5 ms·

Well I guess it will depend on where you draw the empathy line. Some people care only about themselves, they will look after themselves, if they have to choose

by elboru 9y ago

Well I guess it will depend on where you draw the empathy line. Some people care only about themselves, they will look after themselves, if they have to choose they will always pick the option that benefits them. Then you have the people who only care about themselves and their family, I guess a good percentage of the population will choose in favor of their family rather than someone's else. Then people empathize with those who share things in common with them (culture, ideology, social status, race, nationality, religion) a kind of extended family. Then you have people who think we should empathize with everyone around the world, but do they really?, if there was a chance where they have to decide between their children or some random dude in the other side of the world, who would they choose to help? Is it fair? I don't think so. Would I rather help people who I empathize with? I would lie if I say no. I'm not a monster , I don't want a random guy to suffer, but there's something inside me that makes me look after my family first. P.S. I'm from Mexico, and I live in a city whose economy depends on foreign manufacturing companies.

tambienben 9y ago
I think the premise here is a false dichotomy. Consider why many U.S. companies have moved to mexico--the domestic economy since 2008 has been significant factor. I think that its in everyone's best interest to consider yourself first; then when you're secure & able, help your neighbor. There's nothing keeping some companies from having establishments in both countries.
leereeves 9y ago
There's also this: If every country has its own economy, there will be far more companies and jobs than if only a few multinational companies exist in the entire world.
- bryananderson 9y ago
  This is just not true. Interconnection creates a far more dynamic economy. Look at any country that has tried to be economically self-sufficient. The siren of autarky is deadly to all her victims.
  - leereeves 9y ago
    I agree that interconnection makes the economy more dynamic. Part of that dynamism, unfortunately, is the death of local companies. Good for those who have money, but costly for those who lose their jobs.
    - bryananderson 9y ago
      This is a fair point. Perhaps we can have a common-sense regulation regime that protects workers and the environment without sacrificing the benefits of comparative advantage?
  - jordanb 9y ago
    There's a false dichotomy between hyperglobalization and complete autarky. Tariffs were common US policy when they served the interests of the elite. They only became ideologically unthinkable when they might have been used to protect the interests of the common people. Trade deals could have been written to lift up working standards and environmental protections in foreign countries and to limit the effect on the American workforce. Instead they were written to facilitate wage, labor and environmental protection regulatory arbitrage and undermine the position of the American working class.
    - bryananderson 9y ago
      Fair enough. But there is a distinction between country-agnostic labor/environmental protections and tariffs which benefit one country over another.
    - vfulco 9y ago
      Nailed it. Americans are asked to swallow lower and lower opportunities for long term work potential (and continuing education) while being expected to continue spending cause its the patriotic thing to do. Only the C-suite and elite win. But we still haven't awakened from the nightmare.
- closeparen 9y ago
  Why country? Why not state, county, city, neighborhood, or block? If subdividing the economy creates good jobs, then we should do it as much as possible. National protectionism has the same problems as state or city level import restrictions would, just at a different scale: you're throwing away comparative advantage, wasting time and capital duplicating others' work (so this time and capital is no longer available to unsolved problems), etc.
  - chroem- 9y ago
    >Why not state, county, city, neighborhood, or block? Because nobody is arguing that. You're inventing an absurd position to argue against a pretty reasonable one. >you're throwing away comparative advantage, wasting time and capital duplicating others' work (so this time and capital is no longer available to unsolved problems), etc. Is this supposed to be a problem? Efficiency gains have simply gone into ballooning corporate cash stockpiles rather than demonstrably better purchasing power for consumers. Paradoxically, this is weakening the economy as more capital concentrates in fewer hands and consumer demand begins to falter.
    - closeparen 9y ago
      > You're inventing an absurd position Why is country less absurd than any other level of government?
      - chroem- 9y ago
        Why do you think? National boundaries tend to be relatively homogeneous in terms of human development, which prevents corporations from engaging in labor arbitrage. Comparative advantage is beneficial in capital terms only, and harmful if it is used as a means to deny people basic human dignity in their working conditions. It enables for as wide of a market as possible without labor arbitrage.
        closeparen 9y ago
        The US is nowhere near homogeneous. At best, it's bimodal (coastal megacities vs. interior). There are labor arbitrage opportunities of more than 2x between i.e. Mississippi and DC [0]. Discussions about Silicon Valley's housing crisis routinely beg tech companies to engage in labor arbitrage by opening satellite offices or permitting remote workers in cheaper parts of the country. The chasm between human development in a country's cities vs. its countryside is even wider around the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
- mikeash 9y ago
  This sounds like a broken window fallacy to me. Inefficiency can manifest as more jobs, but that doesn't mean people are better off.
  - nine_k 9y ago
    Soviet Union was a prime example of that: constant lack of people to do work, third-world living standards, and colossal inefficiency. It ceased to exist mere 26 years ago.
mistermann 9y ago
And then you have the people, and it's a lot of people, most of whom seem to be young, well educated and politically engaged, who congregate in online communities and insist that it literally makes no difference if a job goes to Mexico (or wherever) or not. Personally, I think if we got rid of even 50% of the stupidity and corruption in our respective societies, there would be so much to go around for everyone it would be a utopia. But if we don't do this, and soon, I'm very worried that everything is increasingly going to flow up to the top x% who own the machines, and the survival of the rest will literally be at the whim of them, their government officials, and their security forces.
bagacrap 9y ago
When do people have a chance to directly choose between stranger on another continent and their children? If I refuse to buy something made in a distant sweat shop and pay more for a product from a company that treats its foreign labourers fairly, I'm putting a stranger over my children in that I could have spent that extra money on the kids instead. That kind of decision making is not unheard of or unrealistic.

