Then you have the people who only care about themselves and their family, I guess a good percentage of the population will choose in favor of their family rather than someone's else.
Then people empathize with those who share things in common with them (culture, ideology, social status, race, nationality, religion) a kind of extended family.
Then you have people who think we should empathize with everyone around the world, but do they really?, if there was a chance where they have to decide between their children or some random dude in the other side of the world, who would they choose to help?
Is it fair? I don't think so. Would I rather help people who I empathize with? I would lie if I say no. I'm not a monster , I don't want a random guy to suffer, but there's something inside me that makes me look after my family first.
P.S. I'm from Mexico, and I live in a city whose economy depends on foreign manufacturing companies.
I think that its in everyone's best interest to consider yourself first; then when you're secure & able, help your neighbor. There's nothing keeping some companies from having establishments in both countries.
If every country has its own economy, there will be far more companies and jobs than if only a few multinational companies exist in the entire world.
Tariffs were common US policy when they served the interests of the elite. They only became ideologically unthinkable when they might have been used to protect the interests of the common people.
Trade deals could have been written to lift up working standards and environmental protections in foreign countries and to limit the effect on the American workforce. Instead they were written to facilitate wage, labor and environmental protection regulatory arbitrage and undermine the position of the American working class.
National protectionism has the same problems as state or city level import restrictions would, just at a different scale: you're throwing away comparative advantage, wasting time and capital duplicating others' work (so this time and capital is no longer available to unsolved problems), etc.
Because nobody is arguing that. You're inventing an absurd position to argue against a pretty reasonable one.
>you're throwing away comparative advantage, wasting time and capital duplicating others' work (so this time and capital is no longer available to unsolved problems), etc.
Is this supposed to be a problem? Efficiency gains have simply gone into ballooning corporate cash stockpiles rather than demonstrably better purchasing power for consumers. Paradoxically, this is weakening the economy as more capital concentrates in fewer hands and consumer demand begins to falter.
Why is country less absurd than any other level of government?
The chasm between human development in a country's cities vs. its countryside is even wider around the world.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_income
Ah yes, that would be the definition of relatively.
Or are you implying that the difference in development between SF and Mobile, AL is bigger than the difference between the United States and Bangladesh? Because I would be highly suspect of that implication...
Independence in case of war is a good reason for governments to "overpay" domestic suppliers for defense contracts. It doesn't require them to isolate the general public from trade in peacetime.
No, it usually doesn't. There are benefits of scale but there are also diminishing returns.
Having, say, a steel mill in every town would be a huge waste but centralizing all steel production in one place on the globe would provide only a very minor, if any, benefit over doing it in fifty countries at the massive hidden cost of now world-wide fragility of steel supply. (This almost happened with hard drives.)
You joke, but that's exactly what antitrust is about. When AT&T was broken up, dozens of flowers bloomed almost overnight. Unfortunately that was the also the apex of antitrust enforcement (certainly in the US and possibly worldwide).
In many ways, the ugly side of globalisation is often a failure to enforce real antitrust legislation: if a market has so few players that abandoning a location means losing a factory, then there should be space for antitrust action. You want a market so rabid that competitors would jump at the chance to take over an existing factory and already-skilled workforce.
Unfortunately it's also the sort of thing where nation-states rear their ugly heads, as they compete to establish their own champions. If I break my companies into smaller ones and you don't, your companies now have a powerful advantage when playing in my market, because they can exploit economies of scale that mine cannot. This has no solution unless we give more teeth to supranational bodies like the WTO, which nobody really wants to do, but it's probably the only way to save globalist capitalism from itself.
It ceased to exist mere 26 years ago.
Personally, I think if we got rid of even 50% of the stupidity and corruption in our respective societies, there would be so much to go around for everyone it would be a utopia. But if we don't do this, and soon, I'm very worried that everything is increasingly going to flow up to the top x% who own the machines, and the survival of the rest will literally be at the whim of them, their government officials, and their security forces.
