Those who know me best know that in spite of my market-anarchist leanings, I have a soft spot for labor, of the downtrodden, the exploited at the hands of greedy capitalists {uncontrollable grin}.

So, here’s a rhetorical question. Suppose a company locates overseas in your typical third-world cesspool, with the obvious reason for doing so being that they can buy labor at a cheaper price there than here, just like you can buy a pair of shoes cheaper at Payless than Saks. So, what should they pay the workers in this third-world country? Is it sufficient to pay them about what they already get on average (after all, jobs are being created that did not otherwise exist, so that in itself is a benefit, right?)? Or, do you believe they are obligated to pay more? If so, how much more? Should they pay a 10% premium, 20%, 30%?

…

Ok, now that you have your answer firmly in place, read this. And, in case the link goes away at some point in the future, U.S. firms pay between 40% and 100% more than workers earn on average in the domestic economy.

So, who doesn’t win? The foreign “exploited” worker wins. The “dirty-rotten-exploiting” U.S. firm wins. The U.S. consumer wins because goods cost less. And, for the incurably shortsighted, U.S. Labor wins too. Why? Because they evolve and move on to more productive endeavors.