Vote

[olyclimber]

well you can pick and choose were the invisible hand has been efficient if you want.

 

unions are not perfect (my dad belonged to one and he bitched about it all the time), but they do serve their purpose. and what are the "evils" of unions? they appear most "evil" in places where they become corrupt and bureaucratic. when they become an organization like the mafia, in a parasitic fashion you describe...but that is just one side of the coin.

 

historically unions have done a huge amount for workers. sure you wouldn't like to roll back all the changes unions have brought to workers.

 

conversely employers can be much more "evil" and get away with it. the market has a STRONG demand (i.e. guiding invisible hand) for "cheap, I don't care how or where it came from" products. Look at the Gap, Nike, etc. Of course those people are overseas, so who cares, right? Should we wait around for people to stop buying that stuff because of the "injustice", or should they unionize? Which would do more damage to their well being? Hard to say if you ask me. But is would seem that unionizing has historically worked during certain periods, only to became evil later during more affluent periods.

 

i'm making all this stuff up.

[mattp]

Lazy liberals, here's a list of endorsements from King County Labor Coucil:

 

KCLC Endorsements

 

I don't know all of the candidates, but I don't think David Della or Jean Godden are really the "liberal" choices in either of their respective races. The King County Labor Council does not necessarily reflect traditional liberal values.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

 

THE PLACES THAT NEED LABOR UNIONS AND WORKERS RIGHTS ARE THOSE PLACES MAKING OUR SHIT CHEAP FOR US.

 

[JayB]

I think the point is JayB that you need some check on corporations just to prevent abuse. Labor unions are a way to do that. Why aren't labor unions given their due right to exist by the freedom of the markets. What is so evil about workers banding together to gain enough power to get what they want?

 

Questioning their right to exist, and questioning their right to eliminate secret ballot in unionization drives because it hasn't delivered the results that they want (people are clearly choosing not to join) and replace it a public "card check" that leaves people who don't want to join the union vulnerable to intimidation and retribution are two different things.

 

There's also the question of the rights of non union workers. Who should decided whether or not a mentally competent adult that decides he wants to work for a given employer who wants to provide him a job? Should the right to make that choice be retained by the individual or not?

 

The reason that union membership is declining is that people aren't terribly keen to join them, and businesses that employ union workers tend to be uncompetitive and go out of business unless they can convince the government to transfer the costs of the union worker's above market compensation to the rest of the public via tarriffs, subsidies, or other legal measures that artifically inflate the price of whatever it is that the workers in that particular industry are engaged in producing.

 

 

[JayB]

Also - aren't there laws on the books that protect workers, and agencies tasked with enforcing them? If these are inadequate, I think that you can make a stronger case for changing the laws, providing them with more resources, etc if your goal is to protect all workers, rather than secure above-market compensation for a small subset of them.

[JayB]

well you can pick and choose were the invisible hand has been efficient if you want.

 

unions are not perfect (my dad belonged to one and he bitched about it all the time), but they do serve their purpose. and what are the "evils" of unions? they appear most "evil" in places where they become corrupt and bureaucratic. when they become an organization like the mafia, in a parasitic fashion you describe...but that is just one side of the coin.

 

historically unions have done a huge amount for workers. sure you wouldn't like to roll back all the changes unions have brought to workers.

 

conversely employers can be much more "evil" and get away with it. the market has a STRONG demand (i.e. guiding invisible hand) for "cheap, I don't care how or where it came from" products. Look at the Gap, Nike, etc. Of course those people are overseas, so who cares, right? Should we wait around for people to stop buying that stuff because of the "injustice", or should they unionize? Which would do more damage to their well being? Hard to say if you ask me. But is would seem that unionizing has historically worked during certain periods, only to became evil later during more affluent periods.

 

i'm making all this stuff up.

 

Why do you think that the people in those countries have agreed to work under those conditions? Or have they been forced to do so?

 

Are you confident that people living in the first-world understand the realities that they are contending with better than they do, and that they should let people in the first world make these decisions for them?

