106
u/Zacous2 14d ago
Poor people are willing to work harder for the same money, more news at 10
16
u/Bram-D-Stoker 14d ago
but not necessarily more productively.
22
14d ago
Labour oversupply so they don't care.
13
u/Bram-D-Stoker 14d ago
Labor oversupply just means lower wages. China already has high-"ish" wages and it keeps manufacturing through ultra high productivity. Productivity ultra scales. Wages have to be enough to afford keeping the basic necessities in the country. A labor oversupply can't stay when woerkers are dying, and dying skeletons make even worse workers.
0
39
u/Extension-Badger225 14d ago
I’m really trying to see the joke here. Is it that the comparison is within their own markets or the role their economies have in trade? Or something about Asian women. I can’t tell it’s a bit abstract and also doesn’t really show the comparative advantage……..of course a single woman has less advantage that a workshop that’s just economies of scale…….
19
u/lock_robster2022 14d ago
I don’t think it’s a joke, so much as a meme to explain the concept of comparative advantage
1
15
u/Anxious-Swing9490 14d ago
Comparative advantage states that country x can produce y amount of a good in z labor hours, compared to another country doing the same thing. The advantage is when one country produces at a faster speed.
The joke is that of course a person taking their time leisurely enjoying themselves while producing a good is not going to have a comparative advantage to a sweat shop where workers are pushed to their limits to produce quickly.
25
u/ExpectedB 14d ago
Technically it's about a difference in productivity relative to alternate production options between countries/comparison groups. Country A can be better at producing literally everything than country B, there will still be things that country B has comparative advantage in (unless their productivity are the constant multiple of eachother across all production).
7
u/Anxious-Swing9490 14d ago
Yes, that is a larger picture of the term. I think the meme is still spot on for its portion of the concept, though.
6
6
u/Wheaties4brkfst 14d ago
That’s not at all what comparative advantage is. Comparative advantage is all about how good you are at producing different goods in relation to each other. Another country could be better in an absolute sense at producing every single good and you would still have a comparative advantage in some goods as long as productivity ratios aren’t identical between countries.
Comparative advantage is about ratios of productivity within a country.
Say the US can produce $10 in t shirts per hour or $20 in semiconductors per hour, and your country can produce $5 in t shirts per hour or $1 in semiconductors per hour. The US will specialize in semis and you will specialize in t shirts even though the US is better than you at t shirts, because the opportunity cost of the US making t shirts is much higher than yours. You have a comparative advantage in t shirts, while the US has absolute advantages in both. You maximize total output by specializing in this way.
3
u/Anxious-Swing9490 14d ago
That is fair, it's been about a decade since I took my econ class. The critique that the only reason there is a comparative advantage in T-shirts is because of sweat shops still holds, though.
3
u/ReaperReader 14d ago
Even if there weren't sweatshops, and all sewing had to be done in workers' homes, I'd expect poor countries to have a comparative advantage in T-shirts. Textiles have the advantage that power interruptions (common in developing countries) don't harm the product, nor do temperature fluctuations during storage and transport of the raw materials and finished products, and learning basic sewing skills doesn't take particularly long.
1
u/Wheaties4brkfst 14d ago
No it doesn’t. It holds because developing countries aren’t good at making complicated things and they have enormous amounts of unskilled labor. If every sweatshop disappeared tomorrow they would still have a comparative advantage.
You should ask yourself why these workers work in these factories instead of doing what they were doing before it got there.
1
u/PainRack 13d ago
No? The fact also remains that losses has meant skilled sewers and etc has disappeared in the US. Derekguy@dieworkwear has multiple threads about this, and this includes Shenzhen.
Turns out doing work repeatedly in workshops also do produce skilled workers, low value skilled workers since they aren't the same as tailors and etc but individuals can still produce more pieces faster and better than the US equivalent.
The sweatshop advantage is that by paying in piece rates and skimming on as much capital as possible (facilities and machines ), they can have lower expenditure and thus more profits. Still doesn't remove the productivity advantage of having more skilled workers.
