3 ms·

I said unregulated trade hurts workers, not all trade. Stating unregulated trade hurts workers isn't a "belief". It's not like it's a faith-based assertion lac

I said unregulated trade hurts workers, not all trade. Stating unregulated trade hurts workers isn't a "belief". It's not like it's a faith-based assertion lacking any real world evidence to support it. Trade tarrifs have been used as a revenue stream for the federal government and as a protective measure for domestic industry since the 1700s. The heart of the issue is working class humans benefit from a certain level of market inefficiency. Having many small local concerns engaged in a a particular market segment is inefficient as each has to capitalize equipment and labor force to do essentially the same thing. When the market "optimizes" one of two things happen, wages in that market segment make a run for the bottom, and smaller concerns either consolidate through a series of mergers and acquisitions or they are squeezed out of the market. What you're arguing in favor of is one of the major market forces that is driving income inequality in the US. Are you proposing that trickle down economics actually work?

wpietri 11y ago
I am not proposing that trickle-down economics work. Again, if you believe that unregulated trade hurts workers, shouldn't we stop trade between the US states? My guess is no. Because it's not like your proposing an optimum economy size for maximum worker friendliness. You're just opposing a kind of change from the status quo. I agree that too much industry consolidation is a problem for workers. But I don't think that's a problem of trade. That's a problem that comes whenever you a) increase disparity in power between workers and employers and b) decrease opportunity to switch to a different employer. If we had a situation where no countries traded but each country allowed monopolies to form, workers would be screwed. If, on the other hand, we have free trade but vigorous enforcement of anti-trust and merger review, I think workers can do pretty well. I also agree that increasing trade can shift what industries do well in particular locales, which is good for some workers but bad for others. The obvious solution there is not to protect the inefficient jobs, but to tax the people doing better (some workers, all consumers) and pay for excellent retraining, and to pension off the workers who can't be retrained, and/or fund nonprofits to employ them doing something societally valuable but not profitable. As an example, look at the American auto industry. As a Michigander, I know how devastating the rise of import cars was. But honestly, that industry needed some devastation. They produced low-quality, low-reliability products and then milked consumers on repairs and flim-flam sales techniques. They did provide jobs, but often pretty terrible ones. And none of this was necessary; it's just that consolidation (which, remember, happened without trade) made a cozy oligopoly, leaving management to focus on exploitation. 40 years later they are still struggling to break this pattern, but at least now Americans can buy decent cars at reasonable prices. If you want to hear the costs of your protectionist approach, listen to this TAL episode: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/NUMMI http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/N... Listen to the pain in the GM workers' voices. Listen to the change that came from working for one of those foreign companies. And then tell me again of how workers benefit from economic inefficiency.
- knieveltech 11y ago
  "..pay for excellent retraining, and to pension off the workers who can't be retrained, and/or fund nonprofits to employ them doing something societally valuable but not profitable." You'll excuse me if I don't find anything obvious about this. We can't even get political consensus in this country that healthcare is a basic human right that everyone should have free and equal access to and you're proposing that a massive program of worker reeducation and pensioning is credibly possible? I parse this as you saying "Free Trade is great if you live in a tiny socialist country with sufficient budgetary reserves to afford continuous retraining of workers and the political will to make that investment in labor force." So...free trade is great for Finland?
  - wpietri 11y ago
    It's obvious in the sense that free trade advocates regularly say this should be part of what happens. And actually, it's what happens in the US. It's a pretty common thing to go along with trade bills. [1] It happened again as recently as June. [2] I think we can agree that there should be more, and that we should do more for all sorts of workers, not just those affected by changes brought on by particular trade bills. In which case, it sounds like your problem isn't with free trade, it's with the US's generally poor treatment of workers. I'd agree with that, but I think more trade helps the situation in that it benefits consumers, and people are more willing to be generous when they feel richer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/24/pelosi-switches-to-yes-on-trade-adjustment-assistance-worker-aid-bill/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/24/p...

wpietri 11y ago

I am not proposing that trickle-down economics work. Again, if you believe that unregulated trade hurts workers, shouldn't we stop trade between the US states? My guess is no. Because it's not like your proposing an optimum economy size for maximum worker friendliness. You're just opposing a kind of change from the status quo. I agree that too much industry consolidation is a problem for workers. But I don't think that's a problem of trade. That's a problem that comes whenever you a) increase disparity in power between workers and employers and b) decrease opportunity to switch to a different employer. If we had a situation where no countries traded but each country allowed monopolies to form, workers would be screwed. If, on the other hand, we have free trade but vigorous enforcement of anti-trust and merger review, I think workers can do pretty well. I also agree that increasing trade can shift what industries do well in particular locales, which is good for some workers but bad for others. The obvious solution there is not to protect the inefficient jobs, but to tax the people doing better (some workers, all consumers) and pay for excellent retraining, and to pension off the workers who can't be retrained, and/or fund nonprofits to employ them doing something societally valuable but not profitable. As an example, look at the American auto industry. As a Michigander, I know how devastating the rise of import cars was. But honestly, that industry needed some devastation. They produced low-quality, low-reliability products and then milked consumers on repairs and flim-flam sales techniques. They did provide jobs, but often pretty terrible ones. And none of this was necessary; it's just that consolidation (which, remember, happened without trade) made a cozy oligopoly, leaving management to focus on exploitation. 40 years later they are still struggling to break this pattern, but at least now Americans can buy decent cars at reasonable prices. If you want to hear the costs of your protectionist approach, listen to this TAL episode: http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/NUMMI http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/403/N... Listen to the pain in the GM workers' voices. Listen to the change that came from working for one of those foreign companies. And then tell me again of how workers benefit from economic inefficiency.

knieveltech 11y ago
"..pay for excellent retraining, and to pension off the workers who can't be retrained, and/or fund nonprofits to employ them doing something societally valuable but not profitable." You'll excuse me if I don't find anything obvious about this. We can't even get political consensus in this country that healthcare is a basic human right that everyone should have free and equal access to and you're proposing that a massive program of worker reeducation and pensioning is credibly possible? I parse this as you saying "Free Trade is great if you live in a tiny socialist country with sufficient budgetary reserves to afford continuous retraining of workers and the political will to make that investment in labor force." So...free trade is great for Finland?
- wpietri 11y ago
  It's obvious in the sense that free trade advocates regularly say this should be part of what happens. And actually, it's what happens in the US. It's a pretty common thing to go along with trade bills. [1] It happened again as recently as June. [2] I think we can agree that there should be more, and that we should do more for all sorts of workers, not just those affected by changes brought on by particular trade bills. In which case, it sounds like your problem isn't with free trade, it's with the US's generally poor treatment of workers. I'd agree with that, but I think more trade helps the situation in that it benefits consumers, and people are more willing to be generous when they feel richer. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_Adjustment_Assistance [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/24/pelosi-switches-to-yes-on-trade-adjustment-assistance-worker-aid-bill/ http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/06/24/p...