 

 

[chucK]

Gosh I never knew you were such a nanny-state kind of guy. You actually want more laws protecting workers?

 

And I'm glad that you don't question unions' rights to exist.

[olyclimber]

people live in the conditions that have been put upon them...by market forces. sometimes to change those conditions the market alone simply does not work.

 

i have no idea what you're talking about with your "first world" talk. i'm talking about 3rd world people forming their own unions, and how it could be a good thing for them.

 

Sure, maybe they are happy to have their job that pays them a dollar a day or whatever, but if the market can take it, and they can force the issue by unionizing, why shouldn't they get say...a whole 10 times as much???

 

Or maybe you think that is just what they deserve for not being good capitalists.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

i have no idea what you're talking about with your "first world" talk. i'm talking about 3rd world people forming their own unions, and how it could be a good thing for them.

 

Sure, maybe they are happy to have their job that pays them a dollar a day or whatever, but if the market can take it, and they can force the issue by unionizing, why shouldn't they get say...a whole 10 times as much???

 

Yes, that would be awesome. I hope it happens.

[JayB]

Gosh I never knew you were such a nanny-state kind of guy. You actually want more laws protecting workers?

 

And I'm glad that you don't question unions' rights to exist.

 

We don't need unions to preserve these laws any more than we need the Union Army to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation.

[JayB]

people live in the conditions that have been put upon them...by market forces. sometimes to change those conditions the market alone simply does not work.

 

i have no idea what you're talking about with your "first world" talk. i'm talking about 3rd world people forming their own unions, and how it could be a good thing for them.

 

Sure, maybe they are happy to have their job that pays them a dollar a day or whatever, but if the market can take it, and they can force the issue by unionizing, why shouldn't they get say...a whole 10 times as much???

 

Or maybe you think that is just what they deserve for not being good capitalists.

 

The primary reason that they are poor is that they lived under governments which had nearly unlimited power to obstruct market forces for decades.

 

The only way to make their pay go up in the long term is to increase the value of their output, which normally occurs when their employers invest the profits that their enterprises generate to invest in machinery or other capital equipment that increases the value of their output. At the same time the taxes that the employers paid on their profits typically allow the governments where they are operating to upgrade roads, bridges, railroads, ports, education, etc - all of which puts more capital at the worker's disposal and enables them to increase the value of their output still more.

 

If you increase wages by a factor that exceeds the rate at which productivity increases, you eventually eliminate your profits - and the end result is that the workers lose their jobs, the employer never makes the investment in more capital equipment, the government never secures the funds necessary to upgrade the local infrastructure, and they remain mired in poverty.

 

Thankfully, I think that most workers in the poorest parts of the world where they actually have the opportunity to work in such enterprises will understand that agitating for a temporary windfall won't help them much if it ultimately costs them their jobs, and will continue to choose working in factories because it appears to be the best option available to them at the time.

 

 

[olyclimber]

If you increase wages by a factor that exceeds the rate at which productivity increases, you eventually eliminate your profits - and the end result is that the workers lose their jobs, the employer never makes the investment in more capital equipment, the government never secures the funds necessary to upgrade the local infrastructure, and they remain mired in poverty.

 

Thankfully, I think that most workers in the poorest parts of the world where they actually have the opportunity to work in such enterprises will understand that agitating for a temporary windfall won't help them much if it ultimately costs them their jobs, and will continue to choose working in factories because it appears to be the best option available to them at the time.

 

 

Thankfully for who? For consumers of their cheap plastic crap, so that Wallmart can stay afloat? Let face it, we here enjoy lower prices at the expense of others. Lets hope they don't figure that out! The moment they start demanding a quality of life equal to ours (maybe in the form of a union) we are screwed. So i guess its kill or be killed. Long live cheap plastic crap!

 

In the case of "the government keeping the workers pay down" isn't starting a union akin to a democratic revolution? Would that not be a good thing? Are these governments just doing it because its profitable to keep the man down? Oh...it is our friend, the invisible hand.

[chucK]

We don't need unions to preserve these laws any more than we need the Union Army to enforce the Emancipation Proclamation.