If I refuse to buy something made in a distant sweat shop and pay more for a product from a company that treats its foreign labourers fairly, I'm putting a stranger over my children in that I could have spent that extra money on the kids instead. That kind of decision making is not unheard of or unrealistic.
Who said it was fair?
Trump and Sanders both campaigned on doing things for the benefit of American and its citizens. Prioritizing the welfare of steelworkers here rather than in Mexico is pretty much what their supporters wanted.
The latter, which includes American steel consumers.
A few decades ago some people were seriously arguing that open source software was bad for the software industry because it made it harder to have a business selling compilers or web servers.
To make it clearer, imagine if an iPhone were built in the US. People have speculated that it would cost over $2000 for the $600 iPhone 5. Now, are Americans better off that 200 million can't buy iPhones but that 60,000 of them have jobs? In fact, _would_ the 200 million buy iPhones to keep the 60,000 employed? Or would they just buy the Samsung that costs $600? Then you'd lose the employment of the 60,000 too.
Subsidies aren't free. Tariffs aren't free. They are a tax twice over on every fellow citizen who isn't subsidized or protected by tariff.
It seems like maintaining a free market in such a market would lead to a race to the bottom with regards to wages and quality of life. Why should we allow that to happen just to maximize profits?
The issue really is just with countries that don't provide a quality of life that the US offers, like Mexico.
Maybe at this point China will be the ones exporting manufacturing to poorer less industrialized countries.
"letting jobs freely flow to the cheapest place in the world, and products to flow tariff free across borders" will happen, no matter what? Does the free will of human beings to choose and pursue their own destiny have something to do with it?
> There is no way to have wages in US 5-10 times bigger than in other countries only because politicians can do such a thing (if they would).
Not higher than everyone of course, but this assumption that everything is going to even out across all countries perfectly evenly seems like a rather extraordinary belief that at least ignores the ability and willingness of humans to go collectively insane periodically.
Does the human nature/culture aspect of this situation not bother you at all? For example, I hope we can agree that certain cultures are better than others at certain things, for whatever reason. For example, the US at innovation, the Japanese at perfecting things, the Chinese at mass production and working incredibly hard (so far, what's next we shall see). Do you think it is absolutely not possible at all that some cultures on earth might lack certain strengths required to compete on a tariff-free global marketplace, or the social cohesion to govern society successfully under these new conditions?
I'd rather have a job than a cheap iPhone.
I also seriously doubt that build costs would rocket from $200 to $2000 simply by moving production to the US.
There is no plan to help these Americans. They will either take lower paying jobs, or be subjected to poverty for the rest of their lives [1].
I'm unsure what the problem with "forced reshoring" is. In the beginning of your argument, you ask if there is a plan to help these people. If globalization allows for entire factories to be moved across borders to arbitrage lower wages, you must use tariffs to prevent that arbitrage if you want well paying jobs to remain in your country.
Most importantly, you address fairness "How is this that fair?" about who gets the job. Economics and market forces are not fair. They are about who has the most leverage. The American economy has an enormous amount of leverage due to our size, and we should be using it to our advantage.
So, when you hear a Trump supporter (or any American regardless of politics, depending on the job) concerned that Mexicans are going to take their jobs, you might be able to see how its a very legitimate concern for someone who isn't going to be able to retrain into another profession that maintains their middle class quality of life for the remainder of their career.
If you care, get involved in politics. It is the only solution that doesn't involve violent revolution.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/nov/12/beattyville-...
That and every major growth story involves some protectionism. China is very protectionist with the great firewall (protectionism for domestic tech) and capital controls. When the US industrialized in the late 19th and early 20th centuries we had protectionist policies.
The US may need a return to protectionist developing nation style policies for a period of time to reindustrialize. We have effectively third worlded our interior.
