Puffer Fish wrote:We are told that employment discrimination is a bad thing and should be illegal.
But doesn't that presuppose that there are not enough of the better jobs for everybody?
Employment discrimination is bad. Discrimination is bad. Have you experienced any sort of discrimination in your life before? I know I have as I'm from an ethnic minority. I am an Asian. Job discrimination isn't illegal but there is the Equal Opportunity Employment Act to try to insure that people regardless of race, gender, religious beliefs, handicaps, etc. are given a fair chance to apply and interview for jobs. This is a federal government act by the way.
Define "better jobs". Currently there is a shortage of qualified workers for all sorts of jobs.
And if that is true, if there are a limited number of the better jobs that exist, then wouldn't it also be true that immigration - adding more people - is going to result in fewer of those good jobs being available?
Where is your evidence that allows you to conclude that your premise is true? I have not heard of a limited number of these "better jobs that exist" as you claim. Is this hearsay?
Isn't immigration going to do the same thing that employment discrimination does?
Umm, what? Immigration has been happening since like before the US became 50 states as we know it now. It does not follow that immigration can result in a decrease of these "better jobs" that you speak of. This is typical narrowminded conservative talk that accuses immigrants of hogging all the good jobs. This is just untrue. The question is, are immigrants more suited for these better jobs than natural born American citizens? Hmmm. It makes you wonder, doesn't it?
This does seem to be a huge little economic inconsistency that the ideology on the Left has.
How funny that you should say that. Sure just call everything you cannot understand an "inconsistency" from the Left.
We've even heard some arguments that "immigrants create their own wealth".
Some immigrants bring some wealth from their own country. I am not sure how this signifies or how this is relevant.
Well, if this were really true, isn't it also true that the discriminated could "create their own wealth" too? What is it exactly that is preventing them from being compensated in proportion to how much they contribute, under the free market system?
You speak of creating wealth like people creating a painting. Wealth accumulation is not that simple and depends on numerous lifestyle factors which is not relevant to this thread. Management of the organization determines how much employees are paid based on factors like experience, education and tenure at the company, I thought this was obvious. If by contributing you mean like if they contribute 50% to management decisions, I do not think that is how compensation is determined.
Please, let's try to be logical about this.
Is this even possible? I am finding some of your claims to be anything but logical.