Why don't the Bourgeois States stop immigration to stop unemployment rising?

[Dogs On Acid]

What's stopping them? I have seen a lot of xenophobia in Europe, especially against Africans (and Indians/Pakistanis in Britain). They blame immigrants for taking their jobs away bla bla bla.

Now, if unemployment is so high, why do they insist on keeping the borders open?

[OhYesIdid]

Can't tell if trolling...

[thesadmafioso]

There is absolutely no correlation between job loss and immigration in the late capitalistic state, it is not as if precious office jobs with healthy benefits and pay are going to immigrants. No, they are taking up the most physically and psychologically demanding labor which no one wants to do for pay which most any unemployed would scoff at, as had been the tradition with immigrants and labor. It is complete nonsense to presume that there is any connection between these two trends and it is just disgustingly xenophobic and even racist often times to think otherwise.

[gendoikari]

I don't know but i do know two things, 1 i am drunk, 2 is that immigration really shouldn't matte because we are all one planet and if ew want to be contiuming into the future, we must act as one and fuck this borders . a world without borders seems like a nice place to be, in harmony where the excesses of the many can feed the hunger of the few. were demnads for resources are met not by currency but but love.

[Sensible Socialist]

It's easier for a politician to make a speech against immigration than to actually stop it.

[Thirsty Crow]

And how would a massive decrease in immigration help jobs opening?
How is it that all of a sudden it is no longer capital with its demands of profitability which dictates the forms and scope of employment, and immigration is?

[syndicat]

What's stopping them? I have seen a lot of xenophobia in Europe, especially against Africans (and Indians/Pakistanis in Britain). They blame immigrants for taking their jobs away bla bla bla.

Now, if unemployment is so high, why do they insist on keeping the borders open?

you're confused. high unemployment right now is due to capital not creating jobs. it's not due to immigrants. in the USA immigration from Mexico has totally dried up...because there are no jobs.

[Dogs On Acid]

Can't tell if trolling...

Not trolling, or advocating. Just questioning Bourgeois tactics.

[Dogs On Acid]

you're confused. high unemployment right now is due to capital not creating jobs. it's not due to immigrants. in the USA immigration from Mexico has totally dried up...because there are no jobs.

But if immigration is higher than job creation, doesn't that lead to more people without jobs?

Let's say a country takes in 50.000 immigrants in a year, but in that year only 40.000 new job posts are created, wouldn't that lead to 10.000 more unemployed?

[Dogs On Acid]

And how would a massive decrease in immigration help jobs opening?

It wouldn't. What it would do is add more unemployed. The whole concept of "immigrants taking our jobs" is flawed, because there are no jobs to be taken.

[thesadmafioso]

Not trolling, or advocating. Just questioning Bourgeois tactics.

In that case, please feel free to pardon the hollier than thou initial post of mine then.

But anyway, this fallacy isn't actually maintained by most of the ruling political class. They realize that businesses rely upon cheap and often times illegal labor and they know that by restricting immigration that they will only damage their class interests. Exploitation is exploitation, regardless of race or nationality, after all.

There is also the matter of realpolitik and the fact that Hispanics are quickly becoming a much larger and pivotal part of the electorate, making it dangerous for the various different factions of bourgeois politics to try any sort of substantial attempt at pushing this sort of policy.

[Delenda Carthago]

EU has take over the greek borders through Frontex. Italy is deporting people at crazy numbers. The borders are far from "open".

That being said, you have to understand that the immigrants did all the hard work up until some years ago, due to their cheap labor. Capitalists want immigrants and they want them illegal, so they are more easily manipulated.

That also being said, you have to underastand that unemployntment in capitalism is fundamental. It is in the systems unwritten rules. Back in the days, there was internal immigration in Greece, people from villages transfered to industrialised towns and cities to find a job. They were used the same way immigrants are today. So dont get on that trip. Capitalism will find the way to use a social group(blacks, women, immigrants, kids, jews) to undermine its labor value so it will use it to attack all the other by it. Our goal as workers is to understand that only through unity we stand a chance. If we accept the division the capitalists force on us, we are doomed.

[PhoenixAsh]

Because an increase in job seekers minimalises wages with the added bonus that they can shift attention away from the root causes of this problem and instead blame other workers creating discontentment and competition amongst workers and preventing organisation and unification of the entire workforce against the system.

