3 ms·
> We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies to eliminate global business, which in turn is just about shipping the costs of doing business to
by brabel 3y ago
> We should have limits on the size and scope of big companies to eliminate global business, which in turn is just about shipping the costs of doing business to poorer countries where that cost is not as large simply because the poor are easier to exploit
While I agree it may be necessary to limit the size of companies, I completely disagree with the reason you give. It's not about the poor being easier to exploit. It really is about optimising global networks. If Eastern Europeans are both better programmers (even if you disagree, at least concede that programmers/workers may generally be "better" or "more efficient" or whatever in some region that's not yours) and much cheaper, and it's not relevant in which geographic location your product comes from, why would you keep your production in a less efficient and more expensive place? To not allow that would be similar to not allowing free competition between workers in general unless you consider for some reason that the international market should not be free (which is becoming more and more popular recently, but with which I strongly disagree - developed countries were 100% in favour of free market only while they were far and away the biggest beneficiaries of such system... now that others can compete at the same level all of a sudden it's not a good thing anymore).
How do you think areas where people get paid less will ever get higher salaries if you insist in making it harder for companies to provide jobs to those who live in such areas. It's true that this may eventually go both ways: i.e. the people in lower cost areas will start getting paid more while the people in the higher cost areas will start getting paid less. Do you find that is less just? If so, why? I find that it's much better to raise the salaries for people in lower paid areas because those people can finally raise to a decent level, while those in higher paid areas will just be a little bit less able to keep their luxuries while still keeping most of their comforts.
Where we agree is that if we allow this system to go on unencumbered, eventually only one place will produce everything (sounds familiar?), only one company will dominate each area of business, and so on. And that is antagonistic to capitalism, and coincidentally, to the wellbeing of workers and consumers as well.
- vouaobrasil 3y ago> If Eastern Europeans are both better programmers (even if you disagree, at least concede that programmers/workers may generally be "better" or "more efficient" or whatever in some region that's not yours) and much cheaper, and it's not relevant in which geographic location your product comes from, why would you keep your production in a less efficient and more expensive place? The reason why we disagree is because I disagree with free competition on a global scale, and in turn disagree with economic efficiency as a good thing in absolute terms: there is a limit, past which if we become too efficient, it implies too great an abuse of the commons. I don't think we should have global competition for programmers: we should be more locally self-sufficient and face the consequences of our actions in our own backyard. If Eastern European programmers are better, well that is all well and good, but then that IMPLIES that people in your HOME country are NOT becoming programmers, and eventually this chain has to end somewhere, likely with SHIPPING something overseas, which in turn is unsustainable. At some point, this is likely to result in abuse of the common good (biosphere), much more so than if we stayed local. Think about it economically: the only reason why you can even PAY eastern europeans is because your currency can be exchanged for theirs, which means that they probably want some physical product of yours.