I worked for a company that was bought by CBA, and this was happening while I was there. This would be great if: Indian workers were hired on equivalent terms, in Australia, on visas that give them a clear path to citizenship. If they were hired as individuals and not via contracing companies that force them to sign separate secret contracts that prevent them from pushing for their full legal rights under Australian labor law. Immigration has been great for Australia in countless ways. I get really upset about they way large labor firms have co-opted as immigration a lever for corporations to undermine Australian working conditions and exploit Indian workers and I really don't know what to do about.
No, it would still not be great.
Local options should always be preferred to protect local job markets. Any company only exists because they can do business locally, so they should support local or be burnt to the ground.
I now live in the UK, when I got hired here they had to advertise my position to see if they could fill it locally before they could grant me a visa for it - this is the way.
Many years ago I was hired by {tech company} in {European country} (I'm from the US).
Once I worked there for a month and befriended my team, one of them showed me how they posted a fake job listing with exactly my experience, and we all laughed about it.
All of the implementations of this legislation seem trivial to rig. Even though it feels good to assume you outcompeted everyone in the UK with your leet skills and they had no option to import the heavy guns.
Yep, same in my EU company, they showed me how easy it was to game the system to easily hire non-EU workers.
EU work visas are like a rubber stamp compared to US ones.
Was there literally nobody in the country capable of doing what you do? Or were they just not willing to pay enough?
it is extremely routine for big companies to do this - all the fangs, big banks, etc, hire everyone they can in Britain on very pleasant pay packages and then hire overseas and pay immigrants the same amount.
>> via contracing companies that force them to sign separate secret contracts that prevent them from pushing for their full legal rights under Australian labor law
Where is the line between that and plain slavery?
Slaves are not paid wages. There’s no need to resort to hyperbole here, the practices are abhorrent enough without it.
Indentured service is often colloquially conflated with slavery, as the legal protections are removed and so too usually the freedom of association.
Sadly Western IT workers are too expensive for the MBAs running modern corporations.
Just before their last big US layoffs, Microsoft announced: "Microsoft is expanding our presence in India with a $3 billion investment"
IBM has been doing that for decades. They have even been repeatedly sued over unfair dismals, etc. But for them it's only the cost of pursuing their off-shoring goals.
Maybe the problem is the MBAs and letting them run your company? Surely AI could do a better job than most MBAs? The knowledge requirement is lower, the reasoning and analytical capability lower, just learn a few frameworks and glib vacuous McKinsey-speak, have an AI produce those meaningless powerpoints instead of expensive suits if the C-suite really needs to see it (also candidates for replacement), then instead invest in your IT staffing with local culture that understands the business and its customers and which has a tangible benefit.
MBAs or AI would make the same decisions as these are SYSTEMIC issues, which means its not up to individuals or orgs, but the entire system across the board has to change for fairer solutions to work.
Why? Cuz this is not just about cross border diff in labor rates but also in interest rates, real estate/rent, corporate tax rates, forex rates, regulations, govt subsidies, energy costs etc etc.
Sum it all up and the cost differential can't be swept under the carpet.
MBAs getting drilled to focus on the short term / maximize shareholder value which has created all kinds of issues. But that is not hard to change. Lot of schools exist that don't focus only on that. What's hard to change is the underlying calculus without global coordination.
>Maybe the problem is the MBAs and letting them run your company?
The vast majority of companies in the world are run by MBAs. Welcome to the club.
SV companies were an exception to this rule for a short time in history since tech moved faster than the dinosaurs in suits could comprehend or regulate, so it made sense to put engineers in charge to innovate quickly. Having zero interest rate money also helped a lot.
But now that the tech market has matured and consolidated, it's becoming like all the other "uncool" traditional industries, run by MBAs. Except unlike those old traditional industries, there's no credential barrier to entry or unions to protect them, for better and worse.
HP became the company that everyone admired and played a significant role in shaping SV by hiring fresh engineering grads from around the country and then paying for them to take nights and weekends MBA classes at Stanford while they worked during the day (you can read about it in Dave Packard’s autobiography).
It was then torn apart and turned into a joke by a different set of MBAs. So… perhaps it is a little more complicated than just having an MBA
You answered your own question. HP took engineers and taught them how to be MBAs, while companies are ruined by career MBAs who were never engineers and were taught in school to see engineering as a cost center that must always be reduced to the lowest bidder.
