7 ms·

Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 ye

Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). So you are damned if you don’t enjoy them, damned if you do (but a bit less). Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their labor stops being cheap.... but how can you do that?

tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago
> Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their labor stops being cheap.... but how can you do that? The big thing missing from this conversation is how the US/multi-national corporations use international organizations like the IMF and World Bank to force "structural adjustment" policies that end up degrading labor protections, forcing countries to privatize all gov't functions, etc. We have played a big role in the destruction of their "situation". Both historically through colonialism and still actively today with IOs and structural adjustment policies Not to mention all the fucking coups the US enacted and supported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...
shkkmo 7y ago
> Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). Maybe in some cases. However, you then have labor in those countries trying to struggle for the same protections and advances in wages that workers in the US struggled for, but they are struggling against a far more powerful corporate entity that has the backing of a more corrupt/disfunctional government while also having diversified options to break and weather strikes. Then you have to add to that all the non blue collar workers who have had their subsistence livelihoods destroyed through land seizures for resource extraction. Most of the benefits of globalization roll uphill (richer citizens, especially in richer countries extract most of the benefits) the trickle down is minuscule to non-existent.
- davidw 7y ago
  > a more corrupt/disfunctional government You...sure about that?
- cactus2093 7y ago
  Yes people still have challenges and problems. But at the end of day, there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    > , there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. And how much of that is due to globalization and how much of that is due to the growth of local economies? How much faster would those local economies have grown if wealth was not being siphoned out by multi-nationals? (These are not honest inquiries, not rhetorical questions.) > None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers. The people who were poor subsistence farm who had their lands given away are generally not those who have been lifted out of poverty.
    - barry-cotter 7y ago
      In China it’s almost all due to globalization. Multinationals doing siphon out wealth. They invest huge amounts of money in foreign direct investment, enabling faster growth than if all capital had to be domestically sourced and they take some of those profits and repatriate them, but the wages they pay and the capital investment they make stay in country. In China the people who were poor subsistence farmers absolutely are those lifted out of poverty. The numbers are just too great for it to work any other way, with urbanization going from ~20% in 1980 to 70 or 80% now. Similarly in Korea.
AWildC182 7y ago
Maybe a better way forward is for labor cost disparity to be just small enough to encourage jobs by being cost effective after shipping with a hint of extra profit rather than a make-several-one-trillion-dollar-companies cost disparity.
methodover 7y ago
I'm sympathetic to that idea, to some extent. Foreign workers would indeed be happy to get a marginal increase in their income, even if those wages and working conditions are well below developed-country standards. But, then, aren't we just making a trade at that point? I will fire 100 local blue collar workers, and hire 100 foreign workers who will do their job for less. I hurt 100 people, help 100 people, and along the way pocket some extra cash for myself. I think most moral systems would have a problem with this. It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. (Yes, things get complicated when you hurt N people to help more than N people, depending on the number of extra people helped and the kind of hurt. For example, sacrificing soldiers in order to save an entire country. Generally speaking though, most moral systems have a problem with hurting people against their will except in extraordinary situations involving very large numbers. Does this trade situation qualify as that? I'm skeptical that is does.) There has to be a better way. Some way where we aren't harming local blue collar workers, but are still helping foreign nations develop, while giving those foreign nations on the path of strong worker protections and wages that we have here.
- harryh 7y ago
  It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. Not when it comes to buying things, which is what this situation is. Blue collar workers in the US (or other developed nations) don't have a moral demand on you to purchase their labor at the same rate forever. If someone across the street (or across an ocean) is selling the same product for less money it's perfectly fine to buy it from them instead. Do you think it's immoral when you, say, switch from Verizon to AT&T to get a cheaper rate on your cell phone plan?
  - methodover 7y ago
    Yeah, this is another aspect of the debate I find myself challenging: Labor is different. Our human lives are different than a cell phone plan.
    - harryh 7y ago
noonespecial 7y ago
You adjust the system, however obfuscated and difficult it seems, so that they work to better themselves instead of for you. Because at the very bottom layer, that's what's happening.

