3 ms·

> 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-

> 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.