The issue is that nations have a duty to their own citizens, good luck telling an entire generation that they need to make sacrifices for others while the rich keep getting richer.
As for why Scandinavia and Germany have managed to keep inequality at bay, they've got very robust welfare states and strong labour unions.
They haven't deteriorated as fast as the US and UK but the trend is clear.
It's worth noting that both Scandinavia and Germany are far less economically libertarian than most Americans would palate too
Also, crime rises/falls depending on economic outcomes for the lower segment of the population. If there's too many immigrants unable to find jobs or integrate, crime rises which can cause discontent.
Not really, because some or all of he income of these immigrants are taxed and spent domestically.
I do understand your logic, but my argument is while offshore money is spent outside the borders, immigrants spend most of their income domestically and pay their taxes, which is a too big difference to put it into the same category.
Long term, they bring their family over, raise families in the host country, get better jobs and integrate (culturally and economically) so the offshoring effect disappears.
The main problem is, especially concerning the rise of populism, when the short term effects become too severe, the long term outcomes don't matter to those who have been affected by lowering wages during their working years. And it's not every industry, perhaps not even a majority who are affected, but for those who are, they feel as though their social contract has been broken, and they vote for whoever promises to fix it.
This forum is mostly IT workers. For awhile, wages in this sector in the US were suppressed by things like cartels and H1B visas, and subsequently action was taken to enforce proper employment laws and increase the wage requirements for H1Bs. That was 1 sector, not even that much immigration, and wages showed a noticeable dip. People here were outraged too, but it was before the Trump years so the whole conversation had a different tone.
Anyhow, I don't think immigration is bad, but there are pros and cons, different effects on the economy and people, and these definitely need to be accounted for.
At least to me, "f*g over someone" would imply malicious intent - these economic agents are neither benevolent nor malicious - they simply don't care. In a slightly wider context, this is exactly why an AGI is considered dangerous.
In fact mainstream neoliberal economic theory has always been about rationalising political actions that operate against the interests of most of the population.
The origination and promotion of these economic myths is calculated, deliberate, and absolutely malicious in intent. The Chicago School didn't just happen - it was created, promoted, funded and nurtured as a dogmatic political movement opposed to Keynesianism.
Individual actors may not care, but that's exactly the problem -they've been incentivised not to.
Under a more humane system, they could just as easily be incentivised towards other actions.