Which is why "reshoring" would probably be a short term fix, lasting only until new machines could be developed. You can just compare how many people are employed to make something like a steel ring when you have cheap workers [1] or expensive workers [2].
How is that meaningfully different than GDP being high? They all completely ignore wealth distribution.
My points are that you can't re-industrialized if you never de-industrialized, and also that any employment gains from "pulling back" some industries (using tariffs or similar) would be short lived for the same reason that the current US industry is shrinking employment despite continuing to grow. Like the videos I posted show, there's a big difference between the number of employees you hire when you have to pay them 1x or just 1/16x. I'd be surprise if most "recovered" jobs lasted a decade.
Why does this matter if only the top 10% are benefiting from this growth? Quality of life for the lower class is declining, not increasing.
The parent poster was saying the US needs to "reindustrialize". I'm saying that not only it never de-industrialized, but if you were to pull in more industries (using tariffs and such), it wouldn't matter in the long term since - as you correctly point out - increasing the size of the industry doesn't increase the qualify of life for the lower class.
Would it be a net positive with regards to wealth generation? Absolutely not. There are massive capital flow optimizations available with globalization. I just don't see any other way of increasing quality of life for our lower class in a way that's politically attainable.
Why are you invoking tax payment to explain the relationship of a government to its citizen? Citizens' rights, and the government's interest in their well-being are not a service offered in exchange for money.
I have no issue with other Presidents or leaders putting their citizens first either.
What's not fair, IMO, is uneven playing fields: Unionized, 40 day work week, safe conditions, etc... vs countries where children work, 12 hour work days, unsanitary/unsafe conditions, etc...
Or, what's not fair, is government backed advantages - IE: Under-priced steel to drive American Businesses out of business... or solar panels... or... etc.
At the end of the day... not everything in life is fair. Some people are born into money. Some are born lucky enough to be Americans (or other "First" world countries)... Some are born with innate skill/talent. Plenty of people aren't.
We can try to keep the "world" moving forward together... but taking care of "Our" country - to protect people from losing their jobs to unfair competition - is "fair" and should be expected of our leadership. We should also try to include other countries and raise them up as well but that's no reason to not take care of #1 first: Us.
Economics is not zero-sum. We don't forcibly on-shore, we take care of the people who need help.
Plenty of studies (and real world examples) show that higher minimum wages means fewer jobs - why pay a cashier when you can install a touch screen kiosk?
There could be an argument that it's because of unbalanced minimum wages (one city, state, etc)... but I think that even a national minimum wage increase to $15... or even a smaller one like $10... would do more damage to unskilled labor than would be beneficial.
Personally? I could see an inflation based auto-increase... but just doubling the minimum wage in a short time frame is going to be damaging. IMO.
Can you be a Republican that's Pro-Gun Control and Pro-PP? Can you be a Democrat that's Pro Life and Anti-Illegal Immigration?
If you are, you are a pariah and banned from both sides...
How can you have a middle ground when two sides care more about the other side losing than they do about moving forward as a country/human race?
If we only pretended the other side had no merit, we'd be able to actually have rational discussions and move forward...
How many manufacturing jobs has the US lost due to competition in an open market with countries that don't have basic human rights (IE: Kids in sweat shops in various countries. The US doesn't make clothes anymore because we can't compete with those conditions.)
You say "those people need jobs too"... but then ignore all the lost American jobs, reduction in American competitiveness (due to closed factories, outsourced skills, etc) and the various human rights issues that take place around the world.
Am I simplifying things? Sure... but so are you...
It is a greatly complicated problem - and, as you said, not a zero sum... but at the end of the day, I don't think it's "unfair" to care more about "us" than "them" as long as "they" don't have the same standards we do.
I think there should be barriers that keep competition on a level playing field. 40 hour work week vs 40 hour work week. Basic human rights vs basic human rights.
Pipe dream? of course... but I think that countries would improve themselves to have entry to our markets (and to have us allowed into theirs).
