[Oscar]

I get the idea that they will even destroy their own businesses

Again, no : global firms do want mass migrations because they’re based on massive comsumption and need clients.

If the average White nation was like 1950-60’s Québec with it’s 10 kids per woman, there wouldn’t be such push for mass migration.

the virtue signalling about rainbow/benettonized wolrd has more to do with a moral pretext to pretend “Hey we’re moral too, it’s not just about money’

[hansdons]

Just to clear up any confusion: Firms do want mass immigration, but their defense that it is because they save costs from cheaper labour is demonstrably false. “Oh no man, it’s just for the bottom line! We don’t really hate whites!”.

Firms like Gilette, SAS and Youtube have demonstrated that their bottom line is less important than their ideological agenda.

I get the idea that they will even destroy their own businesses if it means twisting in the knife a bit deeper.

[seanthree16]

it isnt just one single reason the system wants mass 3rd world immigration, its multiple reasons why big banks, corporations, federal government and the anti white useful idiots want it. But yes, that is a good point OP is making, that its a meme that the “right” gets hung up on an focuses only on that.

[After the Rain]

Perhaps being a minority in South Africa, where there is currently a genocide against White people, gives the author of the top post, Hansdons, a completely different perspective than that of White workers in the West.

How has South Africa not entirely collapsed is truly a mystery. The 8% must be going the extra mile to keep up with the slack of the remaining 92%.

I am curious to hear about the situation there, even if I don’t agree with the OP, I am willing to accept that that could be the case over there in SA.

[Oscar]

This fallacy is sometimes mentioned in the white positive sphere but does not consider free market forces:

I’m afraid you just didn’t understand the nature of current corporate capitalism : it’s about consumption and customers, not about production.

Imagine you’re a big construction firm, what would be the best for you ? a bunch of productive and quite wealthy European families or a constant flood of third world beggars that will need housing ?

Henry Ford is known to have created its own market by paying enough his factories workers to allow them to buy the cars they produced, ending the original craftsman production for wealthy bourgeois, replaced by global industry.

Current firms are doing the same.

[Your Fav]

Nobody denies the obvious reality that corporations court mass immigration for cheap labor.

Corporations do not simply profit from cheap labor but they also profit off of expanding non-White markets such as the Latino market (radio, music, tv channels, phones etc) in the USA. Corporations and big government both profit from an expanding population. I have seen its effect on the entire tech industry and the demographic and social changes it brings. Nobody can seriously deny the changes or their root cause.

This is so universally accepted among White people that this thread title is somewhat suspect on a White-positive website, its extremely out of place.

Perhaps being a minority in South Africa, where there is currently a genocide against White people, gives the author of the top post, Hansdons, a completely different perspective than that of White workers in the West.

Hansdons, just remember- going with the Western liberal status quo completely Fucked White in South Africa and now the Western liberal corporate status quo is Fucking the Western world, it’s obvious, so obvious to 99.99% of the people on this website.

[WhiteMan]

Corporations want mass immigration for cheap labor. That is a fact.

[After the Rain]

When looking for reasons why the big donors support mass immigration, cheap labour is not even on the list.

Big donors are not necessarily big corporations, although there is a significant overlap between the two groups.

– Big donors who are not big corporations (i.e. “fellow whites”) certainly have white replacement as their main goal.
– Big donors who are also big corporations have a mix of virtue signal and labour exploitation as their main goal, with a side of white guilt.
– Big corporations who are not big donors are greedy and soulless.
– Medium/small corporations are trying to make ends meet.

I’m saying corporations do not benefit from sub minimum wage labour. Low wages is a labour market’s way of saying you’re not needed.

They, the individuals, are certainly not needed, what is needed is the multitude of them. The wage is low because they are easily replaceable.
There’s no incentive to raise their wage when Muhammad complains; there’s a million of other Muhammads, identical in every way, who will do the work for the same wage or lower.

Their appeal to employers is that they are a brown, faceless horde who breed like rabbits. There’s a never ending supply of low IQ migrants to exploit, no risk of ever running out.

[hansdons]

I’m not saying the informal sector do not benefit from sub minimum wage labour.
I’m not saying corporations do not benefit from cheap labour.
I’m not saying Big Tech does not benefit from cheaper information workers.
I’m saying corporations do not benefit from sub minimum wage labour.

Low wages is a labour market’s way of saying you’re not needed.

When looking for reasons why the big donors support mass immigration, cheap labour is not even on the list.

[After the Rain]

Amazon is a behemoth who’s simply too big to not get caught in the cross-hair of government regulations and public pressure. For every Amazon out there there are thousands of smaller (but still big) corporations getting away with these things. Also, keep in mind that the minimum wage was raised for US employees only, Amazon FR, ES, IT et cetera remain unaffected.
There is really not much control on what corporations can do outside of North America and some European countries (Scandinavia and Germany mostly). Outside of this heavily regulated area enterprises can do as they please as long as they don’t get on the bad side of the ruling class.

