help elect Donald Trump as a candidate against it. Congratulations.

Why would politics have changed in this second decade of the 21st century? What has changed in the world that this intersectionality should suddenly make sense? The internet? People more easily retiring to their little echo chambers? That explains why this idea got some followers I guess, but not why it should work!

Even if class is as the root of all these other problems in society, you cannot tackle it without allying yourself with other rights movements.

If you want to advocate worker protections and labour rights, but spit on social justice and the like, you simply aren't going to have the allies you need to enact the change you apparently so badly want to see. Neither will you if you keep threatening people with vaguaries of 40 years from now. It's an (indirect, it took you two sentences but you immediately reverted back to being indirect) "or else" implication.

It's funny. We keep seeing "big tent" mentality not just with the asinine politics of large-scale political parties, but also in screeds like yours, for the alleged benefit of the working classes / working poor. But we never see it in the reverse. It's never "we have to work with the progressive leftists", or "we have to work alongside social justice advocates". You see yourself, and presumably people like you, as the group that really matters. Which is funny, because that's exactly the criticism you make of other groups. That they're all about themselves.

These myriad other rights movements are acting as political distractions. They are not allies that add to the strength of a political movement, they are divisions that sap it. You cannot have a party of vegetarians, a party of non-racists, a party of whites, a party of trans, a party of gays, a party of feminists, or even a party of greens, that are capable of presenting a coherent governing group. These don't even make sense as formalized groups within political parties. None alone, much less all of these in some coalition, can do more useful than provide inputs for some narrow issues. Worse, they don't even have common ground for a coalition, rather they compete for attention and resources for their specific agendas. And people know that, which is why none of these groups ever gets close to power in elections when they present themselves as parties. These are groups that campaign political for narrow interests, for stuff that a government can indeed do but which does not provide a program for government. They are a political sideshow. When working to influence political parties in their limited aims they get some victories, when trying to be more important than they really are socially, they achieve backlash. "Intersectionality" is a recipe for political defeat. This is not just me telling you. This is what we have been observing.