Nadella was a full-time engineer at Sun while getting his part-time MBA ;)
It would make sense if they’re cheap and good. But the reality is closer to expensive and not that good.
Looks like Artificial Intelligence and Actually Indians are in a race to take jobs. Either way, be prepared.
Well there's enough Indians in India alone to replace all non Indian tech workers 3 to 1.
Its not just CBA, but Westpac, Optus and pretty much any large corporate in Australia.
ACS is being a hypocrite since: 1) they charge $$$ fees for validating IT experience so they would never advocate lowering the immgiration rate (its also a conflict of interest). So they have a hand in dismantling Australian tech jobs. 2) they inform the government that there's still a "skills shortage" of developer , when in reality, they do it to suppress wages.
This reporting is somewhat dishonest it fails to disclose ACS's vested interests...
ACS has a nice government-granted monopoly on assessing the qualifications of work visa applicants (at significant cost) so anyone reducing the demand for IT worker visas (by off-shoring those jobs) is going to hurt ACS directly.
Exactly.
ACS had a hand in blowing up Aussie jobs.
itym "assessing"
that is also approximately all ACS does as far as I remember, they seem to never lobby for anything useful or go against the government for the exact same reason.
Thanks, corrected :-)
Canadian banks, telecoms, and even retail chains, have been shamelessly replacing Canadian workers with Indians for decades.
At this point, a plurality of our new immigrants come from one or two states in India.
I would challenge you to go to a coffee shop in any major city and try to find a Canadian worker.
Not sure what the future is for a Canadian worker, but it's bleak.
Based on immigration rates and birth rates, Canada will be mostly Indian at some point in the future. The “future Canadian worker” is Indian.
When I was a fresh immigrant child comments like these used to make me feel more uncomfortable than they do now. How I perceive these comments has changed over time.
What I want to address about this comment is the implicit identity associations involved. It's clear that you're drawing an identity distinction between "Canadian" and "Indian".
One of the things I've noticed about my own personal associations is that my own identity as an "Indian" kind of dissolved over the course of a decade or so after I immigrated as a child.
And when it evolved it didn't evolve in the direction of "Canadianness", for some generic definition thereof. My cultural identity broadened along horizons that had nothing to do with nationality.
When I think of "my tribe" now, it's on a values and interest basis. "My people" aren't Canadians or Indians, they're programmers and engineers and scientists and mathemeticians. Where I draw identity lines, it's no longer along national lines. My tribe's Gods are Turing and Church. Our saints are Torvalds and Carmack and Stroustrup and Van Rossum and Wall. We are friendly with the neighboring tribes that follow Euler and Goedel, as well as the yonder followers of Einstein and Newton and Feynman.
And I think that perspective dichotomy is reflective of an underlying deep shift in how people form identities, one that's being driven by the rise of instant, rich global communications through the internet.
So when I read comments like yours these days, I see yet another sign of the tension between that old structure and the new.
To bring this back to a Canadian context, Stephen Harper (former conservative PM) actually called this out very astutely a long time ago when talking about the Somewheres vs the Anywheres:
https://macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/stephen-harper-has-some-...
> Harper argues that today’s conservative populism deserves a respectful hearing because it harnesses the legitimate anxieties of the Somewheres, who haven’t been doing all that well in the globalized economy. As for the Anywheres, they don’t get it.
I'd only disagree about that last statement. I get it :) It's just that having been born in a very Somewhere place and having become an Anywhere, I really can't explain the depth of freedom you feel when you escape those identity bounds.
It's not that I don't understand the cultural perspective of the Somewheres. It's just that I see it as a prison.
Your system of drawing lines and forming “tribes” within social classes reminds me of the caste system.
It's playful language in observation, not prescriptive. The key distinction is that the caste system is impose on the individual, which when you think about it is actually more analogous to national or religious identity.
These new fragmented identities are self-selected.
"If" you have the ability to meet the requirements to be in the self-selected group, sure. If you were just living the life everyone around you did previously, and suddenly were replaced by a new 'self-selected' group, you just moved into a caste without choosing to move away from the previous way the society they grew up in, were taught how to live within by their parents and society.
[flagged]
[flagged]
It's a conspiracy theory to suggest that there's some deliberate elite conspiracy to replace white Canadians. It's not a conspiracy theory to state that if current demographic trends continue then whites (as in people with white skin) will be a minority there by the end of the century; it's basic extrapolation.
source?
for the trends i mean, not the extrapolation.
For the trends, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada has some charts in the "Ethnic origin" section.
Yeah, dismissing data as racist is quite annoying. I looked at the fertility rate in Poland and it is 0.33 per1000. In Portugal it got better at the expense of 10% of the population being immigrant in a span of 5 years. Of course the natives revolted, all while they enjoy their lives without dependants .
The fault is not of the Indians, or immigrants that come for a better life, and are often needed. The fault is all the developed world, and some not, deciding that having children is not good. I have a the very controversial opinion that not wanting to have children is a disease as we are living organisms and all of them reproduce. There might be manageable diseases but current demographics is a public health crisis.
I am very capitalist but if there is something where the state needs to intervene is to make any kind of employment disturbance into families a severe liability. I just got to know a parent lost its job after coming from paternity leave, for me that company is on my bad book forever, and I sold its stock.
More importantly evolution will evolve around the people that don’t want to reproduce because they will not pass their childless traits. Crudely, it will consider all childless people even if they live to a 100 as death on birth. If somebody said that 60% of the developed world will die in about 5 generations this would be a catastrophe for Bruce Willis, but as it takes time and we have immigrants that have other fertility inclinations to fill the gap, the frog boils slowly into oblivion.
Also, it being a theory about a conspiracy doesn't necessarily make it wrong. Rich and powerful people often do conspire against labor. This even happens in the tech industry, where industry leaders across ostensibly competing corporations conspire with each other in anti-poaching schemes to suppress wages. Industrialists like Elon Musk flagrantly try to buy politicians for the obvious purpose of importing cheaper and easily coerced H1B workers, to again suppress wages. Elon Musk has no tack and subtly so he doesn't bother to hide it, but what he's doing is the norm from his economic class. Conspiracy against common workers is a recurring theme throughout history and into the present. Dismissing out of hand the possibility of such a conspiracy happening in Canada, even as unprecedented levels of ethnic replacement with servile and desperate workers from an impoverished third work country is underway is simply absurd.
1. Nope, still a conspiracy theory, and the facts don't support this idea in any way
2. Define "white" better. Albino Ghanan. White? Obama, white mother. White? Germans. Swarthy or white? Hard mode: do it without sounding like a phrenologist.
3. Still racist lol, and again I ask: what's so bad about being a racial minority in Canada? It's not like racial minorities face higher levels of violence by police or anything, right? So what's the problem?
The problem isnt just "oh no canadian no have job"
the problem is people coming to canada on their version of the H1B visa and accepting jobs for 1/3 as much as canadians. Its the same problem as the US. Its not a racial problem its a socio-economic problem. These companies are trying to squeeze out every looney and tooney they can and the best way to do it is to replace your workforce with people who are willing to work for 1/3 as much just to be able to move there.
1. The facts absolutely do support it, even Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Canada . Check the "Canada visible minority, aboriginal and Caucasian (assumed for 1981 to 2016) population as a percentage of the total population over time" chart there. The "Caucasian" proportion is down from 93.3% in 1981 to 69.8% in 2021
2. I defined white, as the skin looks white, not brown or darker. If you want more specific: someone that 90+% of Canadian people would agree "looks like a white person". Or just use whatever definition of "Caucasian" Wikipedia uses.
3. Nobody said anything about good or bad. The question of whether it's good or bad is completely orthogonal to the question of whether or not "white" people are projected to become a minority in Canada.
The future Canadian worker is a Canadian with Indian ancestry, you no doubt mean.
“In The Culture Transplant, Garett Jones documents the cultural foundations of cross-country income differences, showing that immigrants import cultural attitudes from their homelands—toward saving, toward trust, and toward the role of government—that persist for decades, and likely for centuries, in their new national homes. Full assimilation in a generation or two, Jones reports, is a myth. And the cultural traits migrants bring to their new homes have enduring effects upon a nation's economic potential.”
https://www.sup.org/books/economics-and-finance/culture-tran...
This is especially true in Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants.
> Toronto, where immigrants from the subcontinent grow up in enclaves surrounded by other immigrants.
Citation please, because this is sweeping. Two questions to consider:
1. Are these enclaves representative of the subcontinent, or of a few over-represented communities that is actually a small fraction of the Indian subcontinental population?
2. Of all the people from the Indian subcontinent here, how many live in enclaves versus otherwise?
True enough but probably not relevant to anything. Every society is already a patchwork of families with different beliefs that date back centuries. So noting that immigrants will form a complicated tapestry of new beliefs doesn't really bring much to the conversation - there wasn't subgroup of the host nation were they meant to assimilate with in an alternative scenario. The hypothetical culture that countries tell themselves they have appears to be mostly mythical.
