> Cheap labor != slave labor. Different labor has different market value in different locations, and this is a result of a difference in standard of living.
Does the distinction between cheap and forced labor matter at some point? The fact that there's such a difference in the standard of living is basically my entire objection. Why is that difference acceptable? Why should someone get to make enormous amounts of money while someone else can barely afford food?
> Manufacturing will constantly move to the next poorest country, in perpetuity, seeking out the next cheapest labor pool until there is none left. The ensuing equilibrium would have globally high standards of living with diversified supply chains, with any concentration largely being a function of 1) access to natural resources, and 2) access to expertise. One could argue that this is a desirable end state...for everyone.
I guess I need to learn more about this. Can you give me some resources showing that we're going to reach a point where there isn't poverty and exploited labor? It seems like an extraordinary claim.
> Why is that difference acceptable? Why should someone get to make enormous amounts of money while someone else can barely afford food?
That's not what that means — some nations are developing and some are developed. The cost of a burger in a developing African country is a fraction of the cost of the same burger in the US. Labor is cheap there because you could meet most of your basic needs (food, water, clothing, shelter, etc) for LESS money, in real terms, than in the US.
But like I said, the standard of living is not static. Countries develop over time. At one point in time, the US was a poor country, European countries were poor, Japan was poor, South Korea was poor etc. Their standards of living all increased due to global trade. Ironically enough, their standards of living all increased because some people made enormous amounts of money.
In fact, at present, the only way we really know how to turn a DEVELOPING country with a low standard of living into a DEVELOPED country with a high standard of living...is trade and economic growth.
> I guess I need to learn more about this. Can you give me some resources showing that we're going to reach a point where there isn't poverty and exploited labor? It seems like an extraordinary claim.
Sure, there are plenty. Take China for example[1][2]. We have seen household income and cost of living increase over the last 3 decades, owing to break-neck development and economic growth.
It's an out-sourcing hotspot TODAY because labor is cheap there. But given the current trends, we can almost be certain that labor there will be expensive TOMORROW. At some point, the cost of paying a Chinese worker to build an iPhone will be the same as the cost to pay an American in Wisconsin to do the same.
A profit-seeking business will then choose to move to a cheaper labor market, and keep repeating the same cycle...until there are no more cheaper labor markets left because the Vietnam and Ghana of tomorrow will look like the Japan and China of today.
Does the distinction between cheap and forced labor matter at some point? The fact that there's such a difference in the standard of living is basically my entire objection. Why is that difference acceptable? Why should someone get to make enormous amounts of money while someone else can barely afford food?
> Manufacturing will constantly move to the next poorest country, in perpetuity, seeking out the next cheapest labor pool until there is none left. The ensuing equilibrium would have globally high standards of living with diversified supply chains, with any concentration largely being a function of 1) access to natural resources, and 2) access to expertise. One could argue that this is a desirable end state...for everyone.
I guess I need to learn more about this. Can you give me some resources showing that we're going to reach a point where there isn't poverty and exploited labor? It seems like an extraordinary claim.