4 ms·

Trade has certainly fucked _some_ workers. But it helped others; it's just a lot harder to see the ways in which the average American worker is better off, beca

by theptip 10y ago

Trade has certainly fucked _some_ workers. But it helped others; it's just a lot harder to see the ways in which the average American worker is better off, because the benefits of trade are spread across the economy, and the costs are concentrated among a smaller number of individuals. Here's a libertarian making this point: http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/does_trade_with.html http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2017/04/does_trade_with.... "Using novel data on firms from the US Census Bureau, I show that the data support this view: US firms expanded manufacturing employment as reorganization toward less exposed industries in response to increased Chinese imports in US output and input markets allowed them to reduce the cost of production." Or Paul Krugman talking about the same, if you prefer that angle: https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/trade-and-jobs-a-note https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/trade-and-jobs-... Sure, there are arguments on each side. But it's not as cut and dried as your last paragraph suggests.

carsongross 10y ago
> But it's not as cut and dried as your last paragraph suggests. It was the libertarians and liberal economic establishment who claimed it was cut and dried that unrestricted free trade was better for all Americans. Anyone who objected (Buchanan, Perot, now Trump) was obviously stupid, and probably racist.
- nickik 10y ago
  No economist makes the argument that free trade is better for all americans. Thats simply not what economic theory says. Economist have studid the problem for a long time and the wastly overwhelming majority still support it. They have actually fought about the problem quite a bit. You would do well to actually understand the argument instead of mischaracterising it.
  - hiram112 10y ago
    While agree with you - it was always noted in the fine print that there would be losers in the globalization game - it just wasn't stated that 95% of us would lose, while .1% would win bigly.
ajross 10y ago
That's exactly the right frame. Globalism "totally fucked" the american worker in the sense that the western working class broadly hasn't seen any net improvement in quality of life over the last two decades or so. Certainly nothing to compare with the gains seen in the western professional classes. Globalism also quite literally lifted hundreds of millions of non-western (mostly, not exclusively chinese) workers out of destitution and into the middle class. Let's keep some perspective on this, please. We can certainly do better with equality of opportunity here in the US, but let's check that privilege a little before demanding to unwind all the gains made elsewhere. To the rest of the world, the 1960's were a nightmare, not a golden age.
- jcmoscon 10y ago
  >Globalism also quite literally lifted hundreds of millions of non-western (mostly, not exclusively chinese) workers out of destitution and into the middle class. Do you know how the "lifted" the poor to middle class in Brazil? By redefining what is middle class. This is all left wing bs my friend!
- frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
  Every country has it's own citizens as a first priority. If a working-class American is harmed to make an already wealthy american wealthier and to make the 5 Indonesians/Chinese/Africans/etc. that wealthy american hires better off then our country should rise up to reject that.
  - jameswatson_iii 10y ago
    Rational self interest? Heresy! We must ride the train of pathological altruism to the very end! Ironically, this religion of globalism is a crude form of Christianity, with none of the pretty prose. The original sin of success must be paid for by eternal self-flagellation. Even more interestingly, this new religion has only taken root in the west, which has mostly abandoned traditional religious dogma. Perhaps pathological altruism is inherent in those of western genetic origin? The non-western world appears to have none of these hangups regarding their past successes. I don't see Japanese and Chinese leaders flooding their nation with immigrant labor to atone for their recent economic gains while demonizing their own people for past sins. Fascinating indeed.

by theptip 10y ago

carsongross 10y ago

> But it's not as cut and dried as your last paragraph suggests. It was the libertarians and liberal economic establishment who claimed it was cut and dried that unrestricted free trade was better for all Americans. Anyone who objected (Buchanan, Perot, now Trump) was obviously stupid, and probably racist.

nickik 10y ago
No economist makes the argument that free trade is better for all americans. Thats simply not what economic theory says. Economist have studid the problem for a long time and the wastly overwhelming majority still support it. They have actually fought about the problem quite a bit. You would do well to actually understand the argument instead of mischaracterising it.
- hiram112 10y ago
  While agree with you - it was always noted in the fine print that there would be losers in the globalization game - it just wasn't stated that 95% of us would lose, while .1% would win bigly.

ajross 10y ago

That's exactly the right frame. Globalism "totally fucked" the american worker in the sense that the western working class broadly hasn't seen any net improvement in quality of life over the last two decades or so. Certainly nothing to compare with the gains seen in the western professional classes. Globalism also quite literally lifted hundreds of millions of non-western (mostly, not exclusively chinese) workers out of destitution and into the middle class. Let's keep some perspective on this, please. We can certainly do better with equality of opportunity here in the US, but let's check that privilege a little before demanding to unwind all the gains made elsewhere. To the rest of the world, the 1960's were a nightmare, not a golden age.

jcmoscon 10y ago
>Globalism also quite literally lifted hundreds of millions of non-western (mostly, not exclusively chinese) workers out of destitution and into the middle class. Do you know how the "lifted" the poor to middle class in Brazil? By redefining what is middle class. This is all left wing bs my friend!
frgtpsswrdlame 10y ago
Every country has it's own citizens as a first priority. If a working-class American is harmed to make an already wealthy american wealthier and to make the 5 Indonesians/Chinese/Africans/etc. that wealthy american hires better off then our country should rise up to reject that.
- jameswatson_iii 10y ago
  Rational self interest? Heresy! We must ride the train of pathological altruism to the very end! Ironically, this religion of globalism is a crude form of Christianity, with none of the pretty prose. The original sin of success must be paid for by eternal self-flagellation. Even more interestingly, this new religion has only taken root in the west, which has mostly abandoned traditional religious dogma. Perhaps pathological altruism is inherent in those of western genetic origin? The non-western world appears to have none of these hangups regarding their past successes. I don't see Japanese and Chinese leaders flooding their nation with immigrant labor to atone for their recent economic gains while demonizing their own people for past sins. Fascinating indeed.