Globalization improves workers rights, increases pay, and reduces inequality. It's only people who were formerly at the top of the heap due solely to dumb luck that have anything to fear.
This isn't true for China. They use prison labor, they have no right to unionize, they have child labor, they don't follow their own minimum wage law, they don't have anything like a western country's workplace safety laws.
Globalization does not increase wages for people in western countries, that's why these companies are keen on getting H1B visas and getting cheaper labor.
I also don't care about wages "for people in western countries". Why would I care about wages for one group of people to the exclusion of others?
Directly contradicted by your own assertion that someone in India will work for cheaper
> improves workers rights
Citation needed. The only one I can accept off hand is that it reduces inequality between western workers and those in countries with less opportunities. It certainly doesn't reduce the gap between CXOs and their employees
The "elephant graph" is the most important graph in the world of economics: https://assets.bwbx.io/images/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/iVkQuGtP3s2...
Citation needed. The only one I can accept off hand is that it reduces inequality between western workers and those in countries with less opportunities.
See the work of Branco Milanovic - the bulk of inequality in the world is across borders rather than within borders. His book is excellent: http://amzn.to/2dl3sVJ
Worrying about inequality between CXOs and their employees is also a silly distraction by politicians. Inequality in the US is mainly between firms, not within them. Inequality within Google and within Walmart has not gone up much, it's inequality between Google and Walmart that has gone up.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/05/27/u-s-pay-inequality...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2103798/Revealed-Ins...
If Indians could do just as well as Finns, why aren't they, in India?
Many individual Finns didn't make Finland nice. Quite a few just came along for the ride, and some were downright harmful. So it would be equally valid to say "Finns, except Sven, but including Sandeep built a nice country". (Assuming of course that Sven was one of the ones who didn't contribute much.) So we could equally well change the groups and get the same positive claims.
Suppose I were to say "whites built a nice suburb, why shouldn't they be the ones who enjoy the benefits" (with regards to, say, an all-white suburb that they want to keep blacks out of), what principled objection would you make to this claim?
I don't have an objection to people maintaining their own communities, closed or not. I believe in freedom of association. I'm not an American either so US taboos around race don't hold much sway over my opinions.
For example, if A threatens B with violence should B employ C, I believe that's wrong. I don't believe it becomes morally acceptable if A and B are members of the same family, or the same ethnic or national group.
I believe parents owe a certain individual obligation to their children (due to the fact that they chose to birth them), but little else.
If you consider the accident of birth in a certain country unfair. That is, Sven being born in Sweden and Sandeep in India which should be rectified by allowing Sandeep to move to Sweden (or Finland, or wherever), do you consider other instances of inheritance unfair?
For example, if Sven stands to inherit an apartment in Stockholm and a nice cabin in the woods, while Lucas' parents were renters who won't leave him much, should Sven's parents' estate be taxed at 100% to rectify this unfairness (or 50% to pass it to Lucas)? If not, why not? What is the principled objection?
It seems to me that both lines of arguments for inheritance (whether better capital allocation and stewardship, or simple blood ties) work just as well for material goods as they do for citizenship. And property is guaranteed by the threat of violence (often from the same actors) just like borders are.
I have no problem with individuals disposing of their property as they see fit. Just as Sven might like to pass his house to Lucas, I might like to rent my house to Jose the Mexican. And I object to laws that would prevent both of these things.
I guess another disagreement we have is that I don't see citizenship as property.