> but the wealthiest
News flash, poor people are not wanted in most countries of the world, everyone already has their own poor population to deal with.
News flash, poor people are not wanted in most countries of the world, everyone already has their own poor population to deal with.
Middle East runs on poor people from the subcontinent and Africa.
Hong Kong depends on live-in foreign labor who have to camp out in public spaces on their day-off.
America is built on poorer labor of every kind - enslaved African cotton farmers , indentured Chinese railway workers, famine stricken Irish, or more recently Latin American or H1B Indians in tech.
Some countries try to attract the richest percent like New Zealand, however it is not economically meaningful nor is major portion of immigrants globally or within their countries even.
Countries may not like foreign poor immigrants, but they certainly need them to work harder for less pay and rights.
Why would I want to support the introduction in my country of what is virtually modern slave labor practices by abusing and exploiting the poor and desperate foreigners so that some business can get richer because they don't want to pay or provide decent working conditions or invest into automation?
Especially that a lot of those cheap laborers without rights aren't even doing work to the benefit of the community (elderly care, construction etc) but to the benefit of a few wealthy and unscrupulous business owners (Amazon, Uber Eats, etc) who are addicted to cheap exploitable labor.
>Countries may not like foreign poor immigrants, but they certainly need them to work harder for less pay and rights.
Yeah, but there a major differences in which these are implemented that can make immigration a success or a failure.
Some countries that you also mentioned like Middle East, Hong Kong, but also Singapore import those workers for cheap labor so they can do the work the locals don't want and in exchange migrants make money to send back home, making it mutually beneficial, but they don't get the right to permanently settle there or gain citizenship because they don't want them as citizens, they just want temporary workers that will work and then leave when they're no longer useful or wanted.
This however does not apply to most western nations where migrants can settle permanently and relatively easily become citizens with voting rights in a relatively short timeframe(at least in EU), and that's where the anxiety of the locals comes from and also their hatred of migrants. They're importing an alien culture they're not fond of as cheap labor, that once settled and granted voting rights, if not integrated properly and harboring animosity, can demographically displace them via their higher fertility rates(natives are already minorities in some major EU cities) managing to out-vote them and force their culture onto them democratically, or worse, use their majority status to take revenge for how their ancestors being treated as cheap labor. Either way, this is a recipe for endless racial tensions or even conflicts in the future, that isn't being priced in to the economic upsides of mass migration which only looks at GDP.
Yikes, that is quite the dehumanizing framing
Edit: A person commented "why?" before deleting their comment, which I had started responding to. I still want to give my response:
Because an enlightened government is for the people (and an unenlightened government is not worth having). The purpose of a government is to care for the welfare of the people, not to be the securer of private wealth for the wealthy. The above comment frames it as "dealing with" an undesirable population. That population is the people, and it is a perversion to think otherwise.
Edit: Your update seems unrelated. I can't connect it to what the parent said. They said it's hard to accept the poor of other nations when you are busy supporting your own poor, and you responded as if they said we should not support even our own poor, in favor of supporting the wealthy. There's no connection there.
The original comment did not say what you claim.
The original comment framed it as “dealing with” the poor population. That is bad framing. The role of government is to take care of the people, not to “deal with” them. That framing is important because the people are not a problem to be dealt with. They are to be protected and cared for. The framing is important because it dictates what is accepted and what gets done.
Poor people should be enabled to have the tools to go and have better lives, but it’s up to them, what’s better for you might not be for them, so they can only choose. It’s called free will.
Wow, you really doubled-down. That's a deeply anti-social way of thinking. Poor people are not a problem. An economy that creates poor people is the problem. That is a failure of government when it is captured by the wealthy and turned into a system to create private wealth rather than common wealth.
And by the way, poor people eat through resources without replenishing them? Ha, what do you think 'rich' people do?
They are also, literally speaking from a logistics point of view, a problem. This is the point of view that smart problem-solvers tend to take, and is the point of view that ultimately benefits everybody the most, in practice, and in the long term. HN tends to attract this type of thinker (which is good).
You are taking a reactive point of view that over-applies hidden meanings to words (which is pretty normal for humans, and not intended as an insult).
You don't seem to have read the comments. There is no hidden meaning that I have over applied.
> They are also, literally speaking from a logistics point of view, a problem.
You are assuming the problem and then redirecting from its origins. The economy creates poverty. The economy is regulated by the government. Enlightened government should take care of the people and the common wealth, not be a tool for the wealthy to capture more wealth.
This applies worldwide, unless you live in a communist country, where everyone is equally poor except for the elites in power.
Please explain to me how "[poor people] eat through resources without replenishing them" and how "rich people" do not? Please explain how it is good or just for a government to act as a system to secure private wealth for the wealthy and not to care for all of the people and the common wealth?
In the USA, the top 10% of all incomes account for 71% of all income tax, meaning the lower 90% only contribute 29%. Income taxes are governed by a power law (Pareto) where the very few account for most of the income.
https://usafacts.org/articles/who-pays-the-most-income-tax/
The government as it is today and in most western countries is super progressive with its taxes and benefits for its population. I don’t think it’s good nor just to charge someone more simply because they have more, that’s pretty unjust, why do they have to pick up the slack and maintain people who don’t try to get out of their situation?
I come from a 3rd world country where we now have 2/3 generations who have grown living only on government welfare instituted by the governing party to earn their votes, while the productive few are choked by taxes and forced to leave the country, how is that just?