Another added bonus is that immigrant workers can often be hired below the normal wages or even outside the legal tax system on employment...creating even more competition and further lowering wages...undercutting the already very liberal union demands and positions.

That said immigrants do very little to unemployment ratings. They are merely a scapegoat and easy target.

[Dogs On Acid]

So, how is unemployment beneficial to Capitalism?

And if illegal, cheap labour is handy to Capital, why do they make it illegal in the first place?

[PhoenixAsh]

Unemployment keeps tension on the job market creating competition, lowering wages and union demands and positions.

Illegal labour is cheap precisely because its illegal. Otherwise they would have to respect laws around labour and minimum wage, work safety protocols, taxes etc. etc. Illegals do not complain to authorities....simply because they can not.

Work laws are in place because socialists fought hard and long over them....and politics eventually gave in to some demands for fear of revoution. That time is long over and the era is getting to an end. We will see an even further increase in reduction of labour laws and rights.

Thats why events such as happened in London are so fucking important. It keeps them on their toes.

[Dogs On Acid]

Does this mean that high unemployment is actually harmless to Capitalist nations?? Because the money received from unemployment benefits is used to purchase commodities from Capital, hence indirectly making them richer from our taxes?

And the "we can lower unemployment" is just rhetoric to get working-class votes?

Holy shit :blink:

Ever had that feeling of enlightenment?

[brigadista]

borders are not open that is why people have to apply for visas

[PhoenixAsh]

That depends entirely on your point of view and what strata of the burgeoisie class you talk to. But overall...yes...unemployment is not only an indication that capitalism can never fully employ its population but its also not detrimental to the general class of the burgeoisie and actually benefits them.

The unemployed part of the workforce forms surplus labour and in effect is pitted against each other to prevent any form of cohesion and unification putting downward pressure on wages and wage demands.

Up to a point.

If however unemployment last too long or gets too high this can be very dangerous to the burgeoisie and the stability of the economy/system. Not only does it increase the likelyhood of unification because there is no other option. But it first and foremost creates disenfranchised and alienated groups who will tend towards nihilism and will increasingly become ungovernable simply because they have no means to better themselves or continue to stuggle to keep a grip on the lowest margins of society.

If that happens you see events that took place in London. If there is nothing that decreases the suffering of these groups...these incidents will increase in frequency and scope and, theoretically, eventually will lead to some social radical change wether this is in the form of bonapartism, fascism or socialist revolution...depending on several factors.

[Crux]

Does this mean that high unemployment is actually harmless to Capitalist nations?? Because the money received from unemployment benefits is used to purchase commodities from Capital, hence indirectly making them richer from our taxes?

And the "we can lower unemployment" is just rhetoric to get working-class votes?

Holy shit :blink:

Ever had that feeling of enlightenment?
High unemployment also makes it easier for them to keep working conditions and wages down. That is why the friedmanite school of economic's claims there is some kind of unspecified optimal level of unemployment.

[Dogs On Acid]

Shapiro-Stiglitz model:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1c/Efficiency_wage_Shapiro_Stiglitz.svg

"In the Shapiro-Stiglitz model of efficiency wages, workers are paid at a level that dissuades shirking. This prevents wages from dropping to market clearing levels. Full employment cannot be achieved because workers would shirk if they were not threatened with the possibility of unemployment. Because of this, the curve for the no-shirking condition (labeled NSC) goes to infinity at full employment."

[syndicat]

But if immigration is higher than job creation, doesn't that lead to more people without jobs?

Let's say a country takes in 50.000 immigrants in a year, but in that year only 40.000 new job posts are created, wouldn't that lead to 10.000 more unemployed? you're not looking in the right place. you would set workers from different countries against each other, in a scramble over the crumbs.

in the case of Mexican immigrants to the USA, Mexico's economy was destroyed through NAFTA as well as devaluations of the peso. The wage rates were dropped by over 25 percent. moreover, hundreds of thousands of jobs disappeared. and about 2 million peasant farmers were driven off the land.

there were also similar effects of job loss in the USA and Canada. so, you propose to pit workers in USA and Mexico against each other rather than developing solidarity across the border. but only an improvement in conditions in Mexico will prevent large-scale immigration over the long run.

if capitalists destroy Mexico's economy, and American capitalists are the big winners, why should Mexican labor not be free to seek employment where it can if capital can go where it wants?