So it turns out immigrants are just people too and behave in the only way they possibly can. Although maybe don't just let anyone in, dump them in the middle of nowhere and hope they turn out well. That'll probably end poorly. Setting people up with economic opportunities make for happy societies.
> True enough but probably not relevant to anything. Every society is already a patchwork of families with different beliefs that date back centuries.
In most existing societies, that patchwork follows normal distributions centered around recognizable points. This is obvious even in the U.S. Sure, you’ll meet chatty people in rural Oregon and curt people in rural Georgia. But if you’re culturally calibrated to make small talk like in Georgia then you’ll piss off most cashiers in Oregon.
Once you acknowledge that these differences exist, you also have to acknowledge that these differences aren’t merely superficial. It’s not just food and dress, but also attitudes about honor, conflict resolution, trust, saving, debt, justice, and government. Look at Minnesota (historically) as compared to Scandinavia (from where a lot of Minnesotans immigrated). You can easily see the through lines connecting the governance of those places. You can easily see the differences in governance between Iowa and Alabama.
If you bring in a bunch of immigrants it'll still have recognised centres to the distributions. That is literally how the US population was built. That is the thing about distributions, they form. It isn't possible to live in a place with other people and not start forming cultural links.
There isn't a question here that different people have different cultures and migration changes culture. Indeed, if we assume that migrants migrate to places with cultures that promote success then change the culture that'd suggest that migrants cause mean-reversion for the worse. But on the other hand that mean reversion happens anyway, cultures change anyway and migrants tend to be a bit smarter and more motivated than the locals so it is hard to really be certain.
It is still a bit of a non-issue that immigrants don't assimilate into something that doesn't really exist in an environment that was changing anyway. I wish more people from my own culture would assimilate into it a bit better and maybe keep to some of the good ideas a little more diligently. Or even just agree on what they were.
>It is still a bit of a non-issue that immigrants don't assimilate into something that doesn't really exist in an environment that was changing anyway.
The "something that doesn't really exist" is what allows immigrants to come in the first place, an accepting and tolerant culture. It's what allows women to walk home at 2 AM and what made people fight for gay marriage.
Does this nihilistic view of culture cut both ways by the way? Was Nazi Germany just fine culturally speaking?
>> dump them in the middle of nowhere and hope they turn out well
A big part of the problem seems to be the opposite: Canada has dense cultural centers of specific immigrants, and not suprisingly new people from the same origins want to land there too. The challenge is this doesn't necessarily match with where people are needed the most.
You're assuming perfect assimilation happens. Otherwise you simply have a colony. If the colony outstrips the natives, they change the culture and eventually the governance of a place by right of conquest. Then they can change names and there's no denying it.
States encompass territory, but nations are defined by their people and culture.
They don’t even need to achieve a majority. Look at New York City or urban New Jersey. You think those places are the same as they would have been had they remained British and Dutch?
It's been a ... little while since NYC was Dutch. Let me put my tricornered hat on and think carefully.
You might want to read up on Quebec.
"Perfect assimilation" doesn't seem like something that actually happens in reality.
>I would challenge you to go to a coffee shop in any major city and try to find a Canadian worker.
Why do Canadians put up with going to coffee shops that make you call into a call center in another country to order coffee?
We just did that and blamed it on AI. Amazing how you can AI to increase stock price and bury things at the same time!
(And yes we are pissed about it)
Taking Actually Indians to its natural conclusion by cutting out the middle man API.
Yes, the australians seem to be a bit behind the times.
Look out for the new round of layoffs that get blamed on "AI" next year?
its funny but this is true, oh.. we did teach the rest of the west about offshoring refugees, something to be proud of.
The ACS is about as scary as a limp lettuce leaf, so don't expect the CBA, or any other Australian company that wants to outsource IT operations and retrench existing staff, to be in any way deterred.
While that may be true, the ACS here is merely reporting on the story.
From the article:
> “FSU will take CBA to the Fair Work Commission over the issue”
(FSU being the Finance Sector Union, and Fair Work Commission being a governmental body that does have some powers.)
In an ideal world acts like these should see the managers and execs making the decisions fired if they weren't included pro rata in the original offloading.
If Australia doesn't have the capabilities then why are the university campuses full of overseas students? So they can learn, return to their homelands and work at some outsourcing org?
