5 ms·

Agreed, that is a particularly offensive line of bullshit. Labor arbitrage is a thing, sure, but it takes a special flavor of insipid shithead to try to unfurl

Agreed, that is a particularly offensive line of bullshit. Labor arbitrage is a thing, sure, but it takes a special flavor of insipid shithead to try to unfurl that kind of tortured logic to handwave past the obvious exploitation taking place.

zeroname 8y ago
How is it exploitation? These are some of the best jobs available to people coming from the slums. The real reason that they don't pay more is of course: They don't have to. That's not what the white media people (desperate for yet another "exploitation" story) want to hear though, so you gotta make up some "social" reason. If these people were paid more, the whole business would just move to the next cheapest place, possibly in another country. That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat.
- coldtea 8y ago
  >That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat. Actually you can. Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila. That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities. This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Even interventionist economists like Paul Krugman strongly agree, and they have tried to explain why free trade is a good thing to an ignorant public. It is shameful that so many people feel obligated to opine strongly on a subject which they don't understand, causing bad policies to be enacted. Protectionism makes society worse off. The policy you are proposing would make the world poorer. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actuall... [2] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/01/free-trade-why-are-economists-and-noneconomists-so-far-apart https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 [4] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade [5] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties [6] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are.
      - zeroname 8y ago
        > Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not the "establishment", economists from all sides disagree over almost everything except for this. That's how you know there's something to it.
        coldtea 8y ago
        Touting the "free market" is the basis of their being employed. Of course they agree in this, they just disagree on how they go about it.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        > Touting the "free market" is the basis of their being employed. How so? > Of course they agree in this Agree on what? It sounds like you're grasping at straws here.
      - antidesitter 8y ago
        > Yes, establishment [insert field here]s all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. Can you address what I said with something more substantive? Also, what counts as "establishment"? > It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are. Of course it's not. Yet this is an issue where you get as close to certainty as you can in any social science.
    - jerkstate 8y ago
      I think everyone agrees that outsourcing work to third world economies creates immense wealth in first world economies. We also know that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way to make useful heat. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of negative unintended consequences.
  - emiliobumachar 8y ago
    Why would "forc[ing] third world countries to actually become competitive" happen at all, if it had not happened before outsourcing was a thing? I would think these workers would just go back to "earning around $2 a day, or less, in the so-called informal economy of odd - or dangerous - jobs." If you think they are acceptable collateral, at least say it in as many words. If that's not it, please explain.
  - zeroname 8y ago
    A late reply, it says I'm posting "too fast"... > Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila. This is nonsense economics, straight out of Donald Trumps playbook. It hurts everyone involved in the process. If unskilled labor becomes too expensive, it's simply eliminated. Business looks elsewhere. This hurts the people in the rich country less, there are more opportunities for people there. The people in the poorer countries stay poor, because they don't get the kind of foreign capital they need to advance. You know, the kind of money that buys things on the global market, the kind of money that the US just gets to print. > That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities. Not just "cheap gadgets" will be more expensive, everything will be, because the whole economy is intertwined in subtle ways. This makes everyone poorer, but it especially hurts those people that can afford the least. They'll be able to afford even less. You're not helping a middle class by raising prices on low-end jobs. Those jobs will disappear when they become too expensive. They can not become middle-class jobs by fiat. > This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem. If you have sweatshop-like conditions, which I don't think is the case here, then that is still a better alternative than whatever other jobs these people could've had instead - otherwise they would do those. Remember, the government can't just decide everyone gets to have a good job. Isolating these third world countries from the global market doesn't help them become more competitive. It's not like it hasn't been tried, mind you.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >This is nonsense economics, straight out of Donald Trumps playbook. That's a facile response. The truth is that tariffs and similar restrictions have been used by every major economic power on its way to the top, the US perhaps more than others: "Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism" (Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes, Bairoch)." [1] Of course once they got there, they suddenly find protectionism "not working" anymore, and other countries shouldn't use it -- like someone who got to the top kicks out the ladder he used lest others use it too. In other words, the interests of the 10% are taken as economic gospel (after all economists always belong to the 10% and cater to that crowd, especially anybody who's let anywhere near policy makers and top universities) -- and let the middle class and the bottom 30% be damned. >Not just "cheap gadgets" will be more expensive, everything will be, because the whole economy is intertwined in subtle ways. This makes everyone poorer, but it especially hurts those people that can afford the least. Everyone needs to be "poorer" when it comes to affording consumerism anyway (from smartphones to the tons of clothes [2]), and "richer" in affording rent, healthcare, education, job, and other such necessities, that is, the opposite of the trends for the last 30+ years. >If you have sweatshop-like conditions, which I don't think is the case here, then that is still a better alternative than whatever other jobs these people could've had instead - otherwise they would do those. The same could be said for child labor (better than the kids/families starving), and yet we outlawed that (at least in theory). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transforming-the-fashion-industry_us_57ceee96e4b0a48094a58d39 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transforming-the-fashio...
  - BurningFrog 8y ago
    All rich countries, except a few oil producers, have become rich by sweatshop-like labor. It's the one way that actually works. By banning it, you are not forcing third world countries to find some other way, you are forcing them to remain in poverty.
    - coldtea 8y ago
      >All rich countries, except a few oil producers, have become rich by sweatshop-like labor. It's the one way that actually works. By banning it, you are not forcing third world countries to find some other way, you are forcing them to remain in poverty. Rich countries have also used feudal ownership, slave labor, and colonies. And all allowed child labor. Maybe we should allow those too? The "way that it actually works" depends on what people tolerate and find acceptable. There's nothing written in stone, societies can drive their fate, not the other way around.

