Admittedly, I'm upset that jobs that were formerly done by my co-workers are now moving overseas, but when I step back, I can say "this is free market doing the right thing".

Business needs the ability to contract freely with resources, including the workforce. When regulations are applied, it simply becomes a special-interest tug-of-war, with the biggest contributions (bribes?) to the regulators gaining the most (unfair) ground. In a true free-market, everything will eventually find its own level. It may not be the level you want, or had last year, but it'll eventually level out.

Although I agree totally with the economic reasoning the whole point of having a country is so that it can protect the citizens rights, way of life, and property. If your government doesn't regulate trade then it is not doing its job. The object being that people want to trade with you bad enough that you trade on favorable terms bringing in more money to your country than you output.

But if your terms are too high, because your citizens are greedy, no one will trade with you and then you'll be sunk. I'd rather see the country survive at all then try holding onto a standard of living that can't be sustained.

When work goes overseas because a multinational corporation has means to underpay workers in another country, making them work in less protected environments and with less guarantees, I can say that "this is my goverment that gives the free market the right to do the wrong thing".

While I can partly agree with the mere economic argument (I've to think carefully about it, I admit), I really don't agree with the social implication of this "free market"; to this extent, regulation should be used to raise the conditions of the others and force corporations to treat them as they deserve. This is something to keep in mind the next time we eat a banana, for example.

Flavio
perl -ple'$_=reverse' <<<ti.xittelop@oivalf

Don't fool yourself.

means to underpay workers

You had me until there. What do you consider "underpay"? What if it's higher than the typical local standard-of-living pay? I know that when the word got out about Nike hiring all these overseas workers, that the workers were clamoring for these jobs, because they were better conditions and higher pay than the typical local jobs.

Just because someone wants $20/hr to do something in the US, and a guy in India will do it for $3/hr, can you still feel bad if that Indian guy would have gotten $1.50/hr anywhere else? I don't think so. I think what we're seeing is that Americans have been living high on the hog, and the rest of the world has suffered, and that eventually, it'll all sort itself out globally.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

In our global economy, capital is highly portable while labor is not, leaving "free market" to be nothing more than a high sounding euphemism for plutocracy. Neither you nor I is free to emigrate to the next hot ticket Third World low wage haven that will attract the capital of those who would otherwise pay us. This is a free market? Not for me, it ain't. I am constrained to selling my labor in one market only no matter what the global demand for my skills might be.

I happen to like many of those allegedly evil regulations that provide the benefits of workplace safety, labor protection (40 hour workweeks, social security, unemployment insurance), and environmental protection. If business is guaranteed the "ability to contract freely with resources", it will maximize its profit by seeking out low wage havens in which none of those regulations exist -- the good folks of Union-Carbide were free to contract with the resources of Bhopal, for example. For a more recent example, observe Nike just doing it to the people of Ho Chi Minh City.

The free market might just be doing its thing, but you'll never convince me that it's in any way right.

Neither you nor I is free to emigrate to the next hot ticket Third World low wage haven that will attract the capital of those who would otherwise pay us.

But it's not about emigration. I'm free to charge $5/hr and still live in America. The problem is that I'm used to a standard of living that requires me to charge $20/hr, and also I get services and goods from people who are used to having a high lifestyle as well. So, I might not have the same lifestyle here for $5/hr that I would have in India for $5/hr, but at least my new wage would be competitive.

Therefore, your argument doesn't hold water. It's not about "capital being portable but labor is not". It's about people charging a lot also being satisfied only with a higher standard of living.

It's like we're living on one side of a flood control dam, and the rest of the world is on the other side with a much lower water level. Sure, there's going to be an amazing change of water, and a lot of swirls and stuff while water is trying to seek its own level. And people may even drown in the middle. But when it all levels out, it'll work again, because it'll truly be a level playing field again. It'd be crazy to keep saying "no, that dam must remain in place". Not now that we've already let the crack open.

Nobody owes you a job. If you can't compete in the global market, you need to figure out what to do differently so that you can.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

This is a free market? Not for me, it ain't.

You can prove a substantial amount when you're allowed to change the meaning of words to their opposites.

Morally Superior, Inc.
Complaints Dept.
314 Detached From Reality Rd.
Unaccountable, Unrepentant 27182



September 7, 2005

Little People
Attn: This Means You
1234 Everywhere But Here St.
Planet, Earth 98765



Dear Unwashed Masses,

It has come to our attention that you are apparently questioning our judgment on matters of free association. As you are no doubt aware, our (choose one: tribe, race, nation, cabal) is (morally, intellectually, culturally, militarily) superior to yours. Therefore, we have decreed that from now on, voluntary, mutually beneficial transactions will be outlawed. In our high, lofty, esteemed position, it is readily apparent that it is not in our your best interest to engage in these types of exchanges. Trust us, we know what's best for you. Thanks, we knew that our great powers of persuasion would enable even a tiny mind like yours to understand (not that you have a choice in the matter).


Artfully,


(signed)
Your Betters

I'd agree with business being able to contract freely with workforces if workers were able to contract freely with businesses. Sadly, I am subject to all kinds of restrictions on where I can work - like work permits and visas - which are not applied to companies. So yeah, free trade is great, as long as it's free.

• If the boy had been paid, then that would have been money out of the glaziers pocket, and thus different to him just breaking windows by accident.
• What if the shopkeeper had money to spare, and the six francs would have just been collected under his mattress otherwise?

C.

What if the shopkeeper had money to spare, and the six francs would have just been collected under his mattress otherwise?

Obviously, you don't know most shopkeepers. {grin}

Money is merely "frozen labor". Money sitting under a mattress is a potential future purchase, no different than money in a wallet or purse. Although, in some senses, it's worse because idle money can be rented out: that is, deposited into savings or an investment account.

Failure to do so actually depreciates the money because of inflation. Think of inflation as: "well, you worked for me for an hour last week, so I'll give you an hour's worth of goods this week, but when you worked for me five years ago for an hour, I can barely remember that, so you get a half hour's worth of goods today". Thus, no sensible person has idle money: it's all "in" something.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.