undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbaron8161mo ago0 comments

There’s a lot you can do to directly help other countries that indirectly helps your own country. Creating a rules based system (vs a “might makes right” system) means the powerful don’t just get to take everyone shit, but it does mean everyone gets an opportunity to prosper.

Allowing US companies to find talent abroad means those companies can deliver better products and makes competition more viable (ie lowers prices for consumers). If we only care about “jobs” and the size of paychecks, then protectionism is the way to go. But if we actually want to provide broad based prosperity (especially for our own citizenry), then you should not protect a small subset of high paid workers.

0 comments

mikkupikku1mo ago

Why should American voters be expected to vote in India's interests? Cheaper shit isn't good enough, not least because that derives from the premise that companies pass savings on to consumers.

baron816OP1mo ago

Companies don’t pass savings to consumers, competition does.

Why should American voters pay more for everything so that SWEs can be paid exorbitantly?

I shouldn’t need to explain to you why protectionism is bad. There’s 200 years of economic research on this and it shows that protectionism always backfires.

mikkupikku1mo ago

You're just regurgitating old arguments which were once used to persuade Americans that outsourcing manufacturing to China was in America's best interest. Few Americans still find this persuasive, you can find senile babyboomers who still profess these kind of beliefs, but that's about it.

Besides, in trying to formulate an explaination for how offshoring is actually in America's interests, aren't you tacitly acknowledging that it is only right and reasonable to expect American voters to vote for what they perceive to be American interests?

1 more reply

spwa41mo ago

Things become a great deal more complicated when you consider the US is not the only country on earth, and the vast majority of countries do not have the well-being of their population at heart.

The extreme cases are well known. But let's just give the statistic: the average global wage is $24000 in PPP, according to the UN. In other words, such a global system will be on average a 75% pay cut for US workers.

By the way, that's a PPP paycut, in other words a paycut without anything getting 1 cent cheaper. Not your housing. Not your food. Not your playstation. Not your cost of living. We'll be back to deciding which day in the month we'll have a little bit of meat.

The scary thing if you've ever been there is that India actually cares more than most countries for it's people.

And the truly terrifying thing is that income is distributed along a power law. In other words, it'd be a 50% pay cut for Donald Trump and a 90% pay cut for you and me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 pointsbaron8161mo ago0 comments

0 comments

mikkupikku1mo ago

Why should American voters be expected to vote in India's interests? Cheaper shit isn't good enough, not least because that derives from the premise that companies pass savings on to consumers.

baron816OP1mo ago

Companies don’t pass savings to consumers, competition does.

Why should American voters pay more for everything so that SWEs can be paid exorbitantly?

I shouldn’t need to explain to you why protectionism is bad. There’s 200 years of economic research on this and it shows that protectionism always backfires.

mikkupikku1mo ago

1 more reply

spwa41mo ago

Things become a great deal more complicated when you consider the US is not the only country on earth, and the vast majority of countries do not have the well-being of their population at heart.

The scary thing if you've ever been there is that India actually cares more than most countries for it's people.

And the truly terrifying thing is that income is distributed along a power law. In other words, it'd be a 50% pay cut for Donald Trump and a 90% pay cut for you and me.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse