(Note: I'm not calling you "racist" - that's a slur that has lost all meaning these days. I'm taking a policy I'm pretty sure you oppose and asking you for a principled reason why you oppose it.)
According to pretty much any commonly used definition of inequality, giving more money to >$100k/year software engineers will increase inequality.
You're defining "income inequality" as only in relation to the median or average income. That is too simple to make any sense. By that model, I could have 1000 people making $1/hr, 10 people making $10/hr, and 1 person making $2000/hr. This puts the average at $3/hr. And so you say protecting the $10/hr people's salaries from being artificially suppressed increases income inequality because you've arbitrarily defined the line at the average income.
Also, you're ignoring where the money is coming from, so any math in your mental model is flawed. I would hope this discussion isn't about creating money and giving it to >$100k/year engineers, but rather the business owners with capital paying market rates instead of having a way to suppress skilled labor salaries by exploiting weaker economies and tethering foreign employees for upwards of 9 years before they can finally correct their salary and working conditions (hint: I've worked with a few people who have been exploited like this).
This whole us-vs-them scam of pitting everyone in the middle and lower class against themselves that the media/business/etc. has been doing (probably for longer than I've been alive) is amazingly effective...
Most people want and value many of the same things and greatly outnumber our overlords, but somehow we're always pointing the finger at each other ("you're just lazy", "you're just racist", "a true <blank> would/wouldn't <blank>", "check your privilege", etc.). And all the while, the powers that be siphon away money and power and continue to set the stage in their favor.
What principle makes your favored accident of birth ok to discriminate on, but not mine?
What is your principle? Anarchism, world government, no borders? I honestly do not understand your point.
No, but you should be given a fair chance to arrive legally and legally buy land and legally search for oil. Not just take something that belongs to others, which is a violation of property rights.
He is basically trying to bring out the point that an accident of birth should not be the basis for discrimination. He is doing that by making analogies that are uncomfortable rather than stating it outright. That is his point :).
You are unfortunately re-framing the question as some sort of property grab like the parent. Let me repeat: I do NOT condone anyone usurping property by force. My point is to illustrate the principle of making it available on a global market in a reciprocal way.
Are you suggesting India become the 51st state of America?
So can the idea of "Americanness" - either laws around citizenship/work permission/etc, or cultural/social norms around this.
That isn't a particularly unclear definition.
It's ok, we've discussed this before. I don't expect anything other than evasion of the core philosophical issue.
If you are a US citizen, subject to US laws enforced by the very real institution of the US government which you live under, the US government owes you a living.
If you are, say, a Mongolian citizen, the US government doesn't owe you a living.
Your opinion was apparently that the US owes Mongolian citizens the same thing it owes US citizens, because... reasons.
If you are of any particular race that is an irrelevance. An irrelevance you keep bringing up because you are obsessed with race to a point that is frankly disturbing.
That way, a municipality reduces to property. Should not the owners of property be free to manage it in their own favor?
This is not a hypothetical - the collective ownership way of thinking applies just fine to the US, where such discrimination was ruled illegal.
What is the fundamental difference that makes "municipality : country" nonanalogous to "country : world"?
Seems to me that's the most principled stance one can take.