Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway_73 | Hacker News Reader

I agree. There is no empathy towards people who have their jobs out-sourced and need to compete with low-cost immigrant labor. The elite left-wing opinion likes to virtue-signal about income inequality, but there's an easy solution --cut immigration rates. If you reduce the supply of labor, the working class will see its wages increases. This is Economics 101, and the unwillingness of the elites to reduce immigration rates is what drives both Trump and Brexit.

Frankly, I'm voting for Trump because the working class desperately needs a pay raise or I'm afraid we'll eventually have a revolution. Moreover, I think the income inequality is what's driving our general economic malaise. We need to improve the job prospects of the working class for everybody's good. I'm using a throwaway because arguing against immigration is automatically considered rascist and verboten among the elite.

View on HN

And of course your comment was instantly downvoted. This referendum, and the globalist reactions to it, have been a real eye-opener for me at least. I'm not about to vote for a Donald Trump (sorry), but it seriously raises the alarm about the Clintons, Obamas, Ryans, and Romneys in the USA.

Viewed with a critical eye, is the "Dream Act" about human rights? Or is it about cheap labor? We see things like TPP which are anti-worker on their face. Who is truly pro-labor anymore? Look at Clinton's record and indifference, who is the real war-hawk? Why are the anti-Trump people chanting in Spanish and waving Mexican flags, beating people up? Trump frightens me, but his enemies are quite clearly not my friends.

Are "Leave" voters more likely to be uneducated because they're stupid? Or because they're getting shafted? Are Trump supporters more likely to be uneducated white men because they're all stupid bigots? Or because they're too getting shafted?

Lining up policies, on Trump's side you have plenty of terrible ideas many of which seem like reflexive jabs. Many of them seem unconstitutional. But on Clinton's side, you have actionable, legal, and sinister ideas that will perpetuate a status quo that is getting worse by the day for the middle and lower class.

I cannot in good conscience support either side, but I'd be lying if I said I don't secretly prefer Trump and his ideas right now, just slightly.

> Why are the anti-Trump people chanting in Spanish and waving Mexican flags? Trump frightens me, but his enemies are quite clearly not my friends.

You're frightened by people speaking Spanish waving Mexican flags?

No, fear is your invention here. I speak Spanish. It doesn't make these protests any less nonsensical. They want to be able to remain in the country illegally so they can do what exactly? Be Mexican nationalists? There's a great place to do that already.

You are assuming that the protesters are only reacting against Trump's promises to crack down on illegal immigrants. Some of them might be, but I think they are reacting against a heck of a lot more than some political candidate promising to better enforce existing laws. I can think of all sorts of things Trump has said that might anger Hispanics or (legal) Mexican immigrants.

There are also a lot of people protesting Trump for all the wrong reasons, or in ways that make Trump look like the grown-up in comparison. It's hard not to have at least some sympathy for him in those situations. Still, I try to judge people by their own statements and actions, not the statements and actions of the worst of their detractors.

You conveniently left 'beating people up' out of that quote.

Chant, sure. Wave Mexican flags, no problem. Beat people with rock sacks and throw eggs at them 'because they were asking for it'. Yeah, nuh-uh, not for me thanks. That's where it crosses the line in to scary.

I added that to my comment a moment after submitting because it was important. Parent was probably already reading/replying at that time.

Thanks for the clarification.

I find it hilarious that "beating people up" somehow got missing from the quote in you post.

Yes, I am frightened by people attacking political rallies, especially when waving other country's flags. What is so strange to it?

Try to get out of your USA bubble of thought. I live in Poland. Let's say there is a presidential candidate, who dislikes Russia and is in favor of tighter integration with EU and stronger defense on east border. Now imagine that his supporters are attacked on rallies by people waving Russian flags, chanting "Russia" or "Putin". Why wouldn't you be afraid of them? I would want them out of my country.

We can spin it some other way too. For example suppose that after Snowden revelations (top European politics' phones tapped by NSA) Angela Merkel says she won't have any more of this USA bullshit, but her supporters are attacked on a rally by Americans chanting "USA USA USA" (or "NSA NSA NSA") under American flag. Still cool for you?

I added that to my comment a moment after submitting because it was important. Parent was probably already reading/replying at that time.

When those people are pro "reconquista" or saying Make California Mexico Again, maybe. But I'm afraid of what it says about a growing part of the population that thinks it's good or OK. I think it shows a terrible divide forming. Maybe the melting pot has cooled off and we're getting chunky.

Wave a US flag around Central America and see how that goes. I've been threatened down here several times because someone thought I was American.

> Wave a US flag around Central America and see how that goes.

Giving US track record of invasions, dictatorship support, and all kinds of meddling, what are you expecting? A kiss on the cheek?

I haven't seen any indication that EU migrants cut wages, the data indicates it isn't true, see the lack of correlation between migration and changes in UK citizen wages in the fourth chart on this page:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/0260242c-370b-11e6-9a05-82a9b15a8e...

Also, Britain is not America. Real wages in the UK consistently go up across all income levels, and have done over the last 30 years, partly because of 'left-wing virtue signals' like minimum wages, and working tax credits.