 

Heh, good one. You could/should be a scab and cross the screenwriters picket lines

 

Agreed that we don't NEED the unions to enforce the laws, but sometimes laws don't always get enforced soon enough to protect people (c.f. your presented example of union abuses). Unions are a way for workers to protect themselves.

 

AND a way to increase their bargaining power. What do you have against competent individuals choosing to band together to increase their power? Isn't that "freedom of the marketplace" too?

 

 

[olyclimber]

I'm sorry, these people would never want a quality of life equal to ours. Not only could they not imagine it, they probably would despise it as if they could. Sorry about that.

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm just being critical here. I love America. I'm a good consumer. I'm lucky.

[ericb]

Hey Porter....this is about as serious as I've seen you in a thread participation for quite some time.....you run out of pain meds?

[olyclimber]

No, I just joined the Communist party.

[olyclimber]

Note to Homeland Security: That was a joke.

[rob]

I have a coworker who is cuban and recently received his american citizenship. Today is his first real election. It's cool to see him so excited about voting.

[builder206]

(my post was too bitter & cynical so I changed it to this)

Edited November 6, 2007 by builder206

[rob]

pussy

[JayB]

If you increase wages by a factor that exceeds the rate at which productivity increases, you eventually eliminate your profits - and the end result is that the workers lose their jobs, the employer never makes the investment in more capital equipment, the government never secures the funds necessary to upgrade the local infrastructure, and they remain mired in poverty.

 

Thankfully, I think that most workers in the poorest parts of the world where they actually have the opportunity to work in such enterprises will understand that agitating for a temporary windfall won't help them much if it ultimately costs them their jobs, and will continue to choose working in factories because it appears to be the best option available to them at the time.

 

 

Thankfully for who? For consumers of their cheap plastic crap, so that Wallmart can stay afloat? Let face it, we here enjoy lower prices at the expense of others. Lets hope they don't figure that out! The moment they start demanding a quality of life equal to ours (maybe in the form of a union) we are screwed. So i guess its kill or be killed. Long live cheap plastic crap!

 

In the case of "the government keeping the workers pay down" isn't starting a union akin to a democratic revolution? Would that not be a good thing? Are these governments just doing it because its profitable to keep the man down? Oh...it is our friend, the invisible hand.

 

 

What would happen to the scores of millions of people who use the wages that they earn making the cheap plastic crap to provide themselves and their families with food, clothing, and shelter if no one bought it anymore?

 

All that would happen is that we'd pay slightly more for a given set of goods until someone combined marginally lower labor costs with increased automation somewhere else and provided the same goods at a lower price, and they'd starve while some other country reaped the benefits of the trade and foreign direct investment that they relinquished.

 

Don't look for the Chinese to chose door number two anytime soon. If I was concerned for anyone, I'd be concerned for the American or Euro who is convinced that the accident of his birth in a first world nation entitles him to a certain standard of living no matter what. Don't expect Ming-Li and Rahesh to cry any tears for Chet Guthrie because he can't parlay his high-school diploma into $80K a year with full bene's because they are working too hard over there.

 

 

[olyclimber]

If you increase wages by a factor that exceeds the rate at which productivity increases, you eventually eliminate your profits - and the end result is that the workers lose their jobs, the employer never makes the investment in more capital equipment, the government never secures the funds necessary to upgrade the local infrastructure, and they remain mired in poverty.

 

Thankfully, I think that most workers in the poorest parts of the world where they actually have the opportunity to work in such enterprises will understand that agitating for a temporary windfall won't help them much if it ultimately costs them their jobs, and will continue to choose working in factories because it appears to be the best option available to them at the time.

 

 

Thankfully for who? For consumers of their cheap plastic crap, so that Wallmart can stay afloat? Let face it, we here enjoy lower prices at the expense of others. Lets hope they don't figure that out! The moment they start demanding a quality of life equal to ours (maybe in the form of a union) we are screwed. So i guess its kill or be killed. Long live cheap plastic crap!

