>"Is it only corporate greed?"

No its not "only" but I would argue maybe that corporate is the prime mover as their goal is simply to satisfy share holders, whose expectations are to see ever increasing returns "ad infinitum." I guess you have to question how sustainable is that? At a certain point is that only achievable by off shoring, bringing in robots and chasing tax inversions with foreign domiciles etc. All of which seem somewhat extreme practices compared to 30 or 40 years ago. When I think about it I sometimes have to wonder "who is this economy for?"

None of those practices are extreme. Moving production to a different city in the same country because it's cheaper bears no difference to moving to a different country.

Using a horse to carry things instead of hiring a few extra people to do so is no different from using a robot.

We've all been doing the same things for thousands of years, and we've all been worried in the same way.

>"None of those practices are extreme. Moving production to a different city in the same country because it's cheaper bears no difference to moving to a different country."

It's very different. If I establish a company I choose to start a company if possible in a place that has a favorable business climate and by that I mean, there is access to labor, and capital, there's a mature legal system, a stable currency and a stable government.

If I become wildly successful and decide that I am going to rent a mailbox on Grand Cayman and say my company is "based in the Cayman Island" despite having no people or office there, I think that qualifies as extreme behavior.

I still want all of the protections and freedoms associated with the country where my actual headquarters is, I just don't want to play by the rules now . Even though its still that same favorable business environment that enabled me to become wildly successful. This is extreme.

You can argue about corporate tax rates all you want but you knew what those were when you incorporated.

>"Using a horse to carry things instead of hiring a few extra people to do so is no different from using a robot."

I'm sorry what year were horses discovered? There was no discovery of horses that caused paradigm shift that led to precipitous large scale unemployment. Please point me to that bit of history.

>"We've all been doing the same things for thousands of years, and we've all been worried in the same way"

No we have not. It was a generation ago, you would work for "the company" until you were 65. And they would give you gold wrist watch on the day you retired.

"It was a generation ago, you would work for "the company" until you were 65. And they would give you gold wrist watch on the day you retired."

But do you realize that this model lasted for about a generation, and only a small % of the world population (probably <5%) benefited from it? There's more to the world than the European and American middle class. That is irrelevant in the long term.

>"There's more to the world than the European and American middle class"

Did you read this article? Its exactly about the European middle class! One of the reasons these types of stories have been such a part of the news cycle lately is precisely because it is effecting the once safe middle class in both America and Europe.

Also why is the fact that it lasted a generation relevant? We are always guided by our recent history. Things like education, retirement, labor polices are all "informed" by our recent history.

> I'm sorry what year were horses discovered? There was no discovery of horses that caused paradigm shift that led to precipitous large scale unemployment. Please point me to that bit of history.

Not horses but

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luddite

Production has always moved to where it was cheapest. For example, that's why manufacturers used to be located along waterways, because transporting the materials was cheapest over water.

Thats not the same at all or even true. Land with access to a waterway was never "cheaper" than non-waterfront land. They were located there because it was the quickest route to market.

you contradict yourself as well as you can quickest=cheapest

I didn't contradict myself at all. Speed and price are two separate concerns. One does not imply the other.

Water was by far the cheapest way to get goods to market until railroads came along.

No it was not and that just defies all business logic. Do you really believe that a freight forwarder using steam ships that could guarantee your delivery in matter of days vs a matter of weeks via a service that employed horses didn't charge a premium for that service?

What would be the point of that?

Why do you think towns and cities are usually located adjacent to navigable waterways and natural harbors, going back thousands of years?

Take a trip down the Rhein river some day. There's a medieval castle at every opportunity next to the river. They were built to extract tax from the river traffic. The Rhein was the highway through Germany until railroads.

Perhaps it's not greed at all. It's intellectually lazy to assume malice as the motivation for behaviours with which we disagree.

But greed and malice are orthogonal concepts. Greed concerns ones selfish and personal desires and malice is intention to harm or seek revenge on others. One is concerned with the self and the other isn't. One does not necessarily imply the other. It is intellectually lazy to conflate the two.

That's one of those things that are only really true in theory. The word 'greed' has an overwhelmingly negative connotation.

No its not. If I am selling widgets for x dollars and making a handsome profit and I decide to raise my prices by 150% over night I am likely motivated by greed - to make as much money as possible. That it not way means I wish to harm people which is what the definition of malice is.

People get greedy in business all the time. That doesn't not mean their intent is to inflict harm other people.

Just because a word has a negative connotation does mean its has the same meaning as another word with a negative connotation.