"Plus, in the process of organizing, many native-born workers will come to see immigrant workers as equals in the fight against their employer."
This view of employees as being universally engaged in fighting their employers and vice versa is simply bullshit. It's not how society works.
Yes, some employers are sharks in suits and must be fought to the knife, but I would say (based on my 40 years as an employee including union membership) that the great majority of employers are just people trying to make a living like their employees. They treat their employees with respect, pay them at least adequately and try to provide reasonable working conditions.
If your point of view is that workers and employers are doomed to be at war with each other forever, well, its wrong and you'll end up on the dust heap of history.
Thank you for pointing out a significant flaw in an otherwise well-articulated piece. That phrase jumped out at me like a red flag. There also seemed to be a complete lack of awareness of the profound economic stimulus of free market entrepreneurial activity, as opposed to a “union-centric” workforce. Legal migration is a springboard for enterprise that has long been a strength of healthy economies. Migrant-dumping creates a terminally anxious underclass.
Most employers aren't sharks in suits but because of the economic conditions aren't they drawn at times to decisions that threaten their employees economic conditions e.g. layoffs, refusals to raise wages in line with inflation or not raising them sufficiently ect.
Yes of course. Sometimes decisions will have to be made that may be harmful to individuals for the good of the entire organisation.
It would genrrally be better, for example, to have a business survive in a diminished firm (lower wages, reduced staff numbers etc) than have it fail and everybody loses their jobs.
That is different to having a business owner lay people off or worsen conditions because they're greedy and want more profit when profits are already good.
I worked for 32 years for a company that never once laid anybody off, even when it meant financial hardship for the owners. Loyalty went both ways, and in the long term the company was immensely successful.
Socialism: divide the population into rich oppressors and poor oppressed. Destroy the rich to unlock utopia.
Progressivism: divide the population into white male hetero oppressors and brown female gay oppressed. Destroy the hetero white males to unlock utopia.
There's a contradiction within the left. The socialists mark the white working class as oppressed, the progressives as oppressors. This contradiction represents the totality of the problem. All of it.
Unless socialists, who have been in decline for the past 40 years, can somehow eject the progressives there is no chance of recovering this constituency. They cannot be bamboozled into supporting a movement that despises them. It's impossible.
It is always sad to watch individuals read a well thought out piece of writing and then bray like asses using dog whistle words. Thank you for your ignorance. You think these companies and people that are whining and dining in the the white house give a damn about your factory job? Hell they are ones that moved it. You think that the people on their moral high horse opining these "poor people" questing to be their savior care about you?
Now there are solutions that don't require whatever this is that we are doing. No everyone can't just waltz in and you can't just kick in doors of schools. Let's start simple, have an official language, sounds small but that forces assimilatation. Second you get caught with illegal labor, you get fined, heavily. Give companies 3 years to get right but then that is your ass. Now you have a path to solving the wage issue.
Ultimaty the (it pains me to use these words) left won't do it because it will exclude people who won't learn English, that is a them problem though. The right won't like it because it will hurt their businesses and let's face doesn't have shock value. What they will agree to, more chaos because that keeps them in power.
What I said is that the author's analysis misses the dispositive fact that the progressive wing of the left is structurally hostile to the constituency in question.
Your response indicates you're too stupid to understand such a plainly laid out point. It consists of accusing me of ignorance, proposing some populist remedies and finally conceding the left wouldn't deign to even entertain them. All without explaining why that is and completely oblivious that the explanation you're missing is precisely the point I raised, the one you're evidently too stupid to understand.
Please do go on accusing others of ignorance whenever you run into an argument that overtaxes your mind.
Yay let's have an Internet fight. Seriously though, first I will admit when I made an error. I was commenting on the discussion at large, to that I owe you and apology as it appears I called you and ass. I backed out of the comment and didn't go to the main thread. That was the more a general than specific statement. Since these things turn into back and forths that get us pretty much nowhere, I will agree to hear your point and asses it to your reality and you can do the same for mine if you so chose. No need to call you anything because it doesn't solve the problem.
