Color me dense, but my thoughts:
Comparing $5 a day in 1914 and $5 a day in 2003 is not a meaningful exercise. Seriously, $5 a day in 1914 was a LOT of money if that's accurate (no offense: see dallasfed.org, "[...] in 1915. Earning an average hourly wage of less than 23¢ [...]". Same article, "Henry Ford sold his first Model T for $850 in 1908. At the equivalent of more than 2 years' wages for ordinary factory workers, [...]", which would have the avg factory worker making .15 per hour in 1908 based on 6 day weeks, 9 hour days.)
Developed countries have always looked to underdeveloped countries for cheap labour. In the 50's and 60's it was Japan (I remember when "Made in Japan" was read off the product sticker with a sneer; now it's read with respect and admiration). In the 70's and 80's it was Korea. In the 80's and 90's it was Mexico. In the 00's it's China. (Hong Kong was also there through the 50's/60's and 70's). (Please note: this is a gross simplification and based on my personal recollections, so don't be too picky, anyone. The point is the same). In the 2010's or ?? it will be...I dunno, some parts of Africa?
Is the real issue that we're going to run out of exploitable cheap labor, as each area goes through the progression to higher wages as they develop? What effect would THAT have, if we had to pay $50 a day instead of $5, minimum, for inexpensive labour? Is that what you meant by economic problems?
As to civil unrest, are you suggesting that overseas labor pools (note to all that I'm using objective, distanced, capital-theory terms to describe what we're doing; the social issue of using underdeveloped countries this way is another (BIG) debate that will never end) will be increasingly difficult to manage because the individuals in today's more connected world see and know more directly of higher std of living, higher expectations, elsewhere and will be less willing to play the part we desire of them?
Or have I missed your points?
Cheers
WUWT |
