undefined | Better HN

0 pointslegitster6mo ago0 comments

If you're worried about from poorer areas coming in and taking our jobs, how much distinction is there really whether they come from a poorer state or a poorer country?

America has free and open trade within its borders. Nobody seems to mind that there are no visa restrictions on someone from Mississippi taking a job in California.

The distinction we make between a foreigner coming to take a job and a domestic worker taking a job is (with some particular exceptions) is largely a mental construct.

0 comments

erhgaasdg6mo ago

hiring a domestic worker immediately reduces social burden on the rest of the country who should be supporting the domestic worker if they can't find work

hiring a foreign worker does not immediately reduce social burden on the country with the job

dolni6mo ago

The distinction is that in America, we are obligated to take care of Americans.

If people immigrate to America, the arrangement should be mutually beneficial.

We are not, and should not be, the self-appointed saviors of the world.

licebmi__at__6mo ago

> We are not [...] saviors of the world.

This is definitely true. You are getting cheap educated labor, boosting your country's economy and crippling competition. Self interest, not savior behavior.

Now, that's irrelevant to the argument you are replying, that shows the holes in the wage depression argument.

greenie_beans6mo ago

ignoring the absurdness of this argument, it's actually a better deal for some workers to stay in poorer areas of the US because there are now similar job opportunities nationwide while those areas have a lower cost of living. can't find the study rn bc i'm busy but it came out a few years ago i think. used to be a worker from the south would move to NYC and it would drastically change their financial situation, but now it's not the case anymore.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse