The problem is that all the low hanging fruit of offshoring labor has already been picked, so to bring up that point again and again is disingenuous.
We're talking about jobs that have not been able to be offshored for some reason or another.
If amazon could offshore these jobs to some low cost country they'd do that in a heartbeat but these are residual low skilled jobs that simply couldn't be easily outsourced.
And the poster above is arguing in favor of more low skilled immigration to dilute the power of the low skilled worker.
As far as democrats are concerned, a worker from Bangladesh is just as deserving of a given job as a worker from Florida.
At that point, the party doesn't seem to be caring about American workers, but behaving more like a "global party".
Thinking further, might as well normalize wages for all low skilled american workers across the 7 billion or so world population. I mean why have borders if they're not affording any labor protections already, right?
I'm not surprised the term "globalist" took off in the last election cycle.
I think at this point most smart members of HN should realize that the only reason immigration has much momentum is because the democratic party relies on it to win elections. All I see from Democrats is all talk about helping the poor but they don't do the most sensible and easiest thing to help the poor, simply limit the pool of labor by limiting immigration of low skilled workers.
Which makes one realize, it's all about winning elections and all of the "*ist" allegations are insincere and fake.
What would be wrong in lowering immigration numbers of low skilled immigrants to help people stuck in unfortunate Amazon employment like situation above?
And yet I never hear any such solution being spoken about in public?