Creating low cost alternatives and taking advance of lax laws is part of that. If you can import 100k skilled workers per year under a scheme that gives you more power over them. Then you also offshore 300k jobs per year to countries with weaker protections.
It's always baffled me how the same candidates that claim to be pro labor and pro environment are also pro globalization. The way it plays out is that the jobs are just offshore to jurisdictions that lack the same labor and environmental protections.
A valid critique of how globalism was implemented in the US. However, this concern could be heavily ameliorated by policy. For example, making US companies using foreign labor adhere to the same labor standards they must adhere to domestically.
Perhaps a reason you’re baffled is because you are thinking only of domestic labor instead of global labor. Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis.
This is an insanely modern take on "pro-labor" movements, especially in the US. Traditionally, pro-labor has been 100% focused on local labor. If you told your average union member that being "pro-labor" meant closing their factories and offshoring their jobs they'd laugh (or more likely, spit) in your face.
There are already rules in place but no real enforcement. Large software companies save a fortune making workers compete with workers from countries that have dramatically lower cost of living, entirely circumventing the market constraints that favor workers.
In hiring the people the H1B was designed for, 100k is nothing.
> Most Pro-labor people would, I imagine, consider the global labor pool in their analysis.
This is a disingenuous argument. Allowing companies to pocket a huge amount of money that would have gone to the people they laid off to hire H1Bs with common skill sets is not pro labor by any measure.
This includes enforcement of the law.
Especially tech companies making their money from ads and such provide very little real value and just drain massive amounts of money and transfer it to the US economy.
They generally have way more employees in the US relative to how much money they are making domestically.
I don't quite agree that much with causes: high housing, Healthcare & med bankruptcy, and high education costs (correlating with high housing) are bigger factors. However non tech/lawyer/doctors have been adversely effected by the fact they've seen no real income gains in 25 years overall.
Now, the top 5% and corps need to be made to pay more taxes... thats another subject.
A couple elderly people i know are quite concerned Trump will take their snap benefits, or decrease medicaid/care etc while the tax reductions were given on the bb bill. Thats not acceptable.
We may be reaching the breaking point where Americans view any solution to this problem as worth trying. We’re near 2 generations of flat real income for the vast majority of Americans. When your grandparents are the last generation to remember rising living standards, it’s hard to buy that the system is working for you at all.
No, we aren't! We have statistics on this (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEPAINUSA672N). Median real income is up substantially since 40-50 years ago, depending on what you count as a generation. And we have stories and records of what life was like in the 1970s, when 80% of households had to hand wash dishes and 50% had to line-dry clothes. The reason people believe living standards haven't risen since their grandparents' day is that they get false nostalgia bait depictions of how a typical person lived in their grandparents' day.
(What is true, and what I'm sure contributes to the power of the nostalgia bait, is that real income stagnated with the dot-com bubble and didn't hit a sustained rise again until the mid-late 2010s.)
"Real income" is measured against the consumer price index (CPI). CPI is used to gauge inflation, "are people paying more for groceries this year than last?", not living standard. Most of the important questions like "how many years of education do you need for a good job?" or "how many average salaries do you need for a good home?" are all massively worse. So are many metrics of despair.
What real income really shows is that more money now gives you less. That what buys you a loaf of bread doesn't buy you a good life anymore. Because median income might be keeping up with inflation, but not with anything else.
For example your $1000 oled tv is better than your $1000 crt tv therefore you your purchasing power has gone up. Or your base truck now comes with nav therefore your truck can be 5k more and still be net neutral. The problem with this system is that in order to stay in the same price catagory on the index you continually need to move down the product tiers. So today’s lowest tier is a decade ago mid tier is 2 decades ago high end. Moving down like that makes you feel poorer because wealth is relative.
60 year ago, a 20 year old guy with a high school education could support a wife and 2 kids. Today he needs his wife to work and has to wait until 30 just to buy a 1 bedroom apartment. Forget about kids. But they act like we are kings because now we have iphones.