zeroname 8y ago

How is it exploitation? These are some of the best jobs available to people coming from the slums. The real reason that they don't pay more is of course: They don't have to. That's not what the white media people (desperate for yet another "exploitation" story) want to hear though, so you gotta make up some "social" reason. If these people were paid more, the whole business would just move to the next cheapest place, possibly in another country. That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat.

coldtea 8y ago
>That's the peril of unskilled labor everywhere. You can't fix it by fiat. Actually you can. Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila. That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities. This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare [1][2][3][4][5][6]. Even interventionist economists like Paul Krugman strongly agree, and they have tried to explain why free trade is a good thing to an ignorant public. It is shameful that so many people feel obligated to opine strongly on a subject which they don't understand, causing bad policies to be enacted. Protectionism makes society worse off. The policy you are proposing would make the world poorer. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actually-agree-on-this-point-the-wisdom-of-free-trade.html https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/26/upshot/economists-actuall... [2] https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/01/free-trade-why-are-economists-and-noneconomists-so-far-apart https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/2004/09/... [3] https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 https://www.jstor.org/stable/2117691 [4] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/free-trade [5] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/import-duties [6] http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/trade-within-europe
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >There is an overwhelming consensus among people who study the subject that protectionism has a negative effect on economic growth and economic welfare Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are.
    - zeroname 8y ago
      > Yes, establishment economists all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. It's not the "establishment", economists from all sides disagree over almost everything except for this. That's how you know there's something to it.
      - coldtea 8y ago
        Touting the "free market" is the basis of their being employed. Of course they agree in this, they just disagree on how they go about it.
        antidesitter 8y ago
        > Touting the "free market" is the basis of their being employed. How so? > Of course they agree in this Agree on what? It sounds like you're grasping at straws here.
    - antidesitter 8y ago
      > Yes, establishment [insert field here]s all agree on establishment practices are good and want more of them. News at 11. Can you address what I said with something more substantive? Also, what counts as "establishment"? > It's not like economics is a science the way physics or chemistry are. Of course it's not. Yet this is an issue where you get as close to certainty as you can in any social science.
  - jerkstate 8y ago
    I think everyone agrees that outsourcing work to third world economies creates immense wealth in first world economies. We also know that burning fossil fuels is the cheapest way to make useful heat. That doesn't mean it doesn't have a lot of negative unintended consequences.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  Why would "forc[ing] third world countries to actually become competitive" happen at all, if it had not happened before outsourcing was a thing? I would think these workers would just go back to "earning around $2 a day, or less, in the so-called informal economy of odd - or dangerous - jobs." If you think they are acceptable collateral, at least say it in as many words. If that's not it, please explain.
- zeroname 8y ago
