To be very capitalistic about it, that is a choice that the seller makes. Why should the burden of relocation fall upon the purchaser of goods when it's the dec

To be very capitalistic about it, that is a choice that the seller makes. Why should the burden of relocation fall upon the purchaser of goods when it's the decision of the provider of goods? I shouldn't have to pay more for a product because they decided to move their manufacturing process, that's their call not mine. They can price it in to their new rates, but then it's up to me to agree or disagree if I'll pay them. But equally, if their manufacturing costs drop, I have no recourse to demand a rebate. I definitely agree that it's strange that the same labour is worth different amounts depending on point of origin, when the goods sold is essentially information. I don't like it, either. But employers are not beholden to the relocations of their employees, it's the responsibility of the employees to negotiate the agreement.