4 ms·

This is all well and good in the global altruistic humanist sense, but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced m

This is all well and good in the global altruistic humanist sense, but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump. As they say, "All politics is local".

nicoburns 8y ago
Of course ironically it has been the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world (with similar impacts on industries elsewhere it seems).
- caseysoftware 8y ago
  As noted in the article, the original analysis backed that up as a "good" option for the US and everyone else. With the knowledge that the original analysis is wrong, I wonder if we'll see actual policy changes more broadly than Trump's campaign rhetoric?
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world No, the rest of the world has been pushing it too, with exceptional results, and still follows that path with the U.S. being the odd country out. If this one study is correct, it only reflects on one aspect of a much larger issue. Trade has brought immense benefits to the world, lifting billions out of abject poverty; whatever it's drawbacks and imperfections, it's very hard to say it's anything but the greatest economic success in human history. Globalism is built on the foundation of universal human rights, probably the most important factor in the overall welfare of humans. If the people who happen to be on the other side of an arbitrary, invisible line don't have rights, then neither do you.
  - dcow 8y ago
    So economic prosperity is equivalent to universal human rights? If we raise the world's average income by enslaving the bottom 5% of the population in a sovereignty that does not defend human rights am I supposed to look the other way? Sorry if this is hyperbole but I think you get my point.
    - forapurpose 8y ago
      Certain economic needs - food, shelter, health care, education, etc. - are human rights. I'm not sure what else you are referring to. Who said it's ok to enslave people? Or that the economic rights were the only ones that mattered? > am I supposed to look the other way? Absolutely not; it's wrong to look the other way. I shouldn't either.
      - dcow 8y ago
        Perhaps you are missing my point. Your argument is that globalization is universally good for the world because it equalizes global economy. I am suggesting that's only true if the world also shares the same understanding of fundamental human rights. If we equalize global economy by trading with or including a country that does not treat workers humanely, how do we resolve that?
        forapurpose 8y ago
        > If we equalize global economy by trading with or including a country that does not treat workers humanely, how do we resolve that? I agree that's a very important question. First I think we need to stop talking in absolutes. I'm not saying globalization is "universally" good; I'm saying there are great benefits; there are also real problems, including the one you point out. Nothing in the world is perfect; if we only move forward on things when they are perfect, we live in caves - which are pretty imperfect themselves. The question is not perfection but how can we do better? Post-WWII globalization has created the greatest benefit to common people in the history of humanity. After thousands of years, hundreds of millions of people in China have been lifted from desperate poverty to 'middle-class'[0] prosperity. The same has been repeated in India, Brazil, South Korea, and many other places in the world. People in the West also are immensely wealthier, live longer (and have more freedom). Also, specific to the question you raised, human rights have spread at a rate also unprecedented in the history of humanity; look at the explosion of democracies and of liberty. While there are problems, the benefits are overwhelming IMHO. There also is a moral component: People generally believe in freedom, and economic freedom, to trade with whom you like without government stopping you, is an important one. But I do take the problems seriously: * Impact on individuals: This is the fundamental problem, IMHO: Capital can move much faster than individuals; a factory can move to another country much faster than the workers can find new, equivalent jobs - for most, moving to another country is practically impossible - especially if half the town is now unemployed. Therefore, trade provides a net benefit, but the impact on individuals is disparate to a great degree. We need to protect those individuals, by giving them time to adjust (require a warning or continuing salary for X time, perhaps based on the impact on the local job market), by compensating them for the change (taxing the benefits of moving capital and giving some back to the people making the biggest sacrifice), and by means of the latter taxes, also raise the cost of such changes to the point where it's economically viable not just for the company and future employees, but for those left behind. * Human rights: To not trade - to lock billions into extreme poverty (often defined as less than $1/day), starving, with no education, medical care, etc. - seems the opposite of concern for human rights. Money is essential to "life ... and the pursuit of happiness". As for liberty, there's long been the theory, often born out, that when a middle class grows in a country, they demand political rights. That's been true in many countries, including parts of China (Taiwan and Hong Kong), S. Korea, Brazil, Chile, etc. But to rely on it just happening is insufficient; we need to do more, including writing human rights into our agreements, leading on the issue (which the current US administration has abandoned), and pressuring others into expanding them. * Labor practices: I think these need to be written into trade agreements, though I don't know what's already been done - I think it's widely assumed to be nothing, but I've never read anything by someone who actually knows what's in the agreements. However, it's a false assumption that labor costs are the prime cause of manufacturing moving, based on at least some economists I've read. Manufacturing was big in mid-20th century West and has been declining since; Americans now have much better paying, safer, more comfortable jobs than working in factories. That's a good thing; we need to do much better, but not by going backwards. Manufacturing is often done in China because that's where the expertise and other resources are concentrated (from infrastructure to bankers to talent to suppliers etc.), the same reason SV is home to the IT industry. [0] I won't bother to define it here; I hope you get my point.
  - mistermann 8y ago
    > If the people who happen to be on the other side of an arbitrary, invisible line don't have rights, then neither do you. If a communist dictator takes over a country (on the other side of an arbitrary line) and reduces rights, my rights are also reduced? Could you possibly explain the mechanism of how this works, and maybe even provide some examples?
forapurpose 8y ago
> but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump Americans have gone through decades of ups and downs without turning to hateful nationalism and while supporting free trade, as well as 'humanism' (in terms of democracy, liberty, and opportunity) for all. The nationalists want to appear inevitable, but they are not. If there's no humanism for others then there's none for you either; if human rights aren't universal, then you don't have any either. Being unemployed and relatively powerless, people might appreciate a little more humanism. EDIT: And according to this thread, the low-income voters voted for Clinton anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 > This is all well and good in global altruistic humanist sense In the local economic sense, in fact. If trade is harmed, then your chance of getting another job is reduced and the cost of things that you need will go up. Most of what you buy is produced outside the U.S. > if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump That takes at face value Trump's claim to represent such groups' interests. If you are a minority, you probably aren't voting for Trump; if you are a woman, it's also unlikely you see him as protecting your interests, Also, Trump will take away you and your family's health insurance; his spending policies will remove other government benefits and investments you receive (including higher education for your kids); his economic and trade policies may harm economic output, reducing your chance to get another job; his inflationary policies may eat away your savings; his pro-Wall Street policies may make you a victim of the financial system ... much of his appeal is not to the economic interests of factory workers, but to ethnic nationalism, and other issues. My point is not to debate about Trump's policies, but to say: Let's not take politicians' claims at face value and just repeat them.
- joejerryronnie 8y ago
  You are not wrong but you're also asking people who feel their immediate future is in jeopardy to look beyond the woes of their small town and consider the larger, interconnected global economy. I'm a Silicon Valley tech worker so my reality is far different than this scenario, but we've got to find a way to frame the conversation in terms that will engage the other half of the country who do feel this way. Who knows, we might even find out that they have some good points.

