Except that over time, wages across the boarder rise. We have seen that in mexico and china. We saw that here in the US when textile manufacturing moved from New York and Boston to North Carolina. All of these same arguments against free trade were used early in american history with interstate commerce. North Carolina allowed child labor in textile mills and had low wages. Are you telling me New York is worse off because Investment Banks replaced the Textile District in Manhattan? I don't think so. America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services and products and protect our fellow citizens harmed by the transition. The answer isnt to start a trade war with mexico and china in the hopes the we can go back to having child labor in textile mills and family farms.

do you realize you just made a pro child-labor argument ? You're saying exploitation of children was justified because NYC became a great city with investment banks and expensive rent. The same argument could be used to justify slavery: "Oh look how well it helps the cities where all the money is stored! We can't possibly have equality for all because that would reduce the massive profits of the few!"

Exploitation is not ok, even in the short run, even if it produces a good outcome for the few who benefit from it. The massive profits made off the backs of mexican workers aren't going to mexicans, they are being exported back to the shareholders of the US companies who sent their manufacturing there.

> America needs to continue to increase sophistication of the economy by moving to higher skill services

Therein lies the inequality. Notice you said America needs to. We need to maintain that differential so that the exploitation keeps working. Because shareholders can't reap massive profits if everyone increases their sophistication. You have to keep the slaves in their proverbial cage, lest they run away.

You are drawing the literal opposition conclusion of my argument. The fact that North Carolina allowed child labor was part of how they pulled manufacturing out of the north east, but over time, as the benefits of the economic growth produced wealth, it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor.

My argument is that trade with the developing world will pull them out of poverty, decreasing global inequality, and as the population becomes wealthy, they will demand more labor, environmental and social protections. This is supported by the history of the developed worlds progress over the last 30 years.

I am not suggesting we preserve a differential between regions or countries. I am suggesting that free trade tends to create equilibrium over time as wages converge. I am also suggesting that tariffs and trade barriers preserve economic disparity as it keeps assets, labor, capital and knowledge locked behind these barriers.

I think a cursory reading of history supports this argument first with the development of the American economy and now the global economy.

Last point: China is now experiencing outsourcing of textile and furniture manufacturing to Vietnam and other counties because wages have become too high.

> it was able to eliminate awful practices like child labor.

I dont see how the free market eliminated child labor. I see government regulation as eliminating child labor.

I agree with you on the principle that putting more dollars in poor economies is a good thing. But I cannot reconcile that with the fact that those economies are attractive to businesses primarily for the purpose of circumventing rules and established practices that help us (healthcare and environment, for example).

I was watching videos on youtube about the Bangladesh shipbreaking industry. All these western corporations used the ships to make money, then circumvent all environmental regulation by disposing / selling them to Bangladesh for scrap where the toxins go into the sea, workers paid $2/day have no safety gear for dealing with chemical/fall/crushing/burning hazards, and the handful who own the companies reap tremendous profits selling the scrap steel. Everyone wins...except for the poor, who risked/reduced their lives for the awesome consolation of a few bucks (not even considering any marine life that once lived nearby).

My argument is not that free markets solve all problems. I freely accept that only government can solve collective action problems like global warming, create universal education and health care, prevent the race to the bottom tendencies of competitive commerce that incentivized bad practices like child labor and environmental pollution; but you will never be able to strengthen divergent regulatory systems unless you have unified economic relationships. Globalization that creates greater interconnected economic systems will result in improved safety standards in all of these markets. We are seeing that play out in the developing world; but this is not an immediate process - it takes generations. It takes the local population fighting for better systems. It takes the pressure from trading partners like the U.S. demanding that employee protections be put into place. Isolating ourselves behind a wall of tariffs is not going to help these ship workers in Bangladesh.

You are right, but the manufacturing workers see hypocrisy. We have lots of tarrifs in the form of licensing and visa requirements for doctors and lawyers and software engineers. We also have tarrifs on poor people / welfare with visa requirements (except Mexico in practice). Either remove visa requirements on high skill labor, or add tarrifs for external goods. Let usa join European Union if you are not ready to have a global Union.