4 ms·

True, logic and reason are the basis of these arguments. That is not the same as saying there is only one set of logic and reasoning from which an opinion could

by fixxer 11y ago

True, logic and reason are the basis of these arguments. That is not the same as saying there is only one set of logic and reasoning from which an opinion could be derived. > How could someone be better off with fewer choices as to where and from whom to trade with? Well, if you're talking about comparative advantage due to something simple (like a mineral or natural resource without considering externalities from extraction), I'd agree. If you're talking about labor costs at $20/hour vs $0.20/hour, then one could argue that without replacement jobs at $20/hour for those being replaced by cheaper foreign workers, then the only effect will be depression of domestic wages to retain competitiveness. Now, that might be nominal over the long run, but based on the US experience, it doesn't seem like social welfare has improved from more choice in trading partners. Our trading partners, however, are doing much better. Wage growth domestically has been stagnant in real terms. > On an ethical standpoint, how could making goods more expensive for everyone in order to benefit a few justifiable? If those costs account for the complete impact, then it would not be justifiable to make goods more expensive. If there are externalities and systematic impacts, then some might argue barriers to free trade are justifiable. Keep in mind that I don't completely disagree with free trade. I personally despise unions (though, mostly just the public sector unions; trade unions are mostly OK with me, though I support right to work) and I think they share blame in some circumstances... But, my personal opinions do not prevent me from seeing drawbacks to the free trade at scale. The concept is very cultish and that is a clue right there that we should all be looking at it more critically.

bko 11y ago
I would ask you to consider why labor costs are $20/hour in some countries and $0.20/hour in others. Many jobs being done in the US could easily be outsourced to these lower cost countries, but are not. If the $0.20/hour was equally as productive as $20/hour, the $0.20/hour would be bid up. High price tag of American labor is not expensive because its American, its expensive because its very productive. The reasons its more productive is complicated, but it must be or in a competitive marketplace, the employer who is able to use the lower cost labor would have significantly lower costs than competitors. Also, on a moral front, why should the accident of geography determine how you can make a living? Arbitrarily denying jobs to Mexicans living in America would be undoubtably immoral. But somehow denying Mexicans jobs in Mexico in favor of more expensive American workers is applauded by politicians. Why shouldn't Mexicans have an opportunity to compete with Americans?
- fixxer 11y ago
  Lots of other things to consider beyond the folksy idea of worker productivity (which I would argue doesn't scale uniformly across job type). If we include the full cost of labor in that $20, then it is cheaper in locations unhindered by, say, insurance requirements. That is a very big difference between US and 3rd world (China, for example) labor markets. Insurance is just one issue. Requirements for safe working conditions are another. There are factories in China where dioxin levels are several orders of magnitude above US EPA limits. I've only been near them and I sometimes wonder how much my cancer likelihood has increased. At no point have I made a moral argument. I don't care about that argument. What I'm amused by is how the free trade argument can be morphed into a social justice claim for foreign economies... What would Adam Smith think of that?

by fixxer 11y ago

bko 11y ago

I would ask you to consider why labor costs are $20/hour in some countries and $0.20/hour in others. Many jobs being done in the US could easily be outsourced to these lower cost countries, but are not. If the $0.20/hour was equally as productive as $20/hour, the $0.20/hour would be bid up. High price tag of American labor is not expensive because its American, its expensive because its very productive. The reasons its more productive is complicated, but it must be or in a competitive marketplace, the employer who is able to use the lower cost labor would have significantly lower costs than competitors. Also, on a moral front, why should the accident of geography determine how you can make a living? Arbitrarily denying jobs to Mexicans living in America would be undoubtably immoral. But somehow denying Mexicans jobs in Mexico in favor of more expensive American workers is applauded by politicians. Why shouldn't Mexicans have an opportunity to compete with Americans?

fixxer 11y ago
Lots of other things to consider beyond the folksy idea of worker productivity (which I would argue doesn't scale uniformly across job type). If we include the full cost of labor in that $20, then it is cheaper in locations unhindered by, say, insurance requirements. That is a very big difference between US and 3rd world (China, for example) labor markets. Insurance is just one issue. Requirements for safe working conditions are another. There are factories in China where dioxin levels are several orders of magnitude above US EPA limits. I've only been near them and I sometimes wonder how much my cancer likelihood has increased. At no point have I made a moral argument. I don't care about that argument. What I'm amused by is how the free trade argument can be morphed into a social justice claim for foreign economies... What would Adam Smith think of that?