3 ms·
All your points are down to lowering cost by exploiting workers more. Lower capital needed due to low salaries, no employee protection, no building or environm
by benhurmarcel 6y ago
All your points are down to lowering cost by exploiting workers more.
Lower capital needed due to low salaries, no employee protection, no building or environmental regulation, no employee contracts, no training… Is that really what you want for your country? I imagine you don't see yourself working one of those unprotected low-paying jobs however.
- ReaganFJones 6y agoIf I was part of a developing nation then, yes, I would absolutely want those jobs. They tend to be the best jobs in the region and one of the key ways to advance your social class. There's a pretty strong amount of research backing up this position: https://www.nber.org/papers/w9669 https://www.nber.org/papers/w9669 It's one of the main reasons we've seen such a sharp reduction in poverty at basically every single monetary value you could measure it at https://imgur.com/a/qIB24jP https://imgur.com/a/qIB24jP. What you appear to be characterizing as strictly bad worker exploitation is a key part of the best known way to reduce global poverty.
- benhurmarcel 6y agoThe point is that this may be good for a developing nation, but it's not a solution you should want for a developed nation. The parent comment identifies lowering labor costs as a solution to develop US manufacturing.
- legitster 6y agoI think my argument is that putting the onus for welfare on employers is clearly counter-intuitive. I already spent a fair share of my working life in unprotected, low-paying jobs. And they wouldn't have been nearly so bad if I didn't have to worry about things like healthcare or outrageous housing costs.