I just want to reduce the number of people brought into the country.

Not tell people who are already here legally what to do

Oh, "labor migrants"

man, reading is hard, eh?

😉

I'd severely *deregulate* domestic labor

including abolishing the minimum wage as I mentioned

I think we mostly agree then.

Ideally I think open borders would be fine once/if the welfare state is greatly reduced but until that happens (lol) a well controlled border is a necessary evil.

would you rather the burden of people making enough to live be on the economy or the governmnet

I don't understand your question.

I'd rather that people took responsibility for their own well being instead of a centralized detached organization treating them as helpless children and lap dogs.

But that's a false dichotomy obviously.

yea but there will always be people stuck at wallmart and macdonalds

and at the moment those peoples livelyhoods are being covered by the government

so would you rather force the company to raise wages increasing the cost of their products

or would you rather the government just keep helping them out and keep getting cheaper products

Are the products really cheaper if they're being paid for with the government's cut of consumer's salaries?

Do you think there are people so pitiful and helpless that they would starve without state intervention? That's not an accusation. Your question seems to imply it but I want to be sure I understand.

yes, that seems to be the case even with that loaded question

poor people stay poor

also wouldn't matter it would fk over poor people if the cost of their cost of food and essentials increased

I think we're operating with irreconcilable presuppositions then. I think the number of people who are genuine charity cases is extremely small and most people are only hurt by being treated like they can't look after themselves.

the presuppositions that poor people stay poor in america?

The presupposition that poor people are helpless.

>poor people stay poor

Remember that poor is relative and the living conditions of poor Americans is well above average for some under developed countries. I don't say that to minimize the hardship of poverty but rather to emphasize that it is not a binary state and while everyone would like to be wealthier there's no unique arbitrary threshold of affluence that it's good to be above and bad to be below.

Until very recently, this statement was a lie

The old saying is that it's three generations from shirt sleeve to shirt sleeve

I don't understand that saying.

People of every generation of my family wear shirts.

Blue to white collar, to suits

Oh, fancy.

Even still, there is great social mobility within and outside of society

uh, I think that america is highly based around where you start is where you will end up

Lel

<#266396659062145025>

That's a fancy way of pushing determinism

No one will deny that it's much easier to be born affluent than impoverished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_mobility

You a recent convert to Calvinism or what