Consider also the migrant precarious condition: he’s willing to sign an employment contract that stipulates he has to work 8h a day for 5 days a week, but he’s knows he’ll be forced to work 10h+ a day with no weekly break. So even if he gets paid more than minimum wage (doubtful) he’s still working more hours than he’s been getting paid for. He’s in no position to negotiate, and the hawks at the top know this very well.

Granted, cheap labour is not the main reason behind mass migration, but it’s a close second.

[Anonymous]

Why are you insisting that corporations do not benefit from lowered wages caused by immigration?
I clearly see it in my job – working in IT the vast majority of my colleagues are pajeets (contractors in india, H1Bs, and also ones that have managed to get sponsored). These pajeets drive down salary for my work.
Same thing when I get work done on my house – carpenters, ditch diggers, plumbers, electricians are all spics. I can’t even find places that employ whites; I’d pay them more if they would give the jobs to whites.
Farms benefit greatly from immigration (legal and illegal), and you can’t tell me that commercial farms don’t have strong lobbyists.

I agree with you it’s annoying when people minimize the cause of the immigration problem to “corporations are responsible because they are lobbying for it.” But, you can’t deny that it is one cause of the problem.

[hansdons]

Your main flaw is thinking the law gets applied

The type of corporations large enough to influence policy are not only held to the government’s standards, they often have to raise their standard even higher. Amazon raised their minimum wage to twice the number mandated by the government because of political pressure.

The conclusion remains that these powerful corporations cannot benefit from lower wages that influx of workers cause in the informal sector.

We can speculate about the reasons why these corporations support mass immigration. One reason we cannot entertain is lower wages.

[After the Rain]

Most immigrants don’t get jobs or if they do, they get paid minimum wage.

I can guarantee you most immigrants actually DO work, they just aren’t lawfully employed and can thus reap the benefits of welfare on top of that.

Firms cannot take advantage of lower wages when the supply increases because wages are fixed at a minimum by law.

Minimum wages don’t matter when you have your third worlders working under the table cash-in-hand.
Those people broke the law entering the country illegally in the first place, or overstayed their working visa; do you think they have qualms about breaking they law pertaining to minimum wages?

An argument could be made that firms want to pro-actively increase supply to prevent wages from rising above the minimum wage. This argument is weak because the point where wages start rising is when unemployment gets close to zero, which is not the case.

This argument is weak because you assume hiring immigrants/illegals reduces unemployment. Citizens whose job has been stolen by immigrants will remain unemployed; Pedro and Muhammad who stole those jobs will continue to appear legally unemployed even if they are working.

Your main flaw is thinking the law gets applied.

[hansdons]

1. Small firms are not affected by a minimum wage mandate and so benefit from mass immigration.

This statement, though correct, is not relevant to the argument.

When we talk about firms influencing policy we are talking about those firms generating the kind of profits that get the attention of political candidates.
Not only do these firms have to pay minimum wage, they often have to pay above the minimum mandated by the government because of political pressures, e.g. Amazon.
It does not matter who mandates the minimum, what matters is that these corporations do not benefit from the lower prices that increases in supply normally bring to smaller businesses.

2. If a trade pays 3x the government mandated minimum and Pedro is willing to work for 2x, Pedro will replace Joe.

This statement is not relevant as it only applies to smaller businesses.

Conclusion:

Large corporations cannot benefit from cost reductions due to mass immigration.
Reasons for their support of these destructive policies must be found elsewhere.

• This reply was modified 5 years, 6 months ago by hansdons.

[WytGuy1972]

My first comment in this forum.

This take is so cold that it has frostbite.
No. Cheap labor flooding the labor market keeps wages low. Minimum wage has been stagnant for well over a decade. And bullshit about firms being required to pay minimum wage. Only firms with certain number of employees have to pay minimum wage. I can’t remember what that number is, but a significant number of small businesses in this country do not meet the threshold and can pay their employees whatever they want. My dad never had to pay any of his employees minimum wage.
This also doesn’t include many service sector jobs that rely on production, tips, or sales quotas for their wages.

Also….minimum wage isn’t even relevant. If a particular trade pays 3x minimum wage (let’s say a carpenter for instance), and Pedro is willing to do it for only 2x minimum wage, he’s beating Joe Carpenter out of work.

You are wayyyy oversimplifying this problem with your comments and failing to look at every component. Broad statements such as yours are horrible arguments.

[hansdons]

This fallacy is sometimes mentioned in the white positive sphere but does not consider free market forces:

1. Most immigrants don’t get jobs or if they do, they get paid minimum wage. Firms cannot take advantage of lower wages when the supply increases because wages are fixed at a minimum by law.
2. An argument could be made that firms want to pro-actively increase supply to prevent wages from rising above the minimum wage. This argument is weak because the point where wages start rising is when unemployment gets close to zero, which is not the case.

Low prices is a free market’s way of telling you that the good is not wanted, not valued or that there is just too much of it.

Conclusion: Firms don’t need these people, at least not for saving labour costs.

[Author]

Posts