EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 2447
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7251 Posts
| ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2020 15:45 Zambrah wrote: I don't think it's that bad to sponsor to get the 9/10, seems like more of an issue to get a 6/10 you can pay less than a local 6/10. Often done in the form of advertising a need for a 9/10, offering 3/10 conditions, and finding no qualified takers in the domestic market - “proving” that an H1-B is necessary. The criteria are relaxed for the H1-B hire and a 5/10 or 6/10 are now fully acceptable. The situation Mohdoo describes seems to be by far the rarer use case of H1-B. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23102 Posts
On June 24 2020 15:40 Mohdoo wrote: What I have seen is a plentiful pool of candidates who can't get jobs because someone with an h1b appears to be better. Let's say a job requires a 6/10 candidate. I have seen 8/10 candidates turned down because a 9/10 candidate with h1b is available. H1b creates an excessively competitive market that makes extremely qualified candidates unable to get jobs. On June 24 2020 15:54 LegalLord wrote: Often done in the form of advertising a need for a 9/10, offering 3/10 conditions, and finding no qualified takers in the domestic market - “proving” that an H1-B is necessary. The criteria are relaxed for the H1-B hire and a 5/10 or 6/10 are now fully acceptable. The situation Mohdoo describes seems to be by far the rarer use case of H1-B. These both fit squarely in the right wing opposition to immigration generally imo. Left wing opposition is to the exploitative worker conditions whether the workers are immigrants or not. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2020 15:58 GreenHorizons wrote: These both fit squarely in the right wing opposition to immigration generally imo. Left wing opposition is to the exploitative worker conditions whether the workers are immigrants or not. Perhaps so - at least the “economic argument” from the (non-corporatist) right. I suppose there’s also a cultural/racial element to the right wing standard fare, which is somewhat intertwined, but not the same. I’m not unwilling to acknowledge that the right-wing has it right on this issue. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7251 Posts
On June 24 2020 15:54 LegalLord wrote: Often done in the form of advertising a need for a 9/10, offering 3/10 conditions, and finding no qualified takers in the domestic market - “proving” that an H1-B is necessary. The criteria are relaxed for the H1-B hire and a 5/10 or 6/10 are now fully acceptable. The situation Mohdoo describes seems to be by far the rarer use case of H1-B. To be fair the only field I'm experienced with H1 visas in is art where Mohdoos situation is quite common cause for some reason the US just can't churn out the tippity toppest tier of artists like Europe seems able to do... But yeah your situation is one I'm more concerned about, but I'm also biased cause I view these things through an entertainment industry lens and the industry is fucked from a labor standpoint so your situation is the good old waking nightmare, lol. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23102 Posts
On June 24 2020 16:04 LegalLord wrote: Perhaps so - at least the “economic argument” from the (non-corporatist) right. I suppose there’s also a cultural/racial element to the right wing standard fare, which is somewhat intertwined, but not the same. I’m not unwilling to acknowledge that the right-wing has it right on this issue. The "economic argument" is a lie as old as the country (older really) from my perspective. One used to pit workers against each other in the interest of ownership, the cultural/racial element inextricable from its perpetuation. "They are the reason your wages are low, hiring is poor, working conditions are bad, etc". The "they" always being an "other" constructed on cultural/racial lines. Way easier to exploit Americans, Immigrants, and minorities if they are blaming each other instead of the capitalist class. | ||
|
LegalLord
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On June 24 2020 16:15 GreenHorizons wrote: The "economic argument" is a lie as old as the country (older really) from my perspective. One used to pit workers against each other in the interest of ownership, the cultural/racial element inextricable from its perpetuation. "They are the reason your wages are low, hiring is poor, working conditions are bad, etc". The "they" always being an "other" constructed on cultural/racial lines. Way easier to exploit Americans, Immigrants, and minorities if they are blaming each other instead of the capitalist class. It does not escape notice that this program in particular is one of the key tools that is heavily used by that very capitalist class to drive down wages, employment, working conditions, and so on. Perhaps the concern is that it’s ultimately misguided, that there’s a better way to achieve the end goal with less misdirection. If we want a fully leftist approach, the one that the French came up with at the end of the 18th century seems extremely topical. It’s not really viable right now, nor without its own fair bit of collateral damage, but definitely far more consistent with your desired end state. I’m admittedly not willing to support that right now. In terms of what does and doesn’t empower the capitalist class to propagate the undesirable employment conditions mentioned herein, cutting off a source of cheap, highly exploitable labor seems to be a good step in the right direction. So I’m game; nice work from Team Trump. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23102 Posts
