[noir-york]

On one hand you have increasing immigration increasing the supply of labour. On the other hand, you have increasing automation reducing the demand for labour. And in the pinched middle you have falling wages. This cannot end well.

I don't know which is the most dangerous scenario: the working classes taking it out on immigrants, or the working classes making common cause with immigrant labour against a Victorian economy of squalor, ill-health and poverty (which is good, but dangerous it had to get to this point) and turning revolutionary. The latter is a failure of politics.

[jmkni]

Yeah I agree.

At the moment the anger felt by people who fear for their jobs seems to be focused on immigration and free trade deals.

Immigration because people fear that somebody will come from another country and take their job, for less money, free trade deals because people fear their job will be outsourced to somebody cheaper in another country.

I believe this was a primary driver behind Brexit/Trump.

At some point these people will start to understand that it isn't just the immigrants threatening their jobs, it is also the programmers at home who automate them.

[noir-york]

> believe this was a primary driver behind Brexit/Trump.

Yep. The feeling of being forgotten, of not being in control of one's life.

> At some point these people will start to understand that it isn't just the immigrants threatening their jobs, it is also the programmers at home who automate them.

Exactly. And once that anger turns inward, it can tear society apart.

[hash-set]

The reason jobs went to China is simply because US companies were being made to pay for their pollution. China is cheap in comparison. Lower wages, less trouble with employment laws, no trouble with environmental impact. It was an extremely cynical maneuver to go and find the cheapest labor with the fewest consequences to have to manage. Same with India.

[mercer]

Very good point. The big question I'm also asking myself is which of the two scenarios is worse. In case of the former, the conflict would probably happen sooner and be more localized, which might mean an earlier 'solution' and/or less violence. But the latter scenario would probably have more chance of success, given that it involves more bodies to fight this revolution.

Neither sounds pleasant, and I'd like to think there are still other options. Any thoughts?

(As an aside: I've become a bit depressed by the fact that so much of the post-election and post-brexit talk is about 'who to blame' or 'what went wrong' rather than about what we can do to move forward. It feels so pointless and ineffective.)