From what I've heard the reason for the hatians flooding springfield is some factory wanting them for cheap labor, if we knew who the factory was maybe an email campaign or boycott could be useful.
Maybe a don't work with scummy factory campaign as opposed to a don't work with scummy magazines campaign
I'm sure he's a piece of shit, but the real issue is the incentives being there in the first place. It only takes one factory owner wanting to make a profit more than they care about their community to fuck over everyone. That's not a stable system. That's bound to happen. Yes, they deserve blame, but it's also understandable. I hate to pull the 'if it wasn't him, it would have been someone else' argument, but it's true.
The issue is the US government shuttling these people in in the first place, setting them up to get papers, drivers licenses, handouts, free rent, and all that. It's not just that they'll work for less...it's that the whole system is set up - at our, the American taxpayer's, expense - to prop these people up. That's the issue. It's not an issue of "free market" (which we sadly have never been further from), it's an issue of government subsidies toward non-Americans.
Yes, the factory owners deserve blame. The government deserves a ton more. They've fucked us over much harder, every step of the way.
I want free market. I want meritocracy. Me paying to ship retarded foreigners over here to take my job and work for less is not, not, not, not, not a free market meritocracy.
Our government steals from us to fund our own suffering, poverty, and extinction.
It's far easier to [through peaceful and legal means only] intimidate every single potential employer of these people than it is the government.
"Hire invaders, go out of business," would send a very clear message. Of course the government would respond by attempting to make it illegal to boycott a business for the wrong reasons. Even more than they already have, I mean.
Yeah, the two go in tandem, if you don't want people clamoring for daddy government to fix everything. You also have to encourage people to go out and hammer a few sticky nails down themselves.
Oi vei, that sounds like the criminal side of the unions when they would bust people's kneecaps for not using union labor!
If you were them, you'd play both sides of organized labor, and I suspect that's what they do. The Pinkertons and the Teamsters, I think, are both them.
Cope. Lolbert nonsense. If there was a completely free labor market, factories would be importing endless hordes from the third world, paying them pennies per hour.
In completely free markets, there’s no incentive not to dump all the externalities onto others or society at large. Which is why pure libertarian free markets don’t work.
They work just fine in a closed system. What you're seeing is equivalent to pumping heat into a system and then going, "and this is why the laws of thermodynamics don't work."
Importing invaders from outside the market is obviously going to destabilize any market. That's one of thousand reasons why they need to go back.
Either you didn't read the rest of Kienan's post or you're putting words that weren't there. The quotes around the word had a more generalist feel. I didn't see the words "complete" or "absolute" in those sentences.
Precisely.
Also, you've given me an idea. We should call immigrant welfare:
Immy Stimmys
The left used to (pretend to) understand this in the early 00's when it was Walmart giving employees pamphlets on how to apply for food stamps and housing assistance.
That was nowhere near my point, but nice try. I wasn't trying to say how things should work, other than that I don't want perverse incentives and subsidies coming from the government, and thus taxpayers.
Also, although it wasn't my point, "lolbert nonsense" would still be better than what we currently have, because at least the flow of money would be voluntary. So the government would no longer be able to, as I ended my original comment...steal from us to fund our own suffering, poverty, and extinction. That would stop. And that would put an end to a lot of the immigration issues right there.
Again, wasn't my point and, again, would still probably work better than our current brand of corporatist socialism.
No, they wouldn't. Because most people aren't willing to move thousands of miles to a foreign country with a different language to get shit pay.
Why wouldn't you voluntarily work at a McDonald's in Dead Horse, Alaska? You've got no barriers. No one is stopping you. You could buy a plane ticket right now. There's free movement within the US. So why don't you?
Because the cost of that kind of a move is so fucking crazy both economic, culturally, and personally, that you literally wouldn't ever consider it. Neither do most other people.
A free market would mean that the government is NOT subsidizing this shit.
Your decision might change if the government promised you free food, free shelter, free healthcare, free travel, and a bonus. Most people still wouldn't take it because most people are invested in their local environment by one mechanism or another (career, family, culture, familiarity, etc). The only people who would take that are rootless people, mercenaries who will keep no investment, or criminals trying to get away.
That is why it works the way it does.
The answer to your hypothetical is if Dead Horse, Alaska can't draw anyone to work at McDonald's, it doesn't have a McDonald's and that is an absolutely acceptable outcome. We don't need to import an army of third-worlders to go staff a fast food restaurant somewhere that clearly isn't established enough to justify one's presence. If someone living in Dead Horse really wants to live near a McDonald's, they are the ones who need to exercise free movement.
If no American wants to go there to work at a McDonald's there and lack of garbage food isn't enough to make the current residents leave, then you have an equilibrium. The market is working just fine. Maybe some people are sad they can't have a Big Mac, but that is fine.
Hence my point. Even a completely lax and open border in a purely free market doesn't equate to hordes of people flooding in. You kill the subsidy system and the whole migration racket goes with it.
The factory owners are also taking subsidies from the government who is the one intentionally bringing them in to push demographic replacement as a mechanism of punishing political enemies, and securing votes.
As I've posted elsewhere in this thread, one of the employers has 30 , just thirty, Haitian employees. He's claiming he can't find _ ten times three_ people in the city of Springfield to employ doing menial labor. That's an obvious lie, and 30 jobs doesn't equate to 20,000 migrants. He's getting paid by the government to be an excuse to dump enough people in one region to sway a couple elections.