4 ms·

China was more totalitarian before globalization. Without it, they would be more like North Korea. You don't need technology to send people to labor camp or bur

by Aunche 6y ago

China was more totalitarian before globalization. Without it, they would be more like North Korea. You don't need technology to send people to labor camp or burn books. Globalization is why extreme poverty has plummeted in the last few decades. Hundreds of millions of people chose to leave their subsidence farm to work long hours in a factory because it's still an improvement for the quality of life of themselves and their families. Sure it would be better if an Indonesia factory worker got paid $20 a day instead of $10, but nobody is offering them $20 and you can't force anyone to.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
But you can, right? It's a political choice not to (for example) impose import taxes on goods based on the difference between wages in the two countries concerned. Not doing this is bad for people, but good for capital.
- Aunche 6y ago
  The US government can't audit every order of widgets to see whether the difference between wages is accurate. Even if it were possible, this would just punish poorer countries where it's riskier to do business in.
- bluGill 6y ago
  You can, but should you? $10 a day is better than the $5 they would get before. More is better of course, but your option isn't pay everyone the same it is pay some and not others.
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    Well my option is to remove the possibility of labour cost arbitrage through tariffs/customs duties. Like, I'm Irish, so I have benefited from this trend for my whole life, but that doesn't make it right.
    - smallnamespace 6y ago
      It's not as simple as 'outsourcing good for capital, bad for labor.' It's been a stupendously positive change for foreign labor in countries that successfully ran low-cost export industries. Literally hundreds of millions of people in the Third World to were able to raise themselves into the global middle class over the past few decades. The main people hurt by the outsourcing trend have been middle-class people in wealthy countries who had well-paid, lower-skill jobs producing physical things which are now shipped in from far away. Good for foreign labor, good for capitalists, and bad for the middle class in rich countries. This could have even been a win-win-win, if managed more carefully — Germany had pretty robust job retraining programs for people who lost factory jobs. I'd imagine the UK did not.
      - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
        You're operating under the assumption that hundreds of millions of people in the Third World could not possibly have raised their living standards in any way whatsoever rather than the offshoring of the First World's labor-intensive industries as part of a decades-long political program of wage repression in the First World.
        smallnamespace 6y ago
        There was a win-win-win available and it didn't happen. We should be honest about who benefited, as well as who was hurt.
  - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
    >You can, but should you? Yes. Trade is supposed to mean that no side of the bargain loses. If my country's working class loses, I'm losing. It's not our job to impoverish ourselves for other people's good.

by Aunche 6y ago

disgruntledphd2 6y ago

But you can, right? It's a political choice not to (for example) impose import taxes on goods based on the difference between wages in the two countries concerned. Not doing this is bad for people, but good for capital.

Aunche 6y ago
The US government can't audit every order of widgets to see whether the difference between wages is accurate. Even if it were possible, this would just punish poorer countries where it's riskier to do business in.
bluGill 6y ago
You can, but should you? $10 a day is better than the $5 they would get before. More is better of course, but your option isn't pay everyone the same it is pay some and not others.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  Well my option is to remove the possibility of labour cost arbitrage through tariffs/customs duties. Like, I'm Irish, so I have benefited from this trend for my whole life, but that doesn't make it right.
  - smallnamespace 6y ago
    It's not as simple as 'outsourcing good for capital, bad for labor.' It's been a stupendously positive change for foreign labor in countries that successfully ran low-cost export industries. Literally hundreds of millions of people in the Third World to were able to raise themselves into the global middle class over the past few decades. The main people hurt by the outsourcing trend have been middle-class people in wealthy countries who had well-paid, lower-skill jobs producing physical things which are now shipped in from far away. Good for foreign labor, good for capitalists, and bad for the middle class in rich countries. This could have even been a win-win-win, if managed more carefully — Germany had pretty robust job retraining programs for people who lost factory jobs. I'd imagine the UK did not.
    - eli_gottlieb 6y ago
      You're operating under the assumption that hundreds of millions of people in the Third World could not possibly have raised their living standards in any way whatsoever rather than the offshoring of the First World's labor-intensive industries as part of a decades-long political program of wage repression in the First World.
      - smallnamespace 6y ago
        There was a win-win-win available and it didn't happen. We should be honest about who benefited, as well as who was hurt.
- eli_gottlieb 6y ago
  >You can, but should you? Yes. Trade is supposed to mean that no side of the bargain loses. If my country's working class loses, I'm losing. It's not our job to impoverish ourselves for other people's good.