Unions: Where did the U.S.A. go wrong?

[Beskar]

Fair trade is hogwash. Forcing foreign companies to pay higher wages just takes away from the main economic advantage those foreign workers have; the willingness to work for lower wages. Using law to force those wages up to parity with western workers will just result in those foreign workers not being employed at all. It's got nothing to do with helping foreign workers from the union's viewpoint, and everything to do with helping themselves. (Note: by foreign workers I'm refering to third world workers as in China, Asia, etc.)

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you come in here talking about "competitive advantage" saying how Unions hate kids while you advocate exploitation and child labour? Because that is the reality of the situation, some one setting up a factory in an Indian slum, taking advantage of the people in desperate need there.

Nothing to do about "the willingness to work for lower wages.", it is unethical exploitation and wage-slavery of those in need.

Hilarious.


Oh, as for Fair Trade, it isn't counter-productive, since people are being paid far below the worth of those products for profit, and they don't have the choice in the matter, again, another place of unethical exploitation by Corporations.

Forcing an international minimum wage (doesn't have to be as high as the one in the UK or US), would greatly improve the situations of many.




Obviously, all part of "advantages of the free-market", ing people over and unethical exploitation.

[ajaxfetish]

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week

I admit I haven't studied this, so I'm open to correction, but I find this claim hard to believe without supporting evidence. Do you have any data to back this up?

Ajax

[Tellos Athenaios]

Hmm. Roughly speaking ever company that makes shoes has seen such a scandal in the not to distant past. Child labour is still very much a fact of 3rd world life, and employing child labour is still very much a fact of multinational manufacturer CEO life.

Personally I doubt the Fair trade “movement” idea, is hogwash. It's aims are not for a global, cutthroat free-market capitalist environment. Its aims are to improve the working conditions of those who are decidedly in the lower half of this capitalist food-chain (if you will), and raising awareness in the top-half. Which isn't a bad set of goals in and of themselves; and the practices they employ have a highly free-market touch to them (setting up your own companies to compete with mainstream, raising awareness so people can vote with their dollar or euro or yen).

Anyway. Fair trade is not just about “forcing companies” to pay higher wages to local workers. It is also about setting up own corporations with the aim of increasing the wage of the participants. For farmers it is like a reverse-union (and not unlike what farmers did in the 19th/20th century over here) except without a USA or EU pumping in vast amounts of money to prop 'em up, or a Japan to ban all that they didn't make.

[Beskar]

Personally I doubt the Fair trade “movement” idea, is hogwash. It's aims are not for a global, cutthroat free-market capitalist environment. Its aims are to improve the working conditions of those who are decidedly in the lower half of this capitalist food-chain (if you will), and raising awareness in the top-half. Which isn't a bad set of goals in and of themselves; and the practices they employ have a highly free-market touch to them (setting up your own companies to compete with mainstream, raising awareness so people can vote with their dollar or euro or yen).

Anyway. Fair trade is not just about “forcing companies” to pay higher wages to local workers. It is also about setting up own corporations with the aim of increasing the wage of the participants. For farmers it is like a reverse-union (and not unlike what farmers did in the 19th/20th century over here) except without a USA or EU pumping in vast amounts of money to prop 'em up, or a Japan to ban all that they didn't make.

I think that is a good summary of the Fair-Trade movement. It is encouraging more ethical wages for farmers and workers and better working conditions.

You want to know how much extra cost this is on the big multinationals? If Starbucks adopted the Fair-Trade policy, and got all their products from Fair-Trade suppliers, it would cost them 1 cent more per coffee.

They would still be raking in the profits.

[Beskar]

I admit I haven't studied this, so I'm open to correction, but I find this claim hard to believe without supporting evidence. Do you have any data to back this up?

Ajax

Actually, it is even worse. In one of the videos, a child labourer was paid $3.25 per week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTIfY9SmJdA

Quota of 150 per hour, paid $3.25 a week, 12 hour shifts. They get physically and verbally abused on a good day.

