5 ms·

>If you live in a first world country and your skill set is worse than somebody in the developing world, you’re going to have a bad time. Even if your skill se

>If you live in a first world country and your skill set is worse than somebody in the developing world, you’re going to have a bad time. Even if your skill set is greater, your cost of living is higher. So you'd have to be more than marginally better. Also, the logical conclusion of where this seems to be headed is that if you're a low-skill person living in a first-world county, voting for protectionist, isolationist policies/politicians is a rational choice.

cycrutchfield 7y ago
Sure, as we saw quite vividly in 2016. This is also known as Crab Mentality.
- deogeo 7y ago
  It's really not - crab mentality refers to pulling others down for no reason other than envy. But in this case, the reason is the lower classes don't want to be pushed even lower. Are they supposed to selflessly sacrifice themselves so that the rich can get even richer?
  - cycrutchfield 7y ago
    They want the economy to suffer to preserve their legacy careers doing pointless things like mining coal or forging steel, things that somebody in a developing nation can do just as well for 1/10 the cost. Why are blue collar jobs so sacrosanct? When the careers of secretaries and travel agents essentially vanished, there was no weeping and moaning, no irrational protectionism, no economic suicide. People moved on to do something more productive with their time, and so should the coal miners. So, yes, they are crabs at the bottom of the pot seeing other crabs moving up, and they cannot abide by that.
    - deogeo 7y ago
      Ah yes, mustn't let "the economy" suffer - who cares about the actual workers within that economy.
      - cycrutchfield 7y ago
        I mean, you’ve shown that you don’t even understand the concept of comparative advantage at the individual vs. aggregate level. How am I supposed to explain to you that protectionist policies benefit a small minority of workers at the expense of almost everybody else? Instead, I’ll just suggest that you find a good Freshman-level Economics textbook and read carefully. You may find it illuminating to understand the concepts behind complex policy decisions.
        deogeo 7y ago
        > How am I supposed to explain to you that protectionist policies benefit a small minority of workers at the expense of almost everybody else? Given that none of the most successful economies developed without protectionism [1,2], you'll have a difficult time explaining that indeed. That pesky reality, always getting in the way of "good Freshman-level Economics textbooks". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticis... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320483
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        I forget, are we talking about workers in first world countries or workers in developing countries? I’m not quite sure why you are gloating like you just made a strong counterargument, but it’s not a good look.
digitaltrees 7y ago
Except protectionism makes everyone poorer in the medium term and actually causes international conflict. Who do you think gets drafted to fight war when trade wars turn to real wars? Perhaps if society used the increased wealth to benefit everyone the value of global interconnected trade could be felt by everyone. This is an easy fix, return to the post World War Two tax policy that built the middle class. Return to a well respected government that drives large scale work like highways, scientific research, the space program. Think about how much technology is a direct result of military research (GPS, the Internet, rocketry, etc) imagine if we mobilized on the same scale for exploring space, basic research and innovation and entrepreneurial activity.

cycrutchfield 7y ago

Sure, as we saw quite vividly in 2016. This is also known as Crab Mentality.

deogeo 7y ago
It's really not - crab mentality refers to pulling others down for no reason other than envy. But in this case, the reason is the lower classes don't want to be pushed even lower. Are they supposed to selflessly sacrifice themselves so that the rich can get even richer?
- cycrutchfield 7y ago
  They want the economy to suffer to preserve their legacy careers doing pointless things like mining coal or forging steel, things that somebody in a developing nation can do just as well for 1/10 the cost. Why are blue collar jobs so sacrosanct? When the careers of secretaries and travel agents essentially vanished, there was no weeping and moaning, no irrational protectionism, no economic suicide. People moved on to do something more productive with their time, and so should the coal miners. So, yes, they are crabs at the bottom of the pot seeing other crabs moving up, and they cannot abide by that.
  - deogeo 7y ago
    Ah yes, mustn't let "the economy" suffer - who cares about the actual workers within that economy.
    - cycrutchfield 7y ago
      I mean, you’ve shown that you don’t even understand the concept of comparative advantage at the individual vs. aggregate level. How am I supposed to explain to you that protectionist policies benefit a small minority of workers at the expense of almost everybody else? Instead, I’ll just suggest that you find a good Freshman-level Economics textbook and read carefully. You may find it illuminating to understand the concepts behind complex policy decisions.
      - deogeo 7y ago
        > How am I supposed to explain to you that protectionist policies benefit a small minority of workers at the expense of almost everybody else? Given that none of the most successful economies developed without protectionism [1,2], you'll have a difficult time explaining that indeed. That pesky reality, always getting in the way of "good Freshman-level Economics textbooks". [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_advantage#Criticis... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320483 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20320483
        cycrutchfield 7y ago
        I forget, are we talking about workers in first world countries or workers in developing countries? I’m not quite sure why you are gloating like you just made a strong counterargument, but it’s not a good look.

digitaltrees 7y ago

Except protectionism makes everyone poorer in the medium term and actually causes international conflict. Who do you think gets drafted to fight war when trade wars turn to real wars? Perhaps if society used the increased wealth to benefit everyone the value of global interconnected trade could be felt by everyone. This is an easy fix, return to the post World War Two tax policy that built the middle class. Return to a well respected government that drives large scale work like highways, scientific research, the space program. Think about how much technology is a direct result of military research (GPS, the Internet, rocketry, etc) imagine if we mobilized on the same scale for exploring space, basic research and innovation and entrepreneurial activity.