  A late reply, it says I'm posting "too fast"... > Forbid companies to outsource labor outside their target market country, or impose heavy tariffs, and voila. This is nonsense economics, straight out of Donald Trumps playbook. It hurts everyone involved in the process. If unskilled labor becomes too expensive, it's simply eliminated. Business looks elsewhere. This hurts the people in the rich country less, there are more opportunities for people there. The people in the poorer countries stay poor, because they don't get the kind of foreign capital they need to advance. You know, the kind of money that buys things on the global market, the kind of money that the US just gets to print. > That will mean less cheap gadgets in said market country (e.g. US), but more actual jobs, and a healthier middle class (and thus economy), and thus better access to necessities. Not just "cheap gadgets" will be more expensive, everything will be, because the whole economy is intertwined in subtle ways. This makes everyone poorer, but it especially hurts those people that can afford the least. They'll be able to afford even less. You're not helping a middle class by raising prices on low-end jobs. Those jobs will disappear when they become too expensive. They can not become middle-class jobs by fiat. > This will also force third world countries to actually become competitive in quality and delivery, not just throw sweatshop-like labor (including from children and in some cases, slaves) and cheaper dangerous working conditions at the problem. If you have sweatshop-like conditions, which I don't think is the case here, then that is still a better alternative than whatever other jobs these people could've had instead - otherwise they would do those. Remember, the government can't just decide everyone gets to have a good job. Isolating these third world countries from the global market doesn't help them become more competitive. It's not like it hasn't been tried, mind you.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >This is nonsense economics, straight out of Donald Trumps playbook. That's a facile response. The truth is that tariffs and similar restrictions have been used by every major economic power on its way to the top, the US perhaps more than others: "Britain was the first country to successfully use a large-scale infant industry promotion strategy. However, its most ardent user was the U.S.; the economic historian Paul Bairoch once called it "the homeland and bastion of modern protectionism" (Economics and World History: Myths and Paradoxes, Bairoch)." [1] Of course once they got there, they suddenly find protectionism "not working" anymore, and other countries shouldn't use it -- like someone who got to the top kicks out the ladder he used lest others use it too. In other words, the interests of the 10% are taken as economic gospel (after all economists always belong to the 10% and cater to that crowd, especially anybody who's let anywhere near policy makers and top universities) -- and let the middle class and the bottom 30% be damned. >Not just "cheap gadgets" will be more expensive, everything will be, because the whole economy is intertwined in subtle ways. This makes everyone poorer, but it especially hurts those people that can afford the least. Everyone needs to be "poorer" when it comes to affording consumerism anyway (from smartphones to the tons of clothes [2]), and "richer" in affording rent, healthcare, education, job, and other such necessities, that is, the opposite of the trends for the last 30+ years. >If you have sweatshop-like conditions, which I don't think is the case here, then that is still a better alternative than whatever other jobs these people could've had instead - otherwise they would do those. The same could be said for child labor (better than the kids/families starving), and yet we outlawed that (at least in theory). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protectionism_in_the_United_St... [2] https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transforming-the-fashion-industry_us_57ceee96e4b0a48094a58d39 https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/transforming-the-fashio...
- BurningFrog 8y ago
  All rich countries, except a few oil producers, have become rich by sweatshop-like labor. It's the one way that actually works. By banning it, you are not forcing third world countries to find some other way, you are forcing them to remain in poverty.
  - coldtea 8y ago
    >All rich countries, except a few oil producers, have become rich by sweatshop-like labor. It's the one way that actually works. By banning it, you are not forcing third world countries to find some other way, you are forcing them to remain in poverty. Rich countries have also used feudal ownership, slave labor, and colonies. And all allowed child labor. Maybe we should allow those too? The "way that it actually works" depends on what people tolerate and find acceptable. There's nothing written in stone, societies can drive their fate, not the other way around.