I don’t know why you find it so confusing: if the labourers had the same freedom to choose from the place of their labour as (say) Nike has choices about where it can source it’s labour, the problems wouldn’t exist.

A lot of them already domecile themselves in countries with the most lax tax laws, it’s a logical conclusion. It requires a homogenisation of labour laws but I don’t see why it can’t be done within these so called “free trade agreements”.

I’m sympathetic to the notion that the influx of capital into low wage countries creates opportunities, but the weighting is heavily stacked towards capital. I’d like to see a better balance between those offering their labour and those offering the jobs. Part of that balance is allowing all labourers to choose the manner of their employment and a fundamental part of that must be less restrictive work visa schemes.

I don’t see why it is necessary only to free up commerce between countries where money and goods are traded: surely this creates inbalances that a freer trade in labour would redress.

I’ve never heard it proposed before. I suppose it could work in practice. It reminds me of the laws regulating oil tankers and other freighters. But I suspect that, just as oil freighters are registered in ‘flag of convenience’ countries, many companies would domicile themselves in countries with the most lax labour laws. And so once the re-shuffling had occurred, we would be no closer to solving the problems that you have brought up.

By the way: I’m not encouraging ‘brown people of the world’ to stay at home. What I would like is for them to have the choice of having a decent job in their own country if they want to stay, or trying their luck elsewhere through legal immigration. At the moment, protectionism in the developed world means that, for many of them, their choices are limited to:

1. living in poverty where they are, with all the appalling consequences that follow from that; or

2. risking their lives to illegally enter a developed country, where they go on to risk their lives again in dangerous, low paid jobs with appalling conditions.

In short, I think that, in today’s world, allowing freer trade and capital flows would be a better solution to poverty and crappy, exploitative jobs than would the unrestricted right to emigrate anywhere in the world.

Why not? let’s see how far the chinese comaanies get trying to find workers under chinese labour laws and working conditions in Australia. My guess is: nowhere. We wouldn’t work for those kinds of conditions, but we continue to expect others to do so. It’s wrong.

So you’re suggesting that, when Chinese companies invest in Australian mines, Australian workers should be subject to Chinese labour laws?