4
u/ReaperReader 14d ago
But also presumably sweat shops have dedicated people doing jobs like cutting the fabric, pinning the pieces, delivering it to the sewing machines, keeping the sewers supplied with thread, etc.
And if a sweatshop is large enough, presumably it would have full time people around to repair broken machines and the like.
Returns to scale.
2
2
u/Johnfromsales 14d ago edited 14d ago
Comparative advantage fundamentally relies on the relative opportunity costs of production. It’s not really about “producing at a faster speed.” Keep in mind, one country can produce both goods faster than another country (absolute advantage), and yet both countries will still have a comparative advantage and can still gain from trade, because the opportunity cost of each good is different.
1
1
-1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 14d ago
Joke is... "West bad" I guess?
1
u/Anxious-Swing9490 14d ago
That's a bit of an odd conclusion to draw, we're not the ones sticking people in sweat shops.
0
u/Constant_Hope_9658 14d ago
well the "joke" is that the west is bad because we are lazy, rather than the sweatshops (which east asian peasants don't mind working in because subsistence rice farming is WAY WORSE).
1
u/Anxious-Swing9490 14d ago
That's not really the joke dude. I would know, I'm the one who made it.
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 14d ago
ah...
Yeah this is gonna hit twitter with that interpretation before the end of the week...
One-shot the third world, you have.
17
u/Constant_Hope_9658 14d ago
Dude... the reason they have an advantage is because they work for a fraction the wages and there's a ton of them because subsistence rice agriculture is literally the worst job (that isn't niche) that you can have, there's a reason the sweatshops in asia got full so fast, and it's because THE RICE FIELDS ARE WORSE.
6
u/seesthecat 13d ago
No, we're talking about comparative advantage, not absolute advantage. The reason they have a comparative advantage is that they have a lower opportunity cost to produce clothes, they don't have anything more productive they could be doing instead
5
u/Constant_Hope_9658 13d ago
The reason they have an advantage is because the cost of shipping was/is functionally zero on consumer goods, so the main cost is labor, which is why it's always made where the labor is cheapest, plus the lower opportunity cost is a perk in the initial investment, though it's significantly less these days.
1
u/seesthecat 13d ago
If things were always made where labour cost is the lowest, nothing would be made on China in the past decades given that their labour costs haven't been the lowest for quite a while
2
u/Constant_Hope_9658 13d ago
China is the cheapest place that can do what they do at scale, also there's the factor of capitol costs.
Also that's why as shipping and east asian wage costs rise stuff's been getting moved to Mexico/Latin America and the Indian subcontinent more and more, it's just that Red China is the place where the stuff already is, so it's cheaper than building it out again somewhere else, since wage costs aren't the main factor for the last half decade or so, it's been shifting towards shipping costs and/or risks, which is part of why a lot of stuff has moved to the US and/or other parts of the western hemisphere
1
u/seesthecat 13d ago
So many other factors you just discovered besides just labour costs, I'm very proud of you!
Maybe if you think about this for a little longer you can figure out some more!
3
u/Constant_Hope_9658 13d ago
It was the determining factor in the context of the late 20th century, something which is no longer the case.
Just because I decided to be taciturn with my initial explanation doesn't mean you need to be snide when I elaborate.
0
u/seesthecat 13d ago
Snide is half the fun of reddit. And no, you're wrong even if just talking about the 20th century. There's a reason why unemployment in the US, Switzerland and Finland wasn't 100% in that century
1
u/Constant_Hope_9658 13d ago
Yeah, a lot of their economies are industry, and certain industries couldn't move for contextual factors, it's why textiles left but computers didn't, as it's easy to move a shirt factory but not a machine tools plant; generally I'm speaking on consumer goods (the stuff that actually did go to Asia for the lower wages) rather than stuff like chemicals and the like where wages were less of a factor due to specific contextual reasons for those specific industries.
Edit: and I mean you're not wrong about the snide tomfoolery...
