Global labor arbitrage: What is it, and why does it matter?

Global labor arbitrage (GLA) is the method globalists have used since the early 1990s to amass wealth for themselves while hammering the standard of living of the American middle class and chipping away at America's national sovereignty. Of these two effects, the first may be more or less incidental, while the second – diminishing the United States – is deliberate and necessary for the long-term global agenda to succeed.

Arbitrage in general is the taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets.  On an international scale, the GLA game the globalists play has two faces to it.  The first involves relocating industrial production from high-cost countries like America to low-cost third-world ones such as China and Mexico.  Not only is labor less expensive in the recipient countries, but so are other costs associated with doing business such as environmental regulations, local taxes, building codes, and the like. 

This arbitrage is possible only with the eliminator or significant reduction in barriers to cross-border trade.  To argue for "free trade" is to accept this arrangement.  Global labor arbitrage is aided by certain trade treaties like NAFTA that neither were written nor are administered to be fair to for America.  This is why the commonly used term "free trade" should be put in quotes.  In practice, "free trade" means that the U.S. markets are to be more open to other countries than their markets are to us.  The de facto post-WWII trade rules seem to be that the U.S. gets to play the patsy while others get to grow wealthier at our expense.  This made sense immediately after WWII, but not for many a year since.

Obviously, GLA harms the American industrial work force and those segments of the economy that are dependent on it. 

Then there's the second aspect of this labor arbitrage.  It takes place simultaneously with the above.  This is the allowing – nay, the encouraging – of large-scale immigration of both low- and high-skill individuals and their dependents into the country.  Think how this hurts those Americans employed in domestic industries like hotels, restaurants, and construction.  Needless to say, it depresses their wages and even puts the security of their jobs in jeopardy. 

It doesn't take an Ivy League degree to see how this dual squeeze has been disastrous for the middle class.  Those in the middle class have had their jobs exported out of the country while cheap labor is imported to compete with them for the jobs that are available.  Indeed, maybe it takes a glib-tongued Ivy Leaguer driven by personal greed to argue that this has actually been good for the country overall.  But anyone with a lick of common sense can see that it hasn't. 

There are two other pernicious side effects of this global arbitrage.  One is that the massive immigration from the Third World can change the culture of the host countries, both here and in Western Europe.  This is especially true since immigrants tend to have higher birth rates than the native population.  Countries like Germany, which have over-indulged in Islamic immigration, might well have already passed the point of no return in terms of losing their national culture in the years to come.  It takes one blind drunk on multiculturalism to think this is good.  To such people, E pluribus unum is an outmoded concept  that needs to be replaced with the politically correct slogan "Diversity is strength."  Sorry, but "E pluribus unum" built America, while "diversity is strength" could Balkanize it. 

The other effect of labor arbitrage has to do with the slow growth in productivity since the Great Recession.  Increases in productivity are typically generated by technological improvements and innovations.  Often the driving force for this is that, to increase profits, firms substitute relatively high labor costs with technology.  But global arbitrage makes this less and less necessary.  Why sweat the risk and effort to innovate when you can simply close a factory and move it lock, stock, and-barrel to China or Mexico?  Many companies when presented with this choice have packed up and moved, leaving Joe Six-pack and his family holding the bag.  Or if a company is in the domestic industry, particularly at the low end, why innovate when there's a large and complacent labor pool of new arrivals to hire from?

The internationalists have essentially initiated a class war between themselves and the middle class.  They did this by usurping the national government on the issue of trade by allowing transnational corporations a near free hand to practice global labor arbitrage.

It has taken some time for a critical mass of Americans to realize the game afoot.  But things changed in 2016.  Nobody campaigned against the globalists as Donald Trump did.  He came out of nowhere and won the presidency.  As president, Trump is now fighting to protect the middle class from the globalists.  One has to hope and pray that he prevail, for the fate of the country depends on it. 

Global labor arbitrage (GLA) is the method globalists have used since the early 1990s to amass wealth for themselves while hammering the standard of living of the American middle class and chipping away at America's national sovereignty. Of these two effects, the first may be more or less incidental, while the second – diminishing the United States – is deliberate and necessary for the long-term global agenda to succeed.

Arbitrage in general is the taking advantage of a price difference between two or more markets.  On an international scale, the GLA game the globalists play has two faces to it.  The first involves relocating industrial production from high-cost countries like America to low-cost third-world ones such as China and Mexico.  Not only is labor less expensive in the recipient countries, but so are other costs associated with doing business such as environmental regulations, local taxes, building codes, and the like. 

This arbitrage is possible only with the eliminator or significant reduction in barriers to cross-border trade.  To argue for "free trade" is to accept this arrangement.  Global labor arbitrage is aided by certain trade treaties like NAFTA that neither were written nor are administered to be fair to for America.  This is why the commonly used term "free trade" should be put in quotes.  In practice, "free trade" means that the U.S. markets are to be more open to other countries than their markets are to us.  The de facto post-WWII trade rules seem to be that the U.S. gets to play the patsy while others get to grow wealthier at our expense.  This made sense immediately after WWII, but not for many a year since.

Obviously, GLA harms the American industrial work force and those segments of the economy that are dependent on it. 

Then there's the second aspect of this labor arbitrage.  It takes place simultaneously with the above.  This is the allowing – nay, the encouraging – of large-scale immigration of both low- and high-skill individuals and their dependents into the country.  Think how this hurts those Americans employed in domestic industries like hotels, restaurants, and construction.  Needless to say, it depresses their wages and even puts the security of their jobs in jeopardy. 

It doesn't take an Ivy League degree to see how this dual squeeze has been disastrous for the middle class.  Those in the middle class have had their jobs exported out of the country while cheap labor is imported to compete with them for the jobs that are available.  Indeed, maybe it takes a glib-tongued Ivy Leaguer driven by personal greed to argue that this has actually been good for the country overall.  But anyone with a lick of common sense can see that it hasn't. 

There are two other pernicious side effects of this global arbitrage.  One is that the massive immigration from the Third World can change the culture of the host countries, both here and in Western Europe.  This is especially true since immigrants tend to have higher birth rates than the native population.  Countries like Germany, which have over-indulged in Islamic immigration, might well have already passed the point of no return in terms of losing their national culture in the years to come.  It takes one blind drunk on multiculturalism to think this is good.  To such people, E pluribus unum is an outmoded concept  that needs to be replaced with the politically correct slogan "Diversity is strength."  Sorry, but "E pluribus unum" built America, while "diversity is strength" could Balkanize it. 

The other effect of labor arbitrage has to do with the slow growth in productivity since the Great Recession.  Increases in productivity are typically generated by technological improvements and innovations.  Often the driving force for this is that, to increase profits, firms substitute relatively high labor costs with technology.  But global arbitrage makes this less and less necessary.  Why sweat the risk and effort to innovate when you can simply close a factory and move it lock, stock, and-barrel to China or Mexico?  Many companies when presented with this choice have packed up and moved, leaving Joe Six-pack and his family holding the bag.  Or if a company is in the domestic industry, particularly at the low end, why innovate when there's a large and complacent labor pool of new arrivals to hire from?

The internationalists have essentially initiated a class war between themselves and the middle class.  They did this by usurping the national government on the issue of trade by allowing transnational corporations a near free hand to practice global labor arbitrage.

It has taken some time for a critical mass of Americans to realize the game afoot.  But things changed in 2016.  Nobody campaigned against the globalists as Donald Trump did.  He came out of nowhere and won the presidency.  As president, Trump is now fighting to protect the middle class from the globalists.  One has to hope and pray that he prevail, for the fate of the country depends on it.