As for evidence, there are absolutely tons of it. Google will fill you with hits.

It is a shocking and depressing state of affairs, and I think some posters in this thread sum up the ignorant attitude typical of the west perfectly.

[ajaxfetish]

Actually, it is even worse. In one of the videos, a child labourer was paid $3.25 per week.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTIfY9SmJdA

Quota of 150 per hour, paid $3.25 a week, 12 hour shifts. They get physically and verbally abused on a good day.

As for evidence, there are absolutely tons of it. Google will fill you with hits.

It is a shocking and depressing state of affairs, and I think some posters in this thread sum up the ignorant attitude typical of the west perfectly.

You misunderstand me. I am sure there are child laborers working some of these jobs, and some of their working conditions are likely horrible. The part I find hard to believe without backup is the 'vast majority' part. A simple majority would mean that over half of the workers employed by international companies are unethically exploited, and if a majority of those were children, then over 25% of the total would be child labor. If a 'vast majority' are unethically exploited, and these are 'mainly' children, that suggests that well over 25% of the labor force employed by international firms is exploitative child labor. Do you have data that shows this to be the case?

Ajax

[Crazed Rabbit]

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you come in here talking about "competitive advantage" saying how Unions hate kids while you advocate exploitation and child labour?

Ah, how convenient. You ignore my deconstructing of your previous arguments and then jump back in with more wild accusations. An anecdote about one child be treated badly is not proof that the majority of foreign labor is child labor being paid a pittance for extremely long hours.

If you're angry about child labor, you should be scolding India for not banning it, or not enforcing said ban.

Because that is the reality of the situation, some one setting up a factory in an Indian slum, taking advantage of the people in desperate need there.

Nothing to do about "the willingness to work for lower wages.", it is unethical exploitation and wage-slavery of those in need.

So, better to not give those desperate people any job? Better they remain even more desperate and poor and hungry than they would be if they had even a terrible job? Just what do you think would happen if you managed to get some sort of international minimum wage? That the poor third world workers would cheer your name for making them lose their jobs?

Also; we're talking about the US here, and why unions went bad here. Don't you have any thoughts on the video I posted? Or would that put a wrinkle in your 'unions are perfect' world?

CR

[jabarto]

So, better to not give those desperate people any job? Better they remain even more desperate and poor and hungry than they would be if they had even a terrible job? Just what do you think would happen if you managed to get some sort of international minimum wage? That the poor third world workers would cheer your name for making them lose their jobs?

Oh stop it. That they do that horrible work out of necessity doesn't make it any more right.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Yet, the vast majority of these workers are simply unethically exploited, mainly child labour working 12 hour shifts for $5 per week and you

Looking at the wages is a shallow point

http://www.independent.org/publicati...le.asp?id=1369

In 9 of 10 nations, average apparel industry income exceeds the national average at only 50 hours per week. Apparel workers in the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Honduras, and Nicaragua earn 3 to 7 times the national average.

[a completely inoffensive name]

How we be realistic and drop the stupid rhetoric and admit that companies use child labor but that without the competitive advantage child labor brings, we would all be paying much more in prices which lowers our standard of living since we would be paying more for the same goods. Besides that, the flaw in talking about how low little child labor or any labor in 3rd world countries makes is that compared to what they were making before the factories (AKA jobs) opened up (zero) they are doing much better then before. We all like to call China the factory of world, pumping out lots of cheap toys and such for Americans, Japan and Europe and now after 20 years of opening up this massive industrialization (for very small wages) we have seen the slow build up of the Chinese middle class.

You don't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a matter of years by instituting a "universal minimum wage"; wealth is built on the creation of stuff and all post-industrialized nations have built up their wealth with years of sacrifice from their grandfathers, great-grandfathers, great-great grandfathers etc, down the line until the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.

