24-05-2003 17:04									#1
	Should developed nations refuse to take exports from LDCs that have weak labour laws? Inflate your Upload Space

An interesting scenario, which could see American producers (and hence protectionist right-wing groups), and left-wing groups (caring about the overseas worker) join forces, may arise if poor working conditions give the US and other Western nations the right to refuse imports from developing countries.

So..should developed nations refuse to take exports from LDCs that have weak labour laws?

	24-05-2003 17:11									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Apparently my new shirt is made in a slave camp in Thailand by amphetamine-high Burmese refugees. or so the TV told me.

I'm making my own clothes from now on.

	24-05-2003 17:11									#3
	Support Apolyton

I think that a better idea would be to enforce worldwide labor laws, and not any boycott or **** like that.

	24-05-2003 17:16									#4
	Re: Should developed nations refuse to take exports from LDCs that have weak labour laws? Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's So..should developed nations refuse to take exports from LDCs that have weak labour laws?

1. No, because then I had to by expensive western stuff

2. No, because I don´t see how this would improve weak labour laws.

	24-05-2003 17:23									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

"No, because I don´t see how this would improve weak labour laws."

Well, by stating that imports will resume when labour laws reach a certain minimum standard.

	24-05-2003 18:49									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

We cannot demand that LDC make social laws as costly as are the western countries laws; it will take a lot of time before they are able to match ours. And refusing the only products they are able to export is the worst solution.

An interesting idea was raised by the guy who invented the Added Value Tax (Lauré); it would works as follows :
- importing countries would create an Import from LDC Duty;
- the money collected would be send back to the exporting country in view of accelerating a satisfactory development.

This could be made on a volontary basis, the LDC countries accepting that the investment be jointly monitored.

	24-05-2003 18:53									#7
	Suffering from ads?

Another problem is globalised corps taking advantage of weak labour laws. Its cheaper to produce stuff in places like Thailand than in Britain or America. It hurts the workers out there, as they are trapped in a cycle of low pay, poor conditions, and little prospect of escape, while they have only that choice, or what is essentially starvation. It also hurts the economies of developed nations, as corps take employment opportunities abroad.

It would seem to support my hypothesis that huge corporations are actually bad for long-term economic interests, as well as having a tendency to cause suffering, as corporate ethics are something of a fallacy, which becomes more eccentuated as a company grows and becomes more "faceless" if that makes any sense... I cant write well when I'm hungover

	24-05-2003 19:03									#8
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by elijah It would seem to support my hypothesis that huge corporations are actually bad for long-term economic interests, as well as having a tendency to cause suffering, as corporate ethics are something of a fallacy, which becomes more eccentuated as a company grows and becomes more "faceless" if that makes any sense... I cant write well when I'm hungover

IMHO this is only true for the corps which does not build a qualified workforce in LDC; and only low technology products are concerned. Incidentally, the harm caused to developped countries is not that big since industrial process using high number of lowly qualified workers are condemned anyway in DC; the phenomenon is slightly accelerated, which is not necessarily bad.

	24-05-2003 19:08									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I read an article in the Economist a few years back that argued that refusing exports may cause more harm than good -- rather than having foreign workers get 15 cents a day (or whatever they get), they'll get 0 cents a day. It also argued that the purpose to creating a minimum wage was to develop a middle class, but that this is only effective in moderately developed economies -- the first priority is to expand the economy enough to be able to support a middle class, not to create a middle class and just hope that the economy responds appropriately.

Can't remember the name of the article, though. It's been too long.

	24-05-2003 20:14									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

If we are to accept such "slave" goods at the expense of our jobs and the no# of jobs is finite then by buying the goods are we not selling the jobs.
If employers can buy the jobs cheaper in under developed economies and Yet,sell generated goods at a rate comensurate to local cost in a more developed economy then the margin in profit less shipping is increased by the unpaid workers' wages.
If the cost of local production does n't through competition decrease the local economy is being drained of assets not for the comparable benefit of the competing economy,since they are sweatshop labor.
If we are not using superior means to generate the
production then worker efficiency must increase or workers wages must decrease to a level paralell to its competitors. If we are to consider the reduction of our
middle class through unfair competition then we ought to implace duties on said production.

	24-05-2003 22:24									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Absolutely not. If those jobs the companies offer in LDCs are such an abomination, why are so many willing to take them? Were we to stop buying their exports, their jobs would go away, thus causing more unemployment and likely triggering an economic crisis.

