- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/19930828
You must log in or register to comment.
It’s interesting, because the fewer immigrants there are, the more alien they seem, so the easier it is to fearmonger about them
This is way better than Reddit
If illegal immigrants are taking all the jobs, why don’t we blame the people giving them jobs instead of the immigrants who are desperate?
Because the immigrants aren’t taking all the jobs, and we’re honest. But if they were, we would.
Because they have the capital.
because they just want cheap labor, and laborer want to maximize wages
You forgot we also want cheap goods. It’s a race to the bottom.
Because wages are so low.
Race to the bottom! Lol
Elon musk is an immigrant.
Mudrock family are immigrants, also were in UK while publishing xenophobia.
Shiity people often abuse the USA’s liberties in bad faith and prosper.
But govt people allowed the mergers until the media are mostly owned by them, soon there will be ONE major grocery chain in USA, apparently the Loblaw imbroglio is invisible from Wash DC, and buying and selling personal data is commonplace, not even taxed much less protected.
Those Pogo comics of them going downhill out of control are from the 50s, that pure copper penny still hasn’t dropped.
Who got bailed out in 2008? And who bailed them out?
Anyone whose income depends on harming others has an incentive to distract the people they’re harming. Point a finger at any out-group & that job is done. Immigrants are the easiest out group to post a finger at
Don’t forget the massive property tax increases and home insurance increases. Both have doubled in less than 10 years. At least they have here in FL with our wack job governor.
Yes but that also has a lot to do with insurance companies finally using climate data for their rates.
And the lack of state income tax. The tourist taxes only go so far, they’ve got to make that money somewhere, property tax is one of the places Florida balances the books.
Back in 2019 I needed to move across the country on very short notice. It didn’t leave me any time to sell my house. A friend of mine was getting absolutely screwed on rental payments, so I did some math, and offered to rent it to them at a rate that just barely covered the mortgage and taxes. It was SIGNIFICANTLY below market rate, and significantly less than he was currently paying.
I guess that makes me a parasite.
you’re surely aware that your situation is the exception rather than the rule
Doesn’t matter, according to hexbear he still has to die, “he should have gifted the house to his friend rather than become a slum lord” and all.
He should at least let the friend own however much equity in the house they helped pay with their rent payment, to be paid out when the house is sold
“[the landlord leaves the worker] with the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more.” - Adam Smith
Lemmy moment
Ah yes, let’s attack our neighbors who try to save their money, and let’s ignore the bankers and politicians who created the system that incentivizes this behavior.
No one is pointing the finger at regular people… The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. The 1% often IS the bankers, and they did create the system, and they paid the politicians to pass it. You’re just muddying the waters.
Have you read the text in the image?
This whole argument of peoples pension funds being the largest shareholders in a company is bizarre. https://www.blackrock.com/institutions/en-us/insights/public-pensions-survey pensions are owning less and less of the stock markets every year, become less and less relevant. Institutions like blackrock however are growing. Consistently.
Like mate your neighbour Barry isn’t calling into the shareholders meeting to criticise the CEO for paying $0.05 an hour over minimum wage the the receptionist.
Pensions have practically vanished in the US. It’s all 401k
Institutions like blackrock however are growing. Consistently.
Ah yes, let’s blame blackrock who provides a service for our neighbors who want to protect their wealth and invest, and let’s ignore the bankers and politicians who created the system that incentivizes this behavior.
Companies like Blackrock also lobby those politicians with that wealth they’re pretending and investing.
“lobbying” is just spending money in hopes of getting more favourable laws passed, which is a form of investment in the company’s future.
Sure, the system feeds itself.
You keep repeating bankers and politicians but don’t seem to be going into much detail. Which politicians? Which bankers? When did your neighbours get enough money to invest through blackrock and when did they become billionaires?