This has exceeded my Internet time now so I am off to nap before study!
Denmark gives aid to egypt some specifically to bolster their border security agencies who are known to torture and disappear dissidents. You've given no solution to the "migration problem" fucked framing btw, just argued we should agree with far right scapegoating to somehow give them less oxygen. You're fanning the flames along with your beloved social democrat government's austerity programs. Also you're just plain wrong on a series of things. Factory jobs haven't moved to China and India etc. They've moved to other stable Western countries where investment is safe and business isn't going to be impacted by Western meddling and such. In america rust belt jobs have largely moved south where unions haven't been built up yet. So not what fox news would have you think. But right wing arguments apeal to right wing people I guess
If the left would actually do this, I could become a leftist. But they won’t, because their constituency is no longer the working class. Their constituency is the downwardly mobile would-be elites spending their student loans or their meagre apparatchik salaries on doordash and bespoke coffee. These folks need an underclass to make them feel like their counterproductive degrees somehow make them superior.
I thought this was a well-argued essay and I broadly agree with the core point. I think “the right to stay home” should be a central plank of socialist politics, though this can be difficult to argue in a political climate that is so exceedingly moralistic. “Brain drain” is a real and serious problem for lots of countries that has profoundly negative impacts. But it also is very beneficial for educated professionals, who get to come enjoy a far higher material lifestyle doing the same job here vs. in their home countries. And without profound transformations in the global economy, there is just no way that you’re going to convince a significant number of Ethiopian doctors to exercise their “right” to stay in Ethiopia vs. migrating to the US. To them and their families, it *will* feel like an injustice to deny them work visas, even if it will be to the benefit of masses of people back home.
Which I think brings me to my core issue with this essay, which is the absence of any serious mention of the highly unfair structure of the global economy, which favors the US, Europe, and a select few other countries over everyone else, on a structural level. Being able to exercise national sovereignty over the labor market is great, but when wages and purchasing power in the US (for example) are being essentially subsidized by highly imbalanced terms of trade and wealth extraction from the countries that send immigrants, then it is *always* going to be the case that people will try to come here, by one method or another, to gain access to those indirect subsidies, and it lends itself inherently toward chauvinism to refuse them at the border en masse.
I find this question really vexing. The moral imperative seems to me to be to reorganize the global economy in a more fair way that doesn’t privilege certain countries over others, which would make a huge difference to stem the tide of mass migration. But the cost of this is ending the West’s gravy train of impossibly cheap consumer goods, cheap food, and cheap raw materials.
Anyway, lots more to say on this but I’m having a difficult time articulating. I’m glad this essay is out there for discussion, thanks for writing.
It's sort of alluded to in the essay but not tackled head on. That's where internationalism comes in i suppose through restructuring the global economy and economic dynamics between nations. Great comment.
The ‘problems’ compound once you realize that a growing purchasing power in emigration areas leads to easier travel. Meanwhile tough border controls tends to hook migrants into crime networks.
If you polled most working class immigrants to the U.S. and asked if they’d rather their current situation vs. a decent, even if still lower, standard of living in their home country, I suspect the overwhelming majority would pick the latter. The right to stay home means transforming the global economy (ending the hyper-exploitation of poor countries by rich ones) to drastically curtail the push factors of immigration.
Traditionally, we equate the Left with the working class but that's simply anachronistic. The modern Left is progressive but not socialist & is a bourgeois political movement, having returned to its intellectual roots.
It’s not anachronistic but very incomplete. Working class people will be left leaning but the leadership of the left parties need to really be in their favor 😎
Insightful piece. Indeed, what is hard for those progressives and GDP-obsessed economists to understand is that — no matter the value of their position/policy, there is an undeniable legitimacy crisis—or “gap” — between their stance on immigration and the majority of the population.