Consider a more concrete example. In 2005, a 40 inch 720p LCD panel cost $3,500 (https://slate.com/culture/2005/09/it-s-finally-time-to-buy-a...). Today, that same panel in 1080p is $100 at Best Buy (https://www.bestbuy.com/product/insignia-40-class-f40-series...).
My parent's TV never sold any data. My new, much more 'expensive' TV spys on me 24X7. You would not have been able to PAY my grandparents enough to put a TV like that in their house, yet alone consider it an 'upgrade'.
You need to do this with all tech.
But factoring in hedonic adaptation is fine, if general societal trends are also factored in.
30 years ago there was strong social institutions on workplaces that people have to buy into now. More people did manual labor where they need to pay for fitness now.
These things also needs to be factored in.
It may have improved on paper but the quality of the experience has not.
> What real income really shows is that more money now gives you less
Their expectations might be to live in the top few decile neighborhoods of a metro, where land prices have gone up a few hundred thousand in the previous decade.
It doesn’t matter if the stats say income went up 10% if they or their kids won’t be able to land that house they wanted, or can’t make that appointment with the doctor and instead have to see an NP, or worry about having to move to a more expensive metro to reduce income volatility.
Now, it's not really even clear what the good life is, but whatever you think, it's very hard to get it. Schools, commutes, quality housing, health care, stable income, they've all gotten far, far worse for almost everyone, and there's nothing they can do about it.
So what gives with your data set? The data set I give covers wages for full time workers. The data set you gave covers all individuals 15+ with any "income", which includes governments benefits. So what you're likely seeing there is going to be, in part, driven by things like an aging population - with a large number of retirees retiring with social security, medicaid, pensions, etc fattening out the middle part of society where income, after all is accounted for, of around $40k sounds just about right. It's mostly unrelated to the change in wages.
---
Also, unrelated but I found your examples of 'better life' weird. I still hand wish dishes and line-dry clothes. I know Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates also hand wash their dishes. The "nostalgia" people have is for things like somebody graduating debt free, with a decent car, and ready to put a down payment on the first home - on the back of a part time job that put them through school. That really did happen, but now a days it sounds like a fantasy. I think society would happily trade dish washers for that!
While this chart shows "real" income increases we apparently also see "real" increases on housing, rents, education, etc.
If your inflation metric is only on rolled oats, then it is not really worth much, is it?
While you are correct that real wages are up around 25%, productivity has nearly doubled. While various consumer goods, and technology have seen large improvements - ignoring the measurable and qualitative ways that affording basic aspects of life have become more difficult is not wise.
My grandma slowly squirreled away money in a shoe box over decades as she had no personal bank account and lived on what my grandpa provided while she took care of seven kids. She saw it as her lifeline. Meanwhile he got drunk every night at the yacht club.
When the last of the kids were nearing college she spent that money on classes for clerical work and got a job.
I could not possibly imagine being in her shoes and I can imagine why a woman would be loathe to enter into such dependence on another person, regardless of how fulfilling child rearing and house keeping may be.
And the further you go back from there the worse it looks for women.
I think what people look back and get nostalgia for is the fact that it was possible for one adult to stay at home full time. Now its not possible; we dont have a choice, everyone must work.
earlier wife beating was „normal thing” leaving abusive partners was not possible or much harder than nowadays.
Then in a lot of places in the world it still is like that.
Do you feel superior or somehow you just make my argument not true because it didn't happen to you or anyone you know?
You definitely seem to be genuine asshole and I don't care what culture you were raised in because there are definitely nicer people from that culture.
Bro but you called.
Global trade as made consumer prices competitive in many things, but those are a big three.
Nostalgia was not at root of my original comment.
This is why many places in the world no longer produce enough food to feed their populations - refrigeration and cheap oil enable food to no longer be a local commodity. Education is sometimes headed in the same direction. But housing cannot be sourced anywhere but locally.
Sorry for hijacking, but this is quite possibly one of the funniest American poverty markers around.
Clothes dryers are a sign of shrinking real estate, not a sign of luxury.
When one lives in a tiny apartment with no balcony, you better have a dryer. When living with plenty of land, it's not a problem to hang clothes to dry in the sun.