 

In the case of "the government keeping the workers pay down" isn't starting a union akin to a democratic revolution? Would that not be a good thing? Are these governments just doing it because its profitable to keep the man down? Oh...it is our friend, the invisible hand.

 

 

What would happen to the scores of millions of people who use the wages that they earn making the cheap plastic crap to provide themselves and their families with food, clothing, and shelter if no one bought it anymore?

 

All that would happen is that we'd pay slightly more for a given set of goods until someone combined marginally lower labor costs with increased automation somewhere else and provided the same goods at a lower price, and they'd starve while some other country reaped the benefits of the trade and foreign direct investment that they relinquished.

 

Don't look for the Chinese to chose door number two anytime soon. If I was concerned for anyone, I'd be concerned for the American or Euro who is convinced that the accident of his birth in a first world nation entitles him to a certain standard of living no matter what. Don't expect Ming-Li and Rahesh to cry any tears for Chet Guthrie because he can't parlay his high-school diploma into $80K a year with full bene's because they are working too hard over there.

 

 

so you're saying lets go with the status quo because change is HARD and MESSY. and if we change it is will just screw up someone else's life. SOMEONE has to suffer, why change things. let the people who obviously enjoy suffering continue on. well thats a great attitude Jay. well, its not like our talking about it here is even going to make a scratch in anything. from my 1st world throne amid my plastic crap, why would i want to change anything. and you're right, they probably won't change anything. and unions are the root of all evil. and the invisible hand will care for all. conversation over.

[olyclimber]

Chet Guthrie, is that some poke at Arlo, the well known communist sympathizer?

[olyclimber]

the cool take away JayB has gifted me with from this conversation is that no matter if you are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd world, no matter your wealth or lack of it....we are bound together by suffering.

 

now if i could just learn to deal with my suffering as Gap/Nike/etc factory workers have...

 

http://web.singnet.com.sg/~alankhoo/Noble.htm

 

its also hip! maybe I'll start riding a single gear bike next.

[JayB]

If you increase wages by a factor that exceeds the rate at which productivity increases, you eventually eliminate your profits - and the end result is that the workers lose their jobs, the employer never makes the investment in more capital equipment, the government never secures the funds necessary to upgrade the local infrastructure, and they remain mired in poverty.

 

Thankfully, I think that most workers in the poorest parts of the world where they actually have the opportunity to work in such enterprises will understand that agitating for a temporary windfall won't help them much if it ultimately costs them their jobs, and will continue to choose working in factories because it appears to be the best option available to them at the time.

 

 

Thankfully for who? For consumers of their cheap plastic crap, so that Wallmart can stay afloat? Let face it, we here enjoy lower prices at the expense of others. Lets hope they don't figure that out! The moment they start demanding a quality of life equal to ours (maybe in the form of a union) we are screwed. So i guess its kill or be killed. Long live cheap plastic crap!

 

In the case of "the government keeping the workers pay down" isn't starting a union akin to a democratic revolution? Would that not be a good thing? Are these governments just doing it because its profitable to keep the man down? Oh...it is our friend, the invisible hand.

 

 

What would happen to the scores of millions of people who use the wages that they earn making the cheap plastic crap to provide themselves and their families with food, clothing, and shelter if no one bought it anymore?

 

All that would happen is that we'd pay slightly more for a given set of goods until someone combined marginally lower labor costs with increased automation somewhere else and provided the same goods at a lower price, and they'd starve while some other country reaped the benefits of the trade and foreign direct investment that they relinquished.

 

Don't look for the Chinese to chose door number two anytime soon. If I was concerned for anyone, I'd be concerned for the American or Euro who is convinced that the accident of his birth in a first world nation entitles him to a certain standard of living no matter what. Don't expect Ming-Li and Rahesh to cry any tears for Chet Guthrie because he can't parlay his high-school diploma into $80K a year with full bene's because they are working too hard over there.

