Globalization Poll

[ulysses]

Poll question: Globalization Poll

If economic globalization is inevitable in some form, it should...

Poll result (86 votes)
adhere to standard western labor and environmental protections	(56 votes, 65%)	Vote
adhere to standard western labor and environmental protections, allowing for wage differences	(25 votes, 29%)	Vote
follow the path set by corporate interests	(2 votes, 2%)	Vote
1 and 2 are not mutually exclusive with 3	(0 votes, 0%)	Vote
what's globalization?	(3 votes, 3%)	Vote

[ulysses]

1. couple of things

If you vote(d) for the "what's globalization?" choice, feel free to post questions here.

If you think this is an unfair poll, say so. I freely admit my own bias here. What should I have included?

That said, I voted for the first choice myself. As if that's a shock.

[Gringo]

2. I think it's a great poll.

I do wish choice #1 more clearly laid out the premise of requiring American companies with factories overseas to pay the foreign workers the AMERICAN minimum wage.

Since $5 an hour (and benefits are not mandatory) is much less than union workers here make, there would still be some appeal to relocating abroad, but hopefully it would stem the tide and make it more profitable to keep some of the high-skilled manufacturing base here.

I am not anti-globalization, but under the present system, companies compete on a mer or less level playing field, and workers do not.

Your average manufacturing worker in say, Pennsylvania cannot work for $2 per day and pay only $20 per month like his counterpart in Bangladesh.

I also believe that if the companies still could realize enough savings by relocating, the area around the foreign factory would benefit tremendously from the high wages it created.

I've mentioned this logic many times, and it's always poo-poohed by the pro-globalists. I really don't understand how declining wages worldwide is a good thing for anyone other than the elite employer class.

[ulysses]

9. nicely said

Since $5 an hour (and benefits are not mandatory) is much less than union workers here make, there would still be some appeal to relocating abroad, but hopefully it would stem the tide and make it more profitable to keep some of the high-skilled manufacturing base here.

I am not anti-globalization, but under the present system, companies compete on a mer or less level playing field, and workers do not.

[SOteric]

3. For clarity sake,

(I know there's little room for elaboration in the form for the poll)

In the second option, are you essentially saying that the wages offered to workers in 3rd World Elbonia by U.S. Acme Corp should be adjusted to reflect U.S. wage rates. Or are you suggesting that U.S. Acme should pay workers a rate reflecting an attractive wage in 3rd World Elbonia's current economy?

[ulysses]

7. I meant your second point

that pay would reflect what would be an attractive wage in Elbonia. Your first option would be more reflected in choice one. I think.

Hard to quantify these things...

[SOteric]

15. Well, then, I'm still not sure I can participate in your poll.

Lemme 'splain.

If globalisation is indeed inevitable, I would like to think we could regulate standards of fair labour practise, environmental responsibility and levels of human decency.

I say 'regulate' because while I do acknowledge that some corporations are more humane and decent than are others, I would never trust such important matters with such far-reaching impact to the honour system. Not all folks are honourable, and the specific levels of greed and power-hunger necessary to advance one to a position of importance in a globalising corporation tend to screen for honesty.

Where I come to debate with myself is over the issue of what to pay the workers in such a country as our mythical Elbonia. I concur, at least on the face of it, with your statements in reference to less incentive given to US corps to reward "race to the bottom" wage laws - meant to attract those very corps - which hurt workers both there and here"

Where I come to a sticking point is in the nitty gritty of emergent economies. I’m going to digress for a minute, but it’s all relevant in the end, bear with me.

Here in Seattle a massive influx of Californias occurred in the late 70’s and early 80’s. Prior to the influx, the cost of living in the Pacific Northwest was actually pretty tastey for a major city and it’s environs. The cost of living in California, on the other hand was astronomical. Californians drove up the base salary rate, the sale of their homes and condos behind the Avocado Curtain provided them a great wealth with which to negotiate for homes and living space in this area.

In a relatively short period of time a native Seattlite found they could no longer compete for housing in the city in which they’d grown up. Some level of balance was eventually achieved but this had much to do with the intentional interferance and good management of a string of Democratic governors and good progressive stewardship of the Pacific Northwest economy.

To a certain extent, we set up a similar but more destructive disparity when we undertake to allow U.S. corporations to impact a small localised economy in Elbonia. If the average wage rate in Elbonia is roughly 30 cents an hour, and we bring in an American corporation requiring that they pay $7 /hour for the same labour, we pump money into the Elbonian economy, sure. But we also create a previously non-existant dynamic in the society. Not everyone in Elbonia can work for U.S. Acme Corp. Elbonia will now have a class of people able to drive up the expectation of salary and the acceptable price for housing, clothing, healthcare and even food. - And that is not necessarily to the betterment of Elbonia.

So, in a way I’m battling two well-intentioned ideas: -’race to the bottom’ wages, - not good for anyone. Equally, artificially inflating an emergent economy with U.S. standards of pay: -not good for anyone.

Perhaps if globalisation truly is inevitable, a third option is necessary for consideration. Possibly we need to find ways to prevent the dangers of over-competition and lowered wages while still limiting the unfortunate consequence of introducing too high a cost of living too quickly into a fragile economic system.

I won't vote in your poll, but you may consider my vote to be wavering somewhere between options 1 and 2.

[ulysses]

18. my response would be

that we're already well-tilted in the direction of the race to the bottom. I understand your point about economic disparity - I saw the same thing in Santa Fe when I was in school, with out-of-town Anglos buying up all the prime property and families that had been there for generations forced into the barrios as property values shot up - but, in the current situation in, say, Indonesia, it seems moot to me. The threat is from a different direction.

[SOteric]

19. I agree,

but the current threat in Indonesia will not likely remain from one direction only. Out of the fying pan and into the fire, so to speak.

The issue is complex, but it is not for me black and white; not an either/or premise. I conceive it possible to supply fair and equitable wages in a developing economy while working to create some balance within the community. And as complicated as it may be, if there absolutely has to be globalisation in some form, then I'm pretty much going to insist that we as a nation don't dodge our responsibilities simply because they're complicated.

Some really great ideas and inspiration have been put forth in almost every issue of the Green Money Journal. - http://www.greenmoneyjournal.com/article.mpl?newsletter... - Good reading for progressives interested in economics and their impact on the planet. Maybe you read it already.

Actually the whole question is moot. And here we are mooting it. But you knew that.

[ulysses]

20. I hadn't, actually.

Maybe you read it already.

Much appreciated! I'll need to look much further into that.

And as complicated as it may be, if there absolutely has to be globalisation in some form, then I'm pretty much going to insist that we as a nation don't dodge our responsibilities simply because they're complicated.

I pretty much take it on faith both that globalization will happen and that it doesn't have to be detrimental to ordinary people. The fight, as I see it, isn't even so much about not letting the US dodge its responsibilities as it's about not letting the US (and, more to the point, US corporations) deny that they have responsibilities beyond those to the shareholders.

Actually the whole question is moot.

How so? Granted that it's happening, but imho it's the issue of our times.

[SOteric]

21. In that

moot as an

adj.
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.

v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots

1. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
2. To discuss or debate.

[ulysses]

22. ah well, yes...

I forget there are other definitions...

[Gringo]

26. No,

I'm saying that Acme should have to pay the Elbonian workers at least the US minimum wage, not an "attractive wage", or a typical US wage. An attractive wage in Elbonia's economy is irrelevant. If the standard wage in Elbonia is 40 cents an hour, they should still pay the us minimum wage. If Acme only pays say, 60 cents an hour, they are robbing the Elbonian workers, IMO, and doing nothing to increase wages in Elbonia. If there were a town with several of these factories paying the US minimum wage, the town's average income would increase, the stores and oher businesses in the town would boom and create a ripple effect throughout Elbonia's economy. If these policies were followed uniformly by the US and the EU countries, I believe that eventually, many developing countries would have wages approaching 1st world levels, and the temptation to export jobs would be less and less. As it is, "globalization" is just a tool used by companies to threaten workers here, and keep labor costs down, plain and simple. Acme's chief competitor, Emca wants to keep it's wages high and not export jobs, but if Acme moves to Elbonia and exploits 40 cent/hr. labor, they can undersell Ecma, leaving Ecma no choice to follow suit.

If my rules were in place, Acme could still set up their factory in Elbonia, but they wouldn't be able to lowball their prices as much , and Ecma could probably keep their workers here.

Of course there would always be the threat of foreign goods. If forreign goods are being offered at retail prices 25% or lower than comparable US goods, that would constitute dumping, and be subject to tarriffs.

So, Yes, I'm something of a protectionist, and no I'm no economist. But in my life, I've seen all the talking head economists on TV be wrong over, and over, and over again, and I'm pretty damn sure that the huge companies that have had complete control of NAFTA and FTAAA until now DO NOT have the best interests of workers anywhere at heart, I think it would be worth trying a plan that tries to protect workers of all countries from speculation.

[scisyhp]

17. Of course it's unfair poll.

That's like somebody 150 years ago asking: "If slavery is inevitable,
should its practice adhere to the highest possible human rights
standards as examplified by the state of Georgia?" The very question
is in itself reactionary and defeatist. There is nothing "inevitable"
about globalisation. It only happens because some people want it to
happen, and we all know who those people are. Earthquakes are
inevitable, volcanic eruptions, tornados. And even those should be
qualified with "presently". Globalization is no such thing. There
is absolutely no reason for majority of the people to silently
surrender to a program which is designed to bring them nothing but
poverty and destitution. Just like slavery, it's inevitable only
when everybody's convinced that it is.

[Zan_of_Texas]

4. maybe it's not inevitable

The "inevitability" of globalization has been pushed by those who back it.

Certainly, there will be more trade and more communications in the world in years to come.