	24-05-2003 23:04									#12
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

BD,

The following quote should answer your question quite nicely.

quote: Originally posted by elijah Another problem is globalised corps taking advantage of weak labour laws. Its cheaper to produce stuff in places like Thailand than in Britain or America. It hurts the workers out there, as they are trapped in a cycle of low pay, poor conditions, and little prospect of escape, while they have only that choice, or what is essentially starvation.

	24-05-2003 23:11									#13
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: So..should developed nations refuse to take exports from LDCs that have weak labour laws?

Yes (or "weak enviornmental laws", etc). Or at the very least, not give those countries free trade.

	24-05-2003 23:37									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Yes, they take the jobs but they are still impoverished becuase the job does not pay,and it's one of the only legal jobs there are.The children are not educated becuase they are at work and they are at work so they can eat.sounds lilke we already have a economic crisis there that is being prolonged by innadequate labor laws.

	24-05-2003 23:45									#15
	Got spare money?

"Another problem is globalised corps taking advantage of weak labour laws. Its cheaper to produce stuff in places like Thailand than in Britain or America. It hurts the workers out there, as they are trapped in a cycle of low pay, poor conditions, and little prospect of escape, while they have only that choice, or what is essentially starvation."

Right. So you want to take away the choice of low pay and poor conditions, leaving them with essentially starvation? Nice.

	25-05-2003 00:45									#16
	Support Apolyton

Instead of an absolute ban or boycott--which could lead to smuggling--I think a better remedy would be to deny them Most-Favored-Nation status or to otherwise put them at a severe trading advantage.

Shi --- Your analysis overlooks a third option, the slave-driving owners who are suddenly looking at sales of $0 concluding that they'd better start paying their workers a decent wage.

This is by far the best way to turn foreign peons into a vibrant middle class with enough disposable income to buy American goods.

	25-05-2003 02:27									#17
	Put an end to popups!

No don't take the jobs!!! but by incriments place duties at a % drectly proportioinate to the need for corporate re investment in the manufacturing country acting like a penalty for sweatshop entrepenuers.leave them in a position to profit but make it more profiable to re invest.

	25-05-2003 02:45									#18
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Zkribbler: First off, if they are going to be paying decent wages anyway, then there is less incentive to produce things in the underdeveloped countries like they are now. They may move operations to areas with more skilled work and more capital.

Furthermore, by increasing the cost of labor, it's basic economic that less labor will be demanded. These third world countries are experiencing extreme population growth, more than is reasonably sustainable- I think at current rates Vietnam for instance is going to outpace Russia in terms of population. In order to have jobs for the population so people aren't starving, the cost of labor will have to be kept down.

	25-05-2003 03:09									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Au contraire, the cost of labor must be kept high in order to create a consumer class in order to increase the demand for goods. The current neo-feudal system which we see in so many third-world countries only perpetuates misery.

Right now, Belgium buys more stuff from the U.S. than does China. Why? Belgium has a bigger middle class.

	25-05-2003 03:19									#20
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Zkribbler is right. The biggest constraint to global economic growth is lack of demand and over supply. Unfortunately greed is a permanent component of capitalism. Greed will continue to lead to supply-side policies. It works like this

	25-05-2003 04:23									#21
	Support Apolyton

quote: I read an article in the Economist a few years back that argued that refusing exports may cause more harm than good -- rather than having foreign workers get 15 cents a day (or whatever they get), they'll get 0 cents a day. It also argued that the purpose to creating a minimum wage was to develop a middle class, but that this is only effective in moderately developed economies -- the first priority is to expand the economy enough to be able to support a middle class, not to create a middle class and just hope that the economy responds appropriately.

:thumbsup:


but there is also the problem in many countries of over-education. Many latin american countries produce plenty of college educated people but there are no jobs for their skills as all the jobs are sweat-shop style. how can this problem be fixed?

	25-05-2003 04:37									#22
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Albert Speer :thumbsup: but there is also the problem in many countries of over-education. Many latin american countries produce plenty of college educated people but there are no jobs for their skills as all the jobs are sweat-shop style. how can this problem be fixed?

The biggest lie is that if we just train everyone to program computers that everyone would make 100K a year. Sorry, too bad it's not that easy.

	25-05-2003 09:56									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Right. So you want to take away the choice of low pay and poor conditions, leaving them with essentially starvation? Nice.