And isn't that what you really want? Improvements all around?
I'm just focused on different improvements (Here at home and then abroad) instead of your improvements (Improvements abroad and maybe someday improvements here)
No I didn't, the US taxpayer on aggregate saves more than enough to pay those people to live for the rest of their lives.
>I don't think it's "unfair" to care more about "us" than "them" as long as "they" don't have the same standards we do.
I don't. The US on aggregate gets as much, or more, benefits from off-shoring as the country who takes it on does.
>Improvements abroad and maybe someday improvements here
The sole reason there aren't an equal number of improvements here in the United States is due to regressive thinking that assumes that bringing the jobs back would be a net positive while simultaneously blaming anybody who's been left behind for not working hard enough. Like I said, this isn't zero sum.
I would say if we're consuming the product then it's "fair" that that work necessary for the making of the product go to a local citizen (Foreign if foreign or domestic if domestic).
Foreign nations have control of their economy and how it runs, whether they allow corruption, nepotism, off-shoring, etc., just as we do. But they can't tell us how to run our economy and we can't tell them how to run theirs.
I think that's an awful way to feel about another human, but that's what you're suggesting we do with foreign citizens. Why not, instead, try to build a better society for everyone?
Now, we have to draw the line some place and that tends to be national governments which is where our direct influence ends.
While we can empathize with N Koreans, for example, we are not the ones who decided upon their government. They are responsible for their self-determination.
When we felt oppression, as a country we fought a war for independence. When we opposed slavery, we fought a civil war. It's a bloody crucible, but you have to forge your own destiny as a nation, unless you're proposing internationalization, which is imperialism by another name.
You're trying to re-install economic partitions at the national level which currently aren't there; "that's how we do things" isn't an argument. "How we organize ourselves politically" with respect to economics has been as an integrated global civilization since the mid to late 20th century.
If economic partitioning is an unqualified good, why not go much smaller than country scale? If it's not an unqualified good, what makes national borders optimal? Doesn't it seem a little bit suspicious that a country grown over hundreds of years of political wrangling just happens to the mathematically optimal economy size?
As it stands, we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve, but it's less sexy to say you support our own poor, functionally illiterate than say you support some people in a country where people made different political and economic decisions.
Through trade (and the threat of trade sanctions) we have enormous influence on foreign governments. The US in aggregate has more leverage over China than (say) Idaho does over California. Why should the citizens of Idaho accept competition from Californians?
If it's because CA and ID both roll up into the federal government, then don't we all roll up into the UN?
>we have vast amounts of our own poor we underserve
We do. The welfare state is too weak, we don't do nearly enough redistribution, it's unconscionable that we lack national health insurance, it's unconscionable that we let neighborhood wealth determine school quality and make college cost so much, etc. But raising the price of goods by locking out foreign competition is regressive: the made-in-America premium hurts most when you have the least to spend.
Japan would speak to your position otherwise. Some people say it's foolhardy for them to have expensive fruit and vegetables, when they could import cheaper. On the other hand those farmers are self sustaining within their system.
I'm with Seattle anti WTO spirit of '99.
you could always lower sales tax and raise income tax
That's where democratic influence stops, beyond which we can't control. Before globalization became a thing, workers commonly had a union, bargaining rights, and a political wing that fought for them. Now that we've entered a global economy, we can't get that leverage anymore.
An argument for reshoring, however, might go something like this: America has laws that ostensibly give employees more bargaining power than they have by default. We also have laws regulating how much pollution, and effects analogous to pollution, companies are allowed to produce. In order for any of that to be meaningful, however, we need to force companies to operate under our jurisdiction, and penalize them for competing via slave labor and dirty industry through tariffs.
In your analogy, they were both paying for their granddaughter's medicine, but the one in Mexico was still being paid an order of magnitude less. If you reshore that job, and the new worker pays 10% of her salary to the mexican worker, their needs are both 90% filled. Surely this means that it is better.