Comment by mistermann | Hacker News Reader

Comment by mistermann | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I can understand how one can believe that it will all work out fine, after all one can easily form mental experiments (and find supporting evidence) supporting either outcome. But this absolutely steadfast refusal to even consider the possibility that once it is China who holds all the cards and it is them who are making the big decisions for the world that perhaps, just perhaps, life may not work out quite as nicely as before.

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded from my experience living in Vancouver, but historically Canadians had the option to move here and accept a somewhat lower standard of living in exchange for the nicer climate we enjoy. That option is now largely gone, and I expect it to be completely gone within 10 years, and after that it will be the other most desirable locations in the rest of Canada. It is simple economics. Aussies and New Zealanders among others are experiencing the same thing.

Of course, detractors can easily point to government "statistics" (that completely ignore blind corporations, proxy purchases, etc) showing foreign activity in real estate to be <5%, but I suspect the main reason most everyone (or at least voters) chooses to "believe" this obviously fake data is because a lot of people are making a loooooot of money from this shift in world order. For now. Let's see how happy are when it is their (and their children's) turn to pay the piper. You made a couple million bucks on your house? Great! Better hope you have only one child, because you cannot buy a home in Vancouver with earned income any longer. Oh sure, you can get a condo, for now, but soon even that option will be beyond reach. Luckily for Canadians we have a near infinite amount of beautiful land (weather, not so much), so there will always be somewhere for us to go, other countries I'm not so sure are similarly blessed. But either way, I'd have rather we retained our sovereignty.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so.

It would probably be in my self-interest to agree with you but I am in favor of globalization and freedom of movement on moral/ethical grounds. I realize I am in a very small minority but I just don't believe in nationalism. I don't value Canadians over Chinese people and vice versa. I'm not writing this to win you over but just to bring a different perspective.

You do value some citizenships more than others though, right? Or would you trade yours for any other? If not, I don't think it makes you a "nationalist", but neither would opposition to free movement from places you don't want to live at into where you do.

It does not follow from not valuing some people more than others that free movement would benefit any of these people; IMO part of a "moral" position involves trying to guess the likely consequences of things in the real world. An argument that people from different cultures don't get along very well, particularly when there's a large and sudden change in the numbers of one of the groups, is not antithetical to your position of valuing people equally; the only point of disagreement is wrt likely outcomes.

I don't agree with you, but I can appreciate that belief. I'm curious if the feeling is mutual, because the way some people talk, having borders is craaaazy talk.

To me, it is quite analogous to one's home - while some people might be personally ok with strangers letting themselves in and sleeping on the couch, I am personally not ok with it. Perhaps you've spent considerable time and money putting things into a state that you find pleasant, I'd rather keep it more or less in that state, otherwise maybe I'd have just sat around and relaxed rather than expending all the effort and money.

I'm fine with others personally disagreeing with this philosophy, but I'm not ok with the fairly common claim that "it doesn't make any difference", or having to pay for the consequences of alternative philosophies. But then to be fair, the west has saddled many parts of the rest of the world with "extreme inconvenience" to put it mildly, so you could certainly argue that this is our just desserts.

I totally understand where you are coming from. I was actually raised by a family who were deeply nationalist and voted twice to separate from Canada. They wanted borders around Quebec and laws to protect the language and culture.

To answer both you and the other commenter, I'm a consequentialist. That is, I genuinely believe the world would be a better place without modern day nationalism. There would be less wars and more cooperation. Cultures would win by merit. Nationalism is not far removed from racism (which I assume you do not support) when you think deeply and honestly about it. Your nationality is for the most part an accident of birth, doesn't define you and is very difficult to change.

I could keep going without changing your mind. Nationalism is such a deeply emotional, entrenched notion that is taught from childhood, from Hollywood movies to popular songs, and almost never challenged (you may have thought about the subject more deeply, but you'd be in a minority). Plus, even if you agreed with me on a philosophical level, being Canadian and all, it'd probably still be in your best self interest not to join the anti-nationalist ranks :) In the spirit of full disclosure, I traveled a lot and lived in a few countries (including China), so I can't pretend to be completely unbiased.

