Offshoring the stuff that can be done by cheap labor, when only expensive labor is available domestically (whether by reality or laws) makes more room for the stuff that cheap labor can't do.
One is reminded of building dams with spoons instead of shovels.
Addiction to cheap labor is perhaps different from other addictions, because innovation has positive externalities: innovation benefits everybody, but only innovators support its costs. So, it may make sense to encourage innovation.
Cheap labor IS innovation; making things easier to make by less-skilled workers is innovation personified, possibly the primary end result of all innovation.
But as Bryan’s post states, if you spend the time and effort innovating in a different area, you might create 2x the value.
Of course we should encourage innovation. It is the biggest part of what has made us all richer. Innovation everywhere is indeed goodness.
The broken window fallacy says that you should not ignore opportunity costs.
Using the “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” analogy, you are better off replacing the weakest link than the strongest link when you create your first new and improved link.
It’s not a perfect analogy - sure, eventually replace all the links with the new and improved links - but hopefully it drives the point that if you create an innovation with a constant dollar value, using it to replace the weakest link rather than the strongest link will add more value.
So better to innovate to replace scarce/expensive labor - or scarce/expensive anything - rather than cheap labor, other things being equal, if your innovation is going to have a constant return independent of where it is applied.
“Which Amendments of the Bill of Rights restrain Congress’s and the Executive Branch’s power to control who I associate and trade with?”
1. First Amendment — Freedom of Association (implicit)
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly, and association (the latter recognized by Supreme Court precedent).
This restrains the federal government from prohibiting you from forming groups, joining organizations, or associating with individuals—politically, socially, or religiously—unless it has a compelling interest and uses narrowly tailored means.
Key cases:
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): Right to freedom of association recognized.
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1984): Association protected as part of First Amendment liberties.
Relevance:
Prevents Congress/Executive from criminalizing mere association with people or groups (unless linked to specific unlawful conduct).
Limits government attempts to restrict political, social, or expressive relationships.
2. Fifth Amendment — Due Process & Property Rights
The government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process.
The liberty interest includes the right to pursue a lawful occupation and conduct business.
Property protections restrict arbitrary seizure or interference with economic transactions.
Relevance:
Congress/Executive must follow due process before restricting trade or economic relationships.
Economic restrictions (e.g., sanctions, embargoes) must meet constitutional tests and cannot be arbitrary.
3. Ninth Amendment — Unenumerated Rights
States that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny other rights retained by the people.
Courts have sometimes used it to support the idea that individuals retain broad liberty interests not explicitly enumerated.
Relevance:
Sometimes invoked to argue for a general freedom of private economic dealings or association, though courts rely on it cautiously.
4. Tenth Amendment — Limits on Federal Power (but indirectly)
The federal government has only the powers delegated to it; all others are reserved to the states or the people.
Relevance:
Does not directly guarantee association or trade rights, but it limits Congress by denying it general police powers.
Congress may regulate trade only via enumerated powers (primarily the Commerce Clause).
You argue what is better for "us" as a distraction from arguing who "we" are.
Maybe we're addicted to human labor when we should be innovating with robot labor.
> And whether we were offshoring factories to cheap labor economies
> “Cheap labor”?! In point of fact, wages in the United States are higher than virtually anywhere else on Earth.
That doesn't actually argue against his point on offshoring.
Offshoring the stuff that can be done by cheap labor, when only expensive labor is available domestically (whether by reality or laws) makes more room for the stuff that cheap labor can't do.
One is reminded of building dams with spoons instead of shovels.
Addiction to cheap labor is perhaps different from other addictions, because innovation has positive externalities: innovation benefits everybody, but only innovators support its costs. So, it may make sense to encourage innovation.
Cheap labor IS innovation; making things easier to make by less-skilled workers is innovation personified, possibly the primary end result of all innovation.
Addiction to alcohol has positive externalities too -- all those booze company jobs.
So, it may make sense to encourage heavy drinking.
You commit the Broken Window Fallacy here, as Bryan covered in his last post:
Why innovate in an area that needs it less when you could spend that innovation time/energy/talent in a area that needs it more.
Have cheap labor does not limit or discourage innovation in many other areas of the economy.
By your logic, one should poke out one’s own eyes because that is the best way to improve the abilities of your other senses…
As a reader of Bastiat I am perfectly aware of the broken windows fallacy.
But you didn't answer my point.
If I spend 200 $ to find an innovation which allows me to save or earn 10 $, it is not relevant for me if I am alone, you're right.
But if this innovation is then used by 500 people, the value created is 500 x 10 $ = 5000 $, and the cost is still 200 $
All fine.
But as Bryan’s post states, if you spend the time and effort innovating in a different area, you might create 2x the value.
Of course we should encourage innovation. It is the biggest part of what has made us all richer. Innovation everywhere is indeed goodness.
The broken window fallacy says that you should not ignore opportunity costs.
Using the “a chain is only as strong as its weakest link” analogy, you are better off replacing the weakest link than the strongest link when you create your first new and improved link.
It’s not a perfect analogy - sure, eventually replace all the links with the new and improved links - but hopefully it drives the point that if you create an innovation with a constant dollar value, using it to replace the weakest link rather than the strongest link will add more value.
So better to innovate to replace scarce/expensive labor - or scarce/expensive anything - rather than cheap labor, other things being equal, if your innovation is going to have a constant return independent of where it is applied.
Fine
Heaven help us if this guy becomes the next millstone around our neck... I mean president.
The slaveholders were addicted to slavery because it was their best option.
A different response to J.D. Vance is:
“Which Amendments of the Bill of Rights restrain Congress’s and the Executive Branch’s power to control who I associate and trade with?”
1. First Amendment — Freedom of Association (implicit)
The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly, and association (the latter recognized by Supreme Court precedent).
This restrains the federal government from prohibiting you from forming groups, joining organizations, or associating with individuals—politically, socially, or religiously—unless it has a compelling interest and uses narrowly tailored means.
Key cases:
NAACP v. Alabama (1958): Right to freedom of association recognized.
Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees (1984): Association protected as part of First Amendment liberties.
Relevance:
Prevents Congress/Executive from criminalizing mere association with people or groups (unless linked to specific unlawful conduct).
Limits government attempts to restrict political, social, or expressive relationships.
2. Fifth Amendment — Due Process & Property Rights
The government cannot deprive a person of life, liberty, or property without due process.
The liberty interest includes the right to pursue a lawful occupation and conduct business.
Property protections restrict arbitrary seizure or interference with economic transactions.
Relevance:
Congress/Executive must follow due process before restricting trade or economic relationships.
Economic restrictions (e.g., sanctions, embargoes) must meet constitutional tests and cannot be arbitrary.
3. Ninth Amendment — Unenumerated Rights
States that the listing of certain rights in the Constitution does not deny other rights retained by the people.
Courts have sometimes used it to support the idea that individuals retain broad liberty interests not explicitly enumerated.
Relevance:
Sometimes invoked to argue for a general freedom of private economic dealings or association, though courts rely on it cautiously.
4. Tenth Amendment — Limits on Federal Power (but indirectly)
The federal government has only the powers delegated to it; all others are reserved to the states or the people.
Relevance:
Does not directly guarantee association or trade rights, but it limits Congress by denying it general police powers.
Congress may regulate trade only via enumerated powers (primarily the Commerce Clause).
My middle school presentation on how the global economy was addicted to oil is in shambles