As to factory outsourcing, I think it's overall a net gain for humanity. Long term there is a finite number of countries and barring societal collapse eventually they will all end up 'developed'. It simply exposes other problems in the US like our horrible social safety net and endemic corruption. So, a small ~2-5% import tax is probably a net gain for US society.
The system is almost designed intentionally to allow the abuse of workers.
At what point do you feel the USA will have enough immigrants? It's already a nation of immigrants!
I believe that the best way to avoid war is to invite everyone to the table, help everyone get richer, do better, be more invested in a peaceful world. In the modern world, war is a nightmare solution.
https://assets.weforum.org/editor/wHXSXEN_EkCmuj8Jnb9I6EVD9g...
Second we directly befit from a mix of immigrants from all nations.
When net migration into and out of the US approaches zero. Until that point it's about how fast we can acculturate newcomers, which judging from history is "pretty damn fast".
What does "enough immigrants" even mean?
Thinking about it we tax productive work more then capital investment, and I'm not sure if that isn't ass backwards.
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/what-effect-low...
This forum is not composed of US users only. For example I live in one of those countries who benefited from opening up to foreign trade (I live in Eastern Europe) so it would be pretty hypocritical of me to complain about open markets.
Globalization has very little to do with the plights of blacks in the Mississippi Delta. Old fashioned racism and a lack of jobs in sectors which aren't agriculture have a lot more to do with it.
Second, you could consider that Bubba has the ability to vote in US elections and Liu Chu doesn't. Making Liu Chu better off is a nice moral deed, making Bubba better off is not just a nice moral deed but also a political obligation.
It seems to me that if I have any obligation it would be to advocate for those that cannot advocate for themselves first.
This is the key point.
Because Bubba is a member of a lucky sperm club. It is neither good nor is it bad. It just is.
Completely open borders and completely open immigration policy result in everyone sinking to the lowest, not lowest getting to the highest.
The writing has been in the wall for anyone to see for decades in most of these industries. An American factory shuttering is a disappointment, but I doubt it's a surprise to anyone, including it's workers. We can make some long term sacrifices to slow the process, but to what end?
How slow is slow enough?
This is actually a problem in free countries. You do not have a cabal of elite on the throne who see themselves as the rulers forever. Consequently, long term planning is not as much of a concern. In this particular case the shareholders who pressured the CEO to move the labour overseas were only concerned with their short term gain. The politicians who might have endorsed it, were also thinking about their short term gain.
Nobody is thinking about the future until there is clear trouble on the horizon.
music movies microcode (software) high-speed pizza delivery
-- Neal Stephenson, Snow Crash (1992)
The problem of poverty is systemic - trying to link it to immigration confuses correlation with cause.
> Why are low-skilled immigrants a net drain on society, but not the low-skilled children or grandchildren of immigrants?
Because those children are a sunk cost: they’re already here. Why compound the problem? The demand to come to the US is far too high to simply accept anyone who can make it here. And the fact that a greater percentage of immigrants are accepting welfare vs “natives”[2] indicates that we really are compounding the problem. We should be going almost exclusively for skilled immigration, like Australia does.
1: http://www.exodus2013.co.uk/immigrants-who-returned-home/ 2: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/09/01/immigr...
If we want to create societies where Human Rights are respected, Free-market need to be operated under constraints. Yes, those constraints will slow growth and, maybe, some rich people will be less rich, but the other option is Neo-Feudalism and Barbarie.
So, the question is: how much injustice are we willing to tolerate for the sake of growth? Every society has a different answer, but you can easily see different models in Japan, US and Europe.
Globalization is super nice when you're secure in your job, "hey everything is getting cheaper!" but when your job is the one in the crosshairs what you're feeling is a pressure that is pushing the living standard of the third world and yours together. That's why I find it so annoying that this board is usually against abundant H1B's but for factory outsourcing. It's completely hypocritical.
And before I get jumped on, no I'm not against all trade. What I'm for however is noting that people don't live in the long-term, economically we are firmly short-term creatures. Good policy won't give everything up for the long-term, it will also protect people in the short-term, we don't need an end to trade, we need a curtailing of some trade.