>globalism and people from all over the globe contributing to the economy is le bad
But why though?

>>17866114 (OP)
Because workers have to compete with the entire world for jobs

>>17866204
Articulate why that's bad

>>17866114 (OP)
What do you mean when you use the word "globalism?"

>>17866114 (OP)
>>17866223
because it drives down the price and conditions of labor. it's a race to the bottom where the workers have to work as slaves for $1 a day or not have jobs

>>17866223
>Be man from rich country
>Now get undercut by foreigners eilling and able to work for 50 cents an hour
>Companies abandon developed countries for developing countries resulting in stagnating and declining standards of living

>>17866114 (OP)
Problem is, when a country's comparative advantage changes, you CAN adapt its economy in response, but a lot of people become structurally unemployed for an uncomfortably long time as a result. If a nation doesn't want to invest in the necessary re-training, constantly, a lot of people get left behind.
It reduces war. It makes everyone more productive. But people don't really care about world peace and productivity when THEIR job is gone.

>>17866309
Now explain why the actual income gap between the developed and developing world is actually increasing over time.
Gap between the US and China in income per capita adjusted for purchasing power based on constant 2021 USD to account for inflation:
1995: 43,680
2023: 52,337

Source:
https://data.un.org/Data.aspx?d=WDI&f=Indicator_Code%3aNY.GNP.PCAP.PP.KD%3bCountry_Code%3aCHN%2cUSA%3bTime_Code%3a1995%2c1996%2c1997%2c1998%2c1999%2c2000%2c2001%2c2002%2c2003%2c2004%2c2005%2c2006%2c2007%2c2008%2c2009%2c2010%2c2011%2c2012%2c2013%2c2014%2c2015%2c2016%2c2017%2c2018%2c2019%2c2020%2c2021%2c2022%2c2023&c=1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30&s=Country_Name:asc&p=Time_Code&v=1

>>17866114 (OP)
>But why though?
Because it means the white man has to suffer the humiliation of having their country stuffed to the BRIM with SHITSKINNED ANIMALS. That's why. No other reason necessary, that alone is a crime against humanity, and renders all the benefits of free trade completely worthless. Any questions?

>>17867205
I guess whites will finally know how Native Americans, Latin Americans, Native Australians, and South Africans feel having to tolerate their invasive asses.

>>17866114 (OP)
Globalism benefits the third world masses and the ultra wealthy 1% at the harm and cost of the global middle class. The wealthy get a global supply chain of cheap scab workers either through off shoring jobs to sweat shops or bringing large swathes of them into the western world and the third worlders get a "Get out of your shithole country free" card because of this.

This hurts the global middle class (white and blue collar) in the west because they now have a global competitive market to deal with. Mass movement of foreigners also creates ethnic and cultural strife that they have to deal with too (the wealthy live in their gated ivory tower communities and never have to deal with this part)

>>17867217
>The same greedy mindset that created the Trans-Atlantic slave trade has now lead to something like this

Hilarious.

Because the countries that the west exploits would not be able to function as they are without massive wealth injection and they're actually super inefficient and destroy the environment

I will never believe that someone who opens the door to shitskinned third worlders deserves rights of any kind. We need to pass retroactively binding laws and start locking up, fining, and in some cases executing the Jews, Yankee elites, and other filth who opened the floodgates to Ranjesh and Paco.

>>17867227
We can't because they're lying to us. If we tear the bandaid off we'll bleed out

>>17867229
What? lol

>>17867213
>leftards in charge of not describing mass immigration as a blood punishment for white peoples sins

>>17867235
The law that let them all in isn't actually a law and it's based on fee fees. Roe v Wade was the absolute tip of the iceberg that can be reversed

>>17866114 (OP)
in the long run, it always reduces the quality of life for all countries involved

>>17866114 (OP)
It's "bad" because people's reaction to it is negative.
You can whine all you want, but if the result of your "freedom" is conflict you're still going to die.
In the end, the truth is that you're just a spoiled brat who can't deal with pushback.

>>17867217
This is a lump of labor fallacy combined with straight up social banditry and ignorance of actual data. There isn't a fixed amount of jobs to go around and more economic activity begets more job creation. In addition, people naturally want to buy cheaper goods, which is what they do in a free market. You're basically advocating to force them to lose money by buying more expensive goods and services whether they want to or not. Thirdly, median incomes aren't even falling in developed countries, that is directly falsified by the facts.

>>17867269
>It's "bad" because people's reaction to it is negative.
The only people who negatively react to it are a tiny minority of rent-seekers. Literally just lamplighters arguing that electricity is bad.