CBA like all large corporations don't care about their staff nor their customers. Their only priority is to pander to their shareholders and pay their executives ever larger salaries and perks.
Government powers don't work. Lobbyists and party donors make sure that they own the decision makers. Politicians, like the corporations are only in it for what they can personally gain.
> If Australia doesn't have the capabilities then why are the university campuses full of overseas students?
Because it’s great business: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-08-27/australias-internatio...
> If Australia doesn't have the capabilities then why are the university campuses full of overseas students?
Because Australian universities are a path to citizenship.
Australia is one of the richest per capita nations on the planet and has been for almost 200 years.
People seek a better life. My ancestors did too, that's why I'm Australian.
Isn't this just another symptom of the disease that is Jack Welch-ian financialisation of the enterprise [1]?
While it was paying off handsomely, in the short term, the grumblings were muted. Now that the invisible hand of the invisible debt collector has come a-calling, it is unsurprising that the WITCH-hunt (hehe) is gathering momentum.
Given that these are generational phenomena, is it surprising that one generation torpedos local labour laws and labour protections, and their children and grandchildren wake up one day faced with the prospect of having to pay the price?
Isn't this good?
I thought outsourcing meant we get cheaper goods like iPhones and laptops. Now we can outsource middle-class service jobs for cheaper services?
Not sure if sarcasm but let's just obliterate the west's middle class. I'm sure all will be fine.
We did it for all the working class jobs though? Plus the media says all economists agree that protectionist policies are bad... I read that paying workers first-world salary to make things in first-world countries will increase product and service costs which is bad for economy. Apparently if the West can't compete with third-world labour it's better to just outsource the those uncompetitive manual labour and service jobs.
Agree, but what’s left? How would countries that import everything, export little, actually survive?
Feels like in the medium term, the West survives by importing both goods and skilled engineers/researchers, because it provides a ready-made environment conducive for business. Feels like that is just an aberration that lower cost countries will eventually match.
I’m sick of “American tech startups” that consist of some US-based VC investors, a figurehead “founder”, a few beefy executives who only care about their headshot, and all engineering/manufacturing done in Asia.
It’s not like we can export our realtor and insurance salespeople to 3rd world countries either…
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy when we've used military and political intervention for centuries to create poor, low-wage countries in order to increase corporate profits. The entire state of this global economy is artificial and shaped by violence and collusion, and so the answers to our global economic problems are not necessarily axiomatic in a healthier, more fair environment.
Its not simply outsourcing. Its using offshoring to hypocritically, dishonestly and deliberately trash native jobs and salaries, while (normally) maintaining those of the decision-makers.
I'm not against realistic economics and open markets leading to a more balanced world, but this is just shark-toothed capitalism with contempt for individuals and the societies the organisations exist in.
Funny thing is, talking in general terms, everyone hates off shoring but not every one hates exports/expanding to other markets and profiting off it. By this logic, you should also advocate for native jobs and salaries for every market the company is in, no?
Not saying company X isn't off shoring to save costs and hurting local jobs. But it is also perhaps true that company Y is growing and selling their services/products in N countries but only has jobs in one(or few) of countries perhaps. Why is this fair if the first one isn't ?
That is the nativist view, yes. But I am not a nativist. Let every member of our species compete on a fair playing field without government interference, regardless of their birth circumstances.
The point is not that companies hiring workers overseas is inherently bad.
The point is that companies rest on the infrastructure of society, they are only possible because of everything from the physical infrastructure of energy to the institutional infrastructure of courts and markets. These things are for the most part provided by the tax base in their home country. There are for the most part rules, laws, and norms about how much and what kind of economic activity must accrue back to the society that incubated and hosts the company.
Arbitraging those rules and norms to extract rents is not in general a social good.
You make a good argument that corporate tax havens should be prevented with policy.
Some people "compete" with bombs and guns, when they feel they were screwed over.
If governments don't interfere, corporations and capitalists will. And they will not play fairly.
Is this supposed to be an argument that governments should force companies to implement nativist hiring policies.
I am replying to "Let every member of our species compete on a fair playing field without government interference, regardless of their birth circumstances", and have said nothing on nativism.
The quote I am replying to stands on its own regarding criticism. "Government" is supposed to just be The People, and preventing "government interference" becomes a dog whistle for "let the market do what it wants, if people with capital use it to further acquire capital at the expense of those without, so be it."