 

 

so you're saying lets go with the status quo because change is HARD and MESSY. and if we change it is will just screw up someone else's life. SOMEONE has to suffer, why change things. let the people who obviously enjoy suffering continue on. well thats a great attitude Jay. well, its not like our talking about it here is even going to make a scratch in anything. from my 1st world throne amid my plastic crap, why would i want to change anything. and you're right, they probably won't change anything. and unions are the root of all evil. and the invisible hand will care for all. conversation over.

 

Was there ever a conversation to begin with? Sometimes it's reasonable to assume that the person that you are debating an issue with is doing so for less-than-honorable reasons, and if that's the assumption that you wish to make in my case you are free to do so, but how do you account for the fact that an individual like Nicholas Kristof advances the very same arguments?

 

" Inviting All Democrats

 

By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

Published: January 14, 2004

 

I'd like to invite Richard Gephardt and the other Democratic candidates to come here to Cambodia and discuss trade policy with scavengers like Nhep Chanda, who spends her days rooting through filth in the city dump.

 

One of the most unfortunate trends in the Democratic presidential race has been the way nearly all of the candidates, including Howard Dean, the front-runner, have been flirting with anti-trade positions by putting the emphasis on labor, environmental and human rights standards in international agreements.

 

While Mr. Gephardt calls for an international minimum wage, Mr. Dean was quoted in USA Today in October as saying, ''I believe that trade also requires human rights and labor standards and environmental standards that are concurrent around the world.''

 

Perhaps the candidates are simply pandering to unions, or bashing President Bush. But my guess is that they sincerely believe that such trade policies would help poor people abroad -- and that's why they should all traipse through a Cambodian garbage dump to see how economically naïve these schemes would be.

 

Nhep Chanda is a 17-year-old girl who is one of hundreds of Cambodians who toil all day, every day, picking through the dump for plastic bags, metal cans and bits of food. The stench clogs the nostrils, and parts of the dump are burning, producing acrid smoke that blinds the eyes.

 

The scavengers are chased by swarms of flies and biting insects, their hands are caked with filth, and those who are barefoot cut their feet on glass. Some are small children.

 

Nhep Chanda averages 75 cents a day for her efforts. For her, the idea of being exploited in a garment factory -- working only six days a week, inside instead of in the broiling sun, for up to $2 a day -- is a dream.

 

''I'd like to work in a factory, but I don't have any ID card, and you need one to show that you're old enough,'' she said wistfully. (Since the candidates are unlikely to find the time to travel to the third world anytime soon, I put an audio slide show of the Cambodian realities on the Web for them at www.nytimes.com/kristof.)

 

All the complaints about third world sweatshops are true and then some: factories sometimes dump effluent into rivers or otherwise ravage the environment. But they have raised the standard of living in Singapore, South Korea and southern China, and they offer a leg up for people in countries like Cambodia.

 

''I want to work in a factory, but I'm in poor health and always feel dizzy,'' said Lay Eng, a 23-year-old woman. And no wonder: she has been picking through the filth, seven days a week, for six years. She has never been to a doctor.

 

Here in Cambodia factory jobs are in such demand that workers usually have to bribe a factory insider with a month's salary just to get hired.

 

Along the Bassac River, construction workers told me they wanted factory jobs because the work would be so much safer than clambering up scaffolding without safety harnesses. Some also said sweatshop jobs would be preferable because they would mean a lot less sweat. (Westerners call them ''sweatshops,'' but they offer one of the few third world jobs that doesn't involve constant sweat.)

 

In Asia, moreover, the factories tend to hire mostly girls and young women with few other job opportunities. The result has been to begin to give girls and women some status and power, some hint of social equality, some alternative to the sex industry.

 

Cambodia has a fair trade system and promotes itself as an enlightened garment producer. That's great. But if the U.S. tries to ban products from countries that don't meet international standards, jobs will be shifted from the most wretched areas to better-off nations like Malaysia or Mexico. Already there are very few factories in Africa or the poor countries of Asia, and if we raise the bar higher, there will be even fewer.

 

That would hurt American consumers. But it would be particularly devastating for laborers in the poorest parts of the world. For the fundamental problem in the poor countries of Africa and Asia is not that sweatshops exploit too many workers; it's that they don't exploit enough."

 

Link