What do you mean? Are you going to say politicians didn’t pass the laws that are the foundations of our financial and economic system? Which law are you curious about, then I can look up when it was passed and by who. Blackrock doesn’t gatekeep, anybody can invest with them, you don’t have to be a billionaire.
You’re the one making the claim bossman, burden of proof is on you
I need to give you proof that politicians created our laws? Dude…
I’m here reading comments of people’s opinions, and everyone is elaborating trying to help people understand their views. You’re not. That’s why people are asking for clarity (which you’re not providing)
Are you being intentionally obtuse?
Exactly. Stockholders are not the problem - corporate concentration of wealth and power is the problem. Attacking me for having a 401k is just crabs-in-a-bucket mentality.
No one is attacking you for your 401k… The problem is that the richest 10% own 93% of all stocks, and the 1% own 54%. Your 401k almost certainly falls into that 7% the peasants “own”. When we point a finger at “stock holders” we’re talking about the relatively small group that owns everything and would rather kill everyone than share the wealth equitably.
When we point a finger at “stock holders” we’re talking about
Maybe you are but there’s plenty of people who are perfectly happy to attack the middle class.
Have you read the text in the image?
Tbf, if that is what is meant by stockholders perhaps the specificity would do the argument good, because without it you’re lumping them in with all stock holders (like those with a 401k.) I also get the notion that you may not care about the 401k but the hexbear users might, for instance, so some infighting may take place, but oh well.
At any rate by using terms that include a wider range of people than you do intend to kill (saying things like kill all landlords or kill all stockholders etc, which could include fair landlords and 7%ers or whatever unless specified), it’s going to make those people who acknowledge those cases you “don’t mean” defensive against being killed. Basically, we need another word that only applies to the people that you find it acceptable to kill, that excludes those who you think should live despite exhibiting similar behaviors to those marked for death, if you intend to get those people on your side.
Consider the incestuous circle of ownership of the big 3 asset managers (BlackRock, State Street, Vanguard) and despair.
That explains why the oligarchs are trying so hard to get Kamala to fire FTC leadership
One of my best friends is an illegal immigrant and I’ve realized that he is here doing what I’m doing. Trying to get by and provide for his family. If the tables were turned I’d do the same and if all these people against them say they wouldn’t, they are full of shit. Actually, there’s such shitty people that they probably wouldn’t anyway.
In some countries (including the USA), immigration is mostly a civil issue, and most “illegal immigration” is actually not illegal!
You all are fundamentally missing something with real estate pricing increasing, and that’s how it’s used for money laundering.
You know how you can sell a piece of art to someone for any price and how that gets used for money laundering? Well, the rich do that with houses and property too. Hint: a lot of real estate agents aren’t really working as real estate agents. They are someone’s escort or drug dealer etc who gets payment in the form of a cut of the property they “sold,” but in reality was a pre-planned transaction that didn’t really need real estate agents to facilitate.
So basically they are subsidizing illegal activity with our properties.
Ummm… What? Proof of this? Would be pretty wild if true.
Oh, they talk about it in the documentary Active Measures (2018) when discussing Donald Trump doing it with commercial real estate and iirc, the mob/mafia. McCain and Hillary Clinton are in that doc. I’m looking for a link to the full documentary and will update this comment if I find it.
Those dern im’gints controlin’ the means’o production.
To be fair, the canadian minister of immigration recently admitted that they should have slowed down on immigration sooner.
Landlords and shareholders do have incentives to drive rent up and wages down, and immigration is one way to do it. The housing and job market crisis aren’t there for no reason.I don’t have an opinion on housing, but that’s not how job market works. The final decision to employ an immigrant ultimately comes down the HR & company. Saying that “immigrants took our job” is like loosing an auction and saying “they took your painting”
Yes, but if you facilitate access to foreign workers, let’s say with a “temporary foreign worker program”, like it is the case in Canada, companies will go after them first because they are cheap labor and are easy to abuse. Meanwhile, there are new graduates who struggle to find jobs.