I must preface that I write from a British and Italian perspective. I really enjoyed reading this thoughtful discussion of immigration and the future of socialist politics. This said, I remain unpersuaded by the focus on immigration as the cause of working class impoverishment. I could not help but notice the silence about the systematic dismantling of the welfare state and workers' rights to equalise the cost of labour globally (the race to the bottom). This long preceded the actual movement of people across national borders. I am not sure where this leaves the account proposed.
I think the author does a good job of laying out the political reality. I would sure prefer a sensible left-wing approach to reducing immigration than a vengeful xenophobic one.
Still, I can't help but think that the author and the voting working class is missing something when it comes to economic reality. In a well functioning economy immigration should be a real net positive. lt's an especially powerful long term strategy when birth rates are low. It should also keep the US competitive internationally.
It seems to me like the issues causing the working class to not see the benefits of immigration are the same as the ones that keep them from seeing the benefits of automation or any of the many technological advancements of the last few decades. In fact the two phenomena are pretty similar in that they displace workers and are the main things people point to to answer the question "why is economic output able to increase over time along with living standards?" Immigration and automation are certainly not the answer to out inequality problems, but they are economic drivers and I imagine that restricting either of them is not going to fix anything in the long term.
There's a lot about this problem I haven't formed conclusions on so maybe I'm wrong. I also might be biased. The last two people who hired me were immigrants so while they might take someone's job, they gave me mine.
Nit: the phrase is "change tack", not "change tact". It originates in sailing jargon, where changing tack means changing direction, not because of a change of course (desired direction of travel) but because the direction of the wind prevents the vessel from sailing directly toward the destination. In that situation the boat must sail "strategically", zigzagging at angles to produce an overall course to the destination, even though it is always sailing at an angle either to the left or the right of the desired course. Each change in tack is a roughly 90-degree turn, a significant change, but far from a reversal.
So changing tack is a change of strategy without a change in goal, done in cases where something prevents aiming directly for the goal. It's actually a deep and elegant metaphorical phrase.
It's not clear what "change tact" would mean. Maybe that you've been tactful, but are going to stop? Or that you've been tactful in one way but are choosing a different way? At best this is a muddy metaphor.
Clear writing with well researched examples, the author makes a strong statement about the failure of liberal globalism to improve the life of the working class in the rich, receiving or importing countries. The fluidity of capital brings quicker, tangible results of inexpensive imported products for those with surplus income to consume, but benefits less the immigrant worker in a low skill career where rent, food, transportation, and healthcare expenses consume a greater percentage of income. It appears to require a generation to move up the economic ladder for labor, assisted by quality public education and safe living conditions. The capital investor can generate quicker returns in a few years. Taxes may redistribute some of this wealth, while tariffs may control access to the local market and reduce the speed of change in the community. It is an uneasy balance and requires principled leadership by government, business, labor, educators, and spiritual organizations.
You seem to assume that the “Right” (as if that is a monolithic entity) can only take an anti-immigration stance if it comes from a place of hate and xenophobia. Why? Because of what the NYT tells you? Ironically, the “Right” are the only ones that have actually been listening to the concerns of “the working man.” Where were you?
It’s sad to see you portray the urgency of sane immigration policy on the Left as a mercenary matter of winning back votes from the Right, of stanching your opponent’s advance. O, the weirdly unnecessary partisanship. The reason you should care about sound policy is that it’s the right thing to do. Only as a brief aside from your naked ideological warmongering do you note that bad immigration policy is morally indefensible in the long term.
It’s almost as if you woke up one day and realized the “bad guys” are actually doing what you were supposed to be doing all along, and instead of acknowledge they were right (let alone collaborate!), you ascribe to them the basest of motivations in order to soothe your conscience and maintain some fragile Leftist identity.
Oh, and that “Leftist” idea that immigrants must first have the right not to emigrate, i.e. to live out good lives in their homeland? The biggest spokesman of that was the last Pope.
amazing piece
"Plus, in the process of organizing, many native-born workers will come to see immigrant workers as equals in the fight against their employer."