My euro family disagrees, even in places that don’t have a balcony. Get the rack out and dry indoors and it’s pretty dry overnight (in the not so humid places).
I have a dryer but avoid it for most clothes because I think it wears them out.
Consumerism demands that everyone buys a tumble dryer, therefore not having a tumble dryer means you're a povvo!
Meanwhile, in civilisation, I have a washer, a dryer, and a collapsible wall-mounted clothesline in my apartment, and I can choose which piece of clothing goes where to dry depending on need!
Its nice to have as a last resort or during winter tho.
* https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/28/opinion/disney-world-econ...
Hey it's iPhone Day, "Stay Hungry Stay Foolish"* ---
*-nevermind the $10000 workstation named after a gf or more recently $2000 orange phones (I bought a DEEP Blue because Apple is always threatening to "Care-Deeply" me), $1000 watches and $300 earpieces for errbody. So Hungry. Also, we'll make sure you never work anywhere in Tech again if you even so much as interview for a new job outside of our company and Non-Competes Are No Longer Blocked! But What the Helly..Turtleneck also didn't invent the hungry mantra which is embraced by many other similar brilliant people, from Einstein to Elon'n-on and of course, my dad's gang one of whom brought Turtleneck back to Apple.) Get it? Got it? Good.
One issue is median real income does not tell you anything about the distribution of income. It can be used to show that the top 50% of people have had “real income growth”, but can hide a lot at both extremes; the poor and rich have had vastly different experiences [1]. The metric on that page looks at “share of national income”, so it has issues as well (not anchored to any objective measures), but it illustrates my point just as well.
The bigger issue I find is the way that “real income” is measured. There are a slew of issues, IMO (hedonic adjustment, for instance), but the biggest is the way that asset prices are treated in CPI - that is to say, they are not! Shelter prices reflect “owner equivalent rent”, not the price to actually buy a home, which has ballooned massively in the last few decades, especially the past five years, relative to income [2]. The same applies to other assets such as stocks; they are nowhere in the CPI metric, but have a direct impact on our lives; higher-priced stocks impeded the purchasing ability of people with respect to stocks, costing them returns over time (couple this with the larger cost of other assets over time and it is clear retirement age will have to go up). So, yes, maybe real income has increased, but substitutions are being made and tricks are being played; more people are renting longer because of home prices. Future returns on investments will be lower because of a giant asset bubble.
Also, future liabilities are nowhere to be seen in the real income metrics. The national debt that the US has saddled its current and future citizens with is shameful and will inevitably cause financial drag in the future (could be higher tax rates, but my personal bet is persistently higher inflation over time; you can already see the Fed giving up on its 2% target).
[1]: https://wid.world/country/usa/
[2]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/median-house-prices-vs-inco...
You must be looking at some serious equations and related data.
If you were alive back then you would have watched as inflation appeared "out of nowhere" and before long it was obvious that dollars were going to buy less & less each year for the foreseeable future. Government benefits needed to be tied to inflation under emergency conditions or everyone was going to be voted out by millions that were now underwater otherwise.
So they needed something to gauge inflation by and tie benefit dollar increases to, and ended up inventing the CPI.
The CPI was not expected to be very good, just quick. To say expectations were "highly manipulated" would be an understatement. If people didn't settle for something quite deficient in realism to begin with, who knows how many legislative sessions it might take? People could lose everything in that much time.
The exact purpose of CPI was carefully crafted to minimize the appearance of inflation as much as possible and get away with it. It was plain to see as it went along, like any other slow-motion dumpster fire that lawmakers go through when almost none of their intents are entirely honorable.
And CPI just became more laughable ever since.
But that wasn't enough.
Then one day the GDP comes along, with "reasonable" excuses about how multinational American companies are not like they used to be, so good old GNP can no longer act as the best measure going forward.
GDP was even more carefully crafted to minimize the appearance of non-prosperity and inflation, allowing it to run its course under the radar if it could just be brought low enough (but not low enough to be tolerable all the way back when things were really prosperous). Without knowing if that could even be achieved, it was plain to see when overprovisioning was taking place to try and compensate. There's nothing like a long, deep massage of the figures, and "feelings" can improve remarkably if the most obvious pain points are addressed. Temporarily of course.
