4 ms·

> cheaper workers work for less, but that's not exactly efficiency It is efficiency, really, because it's making better use of an underutilized resource. Over

> cheaper workers work for less, but that's not exactly efficiency It is efficiency, really, because it's making better use of an underutilized resource. Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized. > more a question of fairness If it's fairness you want, telling companies to hire locally isn't going to cut it. That's the opposite of fairness, really—you would be subsidizing local workers whose wages are already higher at the expense of foreign labor that has more need for the income. > Another potential advantage could be, factories are closer to natural resources, but it seems to me that that's not as much a question of efficiency, as it is of lax (enforcement of) environmental standards. Locating factories near their required materials is a net gain even when ideal environmental standards are maintained. It's almost always cheaper (economically and environmentally) to ship end products where they need to go than it would be to ship raw materials around to distributed factories. Concentrating manufacturing in one area also makes it easier to confine the environmental impact.

apostacy 7y ago
> If it's fairness you want, telling companies to hire locally isn't going to cut it. That's the opposite of fairness, really—you would be subsidizing local workers whose wages are already higher at the expense of foreign labor that has more need for the income. It sounds to me like you're saying that it is unfair to strangers that you would help out your family first before helping them. Most countries do subsidize local workers and industry. Should it be another way? The United States actually does heavily subsidize foreigners for the benefit of the rich and powerful, at the expense of its citizens. Most work visa programs are an example of this. This is the problem with the globalist mindset. Chinese workers are ultimately working for China. Chinese companies are always inclined to help Chinese people and the Chinese government. So telling domestic firms to be neutral in national loyalty is essentially telling them to be loyal to China. A government not pressuring firms to hire and buy locally is deeply unfair to the point where I would argue it is a dereliction of their duty to the people.
- apostacy 7y ago
  Anyone care to respond instead of just downvoting?
  - vsskanth 7y ago
    i would disagree with you on two points - work visas aren't subsidized. not even close. it costs a lot to sponsor and the workers pay taxes without benefits. not to mention the brain drain. - you've grouped people as working for countries. people work for their own benefit and compete globally. as long as countries ensure their trading partners have humane working conditions, it's up to each person to remain globally competitive. your wage is a loose function of value generated for the employer.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > It sounds to me like you're saying that it is unfair to strangers that you would help out your family first before helping them. Well, yes, it is unfair to the strangers that you're favoring the people you personally care about when others are worse off. Being unfair doesn't necessarily make it wrong. You're free to help whoever you want—with your own resources. However, organizations distributing resources they took by force, or enforcing their own rules on others, ought to be held to higher standards. > Chinese workers are ultimately working for China. Chinese workers are ultimately working for themselves and their own families, just like all workers everywhere. Not for the Chinese government. If you have a problem with the Chinese government forcibly and unjustly profiting from the labor of Chinese workers, great! So do I. The same goes for every other government, both foreign and domestic.
  - apostacy 7y ago
