Really not getting it are you? By moving shoe production to China Nike creates more higher-paying jobs for Americans than they could if they made them here.
If that were true, unemployment would not be rising. And of course there are jobs that are mindlessly boring. There will be for the foreseeable future, because for the foreseeable future, fruit will need picking, and dishes will need washing, and ditches will need digging, and lumber will need hauling ....
But even low-end, tedious jobs are still jobs. And they beat all hell out of having no money. (I know; I've had such jobs.)
By moving shoe production to China, Nike is not, on the net, creating more jobs for Americans. By moving shoe production to China, Nike creates jobs for people in China and wealth for people who own Nike.
Do you really think that transferring vast numbers of jobs to Mexico has created more jobs for Americans in America? That's utter hogwash. Transferring vast numbers of jobs to Mexico and India and China and all over the fucking place has been an important factor in creating more bread lines in America -- food-supplying charities are often running out of food before they run out of people who need it -- not more jobs.
The way to reduce the use of illegal aliens in agriculture or the service industry is to raise minimum wages and increase enforcement of tax laws (withholding for SS &c) and labor laws until the incentive to hire them goes away.
Well, raising the minimum wage is not going to do much good if employers are already not paying the minimum wage we already have. Nor do illegal aliens have any particularly strong incentive to see that minimum-wage laws are enforced. Sure, their wages would go up. Oh, wait; they wouldn't have the jobs at all, because if the jobs paid decent wages, Americans would take them.
Are you denying that a job provided by an American company to an Indian employee is a job that is not being provided by that American company to an American employee? Of course not.
Are you denying that a product made by someone in China and purchased by an American is a product not made by someone in America and purchased by an American? Of course not.
I am saying that there are a lot of well paying jobs (in design, advertising, distribution, sales, etc.) in the U.S. that are dependent on keeping production costs low.
And I'm not buying it (ha ha). Why did Henry Ford pay his workers more than he had to -- that is, higher wages than the labor market required? Because he quite sensibly realized that his company would be better off if his workers could actually afford to buy his products. Now we import zillions of tons of Chinese-made crap which (besides killing our children) gets sold at WalMart super-cheap. The result? Even many of WalMart's own employees can't afford to buy the stuff.
What matter are not nominal price increases. What matters is the ratio of prices to wages. If my grocery, etc., bills go up by fifty percent while my wages double, I'm better off than I was before. And I can afford to buy more things. And that's what pays the wages of those who make those things.
But the economic laws that caused nations to seek out international trade from the outset are not going to disappear.
True. Things that do not exist are unlikely to disappear. The economic "laws" that govern US trade policy are those set up by the rich so that they gan get even richer at the expense of ordinary people.