And like Marx, it's bad economics. And actually it's not really as simple capital vs labor, but also includes a component of US based labor vs "take rrrr jooooobs" foreign labor.
Are you implying that workers shouldn't have national interests? You appear to be snorting at the idea as if it doesn't make obvious sense. Are you some sort of open borders weirdo? I mean, it was obvious to César Chávez that immigration hurt workers and he wanted it stopped.
Being from the US, with an Italian wife and a daughter born in Austria, and working with people from all over Europe and the US, yes, I suppose I am some kind of "open borders weirdo" in that I tend to see the value in other people as something inherent and not depending on where they happen to be born or what their passport says.
Granted, I don't think Lichtenstein should probably open its borders 100% to India tomorrow, but in general I don't believe there is a fixed amount of labor to go around:
Immigrants have brought a lot of great things to the US and elsewhere. For that matter, the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people.
I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in nations and rooted associations and loyalties. The value of the latter must be taken seriously. Jonathan Haidt has excellent research on how a substantial fraction of people appear to be congenitally blind to these concerns.
> the economy is a lot better now than 100 years ago when there were far fewer people
The era of strongest wage growth and increase in living standards coincided with the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965 immigration act, resuming immigration. In that interval net migration was roughly zero. It's tough to argue the USA was badly suffering for want of more foreigners in that time.
> the period between the 1924 immigration restriction act and the 1965
Can you think of any other events in that time period that might have had some effects on the economy? It's not exactly an experiment with a control...
> I also see the value in other people, but in addition I see the value in nations and rooted associations and loyalties.
I suppose it's a bit harsh, but IMO that kind of thinking is what breeds mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become. My loyalty is to my family, my friends, of whatever nationality they happen to be, and after that it gets a bit vague. I'm lucky to have been born in the US, certainly, but it's one country of many, with good things and bad things.
American involvement in WWII destroyed a massive amount of wealth and lowered living standards for years. It was a huge set back, and I don't know why you'd seem to be implying otherwise.
> mentalities like those that created what the NSA has become
A cohesive citizenry with a voice in policy leads to illegal spying? WTF?
That doesn't hold water when workers work for companies with foreign customers. One way or another, you're competing with foreign engineers: if they can't work for US companies, they'll work for their local companies in the same markets. For example, Google is now practically the global search engine, but it's an American company making tons of money off foreign users. If only American developers were allowed to work at Google, it's possible many more country-specific search engines would pop up (many already exist, but they're not as popular).
And it's nevertheless the best argument we have. You see, capitalism would suggest the price of any product goes down to the marginal cost. That means the price paid for labour should be just barely above subsistence.
Do you want to live like that ? If the answer is no, you must find a way to avoid it, and not being an "open borders weirdo" is one of the more common suggestions.
