Local contractors should have preferences. Why would you want your money leaving your area? It is worth keeping the money in your local area if it costs a little more to hire locally. (And by extension, “buying locally”.)
Anybody wanna take a stab at it?
I will start by asking, “what is local”? City, county, or state? What if you are next to the border, and therefore, the business immidiately across the border is closer than the business within your border but “across town”? With that said, my two-word and initial response would be “comparative advantage”.
I’d say that if an individual wishes to, there’s nothing wrong with favoring a local contractor. However, that’s an individual’s choice and there’s no reason to try to force it on others. I personally think the area my money stays in should be very local, ie, my bank account. If that means hiring people from out of the area because they offer their services at a lower cost, so be it; I’d get the same results and keep more of my money to invest in other areas. I think the proponent of this idea is confusing wealth with money, and neglecting the fact that by spending less on each service individuals would be able to raise their standard of living.
I’d suggest that you search this web site for the “Law of Comparative Advantage.” The law was established almost 200 years ago and is one of the most basic foundations of economics. Anyone who advocates buying locally reveals, by that very statement, a complete lack of even the most rudimental understanding of economics.
No, you’ll be wealthy once you get to spend the money on thing you can actually consume. If you keep the money in you account for the rest of your life, you’ll never be wealthy.If hyperinflation comes and suddenly your $10^8 are not enough to buy a pair of shoes, you’ll not be wealthy either.
If money was wealth, then it would be a good idea for the fed to deposit $10^8 in everyone’s account, and we would all be immensely wealthy,right?