tr3ndyBEAR 7y ago

> Obviously, it is better if you could improve their situation to the point where their labor stops being cheap.... but how can you do that? The big thing missing from this conversation is how the US/multi-national corporations use international organizations like the IMF and World Bank to force "structural adjustment" policies that end up degrading labor protections, forcing countries to privatize all gov't functions, etc. We have played a big role in the destruction of their "situation". Both historically through colonialism and still actively today with IOs and structural adjustment policies Not to mention all the fucking coups the US enacted and supported: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_regime_change https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_involvement_in_r...

shkkmo 7y ago

> Let me play the devil’s advocate: you buying those products is measurably better for those disadvantaged blue collar workers, than you not buying it (on a 10 year horizon IIRC - There are some UN studies on this, on phone and can’t find them right now). Maybe in some cases. However, you then have labor in those countries trying to struggle for the same protections and advances in wages that workers in the US struggled for, but they are struggling against a far more powerful corporate entity that has the backing of a more corrupt/disfunctional government while also having diversified options to break and weather strikes. Then you have to add to that all the non blue collar workers who have had their subsistence livelihoods destroyed through land seizures for resource extraction. Most of the benefits of globalization roll uphill (richer citizens, especially in richer countries extract most of the benefits) the trickle down is minuscule to non-existent.

davidw 7y ago
> a more corrupt/disfunctional government You...sure about that?
cactus2093 7y ago
Yes people still have challenges and problems. But at the end of day, there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  > , there are hundreds of millions fewer people in poverty than there were just a few decades ago. And how much of that is due to globalization and how much of that is due to the growth of local economies? How much faster would those local economies have grown if wealth was not being siphoned out by multi-nationals? (These are not honest inquiries, not rhetorical questions.) > None of what you're saying justifies that the alternative would have been better, where most of these people remained poor subsistance farmers. The people who were poor subsistence farm who had their lands given away are generally not those who have been lifted out of poverty.
  - barry-cotter 7y ago
    In China it’s almost all due to globalization. Multinationals doing siphon out wealth. They invest huge amounts of money in foreign direct investment, enabling faster growth than if all capital had to be domestically sourced and they take some of those profits and repatriate them, but the wages they pay and the capital investment they make stay in country. In China the people who were poor subsistence farmers absolutely are those lifted out of poverty. The numbers are just too great for it to work any other way, with urbanization going from ~20% in 1980 to 70 or 80% now. Similarly in Korea.

AWildC182 7y ago

Maybe a better way forward is for labor cost disparity to be just small enough to encourage jobs by being cost effective after shipping with a hint of extra profit rather than a make-several-one-trillion-dollar-companies cost disparity.

methodover 7y ago

I'm sympathetic to that idea, to some extent. Foreign workers would indeed be happy to get a marginal increase in their income, even if those wages and working conditions are well below developed-country standards. But, then, aren't we just making a trade at that point? I will fire 100 local blue collar workers, and hire 100 foreign workers who will do their job for less. I hurt 100 people, help 100 people, and along the way pocket some extra cash for myself. I think most moral systems would have a problem with this. It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. (Yes, things get complicated when you hurt N people to help more than N people, depending on the number of extra people helped and the kind of hurt. For example, sacrificing soldiers in order to save an entire country. Generally speaking though, most moral systems have a problem with hurting people against their will except in extraordinary situations involving very large numbers. Does this trade situation qualify as that? I'm skeptical that is does.) There has to be a better way. Some way where we aren't harming local blue collar workers, but are still helping foreign nations develop, while giving those foreign nations on the path of strong worker protections and wages that we have here.

harryh 7y ago
It is generally thought of as immoral to rend one person in order to help one other. Not when it comes to buying things, which is what this situation is. Blue collar workers in the US (or other developed nations) don't have a moral demand on you to purchase their labor at the same rate forever. If someone across the street (or across an ocean) is selling the same product for less money it's perfectly fine to buy it from them instead. Do you think it's immoral when you, say, switch from Verizon to AT&T to get a cheaper rate on your cell phone plan?
- methodover 7y ago
  Yeah, this is another aspect of the debate I find myself challenging: Labor is different. Our human lives are different than a cell phone plan.
  - harryh 7y ago

noonespecial 7y ago

You adjust the system, however obfuscated and difficult it seems, so that they work to better themselves instead of for you. Because at the very bottom layer, that's what's happening.