You will notice that it is never obvious when the overnight transition from GNP to GDP took place. You had to be there. All the old data has been "refactored" creatively as designed in an attempt to make "comparison more valid". Who would benefit or not if people were still able to compare apples to apples, and who makes the rules anyway? By this time after all these years without recovery, "sentiment" was thought to be the only salvation possible, but even the most positive outlook couldn't help consumers who had lost their purchasing power. But a consumer economy was going to be the only road to "recovery", they had to keep spending just to survive regardless of how anemic it was by then.
Anyway the stock market crashes, continuous devaluation of the dollar for years, millions of layoffs, and consumers (millions of who could not afford US-made cars or other products any more) who were increasingly offered foreign alternatives they would readily purchase as much as they can -- all ran their course and it was not enough to end the most ridiculous part of the madness.
There had to be an oil crash and a real estate crash too, before things could finally level out under that old radar beam.
Propaganda is very effective, and Americans are the most skillful propagandists in the world. Immigration is as pro-capital and anti-labor as you can get, yet somehow the left has been convinced to support it.
"Immigration" as such is a made up concept. The legal and physical barriers created by immigration policy are pro-capital and anti-labor. If people could freely move around the world, you can bet there'd be much more focus on pro-labor policies.
That doesn't mean the teflon president isn't just now blatantly silencing the voices of the opposition (Kimmel and then a general warning) so he definitely wants a place in the competition.
We've gone from philosophers like DeBord and Baudrillard painting a somewhat manic vision of the future, to actually living in this hyper-real mirror of some actual society that no longer exists, mostly courtesy of a global American cultural hegemony. People are willing to risk being fatally shot, to engage in anti-social behavior, or to martyr themselves all in the name of some form of second order "engagement".
The current state of propaganda is such that even the more modern concepts taught in a polisci class on ideology & propaganda, such as banal nationalism, are completely outdated, and are about as quaint as a lot of soviet era concepts. Propaganda is now able to be delivered in the form of hyper-personalized content, where the content itself not even need be propaganda, control of the recommendation engine selecting what a person sees and doesn't see is more than enough.
Why's that? The jobs and lives of individuals in those countries are better than the alternatives present otherwise to them. Globalization may hurt certain America jobs but certainly countries like India is grateful for all of the engineering roles.
High consumerism is harmful to the environment but I don't think the link between offshoring jobs is direct to environmental harms and certainly it's helpful to giving more job opportunites.
Environmentalism is similar. Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets.
You seem to be arguing that globalism makes the world better off. I agree, but that is because pro-labour and pro-environmentalist ideologies are pretty explicit that they aren't trying to maximise the general welfare. A situation where one soul works very hard and happily for little pay making things for everyone else could be a good outcome for everyone (see also: economic comparative advantage). The pro-labour position would resist that outcome on the basis that the labourer is not making very much money. And the environmentalist would probably be unhappy with the amount of pollution that the hard work generates. The globalist would call it a win.
Specifically when you say:
>Globalism fixes the amount of pollution globally to the market optimum where presumably an environmentalist wants to control pollution using some other system than markets.
We can observe that the Globalist organizations regard not just pollution, but carbon consumption to be something which markets cannot be trusted to manage. Instead they propose top-down regulatory management on a supranational level.
https://www.imo.org/en/mediacentre/pressbriefings/pages/imo-...
I think you're assuming here that 'a better deal' means 'more money than someone else', whereas lots of people would define it as 'everyone has more rights/security'.
Let’s look at US imports from China. Last year that was $462bn worth of goods. Suppose the development of China never happened and all those goods were manufactured in the USA instead. That’s impossible, the US doesn’t have tens of millions of industrial workers lying around spare to do those mostly low end, low value jobs and if it did they would cost more and the goods would all be much more expensive. So the cost of living would go up, the economy would less efficient because many workers would be doing lower value add jobs than they are now. The country would be much worse off overall. It would basically amount to enormous government subsidies and protections for vast swathes of lower value assembly work than what many people are doing now.
