Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

With globalization and the lifting from abject poverty the greatest numbers and percentages of people, should we continue to see wage growth in areas where people are relatively better off? Should we not expect some normalization, a meeting of levels?

It's a bit selfish to think that the fist world should continue to get richer while the poor remain poor, which is what protectionism would get, alongside stagnation.

Another sidepoint, when people get wealthier the more they spend and the more they contribute to resource depletion. I'm of course in no position to even guess what the optimal average wealth would be but I'm sure having everyone with too much disposable income leads to wastefulness.

On the other hand, let the people at the bottom catch up and let them breathe. That's what we should be pushing for.

View on HN

I agree that the rich of the world are morally obliged to help the rest catch up. The analysis you put forth suggests the wages that otherwise would go to the middle and working classes are going to people in developing countries but is it not also true that whilst wages are stagnating the wealth generated by increased productivity is largely accumulating amongst the already super rich?

Yes some of the wealth which could otherwise could go to the workers of first world countries is going to the upper management of these companies, but I think that is made possible because of globalization. If the domestic costs get too high, they can move production to Mexico, or they can move development to Russia or India. This keeps a lid on wages and at the same time allows more for the management class. If we were to see international competition in management workers, they too would experience stagnation and companies would see increased profits.

Let's look at the wage growth of professionals who implement barriers to entry from foreign trained professionals like doctors, lawyers, etc. Have their wages stagnated?

As for doctors, yes, stagnated to some extent (albeit at a nice level :-)).

But the reasons are entirely different - the cause is the growing, cancerous (and greedy) layer of bureaucracy on top of actual producers (doctors). But that's yet another topic.

This article isn't really arguing what you're arguing though. Productivity (in the US specifically) has continued to grow at a brisk pace, but wages have not. This does not mean that the US has slowed its ascent, and the third world has begun to eat into that productivity; it means that, as wages stagnate, this increased wealth is captured more and more by the top level, the businesses and owners.

If third world countries were eating into this wealth, you would see the entire pie shrinking. As it is, the pie is growing larger, but all that growth is going to the rich owners, and none of it to the workers.

So I'm saying the radon they can take more from the top is workers have international competition. Without it workers could demand more. But they can't because ss they demand more their work is off shored -- see garment and footware workers.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com