Capital freedom of movement

[ksen]

Shouldn't labor be as free to move around the world as capital is?

If not, why?

 

[dismal]

Shouldn't labor be as free to move around the world as capital is?

If not, why?

It's hard to wire a person about with a few mouse clicks. So there are practical reasons related to the laws of physics.

I'm generally OK with labor being free to move about. Unions don't like it much.

 

[untermensche]

It's not that you can somehow make labor more mobile, it's just something you have to consider in this man-made struggle between capital and labor.

After WWII Britain and the US thought the best course was to significantly limit the movement of capital.

One reason for the post-war prosperity.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

It would suck if you were telecommuting to Hawaii and all the onsite guys made a point of pointing the screen towards the window whenever there was a meeting.

 

[skepticalbip]

Shouldn't labor be as free to move around the world as capital is?

If not, why?

Labor is pretty much free to move to where the capital is if they have the ability to supply the labor that the capital needs. I was an ex-pat for several years because I had a talent that was needed in a foreign country. It was needed here to but they paid better. Alternately, the US does have quite a few laborers here on H1B visas.

 

[DBT]

Many workers want stability, community, family life, friends, a quality or way of life that becomes difficult if a worker has to constantly move to new locations in order to earn a living.

 

[untermensche]

Shouldn't labor be as free to move around the world as capital is?

If not, why?

Labor is pretty much free to move to where the capital is if they have the ability to supply the labor that the capital needs. I was an ex-pat for several years because I had a talent that was needed in a foreign country. It was needed here to but they paid better. Alternately, the US does have quite a few laborers here on H1B visas.

In what world is labor "free" to move where it wants?

There are a lot of Mexicans ans South Americans trying to get into the US to work who are clearly not free to do so.

And a human cannot just go wherever they choose. There are costs and needs to consider.

Labor is extremely immobile and always will be. Because labor is people with needs in a world of costs.

 

[skepticalbip]

Labor is pretty much free to move to where the capital is if they have the ability to supply the labor that the capital needs. I was an ex-pat for several years because I had a talent that was needed in a foreign country. It was needed here to but they paid better. Alternately, the US does have quite a few laborers here on H1B visas.

In what world is labor "free" to move where it wants?

There are a lot of Mexicans ans South Americans trying to get into the US to work who are clearly not free to do so.

And a human cannot just go wherever they choose. There are costs and needs to consider.

Labor is extremely immobile and always will be. Because labor is people with needs in a world of costs.

You really need to work on your reading comprehension skills - or better, develop some.

 

[skepticalbip]

Many workers want stability, community, family life, friends, a quality or way of life that becomes difficult if a worker has to constantly move to new locations in order to earn a living.

You are absolutely correct. But it seems that life is a series of trade offs. If someone wants to remain in their home town close to friends and family then they are limited in their choice of work (and pay) to what is available in that area.

 

[dismal]

Many workers want stability, community, family life, friends, a quality or way of life that becomes difficult if a worker has to constantly move to new locations in order to earn a living.

You are absolutely correct. But it seems that life is a series of trade offs. If someone wants to remain in their home town close to friends and family then they are limited in their choice of work (and pay) to what is available in that area.

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

 

[coloradoatheist]

You are absolutely correct. But it seems that life is a series of trade offs. If someone wants to remain in their home town close to friends and family then they are limited in their choice of work (and pay) to what is available in that area.

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

The example would be the US where anybody can go to any state and work. The model would apply to the world.

 

[dismal]

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

The example would be the US where anybody can go to any state and work. The model would apply to the world.

But there are plenty of constraints that prevent labor from freely flowing under mutually agreeable arrangements in the US. I referenced one in my post.

 

[coloradoatheist]

The example would be the US where anybody can go to any state and work. The model would apply to the world.

But there are plenty of constraints that prevent labor from freely flowing under mutually agreeable arrangements in the US. I referenced one in my post.

While there are constraints, if someone wants to move from California to Colorado they don't have to apply to a permit that will let them in 5 years.

 

[dismal]

But there are plenty of constraints that prevent labor from freely flowing under mutually agreeable arrangements in the US. I referenced one in my post.

