Hollowing out the lower/middle class in those first world economies and forcing people into social welfare programs is a big unintended consequence here.
To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off by any standards first world upper class, everything else is a rounding error. Outsourcing is colonialism by another name.
> To be fair, it almost entirely transfers wealth to the extremely well off
Wrong. Free trade benefits the poor the most. It is responsible for massive reductions in poverty at the global level, and is critical to the economic growth of developing countries. Trade barriers (particularly in agriculture) are a major source of harm to the world's poor:
Look, there's really no reason to call me closed-minded, we can both surely cite a lot of reputable sources that agree with our position, mine being that outsourcing causes a lot of problems and yours that outsourcing is a net positive on global gdp and increases incomes globally. I think we're both right! But what you may not be considering is - what do you think would happen if 8 billion people had a first-world carbon footprint? So what's the rush to get new labor pools into the global economy? Call me cynical but I think it is almost completely self interest on the part of the first world economies with only lip service paid to the well being of the poor Laotians.
I asked what you meant by colonialism, so enlighten me. Explain why you think outsourcing is "colonialism".
> But what you may not be considering is - what do you think would happen if 8 billion people had a first-world carbon footprint?
That's a discussion for another day. But you would have to reframe your argument as "Free trade is bad because the world's poor escaping poverty would be a bad thing for the environment."
> So what's the rush to get new labor pools into the global economy?
Simply put, extreme poverty.
> Call me cynical but I think it is almost completely self interest on the part of the first world economies with only lip service paid to the well being of the poor Laotians.
Of course it's self-interest. That's how economies work. Whether it's self-interest or not doesn't determine whether it's good or bad.
My entire argument is "there are a lot of unintended consequences" - naming an example is salient. I noticed that you haven't refuted any of my points so I'll assume that you are aware that global trade is worse for the environment and bad for the working class in the countries exporting their labor pool, but the benefits are so good for you that you will continue to argue in its favor. That's fine. We will clearly choose to look for different policies from our leadership.