> The numerous unbelievably wealthy global companies all doing this in the same very specific areas surely have the area's best interests at heart, and want to

> The numerous unbelievably wealthy global companies all doing this in the same very specific areas surely have the area's best interests at heart, and want to raise its standard of living, so it must be something else. That’s the point of capitalism—-it works if you have only your own interests at heart. Wealthy Global Company A enters a market and makes huge profits. Wealth Global Company B (and maybe C, D, E, F, etc) sees they’re making those profits, and enters that market too. Workers then have choices of where they can work and can demand higher wages and better conditions. > it also provides leverage for suppressing wages elsewhere Country A has average wages of $40/hr, and Country B has average wages of $0.40/hr. If companies in Country A move some jobs to Country B and wages in Country A fall to $39/hr and wages in Country B rise to $1.40/hr, but prices also fall in Country A to make up for the fall in lost wages, is the world really worse off? > At high human cost What’s the human cost of not having available jobs? It means children don’t get schooling or vaccines. No access to social mobility. If you get sick from easily curable diseases, you’ll likely just die. No chance of retirement—you just work in the fields until you die. If you want to see the benefits of “outsourcing” these types of low skill jobs, look at Bangladesh. The country has gone from one of the poorest places on Earth, to closing in on middle income status in about two decades.