Hacker News Reader

Comment by mc32 | Hacker News Reader

>has been one of the most vocal critics of globalization and global inequality.

How can he simultaneously be a critic of globalization AND a critic of global inequality? The one thing "globalization" brings with it is low skilled jobs but relatively better jobs to underdeveloped nations en-masse, if those nations don't squander things, they can parley that into higher economic rungs (as has the US, Japan, China, throughout history.

Yes, wages stagnate in the rich countries but they increase in developing nations. Sometimes you sell goods to emerging markets but typically their PP is too small to matter and healthy local firms can take advantage of the increased local purchasing power to push into neighboring countries.

View on HN

Because you can globalize inequality, such that a transnational set of very powerful oppressors can use cross-border agreements to make the lives of those disenfranchised on both sides of the border equally miserable, skimming the cream of their surplus and absconding with said fruits of labor to parts beyond the reach or purview of those stolen from, while using against them international laws that are difficult to understand and are powerless to fight?

I think the unnecessary use of word "oppressors" makes me less likely to think you're unbiased in your assessment.

I think the fact that China and India (as well as some African countries) see globalization as a way to emerge from underdeveloped and poor economies speaks to their opinion as to whether globalization is good. Millions of people in India and China are no longer subsistence farmers or beggars because globalization brought with it capital inflows, job demand, skills improvement, and with that better education and strengthening of the local economy. I think it's no accident that most developing countries clamor for foreign investment (aka globalization). Many women in those countries are now independent and don't depend on arranged marriages for their future --they can earn their own living.

Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have. And workers in developed economies will not have viable careers with all but a high school diploma --those days are over. You now have global competition for jobs and millions of erstwhile poor are grateful.

> Yes, it means some people in rich nations will see their income relative tot hat of poor countries stagnate and they won't be able to afford a McMansion or Tesla car and will have to rent an apartment and take transit or own a Honda, but this is ten times better than what people in developing counties have.

The stagnating income in the West is a result of policy, not a direct consequence of globalization. Real wages in the US are stagnating for over 40 years now (1), but GDP grew enormously in that timeframe (2). The profits are still created in the West, they just aren't distributed down to the employees.

The world economy is not a zero sum game. Its perfectly possible for western wages to rise simultaneously with Chinese and Indian ones.

(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Real_wage#/media/File:US_Real_...

(2): https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/US_GDP_p...

Gdp grew, but so did immigration, mostly low skilled, which put price pressure on wages. Mass immigration of low skulled labor will put pressure on native low skills workers. You'd see the same in professions services, if we allowed mass high skills workers immigration.

Bringing jobs to poor countries does bring some wealth to them, so it helps reduce global inequality, but that wealth is extremely inequally shared, for several reasons (eg. the poor workforce has zero bargaining power, few labor laws etc.)--thus this also transfers more equitable profit-sharing work to much less equitable parts of the world. The net result is often debatable.

Exporting oil and mineral weath has supported many wars and dictators in Africa while undercutting farming which further destabilized them. Arguably, a near trade embargo for the last 100+ years would have left them much better off.

PS: #1 thing the developed world could do to end extreme poverty, end food subsidies.

Mostly control disease and enjoy the benefits of smaller family sizes -stretching resources amongst fewer people means more per capita.

Unfortunately, lots of religious evangelizers told the poor to have more children or opposed population control (contraception) this proved detrimental to the development of the local pop.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com