nicoburns 8y ago

Of course ironically it has been the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world (with similar impacts on industries elsewhere it seems).

caseysoftware 8y ago
As noted in the article, the original analysis backed that up as a "good" option for the US and everyone else. With the knowledge that the original analysis is wrong, I wonder if we'll see actual policy changes more broadly than Trump's campaign rhetoric?
forapurpose 8y ago
> the US pushing globalism and free trade on the rest of the world No, the rest of the world has been pushing it too, with exceptional results, and still follows that path with the U.S. being the odd country out. If this one study is correct, it only reflects on one aspect of a much larger issue. Trade has brought immense benefits to the world, lifting billions out of abject poverty; whatever it's drawbacks and imperfections, it's very hard to say it's anything but the greatest economic success in human history. Globalism is built on the foundation of universal human rights, probably the most important factor in the overall welfare of humans. If the people who happen to be on the other side of an arbitrary, invisible line don't have rights, then neither do you.
- dcow 8y ago
  So economic prosperity is equivalent to universal human rights? If we raise the world's average income by enslaving the bottom 5% of the population in a sovereignty that does not defend human rights am I supposed to look the other way? Sorry if this is hyperbole but I think you get my point.
  - forapurpose 8y ago
    Certain economic needs - food, shelter, health care, education, etc. - are human rights. I'm not sure what else you are referring to. Who said it's ok to enslave people? Or that the economic rights were the only ones that mattered? > am I supposed to look the other way? Absolutely not; it's wrong to look the other way. I shouldn't either.
    - dcow 8y ago
      Perhaps you are missing my point. Your argument is that globalization is universally good for the world because it equalizes global economy. I am suggesting that's only true if the world also shares the same understanding of fundamental human rights. If we equalize global economy by trading with or including a country that does not treat workers humanely, how do we resolve that?
      - forapurpose 8y ago
        > If we equalize global economy by trading with or including a country that does not treat workers humanely, how do we resolve that? I agree that's a very important question. First I think we need to stop talking in absolutes. I'm not saying globalization is "universally" good; I'm saying there are great benefits; there are also real problems, including the one you point out. Nothing in the world is perfect; if we only move forward on things when they are perfect, we live in caves - which are pretty imperfect themselves. The question is not perfection but how can we do better? Post-WWII globalization has created the greatest benefit to common people in the history of humanity. After thousands of years, hundreds of millions of people in China have been lifted from desperate poverty to 'middle-class'[0] prosperity. The same has been repeated in India, Brazil, South Korea, and many other places in the world. People in the West also are immensely wealthier, live longer (and have more freedom). Also, specific to the question you raised, human rights have spread at a rate also unprecedented in the history of humanity; look at the explosion of democracies and of liberty. While there are problems, the benefits are overwhelming IMHO. There also is a moral component: People generally believe in freedom, and economic freedom, to trade with whom you like without government stopping you, is an important one. But I do take the problems seriously: * Impact on individuals: This is the fundamental problem, IMHO: Capital can move much faster than individuals; a factory can move to another country much faster than the workers can find new, equivalent jobs - for most, moving to another country is practically impossible - especially if half the town is now unemployed. Therefore, trade provides a net benefit, but the impact on individuals is disparate to a great degree. We need to protect those individuals, by giving them time to adjust (require a warning or continuing salary for X time, perhaps based on the impact on the local job market), by compensating them for the change (taxing the benefits of moving capital and giving some back to the people making the biggest sacrifice), and by means of the latter taxes, also raise the cost of such changes to the point where it's economically