[methodover]

I'm sympathetic to that idea, to some extent. Foreign workers would indeed be happy to get a marginal increase in their income, even if those wages and working conditions are well below developed-country standards.

But, then, aren't we just making a trade at that point? I will fire 100 local blue collar workers, and hire 100 foreign workers who will do their job for less. I hurt 100 people, help 100 people, and along the way pocket some extra cash for myself. I think most moral systems would have a problem with this. It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other.

(Yes, things get complicated when you hurt N people to help more than N people, depending on the number of extra people helped and the kind of hurt. For example, sacrificing soldiers in order to save an entire country. Generally speaking though, most moral systems have a problem with hurting people against their will except in extraordinary situations involving very large numbers. Does this trade situation qualify as that? I'm skeptical that is does.)

There has to be a better way. Some way where we aren't harming local blue collar workers, but are still helping foreign nations develop, while giving those foreign nations on the path of strong worker protections and wages that we have here.

[harryh]

It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other.

Not when it comes to buying things, which is what this situation is.

Blue collar workers in the US (or other developed nations) don't have a moral demand on you to purchase their labor at the same rate forever. If someone across the street (or across an ocean) is selling the same product for less money it's perfectly fine to buy it from them instead.

Do you think it's immoral when you, say, switch from Verizon to AT&T to get a cheaper rate on your cell phone plan?

[tomatotomato37]

The thing is that US workers have a lower bound on the fee they can charge for their labor, due to minimum wage laws. Those laws were enacted because we as a country believe there's a moral duty to ensure a minimum quality of life for it's working citizens (and in extension humans in general). Letting industries who would historically underpay US workers to instead just underpay some other countries workers defeats the whole purpose of those minimum wage laws, causing a worse quality of life then if nothing was done at all. Countries that want to treat its citizens well need to reign in that globalist behavior.

[tengbretson]

> If someone across the street (or across an ocean) is selling the same product for less money it's perfectly fine to buy it from them instead.

The people across the ocean in this instance are working obscene hours under deplorable conditions. When you take your business to these overseas firms you are effectively telling your local workers "these are the conditions I think you ought to be working under."

Except it's even worse because you don't have the stones to say it to their face.

[claudiawerner]

>Do you think it's immoral when you, say, switch from Verizon to AT&T to get a cheaper rate on your cell phone plan?

This is an astounding comparison that seems to aim to reduce questions of exploitation down to questions of personal morality, rather than the actual historical development of the systems we have and the ones we like to see. Is it immoral to switch phone providers? I don't think so. Is the system in which switching a cell phone provider can actually harm labourers morally questionable, even on the grounds that liberal egalitarians set out? For sure.

[methodover]

Yeah, this is another aspect of the debate I find myself challenging: Labor is different. Our human lives are different than a cell phone plan.