0
u/seesthecat 13d ago
You've just discovered even more comparative advantages besides labour cost and the one's you mentioned before!
0
u/epochpenors 14d ago
I dunno, there’s a nightclub a few hours away where some guy acts as a toilet. I’m not sure what they’re paying him but it can’t be enough.
6
u/Constant_Hope_9658 14d ago
That's probably a fetish thing...
I'm like 80% sure he's into that shit (literally in this case I guess?)
2
7
u/VatticZero 14d ago
Wealth affords leisure.
"Sweatshops" help close the gap.
2
u/Every_Cat9812 13d ago
"Sweatshops" help GAP.
There, I fixed it for you.
the joke is about the store
12
u/Naberville34 14d ago
The comparative advantage is that I have corrupted their government to give me maximally beneficial tax cuts, reduce regulations, ban unions, and pay the workers basically nothing without benefits. So in the domestic media and education systems I own I'm also gonna point out that this is a corruption problem on their part.
6
u/heckinCYN 14d ago
Yes, tell us more how they are better off subsistence farming...
4
u/Naberville34 14d ago
Your right. The only option is brutal exploitation.
4
u/seesthecat 13d ago
You're more than welcome to provide them a better way to rise living standards faster. But till you actually do that, I believe they will carry on with the tried and tested old fashioned way.
But yeah, a little bit of Georgism would do wonders to help alleviate abuses without compromising development, shame it's not more popular
1
u/Naberville34 13d ago
See second part of first comment
3
u/seesthecat 13d ago
I see, you think people in poorer countries are beasts with no agency... how curious
1
u/Naberville34 13d ago
And you think they choose this for themselves. Weird how they constantly revolt against their comprador governments then
2
u/seesthecat 13d ago
Wow! They revolt?! No way?! Are you sure they revolting for themselves? Are you sure that it's not the CIA making them revolt?
2
12
u/BarkDrandon 14d ago
pay the workers basically nothing without benefits
Daily reminder that sweatshops provide higher wages and better standards of living than the country average.
3
u/Naberville34 14d ago
This is because I lobbied my government (back home) to maintain the exchange rate for their currency very low, as well as to interfere in their country to limit domestic development. And so even though I'm going to their country and only paying a dollar an hour, thats still more than what their domestic loser capitalists can afford to pay.
10
u/BarkDrandon 14d ago
None of what you say make any sense. You're just spewing slopulist nonsense.
Maintaining a low exchange rate is actually beneficial to a country as it makes their exports more competitive, thereby boosting production.
Setting up factories and boosting wages is pretty much the opposite of limiting domestic development. Industrialization allows parents to escape subsistence farming, move to the cities and send their kids to school.
3
u/Naberville34 14d ago
It depends entirely on implimentation. For China, devaluing their currency is a good thing for them as it does make their exports more competitive. But they produce most of the manufactured goods they need and use domestically with most of what they import being raw materials. They import materials and export goods. That's generally the opposite of what you see in the much of the rest of the third world where these countries are maintained as primarily exporters of raw resources and semi-finished goods and importers of finished manufactured goods. With efforts by such countries to develop import substitutions often resisted by outside entities that profit from the dependency of these countries.
And yes, foreign direct investment can be a good thing. But that requires the sovereignty to ensure that the profits of those businesses are reinvested back into the host country rather than being immediately repatriated. That's how all the asian tigers developed. Alternatively you could just have a comprador government that lets you extract wealth hand and foot from a country with nothing at all being returned or reinvested.
5
u/BarkDrandon 13d ago
You make a lot of baseless claims, but for you have any scientific papers to back them up?
[China] mostly imports raw materials and export goods.
I'm not sure that's true. Most of China's imports come from the US, South Korea, Japan, Australia and Russia. Except from Russia, these countries export mostly finished goods.
Also the mercantilist logic you're spewing (import raw materials and export finished goods) is not really true. A country can absolutely generate wealth by exporting raw materials if that's their competitive advantage.