viable not just for the company and future employees, but for those left behind. * Human rights: To not trade - to lock billions into extreme poverty (often defined as less than $1/day), starving, with no education, medical care, etc. - seems the opposite of concern for human rights. Money is essential to "life ... and the pursuit of happiness". As for liberty, there's long been the theory, often born out, that when a middle class grows in a country, they demand political rights. That's been true in many countries, including parts of China (Taiwan and Hong Kong), S. Korea, Brazil, Chile, etc. But to rely on it just happening is insufficient; we need to do more, including writing human rights into our agreements, leading on the issue (which the current US administration has abandoned), and pressuring others into expanding them. * Labor practices: I think these need to be written into trade agreements, though I don't know what's already been done - I think it's widely assumed to be nothing, but I've never read anything by someone who actually knows what's in the agreements. However, it's a false assumption that labor costs are the prime cause of manufacturing moving, based on at least some economists I've read. Manufacturing was big in mid-20th century West and has been declining since; Americans now have much better paying, safer, more comfortable jobs than working in factories. That's a good thing; we need to do much better, but not by going backwards. Manufacturing is often done in China because that's where the expertise and other resources are concentrated (from infrastructure to bankers to talent to suppliers etc.), the same reason SV is home to the IT industry. [0] I won't bother to define it here; I hope you get my point.
- mistermann 8y ago
  > If the people who happen to be on the other side of an arbitrary, invisible line don't have rights, then neither do you. If a communist dictator takes over a country (on the other side of an arbitrary line) and reduces rights, my rights are also reduced? Could you possibly explain the mechanism of how this works, and maybe even provide some examples?

forapurpose 8y ago

> but if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump Americans have gone through decades of ups and downs without turning to hateful nationalism and while supporting free trade, as well as 'humanism' (in terms of democracy, liberty, and opportunity) for all. The nationalists want to appear inevitable, but they are not. If there's no humanism for others then there's none for you either; if human rights aren't universal, then you don't have any either. Being unemployed and relatively powerless, people might appreciate a little more humanism. EDIT: And according to this thread, the low-income voters voted for Clinton anyway: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17004385 > This is all well and good in global altruistic humanist sense In the local economic sense, in fact. If trade is harmed, then your chance of getting another job is reduced and the cost of things that you need will go up. Most of what you buy is produced outside the U.S. > if I just lost my job in Indiana because the company shuttered our plant and outsourced manufacturing to China, I'm voting for Trump That takes at face value Trump's claim to represent such groups' interests. If you are a minority, you probably aren't voting for Trump; if you are a woman, it's also unlikely you see him as protecting your interests, Also, Trump will take away you and your family's health insurance; his spending policies will remove other government benefits and investments you receive (including higher education for your kids); his economic and trade policies may harm economic output, reducing your chance to get another job; his inflationary policies may eat away your savings; his pro-Wall Street policies may make you a victim of the financial system ... much of his appeal is not to the economic interests of factory workers, but to ethnic nationalism, and other issues. My point is not to debate about Trump's policies, but to say: Let's not take politicians' claims at face value and just repeat them.

joejerryronnie 8y ago
You are not wrong but you're also asking people who feel their immediate future is in jeopardy to look beyond the woes of their small town and consider the larger, interconnected global economy. I'm a Silicon Valley tech worker so my reality is far different than this scenario, but we've got to find a way to frame the conversation in terms that will engage the other half of the country who do feel this way. Who knows, we might even find out that they have some good points.