[GIFtheory]

That’s a nice idea, but I’m skeptical—where is the new wealth coming from that will allow Lesotho to pay its workers more? It’s not an issue of strong-arming some bad guys in Lesotho to pay their workers more using tariffs as a negotiation tool.

I feel that conflating tariffs with some sort of negotiation tool to bring about positive global change is disingenuous, because the real aim is clearly protectionism.

[SpicyLemonZest]

It's coming from the people who buy the exported goods.

This would mean, of course, that the people who happen to work for an export-oriented factory become much more wealthy than most people in Lesotho. So you might reasonably wonder whether it's better to make twice as many workers half as wealthy. Labor advocates believe the answer is no: paying some people genuinely good wages both creates and encourages further development, while paying a larger number of people "good enough" wages encourages poor countries to race to the bottom competing for the lowest standard of "good enough".

[MattPalmer1086]

It's clearly not protectionism, because you wouldn't put tariffs on everything - including all the raw materials and parts you need to import, if you wanted your local industries to succeed. And you'd have a coherent industrial policy to go along with it.

[colechristensen]

Protectionism is France and England putting tariffs on each others cheese. America putting tariffs on Canadian lumber.

Putting tariffs on places that have a 20x factor difference in wages is something else.

And protectionism isn't necessarily a dirty word. It's often valuable to save your local industries from being wiped out and to not have a foreign country have complete control of a necessity.

[MattPalmer1086]

My point is only that these tariffs cannot be motivated by protectionism, since they are not targeted and will also disadvantage local industry.