The Corner

Re: Owning Jobs

John, I’m still befuddled. The reason I used the trade analogy is that the argument is analogous. Indeed, the argument about “owning jobs” seems even more persuasive in the trade context. If I am an employer, and I want to hire Santiago to do a job for me, and Santiago wants to work for me, assuming there is nothing nefarious about the job in question, I believe I should be able to hire Santiago. It should not matter whether I wish to hire Francisco to work for me here or to work for me in Chile. I see no principled basis for accepting one and not the other. Indeed, if anything, I would think you would find the latter should be more objectionable, as I would be “exporting” the job and denying Americans the benefits of paying someone in the U.S. (tax revenue, consumer spending, etc.). I will admit that my position may not be politically popular, but that does not make it wrong.

Jonathan H. Adler — Mr. Adler is an NRO contributing editor and the inaugural Johan Verheij Memorial Professor of Law at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. His latest book is Marijuana Federalism: Uncle Sam and Mary Jane.