Trying to attack immigrants will only play into the hands of the employers. They will demand guest worker programs that are essentially a form of servitude. Any worker who complains can be deported. This is what agricultural employers want in the USA.

by the way, this demand that immigrants should be excluded also stirs up racist sentiments and is made use of by right wing politicians.

[Delenda Carthago]

Does this mean that high unemployment is actually harmless to Capitalist nations?? Because the money received from unemployment benefits is used to purchase commodities from Capital, hence indirectly making them richer from our taxes?

And the "we can lower unemployment" is just rhetoric to get working-class votes?

Holy shit :blink:

Ever had that feeling of enlightenment?

Its not that simple. Unemployment is beneficial for the Capital, since its a lever to lower the wages, but at the same time a high unemployment means that there is a smaller buyers base for the capitalists products to sell their merch. If the half capitalist dream is to give the smallest wage to its workers, the other half is that every other capitalist gives the biggest one, so that people are able to buy its product.

That becames different on the situation of a multinational corp. Like you look at India. Nike dont care if the workers on the sweatshops are not able to buy. Nike's main focus is the market of the West. And it can get more complicated as more parameters get involved, but you get a picture.

[Blackburn]

Does this mean that high unemployment is actually harmless to Capitalist nations?? Because the money received from unemployment benefits is used to purchase commodities from Capital, hence indirectly making them richer from our taxes?

And the "we can lower unemployment" is just rhetoric to get working-class votes?

Holy shit :blink:

Ever had that feeling of enlightenment?

I don't mean to be rude, but I thought that was obvious to anyone.

If the Right Wing wants full employment figures, why are all corporations continuously sacking people?

It's all just rhetoric to keep us all busy.

Plus the average bourgeois local politician buys into the party rhetoric as well. They are true believers...of a lie.

[Thirsty Crow]

And if illegal, cheap labour is handy to Capital, why do they make it illegal in the first place?
Cheap labour in itself is not illegal. That would be an abstraction (cheap labour).
What is illegal is undocumented, unauthorized immigration. Thereby, labour performed by undocumented migrants is illegal and prone to legal sanction. Though, as the history of the relationship between immigrants and capitalist states shows, legal action will mostly be undertaken against labourers and not against capitalists exploiting them. There might be some financial sanctions, but that is hardly an action comparable in its consequences with actions undertaken against undocumented workers.

[Dogs On Acid]

Cheap labour in itself is not illegal. That would be an abstraction (cheap labour).
What is illegal is undocumented, unauthorized immigration. Thereby, labour performed by undocumented migrants is illegal and prone to legal sanction. Though, as the history of the relationship between immigrants and capitalist states shows, legal action will mostly be undertaken against labourers and not against capitalists exploiting them. There might be some financial sanctions, but that is hardly an action comparable in its consequences with actions undertaken against undocumented workers.

Ok I'm starting to understand now.

Capital has it's borders not too closed, but not too open, a balance, this allows an influx of illegal immigrants to which they can pay less money than min. wage, but also keeps it's border open enough to allow for legal, not very expensive labour pool of unemployment?

What are the advantages of keeping it open anyway? If they close the border tight, it will allow mostly illegal immigrants in, and much more cheap labour.

[brigadista]

i posted this elsewhere but seems relevant here - and in the light of recent events

