Hey! Don't look at me, im not a committed protectionist if that's the impression I gave. I was just mocking Scott's absurd strawman of the protectionist position. If you must know however, I am generally protectionist when it comes to unskilled labor, to prevent a race to the bottom, while a feverent free trader when it comes to pharmecuticals. For obvious reasons however the ruling class has successfully pushed the opposite mix of posititions.
How does free trade impact what a business pays its cashiers, etc. other then through the increased amount of money and growth in the economy?
If US manufacturing jobs are "saved" by protectionism, they will go soon anyway. The higher the wage, the quicker it goes. I've always been skeptical of the "exploitation" argument for protectionism. If the factory jobs in these countries going away with no replacement would allow the people working in them a better life, why do they even work in the factories in the first place. They would've quit and done this better alternative already. But they don't. Because there isn't anything else they can do. Taking away their jobs would be leaving them to live even worse then they do now. The low working standards are bad, and need to be improved, but cost of living is lower in these countries. Even with a living wage(for the country the job is in) and decent conditions, it would be cheaper to make things in those places. Automation costs I believe about 7 or 8 dollars per hour for the equivalent of one humans output. When companies have to pay 25$ per hour for a human, automation and the required investment is much more appealing then when the person's labor costs 6$ an hour. The US needs to continue its transition to a service economy, where automation is more difficult(though still not impossible, we will likely have to create a universal basic income eventually to accommodate the shortage/lack of jobs for humans).