I support global trade because I think it’s best for the west. Not hyper-liberal ultra free market trade. Negotiated, rules based, moderately regulated trade and investment that is balanced to meet domestic and international needs.
Instead they'll be made unemployed by AI and a crashing tech economy.
But that isn't the point of this. It's leverage - much like the tariffs.
Big companies making significant donations to the Donald Trump Presidential Aggrandisement Fund will receive carve-outs and exclusions.
It's a grift, like everything else done by this benighted administration.
This could be a tactic to force lower end to go home and accept a lower salary at the same company for their same role.
up or out. or in this cause, over or out...
I'm pretty sure my local pizza shop, waitstaff, and other small businesses are happy to have my money spent on their products and services. They don't care that I have a tech job, but they do care that I spend money with them, and spending money with them is only one degree of separation from having a job.
In the case of bringing in workers; those workers are less likely to join unions or demand good working conditions since they are effectively indentured servants. That also is bad for labor.
If you divide the GDP by the number of employed people (including self-employed and entrepreneurs), you get a bit over $180k/person. The median full-time income is a bit over $60k. In other words, as a gross simplification, the mean worker earns 80% more than the median worker.
The comparable numbers for Germany are a ~€100k, ~€45k, and 35%. If something is hollowing out the American middle class, it might be the high earners rather than the capital.
America is similar. Ignore the homeless, the people who can't afford basic trips to the doctor, the illegal immigrant underclass, hope the crime problem never affects you, and focus on your own money, and it's fine.
What's nice about that, getting into debt as soon as one of us gets medical emergency? Or staying in a suburban home 24/7 with a child until they can go to school?
The second sounds great and is (IMO) the proper way to raise a family.
I'm guessing you are not (and will never become) a citizen to your birth country. And your parents left because it was not a great place to raise you, you are probably in a better country now.
Unfortunately last several millions came for exactly the opposite. Free full government support, aka communism.
Denmark’s Turn to Temporary Protection Has Made It a Pioneer in Restrictive Immigration Policies
https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/denmark-migration-pr...
H1B is explicitly a dual intent visa.
It’s a non immigrant visa but also a pathway to citizenship.
And this is not just an abstract thing. There are, for example, very specific tax implications of this.
The dual intent nature of the H1B visa means the U.S. government requires H1B holders to pay Social Security and Medicare, precisely because the dual intent nature implies that they will be able to utilize those entitlements in the future.
In practice, the program has been abused, by body shops for instance, that we ended up with a new word: insourcing. That’s the real issue, and not immigration per se, but the way a temporary labor program reshaped whole categories of employment. And while politicians sometimes talk about fixing it, I wouldn’t expect much. If anything, it wouldn’t be surprising to see the “dual intent” aspect pared back in the future under the current guy.
You can look at Pew's survey here: https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2015/12/09/1-the-h....
The upper-income tier grew from 14% -> 21% as the middle-income tier shrank from 61% to 50%. To be perfectly fair, the lower-income tier class did also increase from 25% to 29%. The story is complicated.
As you said, the story is complicated. Even in 2015, a decade ago:
> There is one other stark difference: only upper-income families realized notable gains in wealth from 1983 to 2013.
During the period of analysis then, either consumption among the lower two tiers eliminated their available savings ability, or the real purchasing power over this period declined, leading to the same effect.
Because power of labor to negotiate is a zero-sum game that doesn't create anything. The only sustainable way to lift anyone's living standard is through improving prosperity.
And guess what. The USA gives much better opportunities for motivated people to build themselves.
Now, thanks to better logistics and communications, companies can move jobs to where labor is cheaper. This has pulled billions of people out of poverty, dramatically reduced the price of goods, and generally improved global well-being--but that was at the cost of the 1% of the 1950s, which is to say the American working class. Now, if you work in a factory in the US, you only make a single-digit multiple of what a factory worker in Korea, Mexico, Germany or Italy makes (though you still have a double-digit advantage on much of the world).
