At the risk of deepening the tangets....
Quote:
Originally Posted by luqmaninbmore
There is nothing xenophobic about being critical of the race to the bottom generated by global capitalism.
|
So you're just espousing anti-globalist protectionism then? Got it.
"Reducing costs" is a long-standing tactic of many business endeavors. Efforts to protect "jobs at home" are often counter-productive, because they diminish the liquidity of the job market and make it more expensive to hire employees.
Foreign workers are paid less, but they also live in areas with significantly lower costs of living than the US. The actual amount of exploitation isn't that different.
Re: The idea that outsourcing jobs reduces the total number of jobs, so do automation and investment in technology. Should we outlaw any and all means to increase worker productivity, in the name of preserving jobs?
Re: "Siphoning off money" via globalization, this is incorrect. Executive pay is a completely separate problem from outsourcing jobs. Many of the companies that have the highest CEO pay do not rely on outsourcing.
And in many cases, outsourcing leads not just to lower profits but also lowered prices for consumers. This raises the standard of living for consumers, and allows them to spend more where they like -- including on local products and services. If the prices weren't lower, consumers would have no particular incentive to buy the foreign goods.
China has gone from an agricultural nation to a manufacturing powerhouse with a huge export business and massive reserves of capital in a couple of generations -- all thanks to Western companies outsourcing manufacturing. How, exactly, is this process "bad" for China...?
And of course, let's not forget that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I agree that we could end subsidies for companies moving abroad, but that isn't going to make a difference; as long as labor is cheaper, the jobs are going to leave. Any company that refrains from chasing the best labor at the best price is going to be out of business in short order -- in which case you're going to lose a LOT more jobs, most of which are high-paying.
Oh, and the US exported $1.8 trillion in goods and services in 2010. If it's best for the US to refrain from purchasing foreign-made goods, then isn't it best for foreigners to refrain from purchasing US-made goods? (Or, to put it another way, restrictions on free trade tend to provoke retaliatory responses.)
By the way, I don't suppose you know how state governments try to promote job growth? In most cases, it's by stealing jobs
from other US states, by offering tax breaks or other incentives. (Other than the state directly hiring people, there is almost no other way for a government to generate jobs.) So is it acceptable for a company to relocate from California to Texas to improve costs, but unacceptable for that company to relocate from Mexico to Texas on the same basis?
None of this is to say that globalization is unproblematic or perfect; e.g. some foreign nations will have weaker labor and environmental protection laws.
But on a fundamental level, protectionism doesn't work.