On June 24 2020 16:35 LegalLord wrote: It does not escape notice that this program in particular is one of the key tools that is heavily used by that very capitalist class to drive down wages, employment, working conditions, and so on. Perhaps the concern is that it’s ultimately misguided, that there’s a better way to achieve the end goal with less misdirection. If we want a fully leftist approach, the one that the French came up with at the end of the 18th century seems extremely topical. It’s not really viable right now, nor without its own fair bit of collateral damage, but definitely far more consistent with your desired end state. I’m admittedly not willing to support that right now. In terms of what does and doesn’t empower the capitalist class to propagate the undesirable employment conditions mentioned herein, cutting off a source of cheap, highly exploitable labor seems to be a good step in the right direction. So I’m game; nice work from Team Trump. Just like all the laws and concentration camps aren't there to actually stop immigrants doing farm/manual labor, neither is suspension of H1-Bs meant to stop the more educated immigrants from working. It's used as leverage/looming threat over the workers and individual businesses to further drive down wages and conditions. Instead of "losing job slots to immigrants" or them accepting lesser wages and conditions at the workplaces you share, they'll be put into corrupt channels where they'll be exploited further and the job will disappear from your workplace and the workload outsourced to those less reputable enterprises. This is actually one of Trump's specialties (to the degree he has any). | ||
Neneu
Norway492 Posts
| ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
H1-B restriction/elimination is good because it reduces labor market competition which will allegedly improve specialized industry workplace conditions, pay, benefits, etc. - Generally, those facing H1B competition are middle to upper class. Restriction of H1B immigration improves their well-being. Easing restrictions on minimally fettered mass immigration is good, a net economic benefit, the morally right thing to do. - Generally, those facing competition from this type of immigration are in the bottom half of the socioeconomic spectra. Far be it from making this type of immigration more difficult to improve their pay and conditions, we want to increase this type of immigration. Like, if anything these positions should be flipped. Do any of you ever do any introspection or genuflection on the consistency or veracity of your views and your argumentation that led you to them? How is H1B restrictions good because it decrease labor market competition for middle to upper class folks, but typical immigration restrictions are bad when if you follow your argument these vulnerable people are faced with even greater competition which if he follow your logic means lower pay, poorer working conditions, and increased exploitation. How in the bleepity bleepity does this make any sense, unless of course you view it through a partisan lens and poor human cognition (selective and confirmation bias, tribalism, etc.). I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm sure I'll be accused of misrepresenting someones views and be attacked while the folks double down on their rationalization. At least Bernie is consistent though. Guy is pretty anti-immigrant with the arguments you guys used. | ||
|
Wegandi
United States2455 Posts
On June 24 2020 17:22 Neneu wrote: Apparently the police which raided the home of the journalist Bryan Carmody, to uncover the source of a leaked police report, were told to turn off their body cams. The raid were later ruled to be illegal. It defeats the whole point of body cameras if such orders can be given. Police are no different than most other Government-monopoly institutions (alphabet soups, bureaucrats, criminal justice, etc.). The system rarely holds their own accountable. Politicians routinely implement laws for thee, but hold themselves above it. It trickles through the whole system, the SCOTUS reinforces these decisions, laws, and immunities. Meanwhile the criminal code has exploded, the average person commits 3 felonies a day (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842), we have arbitrary non-sense accepted and snitch lines with the recent pandemic, and above it all, we point to the same institution to solve the problems that they themselves created. If we chopped the criminal code by 95% that would do more to prevent police abuse than almost any other singular proposal. As long as police are expected to provide the scope of enforcement nothing is going to change. Outside IA, body cameras, improved training, ending qualified immunity, etc. is all well and good, but will have a minimal impact compared to that singular proposition. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23102 Posts