>>17866114 (OP)
>globalism and people from all over the globe contributing to the economy is le bad
Because people with this opinion don't know how the economy works
If you're in the US, no, you don't want to live in Detroit in 1970 and work a sad factory job for $6 an hour
Outsourcing is good
Greed is good
Inequality is good

>>17866223
Cost of living standards mean people in a poor country are willing to do the same job as you for a fraction of the cost. You literally could not accept the same wage even if no minimum wage existed because it would be impossible to afford rent or groceries with that income. You need to be paid more because it costs more to live in your country, but companies will simply outsource to cheaper nations if not penalized for doing so.

>>17867226
the same environment that will be subjected the eventual heat death anyway

>>17867306
>The only people who negatively react to it are a tiny minority of rent-seekers.
If you believed that you wouldn't be here panicking and trying to convince people to change their mind.

>>17867347
Hi rent seeking lamplighter, why do you want to force people to not use electricity?

>>17867304
>There isn't a fixed amount of jobs to go around
stopped reading there. There isnt infinity jobs on offer, they are all finite. When the employee pool is huge, that means the bosses hold all the power and lower wages/benefits. When the there are more jobs than employees, the owners must raises wages and compete with each other to offer better pay/benefits in order to attract workers.

I feel like you're just gas lighting people out of a sense of playing devils advocate more than anything

>>17867313
No you should instead live in 2025 and receive the equivalent of a 2$ an hour wage by 1970s standards, while the price of everything skyrockets. But don't worry, you can save for 40 years and buy a small apartment maybe.

>>17867719
The minimum wage in 1970 was $1.60 an hour, which is about $13 today, which is actually lower than the current minimum wage of several states, namely California, albeit still over the current federal minimum

>>17867722
The price of commodities was also significantly lower. Housing today is many, many times more expensive than the past.

>>17866114 (OP)
>stupid argument
>Le

>>17866114 (OP)
because it makes browns take my job and the rich get richer

>>17867355
>There isnt infinity jobs on offer
Nor are there infinite employees. The fallacy isn't about finite numbers, but rather static. It's also literally observable that no large scale persistent unemployment happens in free trade. Protectionist countries have far worse employment statistics by default.

Globalism = wage suppression, cultural erosion, and corporate oligarchs replacing nations with consumer-zombies

Why outsource to slave labor overseas when your own people starve?

"Muh GDP growth" while your towns rot and your identity becomes a Starbucks meme

National sovereignty > globohomo dystopia.

For me, it's hoping my line of work chooses to pay me 50k+/yr in an Urban American environment over paying some guy in Bangladesh $14 a month to do the same thing

>>17868624
Why do you want bangladeshi children to starve? You would spend you money on useless funkopops anyway.

>>17866567
>per capita
>not median
because you cited a useless bullshit stat that's skewed by musk and bezos

>>17867213
not my problem, you homosexual

>>17868637
Why do you hate musk and bezos, are you democr*t?

>>17868629
Why do you want my family to starve

>>17867221
yeah, it's the same ethnic group that owned the slaveships too
>>17868645
musk wants more H1bs and I assume bezos wants h1bs too. as far as I am concerned anyone who is proh1b needs to have 100% of their assets stripped and redistributed and they need to be deported

>>17868624
This forces everyone in your country to pay inflated prices for your sake alone, destroying their purchasing power. While also killing competition and incentives to be productive. Why bother if you're guaranteed to be safe from the consequences of failure?

W*rking classes be like:
>I have made it illegal to build an affordable house and now I cannot afford a house. The Chinese must pay o algo
Universal suffrage was a mistake

>>17868637
>implying China isn't unequal as shit with its own Bezoses
>implying median income in the US doesn't shart on everyone else
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disposable_household_and_per_capita_income#Median_equivalised_disposable_income

>>17868686
I doubt china has it as bad, or you would have used median income from the start, retard and china isn't listed on your wiki link

I wouldn't say it's "bad". It's just dangerous sometimes.

>>17867227
good post
>>17867269
it's bad because it fucks over Americans

>>17868726
Americans only have it as good as they are because of globalism, retard. Without it USA would be just another Brazil.

>>17867304
>>17867306
people can't afford food or housing you gay retard

>>17867313
people could buy homes then, you faggot
>>17867722
and what's the hours works to price of rent in california now vs in 1970?

>>17868729
Brazil sucks because it's 90% nigger mongrels and natives

>>17868629
>Why do you want bangladeshi children to starve?
not my problem
>>17868674
if you import h1bs you should be deported in chains to el salvador

>>17868737
Brazil sucks because the people in charge don't care about improving anything outside of their immediate surroundings.

