Skip to main content

View Diary: Is Race a Problem for the Left? (338 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  OK, wanna talk about our Race Problem? (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Whatithink, DrFaustus, claude, young voter

    Let's talk about IMMIGRATION.

    The immigration issue is a great example of where Progressives conveniently overlook race.

    We have millions of unemployed Black people in America, yet the "Progressive" movement seems hell-bent on importing millions of foreigners to compete with them for jobs.

    Yes, I know that immigration benefits, "GDP" and "The Economy" and "Productivity". But those benefits tend to flow to the top 1%, where Blacks are underrepresented. What is 100% certain is that immigration lowers wages -- and is is through wages (not capital gains or entrepreneurship) that Blacks make most of their money.

    I know Black families where:

    1) The unskilled members face competition from illegal construction workers and legal "guest workers",

    2) The college-bound members face competition from "DREAMers" and foreign students, and

    3) The members with degrees face low wages due to H1-B Visas.

    Of course Blacks have seen this before. Just when Slavery was defeated, Irish and Italians were brought in. Now that many Blacks are finally becoming the first in their family to get a degree -- let's bring in foreign tech workers to slap them down.

    Where do Progressives stand on this? From what I read on this site, Progressives stand with the Corporations that want low wages and the Rich People who want cheaper gardeners and nannies.

    So, yeah...we can talk about race.

    If you really want to go there...

    •  Immigration will create jobs. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Darwinian Detrius, smoothnmellow

      The real driver of the economy for most of us is the economic activity generated by the needs of lower-income people (ie, most of us).  More people means more grocery stores, more food, more gas, more car repairs, more clothing, etc, etc.

      Our economic issues are not a matter of 'how many people' we have in the country, but in how most of the wealth generated by workers is sucked away to feed the true leeches on society - people like the Koch Brothers, and the mega-millionaries around the country who only got wealthy by systematically underpaying workers, to take that money to hand over to shareholders who do no work, but are given money for doing nothing more than holding onto stock certificates.

      •  One is curious as to how shareholders paid for (0+ / 0-)

        their stock certificates without doing work.

        •  One is? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ManhattanMan

          I don't know who one is, but back when I actually owned stock, I did nothing, and raked in dividends.  Later, when I'd gone long enough, I sold the stock (for an added profit).  I added nothing to the company, produced nothing, and yet money that otherwise could have gone to the people actually working for the company went into my pocket.

          •  Actually you DID do work. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Catte Nappe

            You risked your money and you spent time analyzing which investment to make.

            The scandal is that you only paid 15% tax on your work while the guys who worked for the company had to pay 35%.

            But the capital gains tax loophole is a subject for a whole 'nother Diary...

            •  I still disagree. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Catte Nappe

              I 'risked my money' in the same way that you 'risk your money' when you go to a casino.  But even if I'd lost it all, it did nothing for the company, it didn't produce anything.  It helped keep a stockbroker employed, I guess.  Second, analyzing investments?  Not really.  I bought stocks in companies I simply thought were doing things that would become more popular.

              The only shareholders who do anything for the company are those who buy stock in IPOs or secondary offerings.  The company gets their money.  The people who trade it thereafter are merely parasites on the system.

      •  Do you have any evidence... (0+ / 0-)

        ...that immigration will help low-to-middle wage workers?

        I have not seen any studies projecting/proving this.

        The best studies all say immigration is good for "GDP" and "The Economy" and "Productivity".  But jobs and wages? Nothing but crickets.

        •  Low end workers spend every dime they have just (0+ / 0-)

          to stay alive - they put 100% of what they make into economic activity about as fast as they make it.  They keep money in motion in the local economy, which goes to bring in the goods and services they need, and results in extra employment to keep up with the extra demand.

          People on the upper end of things are the ones who only spend some tiny fraction of what they make, and end up hoarding wealth, thus keeping it out of circulation.

          So if you want an economy to hum along, and create jobs, do you want a thousand people who will instantly put back everything they earn into that economy, or 1 person who spends 1/10000th of what he earns?

          Businesses don't hire people if they don't have to - the only way they add on employees is to meet additional demand.  So you need to create as much demand as possible.  And the same amount of money handed over to poor folks generates far more demand than it does if given to rich folks.  Even studies from RW thinktanks have to begrudgingly admit that.

          •  That argument explains... (0+ / 0-)

            ...why giving benefits and tax cuts to the poor stimulates the economy.

            It does not mean that we need more poor people!  That is what immigration does -- it brings in more unemployed people!

            How does that help us? It only helps those who are hiring -- they can now cut their wages.

    •  I've seen this argument made before... (0+ / 0-)

      and I don't think it's related to the larger point of this diary.  However I will speak on this.

      TomP is right.  The real equalizing, diversifying power is within the union structure.  A great majority of the undocumented immigrant workforce are in the AG business where they are paid pitiful wages and are exposed to environmental toxins from the use of pesticides such as Monsanto's Roundup and other products.  Furthermore, there aren't a lot of black folk into being a migrant worker.  Let's be real about this if you going to bring it up.  Now there are black farmers who have been horribly discriminated against by the Dept. of AG and when Pres. Obama moved to correct that wrong, the right went nuts.  But beyond that, immigrants are the ones who work the fields.

      The unions should be jumping all over this to unionize this group, while Progressives can assist the Health Freedom Movement in educating the public to 'critical mass' about the problems with our food supply, specifically GMO foods.  This will put AG corps in a double squeeze and it will benefit the wage structure and working conditions of all migrant workers.  And since we need to grow our own food, the AG corps will not find it profitable to import a large amount of  food to get around this -- especially if the growing conditions cannot be sourced or regulated.

      In conclusion my friend, this is not a matter or us vs. them.  It's us AND them for the most part.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site