Factories bring wealth, more importantly, the creation of wealth, the people will eventually reach a point where their wealth is sufficient enough to overcome basic problems such as "Will I be able to eat today?", when those problems are gone from the publics head, then like any other nation, the public finds something else to be worried/angry by. So the next generation not having been subjected to poverty at any point will be angry at their government and for not being paid as much as Europeans or Americans, so they will fight for workers rights and higher wages through the government just as every other industrialized nation did from the US to Europe.

This is why in my opinion you should respect the generations before you. If we are to say that all this hard work and this path to success could be bypassed by putting wages on an "equal" level worldwide, then that simply makes our elders idiots for not doing that in the 1800s.

[Beskar]

You don't go from 3rd world to 1st world in a matter of years by instituting a "universal minimum wage";

Nope, but you accelerate the growth significantly.

This is why in my opinion you should respect the generations before you. If we are to say that all this hard work and this path to success could be bypassed by putting wages on an "equal" level worldwide, then that simply makes our elders idiots for not doing that in the 1800s.

Why does it make them idiots? In 1800 there wasn't a world economy outside of Europe and its colonies. Also, there weren't any international institutions like the UN.

Even by insituting an international minimum wage of $1 per hour, you will significantly improve conditions across the world in the matter of years as the changes are done. Even then, parts of the world will still have a competitive advantage for buisnesses to invest it. Also, it will build up the infrastructure and economy of those nations as well, as the people there will have money to spend within their own country.

Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Nope, but you accelerate the growth significantly.



Why does it make them idiots? In 1800 there wasn't a world economy outside of Europe and its colonies. Also, there weren't any international institutions like the UN.

Even by insituting an international minimum wage of $1 per hour, you will significantly improve conditions across the world in the matter of years as the changes are done. Even then, parts of the world will still have a competitive advantage for buisnesses to invest it. Also, it will build up the infrastructure and economy of those nations as well, as the people there will have money to spend within their own country.

Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.

Please stop calling people who don't agree with you about economics as people who have no regard for humanity. CR and every other right wing person in here has family and friends that they love as human beings. so just because they go about tackling the issue of poverty differently then you doesn't make them monsters. I guess I'm trying to say stop being an ass. I'm left leaning but I can't stand leftists who attempt at demonizing the right instead of attempting to win them over.

Now, let's go over what you said. "Nope, but you will accelerate the growth significantly." Yes, you will accelerate their growth significantly, at the expense of our growth or the growth of others. If you force them to receive more money through higher wages then those paying for the goods will need to pay more of their wealth to get the product so they will have less wealth now. For a person so concerned about the well being of others you seem to forget that poor people rely on Wal-Marts cheap prices to maintain the bare minimum to survive in an advanced 1st world nation, and having Wal Mart raise prices because they have to pay more for labor isn't going to help them.

By 1880s there was a world economy but instead of instituting a worldwide minimum wage, Americans during the Guilded Age fought just to have Unions legalized.

Yes, you are correct they will have more money. But you seem to think that these nations being exploited will take that money and put it to good use and not have corruption of any sort. That's flaw one of your idealistic view. Secondly, there will still be competitive advantage but it will be lesser or weakened, which means that it is not as cheap then it was before.

You are basically artificially raising prices for all industrialized people so 3rd world countries can have more money which you seem to think will solve all their problems. Having a giant money funnel to poor countries has shown to be inefficient or not quite regulated enough to provide proper growth and development. Your proposal I will grant at least has the benefit of giving Americans cheap manufactured goods in return for sending off all their money, but just like how the US already dumps billions of dollars into Afghanistan with no viable returns on the countries well being I doubt that everything will turn out in tip top shape if we just make labor more expensive around the world.

EDIT: The people there must fight for additional money otherwise they will have no respect for it and not care when corruption starts becoming rampant among the government.

[Beskar]

Now, let's go over what you said. "Nope, but you will accelerate the growth significantly." Yes, you will accelerate their growth significantly, at the expense of our growth or the growth of others.

