There will always be capital willing to exploit labor to the fullest extent that it can. But as the poor of the world continue to rise and the global oversupply of labor diminishes, will labor gain enough leverage to end the abuses?
Why do you assume that the global oversupply of labor is going to diminish? It seems quite plausible that the next, say, 50 years might bring an increase in the oversupply of labor, especially as the living standards rise and that labor becomes more expensive while at the same time the cost of automating the same tasks is shrinking.
Does anyone else remember being taught in Econ 101 about globalization and comparative advantage and how great it is? Either the educators didn't know this would happen or it was a campaign to sell the public on the idea. Or maybe it was just bad teaching. I wonder which one it was.
> Either the educators didn't know this would happen or it was a campaign to sell the public on the idea.
Globalisation has resulted in the greatest reduction in human poverty to have ever occurred. The benefits are not uniformly distributed, and there are losers and winners, the losers deserve protection, and the shortcomings should be decried and fixed, sure.
But to conclude from the fact that some migrants in one country are having a rough time that globalisation as a whole is a negative thing is errant nonsense; the equivalent of stubbing your toe and deciding that the entire concept of furniture was a mistake.
The mere fact you're posting on here makes it clear you're part of the global 1%. As such, you have the luxury of preferring policies that avoid making you uncomfortable. Others face harsher constraints.
I remember my Econ 101 teacher being much more cautious - noting that trade produces benefits on average, and that the benefits everyone iff there is political action to redistribute the benefits; and that fiscal is better than monetary stimulus, but in most Western political systems that's harder to push through.
Generally those simple adages are very much spherical-cow observations, with assumptions of rational (i.e. operating in the system's interest) leadership, rule of law, and priced-in externalities; when those professors go from their intro classes to their research they start to account for more of the real-world complications.
Off the coast of Thailand, in international waters, hijacked migrants from Myanmar and Cambodia are conscripted to slave labor aboard fishing trawlers to produce the raw materials required by the multi-billion dollar American canned cat food market. Even massive public support for a boycott would fail to put a dent in the trade. Similar scenarios are playing out among Bangladeshi textile workers, Chilean copper miners, Madagascar vanilla harvesters, and on and on. And that doesn't even consider the global daily traffic in sexual exploitation.
Blockchain and DLT actually begins to look like a viable solution to tracing supply chains to their origin transparently and contractually.
Is this perhaps the natural / granted horrific progression to developing? It's not like the existing first world nations just skipped the exploitative or their own gilded age phases.
Has anyone made the jump developing without going through such an phase?
In any given country,labor laws and human rights are addressed by that country's people and government. This is a local issue. The article makes it clear that multinationals are not directly part of the problem but their supply chain vendors are.
What is the expectation here? Should a company headquartered in a different country enforce it's views on labor,hiring practices and human rights on local vendors? With what rights? That is an absurdly arrogant way of viewing the problem. If the local govermnet cares more about economic prosperity than decent treatment of humans then they have every right to do so,it's their country and their people. I don't like it but I have no right to tell someone else how to run their country. It would have been the same way if the tables were turned. Western standards can't be enforced without western prosperity.
I think,just maybe,western individuals don't apperciate enough just how much western rights and liberties depend on a stable prosperous economy.
In my opinion,the best way to solve this is by aiding the local economy,by giving more work and business to the local vendors/supply chain. The more they prosper,the easier it is for the local working class to demand and get better treatment. There is change and there is sustainable change. Isn't China a good example of how working conditiond have somewhat improved over the past 10years or so?
Unless you can afford to retire now. We are all in varying degrees subjected to Forced Labor. We've made many advances in making everything efficient and more abundant. Yet we still work to the death.
It's highly embedded in the global food, textile, and raw materials systems. Typically at the lowest levels.
For example, Cobalt is a mineral that is used in virtually all batteries. The supply is heavily concentrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which notoriously utilizes slave and child labor to extract the mineral. Sure companies are trying to avoid slave extracted cobalt. However it is extremely difficult to do that. Slave operation A can just simply sell their product to Legitimate operation B and sneak into the supply chain.
I really get skeptical of attitudes like this. It's not enough to just make a conscious decision to not buy them yourself because it won't accomplish much. You need systemic change or significant pressure on the slave shops at the very least.