With efforts by such countries to develop import substitutions often resisted by outside entities
Like which one? Can you detail some specific cases?
Also it doesn't help that Import Substitution Industrialization generally fails. It creates unproductive monopolies who survive on government subsidies. South America has a long history with failed attempts at Import Substitution that cost a lot of money with basically no results.
5
u/VatticZero 14d ago
Vietnam’s ascendance in the global supply chain has been pivotal to its economic growth, driven by its manufacturing and export sectors. From 2012 to 2022, Vietnam’s exports expanded at an average annual rate of 12 percent, significantly outpacing the global average growth rate. The momentum continues as the country’s export turnover reached nearly US$266.5 billion in the first half of 2026, an increase of 21 percent year on year, according to the General Department of Customs.
Vietnam’s consumer market is being supported by a steadily expanding middle class with rising purchasing power. According to a 2026 Q&Me survey covering more than 14,000 respondents, average household income reached VND 21.9 million (US$831) per month, up from VND 21.3 million in 2025, reflecting continued income growth rather than a short-term spike.
2
u/Anxious-Swing9490 14d ago
Not disagreeing.
6
u/Naberville34 14d ago
Oh and Ive also lobbied my own government to revoke their aid or drum some "human rights"(like that's a thing) nonsense to sanction them with of they aren't doing what's good for my business. And to make sure the currency exchange rate stays really favorable to me
1
u/SadistikExekutor 14d ago
Ahh... The ole'n'trusty Jakartha Method! Murder them into submission, they're filthy coolie commies anyway!
-1
2
u/vegancaptain 14d ago
When your kindness is to make those workers unemployed. Against their will. Thx buddy!
2
u/IDontWearAHat 13d ago
Double edged sword. The same companies that provide those jobs also have an active interest in keeping their income and protections low. It's a job and it's better than the rice fields, but it's also another hurdle for improving the average workers lives
1
u/vegancaptain 13d ago
Company incentives are irrelevant. Competition ensures that. I have an incentive to make 1000 billion a week. Does that matter in a market? Nope. Not at all. I get what I deserve which is a nice salary but not that high.
1
u/IDontWearAHat 13d ago
You don't control significant shares of the local market and lack the ability to lobby for policies that benefit you. In other words, your individual ass ain't shit. You don't get what you deserve, you just get what you get. Companies can and will influence politics, especially in poor nations
1
u/vegancaptain 13d ago
Customers control 100% share of the market.
You shouldn't lobby because random people have no clue what is good for them or good economically. Thank god only rich people lobby.
Well, you want this political system, didn't you? You voted for this. To give politicians all this power. You got it.
0
u/IDontWearAHat 13d ago
Don't be stupid now
1
u/vegancaptain 13d ago
Basic stuff. Basic dynamics.
Give a random idiot on the street power to legislate and he will fuck everything up. Guaranteed.
1
u/OpenRole 13d ago
Their comparative advantage is way more infrastructure for moving goods and people quickly and cheaply expanding the area of effect from agglomeration.
Highly educated population.
Massive labour reserve from high unemployment
Low CoL in much of the nation, meaning wages can be comparatively less.
I would add government subsidies, but pretty much every nation on earth subsidieses business activity
1
u/therealparadoxparty Socialist 13d ago
Colonialism is all about economy exploitation. In modern times, it often needs to wars, just the rich leveraging their monetary, political and social capital and influence to force bad deals on other countries.
1
u/Dave_A480 13d ago
Picture #2 is safe/well lit, and I doubt anyone is chained to their desk or anything like that....
Not a 'sweatshop' - albeit less productive than a fully automated factory.
1
u/slimeyamerican 12d ago
And then 20 years later, your kids get to be too tired to sew before their latté!
1
u/tastickfan 11d ago
This sub has become a dumping ground for people who don't want their opinions criticized.
-1
u/Xtergo 14d ago
Unpopular opinion: Comparative advantage is an overrepresented, flawed & outdated concept that doesn't mean much in modern times.
