Outsourcing causes (some) domestic workers to lose wages and bargaining power, but wages and bargaining power grow in the developing world, so it’s not a global race to the bottom. Also, the benefits to consumers and companies make it Kaldor-Hicks efficient even within the domestic country.
Trade also inhibits investment in labor-saving technology
Such investment is just overspending if it only happens when companies are compelled to overspend on labor.
But this wage increase doesn’t necessarily make these workers happier.
It generally does, and it’s evident from their behavior. “Necessarily” is a naughty word in social science.
Medieval peasants didn’t build trade unions, and neither did the rural peasants of today’s developing states.
There are obvious reasons for this besides the ridiculous idea that they’re content with their status. Medieval peasants fought actual rebellions for better treatment.
We might point out that given the reality of climate change, the choice is suicidal—it’s not possible for everyone to live like Americans
Funny how he equivocates between “getting out of extreme poverty” and “living like Americans”.
Yet at the same time, we are socialists and that means we’re meant to care about American workers.
Everyone cares about American workers. If he means to care more, that’s nationalism, which is exactly as harmful and no better justified than saying that we’re meant to care about white people, men, etc in priority over others.
Rich states should demand, as a condition of trade agreements, adjustments in wages, taxes, and regulations to reduce or eliminate disparities in the treatment of rich workers and poor workers.
There’s a lot of Western hubris going on here. Developing countries have many challenges and they are not economically or institutionally equipped to skip ahead in modernizing their regulations and welfare. Demanding such political concessions in exchange for economic reciprocation is a textbook example of the kind of neocolonialism that people like Robinson like to bloviate about.
To be sure, sometimes these kinds of demands are OK—they should just be applied cautiously and sparingly. “Kagame should really listen to his central bank and install a minimum wage” is OK. “African governments are all corrupt and need the gentle hand of enlightened Western socialists to tell them to reform” is not OK. There’s a fine line between the two.
Anyway:
one possibility that comes to mind is that there be worker cooperatives in both the developed and developing worlds, or some similar way for workers in countries of vastly different economic strata to still benefit from trade agreements. Did you come across anything in your research that went over that consideration?
I didn’t see anything like that, though I didn’t read deeply. Implementing socialism in both rich and poor countries would not fix the problem. As far as I can tell this is a fundamental barrier to any currently conceivable socialist plan: when capital is held publicly, transferring it to another polity means losing it. Outsourcing would have the same status as foreign aid: a political favor that will happen to only a small degree. There just aren’t the right incentives. And of course I’m not making this up because this is literally what socialists want—they consider it an upside of their plans that they will keep production at home.
If socialism were implemented only in poor countries, then it would be less of a problem. But obviously it’s quite hubristic for Westerners to try to push such changes in a foreign nation. Moreover, if we’re talking about socialism in a poor state, we must face additional worries about whether it will be implemented well.
We might point out that given the reality of climate change, the choice is suicidal—it’s not possible for everyone to live like Americans
This is not only possible with future technology, but it is feasible with present technology without taking more land from nature. Renewable energy/nuclear, agricultural productivity already realized in Europe, growing seaweed (for food, feed, and carbon sequestration), not building buildings out of wood, recycling, etc.
Beg to differ.
Outsourcing causes (some) domestic workers to lose wages and bargaining power, but wages and bargaining power grow in the developing world, so it’s not a global race to the bottom. Also, the benefits to consumers and companies make it Kaldor-Hicks efficient even within the domestic country.
Such investment is just overspending if it only happens when companies are compelled to overspend on labor.
It generally does, and it’s evident from their behavior. “Necessarily” is a naughty word in social science.
There are obvious reasons for this besides the ridiculous idea that they’re content with their status. Medieval peasants fought actual rebellions for better treatment.
Funny how he equivocates between “getting out of extreme poverty” and “living like Americans”.
Everyone cares about American workers. If he means to care more, that’s nationalism, which is exactly as harmful and no better justified than saying that we’re meant to care about white people, men, etc in priority over others.
There’s a lot of Western hubris going on here. Developing countries have many challenges and they are not economically or institutionally equipped to skip ahead in modernizing their regulations and welfare. Demanding such political concessions in exchange for economic reciprocation is a textbook example of the kind of neocolonialism that people like Robinson like to bloviate about.
To be sure, sometimes these kinds of demands are OK—they should just be applied cautiously and sparingly. “Kagame should really listen to his central bank and install a minimum wage” is OK. “African governments are all corrupt and need the gentle hand of enlightened Western socialists to tell them to reform” is not OK. There’s a fine line between the two.
Anyway:
I didn’t see anything like that, though I didn’t read deeply. Implementing socialism in both rich and poor countries would not fix the problem. As far as I can tell this is a fundamental barrier to any currently conceivable socialist plan: when capital is held publicly, transferring it to another polity means losing it. Outsourcing would have the same status as foreign aid: a political favor that will happen to only a small degree. There just aren’t the right incentives. And of course I’m not making this up because this is literally what socialists want—they consider it an upside of their plans that they will keep production at home.
If socialism were implemented only in poor countries, then it would be less of a problem. But obviously it’s quite hubristic for Westerners to try to push such changes in a foreign nation. Moreover, if we’re talking about socialism in a poor state, we must face additional worries about whether it will be implemented well.
This is not only possible with future technology, but it is feasible with present technology without taking more land from nature. Renewable energy/nuclear, agricultural productivity already realized in Europe, growing seaweed (for food, feed, and carbon sequestration), not building buildings out of wood, recycling, etc.