There are significant policy failings here that need to be addressed, but assuming that will take a long time or is disincentivized from occurring at all, are there technology solutions that can be built to help these people? At the very beginning of the pipeline, before people emigrate from their home country to find work, do these people yet have access to basic smartphones/internet, or are they simply too poor? What about text messaging? How can information be gotten to people about the actual conditions before they leave, and even more importantly, how can collective information about the good and bad players be made available? In developed countries we have everything from Yelp to Glassdoor and beyond, but what do these underprivileged people use? Are they purely reliant on word of mouth?
Perhaps this may be realistically solved through increased automation: no dirty jobs for humans. I visited an Industrial Automation exhibition in Shenzhen last week which was held in conjunction with a Machine Vision exhibition. The number of systems and components available was substantial and the field seems prepared for an explosion: prices for precision gear are low and dropping, young people have increased access to legoesque mechatronic toys, and software knowledge is becoming pervasive.
I don't really like how sensationalistic this is, there are way more problems than just forced labor going into manufacturing. Energy used by manufacturing, local waste and pollution that goes unchecked, rampant corruption in factory owners, monopolistic control of the factories, ports, transit of goods, export, shipping, etc.
We're a LONG way from freely competitive market and open, transparent regulation would do WONDERS for it.
This article highlights one reason why I had huge issues with the Trans-Pacific Partnership ("TPP") agreement and more specifically Malaysia's inclusion in the regional partnership. Pro-trade supporters would argue that the US is "great and can out-compete" any country. I would argue that the US workers can not compete with international free labor.
These articles sadden me. As a resident of a developed country with a decent salary I am definitely the beneficiary of the exploitave practices that keep manufactureed goods as cheap as possible. It is sickening to think that my dollars flow to the people and companies that make these practices possible. It doesn’t seem necessary, and is the result of callousness and greed. Whatever your views on capitalism and market forces, the practices that make this kind of exploitation of fellow humans possible are simply not necessary or worth it to save a couple of bucks. Does anyone know what individuals can do to combat this type of thing or have further reading to recommend?
If people could migrate freely around the world to seek work, economists crudely estimate that world GDP would roughly double, and that most of this enormous windfall would go to the poorest people on Earth. There is literally a hundred trillion dollar bill on the sidewalk for bringing together third-world labor and first-world legal systems, capital, and service demand.
Instead the first world does its best to wall itself off from economic migrants, because the right fears that migration will threaten their culture and the left fears that migration will threaten the welfare state.
As with any prohibition, the economic opportunity gets colonized by criminals. People seeking a better life will be taken advantage of and some of them will even wind up worse off than they started. But the root problem isn't the criminals, and it isn't customers who want cheap electronics. It's the prohibition of migration.
Except it doesn’t work like that. I’m from Bangladesh. What would happen if 100 million Bangladeshis moved to the US? Would we continue to have a first world legal system, etc? The answer is no. Instead, we would be tearing down the statue of liberty: https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/05/26/world/asia/bangladesh-...
We know this will happen. Bangladesh was in fact a grand experiment in this regard. After independence in the 1970s, an intellectual elite gave the country a western style constitution, with principles of secularity and freedom. What did the Bangladeshis do with it? They quickly repealed those provisions, made Islam the official religion, etc.
It is a popular mental dysfunction in the west to deny that culture matters. To believe that the west’s material wealth is the result of random chance, rather than what people believe, how they act, and what they do.
>Instead the first world does its best to wall itself off from economic migrants, because the right fears that migration will threaten their culture and the left fears that migration will threaten the welfare state.
Well, unless you also propose the dissolvement of the world's countries as sovereign states, having a country means protecting its culture, way of life, and assets for its inhabitants.
How would the freedom for "everyone in the world" to move there, for example, would work for Switzerland, for example, a cosy country of 8 million people?
Would it be totally find if e.g. 9 million people from another culture come in, change the cultural climate in the place, and vote their politicians into power?
"If people could migrate freely around the world" what would stop that from happening?
Or why not just bring in 350 million Chinese into the US (they'd have more than a billion more to spare), and have them rule the place?
A large part of what makes the first world so productive is its culture and welfare system. When new people come in they need to be trained to understand this culture and system. This training takes work and time and that puts a limit on the number of yearly newcomers. I do not find it irrational to want to keep this working in a sustainable way.
