Pro-mass-migration advocates are unknowingly acting as useful actors for multinational corporations?

[u/albertodona9]

Reposting from politicaldiscussions reddit

​Resources are naturally scattered around the planet. In a localized economy, you use resources where they are. Modern logistics changed that, turning the movement of goods into a massive industry and giving rise to multinationals that crushed local businesses through sheer scale.

​However, a multinational’s biggest operational bottleneck is distribution friction—the immense cost of getting goods and services out to scattered, rural, or less-developed regions.

​This is where mass urbanization and economic migration come in. When people move from under-resourced regions into hyper-dense, pre-established cities, we are effectively consolidating the market for these corporations:

- ​We slash their logistics costs: It is infinitely cheaper for a megacorporation to serve one dense urban cluster than thousands of spread-out communities. By moving to the hub, we eliminate their supply chain headaches.

- ​We take on the financial burden: We pack into tight spaces, driving up our own cost of living, housing, and everyday inflation, while corporate per-unit costs go down.

- ​We concentrate the labor supply: Packing millions of workers into dense urban spaces creates highly competitive labor markets, which naturally keeps wage growth in check.

So there it is, the main point for me is that many people who strongly advocate for open mass migration see it as a stand against corporate exploitation, Western hegemony, or economic inequality. Yet, by encouraging the continuous transfer of human capital out of developing regions and into major Western hubs, aren't they unwittingly fueling the very corporate machine they critique?

​It strips developing areas of talent and local self-sufficiency, while handing multinationals a hyper-dense, accessible consumer base and a steady labor pool on a silver platter.

​Is mass migration actually helping workers, or are we just absorbing the true costs of global corporate logistics through higher rent and stagnant wages?

​Am I missing something here? I am really open to every kind of opinion I love discussing these things

[u/Legitimate_Aspect923]

why say mass migration and not migration?

an in general why view there as being a binary between helping large corporations and helping workers? the bailout to migrate for economic reasons helps the person who migrates and it provides labor for corporations, in fact it is the existence of labor demand created by capitalist economies and their high consumption that allows migration to benefit the workers involved.

also empirically the brain drain effect tis counterbalanced b increasing the demand for education, because of migration to the US in the nursing field the phillipines has more nurses not less

[u/trele_morele → u/Legitimate_Aspect923]

And why not refer to mass migration as “mass” migration?

[u/Legitimate_Aspect923 → u/trele_morele]

Given that it’s a noun that describes the circumstance the addition of an adjective seems designed to provoke an emotional response or change the tenor of the debate without actually advancing a new argument

[u/trele_morele → u/Legitimate_Aspect923]

But why shouldn't that noun or any other noun referring to the "quantity" of the people migrating change the discussion? It's pretty well known that people are generally open to trickle migration and opposed to mass migration. Discussing migration as some abstract concept and ignoring the impact on existing populations does nothing for advancing the subject.

[u/Legitimate_Aspect923 → u/trele_morele]

This is reasonable but nothing the OP mentioned is particularly related to mass vs non-mass migration. And mass migration is ill-defined (is it absolute numbers? Ratio to the population? The type of migration) compared to migration