3 ms·

At what cost? An environment with slave labor would be great if you wanted to have things produced for cheap. Should we allow slave labor to stay competitive?

At what cost? An environment with slave labor would be great if you wanted to have things produced for cheap. Should we allow slave labor to stay competitive? This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to. Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality, employee welfare, or environmental impact.

robertlagrant 3y ago
> At what cost? At the cost of seeing people take advantage of the opportunity to add value for their customers. > This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to It's not what it comes down to. Someone in the market for the cheapest smartphone possible won't buy a $10 phone even though it's cheaper than the next alternative, because quality also matters. Or at least, value for money matters. > Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality Someone might be willing to offer something cheaper, but thanks to the free market, that option will only be popular if people believe it's good value for money and buy it. > employee welfare This is mostly a competition issue. If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. > or environmental impact This happens in all types of agreements. The limiter on non-free market countries for environmental impact isn't ethics, it's inefficiency. Only regulations can solve this.
- dns_snek 3y ago
  People thought the iPhone was good value for money even though there were widespread reports of workers killing themselves by jumping out of factory windows due to horrible working conditions. I'm not singling them out, just providing a point of reference. [1] > If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. Employees working in a manufacturing facilities in e.g. China and Europe aren't competing for the same jobs. There's one set of standards for employees there, and there's another set of standards for employees here. We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. [1] What can we do other than add protectionist rules? > Only regulations can solve this. Agreed. And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
  - robertlagrant 3y ago
    > We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. I think you're excluding the middle[0] here. If you think the EU can't compete, you can't just say it's due to worker protections. There are lots of reasons. E.g. there's load more investment capital available in the US; that's not due to Chinese labour laws. > What can we do other than add protectionist rules? Worker protection isn't the same as protectionism. > And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet Much tighter, more specific rules though. Not "free markets bad so protectionism". Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban. [0] https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html
    - dns_snek 3y ago
      I never said that we're uncompetitive solely because of environmental and labor laws, but those factors make such a significant difference that any other factors become irrelevant. We could have all the cheap capital in the world but it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, Taiwan or other parts of Asia where people work 50,60+ hour weeks for lower pay and no benefits or vacation. > Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban. And how do you propose we enforce that against untrustworthy or even hostile governments that have a history of covering things up and a vested interest to do it again?
      - robertlagrant 3y ago
        > We could have all the cheap capital in the world but it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, Taiwan or other parts of Asia where people work 50,60+ hour weeks for lower pay and no benefits or vacation. What about the US? If 75% of Intel's fabbing is done in the US, that should show us something. An EU-based company that sent 25% of its fabbing off to China would also be much better than protectionist laws. Why can't it be made?

robertlagrant 3y ago

> At what cost? At the cost of seeing people take advantage of the opportunity to add value for their customers. > This is a pretty extreme example, but that's what it comes down to It's not what it comes down to. Someone in the market for the cheapest smartphone possible won't buy a $10 phone even though it's cheaper than the next alternative, because quality also matters. Or at least, value for money matters. > Thanks to the free market, there's always going to be someone willing to do it for cheaper while sacrificing product quality Someone might be willing to offer something cheaper, but thanks to the free market, that option will only be popular if people believe it's good value for money and buy it. > employee welfare This is mostly a competition issue. If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. > or environmental impact This happens in all types of agreements. The limiter on non-free market countries for environmental impact isn't ethics, it's inefficiency. Only regulations can solve this.

dns_snek 3y ago
People thought the iPhone was good value for money even though there were widespread reports of workers killing themselves by jumping out of factory windows due to horrible working conditions. I'm not singling them out, just providing a point of reference. [1] > If it's too expensive to create employers, there's no competition for workers. Employees working in a manufacturing facilities in e.g. China and Europe aren't competing for the same jobs. There's one set of standards for employees there, and there's another set of standards for employees here. We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. [1] What can we do other than add protectionist rules? > Only regulations can solve this. Agreed. And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn_suicides
- robertlagrant 3y ago
  > We can't compete with that because we've decided that workers shouldn't be driven to suicide while they don't always share the same reservations and deem waivers, "safety netting", company-provided help hotlines, prayer sessions and "no-suicide pledges", to be an acceptable solution to the problem. I think you're excluding the middle[0] here. If you think the EU can't compete, you can't just say it's due to worker protections. There are lots of reasons. E.g. there's load more investment capital available in the US; that's not due to Chinese labour laws. > What can we do other than add protectionist rules? Worker protection isn't the same as protectionism. > And if EU enforces such regulations while China doesn't, for example, we need protectionist rules in place to ensure that they can't undercut us by killing our planet Much tighter, more specific rules though. Not "free markets bad so protectionism". Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban. [0] https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html https://www.siue.edu/~gdondan/bdkit.html
  - dns_snek 3y ago
    I never said that we're uncompetitive solely because of environmental and labor laws, but those factors make such a significant difference that any other factors become irrelevant. We could have all the cheap capital in the world but it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, Taiwan or other parts of Asia where people work 50,60+ hour weeks for lower pay and no benefits or vacation. > Making sure specific environment-related rules are followed for certain products coming in is much smaller than just a ban. And how do you propose we enforce that against untrustworthy or even hostile governments that have a history of covering things up and a vested interest to do it again?
    - robertlagrant 3y ago
      > We could have all the cheap capital in the world but it would still be cheaper to manufacture in China, Taiwan or other parts of Asia where people work 50,60+ hour weeks for lower pay and no benefits or vacation. What about the US? If 75% of Intel's fabbing is done in the US, that should show us something. An EU-based company that sent 25% of its fabbing off to China would also be much better than protectionist laws. Why can't it be made?