http://www.corporatewatch.org.uk/?lid=4029

Unemployed people are being sent to work without pay in multinational corporations, including Tesco, Asda, Primark and Hilton Hotels, by Jobcentres and companies administering the government's welfare reforms. Some are working for up to six months while receiving unemployment benefit of £67.50 a week or less.
The government says that unpaid work placements, which are also given in small businesses, voluntary organisations and public sector bodies, help people gain vital experience and prepare them for the workplace, but campaigners argue they provide companies with free labour, undercut existing jobs and that people are “bullied” into them.
In an interview published by Corporate Watch today, a woman who was given a placement in Primark for six months, under the previous government's welfare programme, says her work was the same as that of other paid staff and that she was not given a job at the end of it. She also says she was told her benefits would be stopped if she did not attend.
A variety of multinational companies in the retail and service sectors appear to be taking people on unpaid placements. Employment services company Working Links, which has been awarded contracts to administer the coalition’s flagship Work Programme in Wales, Scotland and the South West of England, told Corporate Watch it worked with all the major retailers across Britain and “actively promoted volunteering as a tool to help our customers in their journey to find sustainable employment.”
A Tesco spokesperson said the company has 3,000 work experience placements for “the young unemployed,” while Asda and Sainsbury's are both named in a list, obtained last month under the Freedom of Information Act, of companies, voluntary and public sector bodies taking unpaid work placements organised by A4e, another employment company contracted by the government, although Sainsbury's denied working with A4e.
This comes after the discounter Poundland had been revealed to be taking people on unpaid placements earlier this year (see here).
The corporate placements are not limited to retail: Hilton Hotels told Corporate Watch they have “committed to 100 placements at hotels around the country – that’s more than one for every hotel we operate.”
Explaining the reasons behind its involvement, Hilton said: “the work experience initiative will help unemployed young people to develop the skills needed to secure a sustainable job,” but campaigners critical of these “workfare” programmes question why the companies are not paying a proper wage.
A spokesperson for the Boycott Workfare campaign said: “These placements are not designed to help people into full-time paid work but they serve to increase organisations' profits. They provide a constant stream of free labour and suppress wages by replacing paid workers with unpaid workers. People are coerced, bullied and sanctioned into taking the placements. Placements in the public sector and charities are no better and are making volunteering compulsory. This is taking away the right of a person to sell their own labour and their free will to choose who they volunteer their time for.”
When asked by Corporate Watch, the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) did not say how many placements led to paid jobs. Tesco said “many work placement staff starting on work placements will become Tesco employees,” while Hilton said “a number” of young people are offered full-time positions at the end of their placement. Asda and Primark did not comment. Sainsbury’s said they organise their own ‘You Can’ programme, outside the government schemes, which they said always leads to paid work.
People are sent to work unpaid through different government schemes, all under the Get Britain Working banner. Tesco and Hilton are taking 18-24 year olds for between two to eight weeks on Work Experience Placements direct from Jobcentres. People were sent to Primark and Asda by contracted employment companies through the previous government's Flexible New Deal for up to six months and this will be continued in the recently started Work Programme. The DWP said the decision to send people to corporations under the Work Programme will be made by the employment provider companies as they see fit.
This is in addition to the Mandatory Work Activity scheme, through which 20,000 people will be sent to work (unpaid) for up to 30 hours a week for 4 weeks. The DWP said these jobs will “deliver a contribution to the local community” and will not involve major corporations.

[Thirsty Crow]

Compulsory volunteering. This is what the ruling ideology is reduced to in times of crisis.
I think that this explains rather well how unemployment functions in capitalism (especially in relation to casualized and precarious labour markets). It's unbelievable that people are ready to have a big load of shit shoved down their throats. Work in order to receive state support for being unemployed, basically enable the state to subsidize capitalist enterprises.

[Arlekino]

Yesterday I talked with young girl she is from Latvia, came into Briton and worked in farms picking strawberries. What she sad to me is sad. She worked 12 hours for £40 per day, lived in caravan which she have to pay £32 per week with 5 other workers. As well charge for water and gaz builds. She started banging this idea English lazy nation and don't want work and she so proud of she worked so hard to get money for living. I tried to explain that will capitalist tell you work hard and you become rich is iliusion I could not persuade her, she still no British people lazy.

[Dogs On Acid]

Yesterday I talked with young girl she is from Latvia, came into Briton and worked in farms picking strawberries. What she sad to me is sad. She worked 12 hours for £40 per day, lived in caravan which she have to pay £32 per week with 5 other workers. As well charge for water and gaz builds. She started banging this idea English lazy nation and don't want work and she so proud of she worked so hard to get money for living. I tried to explain that will capitalist tell you work hard and you become rich is iliusion I could not persuade her, she still no British people lazy.

So she thinks other workers should work more to make Capitalists richer?

Her argument is literally anti-working class. Why should I work my ass off so that my boss makes double the money off my labour?

I want to be lazy and get paid more.

On the other hand, when I work for myself, I try my best.