It wasn't sustainable to have a tremendously wealthy middle class in a world that was mostly starving. No amount of trade barriers could maintain that: you're relying on a world market with very little competition, and the other 7 billion people aren't going to be content to sit on their hands.
What you want to do instead is to develop new, cutting-edge, high-paying industries, and thereby keep a competitive advantage on the rest of the world. Maybe you could, I dunno, develop top-notch schools to lure all the best and brightest people from around the world to your country, invite them in, encourage them to stay, and get them to innovate and create here rather than elsewhere. That might just result in whole new, massive, high-paying industries that pick up the slack left by your diminished industrial dominance.
Seems like a good idea to me! But hey, instead, you could always try slamming the door shut, chase out all the dirty foreigners, and just rely on your inherent and intrinsic American superiority to carry you forward. I'm sure that'll work just as well.
This is simple supply and demand. If you restrict the labor supply, the value of labor increases.
The same thing was observed after the Black Death, which killed off 30 to 50% of Europe's population. There were labor shortages, which increased the bargaining power of labor, and increased wages.
It's really funny US companies suddenly start pretending they don't believe in supply and demand when it comes to labor.
Look, if you own a company, or are in a leadership position: the entire world is now open to you, both as source of labor and as potential market. The impact of your decisions has exploded, and the potential revenue and value of your company has also exploded.
OTOH, if you're a line-worker at a factory in Detroit: your competition is now most of the population of the world--and they all expect lower salaries than you do.
What's your argument for why you should keep making 10x or 20x what people in China or India make? Do you just naturally deserve it? Do you figure that companies owe it to you because you share a home country? If so, either the company will bounce and move abroad to one of the many countries willing to welcome them with open arms--or they'll be swiftly replaced by a Chinese equivalent which has 1/10th the labor costs. Either way, your extravagant salary is going to dry up.
American labor in the 50s was simply in the right place at the right time. That's no longer true. There's no way to stop the rest of the world from growing and improving in order to maintain the special status of the American worker. They don't really have a choice: they need to skill up. And yes, push for better social safety nets, though their instinct seems to be in the opposite direction.
And we're debating different worlds if your baseline is shareholder primacy.. While my baseline is a democratic society where corporations are tools to organize people to deliver value to society, and owing obligations to that society, not a mechanism to siphon wealth from the bottom to the top.
I can see the argument that a large and super consumerist middle class might not be sustainable. However, for society to function, the alternative still needs to provide people with a decent quality of life.
Also, did you ever spend any time in those post-war homes? Most of us would be appalled at the idea of living in a bare-bones 1000 sqft box (with more than 2x as many children per average family).
Like post post ww2 say we produced 1 car for every American. Also we produced 1 house for every American. Every car and house was produced in America because Europe was bombed to shit. Now 20 years later, Europe has recovered a bit and can start producing cars and houses again. Why wouldn't the US still be able to produce 1 car for every adult? Oh sorry, Germany is no longer a pile of rubble, you and your spouse need to share a car now. Also your adult kids need to move back in with you, no house for them either.
This is obviously absurd. US would be even richer since they no longer had to spend massive amounts of money funding the war effort and then massive amounts of money rebuilding Europe. Hollowing out the US middle class was a choice, not some law of nature.
To do that, they needed cars, machinery, home goods, electronics, etc. They had the labor to produce those things, but not the infrastructure. It takes time to build factories, and a skilled labor pool, and a logistics network, and so on.
So where did you go to get the goods & services you needed to rebuild? There was really only one option. The US was exporting cars, factory equipment, heavy machinery, steel, radio, coca cola, etc. They had an intact industrial plant, and had lost (relatively speaking) very few working-age men in the war. That helped them ramp up quickly with internal demand (fed by pent-up war wages).
For reasons laid out above, it wasn't practical to move factories overseas, or outsource parts, or automate. So workers in the areas with factories were in very high demand, and wages went way, way up in those areas. That had knock-on effects: America was just beginning to import oil in large quantities, so American coal & oil was suddenly in high demand. Same with mining, logging, etc. That caused a general boom--specifically favoring labor.