>Frankly, I'm voting for Trump because the working class desperately needs a pay raise or I'm afraid we'll eventually have a revolution.

I'm sorry, what? When has Trump given any indication that he is a champion of the working class?

Or on the other hand, can you find a single economist who implies that building a wall on the Mexican border will cause an increase in wages for the working class?

I'm trying to figure out if your post was ironic intentionally.

With your injection of the wall comment, your post is as text book as straw man arguments get.

Econ 101 tells us that reductions in supply drive up demand.

Reductions in workforce size drive demand for workers. Employers will pay more for an employee when the pool is smaller. We are in the opposite now, employers can be extremely selective because there are 100s of people applying for the job. So why not demand the college graduate with 5+ years experience for the part-time barista job?

Sorry, was there another actual anti-immigration policy framework that Trump was putting forth other than "build a wall"? (edit sorry, I forgot, and besides "ban Muslims"?)

Again I'll ask, can you point me to a respected economist who advocates for Trump-style isolation policies as a way to increase wages for the working class? Thanks in advance.

edit: Seriously just gonna downvote and slink away? Put your money where you mouth is and tell me what Trump's immigration policy is or admit that he's nothing but a blowhard shouting "ban Muslims" and "build a wall". I'm sorry that you don't like having his own stances pointed out to you or that it exposes your obvious cognitive dissonance.

Good luck getting a Trump supporter to respond with consistency when you can't even get those kind of answers from the candidate. Whatever he said a week ago has no bearing on what he will say next week.

It's noteworthy that 2 of us responded but the attack artists like yourself didn't provide anything other than anger, sarcasm and feelings-based logic..

Sorry, I forgot your weren't seriously asking - just trying to be caustic.

Not that you genuinely care, otherwise you could have evolved your position by going to Trumps website where there is an entire section devoted to immigration issues. Beyond your MSNBC-Tier talking points about Wall & Ban Muslims; e-verify, defund sanctuary city curtailing the current laws, detention of illegals, criminal penalties to visa overstays and many more.

Your appeal to authority style argument won't be a very strong one, so I won't be finding "respected" economists who agree with me.

fakeedit: I can't down vote posts.

Even without border wall, if all those measures are implemented immigrating illegally to US will make less economic sense. Also a lot of immigrants will self-deport after they fail to get any job due to e-verify enforcement.

* Triple the number of ICE officers.

* Enhanced penalties for overstaying a visa.

* Detention—not catch-and-release.

* Defund sanctuary cities. Cut-off federal grants to any city which refuses to cooperate with federal law enforcement.

* Nationwide e-verify. This simple measure will protect jobs for unemployed Americans.

* End birthright citizenship.

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/immigration-reform

Well technically reductions in supply drive up price (in this case the wage). Demand presumably is what it is. But I think that's what you meant.

Yeah, but lower-class wages especially are pretty flexible. This is especially true with temporary workers, and contract ones. In the end, it'll just mean less people get higher-paying jobs. This won't really matter anyways, because importing goods is always possible, especially when their production is relatively simple. You might then say we could work out some trade agreement such that outsourcing is more difficult, but if you also intend to "give the working class a raise," that'll just make everything more expensive. Couple this with the lower rate of employment as a result of those higher wages, and you just reduced the purchasing power of like, a lot of people.

I think the only clear solution is a basic income, but the political system isn't built for good solutions. Trade relations are becoming more and more important as more of the world develops, which means the traditional working class in developed nations is going to get kind of shafted over the next few decades. It sucks, but much like the whole guilded age, people will eventually learn to do something else.

One of the difficulties faced by the left is trying to satisfy the problems of inequality within the native population while also trying to advocate for (poor) immigrants.

The native poor might not see how one can both satisfy one's own country's poor's problems while also trying to address issues faced by foreign poor and that not taking away from what they believe they are owed (access to jobs, prosperity, preservation of culture, affordable housing, etc.)

> The native poor might not see how one can both satisfy one's own country's poor's problems while also trying to address issues faced by foreign poor

But the non-naive poor see that even though that might be possible, it's not being done.

So let's put this in a family perspective. A family of five, the breadwinners are just getting by, but they decide to add a foster child. Maybe the foster child doesn't get first dibs on things, but the other children might not appreciate the new situation where things could be spread more thinly in an already tenuous situation.

It could be competition for jobs, ability to find affordable housing, decent schools, preservation of culture (let's remember the anti gentrification movement whose main complaints are loss of culture as well as displacement/loss of neighborhood character).

You think that Donald Trump, the very definition of wealthy elite, is seriously going to do anything to fix income inequality? As a business owner, having access to cheaper labor is absolutely in his best interests. Any policy he backs on immigration is guaranteed NOT to be based on the economic best interests of the working class.

>As a business owner, having access to cheaper labor is absolutely in his best interests

As a business owner, having a thriving, growing economy is absolutely more important than cheaper labor.

So many intelligent people on this website but I see so many fall into strange logical contradictions like this. How do you come to the conclusion that all wealthy elite cannot care to help repair income inequality? Do you stereotype 100% of wealthy people this way or only those you dislike, based on feelings?