I am not selfish, I don't mind paying the insignificant amount for them not to be in wage-bondage.

If you force them to receive more money through higher wages then those paying for the goods will need to pay more of their wealth to get the product so they will have less wealth now. For a person so concerned about the well being of others you seem to forget that poor people rely on Wal-Marts cheap prices to maintain the bare minimum to survive in an advanced 1st world nation, and having Wal Mart raise prices because they have to pay more for labor isn't going to help them.

America has a minimum wage, so that point is rather null.

Yes, you are correct they will have more money. But you seem to think that these nations being exploited will take that money and put it to good use and not have corruption of any sort. That's flaw one of your idealistic view.

It is not a flaw. It is a separate issue. If the money went straight to the workers, the workers then decide what to do with it.

Secondly, there will still be competitive advantage but it will be lesser or weakened, which means that it is not as cheap then it was before.

The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup. It will not break the bank.

You are basically artificially raising prices for all industrialized people so 3rd world countries can have more money which you seem to think will solve all their problems. Having a giant money funnel to poor countries has shown to be inefficient or not quite regulated enough to provide proper growth and development. Your proposal I will grant at least has the benefit of giving Americans cheap manufactured goods in return for sending off all their money, but just like how the US already dumps billions of dollars into Afghanistan with no viable returns on the countries well being I doubt that everything will turn out in tip top shape if we just make labor more expensive around the world.

There is also a difference between India and Afghanistan. Having your money basically pay for Indian products which you receive will be an obvious gain for their economy and yours as they could afford the more expensive American products like the IPhone more easily.

In Afghanistan, you are funnelling money in a sand-pit and you get no return from it.

Two completely different situations.

Doesn't this seem like a better thing to focus on than wages? Now who has no regard for humanity

Non-sequitur? Especially since I spoke out about the cruelty in the post I made the same statement about the wages.

Not like I conducted any hypocrisy by posting "Think of the Children!" while advocating de-facto Child Labour in the same post.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I am not selfish, I don't mind paying the insignificant amount for them not to be in wage-bondage.

What's insignificant for you is very significant for an illegal immigrant Hispanic mother of 4 living in LA.

America has a minimum wage, so that point is rather null.

How so? Those that are poor have a bare minimum of wealth they get from working, and now more wealth is required for the same amount of stuff so their ability to buy more is limited and in fact may have to cut back on spending on certain things because they are now too expensive for them. By inflating workers wages, you are creating inflation which hurts the poor the most since the minimum wage doesn't move with the inflation rate but instead whenever Congress decides to raise it.

It is not a flaw. It is a separate issue. If the money went straight to the workers, the workers then decide what to do with it.

A corrupt government won't let the workers decide what to do with the money. They will take the money through force or taxes.

The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup. It will not break the bank.

A) Like I said before, for someone who is advocating for the less fortunate you seem to dismiss the value of even a penny for them. Besides, coffee is a luxury that is already too expensive (at Starbucks at least) for many poor people. So that's a poor example.
B) The coffee market is very different from the toy market which is different then the toothpaste market etc...

There is also a difference between India and Afghanistan. Having your money basically pay for Indian products which you receive will be an obvious gain for their economy and yours as they could afford the more expensive American products like the IPhone more easily.

In Afghanistan, you are funnelling money in a sand-pit and you get no return from it.

Two completely different situations.

That situation (India) already occurs without needing to inflate worker's prices. The growth of these nations is naturally stable, but shoving in inflation (I'll say may) may destabilize the growth.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Why does it make them idiots? In 1800 there wasn't a world economy outside of Europe and its colonies. Also, there weren't any international institutions like the UN.

Even by insituting an international minimum wage of $1 per hour, you will significantly improve conditions across the world in the matter of years as the changes are done. Even then, parts of the world will still have a competitive advantage for buisnesses to invest it. Also, it will build up the infrastructure and economy of those nations as well, as the people there will have money to spend within their own country.

Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.

Even if they are incorrect, do you really think they have no regard for humanity?

we met a 40-year-old woman named Nhem Yen, who told us why she moved to an area with particularly lethal malaria. "We needed to eat," she said. "And here there is wood, so we thought we could cut it and sell it."

But then Nhem Yen's daughter and son-in-law both died of malaria, leaving her with two grandchildren and five children of her own. With just one mosquito net, she had to choose which children would sleep protected and which would sleep exposed.

In Cambodia, a large mosquito net costs $5. If there had been a sweatshop in the area, however harsh or dangerous, Nhem Yen would have leapt at the chance to work in it, to earn enough to buy a net big enough to cover all her children.

The question is clearly about how much unemployment would result from bumping wages for 1-2$ a day to 10 dollars a day. Economics is not my field, but if I had to guess I'd say that the point this article makes is good:

http://www.nytimes.com/library/magaz...weatshops.html

Some managers are brutal in the way they house workers in firetraps, expose children to dangerous chemicals, deny bathroom breaks, demand sexual favors, force people to work double shifts or dismiss anyone who tries to organize a union. Agitation for improved safety conditions can be helpful, just as it was in 19th-century Europe.

...

Sweatshop monitors do have a useful role. They can compel factories to improve safety. They can also call attention to the impact of sweatshops on the environment. The greatest downside of industrialization is not exploitation of workers but toxic air and water. In Asia each year, three million people die from the effects of pollution. The factories springing up throughout the region are far more likely to kill people through the chemicals they expel than through terrible working conditions.

By focusing on these issues, by working closely with organizations and news media in foreign countries, sweatshops can be improved. But refusing to buy sweatshop products risks making Americans feel good while harming those we are trying to help.

Doesn't this seem like a better thing to focus on than wages? Now who has no regard for humanity

[Crazed Rabbit]

Pretty simple to do, however, reality is harder due to resistence from certain groups of people who simply have no regard for humanity.

Yup, that's me. That's why I only volunteered at one week long trip to help collect and distribute food to migrant workers this summer. You, being so full of your regard for humanity, probably volunteered for a month or more to help feed the hungry. Right?

Nope, but you accelerate the growth significantly.

No, you absolutely do not. By decreasing the incentive for companies to use foreign labor, you decrease the amount of jobs those companies will offer and the number of foreign factories they'll build. That means less jobs, more unemployment, or more going back to lower paying jobs. ANd that's not even counting the job loss from domestic companies employing less people.

This 'wage slavery' is nonsense. Sasaki showed that apparel workers get paid more than average. So, often sweatshop jobs are better than the other jobs available.

Look at China; decades of low paid workers making stuff for the west. After all those years we see a middle class emerging and better pay for workers. There is no magic fix to leap a third world country into the first world.

The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup.

Source?

What's insignificant for you is very significant for an illegal immigrant Hispanic mother of 4 living in LA.

Heh, that's a good point. Cheap goods helps the poor in America and other countries who can afford more basic necessities like clothes and food.

EDIT: Again, Beskar, why don't you share your thoughts on the video I posted? Or does the fact that unions are choosing more jobs for themselves over the safety of ill children conflict with your worldview too much?

CR

[Sasaki Kojiro]

The difference between the production of Starbucks Coffee and Starbucks Fair-Trade Coffee is 1 cent per cup.

Source?

Best I can tell from google, starbucks pays top dollar for it's non fair trade coffee--not surprising that their costs don't go up much from buying fair trade coffee (6% of the coffee they buy apparently). I don't think this helps whatever point beskar is trying to make--something like "increasing sweatshop wages 5 fold will only lead to a 1 cent increase in price"? I hope that's not the point he's trying to make...

[Beskar]

Best I can tell from google, starbucks pays top dollar for it's non fair trade coffee--not surprising that their costs don't go up much from buying fair trade coffee (6% of the coffee they buy apparently). I don't think this helps whatever point beskar is trying to make--something like "increasing sweatshop wages 5 fold will only lead to a 1 cent increase in price"? I hope that's not the point he's trying to make...