This view of employees as being universally engaged in fighting their employers and vice versa is simply bullshit. It's not how society works.
Yes, some employers are sharks in suits and must be fought to the knife, but I would say (based on my 40 years as an employee including union membership) that the great majority of employers are just people trying to make a living like their employees. They treat their employees with respect, pay them at least adequately and try to provide reasonable working conditions.
If your point of view is that workers and employers are doomed to be at war with each other forever, well, its wrong and you'll end up on the dust heap of history.
Thank you for pointing out a significant flaw in an otherwise well-articulated piece. That phrase jumped out at me like a red flag. There also seemed to be a complete lack of awareness of the profound economic stimulus of free market entrepreneurial activity, as opposed to a “union-centric” workforce. Legal migration is a springboard for enterprise that has long been a strength of healthy economies. Migrant-dumping creates a terminally anxious underclass.
Most employers aren't sharks in suits but because of the economic conditions aren't they drawn at times to decisions that threaten their employees economic conditions e.g. layoffs, refusals to raise wages in line with inflation or not raising them sufficiently ect.
Yes of course. Sometimes decisions will have to be made that may be harmful to individuals for the good of the entire organisation.
It would genrrally be better, for example, to have a business survive in a diminished firm (lower wages, reduced staff numbers etc) than have it fail and everybody loses their jobs.
That is different to having a business owner lay people off or worsen conditions because they're greedy and want more profit when profits are already good.
I worked for 32 years for a company that never once laid anybody off, even when it meant financial hardship for the owners. Loyalty went both ways, and in the long term the company was immensely successful.
Socialism: divide the population into rich oppressors and poor oppressed. Destroy the rich to unlock utopia.
Progressivism: divide the population into white male hetero oppressors and brown female gay oppressed. Destroy the hetero white males to unlock utopia.
There's a contradiction within the left. The socialists mark the white working class as oppressed, the progressives as oppressors. This contradiction represents the totality of the problem. All of it.
Unless socialists, who have been in decline for the past 40 years, can somehow eject the progressives there is no chance of recovering this constituency. They cannot be bamboozled into supporting a movement that despises them. It's impossible.
It is always sad to watch individuals read a well thought out piece of writing and then bray like asses using dog whistle words. Thank you for your ignorance. You think these companies and people that are whining and dining in the the white house give a damn about your factory job? Hell they are ones that moved it. You think that the people on their moral high horse opining these "poor people" questing to be their savior care about you?
Now there are solutions that don't require whatever this is that we are doing. No everyone can't just waltz in and you can't just kick in doors of schools. Let's start simple, have an official language, sounds small but that forces assimilatation. Second you get caught with illegal labor, you get fined, heavily. Give companies 3 years to get right but then that is your ass. Now you have a path to solving the wage issue.
Ultimaty the (it pains me to use these words) left won't do it because it will exclude people who won't learn English, that is a them problem though. The right won't like it because it will hurt their businesses and let's face doesn't have shock value. What they will agree to, more chaos because that keeps them in power.
What I said is that the author's analysis misses the dispositive fact that the progressive wing of the left is structurally hostile to the constituency in question.
Your response indicates you're too stupid to understand such a plainly laid out point. It consists of accusing me of ignorance, proposing some populist remedies and finally conceding the left wouldn't deign to even entertain them. All without explaining why that is and completely oblivious that the explanation you're missing is precisely the point I raised, the one you're evidently too stupid to understand.
Please do go on accusing others of ignorance whenever you run into an argument that overtaxes your mind.
Yay let's have an Internet fight. Seriously though, first I will admit when I made an error. I was commenting on the discussion at large, to that I owe you and apology as it appears I called you and ass. I backed out of the comment and didn't go to the main thread. That was the more a general than specific statement. Since these things turn into back and forths that get us pretty much nowhere, I will agree to hear your point and asses it to your reality and you can do the same for mine if you so chose. No need to call you anything because it doesn't solve the problem.
This has exceeded my Internet time now so I am off to nap before study!
