if capital is free to move across borders, labor must be as well.

[ulysses]

Discuss.

[IntravenousDemilo]

1. Agreed. I've always said this. Globalization must cut both ways in order to be fair. n/m

[ulysses]

4. yup. n/t

[Romulox]

2. If labor is free to move across borders, it must be TWO WAY

which means the social compact between citizens must be dissolved. One should get to chose one's countrymen the same way one chooses an automobile, and if I don't wish to pay for the baby boomers' retirement, e.g., I should have the right to change my citizenship to avoid this unwanted obligation.

[ulysses]

3. well, that *is* the logical conclusion of the current model

of globalization, isn't it?

[Romulox]

11. The bowdlerized version of free trade sold by "third way" politicians is a kind of miracle

of loaves and fishes whereby "everybody wins!"

It's never been clear to me whether free trade advocates really believe the living standards of Americans can be maintained in light of de-industrialization, or if they know and understand that they cannot and just don't care? :shrug:

[ulysses]

13. the question can be rephrased as

"are they dirt-stupid or are they not?"

I suspect that they're not. They couldn't give less of a shit if they tried. It's not their living standard that's in question.

[bluedawg12]

49. They don't know, they don't understand and they don't care.

They only know the outcomes when they come home to roost.

[Tesha]

55. I think that by now, it *MUST* be the latter.

> It's never been clear to me whether free trade advocates
> really believe the living standards of Americans can be
> maintained in light of de-industrialization, or if they
> know and understand that they cannot and just don't care?

I think that by now, with all of the evidence that we now
have easily at hand, it *MUST* be the latter.

Tesha

[rwenos]

5. The Major Premise is Wrong

If labor is free to cross political borders, the wages of northern Mexico become those of California and the other border states. Texas would probably like this. California would probably not. The problem arises from the different education systems, in my view. While programmers from excellent Indian and Chinese universities excel in California hi-tech companies, and earn comparable wages to American-trained programmers, the same is not true of highly-trained blue collar workers, like machinists, mechanics, computer technicians and stationary engineers, from Latin America.

All freeing up the California and other border state economies to unrestricted international labor would do is depress hourly wage rates. And people don't make enough to live on now -- you mean you can't buy a $500,000 60-year old house in an immigrant neighborhoon in Los Angeles on a minimum wage job, or two? What's the problem?! You must not be working hard enough! Or you're just extravagant.

[ulysses]

6. question for clarity:

the wages of northern Mexico become those of California and the other border states

Do you mean that border state wages depress to meet N. Mexico wages or that N. Mexico wages rise to meet border state wages? Or something else?

[rwenos]

50. I Mean California Wages Drop

To an equilibrium point with wages in Northern Mexico, which (aside from a thin strip near the border) is not industrialized.

[treestar]

12. So in essence you are saying only American born people matter?

We have to deal with a global work force, period. Just thinking we can ignore other people doesn't make them go away. They will be willing to work for less than the priviliged nobility that people try to make of their American citizenship.

We have to get real about this. When capital can cross borders but not labor, then capital moves to where the labor will work the cheapest. And yet they can still sell their products to the "nobility."

Americans would not suffer from the prosperity of others. And they have no right to the poverty of others so they can keep their relative prosperity.

I doubt the houses in the area described are selling for $500K - if they are, that means the immigrants are able to afford it.

But your point is that Americans are suffering, which does not play well in the rest of the world, where Americans are going to be seen as the richest.

[Romulox]

14. If you have no obligation to buy my labor, why should I pay for your retirement? nt

[lumberjack_jeff]

22. American citizens are all that should matter to the american government.

From a domestic policy standpoint.

From a foreign policy standpoint, too actually. The interests of US citizens are aligned with humane policy abroad.

[rwenos]

51. You Doubt the $500k?

Slumlords buy them, extended families buy them. People find a way. Welcome to real estate values in Southern California. It's just as bad in the San Francisco Bay Area.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

7. Yes, I resent the fact that companies from all over the world can

come and set up shop in the U.S., American companies can set up shop all over the world, and I can't move to another country to be a free-lance worker without going through a lot of red tape, and probably being rejected, even though I'm self-supporting, have no criminal record, and enjoy and am good at learning foreign languages.

[ulysses]

9. but see, then you'd be taking their jobs. you know,

the ones that have probably already fled or are going to flee sooner or later.

[DBoon]

8. Capital should not be free to move across borders

period

[ulysses]

10. a fair point. n/t

[JosephSchmo]

15. In theory it should be.

Except capital is just capital, ussually nothing more. Labor however, comes attached to people, and you can't treat people as if they are only labor, there is more.

[ulysses]

16. right, and because there is more, people should have at least the same

rights as money, right?

Don't get me wrong - what's really needed is to tank the current version of globalization and put real monies into helping developing countries create sustainable employment, not having us all become migrant workers. Still, if we're to be stuck with NAFTA, et al...

[JosephSchmo]

21. I believe open borders are a good thing

If someone wants to come into this country to live and to work, that's a good thing. They will be contributing to our economy. They should just have to check in first.