Yet, if local and national governments can retain their powers instead of giving them up to corporations/IMF/World Bank, each local government can regulate things like worker hours and conditions, pesticides, tariffs.

IF there were honest government, that would mean people would retain the rights to decide, rather than forfeiting these important rights to the corporados.

I have no interest in telling someone in another country how to run their economic affairs.

[Maple]

5. The option

missing is 'globalization is inevitable however it comes about.'

Because after that, if necessary, you can see about upgrading it to suit you.

But it ain't gonna stop just because it's not 100% perfect in your eyes.

[Nederland]

6. I voted #2

I'd like to point something out to all those that voted for #1: its precisely what many big American companies would love to see happen. If you forced third world countries to pay 1st world wages you would effectively kill manufacturing in the third world.

Don't be fooled by the rhetoric. Think it through.

[ulysses]

8. I'm not talking about

a national minimum-wage law in other countries. What I wouldn't mind seeing, though, is less incentive given to US corps to reward "race to the bottom" wage laws - meant to attract those very corps - which hurt workers both there and here.

[Jack Rabbit]

13. I also voted no. 2 with that understanding

It would be ridiculous to pay $6.75/hr where to maintain a decent standard of living would require only $3/hr. It is equally ridiculous to pay $1/hr where a decent standard of living requires $3/hr.

[ulysses]

14. #2 seems to me a perfectly reasonable choice

except that I have this nagging worry about our options stateside. I started a thread a while back about what we'd all be doing in 5 years - honestly, there just aren't that many jobs that *can't* be exported in the name of lower operating costs. I hate to be "protectionist", and I don't want to keep all the goods of the global economy in the west, but neither do I want to see the fruits of 100 plus years of union activism go down the toilet.

[Gringo]

28. By that logic

McDonald's should have to pay its workers $5.75 in Illinois, and $12.00 in LA. Actually I have heard that argued before...

[Jack Rabbit]

29. Yep.

It costs more to live in LA. Minimum wage should be tied to the local cost-of-living index.

[ulysses]

12. btw, Nederland

I'm kind of surprised you didn't choose #4. I'd have thought that *someone*, by now, would have said that one would almost surely lead to the other. Maybe that kid *is* softening you up after all...

[Gringo]

27. I dont think you'd have to force the third world companies

to pay western wages, just the western employers would have to pay the higher wages. Eventually, the Elbonian companies would be forced by economic forces, rather than by regulation to raise their wages.

[imhotep]

10. WHAT LABOR AND ENVIRO PROTECTIONS????

Rape and plunder workers and the planet IS the "western standard!"

[ulysses]

11. LOL - fair point

make that "the labor and environmental standards we in the west tell ourselves we have".

[Ignoramus]

16. Write in option #6: be dismantled

Check.

[fshrink]

23. I voted 1 even though

it's a miserable minimum and totally unrealistic at the same time...

[OpenDNA]

24. Screw "should", it WILL... (#3)

Globalization isn't driven by a political motive. It's not an agenda.

It's capitalism's inevitable exploitation of technology in the search for markets and lower costs. The more advanced our communications and transportation technology, the more globalized The Economy becomes (because there's really only one important one now). If you want to roll back the clock you have to attack the modern forms of global communication and travel.

Anyone who thinks that globalization can be controlled at a lower level through micro-regulation just doesn't get it, IMHO. Capital treats regulations like a river treats a log: it just flows around it. If your community wants higher wages and more environmental regulations, that's fine. But the companies will move somewhere else.

I can't help but shake my head when I hear laid-off conservatives bitching about H1Bs (temporary workers) and L1s (transfer workers) taking their jobs. They don't understand that if the H1Bs or L1s are laid-off they'll just go home and start up sub-contractors. I work for the used-to-be-INS. The guys who came in working H1B for Cisco last year are now coming in B1 (business trip) representing their own firms to Cisco - same work, contracted out. When you translate "I'm a consultant" it means "I got laid off and now my old employer is now my customer."

Automotive workers got paid $70,000 in the US and $3/day in Mexico. Meet GENERAL MOTORS Mexico Inc and FORD MOTORS Mexico Inc and VOLKSWAGEN Brazil Inc. (Look out Mexcio! Here comes China!)
Software engineers got paid $100,000 in the US and $20/hour in India. Meet WIPRO, CISCO and INTEL India Corp.

Go read the Salon article on all this nonsense.

[ulysses]

25. so we give over our lives to the "free" market?

Globalization isn't driven by a political motive. It's not an agenda.

Maybe not, but it *has* an agenda.

Your belief in the goodness of the market is noted.

[scisyhp]

30. "Capitalism" is a key word here.

Globalization is inevitable inasmuch as capitalism is "inevitable".
The truth however is that it's not. Moreover, not only capitalism
isn't inevitable, it is actually doomed to failure, with globalization
being exactly the way to make this failure the most spectacular and
prompt. Capitalism's ultimate manifestation being its own negation.
Dialectics is a bitch.