Your proposal relies on said economists being entirely correct, not having reasoned with broken models and metrics. Yet widespread distrust caused by the results of their overarching prescriptions is exactly the crossroads we're at. Opening up a closed system can only work if the assumptions of that closed system are compatible with openness!
Under the present monetary policy of an inflationary treadmill, wages are generally consumed by rent rather than able to be saved into distributed wealth. This undermines the natural feedback whereby workers would build individual bargaining power. Increasing the competition would (of course) immediately benefit the poorest labor, but would further undermine labor's overall bargaining position thus exacerbating the modern winner-take-all trend.
We at least need to figure out how we can get developed societies' equilibrium for "full time employment" down to around where it should be from technological progress and women having entered the workforce (say 15 hours per week) before we go stoking the pyre with even more workers, lest we all end up as forced labor.
While I'd love that to be true, economist's predictions don't have a good track record. Is there any good examples we can use to give evidence of thus massive claim?
The problem is that it's not the third world's population should go to first-world countries. It's first-world's legal and economic (and associated societal) technology should extend to the third world.
Third world's elites fear it because it will render most of them irrelevant (and it will). Third world's nationalists and leftists fear it because it will change the local culture to look like the fat bourgeois western culture (and it will).
The previous foray into this was tried at the times of colonialism; the results are ... mixed even by the most favorable account.
> the right fears that migration will threaten their culture and the left fears that migration will threaten the welfare state
Perhaps the parent is trying to be even-handed, but I don't see the left opposing immigration; they seem to support it. It also matches the philosophy of the center - the Clinton democrats and internationalist business people of the GOP. Here are some surveys I quickly found; both say immigration is supported by the left:
While broadly I agree with this comment, I'm annoyed by the smug South Park centricism of "the left and the right are both wrong", when in the current political climate of the US the left generally want less restrictions on immigration while the right are literally taking babies away from mothers to try and scare away future asylum-seekers.
It’s starting to happen already. The rich can migrate freely today. And their are more rich everyday in poor countries. We used to send money back to our relatives in india. Now they could be sending us money as their land investments have been very profitable. Once google translate is a little more flawless and real-time from audio to audio, we will see real movement. Already with Uber and internet it’s much easier to travel without being scammed.
A deeper problem for the rich countries is that the entire economic system is built for perpetual inflation. Everything has to always go up. Free migration is deflationary. Wide nominal wage declines would cause cascading default across the entire economy.
What would the rent be for an apartment in San Francisco or New York or London if anyone in the world could move there?
I think the real windfall would go to property owners in the most desirable places to live.
Yeah, I don’t particularly care if economists think it will boost global GDP by 10x, I’m never going to be on board with that. Abolishing borders is essentially the same as abolishing nations, and in that case who has the power then? Certainly not me, or anyone that has anything in common with me. Our “democracy” sucks enough as it is, why the hell would I want to sell out national sovereignty to global capitalist interests? Honestly, I’d rather make a change in the opposite direction and have governments that actually represent their people at the cost of halving global GDP, if that’s what it takes. There are many more important things than money.
First off, I'm an economic migrant. I also had the privilege of being able to move without a skilled work visa.
I'm all for freedom of movement, I think that borders are an artificial construct that cause more harm than good.
But we need to balance that with the fact that unchecked migration can cause excessive strain on infrastructure, cause cultural clashes, and potentially cause lowered quality of life for residents of the country being emigrated to, caused by residents being priced out of the market by workers willing to work for near-nothing because it's still better than the wages back at home.
New Zealand has suffered a lot of these problems.
Auckland in particular suffering from the strain of high levels of immigration on its infrastructure. There simply isn't enough housing for all the people. You end up with people sharing rooms and packing out apartments like a slum. I've heard of people fitting 4 people to a room using bunk beds. So you've got 12 people in a 3 bedroom apartment. The apartments aren't designed for this kind of population density, and it pushes out people who want a decent quality of life and a room to themselves, as they're priced out by people willing to share 4 to a room.
High immigration with a low barrier has also caused deflation of wages. Some Indian workers come to NZ and work for under minimum wage, either by employers requiring repayment of wages or underpaying wages (which is illegal), or by working for gig-economy services like Uber (which is legal).
For a lot of immigrants, working for $5 an hour and sharing an apartment with 10 other people is still a better quality of life than back home, but it drags down the quality of life for other Kiwis.
