d6f7c265
From: dwalker@cs.rochester.edu
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, Sourcerer wrote:
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003, j3r wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > In Sourcerer
wrote:
>
>
>
> >
> > > "...humanity is not ready for a world where working is something you
> > > do when you feel like it".
> > >
> > > If so, 1st world states will have to devise a colossal 'make work'
> > > program employing several hundred million of its citizens in order to
> > > sustain post-industrial capitalism, in essence paying us to consume.
>
> > Alternately, we just wait for our wealth to spread throughout the
> > world, at which point the living standards differential between
> > countries becomes pretty small. Of course, this sucks for everyone
> > in the 1st world.
>
> I would not characterize what is happening as 'spreading our wealth
> throughout the world', unless you mean 'advancing' or 'investing' our
> wealth. Such "spreading" produces a return on investment for the 1st
> world, which beggars the folks who live where it is invested, no matter
> the wealth-effects displayed in a few 3rd world port cities.
>
> It beggars, as well, workers in the 1st world, but the differential may
> remain constant, since the 3rd world workers have to work for wages that
> permits the production of commodities for 1st world workers who have
> less money to spend on things. In the US a generation ago GM was the
> largest employer. Now it is WalMart. Not counting in inflation or debt,
> the average worker has maybe a third of the discretionary income they
> once had in the US.
>
The trouble here, as I see it, becomes how to regulate commerce to avoid
these problems without botching up some other part of the system in a
manner that causes more damage than a lack of protection.
You look at the sugar tariff, for instance. There is no reason for U.S.
sugar cane farmers to be competing with Carribean cane farmers, especially
considering that cane farms have been ecologically harmful in Florida
(mainly to swamplands). But, ostensibly as a trade regulation, Congress
passes a sugar tariff, effectively making the world price greater than the
domestic price.
The sketchy thing is that Bob Dole, one of the big tariff supporters, also
received large contributions from Archer-Daniels-Midland, who control much
of the corn production in the nation. So because we can't buy sugar at
the world price, suddenly corn sweetener becomes a viable alternative for
large processed food companies. ADM benefits, the consumer pays too much
for sugar, domestic farming isn't really helped all that much, and people
end up eating corn syrup in their Hostess products instead of sugar.
Now I agree there's a huge difference between keeping jobs available and
agricultural trade regulation, but a lot of the same principles hold, in
that you need to watch out for the side-effects of whatever regulation you
propose (and also make note of who supports what).
>
> I have no problem with levelling the differential, if that would help. I
> don't see Chinese steelworkers' conditions rising, though, anymore than
> I saw them rising for Mexicans in the 80s when steel left Pittsburgh for
> the Maquilidora. Someone got the 'differential' and it wasn't
> steelworkers in either country.
>
> Same is true for information workers. I know someone whose job is to
> develop Asian labor resources that will replace his wife's job, Poly's
> job, and, if you're still in the same field, your job.
>
> His one job is to eliminate thousands of jobs here. He will create
> thousands of jobs in Thailand and India at way lower wages. Someone will
> pocket the 'differential'.
>
>
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