On June 24 2020 17:34 Wegandi wrote: Ok, I wanted to put on my purely Socratic hat and lead you guys to water, but I can't help myself. Let me see if I follow: H1-B restriction/elimination is good because it reduces labor market competition which will allegedly improve specialized industry workplace conditions, pay, benefits, etc. - Generally, those facing H1B competition are middle to upper class. Restriction of H1B immigration improves their well-being. Easing restrictions on minimally fettered mass immigration is good, a net economic benefit, the morally right thing to do. - Generally, those facing competition from this type of immigration are in the bottom half of the socioeconomic spectra. Far be it from making this type of immigration more difficult to improve their pay and conditions, we want to increase this type of immigration. Like, if anything these positions should be flipped. Do any of you ever do any introspection or genuflection on the consistency or veracity of your views and your argumentation that led you to them? How is H1B restrictions good because it decrease labor market competition for middle to upper class folks, but typical immigration restrictions are bad when if you follow your argument these vulnerable people are faced with even greater competition which if he follow your logic means lower pay, poorer working conditions, and increased exploitation. How in the bleepity bleepity does this make any sense, unless of course you view it through a partisan lens and poor human cognition (selective and confirmation bias, tribalism, etc.). I'm sorry, I couldn't help myself. I'm sure I'll be accused of misrepresenting someones views and be attacked while the folks double down on their rationalization. At least Bernie is consistent though. Guy is pretty anti-immigrant with the arguments you guys used. Those are some of the contradictions I was trying to highlight. That supporting Trump's H1-B suspension is inconsistent with left-wing analysis of the issues at play. As well as that right wing supporters are actually supporting it contrary to their expressed interests of better working conditions they presume result from these types of policies. The internally consistent (and superior imo) argument is that which dialectically analyzes the material conditions of those involved and concludes that the exploitation is by design. That both perpetuating and suspending the H1-B's depending on electoral winds is like a dial designed to modulate the conflicts between the divided groups and avoid attention and action focusing on the underlying exploitative systems which allow immigrant workers to be leveraged against domestic workers, and the laws/policies leveraged against those immigrant workers all with the purpose of driving down wages and working conditions and to secure increased profits and control for the owners. The "ownership" crumbs distributed to the bourgeoisie are designed to perpetuate the conflicts between those at the very bottom and those the middle class see themselves as situated roughly equidistant from those at the very top. Which in part hinges on a gross distortion of reality that leads people to fail to observe that even if they have $100,000,000 in wealth they are still MUCH, MUCH closer to having $0 than billions. People making appreciable six-figures incomes (outside of select industries) get slightly more in some aspects (generally just private property trinkets at the expense of better public infrastructure that would be more environmentally and economically efficient anyway) in order to agree to perpetuate a system that has them several orders of magnitude closer (and perpetually dangling over a precipice that threatens to break them) to houseless people with nothing but what they can carry than even the relatively impoverished centimillionaires, let alone the billionaires, let alone the Bezos tier of wealth hoarders. This is the ontological origin in many ways of the expression: “Socialism never took root in America because the poor see themselves not as an exploited proletariat but as temporarily embarrassed millionaires.” | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4329 Posts
