Talk:Global labor arbitrage/Archives/2013

Untitled
Is it possible this could be nominated for deletion again? At present it would need to be rewritten virtually from scratch in order to be keeping with Wikipedia's style and voice guidelines, along with just citing sources. Barring another deletion nomination, can we put up a few of the "Needs clean up", etc. banners on the top? -Anonymous, July 3, 2010 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.73.171.172 (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination for Deletion Discussion
This article probably cannot be fixed. Referring to people who have lost their jobs as "victims", phrases like "population explosion", "mass immigration", etc. are all biased. The term "global labor arbitrage" itself is not widely used. I am probably going to nominate this for deletion if the article is not rewritten from Reliable sources. In its current form, it is merely an anti-immigrant opinion piece. Rhobite 12:58, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The term is very common amongst people who are familiar with the issue. A Google search for "Global labor arbitrage" returned 9680 hits. In fact, economist Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury under the Reagan Administration, often uses the term. Here's a link to one of his op-eds that makes use of the term: http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050904_marx.htm

Here's a quote from the very beginning of the op-ed:

"Libertarians and free trade economists don’t realize it, but they are pulling Marx out of his grave. Free traders are resurrecting class war, not because they are Marxists but because they confuse free trade with global labor arbitrage. Free traders turn cold shoulders to US job losses from offshore outsourcing, because they mistake the losses for the beneficial workings of comparative advantage."

The purpose of this article is to provide more information for people who are interested in understanding the concept of Global Labor Arbitrage. Admitedly it's raw and unrefined, but then again, the entry hasn't been on the Wikipedia for more than a day! Every article has to start somewhere! The subject needs to exist before people can refine and revise it! Of course, it's far from perfect, but few entries are perfect. If every new entry were held to a rigorous standard, the Wikipedia might well be empty or at least devoid of esoteric subjects. Presumably, tens of thousands of entries could be deleted under the stringent standard you've proposed.

One of the purposes of the article is to help people understand the forms that Global Labor Arbitrage can take and also to help people who are concerned about specific manifestations of this economic phenomenon make a broader connection between the other forms.

Why is a person who has lost his job or career as a result of an economic phenomenon not a victim of the phenomenon? Please explain. The term "victim" is often used outside of a criminal context. I don't see any reason why it's illegitimate to refer to it in an economic context. I'm pretty certain that i can find news articles that report on specific instances of this (since I've already read some of them in the past).

How is the term "population explosion" biased? It's a very common term that refers to a huge population increase. Are you suggesting that it is an invalid concept? And how is the term "mass immigration" biased? It refers to a huge amount of immigration as opposed to a small amount. In the case of global labor arbitrage, the concern is about mass immigration and not small amounts of immigration.

If you think you can improve upon the content of the article, please do so, but don't rip a page out of the encyclopedia merely because you disagree with the subject matter. WhipperSnapper 17:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Trade Deficit
I've deleted the section on CA deficits. Outsourcing in no way causes current account deficits - the point of free trade is to gain efficiency by focusing on the sectors that the country has comparative advantage in. So ceteris paribus, country A would outsource some industry to country B and on the converse B would outsource it's comparatively disadvantaged industries to A. It's a zero sum game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.177.113 (talk) 23:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)


 * How is it that importing a higher monetary value's worth of goods than you export does not contribute to a trade deficit. Also, the notion that comparative advantage is an absolute and that comparative advantage always applies needs to be questioned. See http://www.vdare.com/roberts/050520_hearing.htm  WhipperSnapper (talk) 04:08, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

This is an op/Ed article not fit for an encyclopedia
The term global labor arbitrage means substituting one labor force for another to gain efficiency. This article takes the bogus claim that the jobs are lost. The jobs should be gone if they are less efficient. The idea that the US needs manufacturing is simply bogus. What the US needs is jobs and money. Outsourcing creates jobs in the country that outsource because it makes the corporation viable and any jobs be they secretaries or executives are saved versus the alternative which is the company going out of business. This article should be deleted. Zeppelin55 (talk) 22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Obviously, you are completely ignorant about the subject of basic economics and the workings of supply, demand, and price point with regards to labor. Your ignorance is precisely why an entry for Global Labor Arbitrage is needed and valuable.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.207.153.188 (talk) 00:17, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Basic economics point one away from protectionist policies and towards free trade. Economists do not vilify free trade, in fact they are champions of free trade and competitive advantages including cheap labor. Anyway, my post was in the discussion part and not part of the article. I stand by that this article should be deleted. Zeppelin55 (talk) 17:35, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Article subject to vandalism by redirects
Is there a compelling reason why someone is vandalizing this article by setting up redirects to other pages that do not make any mention or contain any discussion of this article's subject matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WhipperSnapper (talk • contribs) 18:47, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Some problematic content
I've removed this, as it's an unsourced polemic, which seems to be founded on the fallacious notion that only American jobs are real jobs; that all the jobs created in other countries (and the cheaper access to goods, services, skills &c) are irrelevant. It's simply not compatible with the tenor of more reliable sources. bobrayner (talk) 00:17, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Hello...? Is there any chance we could discuss this? bobrayner (talk) 06:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)