See. This is the problem. Is it fair to buy a Toyota because it's cheaper than a Cadillac? You either accept globalization or you don't. Globalization brings nice and bad things. You can't just have your cake and eat it to. Doing that will result in inefficiencies that in the long term will kill your internal economy. Imagine the USA didn't have access to outsourcing. Industries would have collapsed instead of bringing the top level jobs the US citizen enjoys now.
Why not? I'd argue that it is more unfair that an American worker gets paid many times more than an Indian worker even when they do exactly the same job. Letting those Indian workers come to America and compete on more equal terms is among the fairest things you can do.
So with regards to the indictment described in the OP, it would be very clearly unfair if indigenous workers were displaced due to the illegal availability of cheaper non-national workers, right? I don't see how it's a perverse question.
Which part was unfair? The part where he was making $50/h flipping burgers or the termination?
Edit: what if the reason he was making $50/h was because he lobbied his government to restrict burger flipping work authorization to people born within 2km of his home and he was the only one qualified?
The reason for increased issuances of visas is corporate lobbying too, and most American workers have very little protection in terms of rights and lobbying, so your comparison is flipped around to describe the opposite of reality.
While the indicted in this article did visa fraud, the majority of migrant tech workers are brought totally above board although at significantly lower wages.
It's more fair to all parties, if fairness means equal pay for equal work. It was never fair for the US worker that got paid 3x the salary for doing the job in the US instead of overseas. Being paid a more fair wage doesn't mean the US worker will be happier (in fact, the opposite is likely).
?! By this argument it's unfair that Indian workers get paid more in the US than they do in India, as this is unfair to people who do the job in India for less?
If the work is essentially the same in all locations, it's unfair that the wages aren't the same everywhere. Certainly, the work may not be the same everywhere, and not all workers are providing the same level of work etc. If the worker in India provides the same value to the company as the worker in the US, how is it fair that they are paid differently?
There's also a massive difference in cost of living, and maybe it's fair to pay someone more because the business chooses to hold offices in an expensive place; OTOH, maybe it's more fair to pay everyone the same, and close offices in HCOL areas because you can't attract employees at a fair wage.
You're never going to get equal pay for equal work on a global scale.
Sure, but does that mean unequal pay is fair? And if it's unfair, isn't it unfair to both the worker who is paid less, and the worker who is paid more? If the system becomes more fair, workers who were paid more will see a wage decrease, but won't typically be excited to see more fairness.
Maybe I'm just not understanding what you consider to be fair?
It's as fair as buying something for cheaper when you can.
In fact, it's probably more fair as globalization lifts foreign workers out of poverty.
A richer local worker loses while a poorer foreign worker wins and the U.S. overall wins.
That rich people benefit from the laws and protections of the U.S., without having to deal with the corruption and laws of India. But they can then import cheap workers to displace the very people who paid for those protections to even exist in the first place?
It seems a breakdown of the social contract to me.
I think there's definitely two ways to look at this one.
If the tax system is so broken that the poorer are paying for the richer's protection, then fix the tax system so that the rich person pays the "correct/fair" amount. For example, remove most of the deductions and other rules and replace it with a simple flat tax.
Anyways, why are you saying "rich people"? Ordinary people own these companies and purchase from these companies. They benefit.
This isn't about tax rates, it's about a social contract, a small few are allowed to capture a significant % of the economic output of a country, to reap the benefits of the legal and military power of that country. As part of that, they need to share, and they're sharing increasingly less. They think it their "skill" rather than their lucky upbringing, their fortunate birthplace.
There's far more to life, and to a country, than GDP.
As for ordinary people "owning" companies, that's either a naive or disingenuous argument. They're a tiny percentage. It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery has almost entirely been captured by rich people and ordinary people haven't seen an effective wage increase in a decade.
The stats don't back your stance.
Of course it's about economics as it deals with policy and impacts on people. Simple arguments are better.
Not using economics is a cop-out from using rigorous quantitative analysis. It's interesting that on say climate change HN will be all like we should follow the science, yet economics is the science relevant to our discussion.
> There's far more to life, and to a country, than GDP.
True, so what? More money is still better. GDP per capita is a good measure of peoples' living standards.
An interesting read about "The Economics of Happiness" is https://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke201... by Ben S. Bernanke, former chair of the Federal Reserve (the part starting from "As you might guess, when thinking about the sources of psychological well-being" is most relevant).
https://www.gapminder.org/news/hdi-surprisingly-similar-to-g...
> As for ordinary people "owning" companies, that's either a naive or disingenuous argument.
The stats don't back your stance. "Compare that to the middle class, which has a median value of a mere $14,000 a household."
Also, bond yields (and bank interest) go up when stock yields go up and (I don't know if CNN counted this or not) people invest in retirement funds which invest in stock. And insurance companies also invest their customers' money.
(http://money.cnn.com/2014/09/18/investing/stock-market-inves... )
http://www.valuewalk.com/2013/03/retail-investors-hold-38-of...
"A surprising fact revealed in the report is that retail investors have invested $9.8 trillion in the U.S. equities, or 38 percent of the total $25.8 trillion corporate equity holdings. Additionally, $812 billion hedge fund assets belong to US retail investors. To put in context hedge funds have total assets under management of approximately $2 trillion. This would mean that approximately 40% of hedge fund assets come from retail investors in the US, the remainder comes from foreign investors and institutions."
> They're a tiny percentage. It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery has almost entirely been captured by rich people and ordinary people haven't seen an effective wage increase in a decade.
The stats don't back your stance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Income_Share_of_Top_... here, rejoice that the top 1%'s share is mostly static
Meanwhile,
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSA672N it's increased by 7.3% from 2012-2015
Interestingly, you said "The stats don't back your stance." while not using any stats yourself and only using weasel words like "It is widely acknowledged the benefits of economic recovery".
https://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/nov/13/us-wealth-i...
Graph looks severely different to the one you just posted.
I'm not going to try and debate anything with someone who thinks economics is the only measure of life, you're too narrow minded.
> I'm not going to try and debate anything with someone who thinks economics is the only measure of life, you're too narrow minded.
I don't think money is the only measure of life. Then what do you want to use to measure it?
Being middle class in a third world country and being poor in a poverty-stricken American zip code are different enough that it's not even worth deciding who has it worse.
Your assertion may be wrong; it depends on what is "poor" in a poverty-stricken zipcode.
The median per capita income in India is 616$. PPP adjusted that is 2351$.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... shows people at the 6.48th percentile in the United States earn $2500.
I think you just disagreed with the concept of globalization. Granted that human resources are more complex than other resources. However, judging by your use of term "unfair pricing" on human, you seem to make no distinction between them in this discussion.