I can’t read that particular article, wouldn’t surprise me if it’s not something sinister after all. Can’t really comment around the paywall. I read it easy enough, maybe you've gone over your max allowable monthly articles? Thread is discussing race crimes.I've said before I think it's a little overblown. Jussie Smollet and Wallace got big media attention, found out to be hoaxes. On June 24 2020 13:38 cLutZ wrote: Come on guys. The noose story was always going to wind up like this, at best. We all know hate crimes happen, but the celebrity noose story is almost always a fake or an idiotic freak out. Historically though, the media is wrong at first. NASCAR, Jussie, 2019 UM University Hospital, 2018 Mississippi Capitol building, 2017 Smithsonian, KSU and MSU, 2016 Salisbury State, 2015 University of Delaware, 2007 Columbia University and Baltimore Fire Department, 1997 Duke University. Those are just the noose-related ones. There are also many lower profile incidents I've heard of coming out of Hollywood where actors freaked out and got grips and other low level staff fired for regular knots used to suspend equipment (many secure knots that are used to avoid dropping heavy things on people are somewhat noose-like in appearance). The problem I have with this (and the above, or Duke LAX) is that the media buys into these facially ridiculous stories. At this point its pretty easy for a normal person to distinguish between these obvious fakes and Dylann Roof in 30 seconds. Why can't the media? The media is a problem (As are the rabid twitter mobs) but the main issue is lack of media attention when it's found out to be a hoax.And it's getting harder to actually call these hoaxes out because of the censorship (especially on reddit where they were banning people on the NASCAR subreddit for saying it could be a garage door puller, right up until it was found to be so). | ||
|
Jockmcplop
United Kingdom9600 Posts
On June 24 2020 18:51 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: I read it easy enough, maybe you've gone over your max allowable monthly articles? Thread is discussing race crimes.I've said before I think it's a little overblown. Jussie Smollet and Wallace got big media attention, found out to be hoaxes. The media is a problem (As are the rabid twitter mobs) but the main issue is lack of media attention when it's found out to be a hoax.And it's getting harder to actually call these hoaxes out because of the censorship (especially on reddit where they were banning people on the NASCAR subreddit for saying it could be a garage door puller, right up until it was found to be so). Are you saying that this one thing that happened on a single subreddit is indicative of a wider censorship issue? | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23102 Posts
| ||
|
IgnE
United States7681 Posts
On June 24 2020 17:50 Wegandi wrote: Police are no different than most other Government-monopoly institutions (alphabet soups, bureaucrats, criminal justice, etc.). The system rarely holds their own accountable. Politicians routinely implement laws for thee, but hold themselves above it. It trickles through the whole system, the SCOTUS reinforces these decisions, laws, and immunities. Meanwhile the criminal code has exploded, the average person commits 3 felonies a day (https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842), we have arbitrary non-sense accepted and snitch lines with the recent pandemic, and above it all, we point to the same institution to solve the problems that they themselves created. If we chopped the criminal code by 95% that would do more to prevent police abuse than almost any other singular proposal. As long as police are expected to provide the scope of enforcement nothing is going to change. Outside IA, body cameras, improved training, ending qualified immunity, etc. is all well and good, but will have a minimal impact compared to that singular proposition. That 3 felonies a day line is bullshit. I'd maybe believe misdemeanors. | ||
|
Sr18
Netherlands1141 Posts
On June 24 2020 18:13 GreenHorizons wrote: Which in part hinges on a gross distortion of reality that leads people to fail to observe that even if they have $100,000,000 in wealth they are still MUCH, MUCH closer to having $0 than billions. Is that a distortion though? In practice I'd say that having $100 million is much closer to having billions than it is to having nothing. Both amounts of money put you in a position where you wouldn't have to work a single day of your life and you can live completely free of financial worries. Money is not pure math's. There is only so much money required to get the things that matter. Once you reach that point, how much more you have is mostly irrelevant. This is by the way also why redistribution of money from the wealthy to the poor would have less of an impact then is intuitively understood. Put simply: a $30k car does mostly the same as a $3 million dollar car. Redistributing that $ 3 million dollar car won't magically allow 100 people to drive to work, even if the car is worth 100 cars. Which is why policy should aim to make the average person wealthier, not to reduce wealth inequality. | ||
|
Zambrah
United States7251 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18822 Posts
| ||
|
Sbrubbles
Brazil5776 Posts
On June 24 2020 20:18 Zambrah wrote: How do you make the average person wealthier without reducing wealth inequality though? Double everyone's wealth. ... no this isn't a policy proposal. | ||
| ||
