If work is capital, why there isn´t free movement of workers as financial capital enjoys globally?
Answer:
Work is not capital but it can be transformed into money, which is. Governments feel the need to protect their own workers from others who will come in and do the work cheaper. Whether or not this is fair, the fact is that in a democracy, any government which has no barriers on the free movement of labour will not be re-elected. That's democracy. It's not perfect, but do you have a better idea ?
How kveryeffe can claim that China has improved now that more people are driving cars instead of riding bikes, beats me. Does s/he think that global warming is a myth ? And would any Indians care to comment on his description of your beautiful country ? MacDonalds as a force for peace ? Cretin.
Work is NOT capital. It is work. Money and assets are capital.
Probably the reason you are so confused is that you have been listening to some strange people or maybe you have been smoking some funny weeds.
Pay attention you don't get to be wealthy over night.
Take a look at China before captialism hit everyone was on bikes now cars.
In India the cess pool of the world not the place where people go have good quality surgury they can't get anywhere else.
Than there are nations like Cuba who have shun captialism on their May parade the Army rode bikes.
Here is fact you can think about no two countries that have McDonalds has ever gone to war because when McDonalds comes in and they establish farms and organizations to support the chain people are less likely willing to go to war.
You are right. Let's stop being global.
Free market would have each of us pay for our own children's education and no social services to drain, however. Be careful what you ask for.
Labor is a resource, not capital per se. Capital is cash, machinery, equipment, etc.
Machinery and equipment seldom make babies who then expect citizenship and welfare.
I know of many illegal aliens (read: "here illegally because the way of their country doesn't provide jobs") who had anchor babies and, due to a misinterpretation of the 14th amendment, have been granted citizenship.
My mother worked 40 years and gets less tha $500/mo SS. She never once received a cent of government assistance for medical care of any kind. My dad paid every dime when we were born.
These anchor babies (again, I know several) often get pregnant before they're 15 and have several kids by age 20. That kind of birth rate is a big part of why 3rd world economies fail.
The number of machines and equipment charged with involuntary manslaughter DWI's in L.A. county is well under control. Not so with illegal aliens. I'm not saying they meant to kill anyone. But tell the children of those tragedies "it was just an accident" and see if they miss momma any less.
Labour/'work' is not capital.
Capital consists of structures and purchase of raw materials.
There is human capital, the supply and demand of which determine its price - and how much of the labour pool is attracted to investing in it.
Since there is no such thing as a fixed population, there is no such thing as a fixed labour pool, so opening your community and society up to unlimited immigration means people lose thier citizenship and social structure.
It is one thing to have free movement of goods, and capital - to have economies balancing thier need for human capital they cannot produce by accepting people from outside, but mass immigration of workers removes the claims that ordinary citizens have over thier own resources, and increases competition for thier wages, lowering them with no benefit.
I guess the best model of this is a tribe, who trades with other tribes, accepts people into its tribe for skills, access to other resources, alliances etc.., but would goto war if large numbers of people came to compete with them over thier hunting grounds and terrorities.
The immigration information post by website user , MyTend.com not guarantee correctness