That reason wasn't at the top of the list. They were reportedly awestruck by the ability of these departments of the Chinese governmentChinese companies to mobilize large numbers of people on a moment's notice, and to marshal vast resources, like putting up buildings just in case they're needed. Which, as I argued, boils down to admiring a command-and-control economy because it produces higher profits (in the short term).

As for education, I think what they said was that for manufacturing jobs, they don't need a college education, but they do need some training to acquire "vocational and technical skills". While I suppose on one level it's good that in 1986 the Chinese government could set occupational quotas and force people to train for them, and good that they guessed right about their needs when that crop of laborers ripened (getting it right not being supposed a virtue of central planning), isn't that too high a price to pay for prosperity? At least for Americans, with our increasingly quixotic love of freedom and independence and other quaint notions of personal dignity?

The conclusion I draw is that a hive system of industrial production, this "industrial collectivism", is beating free enterprise. And we're being told, basically, that we either sit down, fasten the chains, and pick up the oars, or we get to starve.

Which makes your question about what the world would look like with a global minimum wage and time-and-a-half and all the trappings of an evolved civilization we used to take for granted, a relevant one. I'd add unions to that list. Those things are the traditional toolbox for leveling the playing field. They're how you actually make the rising tide lift all boats.

Oops, that there's liberal talk. Mainstream accepted wisdom, in fact. Once upon a time. But times change. If corporate collectivism has conquered all and is uniting with Red China, I think we're doomed.