5 ms·
I am very afraid about this narrow point of view about US worker, the real questions is: "how many people had their life improved or worsened all over the world
by nraynaud 11y ago
I am very afraid about this narrow point of view about US worker, the real questions is: "how many people had their life improved or worsened all over the world." Maybe it improved the life of many more Chinese than it did worsen that of people from the rest of the world, that would be a net gain. There is a bright side: lower cost tool become accessible to poor countries, and China is using its money to invest in abandoned Africa. (I'm not sure it's a net gain, but looking at American workers is certainly not the way to evaluate the situation)
- js8 11y ago> Maybe it improved the life of many more Chinese than it did worsen that of people from the rest of the world And maybe not. China is not exactly a free trade zone. There was a book written about it: http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspective/dp/1843310279 http://www.amazon.com/Kicking-Away-Ladder-Development-Perspe...
- netheril96 11y agoIf it shouldn't be called free trade between China and US, then the whole premise of this article falls apart.
- Retric 11y agoConsidering conditions in China it may have been worse for workers. Remember economically if 1 person gains 1 billion and 999,999 people lose 1,000$ that's considered a net gain. (ed: in many macro economic models.)
- netheril96 11y agoThe living conditions of Chinese workers have been vastly improved over the last decade.
- Kinnard 11y agoCould you cite some sources?
- netheril96 11y agohttp://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-per-capita-ppp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/gdp-per-capita-ppp http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/wages http://www.tradingeconomics.com/china/wages http://www.statista.com/statistics/278349/average-annual-salary-of-an-employee-in-china/ http://www.statista.com/statistics/278349/average-annual-sal...
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- Retric 11y agoYour assuming only a single factor was involved. Pollution and corruption mean harm can be widespread while benefits are concentrated. Air pollution for example is killing ~1.6 million people per year in China, the dead are hardly better off. PS: Wages are only one factor among many.
- netheril96 11y agoThen come to China and talk to these workers. Ask them if their living conditions have been vastly improved. Ask them if their life has been greatly better than years ago. Ask them if they are grateful for the government and Communist Party. The answers to all these will be a resounding yes. People in the developed countries do not understand what real poverty and despair is. If you had lived the lives they have, pollution would be your least concerns.
- Retric 11y agoBe careful when asking people sensitive questions in places without free speech. Peoples public vs. private descriptions of what's going on is often significantly different.
- jerf 11y agoEven under "homo economicus" rules, that's not true, because the marginal utility gain for that one person will be much less than the 999,999 people. Without diminishing utility gains, you have nothing like economics. I don't mean that rhetorically; none of the math works if the billionth dollar is exactly as valuable to a person as the first one, or the billionth orange is exactly as valuable to a person as the first one. There is no economics if what you say is true. There's a kernel of truth there, but you have to open the gap much wider, many orders of magnitude wider, to the point it becomes more a philosophy question than one of economics, because the amount of money you'd actually have to give to one person to equal 999,999 very poor people getting $1,000 exceeds the amount of wealth in the world comfortably. (I don't even have to run the math; the exponential decay of utility makes this a done deal.) I agree that it is a common error to mistake economics as being "about" money, one I think even at times PhDs in economics make, but it isn't about money. Money is merely one slightly special and easy-to-measure token in an economy, but it isn't really what economics is about.
- Retric 11y ago[citation needed] Many macroeconomic models exclude the concept of marginal utility of money. Consider, stagnating US middle class wages are ignored when calculating 'economic growth'.
- Symmetry 11y agoI'm not sure the simplifying assumptions made in macro models have much bearing on a strictly micro problem.
- witty_username 11y agoNet money wise, both the US and China have gained. But these gains may not distributed equally. A lot of people seem to think that the US is offering other countries the "gift" of free trade to the US, even though it is mutually beneficial.
- calibraxis 11y agoAnd who is "the US" and "China"? The workers? Or the wealthiest? There's not only a distribution between two countries, but within them as well.
- carsongross 11y agoIt is absolutely the right view to take for US workers and for the people that politically represent them.
- mc32 11y agoYes moreover, you can be assured workers in China (of any other offshore workers in any other country) are not feeling sorry for the jobs blue collar workers in the US lost. They rightly feel they earned their jobs. And rightly Americans feel their jobs were taken. Same coin, different sides.
- Kinnard 11y agoI'm not sure, maybe if US workers changed their perspective toward the globe, they'd be better suited for a free trade environment.
- maw 11y agoI'm sorry, but this response isn't nearly racist enough or even patriotic enough (is there a difference anyway?) to be taken seriously.