Okey let’s take a look what that program is, citation from Wikipedia :
Workers brought in under the program are referred to as Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs) and are allowed to work in positions that are not filled by Canadians. The aim was to address skill shortages
It looks to me that the shortage was the reason why program was initiated. So from the information I have, it looks to me you have it backward.
And then you have companies displaying highly skilled job offers at minimum wage knowing nobody sane will apply. Then they claim that no canadian can be hired for their job and they need foreigners. They end up hiring foreigners for half the wage they would pay a canadian and exploit them all they want.
Foreigners are attractive because they don’t know their rights and their value and can easily be abused.And TFW program aside, the same principle goes for the housing market. It’s much easier to convince some europeans to pay 1500$ a month for a 3-rooms apartment because they are used to expensive housing. They will generally be less informed about our consumer protection laws and accept any lease, legal or not.
They tried that over here with Brexit. Those darned immigrants stealing our jobs (while also just living off benefits, of course). EU citizens were like, screw this. They left, suddenly farmers were faced with their produce rotting in the fields, because guess what? The Brits don’t actually want to do those jobs.
So what do you think happened next? They had to allow special visas to lure immigrants back in.
Meanwhile, the gammons were still raging that immigrants lower wages because they’ll work for less pay than UK citizens.
Yup, I have read about that situation, pretty funny looking at it from outside
Usually you have a choice in participating in an auction, even get to set your bid.
the canadian minister of immigration recently admitted that they should have slowed down on immigration sooner.
A politician pandering to the Right doesn’t make it true.
housing and job market crisis aren’t there for no reason, and it’s partly due to immigration.
Nope. Nobody’s forcing employers to exploit immigrants desperate enough to work for less due to fewer opportunities and less support.
Likewise, housing is much more expensive than simple demand would dictate. Landlords aren’t charging as much as is fair all things considered, or even as much as people can generally afford. They’re charging the absolute maximum that they can get away with, which is usually more than people can afford.
They’re charging the absolute maximum that they can get away with
That’s how all economics works. If you found a job where, in your opinion, you were really overpaid for the work burden - would you go to your boss and ask them to pay you less?
The root of the housing problem is undersupply, which imo is due to a nationwide patchwork of NIMBY policies driven by Boomer landlords, especially in big cities. Younger people and renters just don’t fucking vote, especially in the local elections where housing policies are decided. So Boomer retirees ensure that 95% of the city is zoned for single family housing, and no apartments can get built.
If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
If you’re buying into an economic system that doesn’t make sure that right is filled, then you have a problem with morality, and perhaps also mortality.
If that’s how economics works, just giving us the perfect argument for why economics is a bullshit field. Human beings need shelter to survive. It’s a human right. It’s one of those super important things, up there with water and food.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work. Whether you want to support the system or tear it down, understanding it is extremely helpful to either cause.
Economics is a soft science. Economics is not about describing how things should work, economics is about describing how things do work.
I mean, tell that to economists? In my experience, they are extremely dogmatic. With vanishingly few exceptions, every economist I’ve ever heard, seen, or read in any media acts as though whatever model they subscribe to is gospel, and that any issues you might have with it must therefore stem from a lack of understanding, rather than from the faulty assumptions underlying it.
Economists talking to the media are typically pushing for policy proposals, and in pushing for policy, a “never admit uncertainty” sort of deal is in play to avoid a soundbite where an economist says something that can be played as five-second mockery to sink said policy proposal.
Economists writing in academia can be stubborn and at times utterly bizarre, but are genuinely discussing models and theories the same way sociology does.
Yeah, I think there’s also a lot of tone-deafness among economists, that seems to reflect a lack of understanding (or at least acknowledgment) that the economy is built on—and designed to perpetuate—massive inequality. The average person derives comparatively little benefit from an economy which is—on paper—booming, because the profits are overwhelmingly siphoned off by the wealthy. This is probably mostly a problem with the way the economy is reported on by the media, but economists are the face of that.
