Comment by petcat

1 day ago

USA has been far better for over 100 years. But that had to end at some point. So now we're seeing it end.

It did not "have" to end, it's merely a political choice by one political faction being forced upon the entire nation.

  • It's unfortunate, by and large the republican voters seem to have looked at the wreckage of the USSR and the continual looting and decline in quality of life that countries like Russia are enjoying under a kleptocratic regime, and they took their fingers out of their collective noses for just long enough to say "yeah I want that for here!".

  • People hate to be reminded of this, but that "faction" is the voters, in record numbers for the party.

    • Not really, voters didn't want this, and they hate it when they are told what's happening. The media silently accepted Trump's lie at face value when he said he knew nothing about Project 2025, despite anybody with half a brain realizing it was a lie. Reporters acted like they had less than half a brain, so that they wouldn't get bopped on their nose by their editors, who in turn were already bowing down to Trump.

      The "faction" lied about their intentions in order to be elected. That in itself isn't uncommon, but what is uncommon is the degree to which it lied. Most Republican voters, when told about the actual policies being implemented by elected Republicans, don't believe the reports, and assume that nobody would be enacting such stupid policy. Yet the voters keep voting for them.

      8 replies →

100 years?

In the 1920s and 1930s the US had:

- Forced labor

- Peonage

- Debt servitude

- Jim crow laws

The 19th amendment was ratified in 1920, so that barely missed the cutoff.

The US has not been some beacon of moral righteousness for the majority of its existence.

  • USA accepted more immigrants between 1900 and 1980 than every other western country combined.

DO you have a good reason why?

  • Because the industrialization of America is over, and has been for decades. USA doesn't need low-wage, immigrant workers anymore. The railroads have already been built, the fields have been plowed, and now that's all done by big automated machines. Everything that cheap workers used to do that was valuable is now automated.

    • Who does the farming? Who does the cleaning? Who builds the buildings? Who are the line cooks? That should be obvious.

      But it should be just as obvious that there are plenty of immigrants who are also necessary because they bring new ideas, their education, their incredible work ethic, to fill in the gaps that the US clearly has.

      There is one thing that unites all of us (and I do mean us, as I am one of them). We all dream of a society where our hard work can become prosperity for ourselves and for everyone else, a plot of fertile soil that is worth sowing. We all come here with a dream.

      And I personally don't mind so much that I'm uplifting people that don't agree with my existence. I just wish that they could stay out of our way so we could all benefit.

      14 replies →

    • You're putting the cart in front of the horse. If the US economy didn't need low-wage immigrant workers, we wouldn't be complaining about them in the first place, because they would've gone somewhere else where the jobs are.

      The fact they're coming the US literally means its economy needs them.

      Of course we could all wax philosophical and say "Nobody needs a Frappuccino every other day, we just want it," but then nobody needs to live in a prosperous economy anyway.

      1 reply →

    • I wish i could ill find the video, the farms in CA certainly do need labor. In the 90s when there was another - people south of the border are taking jobs bs - an interview er asked people waiting for for support at a welfare office in Salinas (lots of farms) offering jobs in the fields. Unanimous nope.

      They are needed and often do more than those that are citizens.

      1 reply →

Nah, there was just more economic activity to draw people in. By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.

But you are right that it is ending, just wrong about what: it’s the high economic activity that attracted people which is disappearing thanks to the same people that hate migrants.

  • > By every other measure it’s been more hostile than average.

    I'm not sure there's a "just" here: compared to peer countries, the US is either middle-of-the-pack[1] or significantly more accepting of immigrants[2] depending on which number you pick.

    (This isn't to somehow imply that the US isn't hostile to its immigrants, because it is. But the question is whether it's more hostile.)

    [1]: https://www.visualcapitalist.com/charted-the-share-of-foreig...

    [2]: https://www.oecd.org/en/data/indicators/stocks-of-foreign-bo...

    • The parent post says it’s the high economic activity that attracted people even though the US has been more hostile than average by every other measure. So it's as if the US was a honeypot with a flyswatter.

      By the way, your [2] is useless to prove your point: you can't compare absolute numbers (for instance Iceland vs the US).

      1 reply →

    • I would suggest that the proper metric is not the number of immigrants, which after all the parent commentator implied would be the case because of higher economics drawing them in, but a combination of the following

      1. the amount of violence directed against immigrants legally allowed in by governmental forces.

      2. the chance of legally allowed in immigrants will have immigration status changed without due process.

      3. what percentage of Immigrants fear that 1 or 2 will happen to them.

      I believe these two conditions seem to exist in the United States currently, although not sure how many immigrants it affects.

      I am unsure if there are other countries that have a similar situation, I would expect if there are they must be relatively few in number.

      The closest type of situation would be, I suppose, racial oppression focused on particular groups that have become undesirable according to a country's government.