> That is, I genuinely believe the world would be a better place without modern day nationalism.

Agreed, but until we have a massive enlightenment in overall society as well as removing those from power who play on people's fear and emotions, we'll have to make do with what we have. Until then, nationalism matters.

> Nationalism is not far removed from racism (which I assume you do not support) when you think deeply and honestly about it.

Yes and no. Racism, taken literally, is idiotic. Racism as a description for culturalism, does in fact define you, or the aggregate behavior of a group is what "culture" is. People are largely (but not entirely) a product of their environment, that is a fact. So the notion of "supporting it" or not makes no sense, it is simply a description of objective reality, a classification. Now, turning your brain off and making decisions solely based on what culture someone appears to belong to of course is prone to error so should be used with caution, but the progressive liberal fear mongering that dishonestly interprets this as bordering on genocide is a big part of the problem why we can never seem to make any progress imho. And again, this matural human behavior (classification based on objective reality) is abused by those in power for their personal gain.

So float the housing market. People are willing to place huge bets on the local polities never, ever allowing housing prices to fall. If there were some risk the housing supply could ever increase enough to meet demand this behavior would instantly disappear. Market distortions attract speculators.

I can understand that people like to blame their problems on others. If housing prices go up, it's China fault. If Americans lose jobs, Mexicans' fault. Anyway, it is much easier to direct anger towards others than to find out the real reasons.

Is that honestly what you took away from this? Really? This deliberate nonsense is what's wrong with the world.

We had been telling you to get training, re-education and other qualifications so that you can change jobs and move up the value chain for more than 30 years. These low-paying jobs will be gone eventually, to other developing countries or to AI and automation. While there are workers who cannot find jobs, there is a severe shortage of computer engineers in the tech industry. These tech companies cannot hire enough engineers. They had to bring H1B workers from India, for example. It is just the way human society develop. 150 years ago, you could make a good living by driving horse carriages. Then cars and trains came along and they stole your jobs. 50 years ago, you could support your family by loading punch cards. Then, magnetic disks and SSD came along and took your jobs. According to research, AI will take away 30% of the jobs in 10 years. The thing is you need to constantly learn and change. For engineers, we need to upgrade our skills all the time. Otherwise you will fall behind and lose your jobs.

What do you say to a doctor + lawyer couple who can't afford a home? Move further up the value chain?

Get your phone out and call your representatives in the congress right now and tell them to change the NIMBY law that restricts constructions. Build more buildings if people like them. Don't restrict them.

A multi-year process with absolutely no guarantee of success. Or, you can control demand through regulations, as many countries already do.

It took multiple years for housing prices to go up. It did not happen overnight. If you don't try, there is no chance.

Or, you could control demand and be done with it in very short order. I'm not saying you can't build your way out of it, but waiting a decade for supply/demand to come back into some reasonable balance (maybe!!) isn't exactly "no big deal" to families just trying to get by.

Why can't you suppress your own craving for houses? Why do you want to regulate other people so that you can buy low-priced houses? The market is sending a clear message by increasing prices that we should build more houses. Why do you want to suppress that with regulations? It is economics 101 and how capitalism works.

You're asking why someone wants to own a house? Where to start with that. And it's s far from Econ 101.

You have not answered my questions. Why control other people's demand while you don't control your own?

> While there are workers who cannot find jobs, there is a severe shortage of computer engineers in the tech industry.

And obviously, everyone could become a computer engineer with enough training? No, not really. And that goes for every job. The idea that if some job is no longer valued by the market we can just retrain people to <job of the week> is so wrong it isn't funny anymore. People have different talents. Not everyone can be everything.

> These tech companies cannot hire enough engineers. They had to bring H1B workers from India, for example.

This has been refuted at least half a dozen times on HN already. They brought those people in as cheap labor forces, not because of some shortage.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com