4 ms·

Jobs don't "go overseas". Individuals who happen to live in other countries simply provide more value in their work than individuals in this one. So I try to

by kogus 19y ago

Jobs don't "go overseas". Individuals who happen to live in other countries simply provide more value in their work than individuals in this one. So I try to keep the value of my work as high as I can.

davidmoyle 19y ago
They provide more "value" because they are as good, but work in countries that don't have the same laws and also have a lower cost of living. The basic argument is one of our own consumer practices. Not weather others do a good job.
- andr 19y ago
  Very true. It's called geographical or regulatory arbitrage. Things like high cost of health insurance, car insurance, etc., are all results of laws and regulations, but add to the employer's bottom line.
- mrtron 19y ago
  So let's take Taiwan electronics manufacturing as an example here. They absolutely dominate in quality and skill at producing electronics, most of the high grade lcd panels in the world are produced there. You are suggesting that Americans buy panels manufactured in the US. I have no idea what the benefit to this would be. Worse panels at a higher price? What does this solve? It would create unsustainable and irrational employment. The way to solve economic downturn is not to close your borders like you suggest. That is the self-centered and naive way of thinking. The way to improve your economic situation is through innovation and wealth creation.
seasick 19y ago
> provide more value Like forgoing health care, worker protections, basic sanitation, you know -- having a very low standard of living. When standard of living starts to rise in one country (or in the relevant segment of it), it risks losing those same jobs to offshoring itself. E.g. India -> Vietnam.
- fallentimes 19y ago
  That's a blanket statement and isn't always true. The media loves to proliferate facts like "these workers only make <insert seemingly low wage here>" without adding content such as the purchasing power of such a wage. I agree with your second statement.
- jamiequint 19y ago
  you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours. Its not as if some "sweatshops" avoid healthcare provisions, sanitation. They exist in economies where it doesn't make sense to provide this, if they were to have full benefits as we have it wouldn't scale with their cost and they would either go out of business or not be able to employ as many people, thus some people would be unemployed while some would enjoy great benefits, which seems even more "unfair"
  - seasick 19y ago
    > you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. In this country people fought long and hard for the workplace rights we have today. The higher-wage jobs depend on the lower-wage jobs like an ecosystem. Shift away the foundation and everything collapses. Offshoring is like economic global warming.
    - jamiequint 19y ago
      > If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. They could afford to, but think about the labor problems that would result in such a market with some jobs that pay way way more than others (in terms of benefits and working conditions). Corruption run rampant, unrest, etc. Its just not viable to put the standards of a more developed economy on a lesser developed one. > As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. The people wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't derive a greater economic benefit from such a job than other alternatives they have. In most cases this isn't slave labor. I want better for all these people, but it has to happen sensibly, and in a way that is economically viable.
attack 19y ago
No, it's the combination of value vs. cost, not just "better value". So what you should also be considering is lowering your acceptable wage since value you can provide probably isn't infinite.

by kogus 19y ago

davidmoyle 19y ago

They provide more "value" because they are as good, but work in countries that don't have the same laws and also have a lower cost of living. The basic argument is one of our own consumer practices. Not weather others do a good job.

andr 19y ago
Very true. It's called geographical or regulatory arbitrage. Things like high cost of health insurance, car insurance, etc., are all results of laws and regulations, but add to the employer's bottom line.
mrtron 19y ago
So let's take Taiwan electronics manufacturing as an example here. They absolutely dominate in quality and skill at producing electronics, most of the high grade lcd panels in the world are produced there. You are suggesting that Americans buy panels manufactured in the US. I have no idea what the benefit to this would be. Worse panels at a higher price? What does this solve? It would create unsustainable and irrational employment. The way to solve economic downturn is not to close your borders like you suggest. That is the self-centered and naive way of thinking. The way to improve your economic situation is through innovation and wealth creation.

seasick 19y ago

> provide more value Like forgoing health care, worker protections, basic sanitation, you know -- having a very low standard of living. When standard of living starts to rise in one country (or in the relevant segment of it), it risks losing those same jobs to offshoring itself. E.g. India -> Vietnam.

fallentimes 19y ago
That's a blanket statement and isn't always true. The media loves to proliferate facts like "these workers only make <insert seemingly low wage here>" without adding content such as the purchasing power of such a wage. I agree with your second statement.
jamiequint 19y ago
you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours. Its not as if some "sweatshops" avoid healthcare provisions, sanitation. They exist in economies where it doesn't make sense to provide this, if they were to have full benefits as we have it wouldn't scale with their cost and they would either go out of business or not be able to employ as many people, thus some people would be unemployed while some would enjoy great benefits, which seems even more "unfair"
- seasick 19y ago
  > you can't expect less developed economies to meet the standards of ours If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. In this country people fought long and hard for the workplace rights we have today. The higher-wage jobs depend on the lower-wage jobs like an ecosystem. Shift away the foundation and everything collapses. Offshoring is like economic global warming.
  - jamiequint 19y ago
    > If a wealthy multinational corporation can afford to build a factory overseas, it can afford to implement health and safety regulations that protect the workers. It's not like a country has to be ultra-rich to provide a safe, clean workplace. They could afford to, but think about the labor problems that would result in such a market with some jobs that pay way way more than others (in terms of benefits and working conditions). Corruption run rampant, unrest, etc. Its just not viable to put the standards of a more developed economy on a lesser developed one. > As for actual sweatshops, let's not pretend they are bestowing some great benefit upon the poor who they ruthlessly exploit. They use people up and spit them out. The people wouldn't take the jobs if they didn't derive a greater economic benefit from such a job than other alternatives they have. In most cases this isn't slave labor. I want better for all these people, but it has to happen sensibly, and in a way that is economically viable.

attack 19y ago

No, it's the combination of value vs. cost, not just "better value". So what you should also be considering is lowering your acceptable wage since value you can provide probably isn't infinite.