I think part of the problem is that it's possible for people to move anywhere in the world within 30 hours. Instead of migrating to a neighbouring country that has a slightly better economy to yours, if the world had total freedom of movement, everyone would flock to the most prosperous nations, causing the middle nations to miss out completely. How many undocumented migrants to Europe want to stay in Italy or Greece? They all want to get to Germany, France, or the UK.
I think that maybe the best solution for the world would be freedom of movement between bordering nations. Most bordering nations will have similar economies, running as a continuum across the globe, and will also have similar cultures (as I said, borders are an artificial construct that cut through ethnic and cultural lines). The USA-Mexico border is an exception here, with a massive economic disparity between the two countries. I think that it's wrong that just because you were born on one side of a line you're condemned to a lower quality of life than your neighbours, earning a fraction of the same income for the same work.
My professor always said, ideas are like hemorrhoids, every asshole sooner or later gets some.
"If people could migrate freely around the world to seek work, economists crudely estimate that world GDP would roughly double, and that most of this enormous windfall would go to the poorest people on Earth. There is literally a hundred trillion dollar bill on the sidewalk for bringing together third-world labor and first-world legal systems, capital, and service demand."
You realize that many, if not most third world countries are third world countries because of the mentality, religion (won't mention it, no worries) and tribal thinking? This is exactly the problem we have in Europe. I don't mind immigrants, not at all. But they come here and bring their beliefs, values (about women, violence etc.) and tribal thinking and create here exactly the problems they have in their home country. They see our apples and they want to have apples too. But they don't get the idea that the apples could have anything to do with the tree they are growing on.
But their living costs will rise immensely and that's not assuming they are not take advantage of like the "polish" gamemasters who took advantage of their own country men.
Telling them oh all those benefits they aren't for polish workers - not quite slavery but not far off.
This is a naive, or maybe even a Pollyannistic view on migration.
The right and the left (as quoted) are not wrong.
Though this doesn't mean countries should isolate themselves, but there seems to be an intrinsic human limitation on how many people it can trust and relate at one time.
Oh its Malaysia apartheid with a brown face (originally thought they meant china) I seriously looked at a full ride expat job there but after doing some research decided not to.
I ended up feeling sorry for Singapore's dictator and the BBC world service report on ethnic rioting that had the line "several dead bodies lying in the street".
Also id have had to cut my hair - I have a pony tail
Just a reminder that the US prison labor industry is billion dollar enterprise paying 90 cents per hour - against the constitution, but no-one seems to care.
[+] [-] rectang|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] PeterisP|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mymythisisthis|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ISL|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] git_rancher|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Lazare|7 years ago|reply
Globalisation has resulted in the greatest reduction in human poverty to have ever occurred. The benefits are not uniformly distributed, and there are losers and winners, the losers deserve protection, and the shortcomings should be decried and fixed, sure.
But to conclude from the fact that some migrants in one country are having a rough time that globalisation as a whole is a negative thing is errant nonsense; the equivalent of stubbing your toe and deciding that the entire concept of furniture was a mistake.
The mere fact you're posting on here makes it clear you're part of the global 1%. As such, you have the luxury of preferring policies that avoid making you uncomfortable. Others face harsher constraints.
[+] [-] azernik|7 years ago|reply
Generally those simple adages are very much spherical-cow observations, with assumptions of rational (i.e. operating in the system's interest) leadership, rule of law, and priced-in externalities; when those professors go from their intro classes to their research they start to account for more of the real-world complications.
[+] [-] ArtWomb|7 years ago|reply
Blockchain and DLT actually begins to look like a viable solution to tracing supply chains to their origin transparently and contractually.
[+] [-] duxup|7 years ago|reply
Has anyone made the jump developing without going through such an phase?
I'm not trying to justify it, just wondering.
[+] [-] badrabbit|7 years ago|reply
What is the expectation here? Should a company headquartered in a different country enforce it's views on labor,hiring practices and human rights on local vendors? With what rights? That is an absurdly arrogant way of viewing the problem. If the local govermnet cares more about economic prosperity than decent treatment of humans then they have every right to do so,it's their country and their people. I don't like it but I have no right to tell someone else how to run their country. It would have been the same way if the tables were turned. Western standards can't be enforced without western prosperity.