Peace be with you.
Very good. Excellent piece.
Denmark gives aid to egypt some specifically to bolster their border security agencies who are known to torture and disappear dissidents. You've given no solution to the "migration problem" fucked framing btw, just argued we should agree with far right scapegoating to somehow give them less oxygen. You're fanning the flames along with your beloved social democrat government's austerity programs. Also you're just plain wrong on a series of things. Factory jobs haven't moved to China and India etc. They've moved to other stable Western countries where investment is safe and business isn't going to be impacted by Western meddling and such. In america rust belt jobs have largely moved south where unions haven't been built up yet. So not what fox news would have you think. But right wing arguments apeal to right wing people I guess
If the left would actually do this, I could become a leftist. But they won’t, because their constituency is no longer the working class. Their constituency is the downwardly mobile would-be elites spending their student loans or their meagre apparatchik salaries on doordash and bespoke coffee. These folks need an underclass to make them feel like their counterproductive degrees somehow make them superior.
I thought this was a well-argued essay and I broadly agree with the core point. I think “the right to stay home” should be a central plank of socialist politics, though this can be difficult to argue in a political climate that is so exceedingly moralistic. “Brain drain” is a real and serious problem for lots of countries that has profoundly negative impacts. But it also is very beneficial for educated professionals, who get to come enjoy a far higher material lifestyle doing the same job here vs. in their home countries. And without profound transformations in the global economy, there is just no way that you’re going to convince a significant number of Ethiopian doctors to exercise their “right” to stay in Ethiopia vs. migrating to the US. To them and their families, it *will* feel like an injustice to deny them work visas, even if it will be to the benefit of masses of people back home.
Which I think brings me to my core issue with this essay, which is the absence of any serious mention of the highly unfair structure of the global economy, which favors the US, Europe, and a select few other countries over everyone else, on a structural level. Being able to exercise national sovereignty over the labor market is great, but when wages and purchasing power in the US (for example) are being essentially subsidized by highly imbalanced terms of trade and wealth extraction from the countries that send immigrants, then it is *always* going to be the case that people will try to come here, by one method or another, to gain access to those indirect subsidies, and it lends itself inherently toward chauvinism to refuse them at the border en masse.
I find this question really vexing. The moral imperative seems to me to be to reorganize the global economy in a more fair way that doesn’t privilege certain countries over others, which would make a huge difference to stem the tide of mass migration. But the cost of this is ending the West’s gravy train of impossibly cheap consumer goods, cheap food, and cheap raw materials.
Anyway, lots more to say on this but I’m having a difficult time articulating. I’m glad this essay is out there for discussion, thanks for writing.
It's sort of alluded to in the essay but not tackled head on. That's where internationalism comes in i suppose through restructuring the global economy and economic dynamics between nations. Great comment.
The ‘problems’ compound once you realize that a growing purchasing power in emigration areas leads to easier travel. Meanwhile tough border controls tends to hook migrants into crime networks.
“The right to stay home”? What does that mean?
If you polled most working class immigrants to the U.S. and asked if they’d rather their current situation vs. a decent, even if still lower, standard of living in their home country, I suspect the overwhelming majority would pick the latter. The right to stay home means transforming the global economy (ending the hyper-exploitation of poor countries by rich ones) to drastically curtail the push factors of immigration.
Traditionally, we equate the Left with the working class but that's simply anachronistic. The modern Left is progressive but not socialist & is a bourgeois political movement, having returned to its intellectual roots.
It’s not anachronistic but very incomplete. Working class people will be left leaning but the leadership of the left parties need to really be in their favor 😎
I really enjoy reading from people who are making sense. Immigration is far more complex than the right or the left make it to be.
Insightful piece. Indeed, what is hard for those progressives and GDP-obsessed economists to understand is that — no matter the value of their position/policy, there is an undeniable legitimacy crisis—or “gap” — between their stance on immigration and the majority of the population.
