3 ms·

I think there are good ideas in your comment, but you are also skipping some key points. A worker doesn't "inherit" the market his company is operating in, so t

I think there are good ideas in your comment, but you are also skipping some key points. A worker doesn't "inherit" the market his company is operating in, so the competition and profits to be had in that market don't automatically flow to the workers. For instance, the iPhone dominates the smartphone market, but that matters little to the Foxconn workers who make it in China. A worker operates in his own market - the labor market. His/her pay and working conditions depend on the supply and demand for workers with his skills in the market. In the last 15 years or so, the US labor market was opened up to workers from all over the world through a wide range of measures - outsourcing, free trade, illegal immigration, H1B visas, etc. So now you have workers from a population of 3-4 billion people competing for US jobs. The trouble is the US economy is still sized for 320 million people. Corporate interests want you to believe this is the "technological future", but it's really just the huge labor market imbalance that's causing low pay and poor working conditions.

Asbostos 11y ago
Isn't a global labor market a net win? Lower pay than a closed US market, but higher than a closed Indian market. And more productive overall so better for the consumers.
- severus_bro 11y ago
  The problem is that they (US corporations and local elites in the developing countries) haven't built a global labor market. Rather they built very large pipelines into the US labor market. This means that workers in a country such as China work 14 - 16 hours a day, eat in the company dining hall, and sleep in the company dorm. But they get paid a tiny amount, while US corporations and local elites who control the pipeline capture most of the profit. Because of this, workers in developing countries act like a full worker (or 1.5 - 2x a full worker) but they don't act like a consumer. So you get 3-4 billion workers competing for jobs in an economy of 320 million people.
  - Asbostos 11y ago
    That Chinese worker may be worse off than the US worker he replaced, but he's better off than whatever else he would have done instead. That's why it's a win for the Chinese worker. It's also a win for the consumer who gets a cheaper phone and a win for the US company which reduces costs. The only loser seems to be the US worker, but is that really such a bad thing? Isn't this a force for equality? The poor getting richer and the (relatively) rich getting poorer? I won't disagree that a privileged minority is making huge profits from this, but it's not a zero sum game so it isn't necessarily bad that that's happening. I'd like to know if there's any other reason to restrict the international labor market beyond US workers being seen as more deserving than foreigners.
    - throwaway12309 11y ago
      Well, there is the fact that is US (and other) corporations that sell products in the US market, but are able to skirt US rules by offloading those costs to other countries without contributing much to the US wellbeing. It is not about being more deserving, is about taking advantage of 'loopholes' in the whole process. For example, in Europe, it is quite common for employers pay on top of the salary 20-40% extra in taxes and social security for a local employee. Even if they pay the same salary to an offshore person, and skirt those 20-40% of taxes, the company wins, the offshore person may win, but the company that uses the country it is doing business in isn't paying it's fair share. Think of this differently. Imagine a company that offshores all costs (employees, manufacturing, etc) and just has a director/owner in the US. They also use creative accounting so their tax rate is very low. Lets ignore the costs of using the infrastructure as well. Now, this seems like an amazing deal for the owner + their non-us suppliers right? IS it fair for the citizens? What would the owner ask the gov. to do if the citizens then just decided to rob the owner blind? Or destroy the cargo ships as soon as they entered the US? Would he just say "well, tough luck" or they would fight tooth and nail to get the gov/police involved? I'm fairly liberal, but more and more believe there has to be a balance of responsibilities between corporations and the citizens, because if not, there will be a point where something will change, and most likely by force (check European countries history in the last decade for example)
- deciplex 11y ago
  Global labor is not automatically a net win. If companies shop for legal regimes where labor protection is minimal or nonexistent, all you get is a race to the bottom where no one wins, not even the capitalist class, not after the economy contracts because there is hardly anyone left with any leisure time or disposable income.

Asbostos 11y ago

Isn't a global labor market a net win? Lower pay than a closed US market, but higher than a closed Indian market. And more productive overall so better for the consumers.

severus_bro 11y ago
The problem is that they (US corporations and local elites in the developing countries) haven't built a global labor market. Rather they built very large pipelines into the US labor market. This means that workers in a country such as China work 14 - 16 hours a day, eat in the company dining hall, and sleep in the company dorm. But they get paid a tiny amount, while US corporations and local elites who control the pipeline capture most of the profit. Because of this, workers in developing countries act like a full worker (or 1.5 - 2x a full worker) but they don't act like a consumer. So you get 3-4 billion workers competing for jobs in an economy of 320 million people.
- Asbostos 11y ago
  That Chinese worker may be worse off than the US worker he replaced, but he's better off than whatever else he would have done instead. That's why it's a win for the Chinese worker. It's also a win for the consumer who gets a cheaper phone and a win for the US company which reduces costs. The only loser seems to be the US worker, but is that really such a bad thing? Isn't this a force for equality? The poor getting richer and the (relatively) rich getting poorer? I won't disagree that a privileged minority is making huge profits from this, but it's not a zero sum game so it isn't necessarily bad that that's happening. I'd like to know if there's any other reason to restrict the international labor market beyond US workers being seen as more deserving than foreigners.
  - throwaway12309 11y ago
    Well, there is the fact that is US (and other) corporations that sell products in the US market, but are able to skirt US rules by offloading those costs to other countries without contributing much to the US wellbeing. It is not about being more deserving, is about taking advantage of 'loopholes' in the whole process. For example, in Europe, it is quite common for employers pay on top of the salary 20-40% extra in taxes and social security for a local employee. Even if they pay the same salary to an offshore person, and skirt those 20-40% of taxes, the company wins, the offshore person may win, but the company that uses the country it is doing business in isn't paying it's fair share. Think of this differently. Imagine a company that offshores all costs (employees, manufacturing, etc) and just has a director/owner in the US. They also use creative accounting so their tax rate is very low. Lets ignore the costs of using the infrastructure as well. Now, this seems like an amazing deal for the owner + their non-us suppliers right? IS it fair for the citizens? What would the owner ask the gov. to do if the citizens then just decided to rob the owner blind? Or destroy the cargo ships as soon as they entered the US? Would he just say "well, tough luck" or they would fight tooth and nail to get the gov/police involved? I'm fairly liberal, but more and more believe there has to be a balance of responsibilities between corporations and the citizens, because if not, there will be a point where something will change, and most likely by force (check European countries history in the last decade for example)
deciplex 11y ago
Global labor is not automatically a net win. If companies shop for legal regimes where labor protection is minimal or nonexistent, all you get is a race to the bottom where no one wins, not even the capitalist class, not after the economy contracts because there is hardly anyone left with any leisure time or disposable income.