I think,just maybe,western individuals don't apperciate enough just how much western rights and liberties depend on a stable prosperous economy.
In my opinion,the best way to solve this is by aiding the local economy,by giving more work and business to the local vendors/supply chain. The more they prosper,the easier it is for the local working class to demand and get better treatment. There is change and there is sustainable change. Isn't China a good example of how working conditiond have somewhat improved over the past 10years or so?
[+] [-] profalseidol|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acover|7 years ago|reply
Edit: https://knowthechain.org might work. Don't drink Monster.
[+] [-] dssu|7 years ago|reply
It's highly embedded in the global food, textile, and raw materials systems. Typically at the lowest levels.
For example, Cobalt is a mineral that is used in virtually all batteries. The supply is heavily concentrated in the Democratic Republic of Congo, which notoriously utilizes slave and child labor to extract the mineral. Sure companies are trying to avoid slave extracted cobalt. However it is extremely difficult to do that. Slave operation A can just simply sell their product to Legitimate operation B and sneak into the supply chain.
Some links on food / agricultural labor abuse: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2018/02/01/582214032/wa...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/07/28/426888946/be...
https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2017/03/29/521971468/in...
And you can find articles on the textile industry's labor abuse everywhere online.
It's not a new concept. Most consumers like you and me benefit from this via cheaper prices, and will not stop consumption patterns.
[+] [-] noobermin|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] laser|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] contingencies|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] notananthem|7 years ago|reply
We're a LONG way from freely competitive market and open, transparent regulation would do WONDERS for it.
[+] [-] rabboRubble|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clay_the_ripper|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidzweig|7 years ago|reply
http://www.malaysiandigest.com/features/723621-malaysia-can-...
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] voidmain|7 years ago|reply
Instead the first world does its best to wall itself off from economic migrants, because the right fears that migration will threaten their culture and the left fears that migration will threaten the welfare state.
As with any prohibition, the economic opportunity gets colonized by criminals. People seeking a better life will be taken advantage of and some of them will even wind up worse off than they started. But the root problem isn't the criminals, and it isn't customers who want cheap electronics. It's the prohibition of migration.
[+] [-] rayiner|7 years ago|reply
We know this will happen. Bangladesh was in fact a grand experiment in this regard. After independence in the 1970s, an intellectual elite gave the country a western style constitution, with principles of secularity and freedom. What did the Bangladeshis do with it? They quickly repealed those provisions, made Islam the official religion, etc.
It is a popular mental dysfunction in the west to deny that culture matters. To believe that the west’s material wealth is the result of random chance, rather than what people believe, how they act, and what they do.
[+] [-] coldtea|7 years ago|reply
Well, unless you also propose the dissolvement of the world's countries as sovereign states, having a country means protecting its culture, way of life, and assets for its inhabitants.
How would the freedom for "everyone in the world" to move there, for example, would work for Switzerland, for example, a cosy country of 8 million people?
Would it be totally find if e.g. 9 million people from another culture come in, change the cultural climate in the place, and vote their politicians into power?
"If people could migrate freely around the world" what would stop that from happening?
Or why not just bring in 350 million Chinese into the US (they'd have more than a billion more to spare), and have them rule the place?
[+] [-] fvdessen|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mindslight|7 years ago|reply
Under the present monetary policy of an inflationary treadmill, wages are generally consumed by rent rather than able to be saved into distributed wealth. This undermines the natural feedback whereby workers would build individual bargaining power. Increasing the competition would (of course) immediately benefit the poorest labor, but would further undermine labor's overall bargaining position thus exacerbating the modern winner-take-all trend.
We at least need to figure out how we can get developed societies' equilibrium for "full time employment" down to around where it should be from technological progress and women having entered the workforce (say 15 hours per week) before we go stoking the pyre with even more workers, lest we all end up as forced labor.
[+] [-] CJefferson|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nine_k|7 years ago|reply
Third world's elites fear it because it will render most of them irrelevant (and it will). Third world's nationalists and leftists fear it because it will change the local culture to look like the fat bourgeois western culture (and it will).
The previous foray into this was tried at the times of colonialism; the results are ... mixed even by the most favorable account.