I must preface that I write from a British and Italian perspective. I really enjoyed reading this thoughtful discussion of immigration and the future of socialist politics. This said, I remain unpersuaded by the focus on immigration as the cause of working class impoverishment. I could not help but notice the silence about the systematic dismantling of the welfare state and workers' rights to equalise the cost of labour globally (the race to the bottom). This long preceded the actual movement of people across national borders. I am not sure where this leaves the account proposed.
I think the author does a good job of laying out the political reality. I would sure prefer a sensible left-wing approach to reducing immigration than a vengeful xenophobic one.
Still, I can't help but think that the author and the voting working class is missing something when it comes to economic reality. In a well functioning economy immigration should be a real net positive. lt's an especially powerful long term strategy when birth rates are low. It should also keep the US competitive internationally.
It seems to me like the issues causing the working class to not see the benefits of immigration are the same as the ones that keep them from seeing the benefits of automation or any of the many technological advancements of the last few decades. In fact the two phenomena are pretty similar in that they displace workers and are the main things people point to to answer the question "why is economic output able to increase over time along with living standards?" Immigration and automation are certainly not the answer to out inequality problems, but they are economic drivers and I imagine that restricting either of them is not going to fix anything in the long term.
There's a lot about this problem I haven't formed conclusions on so maybe I'm wrong. I also might be biased. The last two people who hired me were immigrants so while they might take someone's job, they gave me mine.
Nit: the phrase is "change tack", not "change tact". It originates in sailing jargon, where changing tack means changing direction, not because of a change of course (desired direction of travel) but because the direction of the wind prevents the vessel from sailing directly toward the destination. In that situation the boat must sail "strategically", zigzagging at angles to produce an overall course to the destination, even though it is always sailing at an angle either to the left or the right of the desired course. Each change in tack is a roughly 90-degree turn, a significant change, but far from a reversal.
So changing tack is a change of strategy without a change in goal, done in cases where something prevents aiming directly for the goal. It's actually a deep and elegant metaphorical phrase.
It's not clear what "change tact" would mean. Maybe that you've been tactful, but are going to stop? Or that you've been tactful in one way but are choosing a different way? At best this is a muddy metaphor.
Clear writing with well researched examples, the author makes a strong statement about the failure of liberal globalism to improve the life of the working class in the rich, receiving or importing countries. The fluidity of capital brings quicker, tangible results of inexpensive imported products for those with surplus income to consume, but benefits less the immigrant worker in a low skill career where rent, food, transportation, and healthcare expenses consume a greater percentage of income. It appears to require a generation to move up the economic ladder for labor, assisted by quality public education and safe living conditions. The capital investor can generate quicker returns in a few years. Taxes may redistribute some of this wealth, while tariffs may control access to the local market and reduce the speed of change in the community. It is an uneasy balance and requires principled leadership by government, business, labor, educators, and spiritual organizations.
You don't need to "solve" it. You need to stop doing it.
You seem to assume that the “Right” (as if that is a monolithic entity) can only take an anti-immigration stance if it comes from a place of hate and xenophobia. Why? Because of what the NYT tells you? Ironically, the “Right” are the only ones that have actually been listening to the concerns of “the working man.” Where were you?
It’s sad to see you portray the urgency of sane immigration policy on the Left as a mercenary matter of winning back votes from the Right, of stanching your opponent’s advance. O, the weirdly unnecessary partisanship. The reason you should care about sound policy is that it’s the right thing to do. Only as a brief aside from your naked ideological warmongering do you note that bad immigration policy is morally indefensible in the long term.
It’s almost as if you woke up one day and realized the “bad guys” are actually doing what you were supposed to be doing all along, and instead of acknowledge they were right (let alone collaborate!), you ascribe to them the basest of motivations in order to soothe your conscience and maintain some fragile Leftist identity.
Oh, and that “Leftist” idea that immigrants must first have the right not to emigrate, i.e. to live out good lives in their homeland? The biggest spokesman of that was the last Pope.
You’ve utterly failed the people.