[Jackpine Radical]

17. Jackpine smacks forehead (which reaches all the way back to the occipital region)

and says, "Oh, fer Chrissakes, of course."

[ulysses]

18. don't hurt yourself there.

:D :hi:

[Jackpine Radical]

23. D'Oh.

That's just one of those simple, brilliant insights that happen every now & then.

[ulysses]

25. it wasn't original to me.

After I posted the OP, I found where someone had said pretty much exactly the same thing in another current thread.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. It's in the air, I guess.

[proud2BlibKansan]

19. Feeling a bit frisky this evening?

:popcorn:

[ulysses]

20. moi?

:D No school tomorrow. :hi:

[proud2BlibKansan]

26. Ain't it great?

Then spring break and after that, the downhill slide till the end. :woohoo:

[ulysses]

29. yeah.

Of course, I'm up late working now (you only think you see me posting on DU) and will be working tomorrow.

[proud2BlibKansan]

31. I spent my day writing lesson plans

and my evening grading papers. I don't have time to play on the internets. :)

[Jackpine Radical]

40. Lucky bastard.

I gotta do my shrink expert-witness gig in court tomorrow. Trying to get tomorrow's case sorted out from the one I testified in last Thursday. They all blend together after while.

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. No. Why are the two related?

The government represents the citizens of this country. The interests of the citizens are arguably served by international trade. They're not served by self-regulated immigration.

[ulysses]

27. ok.

The interests of the citizens are arguably served by international trade.

International trade, sure. I'd like to hear your argument about how "free" trade, as currently realized in the law, serves the interests of American citizens.

[lumberjack_jeff]

52. The fact that it's implemented poorly does not mean it is without benefit.

Equitable international trade does improve economic conditions of the trading partners - the same way that interstate trade does.

[Solon]

54. Interstate trade works so well because people in those states can freely cross their borders...

to look for jobs and opportunities. Even then, there are inequalities, but they aren't nearly as drastic as how "free" trade is currently marketed. That's the weakness in current implementations of "free" trade, and that is that if capital is free to cross borders, labor MUST follow, otherwise inequalities will only increase, as is happening now.

[ulysses]

28. and in what way are the two *not* related?

Labor and capital - it's basic economics.

[lumberjack_jeff]

53. Monkeys have a relationship to banannas.

Yet, I've never heard anyone say that since banannas are sold in a grocery store, fairness dictates that monkeys should be too.

An unregulated trade in labor does a disservice to "labor" (I prefer the term "citizens") in this country, to a degree that trade in capital does not.

[Jackpine Radical]

32. The problem is that capital, or wealth, gets so readily detached

from the people who produce it. The wealth moves but the people responsible for it have no ownership.

[ulysses]

34. and that's sort of a systemic problem, isn't it?

How do we reverse that?

And how soon do you and I start sounding like Wobblies? ;-)

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Oh, Hell, Ulysses.

I been Wobbling for years. Since before I even knew what a Wobblie was. I think Joe Hill musta been messin with my Grandma.

[ulysses]

39. LOL!

Yeah, I kinda figured that about you. :D :thumbsup:

[arendt]

33. If (your postulate), then the Law of Competitive Advantage is null and void...

if capital can move to the cheapest laborer, then it is nothing but a race to the bottom.
There is no way for a non-minimum wage country to survive doing something that it
has a competitive advantage at. Because there will be no capital to do that thing.

End of discussion.

We don't need labor to be free, we need capital to be constrained.

arendt

[ulysses]

35. true, arendt, but capital isn't being restrained.

Isn't going to be in the forseeable future either, from the looks of it. What do we do? (Besides grow our own food, that is...)

[KoKo]

37. It's starting to look like....grow what you can...make do...use it up..wear it out

and try to be as independent as you can with your own resources.

[arendt]

41. Wait for peak oil, climate change, and jihad to wreck the global economy. n/t

[ulysses]

43. little rays of sunshine tonight, aren't we?

:rofl:

Hey, I've got my compost started out back...

[arendt]

47. Just saw "There Will be Blood" and rented "The Good German". Yeah, I'm not feeling optimistic...

about the human condition.

There is no smiley for "shoot me now".

arendt

[arendt]

Won't be long. Oil refineries, terminals, and pipelines are big, immobile, flammable targets. n/t

[arendt]

42. Dupe. please ignore. n/t

[El Pinko]

38. What a wonderfully succint statement!

Unfortunately, labor will never be as mobile as capital in the electronic age...

[Jackpine Radical]

44. I dunno--labor's a couple orders of magnitude more mobile than it was

2 decades ago. Capital moves a little faster too, but it's been pretty slippery for quite a while now.

[El Pinko]

45. In the case of telecommuting, yes, but that's not an option for many jobs...

...especially manufaturing.

[ulysses]

46. then again, with manufacturing,

capital isn't as mobile once you're speaking in terms of physical plants.

[mdmc]

48. Agreed

:toast: