A Clinton plan to globally redistribute wealth is FAR bigger than Bernies, and if you are American-
it goes in the other direction- down!
I am talking of course about something called Mode Four. A global program to allow corporations to transfer their employees internally wherever in the world they want them to work, and pay them whatever they agree upon, which in the case of workers in the US, might even be less than minimum wage. Currently, the numbers of workers here by means of this program is limited by quotas, it seems, but those quotas are being challenged by India. Imagine if India wins and suddenly, corporations can subcontract with multinational staffing corporations to reduce their wages. This is in fact the intent of this program, to effectuate a global equalization of wages - a race to the bottom on wages as it were. The 1995 trade agreement which the Mode Four program is part of is already in place. Of course, the huge wage gradient between rich and poor countries is a bad thing, but due to automation, there is no reason to think that access to employment in wealthier countries would increase wages in developing countries that much while the likelihood that wages would fall here is fairly certain. All of the writers on Mode Four have explained this redistributonal effect of it, with the only losers being the indigenous workers of the receiving countries (developed countries)
"The problems with the present situation are twofold.
The first has to do with its unbalanced nature. Developed
economies have a comparative advantage in the export of
capital and thus benefit tremendously from the openness
of capital markets and the welcoming character of most
investment regimes. That kind of receptiveness does not
exist for labor movements. Developing countries have a
comparative advantage in the export of their people, but
they are constrained from realizing the gains from trade
that they might otherwise enjoy.
The second problem is that the entire world suffers
from a loss of potential income that could be realized
through greater mobility. Depending on what assump-
tions are made by researchers, the potential gains could be
quite substantial and could easily surpass the combined
gains anticipated from freer trade in agriculture and man-
ufactured goods—as currently proposed in the Doha
Development Round sponsored by the World Trade
Organization (WTO). Nevertheless, proposals for greater
market access for foreign workers are limited, and this has
been a central obstacle to progress in the services compo-
nent of Doha Round negotiations.
It has been argued by many, including, prominently,
Lant Pritchett and L. Alan Winters, that greater mobility of
labor would be the first-best development promotion strat-
egy (Pritchett 2006; Winters 2008). Pritchett writes that it is
hard to imagine a policy more directly at odds with poverty
reduction or pro-poor growth objectives than one limiting
the demand for lower-skilled labor. This limitation can be
viewed as the principal way that rich countries are cur-
rently inhibiting the development possibilities of poorer
countries—much more than through restrictive agricul-
tural policies or nontariff barriers."
From "labor Mobility" by
Sherry Stephenson and Gary Hufbauer.
How would this be effectuated?
By simply letting currently in place agreements, signed in the 1990s, to do what they were intended to do.