Therein lies the problem. None of the solutions posed in this thread are forward looking. They all rely on (a) allowing businesses to work within the existing framework of laws and values of these foreign countries or (b) exporting along with the companies a set of values and laws that we have created for our own society at its various stages of development. Solution A carries with it the stigma of being labled exploitative, and therefor something to be looked down upon while Solution B will more than likely cause those jobs to be less attractive for the companies.
Rather than a governmental solution, I think those who have a problem with the actions of corporations shipping jobs overseas should attempt a little more direct action (This is similar to what ntucker posted about 1/3 of the way up this page). Get out and rally like-minded individuals (and those currently ignorant of the situation) and change public opinion. Currently the net savings in cost greatly outweigh any negative stigma attached to running these sorts of operations, save for the most egregious practices. Publicity campaigns and a change in public opinion can shift the balance in favor of the types of modificaitons you would like to see in business practices. Not until the lost purchase cost outweighs the savings in produciton will business reform itself.
I do not see any role for the government in this process (but I am more than willing to admit that I envision a much smaller role of government than most). It is bad enough that the government takes these sorts of actions within the borders of the US, but to extend the reach of regulatory bullshit outside the country? God have mercy. Give incentives to companies to comply with US standards elsewhere? So, decrease their taxes or give them some other monetary bonus (the usual incentives for business) thereby increasing my (being a good hard working American citizen) tax load so I can buy the same product for more money than I do now? Uh, no thanks - doesn’t sound like a good idea to me.
As an aside, I can’t believe that this is a pit thread…but considering what Great Debates has become it’s no wonder we have to come here for a rational look at a real issue.
I’d like to pose a little question here, to provide a little perspective.
Does anybody here do ALL of their shopping at Wal-Mart?
I don’t really think it would be possible to do it, to buy all the things we need to stock our household. As a family, we actually buy more things from traditional groceries, a warehouse club, and Target. We do save some money by buying some items at Wal-Mart, though.
Some of that money then goes to support local merchants, which around here have gone to fill niches that Wal-Mart largely ignores. Some of it is spent in online commerce, same deal. Mrs Moto has purchased baby clothes from people running very small businesses from their homes using an Ebay account.
Why in the name of little green apples is it naive to wish a reasonable quality of life for folks other than oneself.
Sure, a million people saving a dime on frozen peas puts a marginal retailer under. To overgeneralize a bit, a million people paying an extra dime might maintain employment for someone in your city or state. Pay the extra dime every once in a while, for Chrissakes. Why does everything have to get reduced to brutal application of Adam Smith’s algorithm? We are not computers; there is no reason why compassion or social conscience should not have at least some role in the purchasing decisions of individuals.
(More than likely, now, someone will jump in and tell me to pay $50 a box for my locally made granola…I will pre-empt this person by asserting that they have missed the point.)
A few years ago Walmart decided to go into the gasoline business here. They started selling gas below wholesale. The idea was to force the surrounding gas stations to follow suit until they could no longer compete. My guess was that when the local competition was closed, Walmart could then stop selling at a loss and quickly recoup their losses by raising prices and having a larger supply of gas consumers. The State cried foul and passed a law forbidding the selling of gasoline at a loss.
My question is did the State help consumers and the local economy or hurt them by taking this action?
And, pardon a second slight hijack, is Walmart still banned in Vermont?
Well, once they had no competition (or drastically reduced competition) they would have a lot of latitude in setting prices. How likely is it that Joe Consumer would win in this situation? Not a whole lot different than the sorts of “dumping” cases continually in front of NAFTA and WTO, IMHO.
[highjack]
Excuse me if my highjack seems silly, but I HAD to post that I’ve truly enjoyed reading this thread. In all seriousness, some of you are great debaters and well informed. (Now for the silly part…) I love hearing smart people talk!
[end highjack]
If I see someone on the street asking for money, because they’re hungry, I seldom give them money. Is this a lack of compassion?
I buy McDonald’s gift certificates (book of ten for $10) and keep them in the car. These are what I give in lieu of money.
In the same vein, I do not agree that spending more money to subsidize inefficient industry is particularly compassionate; it is far better to direct any spare resources you have to assisting vocational efforts for people who wish to work but lack the requisite skills.
Good luck getting a direct response from Bricker. From his posts, I’d gather he approves retraining people for new jobs. But when you as him or any of the free market types where the jobs folks will be training for will be coming from – as I have repeatedly – their eyes get glazed and they start waving their hands in the air and chanting about the genius of American innovation and the wonderfulness and goodness of the Invisible Hand which giveth even as it taketh away.
Ask them how Americans will survive when their wonderful free market puts most of the middle class out of house and home, and you get more vague chants about mysterious market adjustments.
These are the same people that have the gall to call others naive.
Nope. I actually do most of my grocery shopping at Kroger. Wal-Mart has a limited selection compared to the options that Kroger offers.
And for my serious hardware and home improvement needs, I go to True-Value and Menards, again because Wal-Mart has a limited selection.
And for serious craft/hobby needs, I go to Hobby Lobby or Jo-Ann Fabrics, again because of Wal-Mart’s limited selection.
Wal-Mart is good for some things, like generic contact lens solution and mouthwash, and their prices for Alpo dog food and Campbell’s Chicken Noodle soup are outstanding.
But Wal-Mart is mainly good for when I want to make only one trip for a multitude of different kinds of stuff, like a typical shopping list of, say, CD jewel cases, whiteboard markers, pantyhose, hairpins, light bulbs, boys underpants, and a new trash basket for the living room, and then I’ll swing by Grocery and get milk and lunch meat and lettuce. Kroger can’t do the “other stuff” as well–they do sell things like pantyhose and jewel cases, but not for such low prices overall.
A direct response is much more likely when a direct question is posed.
You ask - obliquely - where the “new jobs” will be coming from.
If I cannot precisely predict the future, you seem to feel that this justifies keeping people employed in jobs that cause consumers to pay more for their goods and services. I don’t agree.
However, here’s my answer: new jobs will appear in the service, retail, information, and high-end (skilled) manufacturing industries, as those grow domestically while lower-end, unskilled manufacturing jobs move overseas.
I don’t agree that the wonderful free market will put most middle class Americans out of house and home. Your attempt to make me answer that question is either a strawman of my argument, or an attempt to assume conclusions not in evidence yet. Why don’t you first demonstrate how the middle class will be forced out of house and home, especially in light of statistics like this or this or this (PDF file; Adobe Reader required) from the last census, which shows that home ownership for Americans was at its highest level in 2002 since the data collection for this statistic began.
This is not a “vague chant” - although it would not surprise me for you to claim it was. This is a specifc refutation of the claim that Americans are being put out of house and home. What is your contrary evidence supporting your view?