3 ms·

The cost of living difference is a consequence of the problems rather than the problem itself. The real problems are a combination of vastly different worker p

The cost of living difference is a consequence of the problems rather than the problem itself. The real problems are a combination of vastly different worker protections/health and safety/environmental laws etc, and the huge disparity between the freedom of movement for jobs v the freedom of movement for workers. Jobs can easily head towards the cheapest, least regulated economy, but workers are prevented both legally and economically from moving towards the places with the best working conditions. As a result, countries competing for jobs have only a single set of pressures (the pressure to reduce wages) that they need to worry about. And when workers in these countries do manage to achieve a modest increase in working conditions and therefore wages, the employers can simply pack up shop and head to the next cheap market.

EdwardDiego 13y ago
> Jobs can easily head towards the cheapest, least regulated economy, but workers are prevented both legally and economically from moving towards the places with the best working conditions. Ah, the ideal of perfect labour mobility. Even if we did remove the legal and economic restrictions, we still can't achieve perfect labour mobility without breaking down a person's social ties to family, friends and community. Although some neoliberals have put a lot of effort into doing so. > And when workers in these countries do manage to achieve a modest increase in working conditions and therefore wages, the employers can simply pack up shop and head to the next cheap market. It's true, just as "Made in Japan" and "Made in Taiwan" were once considered how "Made in China" is today. And now we see the rising wages in China triggering manufacturers moving to Indonesia and the Philippines. In this regard at least, the globalisation of manufacturing is a force for good. I presume that they'll run out of countries to move to eventually.
- prof_hobart 13y ago
  > Ah, the ideal of perfect labour mobility. Even if we did remove the legal and economic restrictions, we still can't achieve perfect labour mobility without breaking down a person's social ties to family, friends and community. Although some neoliberals have put a lot of effort into doing so. I wasn't arguing for the ideal of labour mobility. I was pointing out that in its absence, the reality of almost unrestrained job mobility creates a huge disparity between employers and employees. >In this regard at least, the globalisation of manufacturing is a force for good. Is it? How? The jobs are still heading to the cheapest economies and they are the cheapest economies because they provide the least amount of workers rights/environmental protections etc. They may run out of countries to move to eventually, but it's at least equally likely that those countries where wages/conditions had risen when demand was high will have those improved wages/conditions slashed again once the demand has moved elsewhere and the jobs will simply rotate between whichever of these economies is able to offer the least protected, worst paid and move malliable workforce at any give time.

EdwardDiego 13y ago

> Jobs can easily head towards the cheapest, least regulated economy, but workers are prevented both legally and economically from moving towards the places with the best working conditions. Ah, the ideal of perfect labour mobility. Even if we did remove the legal and economic restrictions, we still can't achieve perfect labour mobility without breaking down a person's social ties to family, friends and community. Although some neoliberals have put a lot of effort into doing so. > And when workers in these countries do manage to achieve a modest increase in working conditions and therefore wages, the employers can simply pack up shop and head to the next cheap market. It's true, just as "Made in Japan" and "Made in Taiwan" were once considered how "Made in China" is today. And now we see the rising wages in China triggering manufacturers moving to Indonesia and the Philippines. In this regard at least, the globalisation of manufacturing is a force for good. I presume that they'll run out of countries to move to eventually.

prof_hobart 13y ago
> Ah, the ideal of perfect labour mobility. Even if we did remove the legal and economic restrictions, we still can't achieve perfect labour mobility without breaking down a person's social ties to family, friends and community. Although some neoliberals have put a lot of effort into doing so. I wasn't arguing for the ideal of labour mobility. I was pointing out that in its absence, the reality of almost unrestrained job mobility creates a huge disparity between employers and employees. >In this regard at least, the globalisation of manufacturing is a force for good. Is it? How? The jobs are still heading to the cheapest economies and they are the cheapest economies because they provide the least amount of workers rights/environmental protections etc. They may run out of countries to move to eventually, but it's at least equally likely that those countries where wages/conditions had risen when demand was high will have those improved wages/conditions slashed again once the demand has moved elsewhere and the jobs will simply rotate between whichever of these economies is able to offer the least protected, worst paid and move malliable workforce at any give time.