>>17868729
that's a lie. plus nafta only became a thing in the 90s

>>17868746
You can't improve a race

>>17868702
https://www.stats.gov.cn/english/PressRelease/202402/t20240201_1947120.html
>In 2023, the median of the nationwide per capita disposable income was 33,036 yuan
In USD that's 4614. The PPP conversion rate for that year is 1.82. So 8398 USD median equivalised disposable income. Take 2023's GNI/cap of 24970 and divide by it, result is 2.61 times as big. Their 1995 GNI/cap was 2724. This gives them about 1044 median eq disposable income that year.
Now let's do the math for the US. Median eq income of 48625 in 2021. GDP/cap of 71770 same year. 1.476 times as much. Go back to 1995. 46404. /1.476=31439.
Gap then: 30395
Gap now: 41866 (if adjusting median income to GNI/cap proportion in the US from '21 to '23). Or we can throw China a bone and deduct their '23 median adjusted for PPP from the USA's 21 value and still get a gap of 40227.
TL ; DR: it's over Anachink, I have the high ground.

>>17868784
a. I'm white
b. that's a whole lot of gay shit to lie. free trade has fucked over the American middle class and made it impossible for most Americans to buy houses. every politician who voted for nafta and an all the businessmen who outsourced jobs or imported H1Bs need 100% of their wealth seized and they and their families need to be deported to el salvaor, you tranny

>>17868818
Feels over reals: the post. You have zero factual evidence for your pov. Your communist bullshit doesn't work and you should just move to Cuba if you hate freedom so much.

>>17866114 (OP)
It naturally leads to homogenisation. Also it isn't really a case of all contributing. It's the most capable contributing so in a sense the whole world becomes nothing more than a giant welfare state.

>>17868876
go look up housing prices vs income now vs 40 years ago, you cocksleave
not to mention we shouldn't be importing third worlders

>>17866204
Articulate why me getting forced to do more for less is bad? I imagine you are insulated from the worlds problems.... For now.

>>17868818
>free trade has fucked over the American middle class
Complete nonsense, don't post here anymore

>>17868919
The top 50-90% isn't even middle class anymore.

>>17868919
again, you gay retard, why can't people afford houses or kids? you are doing a jewish numbers game that doesn't affect reality

>>17868891
>housing prices
Completely irrelevant to the discussion + caused by socialist zoning. Simply deregulate it and watch it get fixed.>>17868951
>why can't people afford houses
Because they're barred from building houses by the government. Supply and demand.

>>17869175
>neighborhood is filled with h1bs and illegals
it's extremely relevant and a consequence of free trade and globalism
>live in the pod
I'd rather we just do to the fags who import the h1bs what the frogs did in the late 1700s

>>17869187
Retard pop growth is still shrinking overall and housing prices weren't skyrocketing during the Ellis Island era because no commie zoning. So no, the blame isn't on memegrants, it's caused strictly by the government preventing housing expansion.

>>17869204
it's on the globalists and migrants, you gay retard.

>>17869204
Zoning is commie lmao. I guess it could be if it wasn't so advantageous to businesses in America.

If we have no type of zoning or no basic regulations on home, that's how you end up with giant clusterfuck slums made out of tin and cardboard. You want us to look like India and Brazil.

>>17869210
None of those are interfering in the market to intentionally prevent houses from being built. So no it's on you commies.

>>17869217
nope, it's the globalists and the open borders
>>17869215
it's a local thing because people don't want indians and illegals moving into town

>>17869215
Shanties are illegal and caused by not enforcing property rights. Japan has far looser zoning laws than the US and housing is much better. US cities that build houses like Minneapolis have affordable housing. Ones that don't like SF don't. It's painfully obvious what the issue is.

>>17869219
Then why weren't house prices as bad when pop growth was higher such as in the Ellis Island era before the rise of commie zoning?

>>17869228
It's obvious more housing supply can lead to lower pricing. But there is a scale to balance because the less and less regulations you have, the closer and closer we inch to again, more shanties and condemned nightmare housing.

>>17869215
>If the US didnt have zoning, there would be slums!
Holy shit you people are idiots
Houston, Texas is unzoned
Don't ever talk again

https://dda.gov.in/sites/default/files/inline-files/Master_Plan_for_Delhi_2021_text_report.pdf

https://dcmdigital.camara.rj.gov.br/web/viewer.html?file=../storage/files/2023/12/202312194EA287A6.pdf

>>17869228
>Japan has far looser zoning laws than the US and housing is much better.
because they don't let migrants in
>>17869232
racial covenant laws

>>17869238
>plan for new delhi
good morning, saar!

>>17869238
Houston also has regulations that still prevent things from areas turned into massive slums and shanties.

Zoning is just a part of many different types of housing and land regulations. Do some more research faggot.

>>17869234
Shanties are caused by people invading property and not getting kicked out. You also don't have to legalize fire hazards to do extensive deregulation like Japan, get rid of floor area ratios, parking minimums, stop using eminent domain to literally bulldoze neighborhoods etc.

>>17869241
>racial covenant laws!
Zoning did not exist in the United States before the late 1910s you fucking moron

>>17869241
>they don't let migrants in
Irrelevant, population growth is population growth and Tokyo is still growing but not getting more expensive because they build shit.
>racial covenant laws
Nice non-answer. Pop was growing nore than today. Immigration was higher. Zoning was looser. The explanation is painfully obvious.