While there are constraints, if someone wants to move from California to Colorado they don't have to apply to a permit that will let them in 5 years.

I understand, but I think ksen has a grand ambition of removing *all* artificial constraints on the free flow of labor between mutually agreeable parties.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are absolutely correct. But it seems that life is a series of trade offs. If someone wants to remain in their home town close to friends and family then they are limited in their choice of work (and pay) to what is available in that area.

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

Actually I am all for open boarders but the other things that ksen wants makes it impractical. Labor unions which ksen is crazy about were the primary supporters of legislation to stop migrant workers from coming in and "taking our jobs". The liberal welfare programs to assist the poor would collapse under the weight of tens or hundreds of millions that would flood in if our boarders were opened. Ksen seems to be an idealist that doesn't understand the concept of trade offs.

But still, if someone develops a skill that is needed and can't be filled by the local population then those limitations are dropped and the worker is welcomed in with open arms, in my case they payed me and paid my expenses to come for an interview then paid the expenses of my moving there.

 

[laughing dog]

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

Actually I am all for open boarders but the other things that ksen wants makes it impractical. Labor unions which ksen is crazy about were the primary supporters of legislation to stop migrant workers from coming in and "taking our jobs". The liberal welfare programs to assist the poor would collapse under the weight of tens or hundreds of millions that would flood in if our boarders were opened. Ksen seems to be an idealist that doesn't understand the concept of trade offs.

You really think there would tens or hundreds of millions of immigrants trying to enter the US if we had completely open borders? Where would all these people come from?

 

[dismal]

There are always trade offs with both labor and capital.

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

For example, if Person A wants to hire someone for $6 per hour and Person B want to take that job for $6 per hour, there shouldn't be some law that says that labor can't flow.

Actually I am all for open boarders but the other things that ksen wants makes it impractical. Labor unions which ksen is crazy about were the primary supporters of legislation to stop migrant workers from coming in and "taking our jobs". The liberal welfare programs to assist the poor would collapse under the weight of tens or hundreds of millions that would flood in if our boarders were opened. Ksen seems to be an idealist that doesn't understand the concept of trade offs.

But still, if someone develops a skill that is needed and can't be filled by the local population then those limitations are dropped and the worker is welcomed in with open arms, in my case they payed me and paid my expenses to come for an interview then paid the expenses of my moving there.

I'm sure when ksen talks about free flow of labor he means just that. He's not talking about free flow of people who come to sponge benefits and such. Indeed some of these benefits, to the extent they reward or enable not working, would themselves have to be considered impediments to the free flow of labor.

 

[skepticalbip]

Actually I am all for open boarders but the other things that ksen wants makes it impractical. Labor unions which ksen is crazy about were the primary supporters of legislation to stop migrant workers from coming in and "taking our jobs". The liberal welfare programs to assist the poor would collapse under the weight of tens or hundreds of millions that would flood in if our boarders were opened. Ksen seems to be an idealist that doesn't understand the concept of trade offs.

You really think there would tens or hundreds of millions of immigrants trying to enter the US if we had completely open borders? Where would all these people come from?

Mexico, China, Guatemala, Indonesia, Rhodesia, Nicaragua, etc. etc.
Hell, there are millions just in Mexico who would love to get here. Chinese are so anxious to get here that they die in cargo crates trying to slip past our emigration authorities.

 

[Bomb#20]

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

That sounds out of character -- mutually agreeable arrangement rarely seems to carry much weight with him. Perhaps what he's advocating here is instead the imposition of additional artificial constraints on the movement of capital.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think what ksen is advocating here is not removal of practical tradeoffs but of the artificial constraints that prevent labor and/or capital flowing when there is a mutually agreeable arrangement possible.

That sounds out of character -- mutually agreeable arrangement rarely seems to carry much weight with him. Perhaps what he's advocating here is instead the imposition of additional artificial constraints on the movement of capital.

I think it is just that ksen doesn't think very deeply. Maybe he thinks that it is right wing business interest to stop free access of workers to jobs. He doesn't realize that businesses would love for people to be able to move into the country to work. It would give them a much larger labor pool to choose from. It is labor unions that object and pushed for legislation to stop those "fucking foreigners from coming in and stealing our jobs".