The immigrant didn’t cost anyone their job, try to put the corpo boot down for a second and think. The capitalist cost you your job, because they can exploit someone else better than you at both of your expenses. You lose a high paying job, and immigrant gets less rights and a lower wage than someone with your privilege would have. The capitalist could afford to hire both of you with decent wages and benefits, and as a worker you know there is plenty of work you could use more people to help with.
The immigrant did not attack you and steal anything from you, they were looking for an opportunity to provide for themselves and their family just like you when you were looking for that job. They weren’t in the board room when the execs decided you were too much of a problem legally and financially.
Edit: User started editing their posts and is just parroting the same phrase over and over and not answering questions to further the debate. Either they’re hopelessly clueless and knee-deep in the corpo propaganda or they’re just really bad a trolling. Not worth debating further, imo.
I mean it’s both, the corporation pushing for profits and the actual person you lost your job to. It’s not like I was saying the immigrant was malicious in their actions or anything.
You are saying that, though. By saying both of them are at fault, you are implicitly stating that the immigrant did something wrong in this scenario. By your logic, you also did something wrong by applying for the job. It is highly likely the person before you was also being paid more and you got the job for less, making you exactly the same as the immigrant in this scenario.
How exactly, and be direct, did the immigrant wrong you here by seeking employment? Again, they do not know the background that you specifically were cut. The capitalist does, however.
Malicious would mean immigrants are doing it with the inention to cause harm. I don’t think even the capitalists are in it to be malicious, they’re just (and only) thinking of prorits.
If someone is sacked in order to get you hired for the job of course you’re partly at fault. Sucks even more if you’re helping in pushing the wages down. If I was part of that problem then yeah I’d be at fault but neither is true in my case.
See now you’re all over the place. You just blamed capitalism and immigrants both for this scenario, and now you’re backtracking and saying both are neutral.
You’re avoiding my points and not answering the question. How exactly did the immigrant wrong you in the above scenario?
Being malicious and being at fault are two different things. You’re conflating them.
Capitalists are looking to push wages down, weaken unions and using immigration to do that. So if you’re sacked because of that, you are pretty justified in feeling the capitalists doing it and the tool they’re using has wronged you.
So now you’re editing your posts to try to salvage your barely coherent stance and still refusing to answer the question. I guess you really don’t have much of a stance worth debating then.
That’s just getting pedantic about the meaning of “fault”.
Take the immigrant part out.
Two, 6th generation USA homegrown workers, one from California, one from Texas.
Job is in Cali, min wage 16.50/hr, leave out living expenses.
Texas min wage is 7.25 so Texan tells employer he’ll take 10/hr because he needs money.
Is it the Texan’s “fault” a Californian job was taken, or is it the mechanism (or lack of enforcement) that allowed him to be hired in the first place, for less than state required min-wage, that’s the underlying fault?
You can try to get pedantic about the meaning of “fault” I suppose, but to me that’s just a distraction to skip the point, and enable vilification of Texans.
It’s partly the Texans fault. Outsourcing is another pickle but it is more active on the job takers part if they had come to California and then taken the job. Outsourcing, it’s more passive and harder to do anything about.
Nah, not for me. He’s just a guy who needs a job.
I don’t blame AI for simply existing when it takes our jobs either. It’s the employer who chooses to use AI instead of humans that is at fault.
Would he have been laid off if the capitalist didn’t chase a profit?
Probably not. So both are what caused the situation right? Totally fair to be annoyed at capitalism and immigration if those cost you your job imo.
The immigrant didn’t cost anyone their job, try to put the corpo boot down for a second and think. The capitalist cost you your job, because they can exploit someone else better than you at both of your expenses. You lose a high paying job, and immigrant gets less rights and a lower wage than someone with your privilege would have. The capitalist could afford to hire both of you with decent wages and benefits, and as a worker you know there is plenty of work you could use more people to help with.
The immigrant did not attack you and steal anything from you, they were looking for an opportunity to provide for themselves and their family just like you when you were looking for that job. They weren’t in the board room when the execs decided you were too much of a problem legally and financially.
Edit: User started editing their posts and is just parroting the same phrase over and over and not answering questions to further the debate. Either they’re hopelessly clueless and knee-deep in the corpo propaganda or they’re just really bad a trolling. Not worth debating further, imo.
I mean it’s both, the corporation pushing for profits and the actual person you lost your job to. It’s not like I was saying the immigrant was malicious in their actions or anything.
You are saying that, though. By saying both of them are at fault, you are implicitly stating that the immigrant did something wrong in this scenario. By your logic, you also did something wrong by applying for the job. It is highly likely the person before you was also being paid more and you got the job for less, making you exactly the same as the immigrant in this scenario.
How exactly, and be direct, did the immigrant wrong you here by seeking employment? Again, they do not know the background that you specifically were cut. The capitalist does, however.
Malicious would mean immigrants are doing it with the inention to cause harm. I don’t think even the capitalists are in it to be malicious, they’re just (and only) thinking of prorits.
If someone is sacked in order to get you hired for the job of course you’re partly at fault. Sucks even more if you’re helping in pushing the wages down. If I was part of that problem then yeah I’d be at fault but neither is true in my case.
See now you’re all over the place. You just blamed capitalism and immigrants both for this scenario, and now you’re backtracking and saying both are neutral.
You’re avoiding my points and not answering the question. How exactly did the immigrant wrong you in the above scenario?
Being malicious and being at fault are two different things. You’re conflating them.
Capitalists are looking to push wages down, weaken unions and using immigration to do that. So if you’re sacked because of that, you are pretty justified in feeling the capitalists doing it and the tool they’re using has wronged you.
So now you’re editing your posts to try to salvage your barely coherent stance and still refusing to answer the question. I guess you really don’t have much of a stance worth debating then.
That’s just getting pedantic about the meaning of “fault”.
Take the immigrant part out.
Two, 6th generation USA homegrown workers, one from California, one from Texas.
Job is in Cali, min wage 16.50/hr, leave out living expenses.
Texas min wage is 7.25 so Texan tells employer he’ll take 10/hr because he needs money.
Is it the Texan’s “fault” a Californian job was taken, or is it the mechanism (or lack of enforcement) that allowed him to be hired in the first place, for less than state required min-wage, that’s the underlying fault?
You can try to get pedantic about the meaning of “fault” I suppose, but to me that’s just a distraction to skip the point, and enable vilification of Texans.
It’s partly the Texans fault. Outsourcing is another pickle but it is more active on the job takers part if they had come to California and then taken the job. Outsourcing, it’s more passive and harder to do anything about.
Nah, not for me. He’s just a guy who needs a job.
I don’t blame AI for simply existing when it takes our jobs either. It’s the employer who chooses to use AI instead of humans that is at fault.