[tptacek]

Chris is telling you that compared to the lives of a huge number of South/Southeast Asians, even those living "below poverty" in the US are wealthy; by and large, the American poor can expect electricity, running water, shelter, some form of nourishment, and even school for their children. The poorest people in India have none of this.

From another vantage point, as a health economist recently said: vis a vis access to health care, you're better off as a homeless person in the United States in 2012 than President Dwight Eisenhower was during his term of office. Meanwhile, the rural poor of Asia are probably still nowhere nearly as well off as Ike was. They still die of polio.

[angersock]

Right, that part I parsed without issue.

I'd rather see no homeless people on the street (a decently-sized problem in my part of the US) than more homeless people who are still better off than they would be in their old nation.

I'm unconvinced that there exists some sort of moral imperative that we need to seek the suggested path instead of working towards only temporary frictional unemployment and better care for everyone currently in our nation.

[tptacek]

Which way are you taking your reasoning here? If it's moral reasoning, then surely it's better to take a deal that creates a net benefit to our economy in exchange for giving hundreds of thousands of people running water, electricity, and schools for their children. If it's rational reasoning, surely it's better to take whichever deals provide a net benefit to our economy.

[angersock]

I'm using rational reasoning--I'm getting different results from you folks because I believe I'm looking at other factors (societal stresses due to wealth distribution, overburdened school systems, convoluted healthcare system, etc.) that would serve to confound your good intentions.