3 ms·

While there is an income discrepancy, western countries and companies are hungry for developing markets. You can't have entry into those markets while putting

While there is an income discrepancy, western countries and companies are hungry for developing markets. You can't have entry into those markets while putting up barriers of your own. Go to any street corner in India or Mexico and you will see US and other western brands everywhere.

PeterisP 12y ago
Trade protectionism is a completely different issue from immigration and I don't see how it's relevant here. That being said, you definitely can have entry into those markets while putting up barriers of your own, there are many historical examples when this was successfully done, e.g. 19th century was probably a peak of such practices. The only question is if you should, and if it's worthwhile right now - you can go to any place in USA and you'll see lots of things that are manufactured in Mexico. And the relationship is exactly the opposite of what is implied by your comment - a large wage disparity means that the developing markets aren't as "useful" as is their cheap labor; if wages would become more equal, then this change would generally reduce the outsourcing of labor to the third world and increase the export of goods made in USA to India or Mexico.
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago
  >Trade protectionism is a completely different issue from immigration and I don't see how it's relevant here. This has gone into both immigration and outsourcing, so it does become relevant. >there are many historical examples when this was successfully done This was to the detriment of those who were blocked from trade. The power balance between the west and the rest of the world isn't as skewed today so such would not be possible. >a large wage disparity means that the developing markets aren't as "useful" as is their cheap labor; This is a fundamental flaw in your logic and most in this thread. A person is both a worker and consumer. The same person that is working for money is going to consume with that money. When an immigrant arrives to the US, they become both worker and consumer. Their consumption drives the creation of more products, including software products.

PeterisP 12y ago

Trade protectionism is a completely different issue from immigration and I don't see how it's relevant here. That being said, you definitely can have entry into those markets while putting up barriers of your own, there are many historical examples when this was successfully done, e.g. 19th century was probably a peak of such practices. The only question is if you should, and if it's worthwhile right now - you can go to any place in USA and you'll see lots of things that are manufactured in Mexico. And the relationship is exactly the opposite of what is implied by your comment - a large wage disparity means that the developing markets aren't as "useful" as is their cheap labor; if wages would become more equal, then this change would generally reduce the outsourcing of labor to the third world and increase the export of goods made in USA to India or Mexico.

IndianAstronaut 12y ago
>Trade protectionism is a completely different issue from immigration and I don't see how it's relevant here. This has gone into both immigration and outsourcing, so it does become relevant. >there are many historical examples when this was successfully done This was to the detriment of those who were blocked from trade. The power balance between the west and the rest of the world isn't as skewed today so such would not be possible. >a large wage disparity means that the developing markets aren't as "useful" as is their cheap labor; This is a fundamental flaw in your logic and most in this thread. A person is both a worker and consumer. The same person that is working for money is going to consume with that money. When an immigrant arrives to the US, they become both worker and consumer. Their consumption drives the creation of more products, including software products.