4 ms·

Unionization is a valid response to oppressive labour policies. Capitalism can coexist with worker rights in a balance. Both employers and unions engage in rent

Unionization is a valid response to oppressive labour policies. Capitalism can coexist with worker rights in a balance. Both employers and unions engage in rent-seeking so it’s a fair trade-off. Globalization doesn’t try to uplift human rights. It only seeks to enrich through free trade. Turns out, enriching people is fairly effective at eliminating human rights abuses. Or at the very least, there’s enough of a correlation that it’s worth repeating.

h0l0cube 6y ago
> enriching people is fairly effective at eliminating human rights abuses By what mechanism does it do that? Everyone who is motivated to make profits has incentive to pay the least possible on payroll and taxation. Human rights empower people to demand higher wages, and any government-sourced provision of quality of life increase taxation. People who's talents align with in-demand skills may have some leverage to increase their wealth and provide a better life for themselves, but without government intervention, that means little for everyone else. Edit: Do agree about unionization - but once again, the right to start or join a union is something that must be enforced by government policy, and voters need to care about human rights for that to occur.
- roenxi 6y ago
  > By what mechanism does it do that? People choose the best option - so if I have a job doing hard manual labour for $70/hr or desk job that pays $80/hr I'll go do the desk work because it is easier and better paid. But someone needs to do the manual labour, so if literally nobody takes the job on then whoever wants the work done is forced to raise wages or do without. In a practical way, things like the Apple supply chain increase demand for workers, so the equilibrium wage has no choice but to tend upwards. There are more jobs but the same number of people - so if a business wants its job done it has to pay more. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease where improvements from high-productivity workers translate into increased wages in other unrelated segments. People get paid more without even necessarily doing anything differently! Then all that adds up to it being difficult to oppress the human rights of wealthy people. They have the resources to fight back.
  - h0l0cube 6y ago
    I don't deny that there's a gain for nearly all of the spectrum in, say, China alone, but at the very bottom there's virtual slavery. Globally, this has been persistent (and recorded) for millennia up until the present day. This doesn't go away unless there's incentive for companies to pay them more than they absolutely have to, and treat them better than they absolutely must. There might be some merit to Baumol's cost disease, but I'd wager the studies that support the theory were limited to domestic economies in wealthy countries (orchestras in particular are a weird example because they are propped up often by sponsorship and government arts funding). Even still, consider now the growing wage disparity in the US, a 'wealthy' nation, where people are earning less almost across the board excluding tech, yet a sliver of the population is gaining wealth exponentially. Gained advantages from production efficiencies are being routed by globalisation - the claimed 'uplifting' force for the poor. And on the other end, China had to find slaves from somewhere to fulfil demand at the lower end, and suddenly a bunch of 're-education' camps pop up and commandeer the most politically expendable population as extra human resources.
    - roenxi 6y ago
      > This doesn't go away unless there's incentive for companies to pay them more than they absolutely have to, and treat them better than they absolutely must. So? My company has no incentive to pay me any more than they absolutely have to, or treat me any better than they are forced to. They pay me well and treat me very well, because the market says they have to. That incentive doesn't limit the upper bound quality of life of employees in any meaningful way, unless changing jobs is illegal. > ...Gained advantages from production efficiencies are being routed by globalisation - the claimed 'uplifting' force for the poor... I'm not sure exactly what the argument is there, but America's problems are certainly not linked to new corporations entering the American market due to globalisation. If anything, the problem is that the jobs America would use to make poor people wealthy and satisfied are leaving and going to places like Bengaluru, where they will in time raise local living standards substantially. It is difficult to argue that globalisation is hurting America and India simultaneously. India is strictly better off, and America is arguably better off under standard economic theory. > consider now the growing wage disparity in the US The US does a lot of stupid stuff economically speaking, like everyone else. The zeitgeist of US politics for the last 12+ years has been all about protecting failing institutions from change and they are paying a price for that. But that has not so much to do with globalisation.

h0l0cube 6y ago

> enriching people is fairly effective at eliminating human rights abuses By what mechanism does it do that? Everyone who is motivated to make profits has incentive to pay the least possible on payroll and taxation. Human rights empower people to demand higher wages, and any government-sourced provision of quality of life increase taxation. People who's talents align with in-demand skills may have some leverage to increase their wealth and provide a better life for themselves, but without government intervention, that means little for everyone else. Edit: Do agree about unionization - but once again, the right to start or join a union is something that must be enforced by government policy, and voters need to care about human rights for that to occur.

roenxi 6y ago
> By what mechanism does it do that? People choose the best option - so if I have a job doing hard manual labour for $70/hr or desk job that pays $80/hr I'll go do the desk work because it is easier and better paid. But someone needs to do the manual labour, so if literally nobody takes the job on then whoever wants the work done is forced to raise wages or do without. In a practical way, things like the Apple supply chain increase demand for workers, so the equilibrium wage has no choice but to tend upwards. There are more jobs but the same number of people - so if a business wants its job done it has to pay more. See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baumol's_cost_disease where improvements from high-productivity workers translate into increased wages in other unrelated segments. People get paid more without even necessarily doing anything differently! Then all that adds up to it being difficult to oppress the human rights of wealthy people. They have the resources to fight back.
- h0l0cube 6y ago
  I don't deny that there's a gain for nearly all of the spectrum in, say, China alone, but at the very bottom there's virtual slavery. Globally, this has been persistent (and recorded) for millennia up until the present day. This doesn't go away unless there's incentive for companies to pay them more than they absolutely have to, and treat them better than they absolutely must. There might be some merit to Baumol's cost disease, but I'd wager the studies that support the theory were limited to domestic economies in wealthy countries (orchestras in particular are a weird example because they are propped up often by sponsorship and government arts funding). Even still, consider now the growing wage disparity in the US, a 'wealthy' nation, where people are earning less almost across the board excluding tech, yet a sliver of the population is gaining wealth exponentially. Gained advantages from production efficiencies are being routed by globalisation - the claimed 'uplifting' force for the poor. And on the other end, China had to find slaves from somewhere to fulfil demand at the lower end, and suddenly a bunch of 're-education' camps pop up and commandeer the most politically expendable population as extra human resources.
  - roenxi 6y ago
    > This doesn't go away unless there's incentive for companies to pay them more than they absolutely have to, and treat them better than they absolutely must. So? My company has no incentive to pay me any more than they absolutely have to, or treat me any better than they are forced to. They pay me well and treat me very well, because the market says they have to. That incentive doesn't limit the upper bound quality of life of employees in any meaningful way, unless changing jobs is illegal. > ...Gained advantages from production efficiencies are being routed by globalisation - the claimed 'uplifting' force for the poor... I'm not sure exactly what the argument is there, but America's problems are certainly not linked to new corporations entering the American market due to globalisation. If anything, the problem is that the jobs America would use to make poor people wealthy and satisfied are leaving and going to places like Bengaluru, where they will in time raise local living standards substantially. It is difficult to argue that globalisation is hurting America and India simultaneously. India is strictly better off, and America is arguably better off under standard economic theory. > consider now the growing wage disparity in the US The US does a lot of stupid stuff economically speaking, like everyone else. The zeitgeist of US politics for the last 12+ years has been all about protecting failing institutions from change and they are paying a price for that. But that has not so much to do with globalisation.