    > Well, yes, it is unfair to the strangers that you're favoring the people you personally care about when others are worse off. Being unfair doesn't necessarily make it wrong. You're free to help whoever you want—with your own resources. However, organizations distributing resources they took by force, or enforcing their own rules on others, ought to be held to higher standards. And I think that a government has an obligation to prioritize its own citizens before foreigners. And it appears that people here disagree with me. Most governments do this. The Chinese government certainly does this for its own citizens. I wish that US government was as protectionist as the Chinese government is. As it is now, American citizens pay taxes to subsidize our exploitation. The only people who benefit from the current immigration system are billionaires. The government is more concerned with the pursuit of capital for the elites than they are with the welfare of the people. Thankfully, this administration has actually been enforcing the rules with H1-B visas. So lots of people I know have gotten great jobs in the last few years as visas are no longer rubber stamped. H1-B is nothing but a scam to help tech billionaires. But yeah, putting outsiders above those you have a responsibility to care for is wrong. Volunteering at a soup kitchen does not excuse neglecting your own children. It brings me no comfort that the American middle class was eviscerated to help China. And yet that is trotted out whenever an American expresses frustration at how they have been harmed by globalization. It would be like if someone said: Sure, your bike was stolen, but at least the bike thief is happy, so it is ok.
int_19h 7y ago
> Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized. The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces - then it would flow to areas where it's in high demand. But with borders and immigration controls and different laws (esp. environment and labor) in different jurisdictions, it's not really a free market. Instead, it looks a great deal like a contraption that's deliberately designed to allow transnational corporations to extract massive economic rents from otherwise pointless brokerage (outsourcing).
- hittaruki 7y ago
  > The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces. Not really, if that was the case for ex, everyone doing similar jobs would be getting paid the same in US or EU. I am not saying things dont get evened out to an extent, but people are harder to move than the goods they produce.
  - int_19h 7y ago
    True. Still, though, it's drastically easier to move within a single country (or economic area like EU), then it is to move across the border with immigration controls - even if moving across the border is much closer geographically. You can bet there'd be a lot more Chinese workers competing for jobs directly in US if they could.
- nybble41 7y ago
  > The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces… That would certainly speed up the process. However, labor prices are still gradually rising in China and other common outsourcing areas despite these restrictions. As are environmental standards. I'm not saying it's an ideal free market—there are governments involved, after all. But free or not, the trade is still advantageous for both sides.
praeter 7y ago
>> cheaper workers work for less, but that's not exactly efficiency > It is efficiency, really, because it's making better use of an underutilized resource. Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized. It's not efficiency at all, it's stagnation. Since the 80s instead of trying to innovate and automate production lines too many companies have been hopping from country-to-country looking for the cheapest labor pool. We lost 40 years of manufacturing innovations because they were economically unnecessary due to offshoring.
- cercatrova 7y ago
  Can you blame them? It was cheaper to outsource than automate, so why wouldn't they have outsourced?
  - praeter 7y ago
    I can't blame them, just like I can't blame a company for becoming a monopoly. We need to regulate them like we do with antitrust, worker's rights, and other things. The free market unabated is terrible for humanity.
    - ngold 7y ago
      It's worse then that, we all live in a socialist society, it's just a corporate socialism. A free market would be a fantastic start. There is a real lack of competition and innovation in our socialist model.
      - cercatrova 7y ago
        Yes, a true free market can only exist via governmental regulation, as otherwise, companies tend towards monopolies and collusion. It would be nice to have such a market, but I do wonder how we'll get there with moneyed interests at the door.
  - brandonmenc 7y ago
    I can't "blame" a corporation, because it's not a person. But they are run by people, those people are the ones crafting the legal and regulatory environment that encourages this behavior, and we can certainly blame them.