It was an article I read a while ago. When Starbucks first started releasing a 'Fair-Trade' range locally, and there was a big hoohaa, because it only cost Starbucks 1p to do Fair-Trade, and they charged an extra 10p per cup.

You, being so full of your regard for humanity, probably volunteered for a month or more to help feed the hungry. Right?

You probably was sarcastic when you wrote this, but it actually correct. I been doing charity work since 13, which involves assisting with the homeless, providing food, collecting/performing and community work.

Again, Beskar, why don't you share your thoughts on the video I posted? Or does the fact that unions are choosing more jobs for themselves over the safety of ill children conflict with your worldview too much?

Actually, no. I pretty much shrugged it off as something minor. It was a very biased article. From what I skimmed read, there is a bill which will allow non-trained medical professionals to administrate this drug. However, the unions said they oppose it, most likely due to complications, legal risks, etc and that a trained professional should deal with it, aka, just hire a school nurse to deal and look after the patient.

Makes sense. The alternative is, to simply train teachers to a certificated first-aid standard then there would be no issues then either. But I am guessing this costs money and school don't want to pay for that.

There isn't enough in the article for me to give a more meaningful answer.

[a completely inoffensive name]

No, you absolutely do not. By decreasing the incentive for companies to use foreign labor, you decrease the amount of jobs those companies will offer and the number of foreign factories they'll build. That means less jobs, more unemployment, or more going back to lower paying jobs. ANd that's not even counting the job loss from domestic companies employing less people.

This 'wage slavery' is nonsense. Sasaki showed that apparel workers get paid more than average. So, often sweatshop jobs are better than the other jobs available.

Look at China; decades of low paid workers making stuff for the west. After all those years we see a middle class emerging and better pay for workers. There is no magic fix to leap a third world country into the first world.

CR

I would say the first paragraph is a bit hazy. Depending on exactly how much you raise the wages, the effects could be different. The demand for the products might not decrease drastically if the prices increase a tiny bit, so companies might just eat the loss in profit if they are still making a healthy profit in satisfying the demand. However, the problem is that judging what is the "right" amount of wage inflation is tricky even from a purely economical view point not to mention you would have people in politics like Beskar making absurd demands that would jack up prices and have demand and thus supply collapse (AKA higher wages=no jobs as you said).

Everything else you said CR I agree with.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Look at China; decades of low paid workers making stuff for the west. After all those years we see a middle class emerging and better pay for workers. There is no magic fix to leap a third world country into the first world.

I would say the first paragraph is a bit hazy. Depending on exactly how much you raise the wages, the effects could be different. The demand for the products might not decrease drastically if the prices increase a tiny bit, so companies might just eat the loss in profit if they are still making a healthy profit in satisfying the demand. However, the problem is that judging what is the "right" amount of wage inflation is tricky even from a purely economical view point not to mention you would have people in politics like Beskar making absurd demands that would jack up prices and have demand and thus supply collapse (AKA higher wages=no jobs as you said).

Everything else you said CR I agree with.

Yes, that statement is terribly generalized and short of detail. What I tried to convey was my belief that turning a country from a second world economy with lots of cheap manufacturing into a first world one like in the west is a long process. I don't think setting a minimum wage as Beskar recommends will speed up that process at all.

You are correct that, depending on price elasticity, an increase in the price of a product via increased labor costs may not result in people buying less of the product.

I think the best, or least worst, way to determine wage levels is simply through the free market. To return to the example of China, I've been reading lately that wages have been increasing for a variety of reasons. I'm confident that situation can be extrapolated to other countries with cheap labor, like Vietnam. Having the wages be determined 'naturally' will be free of the problems that would be caused by imposing a wage. Namely, people wouldn't suddenly be out of work as companies looked elsewhere for cheap labor.

CR