3 ms·

The problem is the imbalance between the mobility of capital and the mobility of labor. If it were as easy for Joe Iowa to move some place with a lower cost of

The problem is the imbalance between the mobility of capital and the mobility of labor. If it were as easy for Joe Iowa to move some place with a lower cost of living to compete for labor as it is for Joe CEO to setup manufacturing there then I'd be all for Globalization.

Slothrop479 7y ago
The mechanisms by which globalization works to favor the rich is laid out well by economist Dean Baker in his book Rigged. The introduction looks at how trade imbalances with the global south benefit the rich in the west. The third chapter examines the macroeconomics of upwards redistribution itself. The entire book is available free on his website: https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf In terms of US policy, the state of American inequality, and the domestic movement of corporate interests to create policies to favor the rich - the book Winner Take All Politics is a concise overview of this history since the 70s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner-Take-All_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner-Take-All_Politics
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
PeterisP 7y ago
Thing is, Joe Iowa generally can move to cheap third world countries and work in manufacturing there, the work visa rules usually restrict only the opposite movement of labor - it's just that it would be a really bad deal for him because despite the the much lower cost of living, his working conditions and purchasing parity adjusted income will be much worse than in Iowa. A USA blue-collar worker can't possibly expect to compete for labor in the global market and keep their current lifestyle - for an illustrative example, many such workers can afford cars and houses, which is a relative luxury if they would have to compete with workers who live in dormitories next to the factory. Someone who's earning $35000/year is in global top 1% in income; and adjusting for purchasing power doesn't change it that much, they'd still be in top 10% globally, and they can stay so relatively wealthy only because (and until!) they don't have to directly compete with all the much poorer laborers of other countries. Any increase in global labor mobility will only make it much worse for Joe Iowa.

Slothrop479 7y ago

The mechanisms by which globalization works to favor the rich is laid out well by economist Dean Baker in his book Rigged. The introduction looks at how trade imbalances with the global south benefit the rich in the west. The third chapter examines the macroeconomics of upwards redistribution itself. The entire book is available free on his website: https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf https://deanbaker.net/images/stories/documents/Rigged.pdf In terms of US policy, the state of American inequality, and the domestic movement of corporate interests to create policies to favor the rich - the book Winner Take All Politics is a concise overview of this history since the 70s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner-Take-All_Politics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winner-Take-All_Politics

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

PeterisP 7y ago

Thing is, Joe Iowa generally can move to cheap third world countries and work in manufacturing there, the work visa rules usually restrict only the opposite movement of labor - it's just that it would be a really bad deal for him because despite the the much lower cost of living, his working conditions and purchasing parity adjusted income will be much worse than in Iowa. A USA blue-collar worker can't possibly expect to compete for labor in the global market and keep their current lifestyle - for an illustrative example, many such workers can afford cars and houses, which is a relative luxury if they would have to compete with workers who live in dormitories next to the factory. Someone who's earning $35000/year is in global top 1% in income; and adjusting for purchasing power doesn't change it that much, they'd still be in top 10% globally, and they can stay so relatively wealthy only because (and until!) they don't have to directly compete with all the much poorer laborers of other countries. Any increase in global labor mobility will only make it much worse for Joe Iowa.