apostacy 7y ago

> If it's fairness you want, telling companies to hire locally isn't going to cut it. That's the opposite of fairness, really—you would be subsidizing local workers whose wages are already higher at the expense of foreign labor that has more need for the income. It sounds to me like you're saying that it is unfair to strangers that you would help out your family first before helping them. Most countries do subsidize local workers and industry. Should it be another way? The United States actually does heavily subsidize foreigners for the benefit of the rich and powerful, at the expense of its citizens. Most work visa programs are an example of this. This is the problem with the globalist mindset. Chinese workers are ultimately working for China. Chinese companies are always inclined to help Chinese people and the Chinese government. So telling domestic firms to be neutral in national loyalty is essentially telling them to be loyal to China. A government not pressuring firms to hire and buy locally is deeply unfair to the point where I would argue it is a dereliction of their duty to the people.

apostacy 7y ago
Anyone care to respond instead of just downvoting?
- vsskanth 7y ago
  i would disagree with you on two points - work visas aren't subsidized. not even close. it costs a lot to sponsor and the workers pay taxes without benefits. not to mention the brain drain. - you've grouped people as working for countries. people work for their own benefit and compete globally. as long as countries ensure their trading partners have humane working conditions, it's up to each person to remain globally competitive. your wage is a loose function of value generated for the employer.
nybble41 7y ago
> It sounds to me like you're saying that it is unfair to strangers that you would help out your family first before helping them. Well, yes, it is unfair to the strangers that you're favoring the people you personally care about when others are worse off. Being unfair doesn't necessarily make it wrong. You're free to help whoever you want—with your own resources. However, organizations distributing resources they took by force, or enforcing their own rules on others, ought to be held to higher standards. > Chinese workers are ultimately working for China. Chinese workers are ultimately working for themselves and their own families, just like all workers everywhere. Not for the Chinese government. If you have a problem with the Chinese government forcibly and unjustly profiting from the labor of Chinese workers, great! So do I. The same goes for every other government, both foreign and domestic.
- apostacy 7y ago
  > Well, yes, it is unfair to the strangers that you're favoring the people you personally care about when others are worse off. Being unfair doesn't necessarily make it wrong. You're free to help whoever you want—with your own resources. However, organizations distributing resources they took by force, or enforcing their own rules on others, ought to be held to higher standards. And I think that a government has an obligation to prioritize its own citizens before foreigners. And it appears that people here disagree with me. Most governments do this. The Chinese government certainly does this for its own citizens. I wish that US government was as protectionist as the Chinese government is. As it is now, American citizens pay taxes to subsidize our exploitation. The only people who benefit from the current immigration system are billionaires. The government is more concerned with the pursuit of capital for the elites than they are with the welfare of the people. Thankfully, this administration has actually been enforcing the rules with H1-B visas. So lots of people I know have gotten great jobs in the last few years as visas are no longer rubber stamped. H1-B is nothing but a scam to help tech billionaires. But yeah, putting outsiders above those you have a responsibility to care for is wrong. Volunteering at a soup kitchen does not excuse neglecting your own children. It brings me no comfort that the American middle class was eviscerated to help China. And yet that is trotted out whenever an American expresses frustration at how they have been harmed by globalization. It would be like if someone said: Sure, your bike was stolen, but at least the bike thief is happy, so it is ok.

int_19h 7y ago

> Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized. The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces - then it would flow to areas where it's in high demand. But with borders and immigration controls and different laws (esp. environment and labor) in different jurisdictions, it's not really a free market. Instead, it looks a great deal like a contraption that's deliberately designed to allow transnational corporations to extract massive economic rents from otherwise pointless brokerage (outsourcing).

hittaruki 7y ago
> The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces. Not really, if that was the case for ex, everyone doing similar jobs would be getting paid the same in US or EU. I am not saying things dont get evened out to an extent, but people are harder to move than the goods they produce.
- int_19h 7y ago
  True. Still, though, it's drastically easier to move within a single country (or economic area like EU), then it is to move across the border with immigration controls - even if moving across the border is much closer geographically. You can bet there'd be a lot more Chinese workers competing for jobs directly in US if they could.
nybble41 7y ago
> The price would have evened out if labor could cross borders as freely as the goods that it produces… That would certainly speed up the process. However, labor prices are still gradually rising in China and other common outsourcing areas despite these restrictions. As are environmental standards. I'm not saying it's an ideal free market—there are governments involved, after all. But free or not, the trade is still advantageous for both sides.

praeter 7y ago

>> cheaper workers work for less, but that's not exactly efficiency > It is efficiency, really, because it's making better use of an underutilized resource. Over time, of course, the price of labor evens out because the resource is no longer underutilized. It's not efficiency at all, it's stagnation. Since the 80s instead of trying to innovate and automate production lines too many companies have been hopping from country-to-country looking for the cheapest labor pool. We lost 40 years of manufacturing innovations because they were economically unnecessary due to offshoring.

cercatrova 7y ago
Can you blame them? It was cheaper to outsource than automate, so why wouldn't they have outsourced?
- praeter 7y ago
  I can't blame them, just like I can't blame a company for becoming a monopoly. We need to regulate them like we do with antitrust, worker's rights, and other things. The free market unabated is terrible for humanity.
  - ngold 7y ago
    It's worse then that, we all live in a socialist society, it's just a corporate socialism. A free market would be a fantastic start. There is a real lack of competition and innovation in our socialist model.
    - cercatrova 7y ago
      Yes, a true free market can only exist via governmental regulation, as otherwise, companies tend towards monopolies and collusion. It would be nice to have such a market, but I do wonder how we'll get there with moneyed interests at the door.
- brandonmenc 7y ago
  I can't "blame" a corporation, because it's not a person. But they are run by people, those people are the ones crafting the legal and regulatory environment that encourages this behavior, and we can certainly blame them.