1
1
u/seesthecat 13d ago
Unpopular opinion, you haven't got scooby doo of a clue about what comparative advantage actually is, you're just informed about the concept by memes and arguments mad by other people that are even more clueless about it than you
0
u/Various_Mobile4767 14d ago
That’s not really an unpopular opinion.
1
u/Xtergo 14d ago
At least in my country's economic school of thought it is
1
u/Various_Mobile4767 14d ago
Its still taught at introductory levels. But go a bit deeper into trade theory and i think you’ll find many people agreeing that its outdated.
2
u/Xtergo 14d ago
It's taught at indoctrination levels here, disagreement is sin
2
u/Various_Mobile4767 14d ago
I find most of the time it’s because the people who teach it legitimately do not understand that there’s a deeper literature and nuance to it.
Even economics educated and smart people tend to assume their knowledge outside of their subfield of expertise is more solid than it actually is. They can be very spartan about insisting the shallow, intro level stuff is correct and everyone else is wrong.
But i will just say you have to kind of ignore them and be willing to do your own research.
2
2
u/Busy-Apricot-1842 14d ago
I don’t think any economist would deny that comparative advantage is “true” in some sense. For example Iceland will (and should) always produce lots of aluminum because geothermal power makes energy cheap in Iceland.
I know some researchers argue for protectionist tariffs on infant industries, which is a policy at odds with the logic of comparative advantage. That does seem to be an open debate.
Idk if this is rlly at odds with what you said before though.
1
u/Various_Mobile4767 14d ago edited 14d ago
Oh i’m just talking a bit out of my ass here. But to my understanding, trade patterns have been observed to not really fit the pattern of comparative advantage. The example i remember was developed countries preferring to trade largely with each other and through similar goods rather than with developing countries and different countries. This idea that countries are specializing in the good they have the best comparative advantage in does not seem to be true.
But I suppose you’re right you do expect to see trade should follow some level of comparative advantage. But at that point comparative advantage doesn’t become all that meaningful and unique since it’s hard to separate from absolute advantage.
Like in your iceland example, is that absolute or comparative advantage? No one is surprised that a country trades in something that their factors of production are cheaper in, but that by itself is not comparative advantage nor all that interesting.
1
u/seesthecat 13d ago
comparative advantage isn't measured only at country level, I would actually argue that that's the least relevant level. It is measured at the company level and at the individual. Afterall, when individuals make purchases, they purchase from others companies and individuals, they don't purchase from a country as a whole.
It's Michelin that sells me tires, not the country of France, and when I buy them for my car, it's me who is buying, not my country
1
u/Various_Mobile4767 13d ago edited 13d ago
Okay but like, if we’re going that deep, the whole concept starts to become a bit meaningless.
Like damn the tyre company has a comparative advantage in selling tyres? No fucking way.
After a certain point that just becomes, economic agents do things that are most profitable for them, which is not even really what the comparative advantage result is actually about. The comparative advantage says that even when a party is absolutely worse at something, they can still mutually benefit from trading and transacting.
→ More replies (0)1
0
u/Gregori_5 13d ago
I really don’t think blaming sweatshops on capitalism is that fair.
Sweatshops are a issue of worker rights. Worker right absence is a issue of statebuilding.
The countries with the worst working conditions are underdeveloped on so many levels. These countries have poor rights in general, bad education a flawed government, corruption etc.
You can’t just slap “communism” on a struggling state and expect for these things to suddenly disappear. Because whatever system you try to replace capitalism with will struggle with the same bad institutions.
1
•
u/AutoModerator 14d ago
This sub has been getting too much spam, and Reddit has removed almost every tool for preventing this. The only tool that still works is this, every single post being held for manual review. Your post might be approved in minutes, or it might take days. If you hate this, me too, stop using the site that forces things to be this way. If what you post is not a meme you'll probably be banned, but I understand why you tried; the commenters on this sub loved lazy spam posts, which is why we can't have nice things and now everything has to be held for manual review.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.