by elboru 9y ago

tambienben 9y ago

I think the premise here is a false dichotomy. Consider why many U.S. companies have moved to mexico--the domestic economy since 2008 has been significant factor. I think that its in everyone's best interest to consider yourself first; then when you're secure & able, help your neighbor. There's nothing keeping some companies from having establishments in both countries.

leereeves 9y ago

There's also this: If every country has its own economy, there will be far more companies and jobs than if only a few multinational companies exist in the entire world.

bryananderson 9y ago
This is just not true. Interconnection creates a far more dynamic economy. Look at any country that has tried to be economically self-sufficient. The siren of autarky is deadly to all her victims.
- leereeves 9y ago
  I agree that interconnection makes the economy more dynamic. Part of that dynamism, unfortunately, is the death of local companies. Good for those who have money, but costly for those who lose their jobs.
  - bryananderson 9y ago
    This is a fair point. Perhaps we can have a common-sense regulation regime that protects workers and the environment without sacrificing the benefits of comparative advantage?
- jordanb 9y ago
  There's a false dichotomy between hyperglobalization and complete autarky. Tariffs were common US policy when they served the interests of the elite. They only became ideologically unthinkable when they might have been used to protect the interests of the common people. Trade deals could have been written to lift up working standards and environmental protections in foreign countries and to limit the effect on the American workforce. Instead they were written to facilitate wage, labor and environmental protection regulatory arbitrage and undermine the position of the American working class.
  - bryananderson 9y ago
    Fair enough. But there is a distinction between country-agnostic labor/environmental protections and tariffs which benefit one country over another.
  - vfulco 9y ago
    Nailed it. Americans are asked to swallow lower and lower opportunities for long term work potential (and continuing education) while being expected to continue spending cause its the patriotic thing to do. Only the C-suite and elite win. But we still haven't awakened from the nightmare.
closeparen 9y ago
Why country? Why not state, county, city, neighborhood, or block? If subdividing the economy creates good jobs, then we should do it as much as possible. National protectionism has the same problems as state or city level import restrictions would, just at a different scale: you're throwing away comparative advantage, wasting time and capital duplicating others' work (so this time and capital is no longer available to unsolved problems), etc.
- chroem- 9y ago
  >Why not state, county, city, neighborhood, or block? Because nobody is arguing that. You're inventing an absurd position to argue against a pretty reasonable one. >you're throwing away comparative advantage, wasting time and capital duplicating others' work (so this time and capital is no longer available to unsolved problems), etc. Is this supposed to be a problem? Efficiency gains have simply gone into ballooning corporate cash stockpiles rather than demonstrably better purchasing power for consumers. Paradoxically, this is weakening the economy as more capital concentrates in fewer hands and consumer demand begins to falter.
  - closeparen 9y ago
    > You're inventing an absurd position Why is country less absurd than any other level of government?
    - chroem- 9y ago
      Why do you think? National boundaries tend to be relatively homogeneous in terms of human development, which prevents corporations from engaging in labor arbitrage. Comparative advantage is beneficial in capital terms only, and harmful if it is used as a means to deny people basic human dignity in their working conditions. It enables for as wide of a market as possible without labor arbitrage.
      - closeparen 9y ago
        The US is nowhere near homogeneous. At best, it's bimodal (coastal megacities vs. interior). There are labor arbitrage opportunities of more than 2x between i.e. Mississippi and DC [0]. Discussions about Silicon Valley's housing crisis routinely beg tech companies to engage in labor arbitrage by opening satellite offices or permitting remote workers in cheaper parts of the country. The chasm between human development in a country's cities vs. its countryside is even wider around the world. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
mikeash 9y ago
This sounds like a broken window fallacy to me. Inefficiency can manifest as more jobs, but that doesn't mean people are better off.
- nine_k 9y ago
  Soviet Union was a prime example of that: constant lack of people to do work, third-world living standards, and colossal inefficiency. It ceased to exist mere 26 years ago.

mistermann 9y ago

And then you have the people, and it's a lot of people, most of whom seem to be young, well educated and politically engaged, who congregate in online communities and insist that it literally makes no difference if a job goes to Mexico (or wherever) or not. Personally, I think if we got rid of even 50% of the stupidity and corruption in our respective societies, there would be so much to go around for everyone it would be a utopia. But if we don't do this, and soon, I'm very worried that everything is increasingly going to flow up to the top x% who own the machines, and the survival of the rest will literally be at the whim of them, their government officials, and their security forces.

bagacrap 9y ago

When do people have a chance to directly choose between stranger on another continent and their children? If I refuse to buy something made in a distant sweat shop and pay more for a product from a company that treats its foreign labourers fairly, I'm putting a stranger over my children in that I could have spent that extra money on the kids instead. That kind of decision making is not unheard of or unrealistic.