4 ms·

> While there are negatives, I appreciate how globalization of manufacturing helps lift poorer economies Let's be real about those negatives. It seems as thou

> While there are negatives, I appreciate how globalization of manufacturing helps lift poorer economies Let's be real about those negatives. It seems as though it's always just the next country in line taking it's turn to provide subsistence-wage labor. The likes of Steve Pinker may argue that living standards continue to trend upwards across the board, but it seems like people are just becoming more and more time-poor (happy to be proven wrong on this point). If we follow this pattern, once every country has lifted itself up by the bootstraps, the end-game would not be some poorer nations providing the subsistence-wage labor, but the poor population of each country providing subsistence-wage labor. Their living standards might be much higher, but they will pay in hours, or having to give up freedoms, like living on-site at Foxxcon. Why? Because those holding power have the upper hand, and would hardly be motivated to cede their power. Replace power with capital if you want. The only possible countervailing force being collective action, say in the force of democratic institutions, and a socially-minded polity. But eventually, automation will outcompete everyone... at this point we're then forced to resort to either welfare or artificial means of population control. It seems more humane to consider policy on population and welfare sooner rather than later, but that's just my humblest of opinions. EDIT: Cowards who downvoted me, might you refute any of my points?

kodablah 6y ago
> If we follow this pattern, once every country has lifted itself up by the bootstraps, the end-game would not be some poorer nations providing the subsistence-wage labour, but the poor population of each country providing subsistence-wage labour. Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard and there'll always be country-level wage gaps on the bottom end, I'm just glad they're (slowly) reducing. No need attempting to run the simulation to a hypothetical end because there either is no end or it's unpredictable (could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap).
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  > Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard There's two options, hire overseas at a lower labor cost (lower currency/lower minimum wage), or lower the minimum wage or currency of your own economy. If the labour costs of the rest of the world increase as their economy develops, it will make sense to employ locally again. So subsistence wage moves from overseas, back local again... and why pay more than the subsistence wage if there's no government to compel you to do so? Edit: Keep in mind, the US is a western democracy, and the largest economy, but has plenty of people living on subsistence wages. > could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap Protectionism may not re-widen the gap. Many populations starve because all their arable land is used for overseas exports.
em500 6y ago
> The likes of Steve Pinker may argue that living standards continue to trend upwards across the board, but it seems like people are just becoming more and more time-poor (happy to be proven wrong on this point). Hours per day Americans spent on leisure and sports is not trending down: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/TUU10101AA01013585 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/TUU10101AA01013585 On average it's higher now than in the early 2000s (annual survey begins in 2003). Source: https://www.bls.gov/tus/ https://www.bls.gov/tus/ ("ATUS Tables")
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  Thanks for the link. I see also this, in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Trends_over_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Trends_over_time It's probable that the hours have just displaced to poorer countries. Presumably the BLS data, nor the wiki graphic, have data that includes developing and underdeveloped nations. Edit: I found a book on the topic for anyone interested https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_104895.pdf https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@... Edit: Page 44 in the above link shows an increase in working hours in the US (note that the 4 of the 5 other western countries compared have continued to trend down, but also have strong social welfare and working policy)
  - em500 6y ago
    Not sure if I follow your thought process, are you suggesting that people in developing and underdeveloped nations used to have more leisure time in the past than they do now?
    - h0l0cube 6y ago
      My thought process is that there are large populations in developing nations are so trapped in debt they can do nothing but work all their waking hours, and they would not be paid money that would permit increasing their value as a human resource. This is a phenomenon that is happening right now, today. It's effectively the same as slavery... I'm not saying 'it used to be better', but I'm not buying the line that globalisation has removed people from being 'overworked', or being effectively slaves. Nor do I believe it ever could, without some form of government intervention. The simple truth is, if there's a place in the world where it is possible to pay someone only to work, and nothing else, there will be a company willing to exploit that, and there will always be a country willing to exploit its population to get an economic leg-up. Even the most high-minded bleeding-heart left liberals are still unwilling to pay a few bucks extra for something that is manufactured on 'living wages'.

kodablah 6y ago

> If we follow this pattern, once every country has lifted itself up by the bootstraps, the end-game would not be some poorer nations providing the subsistence-wage labour, but the poor population of each country providing subsistence-wage labour. Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard and there'll always be country-level wage gaps on the bottom end, I'm just glad they're (slowly) reducing. No need attempting to run the simulation to a hypothetical end because there either is no end or it's unpredictable (could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap).

h0l0cube 6y ago
> Nah, it's too politically unsafe to hire cheap in your own backyard There's two options, hire overseas at a lower labor cost (lower currency/lower minimum wage), or lower the minimum wage or currency of your own economy. If the labour costs of the rest of the world increase as their economy develops, it will make sense to employ locally again. So subsistence wage moves from overseas, back local again... and why pay more than the subsistence wage if there's no government to compel you to do so? Edit: Keep in mind, the US is a western democracy, and the largest economy, but has plenty of people living on subsistence wages. > could just as easily be a rise in extreme protectionist tariffs to discourage offshoring thereby re-widening the gap Protectionism may not re-widen the gap. Many populations starve because all their arable land is used for overseas exports.

em500 6y ago

> The likes of Steve Pinker may argue that living standards continue to trend upwards across the board, but it seems like people are just becoming more and more time-poor (happy to be proven wrong on this point). Hours per day Americans spent on leisure and sports is not trending down: https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/TUU10101AA01013585 https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/TUU10101AA01013585 On average it's higher now than in the early 2000s (annual survey begins in 2003). Source: https://www.bls.gov/tus/ https://www.bls.gov/tus/ ("ATUS Tables")

h0l0cube 6y ago
Thanks for the link. I see also this, in wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Trends_over_time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_time#Trends_over_time It's probable that the hours have just displaced to poorer countries. Presumably the BLS data, nor the wiki graphic, have data that includes developing and underdeveloped nations. Edit: I found a book on the topic for anyone interested https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@publ/documents/publication/wcms_104895.pdf https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/@dgreports/@dcomm/@... Edit: Page 44 in the above link shows an increase in working hours in the US (note that the 4 of the 5 other western countries compared have continued to trend down, but also have strong social welfare and working policy)
- em500 6y ago
  Not sure if I follow your thought process, are you suggesting that people in developing and underdeveloped nations used to have more leisure time in the past than they do now?
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    My thought process is that there are large populations in developing nations are so trapped in debt they can do nothing but work all their waking hours, and they would not be paid money that would permit increasing their value as a human resource. This is a phenomenon that is happening right now, today. It's effectively the same as slavery... I'm not saying 'it used to be better', but I'm not buying the line that globalisation has removed people from being 'overworked', or being effectively slaves. Nor do I believe it ever could, without some form of government intervention. The simple truth is, if there's a place in the world where it is possible to pay someone only to work, and nothing else, there will be a company willing to exploit that, and there will always be a country willing to exploit its population to get an economic leg-up. Even the most high-minded bleeding-heart left liberals are still unwilling to pay a few bucks extra for something that is manufactured on 'living wages'.