>>17869246
Sure in some instances, shanties can form by trespassing on property. But what will you do when land owners have zero regulations and start to charge people to build whatever the fuck they want and as denesly as possible on their land?

>>17869251
>Racial covenants emerged during the mid-19th century and started to gain prominence from the 1890s onwards.
wow, sounds like you are a gay retard
>>17869255
>Irrelevant, population growth is population growth
nope. the zoning laws are the way they are to stop towns and schools from being flooded with illegals and h1bs, you gay retard
>Nice non-answer. Pop was growing nore than today. Immigration was higher. Zoning was looser. The explanation is painfully obvious.
you are a fucking retard. they didn't need zoning laws because they had racial covenant laws, tranny

>>17869259
>Racial covenants emerged during the mid-19th century and started to gain prominence from the 1890s onwards.
What is this? What are you quoting? XD
Incorrect, the first racial zoning law was in Baltimore in 1910
Better luck next time little brother

>>17869267
>What is this? What are you quoting? XD
wikipedia, lil sis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covenant_(law)#History

>>17869259
>the zoning laws are the way they are to stop housing from being built
Fixed.

>>17869277
zoning laws are decided in towns by the local government. sorry, individual towns don't want the whole population of el salvador and india living in the town in commieblocks

>>17869274
And the Supreme Court outlawed them in 1917
Are you okay?

>>17869284
The cognitive dissonance here is stunning
>If the government doesn't restrict development, the government will create terrible apartment buildings!!
Lmao
Kill yourself you thirdie retard

>>17869306
You can't read. Examine the passage:
>Racial covenants were an alternative to racially restrictive zoning ordinances (residential segregation based on race), which the 1917 US Supreme Court ruling of Buchanan v. Warley invalidated on constitutional grounds.
Question: What did the SCOTUS rule against in 1917?

>>17869306
having a hard time reading, lil sis?
>During the 1920s, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) sponsored several unsuccessful legal challenges against racial covenants. In a blow to campaigners against racial segregation, the legality of racially restrictive covenants was affirmed by the landmark Corrigan v. Buckley 271 U.S. 323 (1926) judgment ruling that such clauses constituted "private action" not subject to the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[30]:31[31] This cleared the way for racial restrictive covenants to proliferate across the US during the 1920s and 1930s.

>Even the invalidation of such a covenant by the US Supreme Court in the 1940 case of Hansberry v. Lee did little to reverse the trend, because the ruling was based on a technicality and failed to set a legal precedent.[30]:57 It was not until 1948 that the Shelley v. Kraemer judgment overturned the Corrigan v. Buckley decision, stating that exclusionary covenants were unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment and were therefore legally unenforceable.[30]:94[32][33] On December 2, 1949 US solicitor general Philip Perlman announced that the "FHA could no longer insure mortgages with restrictive covenants".[34]
>>17869316
holy shit, you are a gay retard. the local government represents the people of the town. they literally voted for no slums and no commie blocks, faggot

>>17869317
>>17869322
Holy shit
They're so mad
XD
>Faggot
Listen, there is no evidence to support your claims that immigrants increase housing costs, the entire economics profession is united in this, it is a fact that land use regulation, primarily zoning, drives down supply of housing units and increases prices
You are arguing on the internet with actual adults who know way more about this stuff than you two do
Calm down, you're being corrected
It's not the end of the world

Well globalization is a force of good and bad. People obsess with the bad while ignoring the good. The bad news:

Bc it forces everybody to compete with the lowest wage in the world. A worker in anerica is competing with a worker in mexico. Guess where the corporation moves to when they can pay a mexican 5 dollars a day whereas the American wants 15 a hour?

Corporations can't go to juristictions where they lack labor laws and environmental laws. Why abide by American laws when you can go to Brazil or Egypt or China and ignore all of it? Make more money while dicking down workers and the earth. Countries lose alot of taxes too by corporations moving abroad. That's not good.

The good news: it improves living standards across the world. It unites countries through trade. Why go to war with China when 40 percent of your gdp is with them? It allows other access to better goods. It allows other people access to capital and technology they don't have. Overall I'd say it's more of a good thing than a bad thing.

>>17869357
>no trust the group that's trying to fuck you at every turn
immigration, legal and illegal, causes housing costs to go up and wages to go down. immigration has zero benefit for the average American and is a huge negative. it only benefits the mega rich.
you are a faggot
>>17869367
globalization has no good side, only bad

>>17869367
>Why go to war with China when 40 percent of your gdp is with them?
This is not, in fact, a good thing. Countries need to be independent from each other if they're going to be free.

>>17869357
Right right, but like I was saying: You can't read. :)