▶ Watch on YouTube
Pointing out eugenic effects of "minimum wage" laws caused some leftists to defend them:
Lefty: "Well, this is probably why the majority of industrialized countries also have social welfare safety nets so that lack of employment doesn’t mean an automatic death sentence…"
Me: "Yes, that's the nominal intent. However, those welfare schemes have eugenic effects as well.
Due to those wealth transfer schemes, any new immigrant means hefty new burdens on the existing populations. As a result, most of the citizens of those countries are hostile to new immigrants, and have implemented strict immigration controls.
As a result, the truly poor living in other countries--many living on less than a $1/day--are unable to move to those countries to take better jobs under better legal systems."
Lefty: "It all depends on the existing population’s growth rate, though. Absent any kind of shock, declining [birth] rates necessitate an increase in immigration anyway so that the price of labor doesn’t skyrocket, especially with pathways to citizenship so naturalized immigrants can prop up the existing social welfare system long-term (although not allowing naturalization allows nations to collect taxes from immigrants without disbursing welfare benefits.) The fact that some people in the existing population perceive immigrants as a burden is not necessarily correlated with immigrants actually being a burden.
Me: "Well, that depends on the labor market regulations. In many European countries, onerous labor market regulations--such as minimum wage laws--disincentivize the employment of low skill workers, including immigrants. So, rather than getting a foothold up and out of poverty, immigrants form a permanent underclass (with the attendant crime and violence associated with long term poverty), in addition to being a burden on the welfare state."
Lefty: "If anyone is into "survival of the fittest" it's the person that wants pure competition. Opening the borders is just a different form of eugenics. We are selecting for who can survive on the shittiest pay possible. "Meritocracy"
Ultimately I would like to open borders by the way. The more the merrier I say. But I would like everyone regardless of whether they're immigrants or born here to have a lifestyle conducive to raising civilized children."
Me: "If "pure competition" means not threatening to kill people who want to live and work in the US , then yes, I'm for "pure competition".
What would you say to someone in 80's South Africa who said they wanted to "end apartheid", but only unless both whites and blacks could have a "civilized" lifestyle?
If someone moves to the US from Africa for a job that has shitty pay/conditions, that means they're leaving behind a job with even shittier pay/conditions (or else they wouldn't move).
Why would you put your thumb on the scale to protect white people in the US from competition from much poorer black/brown people?
Anyone who thinks American's should be "protected" from immigrants competing for their jobs should watch Doug Stanhope's routine:
Lefty: "Well, this is probably why the majority of industrialized countries also have social welfare safety nets so that lack of employment doesn’t mean an automatic death sentence…"
Me: "Yes, that's the nominal intent. However, those welfare schemes have eugenic effects as well.
Due to those wealth transfer schemes, any new immigrant means hefty new burdens on the existing populations. As a result, most of the citizens of those countries are hostile to new immigrants, and have implemented strict immigration controls.
As a result, the truly poor living in other countries--many living on less than a $1/day--are unable to move to those countries to take better jobs under better legal systems."
Lefty: "It all depends on the existing population’s growth rate, though. Absent any kind of shock, declining [birth] rates necessitate an increase in immigration anyway so that the price of labor doesn’t skyrocket, especially with pathways to citizenship so naturalized immigrants can prop up the existing social welfare system long-term (although not allowing naturalization allows nations to collect taxes from immigrants without disbursing welfare benefits.) The fact that some people in the existing population perceive immigrants as a burden is not necessarily correlated with immigrants actually being a burden.
Me: "Well, that depends on the labor market regulations. In many European countries, onerous labor market regulations--such as minimum wage laws--disincentivize the employment of low skill workers, including immigrants. So, rather than getting a foothold up and out of poverty, immigrants form a permanent underclass (with the attendant crime and violence associated with long term poverty), in addition to being a burden on the welfare state."
Lefty: "If anyone is into "survival of the fittest" it's the person that wants pure competition. Opening the borders is just a different form of eugenics. We are selecting for who can survive on the shittiest pay possible. "Meritocracy"
Ultimately I would like to open borders by the way. The more the merrier I say. But I would like everyone regardless of whether they're immigrants or born here to have a lifestyle conducive to raising civilized children."
Me: "If "pure competition" means not threatening to kill people who want to live and work in the US , then yes, I'm for "pure competition".
What would you say to someone in 80's South Africa who said they wanted to "end apartheid", but only unless both whites and blacks could have a "civilized" lifestyle?
If someone moves to the US from Africa for a job that has shitty pay/conditions, that means they're leaving behind a job with even shittier pay/conditions (or else they wouldn't move).
Why would you put your thumb on the scale to protect white people in the US from competition from much poorer black/brown people?
Anyone who thinks American's should be "protected" from immigrants competing for their jobs should watch Doug Stanhope's routine: