• arditty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    It may make the economy less efficient on paper, but that doesn’t take in to account the external costs of trade. In return for cheap products, we gave up a strong manufacturing career base and replaced it with low quality service industry jobs which pay less overall. It’s one of the factors that’s led to wage stagnation, which is WAY more damaging than more costly products.

    That’s not even to mention the environmental costs of shipping. The literal tons of heavy fuel oil that are burned to get the bananas from Farmer Fred are now causing sea level rise and changing weather patterns, which makes both Bob and Fred lose in the end.

    • tikitaki@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      Whatever the costs for shipping are are outweighed by the gain in efficiency. Realistically we’re not growing bananas or apples as the main economic output. Complicated modern products like computer chips have a million little steps on the supply chain. Spending even 1% or 2% more resources to produce these at a global scale we’re talking much more than shipping costs.

      If you care about environmental costs, you should support free trade.

      Also, you have a warped perception of manufacturing vs service jobs. Service jobs are the mark of an industrialized and modern economy for a reason.

      I would rather work as a sales rep for a solar company, or a clerk for an underground construction company, or an accountant or lawyer or doctor or IT guy a million times over before I work on an assembly line. And trust me, this is from someone who was born in a 3rd world country and has worked on an assembly line - now I work with computers.