3 ms·
This is what shoots down the biggest myth of the "pure capitalism" crowd. They have a habit of presenting complicated economics in "Lemonade Stand" simplistic
by jmadsen 10y ago
This is what shoots down the biggest myth of the "pure capitalism" crowd.
They have a habit of presenting complicated economics in "Lemonade Stand" simplistic terms. "Labor will move to where they can make the most money, until equilibrium is achieved".
If your job moves to China, you can't move your family to China. The same restrictions apply at less restrictive levels for anywhere else.
The fact is, labor has never moved freely, and so any model built on that argument is inherently false.
- hkmurakami 10y agoYes. Capital moves freely. Labor often cannot.
- duncan_bayne 10y agoOnly if you assume that the free movement of labour is impossible; capitalists like myself argue that it's an entirely achievable goal. After all, we've achieved relatively free movement of capital. The issue is that there are strongly entrenched powerful interests operating against free labour movement. Sadly, those people and organisations are themselves labelled as capitalists (sometimes, self-described).
- bluetomcat 10y agoCapital movement is driven by profit, often without any regard for the consequences it brings to local communities. Relocation of working-class families across the world isn't as easy as it is for a Hollywood star or a venture capitalist with fat bank accounts.
- duncan_bayne 10y agoYes. But it used to be; many early Americans were poor economic refugees. What's changed?
- notahacker 10y agoPoor American families that might benefit from relocation generally aren't homeless. There aren't plots of unoccupied land in frontier territory to build shacks on, and they're not permitted to cram into boarding houses with five other families if they can't afford to rent a room in their destination city whilst looking for work there. The developed world has also taken a lot of steps to prevent more economic refugees arriving in the country.
- bluetomcat 10y agoIt's not a fair comparison. Early Americans came to a loosely inhabited continent with a lot of potential for growth and a similar cultural groundwork. The huge cultural gap, and not unimportantly, the significantly lower standard of living in developing countries like China and India makes it a rather unappealing choice for Europeans and Americans.
- zeemonkee3 10y agoLook at the EU: although there is complete freedom of movement of labour for EU citizens, cultural and language barriers prevent true movement to a far greater degree than within the US.
- bluetomcat 10y agoMoreover, movement of labour within the EU is mostly unidirectional. A German or a Brit is very unlikely to go to work in Poland or Bulgaria, whereas the other way around is almost always the case. This unidirectional movement sucks out young blood from the donor countries and leads them to an even direr future.
- simula67 10y agoThere are other factors preventing labor movement, for example : education. Imagine if a lot of new jobs get automated away with robotics and computers. It would be very hard for the displaced workers to take up new positions that open up in tech or finance fields as they may require many years of intense study.