[+] [-] forapurpose|7 years ago|reply
Perhaps the parent is trying to be even-handed, but I don't see the left opposing immigration; they seem to support it. It also matches the philosophy of the center - the Clinton democrats and internationalist business people of the GOP. Here are some surveys I quickly found; both say immigration is supported by the left:
https://www.ipsos.com/en-us/news-polls/americans-views-immig...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2018/01/22/a...
[+] [-] crooked-v|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] naveen99|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yasp|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ktta|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] api|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ng12|7 years ago|reply
Wouldn't free economic migration lower the standard of living in the wealthiest of countries?
[+] [-] pjdemers|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rvern|7 years ago|reply
https://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/
[+] [-] rblion|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jrs95|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] toomanybeersies|7 years ago|reply
First off, I'm an economic migrant. I also had the privilege of being able to move without a skilled work visa.
I'm all for freedom of movement, I think that borders are an artificial construct that cause more harm than good.
But we need to balance that with the fact that unchecked migration can cause excessive strain on infrastructure, cause cultural clashes, and potentially cause lowered quality of life for residents of the country being emigrated to, caused by residents being priced out of the market by workers willing to work for near-nothing because it's still better than the wages back at home.
New Zealand has suffered a lot of these problems.
Auckland in particular suffering from the strain of high levels of immigration on its infrastructure. There simply isn't enough housing for all the people. You end up with people sharing rooms and packing out apartments like a slum. I've heard of people fitting 4 people to a room using bunk beds. So you've got 12 people in a 3 bedroom apartment. The apartments aren't designed for this kind of population density, and it pushes out people who want a decent quality of life and a room to themselves, as they're priced out by people willing to share 4 to a room.
High immigration with a low barrier has also caused deflation of wages. Some Indian workers come to NZ and work for under minimum wage, either by employers requiring repayment of wages or underpaying wages (which is illegal), or by working for gig-economy services like Uber (which is legal).
For a lot of immigrants, working for $5 an hour and sharing an apartment with 10 other people is still a better quality of life than back home, but it drags down the quality of life for other Kiwis.
I think part of the problem is that it's possible for people to move anywhere in the world within 30 hours. Instead of migrating to a neighbouring country that has a slightly better economy to yours, if the world had total freedom of movement, everyone would flock to the most prosperous nations, causing the middle nations to miss out completely. How many undocumented migrants to Europe want to stay in Italy or Greece? They all want to get to Germany, France, or the UK.
I think that maybe the best solution for the world would be freedom of movement between bordering nations. Most bordering nations will have similar economies, running as a continuum across the globe, and will also have similar cultures (as I said, borders are an artificial construct that cut through ethnic and cultural lines). The USA-Mexico border is an exception here, with a massive economic disparity between the two countries. I think that it's wrong that just because you were born on one side of a line you're condemned to a lower quality of life than your neighbours, earning a fraction of the same income for the same work.
[+] [-] tiatia123|7 years ago|reply
"If people could migrate freely around the world to seek work, economists crudely estimate that world GDP would roughly double, and that most of this enormous windfall would go to the poorest people on Earth. There is literally a hundred trillion dollar bill on the sidewalk for bringing together third-world labor and first-world legal systems, capital, and service demand."
You realize that many, if not most third world countries are third world countries because of the mentality, religion (won't mention it, no worries) and tribal thinking? This is exactly the problem we have in Europe. I don't mind immigrants, not at all. But they come here and bring their beliefs, values (about women, violence etc.) and tribal thinking and create here exactly the problems they have in their home country. They see our apples and they want to have apples too. But they don't get the idea that the apples could have anything to do with the tree they are growing on.
[+] [-] profalseidol|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] xb1111|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] djrobstep|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] walshemj|7 years ago|reply
Telling them oh all those benefits they aren't for polish workers - not quite slavery but not far off.
[+] [-] raverbashing|7 years ago|reply
The right and the left (as quoted) are not wrong.
Though this doesn't mean countries should isolate themselves, but there seems to be an intrinsic human limitation on how many people it can trust and relate at one time.
[+] [-] walshemj|7 years ago|reply
I ended up feeling sorry for Singapore's dictator and the BBC world service report on ethnic rioting that had the line "several dead bodies lying in the street".
Also id have had to cut my hair - I have a pony tail
[+] [-] ck2|7 years ago|reply
https://www.economist.com/united-states/2017/03/16/prison-la...