The thread you kicked off with this comment is one of my favorite I've read on HN in a while because it seems you've somehow gotten people to accidentally spout Marxist ideologies in the comments in their attempts to reconcile their belief in free market economics with the natural result of free market economics.
It’s also a national security argument. Not just in terms of military defense but also political/trade relations.
Entirely outsourcing all critical goods and services is foolish. Who wants to be vulnerable to the whims of other countries?
It also shows that the median HN member is extremely racist against indians and believes in the great replacement!
In general, it's the classic mistake of blaming people for societal-scale events instead of systems.
Resistance to free market economics is not necessarily Marxist. Old-fashioned one-nation conservatives also find offshoring of this sort objectionable. If you consider the job of the state to be to cultivate a stable, cohesive society, you're going to favour regulation of actions that undermine that objective, including business strategies that erode the local skill base and economy.
But, that's not free market economics then.
Yes, that's what he said.
How beautifully diverse, why is anyone complaining? They voted for this and it's also what we teach our kids to love and celebrate at every single occasion.
There's no valid critique of this system, if you don't like it then get punched, you Nazi!
Don't confuse liberal capitalists, libertarians, etcs with leftists. It's free market liberals and right wing libertarians that espouse this kind of free market stuff.
The people most commonly calling nazis nazis(with some rare hyperbole) are leftists and they definitely didn't vote for this. They want market regulation.
Also, if you were complaining about immigrants when you got called a nazi, please consider that the skilled immigrants taking tech jobs would be buying at your local businesses and paying taxes in Australia if you let them in. Now your corporate overlords will pay them to spend in India.
Revenue maximisation is an 'embedded imperative' of companies a capitalist system, so of course these jobs will be migrated to where they can be done most productively; they will then be automated as soon as the roles become simplified and the AI becomes more advanced.
This is neither 'right', not 'wrong' much less shameful; it is simply the logical extension of the socio-economic system we all willingly subscribe to. The only alternative, would be to establish different forms of community owned organisations (should all businesses be owned by employees?) allied with protectionism to prevent leaner, more efficient capitalist firms from outcompeting the co-ops.
>the socio-economic system we all willingly subscribe to
Do we subscribe to it willingly? I dare say there's been plenty of scenarios and places where the population would favour protectionism of some form but find their desire subverted by capital.
You're right, and that's why hoping that companies will just willingly "do the right thing" will never work.
Companies have (at least in the US) the same rights as biological humans. And we've observed corporations long enough to realize that if they were humans, they would be PSYCHOPATHS. Quick, how do you reign in a psychopath? With wishes, hope, or the strong arm of the law? It's option 3, of course. But we don't have a strong arm of the law, we barely even have law these days, and what little law we DO have has been co-opted by the corporations, and generally only wakes up when it's time to defend corporations against the "little guy".
And THAT is why hoping that the government will just willingly "do the right thing" and reign in the psychopathic corps will never work, either.
We need a groundswell of people who demand change pushing upward on the corrupt power structures. When enough people want it, it's what everyone talks about, and politicians can't sidestep the issue any longer, THEN change will occur.
> This is neither 'right', not 'wrong' much less shameful
First, CBA lied. They said the workers were "redundant" when they were actually being replaced with cheap offshore labor. They lied because their actions were shameful and they were rightfully ashamed.
Second, capitalism is an economic system, not a moral code. If you discover that your rich neighbor's car dealership has a policy of hard selling expensive cars to vulnerable old ladies, would you think "welp, I can't hold that against him, because capitalism incentivizes maximalizing profits"? Obviously not.
>the socio-economic system we all willingly subscribe to
Willingly? I don't remember being asked if I want to be replaced by an imported offshore worker.
Most workers don't want this version of capitalism, people want their politicians and businesses to prioritize the interests of local workers first. Hence why you see them voting for the most extreme and radical political candidates since the status quo have made it clear they see the locals as interchangeable cogs in the economic meat grinder.
Yup. The only alternative is what countries are trying right now, protectionist controls on immigration and tariffs to prevent companies from manufacturing elsewhere, or laws that require attempting to locally hire before hiring on visa (hilariously easy to circumvent). But that's in opposition to capitalism, which many big fans of that mode of production will quickly remind us. No regulation! Pure capitalism!
Can't have your cake and also eat it. This trend is one excellent example of the inherent, unsolvable issues with capitalism.
Shameful? Shameless more like.
[dead]
[flagged]
[flagged]