No, I don't "stereotype 100% of wealthy people". I am talking about a single wealthy person, and I'm basing my opinion on his actions.

He can and will say whatever he needs to say to get support. Looking at the history of his actions is a much better indicator towards what he will actually do.

It's no contradiction - it comes from understanding the dynamics of the situation. It's a prisoner dilemma-like case. Repairing income equality requires cooperation of a lot of people - who are otherwise competing with each other. At any point during that cooperation, it is in each participant's short-term interest to screw the whole thing and go exploit workers right now.

Every business owner may truly care about thriving, growing economy. Hell, they could all be nice people who are unhappy about exploiting their workforce. But any ability for cooperation drops rapidly as competitive tensions increase. So yes, without external guiding force, them choosing what's best for all longer-term would literally be a miracle.

Exactly, it's a classic tragedy of the commons situation. The most rational move is to maximize your own gain, despite the obvious collective result.

There are conditions that can cause the rational action to switch to self-moderation, but I don't see any of them being likely in this scenario.

>without external guiding force, them choosing what's best for all longer-term would literally be a miracle

Do you agree that have had quite a few miraculous people in our history as a nation? Many founding fathers, presidents, judges, military service members, and the like have chose what is best for the long-term at the expense of themselves.

I am trapped by your logic on this one anyway - the rich can't or only in a "miraculous" case chose a non-self enriching endeavor; so the discussion is futile, in your world, no human can solve this issue. Hopefully Google can get that Skynet system up and running soon, to resolve all these issues! :D

> Many founding fathers, presidents, judges, military service members, and the like have chose what is best for the long-term at the expense of themselves.

Not saying it doesn't happen; it does rarely, and under special circumstances. Also it's not that people really need to be pushed hard to do good things - it's more that everyone is entangled in various incentive structures preventing them from doing good, and you could argue that rich and powerful are generally subject to much stronger incentives to do bad than ordinary people. It takes strong character and luck to be an exception. Elon Musk can and does think long-term and for the betterment of everyone - for which he is constantly ridiculed by the media (or even here), not to mention loads of people being constantly perplexed by Tesla's and SpaceX's business decisions, because they can't understand that a company can really exists just as a means to realize some non-short-term, non-monetary goal like getting us to Mars or getting transportation off fossil fuels.

Hell, we've generally created a system that attempts to forbid companies from long-term, cooperative thinking. Just almost any kind of strategic cooperation on the market is being called "anti-competitive practice" and discouraged with severe punishments. And for good reason, probably - companies tend to cooperate against society, not for it, and governments tend to not like rich people being powerful enough to work around them completely. As companies get successful they're being asked to go public - and that's usually enough to destroy any possibility of working for long-term good in them - public shareholders tend to not give a damn about the company mission or deeds beyond their means of making immediate profit. It takes special trickery, like Google did, to keep the company in control of individuals capable of thinking longer-term.

For better or worse, we tend to force rich people both culturally and legally into being greedy and short-sighted - so let's not act surprised if that's all most of them do.

> Do you agree that have had quite a few miraculous people in our history as a nation? Many founding fathers, presidents, judges, military service members, and the like have chose what is best for the long-term at the expense of themselves.

No actually, we've had virtually none, and this easy to see if you attempt to count them and state their numbers in terms of percentage of the total population inclusive of their lifetimes. 1000, even 10,000 such are merely statistical noise basically equivalent to 0.

What you're doing is reasoning by anecdote, thinking a few examples mean something by ignoring the hundreds of millions of times the anecdote is wrong. You have to look at all of the people if you're going to make relative claims like "quite a few" because it's not quite a few, it's practically none.

Whether or not Trump will actually do anything about income inequality, he talks about it, convinced the voters in the Republican party he would do something about it (saying that the wealthy paying less in taxes than secretaries is absurd, promoting tariffs, eliminating illegal and therefore often underpaid immigration), and apparently convinced the pro-business Republican establishment that he would do something about it judging y their state of half-panic, half-rebellion.

There's a lot to not like about Trump but claiming that he wants to represent the interests of the wealthy elite is the exact opposite of the package he's selling.

More than just being a wealthy elite business owner, Donald Trump has been sued thousands of times by contractors for simply not paying them for work they've done.

If he ever cared about income inequality, he could have started by paying the bills to the people he hired to do work for him.

If you think cutting immigration is the answer to excess in the labor supply, I am afraid you are going to be disappointed. Automation, globalization are much more influential.

> Frankly, I'm voting for Trump because the working class desperately needs a pay raise or I'm afraid we'll eventually have a revolution. Moreover, I think the income inequality is what's driving our general economic malaise. We need to improve the job prospects of the working class for everybody's good.

But that's an argument to vote for somebody on the left!

>If you reduce the supply of labor, the working class will see its wages increases. This is Economics 101

No, this is not economics 101. Cost of living will go up as supply of workers dwindles. Also, every worker is also a consumer. Someone who earns $50k will in turn spend that money or put it into banking or investments or savings for later spending.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com