4 ms·

> There are lots of people who are making more than minimum wage as required by the laws in their country. So this is obviously untrue. You're doing a huge sle

> There are lots of people who are making more than minimum wage as required by the laws in their country. So this is obviously untrue. You're doing a huge sleight of hand here that's clouding your judgement, and it's that you're confining the sample size to a single country. We live in a global economy, thus the cost of reproduction of labor is determined globally. If you have companies A and B living in the same city in California doing roughly the same job, but moving their business to Thailand would increase their profit sufficiently, then one of the companies would relocate, make more profit/beat their competition. In doing this, they have decreased the cost of wages.

tracker1 6y ago
The cost to replace a single person in a company doesn't always allow for that replacement to be anywhere. There are often other fixed costs associated as well as legal restrictions. Otherwise there would be nobody working in the US at all right now.
- ianleeclark 6y ago
  > The cost to replace a single person in a company doesn't always allow for that replacement to be anywhere. You're doing the sleight of hand, but on an even more localized level: a single company hiring a single person. We're talking about aggregates here
- toyg 6y ago
  > The cost to replace a single person in a company doesn't always allow for that replacement to be anywhere .. today. Tomorrow, it will be. We've already seen it happening several times since the first industrial revolution. 100 years ago, global supply chains on the scale we are currently witnessing were simply unthinkable. Any sector not currently enjoying pressure to move to the cheapest reliable location is only under a temporary hold. In the long run, capital treats workers like any other resource: something whose cost should be continuously minimized, for "efficiency" in relation to profit.

tracker1 6y ago

The cost to replace a single person in a company doesn't always allow for that replacement to be anywhere. There are often other fixed costs associated as well as legal restrictions. Otherwise there would be nobody working in the US at all right now.

ianleeclark 6y ago
> The cost to replace a single person in a company doesn't always allow for that replacement to be anywhere. You're doing the sleight of hand, but on an even more localized level: a single company hiring a single person. We're talking about aggregates here
toyg 6y ago
> The cost to replace a single person in a company doesn't always allow for that replacement to be anywhere .. today. Tomorrow, it will be. We've already seen it happening several times since the first industrial revolution. 100 years ago, global supply chains on the scale we are currently witnessing were simply unthinkable. Any sector not currently enjoying pressure to move to the cheapest reliable location is only under a temporary hold. In the long run, capital treats workers like any other resource: something whose cost should be continuously minimized, for "efficiency" in relation to profit.