You forgot that this happens because of the WB or the IMF forcing these countries to open their markets as conditions for loans. The consequence of this is the food market becomes dominated by cheap foreign imports, driving the farmers out of businesses. Ironically, when the local food market collapes, the government is forced to pay for imported food with the loans, thus impoverishing a large group of people without being able to improve the country's infrastructure.

	25-05-2003 11:55									#24
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

"Au contraire, the cost of labor must be kept high in order to create a consumer class in order to increase the demand for goods."

First off, demand can be generated for these countries from overseas, and it is as it is often US companies. Domestic Demand can only increase if more money is brought into their countries overall, which will be less likely to happen if the incentives to invest in those countries increase. Moreover, even if wage rates did sucsesfully increase for some people in those countries creating a demand for consumer goods, that demand could likely end up being filled by industrialized nations rather than domestically. Furthermore, many families in LDCs rely on child labor to survive, and children ususally do not make skilled laborers, rather they are suited towards unskilled labor. Deprived of income from child labor, some families will be even more seriously impoverished.

IMHO what needs to happen here the birth rate in these countries needs to be reigned in. I know some parents will still continue to have large families, but it'd still help to get the birth rate down in the third world from it's very high level. If the population growth rate could decrease, there would be less need for an ever increasing supply of sweatshop jobs, and less massive families which can only be sustained through child labor. Not having as large a population will naturally increase labor's bargaining position. To this end the best thing we can do is to help provide the local populations with birth control.

"You forgot that this happens because of the WB or the IMF forcing these countries to open their markets as conditions for loans."

Neither of those institutions can force a soverign nation to do anything, any assistance by them is voluntary. It is their own fault if they enter into bad deals.

	25-05-2003 12:24									#25
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi Domestic Demand can only increase if more money is brought into their countries overall, which will be less likely to happen if the incentives to invest in those countries increase.

We could all work for free. How would that be? Plenty of incentive for Nike to make more shoes. Think it would bring in a new era of prosperity?

	26-05-2003 00:52									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi First off, demand can be generated for these countries from overseas, and it is as it is often US companies. Domestic Demand can only increase if more money is brought into their countries overall, which will be less likely to happen if the incentives to invest in those countries increase. Moreover, even if wage rates did sucsesfully increase for some people in those countries creating a demand for consumer goods, that demand could likely end up being filled by industrialized nations rather than domestically. Furthermore, many families in LDCs rely on child labor to survive, and children ususally do not make skilled laborers, rather they are suited towards unskilled labor. Deprived of income from child labor, some families will be even more seriously impoverished.

I can't agree that starvation wages and child labor lead to prosperity.

It's not too much to tell these countries that, if they want to sell their goods to the West, they have to comply with verfy minimal standards for pay and agree not to use child or slave labor.

	26-05-2003 05:07									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Some of you guys need to get a clue and take economics.

	26-05-2003 05:11									#28
	Suffering from ads?

quote: I can't agree that starvation wages and child labor lead to prosperity.

South Korea? Japan after WW2? Come on, it has happened in the past!

You stop importing these goods and suddenly, MNCs move to other countries... because if they can't pay the low wages to unskilled workers, better to get workers that have greater productivity and are more skilled. The 3rd World totally loses out then.

	26-05-2003 05:17									#29
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: I can't agree that starvation wages and child labor lead to prosperity. South Korea? Japan after WW2? Come on, it has happened in the past!

I picked my nose in 1997 and our economy did well that year. Do the 2 have anything to do with each other?

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui You stop importing these goods and suddenly, MNCs move to other countries... because if they can't pay the low wages to unskilled workers, better to get workers that have greater productivity and are more skilled. The 3rd World totally loses out then.

We will always get the goods here, because this is where the demand is. MNCs aren't going to just stop supplying the US because their labor costs are higher.

	26-05-2003 06:20									#30
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: I picked my nose in 1997 and our economy did well that year. Do the 2 have anything to do with each other?

Sorry, that isn't the same thing at all, and you know it! The 'slave wages' and 'sweatshops' were instrumental in South Korea and Japan's growth. It created a middle class of people, who, when powerful enough (and skilled) were able to create their own businesses and corporations. Take out the sweatshops, and I'm not sure I have a Sony TV.

quote: We will always get the goods here, because this is where the demand is.

What does that have to do with anything? The goods being made somewhere else doesn't mean it's gonna change where it goes.