pull down to refresh
"Haves vs have-nots” doesn’t refute my point. It may just rename it. Who gets to be a “have” often depends on who gets counted as a legitimate member.
If this is only class competition, why do we keep seeing “replacement,” “real Americans,” or “I wouldn’t vote for you because you’re an Indian”? That’s not just markets. It's membership hierarchy.
My question isn’t denying economics or power. It’s: why does the debate so often slide from policy tradeoffs (levels/capacity/wages) into membership tests when the demographic mix is shifting?
That's also a simple answer. It's much easier to rile up the masses with scapegoats than to deal with real economics of supply and demand. It's far more politically expedient to blame foreigners taking everything than to admit companies don't need as many people and those who want jobs have to repeatedly retrain to keep or grow their income.
I can accept that as an explanation for the rhetoric. My concern is that it’s being used to create policy that functions like a membership test: who counts by default and gets presumed legitimate, and who has to prove they belong, or gets treated as suspect or disqualified.
We are in agreement.
All I see is more politics painted as race theory. This is a simple issue of the haves vs the have-nots. Now that the mix is shifting, the new have-nots want to change the rules again so they can get back on top. Unfortunately, real competition doesn't work that way. So they now opt to cheating or changing the system to regain what is lost to new market players.