So yes, the government should prioritize the few that actually make money and try to get more of the population that way, as they are the ones funding government.
And of course you don’t want poor people from other countries which are used to live on government welfare also to eat through your welfare without contributing back, it’s actually a requirement in order to get the greencard, which you probably have no idea what it entails as I’m guessing you are a native born bleeding heart American liberal, otherwise you would have a more realistic view of the world.
The federal individual income tax only accounts for about half of the federal government's revenue, let alone the revenue for states and localities from taxes and other fees. The payroll tax, property and sales taxes, as well as fees, are paid predominantly by the non-rich (you claim a Pareto distribution but that only holds for the individual income taxes- sales taxes are highly regressive). The top 10% receive roughly half the total income and pay roughly half the total revenue. That is not even close to "almost all" of the tax revenue for the governments in the United States.
Not only does your argument fail on its own terms, your terms are wrongheaded. I presume that you were here during covid, and must have realized that the "essential" workers were predominantly the lowest paid people in the US. That should clue you into the fact that people contribute a lot more to society than taxes!
> as I’m guessing you are a native born bleeding heart American liberal, otherwise you would have a more realistic view of the world
I am a native born American and my forefathers and foremothers fought for the prosperity and rights that you enjoy but do not appreciate. You say you are from a third world country, and that might partially explain why you are ignorant on this matter. I suggest you read the works that inspired the American Revolution and try to understand why people fought for it.
You pay what you consume, and first need items like groceries are excluded, it's a great tax. Rich people buy more stuff than poor people, therefore they pay more sales tax than poor people (Ask WA how is it doing by imposing a millionaire's income tax, those people are leaving and they are losing sales/property tax revenue due to that). Same with property tax, to buy a bigger house you need more money, and the bigger the house the larger the property tax you pay. Don't want to pay huge property taxes? Buy smaller property. So, all in all, the logic still applies, if you consume more because you have more money, you contribute more to tax revenue.
Income tax should also be flat, as you would still pay more the more you earn.
> I presume that you were here during covid, and must have realized that the "essential" workers were predominantly the lowest paid people in the US. That should clue you into the fact that people contribute a lot more to society than taxes!
Nope, in Canada at the time, we could go out and to supermarkets for groceries. If the government hadn't imposed such strict lockdowns in some states, there would have been no need for the "essential" workers, if you mean delivery people. Otherwise, health care specialists tend to be very well paid, though covid was a shit show.
Yeah, the American revolution was based on the premise of no taxation without representation, and I know first hand how that feels as an immigrant, paying taxes and having no say on how they are used, and there are a lot of us paying a lot of taxes and having no say on them.
> prosperity and rights
Prosperity yes, rights you only get if you have a green card (and only some), if you are on a visa the second shit hits the fan you get kicked out (and even the green card may not protect you on that). You truly don't realize what a privilege you have by having citizenship. You should try being an immigrant so you get off your high horse.
It actually saddens me seeing how current politics of big government and the rise of the DSA and communism in the USA are screwing up a country which is great.
> If the government hadn't imposed such strict lockdowns in some states, there would have been no need for the "essential" workers
That is a non sequitur. We do have essential workers whether or not they are the only workers working during a time of crisis or not.
> the American revolution was based on the premise of no taxation without representation
That is a bumper sticker level of understanding of our history. Please educate yourself on what inspired it. Read the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke, Thomas Paine, and Thomas Jefferson.
> get off your high horse
No. An enlightened government takes care of the people (and an unenlightened government is not worth having). Our economy creates poverty. We are in a crisis that has been growing since the 1980's and is reaching a flashpoint. You may not have been here for the 2008 financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street, so you may not have heard of Thomas Picketty's book Capital in the Twenty-First Century, but this webpage will give you a brief overview and a graph: https://www.epi.org/publication/top-1-percents-share-income-...
> DSA and communism in the USA are screwing up a country which is great
They are bringing a long overdue correction that is necessary to preserve our country. They have not even begun, so your claim that they are screwing up this country is absurd. This country is being run into the ground by the current administration and his fellow travelers.
Sure, communism will work this time, because it’s different! Not like the other hundred times it failed and the millions of people it killed and impoverished !
Communism is bad because it legalizes theft, if 51% of the people decide to take off the remainder 49% you have a nice recipe for disaster which has happened over and over again in the last 120 years.
But sure, your comments tell me you live in a fantasy world of books and theories instead of the real world, where reality is much simpler and crueler.
Keep on living in Disney.
> your comments tell me you live in a fantasy world of books and theories instead of the real world, where reality is much simpler and crueler. Keep on living in Disney.
No. We create our reality. I don't accept the beliefs that you advocate. I don't accept that our government shouldn't care for all of its people, regardless of what they contribute in tax revenue. I don't accept that our government regulates the economy to create poverty while redistributing wealth to the already wealthy. That is abhorrent and an unacceptable state of affairs. It directly contradicts the American Revolution and what inspired it.
Like I suggested before, please go read a book
Not of the people, but of their own citizens. They owe nothing to people who are not their citizens, that’s why we have countries and not a world government, countries meddling in other countries internal politics leads to war.
That, of course, is the actual real question in this debate and all the other similar debates. Some people benefit from an influx of very low-pay people, and some people don't.