> My own feelings, for example, are the result of my concerns about
> job security. An illusion,
You mean, like a living wage? Or is job insecurity an artifact of particular economic systems?
> but it's natural for the mind to dream of stability. Others -
> progressives who probably watched the 90's bubble with disdain -
> appear to harbor a certain, muted glee that these spoiled brats are
> getting their comeuppance from skilled second and third worlders.
Those same progressives appear to be willing to tolerate (or even support) a de facto system of migrant labor that's forcing down wages in (e.g.) construction and manufacturing, as it has for years in agriculture. At least in IT it's _legal_ exploitation :-(
> Meanwhile, back on Earth, aside from the fears and preconceptions of
> American earthlings, a process of labor relocation and displacement
> is underway. It won't be a complete rout, there will always be an
> American tech industry I suppose, but it will be weaker and, for the
> workers, poorer once the trend evens out.
"We're concerned. We feel your pain. It can't be helped." I wonder, can a pitch like this ever win an election anywhere?
The Republicans have power because they have money and own media sufficient to convey a relatively weak message ("our National Security State will keep you safe while we March Toward Empire!") and (as previously noted) bury bad economic news. This allows them to convince sufficient numbers of voters to vote for them (to win the Electoral College, anyway :-), and to convince lots of others not to vote at all.
Since we don't have the media or the money, we've gotta have the message. (That is, if we want to gain some power--if all we're concerned about is maillist correctness, we can have any message we like :-) Sympathizing with downtrodden migrants, and schadenfreude for "overpaid" workers (flashback: I can remember the hearing same BS regarding steelworkers in the early 80s), is fine--_provided_ you've got a better line, i.e. sufficiently better to outweigh a glaring passivity regarding the economic insecurities of US workers.
Sans message, our only "options" are to get world-historical lucky, or enjoy spectating:
> [Capital] always seeks cheaper labor, and will search the globe -
> around and around again - to find it. I wonder, can such a system of
> global impoverishment last for many more decades (never mind
> centuries) alongside climate change, nuclear proliferation and other
> planet-wide problems?
With opposition like this, what's to stop it? And when it breaks down, will the remaining pieces of the planet (let alone the current system) be worth picking up?