It wasn't because the rest of the world was poor that the American middle class was rich. It was because the rest of the world was developing, and America had a near-monopoly on the means of doing it. What's happened in the meantime is just that the US has lost that monopoly. Now American workers face relatively fair competition. This has been a huge net positive for the world, with cheaper goods and higher wages pretty much across the board...except for American workers.
Though in this position, maybe China gets greedy.
If you can snatch them, they will build SpaceX or Google for you. If not, well, they will do so either elsewhere, or not at all. (South Africa does not seem to be a good place to start business, and neither is Russia.)
Can you gain prosperity by employing three mediocre people instead of one talented one? Maybe, but you won't get a new vibrant sector like Silicon Valley this way.
Europe, where I live, is a lot more gung-ho on mediocrity and forced equality, and we seem to be the ones with clearly stagnating living standards, not you.
Sure, but the vast majority of the wealth of building SpaceX and Google doesn't go to me. It goes to people like Musk and Larry Page.
Also, a lot of the wealth from the tech industry does spill over to the larger community. You're strictly better off having it. If the US had just stuck with their 1970s economy on the theory that any new industries wouldn't distribute their benefits equally, it would be vastly smaller, less powerful and less wealthy. Surely that's obvious?
Of course your country is better off if you have successful companies and high-income jobs.
https://www.pewresearch.org/race-and-ethnicity/2024/05/31/th...
Are you sure it's really been/being hollowed out or are you just repeating something you've heard or read other people state so often that you think it's true?
This doesn't map exactly to "middle class" but it also seems like there's now a lot less ability for people to afford to work in "artist" type careers. It used to be that you could wait tables, get a low cost studio in the city, and work as an artist in the evenings/weekends. Now you have to work multiple jobs and probably still can't afford to live in the city and make art.
For instance one of the key factors in society escaping feudalism and moving onto market based economies was the Black Death. It absolutely decimated society and the labor pool. This gave labor the power to demand more compensation than a share of what they produced. But in times before if they tried that then nobility could simply have said no, as there were plenty of peasants willing to work for little more than food. But when the labor supply was suddenly cut in half? Now they had all the power in the world.
Labor unions can't really combat market forces. I don't even think ethical or moral arguments work either. If somebody, in the country legally, is willing to do your job for less money, and is capable of doing so, then by what right do you have to insist that you should be the one doing your job and getting paid more? It doesn't really make much sense. If you want to increase the power of labor then, by far, the easiest way to reduce so is to reduce the supply of labor. And vice versa for weakening it.
Importing cheap foreign labor to undercut unions and lower wages is one of the spokes of the wheel used by capital to reduce the power of labor (and always has been).
What happened 50 years ago? Hart-Cellar was in 1965. The foreign-born population dipped below 5% in 1970. It’s 15% today. This had major political ramifications. Democrats were able to move to the right economically because they could substitute labor voters demanding structural reforms with recent immigrant voters who would be happy with relatively small handouts from the government, or even just visas for their extended family.
Immigrants need houses built, food on the table and many work very hard to pay for that.
That work, that sweat equity makes us all more wealth, a higher GDP.
Natives of the country that are well established in the country are in a better position to capture that wealth than the immigrants.
I am not. I am generally confused at what you would suggest is wrong with the GDP measurement.
We have multiple layers of agencies reporting on GDP and other economic measures the US. There are certainly some troublesome siloed measures (CPI), but I wasn't aware that GDP was one of them.
Your take doesn't seem relevant with regard to my knowledge on the subject.
I also do not care about your "knowledge" on the subject.
So what are the metrics that you’re using other than GDP to justify your position
like, describing GDP as "how rich is your country or state" which I've seen people use to argue that canada and germany are poorer than Mississippi.
They also remain willfully ignorant about the context of GDP - namely that it was derived as a proxy for military productive and research capacity. It specifically isn't just raw industrial capacity because the intellectual research and development work is also very relevant in military match-ups.
That's not to say you shouldn't do it! But the problem is elsewhere.